| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Arabia | |||
| Saudis said to fund Syrian occupation of Lebanon | |||
| 2003-11-23 | |||
Saudi Arabia is said to be financing Syria's occupation of Lebanon and Syrian special forces have been prepared to help bolster the unreliable Saudi security forces.
| |||
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #17 I think a political seperation between who controls the oil fields and who controls Mecca is in everyone's best interests (except the House of Saud). |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2003-11-23 9:17:03 PM |
| #16 .com, prolly on vacation, methinks. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-11-23 8:58:37 PM |
| #15 Abu TrollSlicer! Tested by near-continuous engagement in several Arab-Israeli wars, vigorous internal policing, and action in Lebanon Damn that virgorous internal policing means nerve gas right? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-23 8:01:02 PM |
| #14 I'm hoping at least the Shia in Basra are good folks. A lot depends on them. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-23 6:57:41 PM |
| #13 .com I am well aware that the Shia could be as bad as the Seoud, but their power for nuisance would be far lesser: they would have the oil but not the influence conferred by the holy places (in addition to the lesser traction they would get from being Shia between the Sunni majority) My purpose was to point that there is a third way being doing nothing and direct invasion (who can be impossible for political reasons): forcing the implosion of Arabia: the Arabian Shia get the oil and a few American troops to |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-11-23 4:59:18 PM |
| #12 Since I wasn't clear about it, let me clarify: I'm not suggesting give the Eastern Province resources to the Shia. Fuck. No. Just because they aren't Wahhabi Sunnis doesn't mean they have any more sense. Just look across the Gulf to find the OTHER large funding source for asshats. No, the resources go to the victors, just like it did when House of Saud took it from whomever, Shai, camels, whatever. PC idiots should shield their sensitive eyes. If you consider it, it's apparent that they (PC types) think the world started when they were born. The past is inconvenient, unless it can be used against someone they don't happen to care for... where it led to the comfort and goodies that they enjoy, it is not examined too closely, eh? ;-> |
| Posted by: .com (Abu Sabbatical) 2003-11-23 4:15:04 PM |
| #11 JFM - Ah - okay, that could be absolutely right. Pre-Saud tribal consolidation the eastern coast certainly could've been Shia - the Iranian coast across the puddle is and was. A Shia "right of return" - now that's a scream! I'd LOVE to hear a Saudi response to that idea! Woot! 8-) The non-petroleum resources account for diddley-squat. Without the oil, they basically have the world's largest litterbox. I look forward to the day that we finally act in self-defense against this cancerous tumor on the world's ass. Take the Eastern Province and let them return to their Bedu roots. That would be just about the most amazing thing I can imagine. The Saudis are soft and utterly lame - the Bedu wouldn't have much need of "Managers" or "Supervisors", heh. Consider the implications... there would be the total dissolution of OPEC's power - the entire world would have an economic boom if petro prices weren't manipulated. There would even be major fallout in Venezuela, not to mention the other OPEC dictatorships and non-affiliated oil-producing countries. And I'm sure there would be many other ways this would change politics and economies - powershifts all over... these shits have a hand in everything. Dominoes, anyone? |
| Posted by: .com (Abu Sabbatical) 2003-11-23 3:54:31 PM |
| #10 My info is that Eastern Arabia was conquered by the Seoud somewhere 1920-1930, it was then predominantly Shia . I don't know if this is still true since persecutions and colonization can have altered the demographic balance in favor of the Sunni (some Sunni could be hidden Shia). My guess is that many inhabitants of South Irak or Koweit are desecendents of Shia who fled the Wahabi occupation. Time to have them demand their "right of return" and their right to have their own state. The other source of power and money for the Seoud is their control of Mecca and Medina they are also illegitimally occupying. Of course the goal is to remove the teeth of wahabism and let them spread wahabism with the influence and money they would get as main exporter of camel dung. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-11-23 2:27:43 PM |
| #9 Yup, he's back! |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-23 2:02:36 PM |
| #8 JFM - Can you clarify what you refer to as Shia occupied territories & Shia Arabia? Unless I misunderstand what you've written, I think you're misinformed. Wahhabism came out of the central zone along with the Saud tribe, but the Sunni's run the whole of the country and outnumber the Shia by a wide margin. This is certainly true in the Eastern Province - where lies the vast majority of the oil produced in SA. Aramco, in Dhahran, lies about 20KM due south of Dammam - shown as Ad Dammam on the map below. I wrote not so long ago that you can pull the teeth of Wahhabism by controlling the Eastern Province. Refineries and pipelines elsewhere and even the port of Jeddah on the Red Sea have basically no value without the crude. Pretty easy to see on this Resource Map: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/saudi_arabia_econ.jpg |
| Posted by: .com (Abu Sabbatical) 2003-11-23 1:10:31 PM |
| #7 Because of the oil. If SA were to suddenly stop all shipments to the US, it would cause havoc on the economy. We have to gradually wheen ourselves off of Saudi oil in favor of alternatives. Wouldn't have to be the US. The Saudis could shut it off to any number of nations, such as Japan. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2003-11-23 12:13:51 PM |
| #6 I was unaware that SA funded anything in Lebanon. I thought that was all done by Iran. Hopefully, this story will start to echo around and encourage the House of Saud to unfund the occupation. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-23 10:15:36 AM |
| #5 When discussing about Saudi Arabia we have to ever keeping one thing in mind: Saudi Arabia doesn't produce oil, the so-called Saudi oil is produced in the Shia occupied territories. End the illegal and illegitimate occupation of Shia Arabia and Wahabism becomes an obscure brand of islam, without much power to cause trouble. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-11-23 9:44:44 AM |
| #4 It's a helluva lot simpler than that. Think tactically: If your ultimate goal is to take down Saudi Arabia and Iran- the main sites of infection of this disease called Islamism- you need to prepare by doing two things first: 1) Secure a source of oil that cannot be shut off by angry Islamic potentates; and 2) Obtain a large, secure land base for our military forces close to the ultimate objective. Gee, that sure sounds like Iraq to me. Until we're in a position to deal with S.A. and Iran forcibly, there's no point in tipping our hand; which is why ISLAM SUCKS is not seeing the public criticism of S.A. he's looking for. No sense telegraphing our punches. Be patient. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-11-23 8:28:47 AM |
| #3 Is there anything oppressive these guys don't pay for? Yes. The Saudis have drastically reduced medical services and social services for their population in order to fund Wahabi outreach, Syrian occupation, etc. As a result the external Saudi debt is well above $100 B and climbing. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-11-23 8:10:44 AM |
| #2 Because of the oil. If SA were to suddenly stop all shipments to the US, it would cause havoc on the economy. We have to gradually wheen ourselves off of Saudi oil in favor of alternatives. Now that I think of it, perhaps the Iraq War was partly about oil. Buying oil from a democratic Iraq and leaving the Saudi's out to dry. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-11-23 2:54:13 AM |
| #1 How can our president say he loathes kim il dong, and at the same time, break bread with these terrorist fucks. Why does he not also loath the saudi prince terrorist, Feltching Bim Abdul Aziz? |
| Posted by: ISLAM SUCKS 2003-11-23 1:44:24 AM |