Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (44091)	2/13/2002 9:01:21 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"They served side by side with the United States against Saddam Hussein. America protected them from an Iraqi invasion. The royal family of Saudi Arabia has been the friend of presidents — the reliable Arabs, we thought, from an often hostile desert. So how could it be that so many Saudis were among the hijackers? Correspondent Dennis Murphy reports. JOURNALIST STEPHEN SCHWARTZ says he wasn’t at all surprised that many of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Dennis Murphy: “Perfectly logical for you that 15 of the 19 hijackers would ultimately be identified as Saudis?” Stephen Schwartz: “Absolutely...” Murphy: “Makes sense?” Schwartz: “Absolutely.” Schwartz is writing a book strongly critical of the puritanical and, he says, intolerant strain of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. Schwartz’s view is harsh but one accepted by a growing number of critics of Saudi Arabia’s extremist clerics. Schwartz: “They preach a hatred that is so profound and so extraordinarily perverse it’s been called a hate for life itself.” DEEP HATRED FOR THE U.S. Some analysts say the iron grip of the royal family and their appointed fundamentalist clerics has brought seething resentment over the Saudi people’s denials of basic human freedoms. Anti-U.S. sentiment runs in a deep seam through many of the nations of the Islamic world. It’s a resentment and anger not only tolerated, but actively encouraged by repressive states. And no place is a better example of that than Saudi Arabia, where geology as as important as theology. As long as Saudi oil kept flowing, the U.S. basically ignored what was said about it — but if hateful Saudi rhetoric is part of this, can the U.S. afford to turn a deaf ear? Every drop of Saudi oil is owned by the kingdom’s royal family which controls every aspect of Saudi life. Oil money bought a comfortable middle-class life for most Saudis. But the catch is, no political dissent is allowed — no parliament, and certainly no television or newspapers speaking critically of the Royals. The Kingdom’s only law is the word of the Koran. And who’s laying down the law — women must wear veils, no movies allowed? Writer Schwartz says it’s the fundamentalist clerics chosen by the royal family, called the Wahhabi sect. Schwartz: “So the Wahhabi clerics are an arm of the state and they rule the religious life of the people as the Saudi royal family rules the political, financial, social life.” But some analysts say the iron grip of the royal family and their appointed fundamentalist clerics has brought seething resentment over the Saudi people’s denials of basic human freedoms. And, those analysts say, with nowhere for that bottled-up poltitical rage to be expressed, it spills out of the mosques in the form of fiery, crowd-pleasing sermons about the treachery of the West, the infidels. These uniquely Saudi — Wahhabist — tirades are exported to the wider Islamic world like the endless tankers of oil that pay for it all. AND WE PAY THE BILL? Murphy: “So the clerics, the Saudi clerics preach hatred of the West? Hatred of the United States?” Schwartz: “Absolutely.” Murphy: “And the royal family permits it?” Schwartz: “Absolutely.” Murphy: “Let me see if I get this ‘house-that-jack-built’ right: They sell us the oil. We give them billions of dollars. These billions of dollars build mosques around the Islamic world...” Schwartz: “Outside the Islamic world as well...” Murphy: “In which hateful speech is vented against us who are ultimately financing it all?” 4 of 5 History of Islam Schwartz: “That’s right. And the Wahhabi argument is that the unbelievers are stupid and it’s OK to take advantage of them.” Murphy: “So we ended up financing the people that came to bomb us?” Schwartz: “That’s right. I mean nothing would be a better expression of Wahhabism as an ideology than the idea of fleecing the West, at the same time that you’re preparing to kill the West.” To be sure there are terrorists and their supporters based across the Middle East — in Egypt, Syria and the Sudan. But it’s the Saudis who are being accused since Sept. 11 of incubating the violent rhetoric that inspires them. RIDING THE TIGER Journalist Andrew Sullivan: “You certainly go to the Saudis and say: ‘Do you understand the Frankenstein you’ve created? It’s gonna destroy you, too.’” Sullivan, of the New York Times Magazine, believes the Saudi royal family is perilously riding the tiger by showing two contradictory faces: moderate Arab friend of the West and the incendiary defender of Islam against the infidels. ‘They have... bought off and appeased fundamentalist opponents by saying, ‘Don’t topple us.... Go to America and make trouble over there.’ — ANDREW SULLIVAN Journalist Sullivan: “They have fostered and festered and bought off and appeased fundamentalist opponents by saying, ‘Don’t topple us. We’ll give you these schools. Don’t topple us. We’ll allow you free rein. Don’t topple us. We’ll send you money to set up your schools for hate all over the Middle East. Don’t topple us. Go to America and make trouble over there.” Murphy: “Would the U.S. care a jot for Saudi Arabia if it were bone-dry? Not a drop of oil?” Sullivan: “No.” So if the Saudis are being as duplicitous as the journalists say, then why not sever diplomatic relations with them? The answer is the United States doesn’t want to isolate and destabilize the Saudi royals. Sullivan: “If your choice is to lose 25 percent of the world’s oil or keep propping these people up for a few more years, you’re gonna keep propping them up for a few more years.” The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been quick to condemn the hijackers as “inhuman.” The Saudi ambassador to the U.S. denounced the terrorists as “Muslims in name only” and denied any terrorist links to his government. “Dateline” repeatedly asked the Saudi kingdom to discuss its relations with the U.S. but we received no response. Wyche Fowler, Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, says America should be cautious about pushing too hard for democratic reforms. Wyche Fowler: “I don’t think we can dictate to any country who have different cultures and have thousand-year histories of their structure, be it tribal, be it based on the Koran. We can’t tell them that American democracy is the only way to govern their land.” But where do we go from here, with Osama Bin Laden and tens of thousands of others in Egypt, Pakistan and the Gulf oil states responding to the hateful speech and teachings of the Saudi clerics, would-be martyrs prepared to do anything to stop the unbelievers? A place to begin, some think, is with a hard-nosed talk with the Saudi royal family about making changes to ensure their survival and ours. Schwartz: “A regime in Arabia that was open to all the diverse forms of Islam and was not controlled by the Wahhabis would be a regime that would promote a more tolerant and pluralistic view in the Islamic world. Murphy: “Your opinion, should Americans be looking at Saudi Arabia as a real security question, a security issue for them?” Schwartz: “Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. It’s a major ally that has made major mistakes, that has betrayed us, that has painted itself into a very difficult corner. But yes, Americans should be very concerned about security issues in Saudi Arabia.” " msnbc.com