New details on US-Saudi deal suggest Washington supporting terrorist regime

New details of US-Saudi deal suggest Washington supports terror

 

by Don Hank

Bloomberg recently exposed the storykept under wraps for over 40 yearsof the US-Saudi petrodollar agreement under which the US agreed to use its military to protect the Saudi family in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding US dollars as payment for oil and buying US Treasuries. The US officials who disclosed this story said that King Faisal insisted the deal should be kept secret because anti-US sentiment in the Middle East was running high due to US support for the Yom Kippur War.

The fact that the Saudis insisted on secrecy in this petrodollar deal suggests that there may well still be secrets yet to be revealed.

Considering that all US involvement in wars and US support for government coups outside the Western Hemisphere since 1974 greatly benefitted the Saudis and harmed the US people (Saudi support for terror, trillions of dollars spent on wars all supporting Sunni Islamization), it is highly likely that part of this agreement – certainly an unwritten part – called for the US indirectly to help spread Wahhabism everywhere. Because this is exactly what the US government did in its foreign and military policy for over 40 years. Don’t tell me it was all a coincidence!

Recap:

GW Bush covered up Saudi complicity in the 2001 terror attacks on the Twin Towers, as reported here.

QUOTE:

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Bush’s Iraqi war ended up with the Assyrian Christians leaving the country in droves. They had survived 2000 years of persecution but finally succumbed to the US-Saudi-led war that installed their enemies in power. The Saudis aim to eliminate Christianity from all predominantly Muslim regions. Hence, it was a Saudi win, but, like all US military engagements outside the Western hemisphere, it was at the same time a devastating loss – in terms of money, morale and security – for the once-Christian US.

The US-led war in Kosovo converted this cradle of Serbian Christianity into an exclusively Muslim domain, where the last Christian residents, who had spent their lives there since infancy, were mercilessly persecuted and almost all Christian monuments, such as cemeteries and churches, were, and are still being, destroyed and desecrated (http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm). Again, this debacle was a clear-cut loss for the US people but a resounding victory in terms of Saudi goals. Indeed, Saudi money was reported to have “flooded Kosovo” after the war.

US Support for the Egyptian spring was apparently motivated by a desire to establish the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in that country in compliance with Saudi wishes. I say that because there is no way that US officials could have expected democracy to bloom in that hotbed of  Islamic fanaticism. It succeeded under Mursi until he was ousted by Al Sisi. During Mursi’s reign, Christians were persecuted. A Christian Egyptian lady I know told me her husband had traveled back to Egypt during the Mursi regime and when they asked him where he intended to visit, and he mentioned the name of a predominantly Christain town, he was unceremoniously put on the next flight back to the US. At the time of this telling, they had never learned the fate of his family. As stated above, the Saudis aim to eliminate Christianity from all predominantly Muslim regions. A major US loss, a resounding victory in terms of Saudi goals – until the Egyptian military stepped in.

Libya was run by a secular Muslim leader who established stability and relative peace among all factions including Christians. The Saudis also aim to eliminate all secular leaders, mostly because they promote tolerance of Christians and Shia. Within a year after the criminal murder of Ghadaffi, aided by US-NATO forces, Libya fell into the hands of warring factions, predominantly ISIS, which adheres to Saudi Wahhabism and is a US-Saudi brainchild. Another Saudi victory, another loss – and humiliation for We the People.

The US supports the ouster of Bashar Al-Assad, a non-Sunni (Saudi Wahhabism is a Sunni sect), who also protects the Christians in his country.  Assad is also an ally of Christian Russia, making him doubly a target of the Saudis. The US motivation is pure and simple: Keep the Saudis happy by trumping up mostly unproven charges against Assad and training terror groups to defeat him. The US slyly calls these groups “rebels” but all of them are Islamists who will introduce Shariah law and persecute Christians. Many are linked to Al-Qaeda and have also passed on US-donated arms to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The dogged Neocon press insists that Iran is the biggest supporter of terror, despite the fact that this largely Shiite country has never supported any of the terror groups that oppose the West, such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, all US-Saudi protégées. Arch-Neocon John McCain joked that he would like to bomb Iran. The US legislature was close to supporting an Israeli bombing raid on Tehran. This would have been another black eye for the US but a resounding victory for the Saudis, who aim to eliminate the Shiite religion everywhere in the world.

US antagonism for Russia can also be seen as part of this pattern of behavior intended to keep the Saudis happy.

The above recap of US foreign and military policy is ample circumstantial evidence that the most important elements of the secretive 40 year old petrodollar agreement are not known and may never come to light.

Nonetheless, this commentary is intended to encourage research in this area to see what might still be found, for examples, in records of classified phone, mail or email exchanges between the Washington government and the Saudis, and in the memories of officials involved in past US-Saudi transactions.

After all, confirmation that the government of the largest nominally Christian country in the world has been engaged for over 40 years in aiding and abetting the most intolerant and violent anti-Christian sect in the world – ie, Wahhabism – in its quest to eliminate Christianity everywhere might be a story of some interest.

The neglected Libyan public

Missing from the jubilant “world opinion” over the brutal murder and torture of the moderate Libyan leader is an analysis of Libyan street opinion. I think I know why no one is talking to them.

 

Don Hank

It was supposed to be all about the Libyan people. Remember? Yet missing in all the news on the subject of Libya are

1–the reaction of the LIBYAN PEOPLE to the rising specter of Sharia law. (Wasn’t it they whom we so bravely bombed residential areas to “save”?). They have had 40 years of a moderate Western-style judiciary. But they were lured by Western propaganda to seek “democracy” by overthrowing their moderate leader. The narrative was that they would be free, with a strong suggestion that Western style democracy was on the way. Now some are certainly already seeing that their new unelected Sharia law-advocating “leader,” the favorite of the Western Colonial Empire, is far from the freedom they expected.

2–an analysis (poll) of Libyan street opinion on the murder of Ghadaffi. All of a sudden, journalists supportive of “democracy” are oblivious to public opinion. But we’re used to that now, what with bailouts being decided far above our heads and reporters giving our objections short shrift. It’s only our money, after all.

The incontrovertible fact is that enough people in various cities supported Ghadaffi with their lives to prolong the war beyond expectations. Yet the press wants you to believe hatred for Ghadaffi and support for the new radical Islamist government are virtually universal.

Reported are only reactions of world leaders and the new government, i.e., influential elites who have no interest in how the people are treated but everything to gain financially and politically by playing along with the Western Ruling Class — aloof imperial strong men who hypocritically and absurdly supported the illegal torture and murder of prisoner of war Ghadaffi on “humane” grounds — but pretended to care about human rights long enough to take out this moderate leader and replace him with a radical who staunchly defends the lopping off of body parts and stoning as punishment for crimes and even sexual indiscretions. Welcome to democracy, Libya!

Virtually every Western “leader” supported the brutal torture and murder with gleeful words, even laughter or complicit silence.

It is reminiscent of how the US unilaterally instigated a coup in Iran to oust the “tyrannical” Shah only to see him replaced by a tyrant 10 times more heinous and cruel. Or for that matter, how they instigated a coup in Egypt to topple the “tyrant” Mubarek, who in fact was the most Western-friendly stabilizing factor in the region, only to replace him with an unelected military government that raided a Coptic Christian monastery the day they assumed power, wasting no time in stripping off their masks.

How deceitful our elites. How utterly gullible their subjects!

Will we ever learn?

Actually, we always do. After it is too late, like right now!

Read: http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=8

Will Muslim Africa join the EU?

Millions of Muslims  live in Europe but refuse to integrate. The EU wants even more. And now, Muslims countries to join the EU?

by Don Hank

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for the US and NATO interfering in the internal affairs of Libya, the US and the rest of the West interfering in Egypt, the UN taking sides in an election dispute in the Ivory Coast and using deadly force to install the Muslim candidate, while doing nothing to stop the slaughter of 1,000 Christians, etc.

There is the old knee-jerk accusation that it is all about oil. Yet Egypt has almost no oil. Neither does the Ivory Coast.

Remember that the EU has been importing Muslims into Europe at the rate of almost a million a year and a realistic estimate forecasts a Muslim majority in about 15-25 years in that continent.

Also recall that the Fabian Society (of which Bush pal Tony Blair is a member) was founded in the 1880s for the purpose of spreading socialism worldwide, and one of their immediate goals was to eliminate Christianity. Now do you suppose engineering a Muslim majority may help achieve that goal?

Also recall that every major conflict in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion has resulted in the murder, exile and/or persecution of indigenous Christian populations that were protected until the West got involved!

This is all circumstantial evidence, you say.

But for many years, an expansion of the EU into Africa has been in the works, and now a high-ranking EU official is recommending “deep and broad” integration with Africa, ostensibly to expand the EU “market.” This means, long-term, that African nations are now to be integrated into the EU. Which in turn means that eventually the Schengen agreement (open borders) would be extended to Islamic Africa.

Remember that the EU started out as an innocent little agreement (the EEC, European Economic Community – with the emphasis ostensibly on the market), then morphed into the EC (European Community — note that “economic” is no longer the focus, not even part of the name), and now is a supranational government whose top ranking officers (the European Commission) are not even elected. We used to call that kind of arrangement a dictatorship. We also used to call the kind of wealth redistribution policies this government practices communism.

My, how times have changed. Good thing communism is “dead.”

The EU’s William Hague wants to “broaden and deepen” ties with N. Africa:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/william-hague-argues-for-broad-and-deep-economic-integration-between-the-middle-east-and-the-eu.html

Sarkozy has wanted Mediterranean Union:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/europe/10iht-france.4.5656114.html

Why I am not on “our” side any more

“What do you mean ‘we,’ white man?”

Tonto, many moons ago

 

by Don Hank

Today’s morning paper reported that Qadaffi is winning out against the rebels in Libya.

Perhaps the Pravda article linked below will explain why I hope this secularist in a Muslim world is still in power tomorrow.

But first let’s look how the US (under 3 Democrat and 1 RINO presidents) intervened in Muslim countries to give people “freedom” and “democracy”:

Iran: Carter forced the Shah to step down by calling him a cruel dictator, and within a few weeks, a newly installed Islamic regime kidnapped our embassy personnel just to show their appreciation to Carter. Soon women were being slaughtered on the street for not wearing the proper head gear (as reported by Oriana Fallaci in her last book). Today, executions according to Sharia law are rampant under President Ahmadinejad. Not one western “leader” has called for him to step down.

Kosovo: “We” intervened to prevent “ethnic cleansing” against Muslims, although some locals were reporting that Muslims were also persecuting Christian Servs. Now the Muslims are slaughtering Christians there.

Iraq: within a year of “our” “victory” over secularist Saddam Hussein, Christians who once thrived under that dictator were either dead or had been exiled (most of the survivors of the Iraqi holocaust triggered by the Western allies live in Sweden today and Iraq is in chaos);

Egypt: As soon as the uprising started to heat up, Obama told the mostly secularist Mubarak (our best ally in the Middle East) to leave. Even before our intelligence could provide  a clear picture of who the rebels were, they were officially declared to be idealists yearning for “freedom” and “democracy.” As a prelude to the anti-Mubarak revolt, Coptic churches were burned by the rebels. Within a week after the coup, the military “we” supported were overrunning Coptic monasteries and slaughtering monks and priests. To top it off, the young democratic idealists yearning for freedom raped and beat CBS reporter Lara Logan just to show their gratitude for her sympathetic coverage.

Clearly, the secularists are being replaced one by one by Islamists.

As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear that there is a Lone Ranger* aspect to this “we.” You and I are not consulted by this “we” and there is no “the People” at the end of it.

And the more ground the “we” gains, the more Christians and other innocents lose their lives in once-peaceful regions.

Please click the link:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-03-2011/117103-nato_libya-0/

*For those who haven’t heard the joke, the Lone Ranger was to have come riding up to his sidekick Tonto gasping “Tonto, we’re surrounded by hostile Indians.” Tonto looked at him thru narrowed eyes and said “what do you mean ‘we,’ white man?”

Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

Danger ahead — Part I

Diário do Comércio, Olavo de Carvalho

Murdered by fanatical countrymen, Anwar El-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin paid the ultimate price for peace, but the shelf life of the product they purchased is rapidly expiring. Hosni Mubarak’s downfall removes from the scenario one of the few obstacles that have delayed the establishment of the grand Islamic strategic unity designed to establish the Universal Islamic Caliphate, and in so doing, to wipe Israel off the map. A few factors, which the enlightened minds of the usual international commentators cannot even remotely discern, contribute to the rise in danger level of this moment to the nth degree:

The Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological matrix of the revolutionary forces in the Islamic world, may not have given the initial impetus to the rebellion in Egypt, but it is surely the only political organization prepared to take advantage of the chaos and rule the country after Mubarak’s exit. The U.S. government is well aware of this and welcomes the rise of the Brotherhood, proving once again that Barack Hussein Obama has been deliberately working in favor of the enemies of the West. The soothing evasive responses by the State Department in recent days are so contradictory that they amount to a confession of falsehood: first, the Department of State swore that the Brotherhood would remain on the sidelines; then, when it became impossible to continue believing this, it assured us that the Muslim organization had changed, that it had become peaceable and meek as a lamb. Commentators hostile to the government noted that, in turning against Mubarak, Obama was following the example of Jimmy Carter, who, under the same pretext of promoting democracy, helped overthrow an allied government and ended up turning Iran into one of the most fearsome enemies of the United States, a dictatorship a thousand times more repressive than that of the former Shah. The difference, I believe, is that Carter seems to have acted out of sheer stupidity, while it is quite evident that Obama, whose career was sponsored by a Saudi pro-terrorist prince, and whose ties with the radical left are the most compromising you can imagine, is pursuing a rational plan designed to weaken the position of his country in the international context while systematically demolishing the economy at home.

The agricultural policy of the Obama administration seems to have been calculated to foment rebellion. Egypt, a desert country, depends primarily on American wheat, the price of which has risen 70 percent in the last months even as the dollardecreased in value, creating an untenable situation for the Egyptian people. Months earlier, economic analysts warned that the whole thing was about to explode (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/ 2011/01/31/107813/egypts-unrest-may-have-roots-in.html ).

In other Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen similar rebellions are gradually taking shape, and they are always directed to the same goal: to eliminate pro-Western governments and expand the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The state of panic that has spread among these governments can be assessed by the fact that, in recent months, they have imported more wheat than ever before, making the life of Egyptians even harder. [End of Part I. To be continued].

Translator: Alessandro Cota, Reviewer: Don Hank

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is also the founder of the Inter-American Institute. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.