| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Pentagon probing Saudi role in chaplain spy scandal |
| 2003-10-01 |
| From Geostrategy-Direct...subscription required... The U.S. Defense Department has been quietly investigating the role of Saudi Arabia in the espionage scandal at the prison on Guantanamo Bay. The investigation concerns whether the group of U.S. soldiers who provided classified information did so under a false flag operation. This means that the soldiers thought they were working for Syria, but were actually spying for Saudi Arabia. Saudis comprise one of the largest groups of Al Qaida detainees and the kingdom has sought contact with some of its nationals. Some of the prisoners are children of prominent Saudis and Riyadh has pressed hard for their release. The Pentagon is also exploring the Saudi role in recruiting Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military. It turns out that the Saudi military encouraged U.S. soldiers to convert to Islam during the U.S. military presence there over the last 12 years. The Saudi Royal Air Force financed the proselytizing of U.S. air personnel in the kingdom, including providing free trips to American servicemen to make the annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca. More than a few U.S. soldiers took up the offer and eventually converted to Islam while maintaining ties to the kingdom. Nice friends, the Saudis... I hope working with them reaps enough rewards to offset the backstabbing and twisting of the dagger that they have been doing since 9-11 and before. The Saudis are lower than whale dung on the bottom of the ocean. One step below child molesters. |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #7 There is a misconception that the US imports oil from these ME countries. US oil companies are all multi-nationals that purchase the oil commodity at the prevailing price. The US doesn't buy a tanker load from Saudi Arabia or any other country. Our involvement in teh Persian Gulf has always been about oil since the early 70's, but never to secure tankers coming from Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any other country in the area. Our goal was and continues to be to protect the free trade of oil for the world market. We started protecting trade routes in the 1800's and have continued that importnat mission throughout. We allowed Kuwaitti tankers to use the US flag during the Iran-Iraq war and escorted them into the Gulf of Oman even though the government of Kuwait looked down their nose at our navy the entire time. The fact that they were disagreable people didn't make the mission less important. I am pretty sure that most of the actual oil coming in to the states is oil from South America, Mexico or Canada, but that too doesn't make protecting free trade less important. Its sort of agravating that the countries that accuse us of being intersted in stealing oil are the same countries whose economies are dependent on relaible oil supples that we protect. I repeat my perpetual rant: if the US were an imperialist power, we would ahve already have annexed Venesuala. The US doesn't do the empire deal because we still haven't figured out how to get out of the bad deal we cut with Puerto Rico. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-1 10:47:18 PM |
| #6 One step below child molesters. I object to this statement. Usually they're not above child molesters and as often are the same thing. (See Pat Roush and countless other kidnappees' parents - bring back Rep. Dan Burton [R-Indiana]!) |
| Posted by: Lu Baihu 2003-10-1 6:27:03 PM |
| #5 buwaya---I agree on your point, as oil is indeed a fungable commodity. The world, in the big picture, needs to diversify its energy sources, so we are not hostage to a psychopathic middle east. I do not think that the western world is willing to go in to the ME countries, kick everyone's ass and reform their melons so we are not financing our ownd destruction with our own money. This is a huge task of redoing the west's energy resources. Unfortunately we have pissed away almost 30 years since the embargo, and we have some serious catching up to do. This will take decades, but it would be good to make a real serious start. Some progress will put some fear into the Arabs' hearts, and may alleviate some of the tension. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-10-1 5:00:30 PM |
| #4 I have to disagree about the idea that there is some big advantage to be gained by replacing Saudi (or other) oil for US consumption. This is purely artificial. We could replace it today, from other sources, and it would make no difference at all. Oil is basically a fungible commodity. The critical issue is that Saudi oil is essential to the world economy and Saudi oil will continue to earn the Saudis enormous amounts of money. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2003-10-1 4:48:26 PM |
| #3 AP, I think terror is a good enough reason, myself. We can always get the oil from whoever we decide to put in charge afterward. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-10-1 4:45:43 PM |
| #2 We get 8% of our oil from Saudi. If we could get ANWR on line, much of that need would be met and we could tell them to take their crude and shove it into a dark space. This is what happens when environmentalist wack jobs start dictating energy policy. Better wake up, people, and come up with a real, public, coherent energy policy, or we will be going to war with Saudi, and it won't be for terror. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-10-1 4:39:57 PM |
| #1 This spins me up. They have us by the nads and they know it. I wish we could work out a deal to buy all of our oil from Russia. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2003-10-1 4:15:06 PM |