"Securing British control and influence over these areas of the Middle East required the establishment of "friendly" governments under British sponsorship. While there have long been references to "the Arabs" and pan-Arab nationalism, in fact, the Arabs have been splintered into different branches of the Islamic faith (mostly concerning who was legitimate heir to Mohammed's role as leader of the faithful) and tribal factions in various parts of Arabia.
The family of Saud under the leadership of Ibn Saud came out of World War I as a British-sponsored political power in the central part of the Arabian Peninsula. Along the Red Sea coast, the newly created Kingdom of Hijaz, which contained the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, was under the rule of King Hussein, head of the Hashemite branch of Mohammed's clan, the Quraishi. But in 1924 Ibn Saud's forces conquered the Hijaz and deposed Hussein.
The British established King Hussein's son, Abdullah, on the throne of "Trans-Jordan," that part of Palestine east of the Jordan River, since Palestine west of the Jordan had been promised as a Jewish homeland under the wartime Balfour Declaration. A descendant of Abdullah still reigns today in Amman, Jordan. "
Source: http://www.solami.com/britishgas.htm#Folly

Is it suprising that they are free to propogate their extremisim globally?

lol MDSP- This topis is nothing to do with religion. It is however about colonialism and poiitics in the post colonial era C20th WW1 and how it still affects global politics today.

Next time I wil try to explain things more simply for our friends across the pond.

Regards

ron - I hear what you are saying but it wasnt meant to be provocative in that way. What I was trying to imply was that by supporting the Saudis , Britiain allowed the Saudi beliefs which were against most other muslims beliefs to gain power and to become strong. They were allies form the beginning who gained oil money and promoted their ideology.

All this contnued incognito until it became public with Afghanistan and then 911 in NY. Hence my provocative statement was highlighting the lack on consideration for the ally Britian chose. This is a policy decision and can be changed at any point in theory.

The Sunni's and Shi'ites do not consider Wahhabism to be part of the Muslim religion but are powerless to do anything about it. The Ottomans were the last group to try to engage with them and after the fall of the Ottomans they have been free and we now see the fruits of their freedom.

We have not seen the climax of their involvement in thw world, I dont think yet. If what I am saying is wholly incorrect then how can we account for 18 of the 21 bombers on 911 being Saudi ;and yet Afghanistan and Iraq are the countries that were attacked?

so we should just accept it and not challenge the rights and wrongs of it. Not to mention the global affect off jihadist wahabbism has severely affected the lives of many worldwide. Standard foriegn policy is not an acceptable answer ; it is an easy cop out.

Ron :)- well of course I am not suggesting Britain is to blame for 911 or any acts commited by the global salafist wahhabi movement (GSWM). They are soley to blame for such acts and therefore we should put the blame soley on them. However we must accept that not going against them or their sponsors, because of historical political deicions is not going to address this problem.

It does appear on the surface that this problem is being dealt with but in reality the GSWM) are spreading as we speak. One has to ask the question why? If existing policies are effective then why are they spreading? I porpose the problem is not just that these groups are randomly well funded but rather they feel 'somehow' secure politically.

Most Muslims know that they could be halted in thier tracks if foriegn policy directed thier efforts at them specifically because others who are influecned by them would be unable to continue without the drive of thier ideology behind them. The problem is the extent to which Saudi oil and investments have an influence. Saudi's now have trillions of dollars invested in the West. They have become so powereful they seem untouchable.

As regards the Quran being interpreted in this way we all know that if someone puts thier mind to it then any book or paper prety much can be interepreted to suit any violent aims. We are exposed on a daly basis to cartoons and films that are have violence in them yet those unstable people that seek to copy or be influenced by violence are considered criminals and are not promoted as an ally becuase of the oney they have. This is justice. Otherwise the system would become a mafia organisaiton.

I f we read the Bible for instance we find so many verse such as those where the isrealiste are told to destroy the cananites , thier men, women , children, old , animals and even plants. Hopefully we dont take this literally. The Wahhabis only take one verse inthe QUran which talk about those who broke a treaty between muslims and them and that they should be killed becuase they broke the treaty as they broke the peace. That had a particular hisotrical context which the wahhabis used to justify killing anyone who disagrees with them. No Muslim gruoup reviously holding this perverted mafia view was ever allowed to survive.

So we find that the probelm is not the Quran, nor the Bible nor any book but rather people who are unstable and dont undertand or care what happens to others as long as their political aims are met. The way to deal with such people is through poilcy.

Hence I suggest a review of foreign poilcy is needed to identify real enemies from scapegoats. This perhas sounds odd when we are told different things from the accepted 'truths' but the reaity can be seen if we try to analyse events without prejudice or contradiction.

In the last few months we have debated and discussed and come to some understanding about issues previously unknown to many of us here, and now we find ourselves at a place where our better understanding points to the necessity of reviewing the past and coming to the possibility of a new future. A better future for all of us; a fairer and more peaceful future.

Should we now stop and pretend we do not know and nothing can be done? As men and women of 'intellect' is this our final conclusion? Our intellectuals need to focus on a real and lasting solution to these problem. Is this not a reasonable and fair conclusion?

"Hence I suggest a review of foreign poilcy is needed to identify real enemies from scapegoats." (Sayyid)

You're seriously suggesting a public 'review' of who our 'enemies' are? Go ahead, just don't blame me when you're handed a little green crescent to wear.

(StevenL) "You're seriously suggesting a public 'review' of who our 'enemies' are?"

Yeah, why not create our own axis of evil. Who would you include your list Sayyid? Would Scotland be in there?

Also, what is it that bin laden wants? When the IRA bombed us we solved the problem by giving them what they wanted. How can we make Osama happy if we don't know what he wants? I think we need to start thinking about this because eight years have passed and the US are clearly no closer to smoking him out of his cave.

(Sayyid) " ...without being influenced by wahhabis and other interest groups who have already infiltrated polcy making."

Can you think of any interest groups that have infiltrated our government's policy making?


(Sayyid) "Bin Laden wants US troops off Saudi soil and secondarily out of 'Muslim' countries I think; the Israeli situation resolved and of course ultimately world domination through wahhabism."

Hmmm... well how can we help?

I suppose getting US troops off Saudi soil and out of muslim countries is linked to oil isn't it? So this comes back to the motor car. If we set a good example by getting rid of all our cars then we can encourage the Americans to follow suit. The Israeli situation is tricky but I have confidence in Tony Blair to help out there. Like I say he managed to give Sinn Fein what they wanted without the British public protesting too much so perhaps he can give the Palestinians what they want without the Israelis feeling short changed. All achieved through psychological trickery. As for letting Wahhabism take over the world - perhaps we should put that question to the BNP when they appear on Question Time?

"lets start with listing the strongest allies..."

ok, i suppose Libya are our strongest allies at the moment, so where does that lead us? ...hang on a minute!

Sayyid, you can't just 'review' foreign policy, lots of the information you would need to do it properley will be official secrets. UK foreign policy is constantly being 'reviewed' in the public arena, Trident, the EU and Afghanistan are all being discussed by political parties, pressure groups and the national media all the time.

The status quo is that we want to be in NATO, have a perminent seat on the UN security council, be in the EU but not have the euro, have a secure energy supply etc etc. There will be all sorts of specific things on our agenda that we want from other individual nations (some of them all to do with politcal posturing I bet) and other nations all have things they want us to do for them. If enough nations can come to an arrangement I guess we have a treaty, but lot's of countries just sign these things then put them on a shelf and forget about them.

We decided what 'side' we were on many decades ago, throughout the Cold War there were many people who thought we were on the wrong side, but we ended up on the winning side and the wealthier side. As for your comment about our foreign policy not serving our long term interests, I'd be interested for you to expand on that and tell us what you think is going to go wrong for the UK as a result of our foreign policy.

:) well we have gone through a long discsusion about wahhabis so i suggest those threads are reviewed.

Foreign policy is the result of WW1 and WW2 efforts to consoldiate ex-colonial aims of expanding ecomonic interest in the middle east and ex-colonies. The UN was setup afte WW! and the collapse of the Leage of nations which faile dto keep the peace. The resultant organisation was contolled by the security council which represented ex-colonial powers to maintiain econmic and political interests in a world just coming out of colonisation. However we no longer live in those times.

That seemd to work for a long time, however with the rise of Terrorism and the global wahhabi salafist movement funded by Saudi monies we need to review it in order to identify policies that are fairer and those that chose allies who are not hell bent on destroyng the world we live in.

I suggest that foriegn policy is no longer working in our overall interests as it support the old systems that are no longer a valid definfiton of interest in the middle east.

I am not proposing a set of policies , just that our clever people can review them in light of modern political development keep in mind econoimc interest along with a fairer outcome; otherwise we will only make the whole mess worse. Democray will not emerge in those countries if we continue to suport tyrany and leaders who oppress their peoples.

sorry about the spelling. I will try harder. i hate typing... :) Perhaps my keyboard has had it.

Whats the topic on question time. I find it so uninspiring. You just get the same old topics and positons being repeated without any progress. As sense of discussion without any real progress except in the egos of the panel members...

(Sayyid) "I suspect the BNP will eloquently express their views on 'identity' while the opponents will play the nazi card."

Hmmm, it looks like it will be the right wing versus the right on.

Already it seems that protestors are causing mayhem, thanks partly to the inflammatory remarks of Peter Hain and Ken Livingstone. It was good to see Paxman give Peter Hain a going-over the other night, though the BBC interviewer seemed to be much more accommodating when interviewing the BBC director.

Exciting stuff.

It appears the BBC have overstepped their rules. The BNP constitution is illegal so why did the BBC allow airtime to Nick Griffin. Perhaps we should be complaining to the BBC and find out who is responsible and hold them to account?

Heads should roll at the beeb.

Ron - I saw it too and thought it was interesting how it was managed. As prediticed there was no real progress I dont think excpet in bringing out Nick Griffin's agenda. What I was suprised about was his lack of real grasp of detailed knowledge of facts. More than suprised I was quite shocked.

As ususal he brought out the allegations about blacks and marriages, and oh yes and Islam. Fortunately we have discussed the concerns and allegations about Islam rigorously in this Blog. Perhaps Nick should read this blog; I suspect he doesnt care.

He seems like a high level person who perhaps arguably speaks well ,but is unable to get down to debate properly. As regards his poliices and issues; it is a shame he wasnt able to express them but I dont think quesiton time allows for real debates in any case, except in boosting panelists egos by giving them the chance to piont score against other panelists.

I dont think Nick got a boost last night although his tried to present his party in a positive light. It appears that immigration and his concerns for the 'indgenous peoples' of the UK are general concerns that affect each generation in any land. These concerns even if unfounded need to be addressed beacuae if they are not fascists take advantage of them.

I thought it was quite funny how he viewed history ; it reminded me of a couple of the people here in the propoganda threads...lol

Sayyid, do you think the BNP's foreign policy of non-interference should be the one that all parties adopt? Presumably it would keep the Wahhabis happy?

Sayyid, back to your points on foreign policy, we are no longer one of the superpowers. I doubt that policy towards the middle east is really driven by the UK. The foreign policies that have the most influence on the middle east are probably coming from other countries. It's a farting in a hurricane scenario.

I also think you make the mistake of thinking that a lot of policies are driven by ideology, when they are probably driven as much by money, trade and protectionism than by people's beliefs. Do 'dry' Islamic countries make the decision to be completely dry, as opposed to dry other than to Western tourists or not dry purely based on ideology or on trade?

I could point you to a few watering holes in London where you will most likely find Arabs drinking. But do their rulers want to spend their oil wealth on scotch whisky imports for the masses?

I think the picture seems clear now that the Saudi 'dynasty' was established by the British colonialists in much the same way as British colonialists planned and demarcated Israel. The end result has been positive for the Saudi tribals who have been allowed to usurp and hold on to power for themselves and their descendants, and accumulate vast wealth in doing so. Likewise, the Jewish immigrants who flooded to Israel after it was established have accumulated vast wealth and resources, at the expense of their neighbours.

I see an interesting correlation here between the Saudi Wahhabis and the Ismaili sect. In both cases, the ideology propounded by the sect establishes the ruler firmly as an untouchable figure whose presence is religiously mandated due to so-called sacred duties (whether guardianship of the sacred sites of Mecca and Medinah, or being the self-claimed representative of God on earth as in the case of the Aga Khan). In both cases, the ruler and his family enjoy absolute freedom from the religious laws that govern the people under their control. For example the Saudi royals will drink and gamble, and the Aga Khan will drink, gamble and generally have a rip-roaring time. In both cases, there is a close association and both working and social relationships between the sectarian elite rulers and the arbiters of power in the Western world (US, UK Foreign Office, Israel).

[edited]

Hi Sayyid

Yes, you're right I should have been more clear. The 'Saudi dynasty' was a reference to the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, who were historically agents of the British at the heyday of the British Empire. The British interests lay in altering the balance of power in the Middle East so that the Ottoman Caliphate would cease to dominate Sunni Islam as symbolic and also very capable political figureheads of global Sunnism. The British Empire ruled India, and the main challenge to British rule in India was the threat of an Islamic uprising, which would be inspired by the Ottoman superpower and its Caliph - then a potent symbol of Sunni temporal and spiritual leadership.

Regarding Israel, it is noteable that this new country succeeded the British Mandate. The chief proponents and architects of said British Mandate were ardent Christian Zionists, and following the demise of the Ottoman Empire (a very significant step forward for British foreign policy) this territory was gradually ceded to the Zionist ambition of creating a Jewish state in the Middle East. It stands to reason that the transfer of power was a part of a wider process in which Britain sought to achieve a situation of covert control - in effect installing favourable or friendly or puppet regimes - in various territories that included Saudi Arabia.

[edited]

Ghazi - I see where you are coming from now, particularly the self-gratification issue. I can see how this might reflect as 'incitment to extremism' ;it would be enough to incite anyone to anything I guess! :)