Returning to the subject of Wahhabi.   
      
    **************************************************************************   
      
    http://tinyurl.com/ny4y6u3   
      
    Zakaria: The Saudis Are Mad? Tough!   
      
    Why we shouldn't care that the world's most irresponsible   
    country is displeased at the U.S. By Fareed Zakaria Monday,   
    Nov. 11, 2013   
      
    America's middle east policies are failing, we are told, and   
    the best evidence is that Saudi Arabia is furious. Dick Cheney,   
    John McCain and Lindsey Graham have all sounded the alarm about   
    Riyadh's recent rejection of a seat on the U.N. Security   
    Council. But whatever one thinks of the Obama Administration's   
    handling of the region, surely the last measure of American   
    foreign policy should be how it is received by the House of   
    Saud.   
      
    If there were a prize for Most Irresponsible Foreign Policy it   
    would surely be awarded to Saudi Arabia. It is the nation most   
    responsible for the rise of Islamic radicalism and militancy   
    around the world. Over the past four decades, the kingdom's   
    immense oil wealth has been used to underwrite the export of an   
    extreme, intolerant and violent version of Islam preached by its   
    Wahhabi clerics.   
      
    Go anywhere in the world--from Germany to Indonesia--and you'll   
    find Islamic centers flush with Saudi money, spouting   
    intolerance and hate. In 2007, Stuart Levey, then a top Treasury   
    official, told ABC News, "If I could snap my fingers and cut off   
    the fun ding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia." When   
    confronted with the evidence, Saudi officials often claim these   
    funds flow from private individuals and foundations and the   
    government has no control over them. But many of the   
    foundations were set up by the government or key members of the   
    royal family, and none could operate in defiance of national   
    policy; the country is an absolute monarchy. In a December 2009   
    cable, leaked by WikiLeaks in 2010, then Secretary of State   
    Hillary Clinton confirmed tha t Saudi Arabia remained a   
    "critical financial base" for terrorism and that Riyadh "has   
    taken only limited action" to stop the flow of funds to the   
    Taliban and other such groups.   
      
    Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries in the world to   
    recognize and support the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan   
    until the 9/11 attacks. It is also a major player in Pakistan,   
    now home to most of the world's deadliest terrorists. The   
    country's former Law Minister Iqbal Haider told Deutsche Welle,   
    the German news agency, in August 2012, "Whether they are the   
    Taliban or Lashkar-e-Taiba, their ideology is Saudi Wahhabi   
    without an iota of doubt." He added that there was no doubt   
    Saudi Arabia was s upporting Wahhabi groups throughout his   
    country.   
      
    Ever since al-Qaeda attacked Riyadh directly in 2003, the   
    Saudis have stamped down on terrorism at home. But they have not   
    ended support for Wahhabi clerics, centers, madrasahs and   
    militants abroad. During the Iraq War, much of the support for   
    Sunni milit ants came from Saudi sources. That pattern continues   
    in Syria today.   
      
    Saudi Arabia's objections to the Obama Administration's   
    policies toward Syria and Iran are not framed by humanitarian   
    concerns for the people of those countries. They are rooted in a   
    pervasive anti-Shi'ite ideology. Riyadh has long treated all   
    other versi ons and sects of Islam as heresy and condoned the   
    oppression of those groups. A 2009 report from Human Rights   
    Watch details the ways in which the Saudi government, clerics,   
    religious police and schools systematically discriminate   
    against the local Shi'ite population, including arrests,   
    beatings and, on occasion, the use of live ammunition. (And not   
    just the Shi'ites. In March 2012, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti   
    issued a fatwa declaring that it was "necessary to destroy all   
    the churches in the Arabian Peninsu la.")   
      
    The regime fears that any kind of empowerment of the Shi'ites   
    anywhere could embolden the 15% of Saudi Arabia's population   
    that is Shi'ite--and happens to live in the part of the country   
    where most of its oil reserves can be found. That's why the   
    Saudis s ent troops into neighboring Bahrain during the Arab   
    Spring of 2011, to crush the Shi'ite majority's uprising.   
      
    Saudi royals have been rattled by the events in their region   
    and beyond. They sense that the discontent that launched the   
    Arab Spring is not absent in their own populace. They fear the   
    rehabilitation of Iran. They also know that the U.S. might very   
    soon f ind itself entirely independent of Middle Eastern oil.   
      
    Given these trends, it is possible that Saudi Arabia worries   
    that a seat on the U.N. Security Council might constrain it   
    from having freedom of action. Or that the position could shine   
    a light on some of its more unorthodox activities. Or that it   
    could fo rce Riyadh to vote on issues it would rather ignore. It   
    is also possible that the Saudis acted in a sudden fit of pique.   
    After all, they had spent years lobbying for the seat. Whatever   
    the reason, let's concede that, yes, Saudi Arabia is angry with   
    the U. S. But are we sure that's a sign Washington is doing   
    something wrong?   
      
    TO READ MORE BY FAREED, GO TO time.com/zakaria   
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)