Friday, September 13, 2013

Saudi Arabia, Syria, Chemical Weapons & Paid Salafi Mullahs.

Since the start of this Syrian Crisis, the Mullahs in Pakistan particularly the Saudi Arabian paid and backed Salafi-Ahl-e-Hadith or Wahhabi Mullahs are trying their best to justify US Attack on Syria. One should listen to their demented logic wherein they bring in the Scripture to justify such attacks on Syria while completely forgetting that the same Syria was once an ally of the same Saudi Arabia under USA during the First Gulf War in 1990. Even more tragic is the fact that these Mullah attack the Prrint and Electronic Media for narrating the facts regarding Saudi role in the recent crisis in the Middle East. They say that people should not pay heed to the Media who is after maligning the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia whereas the same Mullahs quote the Western Media against the Syrian Government. Quite a tragedy! Muslim in general and South Asian Muslim in particular praise the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Revival of Ottoman Caliphate in the same breath, whereas it was the House of Saud and Hanbali Cleric Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdel Wahab who revolted against Ottoman Caliphate around 200 years ago. When Saddam invaded Kuwait - [Immediately a Fatwa was issued against Saddam - "During the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi Arabia bankrolled the Saddam Hussein regime with the express approval of Washington DC which at that time saw Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Shia fundamentalism. It came as a terrific shock to the Saudi Royals when Saddam Hussein turned his attention to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Again, the Royal family turned to the Ulema and obtained (with difficulty) a Fatwa, permitting the use of non-Muslim foreign troops on Saudi soil to defend Saudi Arabia against a foreign invader - one the Ulema regarded as a secular apostate. Thus the Saudi Royal family invited the USA to send it its troops for Operation Desert Storm- the operation to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait - largely at Saudi expense." As per 9/11 Commission Report “In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, [Saudi Fatwa issued in 90s against Osama Bin Ladin - Usama Ibn Ladin Al-Kharijee (our position toward him and his likes) - By Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullaah Ibn Baz ] and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.” The most Funny thing is the fact that Saudi Backed/Paid Pakistani Mullahs praise Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden in the same breath and never ever quote what the Saudi Mullahs said on Osama Bin Laden. Please do note how the Saddam Hussein was supported by the same Saudi Arabia during Iran Iraq War in the 80s.

PBS Frontline - The House Of Saud (Feb 2005) from Spike1138 on Vimeo.

Saudi Arabian Fatwa of Apostasy against Saddam Hussein


 Misconception: The Islaamic Threat In recent years, a great deal of attention in the media have been given to the threat of "Islaamic Fundamentalism". Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the Western media and the actions of some ignorant Muslims, the word "Islaam" has become almost synonymous with "terrorism". However, when one analyses the situation, the question that should come to mind is: Do the teachings of Islaam encourage terrorism? The answer: Certainly not! Islaam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. It should be remembered that all religions have cults and misguided followers, so it is their teachings that should be looked at, not the actions of a few individuals. Unfortunately, in the media, whenever a Muslim commits a heinous act, he is labeled a "Muslim terrorist". However, when Serbs murder and rape innocent women in Bosnia, they are not called "Christian terrorists", nor are the activities in Northern Ireland labeled "Christian terrorism". Also, when right-wing Christians in the U. S. bomb abortion clinics, they are not called "Christian terrorists". Reflecting on these facts, one could certainly conclude that there is a double-standard in the media! Although religious feelings play a significant role in the previously mentioned "Christian" conflicts, the media does not apply religious labels because they assume that such barbarous acts have nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity. However, when something happens involving a Muslim, they often try to put the blame on Islaam itself - and not the misguided individual.

 Certainly, Islaamic Law (Sharee'ah) allows war - any religion or civilisation that did not would never survive - but it certainly does not condone attacks against innocent people, women or children. The Arabic word "jihaad", which is often translated as "Holy War", simply means "to struggle". The word for "war" in Arabic is "harb", not "jihaad". "Struggling", i.e. "making jihaad", to defend Islaam, Muslims or to liberate a land where Muslims are oppressed is certainly allowed (and even encouraged) in Islaam. However, any such activities must be done according to the teachings of Islaam. Islaam also clearly forbids "taking the law into your own hands", which means that individual Muslims cannot go around deciding who they want to kill, punish or torture. Trial and punishment must be carried out by a lawful authority and a knowledgeable judge. Also, when looking at events in the Muslim World, it should be kept in mind that a long period of colonialism ended fairly recently in most Muslim countries. During this time, the people in these countries were culturally, materially and religiously exploited - mostly by the so-called "Christian" nations of the West. This painful period has not really come to an end in many Muslim countries, where people are still under the control of foreign powers or puppet regimes supported by foreign powers. Also, through the media, people in the West are made to believe that tyrants like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moamar Qaddafi in Libya are "Islaamic" leaders - when just the opposite is true. Neither of these rulers even profess Islaam as an ideology, but only use Islaamic slogans to manipulate their powerless populations. They have about as much to do with Islaam as Hitler had to do with Christianity! In reality, many Middle Eastern regimes which people think of as being "Islaamic" oppress the practice of Islaam in their countries. So suffice it to say that "terrorism" and killing innocent people directly contradicts the teachings of Islaam. .......... Prepared by: Abu 'Iyaad REFERENCE: Misconception: The Islaamic Threat

Question: O esteemed Shaykh, what is happening now (in Iraaq) so what is the position of the Muslim towards this trial, and is there a Jihaad, and are do those soldiers who are in the Gulf have the ruling of being mujaahideen, and may Allaah reward you. Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree: I dont know why this question (is asked) when, when we have just ended the speech with what I consider to comprise the answer to it and to its likes. However, despite this, just so that it is said, that Ubayd has neglected some of the questions. So I say: Firstly, not all of the Iraaqi society is Muslim. Rather, amongst them is the Marxist, amongst them is the Ba'athist Heretic, and amongst them are numerous orientations. And there are Muslims amongst them... And amongst them are the Raafidah. And the positions of the Scholars towards the Raafidah is well known, amongst them are those who declared them Disbelievers.

 Secondly, we have Rulers and those who have authority, and it is obligatory to give them hearing and obedience, and around our rulers are those who have knowledge, and experience, and speciality in the political affairs. So we do not undermine them, and we have already mentioned previously that the general affairs are not for just any person. Rather, they are for whom? For those in authority. And as it is appropriate, I also say that those who call to cutting off from the products of America and Britain and others, then those people have a resemblance to the Raafidah. Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah mentions in Minhaaj us-Sunnah, in the first volume, and I believe it is page 38, "From the stupidity of the Raafidah is that they do not drink from the river that was unearthed (i.e. dug out, like a well) by Yazeed".

So those Harakiyyoon and Hizbiyyoon, have resembled the Raafidah. And what an evil model (that is). And the most repugnant for a person that his model, and way is that of the Raafidah. Thirdly, the banner of fighting in Iraaq, who is carrying it? It is carried by Saddaam Hussain at-Takreetee, and he is the leader of the Ba'athi Party in his land...and the Ba'athi Party, is secularist, disbelieving, heretical. Its foundation is upon mixing and not differentiating between a Sunni Muslim, Guidance from the Scholars Concerning Iraaq and between the Jew, Christian, Communist, and others. They are all the same, equal. And for this reason, their slogan is, as their poet has said: I believe in, -- (Shaykh Ubayd): I seek refuge in Allaah -- I believe in al-Ba'ath as the Lord which has no partner And in Arabism as a religion, which has no other (religion) This is their religion, qawmiyyah (nationalism) and shu'oobiyyah, and their religion is not Islaam. So built upon this, the one who fights under the banner of the Iraaqi government, then he is fighting under a banner of disbelief. And we do not dispute that the people of Iraaq have the right to defend themselves. They can defend themselves, their blood, their honour and their wealth, they can defend those who transgress upon them, whether America or Britain or other than them. So it is obligatory upon us, the community of Muslims that we ask Allaah in our supplication that He delivers the Muslims amongst the people of Iraaq. So whoever said O Allaah save the [Iraaqi Society]1 , then he has erred. This supplication of his reaches even the Marxist and the Communist. And the Ba'ath Party is at the front of the [supplication of the] one who supplicates for the Iraaqi society (in general). No, but supplicate to Allaah that He delivers the Muslims amongst the people of Iraaq. And that he relieves them of their distress. This is what I can add now. .......... Translated by: Abu 'Iyaad REFERENCE: NEWS\ Monday 31 March 2003 Shaykh 'Ubayd al-Jaabiree on the Position Towards Iraq From a Paltalk Session today 31/03/2003 at 8:30pm UK Time


Arundhatti Roy -- Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a successful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers and political figures known to be leftists. An entire intellectual community was slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.) The young Saddam Hussein was said to have had a hand in supervising the bloodbath. In 1979, after factional infighting within the Ba'ath Party, Saddam Hussein became the President of Iraq. In April 1980, while he was massacring Shias, the US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinksi declared, "We see no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and Iraq." Washington and London overtly and covertly supported Saddam Hussein. They financed him, equipped him, armed him and provided him with dual-use materials to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. They supported his worst excesses financially, materially and morally. They supported the eight-year war against Iran and the 1988 gassing of Kurdish people in Halabja, crimes which 14 years later were re-heated and served up as reasons to justify invading Iraq. After the first Gulf War, the 'Allies' fomented an uprising of Shias in Basra and then looked away while Saddam Hussein crushed the revolt and slaughtered thousands in an act of vengeful reprisal. REFERENCE: Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy. Buy One, Get One Free ARUNDHATI ROY MAGAZINE | MAY 26, 2003

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. -- A Saddam Chronology By Stephen Shalom: Despite the fact that Iraq had been the aggressor in this war and that Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war, the United States tilted toward Iraq. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of terrorist states in 1982, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad as Reagan’s envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to discuss economic cooperation, re-established diplomatic relations in November 1984, made available extensive loans and subsidies, provided intelligence information, encouraged its allies to arm Iraq, and engaged in military actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran. The United States also provided dual-use equipment that it knew Iraq was using for military purposes. (Joyce Battle, ed., “Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984,” National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Feb. 25, 2003, .Reference: A Saddam Chronology Setting the record straight about the U.S. and Saddam Hussein By Stephen Shalom

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein by 0110110x

2013 Saudis press Kerry for hard line on Syria: JEDDAH, June 25: Saudi Arabia on Tuesday pressed for global action to end Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s government, telling US Secretary of State John Kerry that the civil war had turned into “genocide”. Kerry met Saudi leaders as part of a regional tour in which he has called for greater support for Syria’s rebels, but stressed that the United States ultimately wanted a political solution that includes all sides. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal told Kerry that Assad has waged “unprecedented genocide” through the more than two-year conflict that has claimed nearly 100,000 lives. “The kingdom demands a clear, unequivocal international resolution that bans any sort of weapons support for the Syrian regime and declares null and void the legitimacy of that regime,” Prince Faisal said at a joint news conference. “The regime’s illegitimacy eliminates any possibility of it being part of any arrangement or playing any role whatsoever in shaping the present and future,” he said. Faisal also voiced dismay at the role of Iran, which has poured assistance to Assad to save its main Arab ally. Hezbollah, the Lebanese group backed by Iran, has increasingly fought alongside government forces in Syria. “Along with the regime’s genocide against its own people, this adds an even deadlier element in the form of an all-out foreign invasion,” Prince Faisal said of Iran’s role. President Barack Obama has vowed to step up support for the rebels after concluding that Assad defied warnings and used chemical weapons. But Obama is cautious about deeper involvement in an increasingly sectarian conflict. US policymakers have privately voiced concern that Saudi Arabia and Qatar could embrace hardline Sunni guerillas in strategically placed Syria if Western powers leave a vacuum. Despite the Saudi foreign minister’s stance, Kerry said that the United States supported an agreement last year in Geneva that would create a transitional government that includes both the rebels and regime, although not Assad himself. “We believe that the best solution is a political solution in which the people of Syria have an opportunity to be able to make a choice about their future,” Kerry said. “We believe that every minority can be respected, there can be diversity and pluralism and that the people can do so in a climate of peace,” he said. Kerry also paid his day trip to Jeddah to compare notes on the Middle East peace process — one of his key priorities — and on the chaotic politics of Egypt, where Saudi Arabia is considered to hold key influence.—AFP Saudis press Kerry for hard line on Syria

The Persian Gulf War 1990 to 1991 (Operation Desert Storm) - 1

The Persian Gulf War 1990 to 1991 (Operation... by SalimJanMazari

1990 Syria`s Support Of U.s. In Gulf War Paying Dividends -- DAMASCUS, SYRIA — When Syria joined its old foe, the United States, in going to war against Iraq, the public here was shocked and outraged. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was highly popular in Syria, and a group of Syrian writers and other intellectuals took the almost unprecedented step of issuing a public protest over Syria`s involvement in the war. Any dissent from government policies has been a distinctly unhealthy activity since President Hafez Assad came to power 21 years ago and established one of the most ruthless regimes in the Middle East. The intellectuals apparently escaped arrest-and worse-but their protest was a measure of the depth of public feeling. The resentment has not entirely died down, according to Western diplomats, but it has moderated: Syrians are beginning to realize that the war has paid dividends. A year ago Syria, which always has aspired to a leadership role in Arab affairs, was isolated and resented by most of its neighbors. Now it has forged an alliance with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and has joined with Egypt in providing the bulk of the troops for a new Arab peacekeeping force in the Persian Gulf region. It has received about $2.5 billion in assistance from the gulf states and Japan, and its role in the peacekeeping force promises another sizable windfall. Although serious concerns about Syria`s record on terrorism and human rights continue to trouble the relationship with Washington, Assad finds himself courted by the Bush administration. President Bush met with him in Geneva in November, and Secretary of State James A. Baker III arrives Wednesday in Damascus for his third visit since the gulf crisis erupted in August. The Bush administration credits Syria with helping to restrain terrorist groups that might have targeted U.S. and other Western interests during the war with Iraq. The newly forged relationship with the U.S. provides a balance in Syrian foreign policy that had been lacking. For years Assad maintained a hostile view of the U.S. and put all his eggs in the Soviet basket. The Soviet Union was his principal arms supplier and closest ally. As one Western diplomat observed, superpower relations with Syria were a zero-sum game: Any gain for Syria was a Soviet gain, and any gain for Israel was an American gain. But Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev`s refusal to supply Syria with sophisticated weaponry, and his decision to allow a mass migration of Soviet Jews to Israel, caused Assad to rethink his position and to begin cultivating the West-especially the U.S. REFERENCE: Syria`s Support Of U.s. In Gulf War Paying Dividends March 12, 1991|By Ray Moseley, Chicago Tribune.

The Persian Gulf War 1990 to 1991 (Operation Desert Storm) - 2

The Persian Gulf War 1990 to 1991 (Operation... by SalimJanMazari

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran. The revelations, in secret memos from US embassies across the Middle East, expose behind-the-scenes pressures in the scramble to contain the Islamic Republic, which the US, Arab states and Israel suspect is close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has hitherto been viewed as a desperate last resort that could ignite a far wider war. The Saudi king was recorded as having "frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme", one cable stated. "He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008. The cables also highlight Israel's anxiety to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly, its readiness to go it alone against Iran – and its unstinting attempts to influence American policy. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, estimated in June 2009 that there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable". After that, Barak said, "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage." REFERENCE: Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme BY Ian Black and Simon Tisdall The Guardian, Sunday 28 November 2010 20.54 GMT

Prince Bandar, Osama Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia and Syria

Prince Bandar, Osama Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia... by SalimJanMazari

Saudi Arabia, UAE financing extremism in south Punjab: Department stated that “financial support estimated at nearly 100 million USD annually was making its way to Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadith clerics in south Punjab from organisations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ostensibly with the direct support of those governments.” The cable sent in November 2008 by Bryan Hunt, the then Principal Officer at the US Consulate in Lahore, was based on information from discussions with local government and non-governmental sources during his trips to the cities of Multan and Bahawalpur. Quoting local interlocutors, Hunt attempts to explain how the “sophisticated jihadi recruitment network” operated in a region dominated by the Barelvi sect, which, according to the cable, made south Punjab “traditionally hostile” to Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadith schools of thought. Hunt refers to a “network of Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadith mosques and madrassahs” being strengthened through an influx of “charity” which originally reached organisations “such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Al-Khidmat foundation”. Portions of these funds would then be given away to clerics “in order to expand these sects’ presence” in a relatively inhospitable yet “potentially fruitful recruiting ground”. Outlining the process of recruitment for militancy, the cable describes how “families with multiple children” and “severe financial difficulties” were generally being exploited for recruitment purposes. Families first approached by “ostensibly ‘charitable’” organisations would later be introduced to a “local Deobandi or Ahl-i-Hadith maulana” who would offer to educate the children at his madrassah and “find them employment in the service of Islam”. “Martyrdom” was also “often discussed”, with a final cash payment to the parents. “Local sources claim that the current average rate is approximately Rs 500,000 (approximately USD 6,500) per son,” the cable states. Children recruited would be given age-specific indoctrination and would eventually be trained according to the madrassah teachers’ assessment of their inclination “to engage in violence and acceptance of jihadi culture” versus their value as promoters of Deobandi or Ahl-i-Hadith sects or recruiters, the cable states. Recruits “chosen for jihad” would then be taken to “more sophisticated indoctrination camps”. “Locals identified three centres reportedly used for this purpose”. Two of the centres were stated to be in the Bahawalpur district, whereas one was reported as situated “on the outskirts of Dera Ghazi Khan city”. These centres “were primarily used for indoctrination”, after which “youths were generally sent on to more established training camps in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and then on to jihad either in FATA, NWFP, or as suicide bombers in settled areas”. The cable goes on to quote local officials criticising the PML-N-led provincial and the PPP-led federal governments for their “failure to act” against “extremist madrassas, or known prominent leaders such as Jaish-i-Mohammad’s Masood Azhar”. The Bahawalpur district nazim at the time told Hunt that despite repeatedly highlighting the threat posed by extremist groups and indoctrination centres to the provincial and federal governments, he had received “no support” in dealing with the issue unless he was ready to change his political loyalties. The nazim, who at the time was with the PML-Q, “blamed politics, stating that unless he was willing to switch parties…neither the Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz provincial nor the Pakistan People’s Party federal governments would take his requests seriously”. REFERENCE: Saudi Arabia, UAE financing extremism in south Punjab 2011-05-21 20:30:07 WikiLeak Cable Cable referenced: WikiLeaks # 178082.