Sunni Wahhabi’ Saudi oil for ‘Shia’ Iran oil? No thanks!

[Tshering22]

We are Muslims. We read the same Holy Quran, we recite the same prayers. You are hindu, what would you know?

Honestly, Iran is much more pleasant to deal with. Look what too much interaction with the old KSA did to you today. We don't want that happening here.

And just for this comment, I have a request. Please, for goodness sake and the sake of your own betterment, stop becoming the thekedar of a religion. There are 50 countries around the world following Islam. But only you make so much noise.

Nobody else says anything about it and we share excellent relationship with almost all Islamic countries bilaterally.

 

[Shaurya]

We are Muslims. We read the same Holy Quran, we recite the same prayers. You are hindu, what would you know?

Well, we all know how much united the muslim umaah is ahmadiya,shia,sunni and many more sects are fighting among themselves (even in pakistan) so instead of being in denial (as usual) please try to understand what's going on, besides , I see no reason for you to be in this discussion, it's dealing with India and it's trade with shia and wahabi oil... so please don't step in if you don't have anything to contribute, again, we all know you are very unitd, good, best wishes from my side

 

[StrikeForce]

Not really, another 20% comes from bombay high, 500km from mumbai and other comes from other countries, we are not completely concentrated on dubai

Even with this amount 12+20 = 32% and so IMHO, Saudi imports are more than even Iranian oil imports. One cant ignore the fact that Saudi is the largest oil producer in the world.

PS: Dubai does not produce any oil, Abudhabi does which is again a part of UAE and Saudi has nothing to do with UAE. My question here is on the import quantity of Saudi oil against Iran oil.

 

[Shaurya]

Even with this amount 12+20 = 32% and so IMHO, Saudi imports are more than even Iranian oil imports. One cant ignore the fact that Saudi is the largest oil producer in the world.

PS: Dubai does not produce any oil, Abudhabi does which is again a part of UAE and Saudi has nothing to do with UAE. My question here is on the import quantity of Saudi oil against Iran oil.

We can assume whatever we want, but the main factor is , we have diverse options available that must not be compromised due to silly policies of US and the west. There is also a massive drive to convert as much energy source, into renewable ones as possible as it is also costing us billions to purchase these and the certainity/assurance of getting oil from our friends is now getting slimmer. Just wait and watch, 22000 MW will be created from solar energy alone by 2020, then add wind and geothermal. I never wanted to say this, but IMO , this is the best decision.

 

[EjazR]

I dont think it is a stupid way to frame the title.

The thing is Saudi(wahhabi) has already announced that it will help the world cope with Iran sanction by increasing its output. Whether that is possible is another issue but why do they need to ?

The fact that Saudi have decided to cushion the world is everything to do with Wahhabi and Shias.

The article has rightly pointed out, the problem is more than oil supply we are more concerned about the concentration of power in the hands of saudis(wahhabi) who have already done much harm to INDIA (through Islamic Jihad).

As far as India is concerned, whether or not IRAN has nukes doesn't make an iota of difference to us. Rather we should support Iran and try to get as many concessions as possible ( One major priority is afganisthan where we share the same view ).

Also, we know EU/US is more driven by paranoia rather than ground truths. Why take stand at their whims ?

Do you have any credible info on Saudi govt. supporting "Jihad" against India?

Dome of us need to get out of this inferiority complex of being afraid of any mention of Wahabbi or Muslim country.

Out problem is specifically Pakistani bcaked terrorism and so called "Jihad". No ARab based group like say HAMAS or Hezbullah (both supported by Iranians btw) has targeted India and that means they are not our concern.

Our concern is LeT and affiliated Pakistan based groups that need to be targeted and shut down. And if there are expats or nationals in Saudi and UAE sending donations to these groups, then we use our extradition treaty signed with these countries to clamp down on them.


I agree that the Iran issue is more paranoia by the US and Israel than based on hard facts as they have been mentioning Iran will be getting a nuclear weapon since the 90s. But the fear that Saudi Arabia is launching some secret "Jihad" against India is also paranoia.
Bottom line is we look at our national interests objectively without blinkers and decide accordingly.


Check out this recent interview with the Saudi Ambassador to India to see the improvements including in the anti-terror front
Faisal Trad, Ambassador of Saudi Arabia talks about the Indo Saudi relationship - YouTube

 

[EjazR]

you may be right about Hezbollah , but it is a fact that most jihadi organisation in the world are Wahabbi and deobandi sunni and this fact cant be ignored .Btw , i have seen israelis hating on HAMAS much more than hezbollah whcih is again a salafi/wahhabi sunni organisation.

My friend, what I am trying to explain is that there is nocorrelation that a school of thought would result in terrorism. It is an extremist political Islamic ideology that will result in this. No matter what the school of thought.

And when states back and support a particular group with an extremist political Islamic ideology, they increase its capability to carry out terrorist actions. In the 80s, Salafi groups were showered with money and trained in sabotage by US, Saudis, Pakistan, China, and many other countries. Without such massive support, they would never have any capability.

Similarly, shia revolutionary groups like Hizbullah would never be so effective in moveing Israel out of south Lebanon without Iranian state support.

The common denominator is a extreme political religious ideology and it applies to all schools of thoughts in Islam and infact across other religions as well as we have seen in recent times. The only diffence is that extremist of other religious groups have not been given state backing like we saw in the 80s and 90s.


And you have wrong information on HAMAS being a Salafi group as it has no school of thought affiliation. It is a political Islamic movement like the Muslim brotherhood - which again is nor Wahabi/ Salafi.

But if you have read the wikileak cables, you must have read that it was IRanian support of HAMAS that is the problem and that the Saudis are actually cracking down on their finances and would HAMAS to join the PLO in the peace process.


Again, don't take this as me explaining which school of thought is less prone to terrorist acts because that is not the common denominator that will result in this. The common denominator is the extremist political Islamic ideology. If you go through the link I provided earlier in my post, you will understand what I am talking about.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...wered-questions-case-pakistan.html#post550583

 

[livingdead]

My friend, what I am trying to explain is that there is nocorrelation that a school of thought would result in terrorism. It is an extremist political Islamic ideology that will result in this. No matter what the school of thought.

And when states back and support a particular group with an extremist political Islamic ideology, they increase its capability to carry out terrorist actions. In the 80s, Salafi groups were showered with money and trained in sabotage by US, Saudis, Pakistan, China, and many other countries. Without such massive support, they would never have any capability.

Similarly, shia revolutionary groups like Hizbullah would never be so effective in moveing Israel out of south Lebanon without Iranian state support.

The common denominator is a extreme political religious ideology and it applies to all schools of thoughts in Islam and infact across other religions as well as we have seen in recent times. The only diffence is that extremist of other religious groups have not been given state backing like we saw in the 80s and 90s.


And you have wrong information on HAMAS being a Salafi group as it has no school of thought affiliation. It is a political Islamic movement like the Muslim brotherhood - which again is nor Wahabi/ Salafi.

But if you have read the wikileak cables, you must have read that it was IRanian support of HAMAS that is the problem and that the Saudis are actually cracking down on their finances and would HAMAS to join the PLO in the peace process.


Again, don't take this as me explaining which school of thought is less prone to terrorist acts because that is not the common denominator that will result in this. The common denominator is the extremist political Islamic ideology. If you go through the link I provided earlier in my post, you will understand what I am talking about.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...wered-questions-case-pakistan.html#post550583

Okey leave the terror groups( or freedom fighters) which operates due to some foregn govt support.
What about freelance jihadis. Are they not mostly sunnis.
Can you list a few incidents involving shias, in which they were involved in freelance jihad.
Iraq does not count.

 

[Shaurya]

Do you have any credible info on Saudi govt. supporting "Jihad" against India?

Dome of us need to get out of this inferiority complex of being afraid of any mention of Wahabbi or Muslim country.

Out problem is specifically Pakistani bcaked terrorism and so called "Jihad". No ARab based group like say HAMAS or Hezbullah (both supported by Iranians btw) has targeted India and that means they are not our concern.

Our concern is LeT and affiliated Pakistan based groups that need to be targeted and shut down. And if there are expats or nationals in Saudi and UAE sending donations to these groups, then we use our extradition treaty signed with these countries to clamp down on them.


I agree that the Iran issue is more paranoia by the US and Israel than based on hard facts as they have been mentioning Iran will be getting a nuclear weapon since the 90s. But the fear that Saudi Arabia is launching some secret "Jihad" against India is also paranoia.
Bottom line is we look at our national interests objectively without blinkers and decide accordingly.


Check out this recent interview with the Saudi Ambassador to India to see the improvements including in the anti-terror front
Faisal Trad, Ambassador of Saudi Arabia talks about the Indo Saudi relationship - YouTube

The centre of Muslim - Ummah not doing anything to spread islam?? impossible....

 

[EjazR]

Okey leave the terror groups( or freedom fighters) which operates due to some foregn govt support.
What about freelance jihadis. Are they not mostly sunnis.
Can you list a few incidents involving shias, in which they were involved in freelance jihad.
Iraq does not count.

I am not sure what you mean by "freelance" Jihadis. Without support systems, there is just no major threat by individual nutter cases. 90% of the global Muslim population is Sunni, so just the population stats itself gives a bigger pool. Almost every actof terrorism has a line of training and radicalisation that links into some sort of state group or a non-state group that was supported by other states at some point in time.

But I think you are again missing my main argument here. It doesn't matter if you are shia or sunni or the school of thought you follow. A extremist political Islamic group like Hizbullah, or Islamic Jihad despite being shia will indulge in terrorist acts because of their extremist political ideology not because they are shia. Infact, suicide bombings and terrorist attacks like hijackings started in the 80s and was dominated by shia groups mainly targeting Israel.

Similarly, the Stern gang and Irgun attacked civilians both Arabs and British not because they were Jewish but because they were militant political Jewish or political Zionist groups. You don't look at this group and draw the conclusion that all Jews are more likely to be involve in terrorists acts because that would be incorrect. You can look at similar examples in other places as well.

The distinguising factor again is a militant political religious ideology.

 

[EjazR]

The centre of Muslim - Ummah not doing anything to spread islam?? impossible....

Not sure what you mean again. Are you equating spreading Islam to terrorism because that would be quite foolish.

Unless you meant something else by your statement.

All nation states look after their national interests Saudis included. Atleast most nations do so. Like I said, its time to come out of inferiority complexes and look at facts.

We have real problems of terrorism from Pakistani based groups that need to be tackled, lets try to learn to differentiate between that and focus on that.

 

[peep]

Do you have any credible info on Saudi govt. supporting "Jihad" against India?

Dome of us need to get out of this inferiority complex of being afraid of any mention of Wahabbi or Muslim country.

Out problem is specifically Pakistani bcaked terrorism and so called "Jihad". No Arab based group like say HAMAS or Hezbullah (both supported by Iranians btw) has targeted India and that means they are not our concern.

Our concern is LeT and affiliated Pakistan based groups that need to be targeted and shut down. And if there are expats or nationals in Saudi and UAE sending donations to these groups, then we use our extradition treaty signed with these countries to clamp down on them.


I agree that the Iran issue is more paranoia by the US and Israel than based on hard facts as they have been mentioning Iran will be getting a nuclear weapon since the 90s. But the fear that Saudi Arabia is launching some secret "Jihad" against India is also paranoia.
Bottom line is we look at our national interests objectively without blinkers and decide accordingly.

Not exactly. The biggest contribution to al-qaeda has come from Saudis. With full knowledge of this fact, the saudi princes did nothing to control it.

Considering that LeT is different from Al-Qaeda is the same mistake which was done by the US. For too long GoI had wanted to explain this fact. And the US realized it only when WTC came crashing down.

Terrorism doesn't know any boundaries. Your argument that hezbollah have never targeted Indians is completely childish. The simple reason is because the heads leading these organizations are simply those groups' political/religious faces. The military commanders/ mid-level recruiters for all these commanders are all same. So taliban may not have orchestrated mumbai blasts directly but Taliban/LeT/HuJI commanders are almost freelance switching from one group to another. Maybe hezbollah/al-qaeda are bombing places thousand KMs outside Indian borders but their commanders derive the same sense of confidence from each others successful orchestration of their plans.

And your talking of political aims determining the shaping of these organization is valid but just another variable in the process. Maybe thats why we see some organizations targeting each other as well. But it does not mean groups are insulated from one another.

I accept that I have never came across Saudi Govt. pursuing terrorism as state policy of late but they did support it in afganistan in early 80s in full connivance with US/Pak/China etc.

Also, the point you made in that Counter-Ideology thread does bring in a different perspective but there's no denying that Saudis have consciously or unconsciously supported terrorism in India.

 

[Raje amar]

Oh cmon.... don't tell that the world don't know, what the PAK is done deny deny and deny everything it deny the truth, and emerges out .

A) Nuclear Smuggling , PAK Denied strongly asked proof and proof handed by Libya, then Pak shifted blame of lone person and accept the world to acknowledge that he acted alone.

B) Taliban -ISI : US airlifted PAK ISI / military men/ army etc in plain clothes which fighting along with Taliban when Nato / Alliance forces surrounded them, when it surrounded in Kunduz.

C) OBL is not in PAK and found out in PAK Amry city living in ISI controlled Safe house.

D) Existing PAK strategy of using Terrorist in Afgan / india

E) while PAK army butchering in East Bangal and forget to acknowledge that even that happened.

F) Using Taliban to control afgan people , like what you did with Bengal and now with Balochi people.

G) Came from the mentality of not get develop and neither get other develop. India and Pak started from same point and now see the difference.

H) I don't know PAK goal is to finish terror and how much terror it finished till now? Every time it drag feet to do any military operations against Taliban which using PAK as training ground and launch attack in afghan / India.

I) More terrorist is killed by US drown strike then by PAK military. When PAK see US drones is getting successful they tried to stop them.

Cold Truth but Truth.

dont try.

you can wake up one who is sleeping not the one who is pretending to be asleep.
they will never acknowledge the facts. they will only hate India.

 

[EjazR]

Not exactly. The biggest contribution to al-qaeda has come from Saudis. With full knowledge of this fact, the saudi princes did nothing to control it.

And Al Qaeda atleast until it was dominated by Saudis and Yemenis never focussed on attacking India. Infact, the actual name of its group was focussed on war against Israel and "crusaders" (US). Should be concerned and crack down on Al Qaeda, ofcourse. But its important that our terrorism problem is groups like LeT, HuJI e.t.c. and not Al Qaeda. Lets keep our eye on the ball

Considering that LeT is different from Al-Qaeda is the same mistake which was done by the US. For too long GoI had wanted to explain this fact. And the US realized it only when WTC came crashing down.

Again, the LeT didn't bring down the WTC. Going after LeT would not have prevented that. Going after bin laden and AQ on the other hand WOULD have prevented the WTC attacks.

Terrorism doesn't know any boundaries. Your argument that hezbollah have never targeted Indians is completely childish. The simple reason is because the heads leading these organizations are simply those groups' political/religious faces. The military commanders/ mid-level recruiters for all these commanders are all same. So taliban may not have orchestrated mumbai blasts directly but Taliban/LeT/HuJI commanders are almost freelance switching from one group to another. Maybe hezbollah/al-qaeda are bombing places thousand KMs outside Indian borders but their commanders derive the same sense of confidence from each others successful orchestration of their plans.

My argument is based on cold hard realities and the need to focus our CT effort judiciously on the right target. The GWOT and similar rhetoric sounds nice but will not help us in what we really need which is action against insurgents and terrorist groups that attack India. Going after Hezbullah in Lebanon does not make India any safer because we don't have a threat from them. They have never indicated nor tried to attack us.

But ofcourse that doesn't mean we should work globally with all countries to counter terrorism. The UN convention against terror and bilateral anti-terror agreements that we have with most GCC countries are the starting points. As the Saudi ambassador stated recently, a lot of co-operation on the anti-terror front including extraditing criminals is taking place quietly. In other words, out international efforst should be to lock out terrorists that are targeting US. And if some terrrorist group is using India as a safe haven, then we should defintely help the requesting country by cracking down on them as well.

And your talking of political aims determining the shaping of these organization is valid but just another variable in the process. Maybe thats why we see some organizations targeting each other as well. But it does not mean groups are insulated from one another.

I accept that I have never came across Saudi Govt. pursuing terrorism as state policy of late but they did support it in afganistan in early 80s in full connivance with US/Pak/China etc.

Also, the point you made in that Counter-Ideology thread does bring in a different perspective but there's no denying that Saudis have consciously or unconsciously supported terrorism in India.

Valid points and certainly what the Saudis did in the 80s in Afghanistan (and around the world) to pump a anti-Iran brand of salafism/Wahabism is condemnable and in many ways directly responsible for the blowback in the late 90s and 2000s. But we have to look at what is happening now and particularly since the new King came to power.

While Saudi individuals have donated knowingly or unkowingly to charity groups which then sipohned of the money to anti-India terror groups. The Saudi govt. has taken an active role in cutting down this chain. Infact, more often the people have been raising money have been Pakistani expats working in Saudi Arabia raising money rather than Saudis themselves.
I usually give the example of the US-Saudi anti-terror co-operation were major plots like the printer cartridge plot for example were busted due to Saudi info. What we want is the same level of co-operation against anti-India groups and atleast from what the ambassador said and the news reports, it seems that they are willing to do so.

At the same time, at a people to people level, Indian muslims can have a moderating affect on Saudi Wahabbism philosophy which has been happening for a while now.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...derate-islam-heart-saudi-discovery-india.html
Saudi Gazette - Kingdom successfully blocked 220 terrorism plots: Interior Ministry

 

[livingdead]

I am not sure what you mean by "freelance" Jihadis. Without support systems, there is just no major threat by individual nutter cases. 90% of the global Muslim population is Sunni, so just the population stats itself gives a bigger pool. Almost every actof terrorism has a line of training and radicalisation that links into some sort of state group or a non-state group that was supported by other states at some point in time.

But I think you are again missing my main argument here. It doesn't matter if you are shia or sunni or the school of thought you follow. A extremist political Islamic group like Hizbullah, or Islamic Jihad despite being shia will indulge in terrorist acts because of their extremist political ideology not because they are shia. Infact, suicide bombings and terrorist attacks like hijackings started in the 80s and was dominated by shia groups mainly targeting Israel.

Similarly, the Stern gang and Irgun attacked civilians both Arabs and British not because they were Jewish but because they were militant political Jewish or political Zionist groups. You don't look at this group and draw the conclusion that all Jews are more likely to be involve in terrorists acts because that would be incorrect. You can look at similar examples in other places as well.

The distinguising factor again is a militant political religious ideology.

By freelance I mean without any support structure. The london bombing, time square bombing and all these new small plots have nothing to do even with al qaida(leave any foreign govt). It is home made, "do it yourself" terrorism I am talking about.
I still think it is worth exploring why shias are less prone to such problem. Could it be because majority of them are in from Iran. Is it the cultural?
Or is it just a false pattern in some random acts, which is a reflection of our own view than anything.

 

[EjazR]

By freelance I mean without any support structure. The london bombing, time square bombing and all these new small plots have nothing to do even with al qaida(leave any foreign govt). It is home made, "do it yourself" terrorism I am talking about.
I still think it is worth exploring why shias are less prone to such problem. Could it be because majority of them are in from Iran. Is it the cultural?
Or is it just a false pattern in some random acts, which is a reflection of our own view than anything.

If you look at the court documents for london bombings and Time square bombing, both received training from AQ/Taliban reps in the FATA region. Without the knowledge of how to make bombs, they would not be sucessful.

And again like I mentioned, shias comprise only 10% of the global population. If Pakistan was a shia majority country, you have shia based groups attacking India. But that would NOT be because they are shia but because of the political religious ideology they would support by violent means.

In Israel, south Lebanon is shia majority, hence majority of the terror attacks Israel experienced during occupation of Lebanon were by shia groups like Hizbullah.

The common denominator again is groups that talk about militant political religious ideology. If the aims and goals are about establishing an "Islamic state" and create some sort of utopia by violent means and killing civilians if necessary, then you are sure to expected terrorist acts from these groups or inspired from these groups.