It's Time To Send The Despicable House Of Saud To The Dustbin Of History

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


the watcher

  • Guest
 IMPORTANT COMMENTARY on Saudis: Enough Already! It's Time To Send The Despicable House Of Saud To The Dustbin Of History

I just now received from a reader the below article  from "The Telegraph," a pro-Neocon rag.  It is typical of Neocon writing in that it often fails to present details that support its conclusions and worse, at times it presents details that contradict its conclusions.

There was a time when this kind of blather could not have been published in a mainstream outlet.

My comments in red. (For red read brackets)

Don Hank

My brief critique in red typeface below: 

Britain must side with the Saudis against Iran

The kingdom is a tried and tested ally with strong intelligence, trade and defence ties that benefit us

[It is baffling that the author would conclude this when the details of his article – not to mention details he omits to mention – seem to suggest the opposite, as I will show below.]


Shiite Muslims hold portraits of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, during a rally against his execution Photo: EPA


By Con Coughlin

7:28PM GMT 05 Jan 2016



The last time Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister visited London, the Foreign Office gave him a lecture on reconciling the kingdom’s differences with Iran, its bitter regional rival. Adel al-Jubair had arrived in the autumn looking for assurances from the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, that Britain’s long-standing strategic partnership with Riyadh would not be affected by the restoration of ties with Tehran.


"The Foreign Office and the rest of Whitehall need to make up their minds over whose side they are on"


Instead, the youthful Saudi diplomat was told that the Foreign Office wanted to use its new relationship to reconcile the two regional superpowers.

Mr al-Jubair was told that the British Embassy in Tehran, which had been officially reopened in August by Mr Hammond standing in front of a portrait of the Queen defaced with anti-British graffiti, could be used to aid the reconciliation process between the Saudis and Iran.

Given the deep-rooted political and religious schism that has developed between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia in recent decades, it is hard to imagine how highly experienced Foreign Office diplomats could have misjudged the situation so badly.

For, rather than responding positively to the request, Mr al-Jubair stated bluntly that the Saudis had no intention of healing the rift with Iran. [This detail shows that the Saudis are hot heads who are not inclined to get along with their Muslim brothers. It goes against the author’s conclusion above and below!]

On the contrary, he warned that, so long as Iranian officials were openly bragging about their mounting influence in Arab countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the Saudis would not rest until all Arab lands were returned to Arab control. [Note that these “Arab lands” are only Arab lands because the bullies in Riyadh insist they are. Their definition of “Arab” is: “under the control of the Saudi royal dictators.” Further, the people living there are ethnic Arabs but they are Shiites. Thus what the Saudis are actually implying is that only Sunnis may call themselves Arabs. These intolerant bullies are the people that this author insists the West must cooperate with, while rejecting Iran, the country whose religion accepts and tolerates other religions. Thus. like all Neocons, the author is perfectly fine with military cooperation with Saudi Arabia, a country whose aim and purpose is to eliminate all religions except the intolerant, violent Sunni one]

The Saudis’ decision last weekend to execute the Shia cleric Shiekh Nimr al-Nimr, as well as 46 other prisoners convicted on terrorism charges, may have provoked the biggest crisis in relations between Riyadh and Tehran since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, but the tensions leading to this fissure have been evident for many months.


[Here is another of numerous details in this article that would normally lead to a conclusion much different from the author’s. He admits that the Saudis provoked the rift but insists the Saudis are the ones for Britain to support.]

In Yemen, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have spent most of the past year fighting attempts by Iranian-backed Houthis to seize control of a country that the Saudis regard as falling under their regional sphere of influence. [Note the difference between the doctrine of the Saudi dictatorship, ie, that a region they deem to be in their sphere of influence – with no justifying facts, logic or reasoning for such – must be brought to heel, and the Russian doctrine that the people of a given region must be the deciders of their own fate (eg, the Crimeans and the referendum reflecting their desires, and Syria, where the Russians state that the people should elect their leader without foreign input.)]

It is a similar picture in Syria, where the Saudis are backing opposition groups committed to overthrowing the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.


Obviously, the author wants the reader to be alarmed that Assad would ally himself with Iran. Yet if Assad were really close enough to the Iranian Guards to be dangerous to the West, he would have invited the Iranian troops to mop up ISIS in Syria. That did not happen because both sides wisely used restraint. Contrast this to the wanton killing – which might fairly be called genocide – against the Houthis by the Saudis where no restraint was shown].


There have even been tensions between Riyadh and the pro-Western government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, whose perceived close alliance with Iran resulted in Iraq’s exclusion from the Saudis’ recently formed 34-nation coalition to fight Islamic State (Isil) – a grave omission given that Iraq has a vital role to play in defeating Isil. So much for the Foreign Office’s naïve hope of persuading Iran and the Saudis to settle their differences. [Again, a detail that would justify distancing ourselves from Riyadh, not moving closer to appease this bloody dictatorship. In fact, Iran’s willingness to fight ISIS and the Saudi unwillingness to fight it or to take refugees that are drowning Europe are solid reasons not to have anything to do with Saudi Arabia, the instigator -- along with the US -- of the terror in Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc]


Indeed, with relations between Riyadh and Tehran becoming more hostile by the day, rather than trying to play the role of peacemaker, the Foreign Office and the rest of Whitehall need to make up their minds over whose side they are on – the Saudis or Iran?


"When it comes to defending Britain’s national interests, the Saudis, unlike Tehran, have proved themselves to be reliable and effective allies"

[Yes, except for the fact that the Saudis, together with their soft-headed allies in the West, created and funded all the terror organizations that threaten the West and the stability of the Middle East.]


Given the long-standing intelligence, trade and defence ties that exist between Britain and the Saudis, the answer should be self-evident.


[Nonsense. All but three of the attackers on 911 were Saudis. Osama Bin Laden was Saudi. The Saudis founded and funded al-Qaeda, the group responsible for this and countless other attacks. A recent survey among Saudi citizens showed that a staggering 92% of these people believe that ISIS “embodies the spirit of Islam.” The Saudi cooperation amounts to nothing more than a protection racket. When a racketeer comes to a place of business and “offers” the owner “protection,” he is primarily threatening the owner to accept the offer or else the racketeer will harm him or confiscate his property. The Saudis founded and funded all the terror organizations threatening the security of the Western world. Now they are offering us protection from their own thugs, and the weak-minded author of this article believes this is a good deal and the West should continue to allow these thugs to rule our lives and undermine our security.

Yet the official Neocon party line regurgitated by this author is that the Iranians are in fact the terror supporters, even though none of the above-enumerated terror organizations have received one penny of support from the Shiite Iranians, or from Assad either for that matter. The arguments presented here are spurious, even on the basis of the facts presented by the author himself. His facts support a severing of ties between the West and Riyadh.]


There will always be deep disagreement between London and Riyadh on issues like human rights, which is inevitable given the Saudis’ strict adherence to the principles of Sharia law. [Yet in the case of other military adventures in the Middle East, Britain and the rest of its allies resorted almost exclusively to morally based arguments – eg, support for “democracy,” human rights and “freedom.” But in the case of the Saudis, the moral aspect is somehow completely irrelevant -- except in a later context where, miraculously, this same author has a epiphany and sees a human rights issue]

But when it comes to defending Britain’s national interests, both at home and abroad, the Saudis, unlike Tehran, have time and again proved themselves to be reliable and effective allies. [Again, where are the supporting details? Besides, the elites can easily sweep aside the moral aspects of this issue, but what about the people? This author supports the view only of the oligarchs who stand to gain economically and militarily from their despicable ties with a despicable terror supporting government. Not so the UK citizen. And while the elites may feel they can strong-arm their citizens into accepting their sordid policies, they may not succeed this time in stream rolling a public whose patience is wearing increasingly thin and whose awareness is increasing] The support provided by Saudi Arabia and other pro-Western Gulf states such as Bahrain has been vital to maintaining the flow of vital oil supplies to the West [not necessary if one considers the vast reserves in Russia, Syria and Iran, which could become allies if the neocons like this author were to give up their irrational hostility], while intelligence provided by the Saudi security services has helped to foil a number of terrorist outrages on the streets of Britain. [But not nearly as  many as the Saudis caused by funding terror]

And yet, while the Saudis have time and again demonstrated the value of the alliance, there is an influential group of Foreign Office officials who argue that Britain’s long-term interests may be better served by building closer relations with Tehran. Conveniently ignoring the fact that the ayatollahs have a far worse human rights record than the Saudis (per capita the Iranians have carried out more executions [Wait, sir. You have already shown that you are not interested in human rights. But even so, if you look at terror as part of the human rights picture, then the Saudis are the biggest butchers in the world, via their proxies. Further, the sidebar at the end of this confusing article describes only Saudi-perpetrated violations]– including juveniles – than the Saudis in the past year), they argue that, now Iran has agreed a deal over its nuclear programme, Tehran could become a vital ally.

Setting aside the decades of Iranian hostility that has poisoned relations with London, this new generation of would-be Iranophiles also conveniently overlooks the fact that in Syria – Britain’s real foreign policy priority [An author worth his salt would include here some justification for this statement. Why is Syria a priority?]– the Iranians are fighting on the wrong side – i.e. in defence of the Assad regime [Again, supporting details, please. Why is Assad on the wrong side? He is after all, a duly democratically elected leader and had very strong support in the latest polls. He can win re-election. If you want to be on the “right” side in Syria, are you justified in bullying the Syrian people into accepting a leader other than their choice? BTW, this is the kind of articles that Neocons always write. Not only do they lack supporting details for their conclusions but quite often, the details they supply contradict their non sequitur conclusions]. Nor, after Iran last week fired a missile close to a US warship in the Strait of Hormuz [Granted, this was a provocation, but do Western Neocons not constantly provoke Iran? Did not Netanyahu threaten to bomb Iran last year and did not a large percentage of the US Congress seem to acquiesce to this insane plan? And was the missile firing illegal under international law?], can there be any guarantee the nuclear deal will result in more responsible conduct.

Seeking to have improved relations with Iran might constitute good diplomacy. [But why Iran? Pakistan also has nukes and ISIS is making inroads there. Yet Iran is secure against ISIS.] But when it comes to defending our interests, sticking with tried and tested allies like Saudi Arabia makes far better sense. [despite the author’s lack of supporting details? If I were this guy’s English prof, I would give him a D- for this total lack of effort. I would not give him an F because then I would risk having the misfit back in my class next semester. Don Hank]

From:Subject: RE: Enough Already! It's Time To Send The Despicable House Of Saud To The Dustbin Of History
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:24:52 +0100

Con Coughlin in today’s Telegraph:


Britain must side with the Saudis against Iran

Subject: Enough Already! It's Time To Send The Despicable House Of Saud To The Dustbin Of History

Thank God! They're finally getting it! And I think we can thank mostly Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin for blowing the lid off the PC censorship of this vital issue -- at least the issue of the Sunnis who sponsor terror around the globe and the fact that the US government has been in their pocket for 50 years.

But I'm not sure even these reputable experts like Stockton and Buchanan are aware that the Pentagon has been a mercenary force for these inhuman filthy swine for the past 50 years, assisting them in spreading their Wahhabi gospel of hate, intolerance and violent jihad, in ways that led to the deaths of countless Christians, Yazidis, Shiites and other innocents and unleashed the flood of "refugees," many of whom are now terrorizing Europe. Needless to say, we paid for it with our tax dollars and the blood of our precious youngsters.

I was talking about this back in March before it became socially acceptable to criticize the US-Saudi alliance:

And incredibly, based on what David Stockman says, it now seems safe to talk about how the US has smeared the Iranian Shiites for years as the biggest supporters of terror when all the terror groups that had plagued Europe, including ISIS, were Sunnis -- backed by the Saudis.

I wrote about this too before it was safe to do so and a lot of people were upset:

Don Hank

Contra Corner Digest - January 5, 2016

David Stockman's Contra Corner

January 5, 2016
Enough Already! It’s Time To Send The Despicable House Of Saud To The Dustbin Of History

New York City, New York
January 5, 2016

David StockmanThe attached column by Pat Buchanan could not be more spot on. It slices through the misbegotten assumption that Saudi Arabia is our ally and that the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE, Spokane WA and Springfield MA have anything to do with the religious and political machinations of Riyadh and its conflicts with Iran and the rest of the Shiite world.

Nor is this only a recent development. In fact, for more than four decades Washington’s middle eastern policy has been dead wrong and increasingly counter-productive and destructive. The crisis provoked this past weekend by the 30-year old, hot-headed Saudi prince behind the throne only clarified what has long been true.

That is, Washington’s Mideast policy is predicated on the assumption that the answer to high oil prices and energy security is deployment of the Fifth Fleet to the Persian Gulf. And that an associated alliance with one of the most corrupt, despotic, avaricious and benighted tyrannies in the modern world is the lynch pin to regional stability and US national security.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The House of Saud is a scourge on mankind that would have been eliminated decades ago, save for Imperial Washington’s deplorable coddling and massive transfer of arms and political support.

At the same time, the answer to high oil prices is high oil prices. Could anything not be more obvious today when crude oil is hovering around $35 per barrel notwithstanding a near state of war in the Persian Gulf?

Here’s the thing. The planet was endowed by the geologic ages with a massive trove of stored energy in the form of buried hydrocarbons; and it is showered daily by even more energy in the form of the solar, tidal and wind systems which shroud the earth.

The only issues is price, the shape and slope of the supply curve and the rate at which technological progress and human ingenuity drives down the real cost of extraction and conversion... Read more »

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk