Saudi Arabia, Zionism, Peace and the Palestinian Cause
- Thread starter lem34
- Start date
Default The Pentagon - Arab Love Story
THE ROVING EYE
The Pentagon-Arab Spring love story
By Pepe Escobar
Anyone who hoped the Arab Spring might eventually take over the Persian Gulf and those lands once known as Arabia Felix has enough reason to drown in sadness.
The Arab counter-revolution is stronger than ever - led by the House of Saud and its monarchy minions at the Gulf Counter-revolution Club (GCC), officially known as Gulf Cooperation Council. And their most precious ally is the Pentagon.
The New York Times made it official by relaying related White House/Pentagon spin. Considering the NYT can hardly pose as an icon of credibility since those months in 2002/2003 when its front page peddled outright lies about Iraq's nukes and/or its
carnal ties with al-Qaeda, the spin must be translated.
The further militarization of the counter-revolutionary Persian Gulf - especially via more boots on the ground in Kuwait, and more warships - is being sold as a response to "a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran".
Note that both are pure wishful thinking. The NYT's martial sources insist, "the withdrawal [from Iraq] could leave instability". The fact is the Nuri al-Maliki government in Baghdad effectively booted the Americans out (the Pentagon wanted at least 20,000 US boots on the ground after late 2011).
Thus the necessity of revamped Pentagon Central Command (Centcom) newspeak, as well as a Plan B, a grand new "security architecture" for the Persian Gulf crammed with air and naval hardware and even missile defense sold as a bland "post-Iraq footprint in the region".
As for "the threat of a belligerent Iran", very precise interests - sections of the industrial-military complex, the Republican party as a whole, the Israel lobby, the majority of corporate media - have been cheerleading for a strike on Iran for years.
Major General Karl R Horst, Centcom's chief of staff, is a big fan of "commitment in building partner capability and partner capacity" (translation; what we say, goes). He sold the firepower increase in the Persian Gulf to the NYT as a bland, Hollywoodish "back to the future" strategy, focused on "smaller but highly capable deployments and training partnerships with regional militaries".
Translation: lots of special forces, lots of weaponized drones and an inflation of those "partnerships" the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are so fond of. This is spun as "more efficient ways to deploy forces and maximize cooperation with regional partners"; or the best way to "expand security relationships", especially when there will be a "steep decrease in the number of intelligence analysts assigned to the region" (translation; let the towel heads do the footwork).
It also helps that Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) proved their unlimited love for NATO in the Libya war (while Bahrain and the UAE have boots on the ground in Afghanistan). That Arab willingness to please the masters goes a step further than the standard mantra, "the United States will not abandon its commitments in the Persian Gulf."
To sum it all up; think of all this as the GCC as a de facto annex to NATO.
Behind the 'security architecture'
Out there in Tajikistan - where she was examining the non-proliferation of the Arab Spring in Central Asia - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraged what was later leaked to the NYT as "a robust continuing presence" throughout a region that "should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy."
So this means the further militarization of the Persian Gulf comes as a response for US/Saudi interference preventing democracy? That can't possibly be; somebody's got to rewrite the script.
This whole scenario was predictable ever since Washington struck a deal with Riyadh for the consolidation of the Arab counter-revolution; you get us an Arab League vote so we take Muammar Gaddafi out, and we leave you alone to do what you want in the Persian Gulf (see Exposed: The US-Saudi deal Asia Times Online, April 2, 2011).
This led to the House of Saud invading Bahrain; Qatar training Libyan NATO rebels in their own territory while also sending Qatari special forces to Libya; and now a "stronger, multilateral security alliance" between the GCC and the Pentagon.
Lost in space US senators spinning that the US withdrawal from Iraq will be interpreted as a "strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East", is business as usual. But it's another thing to see the NYT being gullible enough - or basically treating its readers as idiots - as it swallows the Saudi propaganda line that Iran is "the most worrisome threat" to all GCC members "as well as to Iraq itself". It's as if the paper was edited in Riyadh.
As a matter of fact, the Barack Obama administration's foreign policy in the Middle East seems to be edited in Riyadh. One just had to follow the US corporate media falling over themselves to kiss the hem of the gown of the new crown prince (the next in line for the throne) at the House of Saud, Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz.
Nayef, 78, supported by the nec plus ultra of medievalism and counter-revolutionary, damn-this-Arab Spring forces, is essentially the House of Saud's inquisitor-in-chief. Since 1975 he has presided over the security apparatus at the Ministry of Interior, which along with the US-trained National Guard, faithful to frail King Abdullah, 87, are the best weaponized bodies in Saudi Arabia.
Nayef is the Darth Vader of a 130,000-strong paramilitary force, all the national and local police, customs, immigration, the coast guard, the border guard and the dreaded religious police. His ministry's response to the Arab Spring has been a non-stop crackdown. Anyone who's even suspected of trying to start a political demonstration, not to mention a movement, is arrested; that includes young people uploading YouTube videos.
There are at least 20,000 political prisoners in Saudi jails. Since April, it's illegal to "threaten national security" or "insult Islam"; Nayef was responsible for the vagueness of the new law and all that implies. Anyone trying an Occupy Riyadh or Occupy Jeddah would be beheaded.
Yet for his countless Washington fans, who beam at this 36-year counter-terror CV, Nayef is a "conservative pragmatist". This is his official denomination since revealed by a WikiLeaks 2009 State Department cable.
No wonder they love Nayef in Washington. His Holy Trinity is Washington-Riyadh joined at the hip; his hatred of Iran and Shi'ites in general (even Saudi Shi'ites); and his war on terror commitment against al-Qaeda.
No one talks about his visceral hatred of women's rights, and his visceral hatred of all things democratic; that's when the label "social conservative" comes handy. At the start of the Arab Spring, Nayef dismissed Tunisians as "basically French", and Cairo residents as "louche urbanites". The only true Arabs were Saudis; democracy, as they see it (or as the House of Saud sees for them) is for sissies.
In internal House of Saud politics, that palace intrigue realm of desert macho men who love to dye their moustaches black, Nayef's top opponents are not his brothers, the powerful Sudayri seven, who are now five (after the death of King Fahd and recently Prince Sultan), named after the tribe of their mother Hassa, Ibn Saud's favorite wife.
Still gerontocracy is the name of the game; brothers Bandar, Musaid and Mishaal's health conditions are appalling. As for brother Salman, the governor of Riyadh, he likes to pose as a journalist, as owner of the Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.
Nayef's top opponents are the nephews of Ibn Saud, starting with wily former Washington ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush; Prince Talal, father of billionaire prince al-Waleed; Vice Minister of Defense Khaled bin Sultan; and Prince Turki al-Faisal, former head of intelligence in the 1980s and former Osama bin Laden pal.
None of these will threaten Nayef; what matters for the House of Saud is the dynasty's survival. As King Abdullah prepares to meet his maker, the Pentagon could not find a more reliable regional partner: Grand Inquisitor Nayef.
NATO will soon rule over the whole Mediterranean as a NATO lake. Africom is implanting itself deeper and deeper in Africa. Centcom rules the Persian Gulf with the GCC in tow. Democracy is for sissies; there's no business like the "security architecture" business.
Asia Times Online :: THE ROVING EYE : The Pentagon-Arab Spring love story
THE ROVING EYE
The Pentagon-Arab Spring love story
By Pepe Escobar
Anyone who hoped the Arab Spring might eventually take over the Persian Gulf and those lands once known as Arabia Felix has enough reason to drown in sadness.
The Arab counter-revolution is stronger than ever - led by the House of Saud and its monarchy minions at the Gulf Counter-revolution Club (GCC), officially known as Gulf Cooperation Council. And their most precious ally is the Pentagon.
The New York Times made it official by relaying related White House/Pentagon spin. Considering the NYT can hardly pose as an icon of credibility since those months in 2002/2003 when its front page peddled outright lies about Iraq's nukes and/or its
carnal ties with al-Qaeda, the spin must be translated.
The further militarization of the counter-revolutionary Persian Gulf - especially via more boots on the ground in Kuwait, and more warships - is being sold as a response to "a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran".
Note that both are pure wishful thinking. The NYT's martial sources insist, "the withdrawal [from Iraq] could leave instability". The fact is the Nuri al-Maliki government in Baghdad effectively booted the Americans out (the Pentagon wanted at least 20,000 US boots on the ground after late 2011).
Thus the necessity of revamped Pentagon Central Command (Centcom) newspeak, as well as a Plan B, a grand new "security architecture" for the Persian Gulf crammed with air and naval hardware and even missile defense sold as a bland "post-Iraq footprint in the region".
As for "the threat of a belligerent Iran", very precise interests - sections of the industrial-military complex, the Republican party as a whole, the Israel lobby, the majority of corporate media - have been cheerleading for a strike on Iran for years.
Major General Karl R Horst, Centcom's chief of staff, is a big fan of "commitment in building partner capability and partner capacity" (translation; what we say, goes). He sold the firepower increase in the Persian Gulf to the NYT as a bland, Hollywoodish "back to the future" strategy, focused on "smaller but highly capable deployments and training partnerships with regional militaries".
Translation: lots of special forces, lots of weaponized drones and an inflation of those "partnerships" the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are so fond of. This is spun as "more efficient ways to deploy forces and maximize cooperation with regional partners"; or the best way to "expand security relationships", especially when there will be a "steep decrease in the number of intelligence analysts assigned to the region" (translation; let the towel heads do the footwork).
It also helps that Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) proved their unlimited love for NATO in the Libya war (while Bahrain and the UAE have boots on the ground in Afghanistan). That Arab willingness to please the masters goes a step further than the standard mantra, "the United States will not abandon its commitments in the Persian Gulf."
To sum it all up; think of all this as the GCC as a de facto annex to NATO.
Behind the 'security architecture'
Out there in Tajikistan - where she was examining the non-proliferation of the Arab Spring in Central Asia - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraged what was later leaked to the NYT as "a robust continuing presence" throughout a region that "should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy."
So this means the further militarization of the Persian Gulf comes as a response for US/Saudi interference preventing democracy? That can't possibly be; somebody's got to rewrite the script.
This whole scenario was predictable ever since Washington struck a deal with Riyadh for the consolidation of the Arab counter-revolution; you get us an Arab League vote so we take Muammar Gaddafi out, and we leave you alone to do what you want in the Persian Gulf (see Exposed: The US-Saudi deal Asia Times Online, April 2, 2011).
This led to the House of Saud invading Bahrain; Qatar training Libyan NATO rebels in their own territory while also sending Qatari special forces to Libya; and now a "stronger, multilateral security alliance" between the GCC and the Pentagon.
Lost in space US senators spinning that the US withdrawal from Iraq will be interpreted as a "strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East", is business as usual. But it's another thing to see the NYT being gullible enough - or basically treating its readers as idiots - as it swallows the Saudi propaganda line that Iran is "the most worrisome threat" to all GCC members "as well as to Iraq itself". It's as if the paper was edited in Riyadh.
As a matter of fact, the Barack Obama administration's foreign policy in the Middle East seems to be edited in Riyadh. One just had to follow the US corporate media falling over themselves to kiss the hem of the gown of the new crown prince (the next in line for the throne) at the House of Saud, Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz.
Nayef, 78, supported by the nec plus ultra of medievalism and counter-revolutionary, damn-this-Arab Spring forces, is essentially the House of Saud's inquisitor-in-chief. Since 1975 he has presided over the security apparatus at the Ministry of Interior, which along with the US-trained National Guard, faithful to frail King Abdullah, 87, are the best weaponized bodies in Saudi Arabia.
Nayef is the Darth Vader of a 130,000-strong paramilitary force, all the national and local police, customs, immigration, the coast guard, the border guard and the dreaded religious police. His ministry's response to the Arab Spring has been a non-stop crackdown. Anyone who's even suspected of trying to start a political demonstration, not to mention a movement, is arrested; that includes young people uploading YouTube videos.
There are at least 20,000 political prisoners in Saudi jails. Since April, it's illegal to "threaten national security" or "insult Islam"; Nayef was responsible for the vagueness of the new law and all that implies. Anyone trying an Occupy Riyadh or Occupy Jeddah would be beheaded.
Yet for his countless Washington fans, who beam at this 36-year counter-terror CV, Nayef is a "conservative pragmatist". This is his official denomination since revealed by a WikiLeaks 2009 State Department cable.
No wonder they love Nayef in Washington. His Holy Trinity is Washington-Riyadh joined at the hip; his hatred of Iran and Shi'ites in general (even Saudi Shi'ites); and his war on terror commitment against al-Qaeda.
No one talks about his visceral hatred of women's rights, and his visceral hatred of all things democratic; that's when the label "social conservative" comes handy. At the start of the Arab Spring, Nayef dismissed Tunisians as "basically French", and Cairo residents as "louche urbanites". The only true Arabs were Saudis; democracy, as they see it (or as the House of Saud sees for them) is for sissies.
In internal House of Saud politics, that palace intrigue realm of desert macho men who love to dye their moustaches black, Nayef's top opponents are not his brothers, the powerful Sudayri seven, who are now five (after the death of King Fahd and recently Prince Sultan), named after the tribe of their mother Hassa, Ibn Saud's favorite wife.
Still gerontocracy is the name of the game; brothers Bandar, Musaid and Mishaal's health conditions are appalling. As for brother Salman, the governor of Riyadh, he likes to pose as a journalist, as owner of the Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.
Nayef's top opponents are the nephews of Ibn Saud, starting with wily former Washington ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush; Prince Talal, father of billionaire prince al-Waleed; Vice Minister of Defense Khaled bin Sultan; and Prince Turki al-Faisal, former head of intelligence in the 1980s and former Osama bin Laden pal.
None of these will threaten Nayef; what matters for the House of Saud is the dynasty's survival. As King Abdullah prepares to meet his maker, the Pentagon could not find a more reliable regional partner: Grand Inquisitor Nayef.
NATO will soon rule over the whole Mediterranean as a NATO lake. Africom is implanting itself deeper and deeper in Africa. Centcom rules the Persian Gulf with the GCC in tow. Democracy is for sissies; there's no business like the "security architecture" business.
Asia Times Online :: THE ROVING EYE : The Pentagon-Arab Spring love story
Al Bhatti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
You brought back to me old memories when i used to listen songs of Abu Backer Salem, Muhammad Murshid Naji and Juma Majid Khan (the Punjabi in Yemen) and Muhammad Sa'ad Abdullah.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saudi King is a Zionist.
nirreich
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,051
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I cannot think of a statement which is farer from the truth.
mohsinkid
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
Saudis dont stand a chance against the mighty ruthless Iranians..saudis rely on luxury while iranians rely on inner urge more like afghan style
--every muslim is terrorist and whole world is bullied by them but still their death toll is humungous :> CNN,bbc media should should report that also ..atleast for ONCE!-----
--every muslim is terrorist and whole world is bullied by them but still their death toll is humungous :> CNN,bbc media should should report that also ..atleast for ONCE!-----
TARIQ BN ZIYAAD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 0
Assalam alaikum
Brother there r thousands of saudies who left that luxurious life went to afghanistan, bosnia, chechniya, iraq and will go to any other place of the world and fight ( we may call them terrorists etc ). they have luxury coz their govt. spread some of the wealth to their public unlike our leaders
TARIQ
Not the Zionost Saudi Royal family. They continue sampling hedonism.
Alchemy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,108
- Reaction score
- 0
I cant mention or bring figures to the table but i think its a well known fact. Saudi reject dollar, America will simply crash. When they crash Israel say goodbye to charity.
Today Saudi is protected by USA because they are subordiante to the USA , the day they go against USA , they will soon face the same consequence as what happened to Iraq .
Unless all Arab countries are willing to rally around and do it together , they dont stand a chance!!! they have been turned into total dependents on USA and the west !!!
I suggest you read my op:
"The importance of maneuvering so your enemy is hit in his weakest points." ~ Sun Tzu’s, The Art of War
Although the United States is unassailable from a military standpoint in the region, the Washington dollar and Treasury debt are our weakest points and the entire world knows this.
If you have noticed, whenever Saudi Arabia is mentioned, the establishment news coverage is always followed by a comforting statement stressing how the House of Saud will somehow escape the political change in the region. The fall of the Saudi monarchy or serious unrest in the Shiite oil producing region of Saudi Arabia is the "elephant in the room" that no one wants to discuss or write about and why the threat is being ignored and going unaddressed.
The reason is all of the oil produced in the Persian Gulf region outside of Iran is currently priced in US dollars thus allowing the United States and the Federal Reserve to create more dollars at will. 87% of the oil exported out of the Persian Gulf is priced in US dollars and as I explained last week in The Great Anglo-American Gaddafi Deception, the pricing of oil in dollars is a major contributor to maintaining the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.
I believe the Washington Treasury debt and US dollar Ponzi scheme would risk collapse if these five nations mentioned above should threaten or seriously consider pricing oil in gold, Euros, SDR’s or any other currency other than dollars. In addition, Israel wouldn’t survive even with its feared Samson option for more than a few months if the US should lose in the region. Therefore the existence of Israel and the economic survival of the United States, our fiat dollar and the continued rollover of our Treasury debt are very dependent on friendly governments controlled and protected by Washington maintaining power at any price in the Persian Gulf.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27391.html
So for those of you who are asleep please wake up. If this Saudi Royal family really wanted to support palestinians or twist americas arm they could. The fact that they dont shows me just one thing that is that they are only concerned with their own survival at any cost to the muslim or non muslim world. This persian/turkish obsession is just a cover for their real evil designs. They dont give a damn about palestinians or any other arabs, muslims or anyone else
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
what really got to me in that article about Nayef was this part
that sheet-head has a LOT of nerve to talk down on those other nations......Egypt is an ANCIENT civilization. It existed centuries before anything called ''Saudi Arabia'' was on a map. Tunisians were occupied by the French, obviously French language wore off on them and became one of the spoken languages (like how we speak English as well).
it's no secret that the ''royal'' family has been friendly with Pakistan; they've helped us and came to our side when allies or so-called allies abandoned us.....however in my mind, their royal family has no legitimacy.
actually Iranian Mullahs and Saudi royal family are 2 beliggerants which put a lot of funding into groups that are harming the unity of Muslims......and the sad part is that especially the Saudis --they allow themselves to be befooled and brainwashed by the west.
that sheet-head has a LOT of nerve to talk down on those other nations......Egypt is an ANCIENT civilization. It existed centuries before anything called ''Saudi Arabia'' was on a map. Tunisians were occupied by the French, obviously French language wore off on them and became one of the spoken languages (like how we speak English as well).
it's no secret that the ''royal'' family has been friendly with Pakistan; they've helped us and came to our side when allies or so-called allies abandoned us.....however in my mind, their royal family has no legitimacy.
actually Iranian Mullahs and Saudi royal family are 2 beliggerants which put a lot of funding into groups that are harming the unity of Muslims......and the sad part is that especially the Saudis --they allow themselves to be befooled and brainwashed by the west.
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
the clash of ideology is more prevalent in the Muslim world than between the Muslim world and others.
Mosamania
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 10,171
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
So is bumping this thread gets you more commission from your superiors??
Saudi Royals have my full and undying allegiance. I am a Muslim and I am proudly a Saudi. I know them better than you will ever do simply reading from articles and spreading your own hate and lies. And stop the bullshit of you are not in favor of Iranians I mean for God's Sake look at your nickname.
No matter Aryan_B a time will come when you will be cheering for Iran when they come to "Liberate" Makkah and Madinah from "Saudi kuffars" and what I would pay to see the look on your face when Iranians are left crying in the sand.
Similar threads
- Article
