IS SAUDI ARABIA FUNDING ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA?

This post provides evidence that the Saudi government funds a global network of Islamic madrasses (schools) exporting Wahhabism, the Saudi State’s official sect and radical ideology of al Qaeda.  This global network provides an endless supply of recruits for terrorist operations including the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, jihadists in North Africa, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Chechnya where the Boston Marathon bombers received training.  This information is important because the US government claims the Saudi State is an “ally” in the War on Terror.

Curtin Windsor, former U.S. Ambassador and Special Emissary to the Middle East during the Reagan administration, wrote an article on Saudi funding of terrorism.  It’s well sourced with many footnotes and is titled “Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism”.  On page 5 under the heading “Exporting Hatred”, Windsor says “the Saudis have spent at least 87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades.”  The footnote referenced security expert Alex Alexiev.

In 2003, Mr. Alexiev testified before the U.S. Senate and predicted the current situation with ISIS in Iraq.  There’s a link to the Senate hearing later in this post.  Also, check out the section titled “Causes of American Inaction” on page 8 of Mr. Windsor’s article.  Windsor says Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan…

“was also instrumental in the growth of what Daniel Pipes has called a culture of corruption that renders the executive branch of the American government incapable of dealing with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the farsighted and disinterested manner that US foreign policy requires.

Pipes points to a revolving door syndrome afflicting senior diplomats and policymakers who deal with the Saudis in their official capacities.  Very often, they have enjoyed lucrative post-government careers working as consultants for Saudi businessmen…”

In the PBS documentary Black Money, Prince Bandar plays a central role in global corruption.  During the opening segment, Prince Bandar says “I would be offended if I thought we had the monopoly on corruption”.

During Alex Alexiev’s testimony before the Senate in 2003, he said al Qaeda was only a symptom of Saudi Arabia’s global network of Islamic extremism.  And if the Saudi State is allowed to continue as the financial and ideological sponsor of groups like al Qaeda, the rise of a group like ISIS would be inevitable.  In spite of Mr. Alexiev’s warning to top Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan leaders say the emergence of ISIS was unforeseen.

Numerous sources, like this article in the UK Independent, cite Saudi Arabia as the primary source of funding for ISIS in Iraq.  While Saddam Hussein was in power, the Sunni minority controlled Iraq, but after the US removed Saddam, the Iranian backed Shiite majority took power.  This is unacceptable to the Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is fighting a proxy war with Iran.  The article in the Independent cites Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain’s intelligence Service.  The next five paragraphs are from the UK Independent’s article.

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar told Dearlove: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”  The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. 

Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasized the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.  He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the ISIS surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Iraq’s Sunni majority provinces, are beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with ISIS without their consent.  

The forecast by Prince Bandar, that the 100 million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them. “The Shia in general are getting very frightened after what happened in northern Iraq,” said an Iraqi commentator, who did not want his name published.  Shia see the threat as not only military but stemming from the expanded influence over mainstream Sunni Islam of Wahhabism, the puritanical and intolerant version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Drawing on past experience, Dearlove sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia, its Wahhabist faith, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s ISIS. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.  Click on the previous link to the UK Independent for more on this story.

In 2003, the U.S. Senate held a hearing titled “Wahhabi influence in the United States”.  It demonstrated the Saudi government’s role in funding terrorism and the Wahhabi threat to America.  Republican Jon Kyl chaired the hearing, the following is an excerpt from his opening statement.

“The problem we are looking at today is the State sponsored doctrine and funding of an extremist ideology that provides recruiting grounds, support infrastructure, and the monetary lifeblood of today’s international terrorists. The extremist ideology is Wahhabism, which is a major force behind terrorist groups like al Qaeda…Many questions have been asked about the role of Saudi Arabia and it’s official sect, a violent form of Islam known as Wahhabism…

All 19 hijackers [on 911] were Wahhabi followers and 15 of the 19 were Saudi subjects…Journalists and experts have said that Wahhabism is the source of the overwhelming majority of terrorist atrocities in Morroco, Indonesia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Chechnya…[Wahhabism] enjoys immense financial and political resources thanks to support from a sector of the Saudi State…”

After Chairman Jon Kyl’s opening statement, Democrat Charles Schumer said the Saudi’s “made a deal with the devil”.  He was a referring to the Saudi government’s support for Wahhabi clerics.  Schumer talked about Wahhabi infiltration of the U.S. prison system and the Pentagon, which have placed Wahhabi extremists in positions of influence.  Senator Schumer concluded his opening statement with the following:

“The process to counter this hateful ideology [Wahhabism] begins with Saudi Arabia….  The Saudi government must repudiate the Wahhabi extremism that is the source of much of this violence.  That means stopping the funding of extremist madrasses and purging the hate filled textbooks that populate Saudi schools….  If the Saudi’s do not end the funding and teaching of extremism, the cycle of terrorist violence wracking the globe will get worse.”

Unfortunately, Senator Schumer engaged in the kind of double talk that has allowed Saudi Wahhabism to morph into groups like ISIS.  Schumer repeatedly said Wahhabi preaching of hatred and violence against America is protected “free speech”.  Given Senator Schumer’s admission that Wahhabi preaching causes terrorism, I believe his decision to classify Wahhabi teaching as protected free speech, is treasonous.

Security expert Alex Alexiev testified during the Senate hearing.  He said “an astounding amount of money is being spent [by Saudi Arabia] for the specific purpose of preaching Wahhabi hatred.”  The Saudi State funds 10,000 extremist madrasses in Pakistan where approximately “1.7 million children are taught to hate”.  They don’t acquire marketable skills but are “perfectly prepared for a career in Jihad”.

Alexiev said more than 40 Wahhabi mosques have sprung up in northern Iraq and “we’re going hear from them”.  Twelve years after this prediction, the 40 Wahhabi mosques are located in territory claimed by ISIS.  Oops!  Alex suggested that US leaders tolerate Saudi funding of extremism and concluded his testimony with the following statement:

“The evidence of Saudi Wahhabi sponsorship of extremist networks is so overwhelming in my view, that for us to continue to tolerate it, guarantees that we are not going to be able to make meaningful and lasting progress in the war on terror for a long time to come”.

Six years after Mr. Alexiev told Senators that Saudi Arabia funds 10,000 extremist madrasses in Pakistan, Obama’s special envoy to Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, testified before Congress.  Rep. McCaul said Pakistan was the “epicenter” of the 911 attack, and asked about efforts to shut down Taliban madrasses teaching hate and violence in Pakistan.  Holbrooke said Pakistan and the US had done “almost nothing” to shut down madrasses, “but here we are, we have to start again”.

After dodging Rep. Rohrabacher’s question about Pakistan’s AQ Khan, who allegedly gave nuclear weapons technology to terrorists, Holbrooke said some Taliban funding comes from Saudi Arabia, “but we don’t have a program to shut that down now”.  This hearing was six years after Senator Jon Kyl said Saudi Arabia is the “monetary lifeblood of today’s international terrorists.”  But Bush and Obama had no program to shut down Saudi financing.

Furthermore, the Taliban movement has always been based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.  So the US invasion of Afghanistan will never end the terrorist threat originating in Pakistan, which like Saudi Arabia, is another US “ally” in the war on terror.  When asked if Pakistan’s military supports the Taliban, Holbrooke said US and Pakistani intelligence (ISI) helped set up terrorist organizations, and “there may be some serious legacy issues”.

Treasury Department lawyer, David Aufhauser, testified before Senator Kyl’s committee in 2003.  He acknowledged the role of Saudi charities in funding terrorism and said dialogue with the Saudi government “resulted in a far reaching charities initiative, at least a pledge of one…”.  But six years after the pledge, Saudi charities were still funding Islamic extremism, and the US still had no program to shut down Saudi funding.  Mr. Aufhauser emphasized the importance of stopping the funding of Islamic extremism and said

“Much of the evidence in this shadow war is suspect, it’s the product of torture, rewards, betrayals, and deceits.  But a financial record doesn’t lie, it has singular integrity in the War On Terror…I now know after the mission given to me after 911, that preventing a dollar from being misapplied [to fund terrorism], is perhaps the surest singular weapon we have to make sure that the homeland is secure.”

Given the US government’s indifference to Saudi funding of Islamic schools producing terrorists, it’s difficult to believe US officials are serious about stopping terrorism.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of U.S. troops have been maimed or killed fighting terrorism.

While testifying before the Senate in 2003, Alex Alexiev said the Saudis were funding extremist mosques in northern Iraq, and “we’re going hear from them”.  Northern Iraq borders Syria, and now al Qaeda in Iraq is on the march in Syria, trying to overthrow the Assad regime.  Al Qaeda was being linked to Saudi Arabia, so now US leaders protect their Saudi “allies” by referring to al Qaeda as ISIS.

All al Qaeda had to do was say they’re not backing ISIS and Western leaders took them at their word.  But that’s understandable, al Qaeda only killed 3025 Americans with their 911 attack, and al Qaeda only killed a few thousand U.S. troops in Iraq.  So why wouldn’t US leaders take al Qaeda leaders at their word?

The Syrian terrorists go by the name al Nusra, but they’re associated with Saudi Wahhabism like ISIS and al Qaeda.  Before the Wahhabists moved into Syria, they were preceded by Syria’s version of the Arab Spring, i.e., for months the Syrian people peacefully protested the Assad regime.  But brutal oppression by Assad opened the door for Wahhabists claiming they were defending the people from Assad.

Prince Bandar is now the head of Saudi intelligence.  He threatened Russia because it opposed the jihadists in Syria and supported Assad.  According to an article in the UK Telegraph, Bandar offered Russia a secret deal to control the world’s oil in exchange for ending support for Assad.  Bandar’s meeting with Putin was full of dire warnings but Putin said:  “Our stance on Assad will never change.  We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,”  Putin was referring to video footage of a jihadist eating the liver of a Syrian soldier.

It’s no accident that the Syrian people are left with a choice between a brutal dictator and Islamic fascism.  Leaving populations with a choice between two evils is a pattern being repeated in every country that experienced the Arab Spring.  This pattern seems to be a plan to spread the Saudi Wahhabi model of Sunni theo-fascism.  All around the world, political leaders use the resulting threat of terrorism as a pretext to restrict individual liberties.  Coincidentally, this also provides a steady stream of revenue for defense contractors.

President Obama allegedly opposes Assad’s mass murder of civilians so he proposed bombing the Syrian regime as a remedy.  But he backed down and took political cover behind Putin’s suggestion to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons.  Meanwhile, Assad continues to slaughter civilians with no attempt by the international community to hold him accountable.

Assad’s actions clearly constitute crimes against humanity punishable by the International Criminal Court (ICC).  But the liberal US media, which supports the ICC, doesn’t mention the ICC option because Obama could also be charged with war crimes.  The leftist media was screaming about Bush’s alleged war crimes, but when Bush passed the baton to Obama, talk of war crimes faded into the background.

The ICC, like the U.N., is controlled by corrupt globalists who oppose national sovereignty and individual rights, but the ICC should be used to prosecute Assad for crimes against humanity.

The Saudi monarchy backed Egypt’s military coup and removed President Morsi, the democratically elected member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  This article from The Guardian cites Dr. Maha Azzam’s analysis of Saudi motives: “What they had was a lethal equation, democracy plus Islamism, albeit under the Muslim Brotherhood.  That was a lethal concoction in undermining the [Saudi] kingdom’s own legitimacy in the long run.  They know full well they do not want democracy, but to have another group representing Islam was intolerable”.

The increasingly totalitarian US regime and Saudi monarchy differed on the method for installing a totalitarian regime in Egypt.  Obama’s support for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood effectively cloaked his totalitarian agenda in democracy, but the Saudi’s opted for a military coup.  Either way, they advance their totalitarian agenda.

Compelling evidence demonstrates the Saudi government’s role in funding a global network of Sunni Islamic extremism.  This network produces a constant supply of violent jihadists for ISIS, the Taliban, al Shabaab, Boko Haram, al Nusra, al Qaeda, and other Sunni extremist groups.  The Counter Jihad Report documents Saudi financing of Islamic extremism in Chechnya, which is where the Boston Marathon bombers were trained and radicalized.

But Bush and Obama insist the Saudi State is an ally in the War on Terror, and Obama supports Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.  These treasonous alliances allow the US and Saudis to play both sides of the War on Terror, and the resulting chaos, including the flood of refugees fleeing ISIS, provides a pretext for creating a global police state.

The Saudis and Gulf States spend Billions financing Islamic extremism, and wink wink, nod nod, the US spends Trillions fighting terrorism.  American citizens must condemn the US/Saudi alliance as treason, and demand accountability for the resulting loss of American lives, treasure, and freedom.

Presidents Obama and Bush put U.S. troops in harms way while allying themselves with regimes that fund the terrorists killing our troops.  Obama and Bush should be prosecuted in U.S. courts for aiding the enemy.  Why?  Their “allies”, the Saudi and Pakistani regimes, are financial and ideological safe havens for al Qaeda a.k.a. ISIS, and the Taliban.  A conviction for aiding the enemy carries a possible death sentence.

Creating order out of chaos is the tyrant’s method of choice.  Consider the US government’s actions since 911.  The Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, Homeland Security, TSA, and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process.

The intended result of the US/Saudi alliance is a clash of civilizations that generates wars for profit, and a geopolitical framework that only leaves citizens with a choice between two evils.  Iraq and Syria are prime examples.

Afghanistan is another example of creating order out of chaos.  And true to the pattern emerging from the Arab Spring, the order being created is a choice between two evils.  According to a report by John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Afghan opium production has exploded, which supports (choice #1) the Taliban, along with (choice #2) organized crime.  

The explosion in opiate production, unaffected by the $7.5 billion spent by the US since 2002 to combat it, puts “the entire US and donor investment in the reconstruction of Afghanistan at risk,” special inspector general John Sopko told a Senate panel in January.

Sopko said, “All of the fragile gains we have made over the last twelve years on women’s issues, health, education, rule of law, and governance are now, more than ever, in jeopardy of being wiped out by the narcotics trade which not only supports the insurgency, but also feeds organized crime and corruption.”

During his farewell speech as President of the United States of America, former Army General, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned Americans about the danger posed by a military industrial complex.  The link is a short video clip of President Eisenhower’s speech to the nation.

The US also plays both sides of the Sunni-Shia sectarian war via the US-China partnership.  The US turns a blind eye while China arms Iran with chemical, ballistic and nuclear weapons technology.  Iran then helps arm Syria and Hezbollah.  For more info check out this post on Communist China.

During the Clinton administration, John O’Neill was Director of Counter Terrorism at the FBI.  He repeatedly warned of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil, but frustrated by US officials who ignored his warnings, he went to work as head of security at the World Trade Center.  Mr. O’Neill was killed during the 911 attack.  To hear his story, watch the PBS documentary, “The Man Who Knew“.

ABC aired a film titled The Path To 911, which portrays the Clinton administration’s failure to stop the growing threat of al Qaeda.  It aired once and then was effectively banned.  There are a few clips available on Youtube.

Many families lost loved ones in the 911 attack.  And due to compelling evidence implicating the Saudi State, some 911 families refused payments from the US government and filed a Trillion dollar law suit against the Saudi government.  The Texas law firm Baker Botts represented the Saudi government against 911 families.

James Baker is a partner in Baker Botts, and he’s the former Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush.  Baker Botts succeeded in defeating the suit brought by 911 families.  It’s the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, or in this case oil, rules.

But the U.S. doesn’t need any Middle Eastern oil.  New technology like horizontal drilling has greatly increased U.S. reserves of natural gas and oil.  America’s natural gas reserves equate to three times the Saudi oil reserves.  And with natural gas already piped into millions of U.S. homes, natural gas could become our primary transportation fuel.

American gas and oil reserves, combined with coal deposits that would power the U.S. for hundreds of years, should make us totally energy independent.  But….  Check out the post Saudi Arabia, China, and United Arab Emirates, Own Critical U.S. Energy Infrastructure.

Comments are closed.