Saudi Officials Linked to Jihadist Group in WikiLeaks Cables

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: Wall Street Journal

Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, had high-level contacts with America’s most deadly adversary in Afghanistan, the Haqqani network, according to purported Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

The documents, which couldn’t be independently verified, say the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan met in 2012 with Nasiruddin Haqqani, the chief fundraiser for the jihadist group who has been on a United Nations terrorism watch list since 2010.

In the meeting, Mr. Haqqani requested medical treatment in Saudi Arabia for his father, Jalaluddin Haqqani, the founder of the terrorist organization, the diplomatic correspondence says. The documents indicate the elder Haqqani carries a Saudi passport.

The Saudi embassy in Islamabad wasn’t available to comment, and Afghan officials didn’t immediately respond to the allegations. Senior U.S. officials said they were reviewing the reports but they had no immediate comment. Earlier this month, Osama Nugali, a Saudi foreign ministry spokesman, said that many of the documents published by WikiLeaks “have been clearly fabricated.” But he also said that the documents “didn’t give any information other than that formerly announced by the ministry” on international or regional issues.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-officials-linked-to-jihadist-group-in-wikileaks-cables-1435529198

[AuntPatsy]

1. Anyone surprised?

[iandhr]

2. I am shocked shocked to find gambling going on here.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

4. CNN is, they thought it was gay people.

[cosmicone]

3. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the main terrorist nations

I don't have any clue why we keep supporting them.

[happyslug]

5. Oil

Since the 1970s Saudi Arabia has been one of the top three oil producers in the world. The other two have been the US and either the Former Soviet Union or Russia.

Since the 1970s the US has been a net oil IMPORTER, so US production can NOT set world wide oil prices. Thus world wide oil prices has to be set by the top two oil exporters, Russia or Saudi Arabia, depending on how much the "swing supplier" produces. Russia has refused to restrict its production and the US control over Russia has always been weak, thus that leaves Saudi Arabia.

The US is like most drug addicts, its supplier can do no wrong. One group of people believe the recent drop in the price of oil is an attempt by the House of Saud to get back in control over the oil market. The House of Saud had control till about 2002 when the price of oil started to slowly increase, the House of Saud made several attempts to control the price, but they all failed till oil prices peaked in 2008 as marginal US oil fields (The Fracked Fields) came on line. Speculation was riff at the time, speculation drove prices above what it should have been, and then below where it should have stopped (That is what speculation does, but only for brief time periods of no more then six months and in most cases less then three months).

This group says the House of Saud wants control of the price of oil and thus wants the marginal US oil fields either out of production OR not producing enough to make the US an oil exporter.

I am of another school of thought. That the House of Saud is in a generational change and the grandsons of King Saud I (died 1952, all of the Kings of Arabia since 1952 have been his sons) are fighting it out who will control what. Salafistism/Whabbahism is the religion of the House of Saud, and of ISIS and al Queda and is part of that fight.

The House of Saud needs to know what income it has to spend, and that depends on the price of oil being steady. Thus the increase in the price of oil from 2000 to 2008 was fully acceptable to the House of Saud, but the drop after 2008 was a disaster. Various attempts have been made to control the price of oil, all have failed. They will continue to fail but efforts will be made to control the price of oil for the House of Saud needs the money from the oil to fight its "Enemies" (The term "Enemies" is a broad term, for who the members of the House of Saud wants to defeat are each other but they can that by showing they are better at spreading Salafistism/Whabbahism better then other members of the family, thus the recent wars in the Middle East).

Wars cost money, that was fine as long as the price of oil went up till 2008. When the price of oil went down, all types of expenses had to be cut, including money to keep Yemen's Shittes quiet. Worse, Russia suffered a wheat production problem in 2008 and Putin decided it was better to keep local prices low then to sell wheat at the highest price, forbade exports of grain from Russia. This kept the price of bread in Russia low, but it dramatically increased the price of bread throughout the Middle East (Even Egypt exported wheat due to its high prices, while receiving US grain as a subsidy). This increase in the price of bread was the main reason for the "Arab Summer" that the House of Saud quickly mobilized to suppress. Bread prices have dropped since the Arab Summer, but it made the situation in the Middle East to hot for the House of Saud. After suppressing the Shiite revolts in the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia decided the Mother Brotherhood had to go out of Egypt. The Egyptian Military was cooperative but understood one fact, if they did a Coup AND Qaddafi then intervened, the Egyptian enlisted ranks would desert to the Libyans and the Libyans and Egyptians would restore the Moslem Brotherhood. The Libyans would then leave, but make sure the remaining Egyptian Military supports the Moslem Brotherhood.

Thus Qaddafi had to go first and the war to destroy Qaddafi. The support for that war came out of Egypt, but NOT from the Moslem Brotherhood, the support was from the Egyptian Military using Saudi Money. When that was NOT enough, NATO intervene through the push from the US to "Protect the innocent" which of course did not include anyone who supported Qaddafi. Libya is within range of NATO Air bases in Sicily, thus the operation could be done with minimal in flight refueling.

NATO has bases on Cyprus, but it is questionable if those bases could be used to support air attacks on Syria, both British Air Bases are within mortar and Artillery range of Cyprus Greek Government Forces, which means the Cyprus Greeks could deny the use of both fields to NATO. The Greeks have close connections with Iran, Iran supplies them their natural gas and oil (And that is via Turkey, thus Turkey has been careful not to openly support opposition to Assad in Syria, for fears that Iran and Russia will cut off Turkey's oil and natural Gas Supplies).

Notice, it sooner or later comes back to who is supplying whom with oil and Natural Gas. The US supports the House of Saud, for Saudi Arabia has been the "Swing producer" the producer that sets world wide oil prices since the 1970s. Russia is #2 on that list of oil exporters and thus feared.

China is presently an importer of Oil and Coal. China's long term plan is to replace both with Natural Gas from Russia, increase Hydro electrical power AND electricity from Nuke plants (China is also a large producer of Solar energy panels, but that is more aimed at the US and European markets, but will affect even China). China is also trying to grab all of the Natural Gas in the South China Sea.

At present oil is still the #1 source of energy world wide and Saudi Arabia is the #1 exporter of oil. Russia is #2. Thus the US wants to be friends with Saudi Arabia and thus the House of Saud can do not wrong. This is because the other choice, abandon the House of Saud and embrace Russia means also embracing China and right now China is moving to became the #1 Super power with the help of Russia. The US opposes that situation so it stays with the House of Saud.

[flamingdem]

6. Well that explains some things

like the free reign Saudi Arabia has in Yemen. And some other things. Well done!

[happyslug]

9. Our Drug Supplier can do no wrong

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

And as long as the US AND Europe are dependent on Oil from the Persian Gulf, we will let the House of Saud do as it wants. This will be true even if the US becomes a net oil exporter in the next few years (Predicted, but then only for about 18 months, and then only at the price of oil above $90 a barrel, something that oil has NOT been able to hold).

We are in a dangerous time periods. Alliances are going to change. Europe is becoming more and more dependent on Russian Natural Gas and oil, and thus the US is losing control over Europe (people forget from 1859 till the 1960s not only was the US the #1 oil producer, it was the #1 oil exporter, this ended about 1970 when the US became an oil importers).

After the 1956 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars, Saudi Arabia and its fellow Arab oil exporters did an oil embargo. These embargoes had no effect on the US for the US was still a net oil exporter in 1956 and 1967. In 1973 the Arabs attacked Israeli again, and the Arabs did a third embargo, but the US was a net oil importer so it hit the US hard. In many ways the 1973 Oil Embargo hit the US harder then the more severe cut off of oil in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution for the simple reasons Americans were NOT expecting an oil shortage just because the Arabs cut off oil.

After that embargo the US made a deal with the House of Saud, the US would protect them if they never again cut off oil. In 1973 the US was relying on the Shah of Iran to do that protection, so he was permitted to buy any piece of US Military hardware he wanted. Then the 1979 revolution occurred and the House of Saud went into panic mode and demanded US protection. The US did and when Saddam took Kuwait, the House of Saud panicked again and the US sent in troops to protect Saudi Arabia and restore Kuwait to the Control of the Emir of Kuwait.

The US has been very good to the house of Saud, we have protected them over and over again. When the US could not do something for the House of Saud, we arranged for someone else to do it instead (The French are rumored to have sent their special forces to clear out a group of radicals that controlled the Grand Mosque in Mecca, but it appears the French just trained the Pakistanis who did the actual assault):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure#Seizure

Thus our drug supplier can do not wrong and until the US gets serious about eliminating the US dependence on oil, we will continue to support the House of Saud.

[JonLP24]

16. House of Saud when they made the deal with Roosevelt

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:19 AM - Edit history (1)

in return for cheap oil they asked for the US to military protect them so defend them was part of the original agreement. Also to go to them first for their opinion to do something in the region which the very next President abandoned with Truman & Israel -- indicating his concerns were with "Justice not Oil"

What changed in the oil embargo, particularly was guns for oil. That especially poured gasoline on the fire. Not so much protect them which the US will answer the call to but the billions arms deals which they do what they do.

The Pakistan ISI stepped in for the Bahrain uprisings and assisted with the brutal crackdown of protestors -- hired thugs "mercenaries". US quietly sold them a weapons package during this crackdown, they reason quietly is because if it is under $1 million then the US doesn't need Congressional approval but no info (that I could find) how much was sold. Also the US lifted the freeze on Egypt while they were having mass trials handing out life sentences for attending a protest. I'm not sure the full details of the 70s but certainly the Pakistan ISI is very interesting. They organized, trained, and branded the Taliban and they are obviously involved in Al-Qaeda or they were but it is one country I really need to learn more about trying to figure out what is real and why? In any case I'm so glad there is a "trust deficit" I hear so much about.

(The title is wrong. The US was called a stepmother by the person asking the question -- a stepmother that is impossible please but don't know why or what or WTH we are doing over there though I'm willing to wager a get rich quick scheme is what it is we are doing because the war on terrorism stuff makes no sense logically particularly the source of the ideology but not to mention the human rights violations the Saudi-coalition is known for.

On edit -- I overlooked Kuwait but there was way more to that. Kuwait was the last of the Arabian Peninsula countries to refuse our "assistance", didn't want us there for the longest time until 1987 when they wanted the US flag on their flags to fly on their ships so it was on opportunity to become good friends, plus Saddam Hussein nationalized oil production in the 70s so it was an opportunity and this is where the primary staging territory is. CENTCOM is in Camp Arif Jan, Kuwait which is actually where I was stationed but nothing high up the food chain as I was in Zone 6 while the Olympic Sized Swimming Pool, mall, and top shelf gymnasium (where Obama "played ball with the troops" in his 2008 presidential campaign) and the 5 story building where CENTCOM is Zone 1.

Side story. I was in transportation, long haul semi convoys. We didn't transport weapons hardly ever because when we did there was a big show when we did which my Platoon Sergeant was tasked with the 1 weapons convoy. We changed every tire for a brand new tire, replaced every lock for a new lock all to drive the grand distance from Camp Arif Jan to Kuwaiti Naval Base which probably was exported to who the hell knows where or to some stockpile somewhere I have no idea.

[JonLP24]

17. Jordan proposed "Houthi sanctions"

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:56 AM - Edit history (3)

at the UN Security Council (this is a really screwed up system only 4 or 5 permanent nations -- at-least balance there) and 10 temporary members with one that can sponsor stuff. At-this time it was Jordan which US & Saudi Arabia strongly favored the Houthi Sanctions. Basically no one can give them weapons, they are required to give up and release "political prisoners" which amazed me because how do they have political prisoners already but the hypocrisy & double standard of it with the Hadi Government is a top 5 corrupt country "kleptocracy" and with a very brutal human rights record that lock up people for being Houthi or a suspicious of being a Houthi loyalist as well as Sunnis in the South (the old North & South Yemen divide -- Saudi backed the north & the South was "socialist/marxist" backed by the USSR until the funds dried up and they reunificated followed by a "socialist purge" but not long after there was the 1994 Yemen Civil War -- basically civil wars since the 1960s). Also the former President who also happens to be Houthi was also sanctioned.

Russia was actually calling for both sanctions for all sides & humanitarian pauses in the Saudi airstrikes because they has been a problem with refugees trying to escape the country with all the bombing going on. Including US citizens. That was denied & Russia ended up abstaining from the vote which is effectively a "no vote" but the Houthi sanctions were passed (I imagine rather easily based on the lineup like Nigeria which is owned by Shell).

So we end up doing a lot to help the Saudi-coalition bomb them with American made top flight helicopters and planes which includes Jordan Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. All but Sudan (that I know of) receive US arms deals except Sudan (that i know of but somebody supplies them) as I imagine it would be incredibly controversial though the US media no longer covers them except to report George Clooney reporting a human rights violation (remember Rwanda?). Also everyone is sanctioned by the US (not referring to the UN-type), if you used your phone to order something from the US you can't deliver it to Sudan. They won't let you -- unless the company is willing to get hemmed up. So consider the financial incentive from the defense industry to push war because all those countries are going to need a refill of $1.5 million Lockheed Martin bombs dropped for one example.

On edit -- I don't know exactly what has been spent to "keep Houthis quiet" except maybe to send it to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to "silence them" but there has been a lot of rumbling in Yemen far outside the Houthis. What outrages Saudi Arabia is the religious minority they are specifically ramping up and targeting. They also don't like Socialism or anything that gives back money to the people. They are just like "Qatar's World Cup slaves" which is the status quo that the DoD and US oil companies are guilty of.

Southern Movement

The Southern Movement, sometimes known as the Southern Mobility Movement, Southern Separatist Movement, or South Yemen Movement, and colloquially known as al-Hirak (Arabic: الحراك الجنوبي‎ [1] is a popular movement active in the former South Yemen since 2007, demanding secession from the Republic of Yemen.

After the union between South Yemen and North Yemen on May 22, 1990, a civil war broke out in 1994, resulting in the defeat of the weakened southern armed forces and the expulsion of most of its leaders, including the former Secretary-General of the Yemeni Socialist party and the Vice-President of the unified Yemen, Ali Salim al-Beidh.[citation needed]

After the 1994 civil war and the national unity which followed, many southerners expressed grievance at perceived injustices against them which remained unaddressed for years. Their main accusations against the Yemeni government included widespread corruption, electoral fraud, and a mishandling of the power-sharing arrangement agreed to by both parties in 1990. The bulk of these claims were levelled at the ruling party based in Sana'a, led by President Ali Abdullah Saleh. This was the same accusation given by the former southern leaders which eventually led to the 1994 civil war.[citation needed]

Many southerners also felt that their land, home to the much of the country’s oil reserves and wealth, had been illegally appropriated by the rulers of North Yemen. Privately owned land was seized and distributed amongst individuals affiliated with the Sana'a government. Several hundred thousand military and civil employees from the south were forced into early retirement, and compensated with pensions below the sustenance level. Although such living standards and poverty was ripe throughout all parts of Yemen, many residents of the south felt that they were being intentionally targeted and dismissed from important posts, and being replaced with northern officials affiliated with the new government.[citation needed]

In May 2007, southern strife took a new turn. Grieving pensioners who had not been paid for years began to organise small demonstrations calling for equal rights and an end to the economic and political marginalization of the south. As the popularity of such protests grew and more people began to attend, the demands of the protests also developed. Eventually, calls were being made for the full secession of the south and the re-establishment of South Yemen as an independent state. The government's response to these protests was dismissive, labelling them as ‘apostates of the state’.[citation needed]

<snip>

The movement remains popular and is growing across the south of Yemen, especially in areas outside of the former capital Aden where government control is limited. In the mountainous region of Yafa - now termed the 'Free South' or الجنوب الحر - the rule of law is imposed by a network of tribes who have all pledged allegiance to the South Yemen Movement. Just minutes outside of Aden, flags of the former South Yemen can be seen raised in the open and graffitied upon many walls, a practice which has now been made illegal by the government. Many Northern Yemeni Houthi citizens involved with the 2011 Yemeni uprising against Saleh's government are trying to develop an alliance with the South Yemen Movement.[citation needed]

After the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état by the Houthis, Southern Movement demonstrators and militants seized control of government buildings in Aden, as well as Aden International Airport, where they hoisted the flag of South Yemen, and bloodlessly took over police checkpoints in Ataq. Officials in Aden Governorate and several others, including Hadhramaut Governorate, said they would no longer take orders from Sana'a as a result of the coup. The Southern Movement reportedly deployed armed fighters in and around Aden to counter a "possible attack".[2][3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Movement

The whole West area, especially Northwest is Houthi territory. The majority of the South are Sunni. You probably don't hear of them much though I imagine you hear a lot of AQAP which the area is a breeding ground for recruiting but outside of killing (Houthis) and plotting terrorist attacks in the West I'm not sure what their primary goals are in Yemen outside of finding recruits but the media has forgotten the Southern Movement which historically has supported populism (socialism & wahabbism don't mix hence Saudi Arabia) but it is the religious minority aspect of it that really outrages Saudi Arabia.

On edit -- the bold is what I added rather than what is on the Wikipedia page.

[Betty Karlson]

7. Yes, that would explain a lot.

But that's even more reason to support Al Gore's quest for sustainable sources of energy.

[happyslug]

11. Part of that plan has to include getting people out of their cars

And the best way to do that is to increase the price of Gasoline. I like the one economists when he looked at the various efforts to increase the Average Fleet Mileage, what was achieved under those programs could have been achieved with a 25 cents a gallon increase in gasoline tax.

I hate to say this we need to seriously consider a $1 to $5 dollar increase in the Gasoline tax. A $5 would be ideal, but terrible if implemented at once (should be done over a 5 year period, 10 Cents a month). The Money should be used to subsidize any form of transit that does NOT use oil.

The plan should also require electrification of all US Rail lines, just to provide options for power if oil is ever cut off. This will also require the US to rule that such electrical system are NOT taxable. Taxes on electrical systems as improvements of land was a reason electrification of US lines ended AND reversed in the 1950s. With Diesels you had most of the advantageous of electric drive (Diesels are generators that provide electrical power to the electrical motors on the wheels of the Diesel Locomotive) but none of the taxes that go with having electrical wires over the track. Thus the only electrical system that survives to this day is owned by AMTRAK. Conrail, that used such a system till 1980, dropped it in that year and converted to 100% diesel.

Yes, some of what the US has to do will be disliked, but it is needed. We have to get off oil and the sooner the better.

[Betty Karlson]

12. In 30 years time, the transition has to be made anyway (oil resources exhausted)

So we could at least try to make the transition smooth and gradual.

[JonLP24]

18. Definitely -- the boycott aspect is crucial

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Even if we have a credible powering of energy independence I don't see the US simply walking away from oil simply because of greed. The corporate interests directing the foreign policy isn't satisfied with enough they always want it all. It is like a parasitic control of global resources -- like an invasive species. Oil companies not only get the most tax breaks they also receive subsidies & even the regulations are scaled back or don't really apply to them.

Even now Saudi Arabia moved down to a distant second as our top importer thanks to the Shale gas boom but most of the US stuff is exported to Canada and most of Canada's petroleum is exported to US which doesn't make a lot of sense but I'm guessing there's probably a get rich quick scheme. This has only given them the power to control it more, particularly in crippling the oil producing nations of Iran & Russia and we are back to calling Venezuela an enemy again.

What needs to happen though for some reason consider it far more unlikely than transiting to an energy independent nation is cleaning house from top to bottom of executive branch agencies & real reforms. Especially in the defense industry, there are so many layers, things on top of things, contractors (some are undercover CIA agents) to subcontractors, subsidiaries, the ones in charge tasked to give this to whose in charge to give this to (goes on).

TPP is mostly about, particularly with the copyright stuff, is to push generic drug manufacturers out of the way in places like Malaysia with a thriving pharmaceutical sector with pharmacies everywhere providing low cost drugs & Thailand imports a lot of generics. With them out of the way with only the US approved drug companies with the rights to sell them creates a monopoly so they can jack up the price. They gotta have more, not satisfied with what the profits they already have.

What does need to happen is for demand for oil to fall to the floor. The gas tax I'd support because it is low in comparison to Europe countries such as Germany or Japan but taxes in go, expenditures out so you could in theory say this goes here but the overall money so this tax revenue from here can go there. (Economics was a primary study in CC) so in reality I imagine it would go to the oil companies. Certainly need to cut back on the tax breaks and end the subsidies (they are really not necessary & basically amount to looting the treasury transferring the wealth from taxpayers into the hands of private interests). There is a lot we can do though I think it is far more than a 'need' of Saudi oil because there is a 'greed' of everybody else's oil too, at-least as far as US multinational profits are concerned.


On edit -- right now US & Canada has a much bigger slice of the pie though US remains a net exporter but the pie from 2012 best illustrates my point

These are the recent numbers (imports)
Top five countries
Canada 3.39 (37%) 0.80 2.58
Saudi Arabia 1.17 (13%) 0.00 1.16
Mexico 0.84 (9%) 0.55 0.29
Venezuela 0.79 (9%) 0.08 0.71
Russia 0.36 (4%) 0 0.36

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

How much oil consumed by the United States comes from foreign sources?

In 2014, about 27% of the petroleum consumed by the United States was imported from foreign countries,1 the lowest level since 1985.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=32&t=6

On edit -- Saudi Arabia is pretty close to being a top importer of weapons in the world so their is the financial desire from defense contractors to keep that pace going as well. A lot of foreign policy decisions is about $$ for the private defense, no sector is doing better in the stock market since 2000 or so, Obama has actually spent more than Bush on defense.

[BrotherIvan]

10. You post is why I come to DU

Thank you. Lots to think about.

[JonLP24]

14. You're a rare poster

Not many are fully aware & understand foreign politics & history -- particularly in how it relates to Saudi Arabia. You also taught me some new information which I appreciate since I dedicate time to research & understand these matters. I hope to continue seeing you around as they aren't many. HBO VICE 3 weeks in a row nailed it as far as things I'm aware but many don't mention but especially the media.

If there is one consistency I have found, particularly in the heavy oil producing place is what do they do with the oil? If a nation nationalizes oil production instantly they're an enemy like Iran, Iraq (bad guy but Saddam nationalizing oil in the 70's is why they sanctioned & wanted him either replaced or gone -- Exxon Mobile has an oil contract in the Super Giant oil fields down South and have oil contracts in the Kurdistan region of Iraq now), Libya, Venezuela, Syria (Assad actually qualifies when usually they're far better candidates for regime change based on human rights reasons they claim as why US must get involved -- but are friends can be as bad as they want to be, apparently). You get the drift.

One thing I notice when the US & NATO are involved must be economic reasons like in Afghanistan which the US had a strong interest in in the 80's and a return in 2001 or so and based on Wikileaks they said there were 2 things a priority. One is not to allow Russian involvement under any circumstances and keep Jordan's assistance a secret. Jordan is another Saudi-coalition ally, they were the Saud Dynasty's friends in the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire. Though I'm not sure what their resources are big on except for notable mineral deposits & heroin -- which I don't put past the corporate interests that direct foreign policy to want to have a slice of that based on the enormous profits that a venture capitalist wouldn't pass up -- especially those only concerned about profit (there is huge labor exploitation in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, any place that is our friends in Southwest Asia in Iraq all I know for sure the department of defense uses Saudi or Kuwaiti imported labor -- same labor pipeline Qatar builds their economy off their backs)

Also believe US may be interested in an oil pipeline from Iran to India though don't know much on anything like that. A lot of the war stuff is a smokescreen when economics is a major part of the US decides to do or not do.

On edit -- Saudi Arabia flooding the market with oil and US (though when it comes to Iran the US doesn't need to ask them) encouraging them to keep the prices low as it cripples oil-dependent nations with sanctions & the nuke thing is because 80% of their energy is provided with renewable resources as a way to combat the sanctions. I can't think of any independent nation that has been beat up on by the US more than Iran when they have a middle class, 70% own their own home, have labor rights, health care, etc. Saudi Arabia has none of that basically, especially no labor rights, though they are regressive in other ways (typical of post-colonization) and if they're an enemy -- the US has been giving them every reason to think of US as an enemy.,

[happyslug]

23. I have written about this is the past, comparing it to the Soviet Union 1970-1990

During that time period you had a similar change of generation. Stalin was a murdering thug, but even he needed people to do what he wanted done. This group of people changed constantly under Stalin (as it did under King Saud I) but once Stalin died, you had a quick kill off of Stalin's biggest killers (The head of the NKVD was shoot and the NKVD was reorganized as the KGB to get rid of some of the old order), but then the killing stopped. The second generation were in charged and they wanted no more of the killings, they wanted to rule, but no more killings among themselves.

Thus the Soviet Union just stopped killing members of their leadership by the mid 1950s The number of Political Prisoners dropped. If someone was jailed for a Political crime, they were rarely executed after 1955. Thus the "second generation" of rulers of the Soviet Union took charge of the Soviet Union. These people had lived under Stalin, they had known Stalin, they had survived Stalin. They saw each others as survivors, almost brothers, thus you had infighting but no bodies.

That started to change about 1970. Older members of the "Second Generations" started to die off and had to be replaced by younger people, people who had NOT meet Stalin, or suffered and benefited under Stalin. By 1980s, the older Generation was reaching the age when they started to die off. Thus the third generation started to take over more of the operation of the Soviet Union. These third generation were not a collection of survivors, as the second generation had been. The third generation were maneuvering for position to take over once the Second generation died off. Thus under Reagan you has a serious of leaders of the Soviet Union who had come into power in the 1930s under Stalin taking over one after another as their died off.

Finally Gorbachev was elected. He was the First leader of the Soviet Union NOT born under the Czar. The whole second generation had basically died off. You did have some of the old WWII vets left, but most were dying off due to old age, but the Second Generation under Stalin had entered power during the purges of the late 1930s, thus tended to be 10 years older then the WWII vets. Thus WWII vets were around but the Third generation had finally moved into the positions of power and proceeded to fight over who will get control over what in the Soviet Union. The in fighting increased and this became worse when Gorbachev permitted competitive elections (i.e. elections where the candidates were NOT all communists).

The Communists were still in charge but infighting over who would get what increased. Finally the Russian equivalent of the NSA decided to attempt a coup, which failed but the result was Gorbachev was out, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Russia opt for rapid conversion to Capitalism. After ten more years, Putin took over and ended the experiment in Capitalism and slowly developed a policy of crony capitalism with Putin slowly moving against the ex Communists who were now the oligarchs of Russia.

As you see, the moves of the third Generation and the in fighting occurring starting in the 1970s lead to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I suspect similar infighting is occurring now in Saudi Arabia. The Second generation is dying out, and the third generation is moving in. This is made worse by the custom outside the Christian West (and China) to marry one's cousin. Thus the cliques inside the royal family tend to be self perpetuating (To avoid this is why the Catholic Church banned Cousin marrying in the Dark Ages, something most people in what use to be called the "Christian West" do NOT do to this day).

Thus, while King Saud died in 1952 a year before Stalin died (in 1953) the second generation of King Saud were much younger then the second generation after Stalin. Thus the Soviet Union went into problems over succession in the 1980s and it appears that Saudi Arabia only started around 2000. In the case of the Soviet Union the transition took only five years (Yeltsin's rule in Russia was the RESULT of that infighting, not part of it, when it became clear what Yeltsin had done was NOT working he was replaced by Putin).

Thus it is taking more time for the third generation to take charge in Arabia, but you see the same type of infighting, as the various sides try to show they are better Communists (in the case of 1970s and 1980s Soviet Union) or better Salafists (in the case of Saudi Arabia). This lead to the Soviet Intervention into Afghanistan, the only non communist ally of the Soviet Union (Stalin had though Afghanistan to primitive to even think about making communistic). In the case of Saudi Arabia, its recent attempts to make the Middle East a Salafism holy land.

More on Salafism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

You can see similar situation in history. The Third Generation of the Yuan Dynasty after Kublai Khan, ended up fighting among themselves so much that the native Ming Dynasty ended up taking over China. Kublai Khan himself was a third generation after Genghis Khan and he came out on top, but only in China, he lost control over the rest of the Mongol Empire. Augustus Caesar was the First Generation ruler, taking over from Julius Caesar, Tiberius was his Second Generation, Caligula and Nero where the third generation (With a drop back to the Second in the person of Claudius who ruled between those two tyrants). The infighting during Nero reached a point that he lost control and replaced.

This third generation is a well know historical problem for ruling elite, but a problem a lot of people do NOT want to see, for who comes out on top can vary. You can NOT predict who will come out on top, if anyone (look at the Case of the Soviet Union, it ended up being dissolved not ruled by a new set of elites, on the other end look at Kublai Khan, he was the third generation and he came out of top setting up another three generation of ruling elites).

This will be interesting times, and that is NEVER a good time to live in.

[eridani]

8. Deprived of 'Checkbook Diplomacy' in Yemen and Syria, Saudi Arabia Flounders

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30990-deprived-of-checkbook-diplomacy-in-yemen-and-syria-saudi-arabia-flounders

The latest series of WikiLeaks cables have once again embarrassed the Saudi government and forced it on to the diplomatic defensive. The cables, over half a million documents said to have come from the Saudi Foreign Ministry, contain titillating details about how Riyadh operates — but no smoking guns related to nuclear enrichment or other issues of global fascination.

What these cables do show is Saudi Arabia’s overwhelming desire to prevent the public from seeing how it uses its “soft” power assets — its oil and financial largesse — to persuade strategic allies and major powers to support its foreign policy goals. Successive Saudi monarchs have relied on this indirect strategy for decades, as it has delivered domestic political stability and maintained Riyadh’s status as a major regional power. However, the recent examples of Syria and Yemen, where Riyadh has been forced to take the foreign policy lead — delivering inconclusive, confusing and unpredictable results — show that when the Saudis are forced to implement their foreign policy objectives by diplomatic or military means, they struggle to manage the fallout.

Nevertheless, the newly released cables reinforce Saudi Arabia’s willingness to use its financial muscle to achieve its goals — an approach that could be described as “checkbook diplomacy” — and its ongoing preoccupation with attempting to push back the influence of regional rival Iran. The cables reveal the dependence of some Sunni and Christian Lebanese politicians on Saudi financial largesse, money Riyadh makes available to counter the influence of Iranian disbursements to Hezbollah and other pro-Tehran factions in Beirut. They make public an idea to pay Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood $10 billion in exchange for a guarantee that former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a former Saudi ally, would not go to prison, a plan Riyadh aborted after diplomats objected to paying what amounted to a “ransom” and the realization that the Brotherhood could not or would not offer any such guarantee against Mubarak’s imprisonment. Finally, they expose Saudi attempts to manage the potential media fallout of diplomatic efforts to persuade Russia to abandon its support for the Assad regime in Syria.

[leveymg]

22. Checkbook Diplomacy to London and DC - Wikileaks. "London moneylaunder's destination of choice"

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/92/92370_interview-request-reuters-.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-pht-newscorp-britain-corruption-idUSTRE76J25L20110720



11:41 20Jul11 -ANALYSIS-Britain: more corrupt than it thinks?

* Scandal shows collusion between politics, media, police

* Campaigners denounce haven for oligarchs, despots

* Despite new laws, Internet scrutiny, UK remains opaque



By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent

LONDON, July 20 (Reuters) - Britons love to lecture the world about
integrity and the rule of law, but the News of the World phone hacking
scandal has laid bare a web of collusion between money, power, media and
the police.

Far from the innocent, upright democracy of its self-image, Britain is
showing a seamy side that anti-corruption campaigners say is getting worse
and may be politically explosive as society becomes more unequal due to
the financial and economic crises.

Behind a facade of probity, London offers a haven for oligarchs and
despots, a place where foreign media magnates have bought access to and
influence over the government.

The scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's media empire has already
destroyed a newspaper, cost two top police officers their jobs, seen the
arrest of powerful media figures and embarrassed the prime minister and
political elite.

But it points to a bigger problem in British society -- overly cosy
relationships among elites that are ethically dangerous, even when they
does not involve outright criminality.

Britain says it has been bolstering its legal system and regulatory.
Just this month a new law on bribery tightening rules for UK firms
operating abroad entered force.

But some of the world's leading transparency campaigners say that the
hacking scandal exemplifies unhealthy links between power and money.

"The bottom line... is that for some time there has been undue
influence on UK governments and public policy by powerful private
interests," says Daniel Kaufmann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute
in Washington DC.

"It is ... often a more sophisticated form of high-level political
corruption. It may not be strictly illegal -- or it may be more subtle --
but that does not mean it is not very costly for society or the economy,"
said Kaufman, a former director of the World Bank Institute and creator of
the closely watched Worldwide Governance Indicators.

If unchecked, "elite capture" of political systems can become
"privatisation of public policy" -- a growing danger in both Britain and
the United States, he said.

As with media barons such as Murdoch, the influence of the financial
services industry is so strong, Kaufmann argued, that politicians have
long avoided questioning it.

That acquiescence contributed to the global financial crisis. It has
also made Britain one of the key banking centres for the world's most
corrupt oligarchs and despots.

Financial secrecy arrangements -- such as Britain's system of financial
"trusts", which allow powerful figures to mask the ownership of assets --
have rarely if ever been challenged by the government, say financiers and
campaigners.



MONEY LAUNDERING "DESTINATION OF CHOICE"

When power elites in the Middle East looked for somewhere to send their
money during the "Arab Spring" uprisings this year, wealth managers told
Reuters London was the prime beneficiary. Much may have been legitimately
earned, some almost certainly not.

Both Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's son Gamal and Libyan leader
Muammar Gaddafi's son Saif owned property in London through complex trusts
and front companies in Panama and the British Virgin Islands.

Through its close links with tax haven satellites such as the Channel
Islands, Gibraltar and the Isle of Man, experts say Britain is at the
centre of many such schemes.

"London has become the money launderers' destination of choice," says
John Christensen, a former economic adviser to the Channel island of
Jersey, who now runs the Tax Justice Network, a group campaigning for
tighter regulation.

"If you look at the way we talk about and measure corruption in the
West, it's either Africa or Asia which comes out worse. But we are using a
distorted prism."

It's not just Britain. A Reuters investigation this month showed how
some U.S. states -- notably Wyoming and Delaware -- were failing to meet
international standards, offering "shelf companies" to help hide assets
and avoid tax. [ID:nN1E75Q0Q4]

Christensen argues that states have been losing control of the
financial system for more than 30 years and now find themselves
increasingly at its mercy.

Even groups such as Transparency International -- which has
traditionally focused on criticising "conventionally" corrupt states in
emerging economies -- are beginning to shift their attention to developed
world corruption.

TI published a report earlier this month entitled "Britain: more
corrupt than you think", showing that a majority of people believed
corruption was worsening in the country.

"It is not that corruption is endemic in the UK as it is in some other
countries but there is a worrying degree of complacency," said
Chandrashekhar Krishnan, Executive Director of Transparency International
UK.

"The focus (now) is on corruption in the media and allegations about
bribing the police... but we are also particularly worried about political
party funding, parliament, sport and the prison system."



RISING BACKLASH AGAINST "CORRUPT ELITE"

Even recent gains are not always what they seem. For example
Transparency International points to the UK Bribery Act.

The law's introduction was delayed after frantic lobbying by companies
who said it would make them uncompetitive, prompting officials to
effectively water down some of the guidance on how rigourously it would be
enforced.

The institution responsible for enforcing it, the Serious Fraud Office,
is also suffering budget cuts -- as are other bodies aimed at tackling
grassroots corruption in prisons, police, local government, and taxation.

The previous government halted bribery investigations into arms sales
to Saudi Arabia (the al-Yamamah slush fund), citing the national interest.

[ . . .]

[Rod Beauvex]

13. And the price on Assange's head gets even higher.

Some very ugly shit is about to come out.

[CTBlueboy]

15. not really shocked

Saudis- fund terrorists pushing Wahhabism

[JonLP24]

19. This is some pretty earth shatering stuff

Not just this though this I'd classify "par for the course"

WikiLeaks 'Saudi Cables' reveal secret Saudi government influence in Australia

WikiLeaks has revealed secret Saudi Arabian influence in Arabic media and Islamic religious groups in Australia as well as covert monitoring of Saudi students studying at Australian universities.

More than 61,000 leaked Saudi diplomatic documents have been released by WikiLeaks in what the international transparency group says will be the first instalment of the publication of more than half a million secret papers in batches over coming weeks.

"The Saudi Cables lift the lid on an increasingly erratic and secretive dictatorship that has not only celebrated its 100th beheading this year, but which has also become a menace to its neighbours and itself," WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange said in a statement released on Saturday.

The leaked Saudi government documents include extensive correspondence between the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Kingdom's embassy in Canberra that reveals sustained Saudi efforts to influence political and religious opinion within Australia's Arabic and Islamic communities.

The documents include instructions from the Saudi government to its embassy relating to the payment of large subsidies from the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information to prominent Arabic newspapers and media organisations in Australia, with reference made to cheques to the value of $10,000 and $40,000.

The Saudi embassy is also revealed to pay close attention to the political and religious beliefs of Saudi university students studying in Australia with reports sent to the Mabahith, the General Investigation Directorate of the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the Kingdom's brutal secret police that deals with domestic security and counter-intelligence. The directorate is also revealed to make recommendations in relation to Saudi government funding for building mosques and supporting Islamic community activities in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html

Saudi money floods India to promote Wahhabism

NEW DELHI (Web Desk) – Individuals and institutions in Saudi Arabia are pumping in millions of rupees into India to open religious trusts and non-governmental organisations, reveal the diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks last week.

Officials with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) have termed this as “an attempt to help spread and propagate Wahhabism in the country,” The Sunday Guardian reported. This is a creed, which has extreme views on women and minority rights, besides other restrictive aspects that are opposed to the liberal spirit and democratic advances of the 21st century.

An undated document, which according to WikiLeaks, originated from the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in New Delhi, contains the list of Indian institutions and societies that have applied for financial assistance. The document suggests that the government of Saudi Arabia itself pledged donations to nine such institutions located across different states, including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala and Maharashtra.

Saudi Arabia pledged 2.5 million Saudi Riyal (SR) to Islamic Mission Trust, “Malpurram” (Mallapuram) in Kerala, which is registered with the MHA, ostensibly for constructing an arts and science college building.

Similarly, it also pledged 1 million SR to the Kerala branch of Islamic Welfare Trust for constructing a nursing college. A similar amount was also pledged to the Palghat Mujahideen Arabic College Committee in Kerala for the purpose of extending an existing medical college and the Karuma hospital building.

In Uttar Pradesh, 75,000 SR were pledged to two different societies for establishing a madrasa building and establishing a vocational centre for girls in Mirzapur and Siddharth Nagar, respectively.

WikiLeaks also released documents that showed that the Secretariat General of the Muslim World League (Mecca), a controversial organisation, had requested Saudi Arabia to encourage establishing Wahhabi centres in India.

http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/headline/saudi-money-floods-india-to-promote-wahhabism-123/

A Wahabbism center is like an ISIS center. Same thing basically. Hisbah (morals police) patrolling for violations such as alcohol possession enforced with religious courts & religious judges (enforcing the Wahabbi doctrine) which is enforced with religious instruction and a public whipping. Executions for drug possession usually in the form of beheading but often there is a public crucifixion to really send a message. (Both ISIS & Saudi Arabia do this with the same range of penalties).

The Pact that started Saudi Arabia

Pact with Muhammad bin Saud
First Saudi State (1744–1818)

Upon his expulsion from 'Uyayna, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab was invited to settle in neighboring Diriyah by its ruler Muhammad bin Saud. After some time in Diriyah, Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab concluded his second and more successful agreement with a ruler.[31] Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud agreed that, together, they would bring the Arabs of the peninsula back to the "true" principles of Islam as they saw it. According to one source, when they first met, bin Saud declared:

"This oasis is yours, do not fear your enemies. By the name of God, if all Nejd was summoned to throw you out, we will never agree to expel you."
—Madawi al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia: 16

Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab replied:

"You are the settlement's chief and wise man. I want you to grant me an oath that you will perform jihad (Struggle to spread Islam) against the unbelievers. In return you will be imam, leader of the Muslim community and I will be leader in religious matters."
—Madawi al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia: 16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab

Right now there was huge dump and Wikileaks says it was only a fraction about a 1/10th like estimates probably over 100,000. At the Wikileaks site I can't tell because of the Arabic so looking for articles and sadly there isn't much -- there is an effort to say "nothing to see here, move along" but so far not many have reported on this. I hope the corporate media is looping this 24/7, this is what I consider very HUGE news and I hope that wasn't just talk, I do hope there is more. Now back to looking for more.

[snagglepuss]

20. Canadian writer and progressive Muslim, Tarek Fatah has been writing about

all of the above for years despite many death threats. It's good to see that his critics are now eating crow.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Bookmarked for later reading nt