0
Wednesday 14 May 2014 - 07:08

Fabrications and Lies - Al Saud, history of a treason – PART TWO -

Story Code : 382254
Fabrications and Lies - Al Saud, history of a treason – PART TWO -
To better understand the which Al Saud has played in the Middle East it is key to understand that from the beginning they all have been agent of Great Britain.

Britain used Al Saud to precipitate the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the wake of WWI. A further purpose of the WWI was to cause the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, in order to free the land of Palestine from its grasp, leading to the creation of the Zionist state of Israel. 

To further aggravate the situation against the Ottomans, Britain deceptively employed the assistance of Sharif Hussayn of Mecca, who belonged to the Hashimite dynasty, descendants of the Prophet, who had traditionally administered the Haramayn, or two holy precincts of Mecca and Medina. Sharif Hussayn was initially allied with the Ottomans and the Germans, but he was dismayed by the increasing discrimination against non-Turks of the Ottoman Empire by the Young Turks. He was finally convinced by the British that his assistance would be rewarded instead by the creation of an Arab empire, encompassing the entire span between Egypt and Persia, with the exception of imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the Syrian coast. 

The British also renewed their special relationship with the Wahhabi sect, and its leader, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. Following the collapse of the first Saudi insurgency at the hand of Mohammed Ali Pasha, the Wahhabi movement was largely reconstituted, but internal disputes over succession had brought about its demise in 1891 Ibn Saud’s father, Abdul-Rahman, fled with his family to Kuwait, leaving Riyadh under the occupation of the Ottomans. In January 1902, Ibn Saud led a raid to regain control of Riyadh.

By providing the excuse that Hussayn lacked disciplined fighting forces to be able to maintain the region, the British lent support to their agent Ibn Saud. Therefore, after WWI, with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and with British assistance, Ibn Saud and his Ikhwan, or “brotherhood”, the shock troops of Wahhabism, set out to conquer the entirety of the Peninsula.

Ever since their rise to power, Al Saud has conspired against the Arab people, keen to destroy them and Islam from within, keen to spread hatred and animosity in between the people of Islam – Sunni and Shia – as to better forward the goals of their Zionists masters and their allies, the United States and Britain.

It is to assert control over the entire of the Middle East which Al Saud has first sought to enslave Yemen, a nation which carried within the promise of greatness due to its vast natural resources and key geo-strategic position within the region. It is to steal Yemen’s rich arable land and oil resources which Al Saud invaded Yemen northern provinces of Najran, Jizan and Aseer in 1934.

Al Saud also arranged for Yemen President Ibrahim Al Hamdi to have him replace with a pliable pawn who for the sale of money would allow Saudi Arabia to lead from afar, regardless of what it would cost the nation of Yemen. One has only to look at former Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s political legacy to understand with which systemic Al Saud has destroyed Yemen.

But Al Saud’s treachery does not stop there, in the late 1980s, Al Saud assisted the British and the US in creating an army of Mujahedeen to oppose the rise of the Soviet Union. From the shores of Libya to Sudan and across the greater region Al Saud has served Zionists’ agenda, plotting in the shadows.

So far only the Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to denounce and oppose Al Saud, which is exactly why Saudi Arabia has been so intent on demonizing Tehran and its message. Al Saud’s malice knows no bound.

They have plotted and schemes, lied and cheated, killed and tortured their way through – from the murder of President Rafik Hariri to the attempted toppling of President Bashar Al Assad in Syria, Al-Saud’s hands are everywhere.

Since the eighteenth century, and in conjunction with the Wahhabi religious establishment, Saudi Arabia became the centre for a new brand of religious imperialism based on sectarian movements. For nearly a century, the kingdom’s religious fervour kept the oil-rich country in the Western political camp. Today, the existence of radical Islamic groups is in part a legacy of the Saudi form of Islam, not Islam itself, and the Saudi-US alliance, and of political decisions made to address a different set of security concerns which helped no one accept the US projects.

  While Islam itself as a faith is not a threat to international security, it is Saudi Islam that is a threat. Indeed, it is fair to say that the problems within the Muslim world today rise not from Islam itself, but from the Saudi form of Islam, Muslim religious leaders who are relying on Saudi support, and their own interpretations of the Quran. It is also fair to say that questions pertaining to why Americans see Islam as a threat to world stability is because of the American failures to distinguish between Islam as a faith and Saudi Islam. In the US, Islam has been perceived as a threat to its civilization. However, while Americans knew that Islam itself is not a threat to their civilization, the majority of American politicians, journalists, and ideologists have ignored the truth that the threat is coming from Saudi Islam. This is seen as a tactic to avoid any damage to the relations with the House of Saud in order to keep economic and political interests alive.

 As a result, the Saudi-US relationship and the Saudi Wahhabi expansionist policy not only transform Muslim world politics, but also world politics. Saudaisation movements may expand into broader struggle throughout the Arab and Muslim nations and beyond. In some parts of the Muslim world, steps toward Saudaisation have already begun while the US is turning a blind eye to the Saudi rulers. At the same time, the US is also busy trying to convince the world that their policies towards Saudi Arabia is about promoting democracy and protecting human rights.
Comment