Returning to the subject of Wahhabi.

 **************************************************************************

 http://tinyurl.com/ny4y6u3

 Zakaria: The Saudis Are Mad? Tough!

 Why we shouldn't care that the world's most irresponsible
 country is displeased at the U.S. By Fareed Zakaria Monday,
 Nov. 11, 2013

 America's middle east policies are failing, we are told, and
 the best evidence is that Saudi Arabia is furious. Dick Cheney,
 John McCain and Lindsey Graham have all sounded the alarm about
 Riyadh's recent rejection of a seat on the U.N. Security
 Council. But whatever one thinks of the Obama Administration's
 handling of the region, surely the last measure of American
 foreign policy should be how it is received by the House of
 Saud.

 If there were a prize for Most Irresponsible Foreign Policy it
 would surely be awarded to Saudi Arabia. It is the nation most
 responsible for the rise of Islamic radicalism and militancy
 around the world. Over the past four decades, the kingdom's
 immense oil wealth has been used to underwrite the export of an
 extreme, intolerant and violent version of Islam preached by its
 Wahhabi clerics.

 Go anywhere in the world--from Germany to Indonesia--and you'll
 find Islamic centers flush with Saudi money, spouting
 intolerance and hate. In 2007, Stuart Levey, then a top Treasury
 official, told ABC News, "If I could snap my fingers and cut off
 the fun ding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia." When
 confronted with the evidence, Saudi officials often claim these
 funds flow from private individuals and foundations and the
 government has no control over them. But many of the
 foundations were set up by the government or key members of the
 royal family, and none could operate in defiance of national
 policy; the country is an absolute monarchy. In a December 2009
 cable, leaked by WikiLeaks in 2010, then Secretary of State
 Hillary Clinton confirmed tha t Saudi Arabia remained a
 "critical financial base" for terrorism and that Riyadh "has
 taken only limited action" to stop the flow of funds to the
 Taliban and other such groups.

 Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries in the world to
 recognize and support the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan
 until the 9/11 attacks. It is also a major player in Pakistan,
 now home to most of the world's deadliest terrorists. The
 country's former Law Minister Iqbal Haider told Deutsche Welle,
 the German news agency, in August 2012, "Whether they are the
 Taliban or Lashkar-e-Taiba, their ideology is Saudi Wahhabi
 without an iota of doubt." He added that there was no doubt
 Saudi Arabia was s upporting Wahhabi groups throughout his
 country.

 Ever since al-Qaeda attacked Riyadh directly in 2003, the
 Saudis have stamped down on terrorism at home. But they have not
 ended support for Wahhabi clerics, centers, madrasahs and
 militants abroad. During the Iraq War, much of the support for
 Sunni milit ants came from Saudi sources. That pattern continues
 in Syria today.

 Saudi Arabia's objections to the Obama Administration's
 policies toward Syria and Iran are not framed by humanitarian
 concerns for the people of those countries. They are rooted in a
 pervasive anti-Shi'ite ideology. Riyadh has long treated all
 other versi ons and sects of Islam as heresy and condoned the
 oppression of those groups. A 2009 report from Human Rights
 Watch details the ways in which the Saudi government, clerics,
 religious police and schools systematically discriminate
 against the local Shi'ite population, including arrests,
 beatings and, on occasion, the use of live ammunition. (And not
 just the Shi'ites. In March 2012, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti
 issued a fatwa declaring that it was "necessary to destroy all
 the churches in the Arabian Peninsu la.")

 The regime fears that any kind of empowerment of the Shi'ites
 anywhere could embolden the 15% of Saudi Arabia's population
 that is Shi'ite--and happens to live in the part of the country
 where most of its oil reserves can be found. That's why the
 Saudis s ent troops into neighboring Bahrain during the Arab
 Spring of 2011, to crush the Shi'ite majority's uprising.

 Saudi royals have been rattled by the events in their region
 and beyond. They sense that the discontent that launched the
 Arab Spring is not absent in their own populace. They fear the
 rehabilitation of Iran. They also know that the U.S. might very
 soon f ind itself entirely independent of Middle Eastern oil.

 Given these trends, it is possible that Saudi Arabia worries
 that a seat on the U.N. Security Council might constrain it
 from having freedom of action. Or that the position could shine
 a light on some of its more unorthodox activities. Or that it
 could fo rce Riyadh to vote on issues it would rather ignore. It
 is also possible that the Saudis acted in a sudden fit of pique.
 After all, they had spent years lobbying for the seat. Whatever
 the reason, let's concede that, yes, Saudi Arabia is angry with
 the U. S. But are we sure that's a sign Washington is doing
 something wrong?

 TO READ MORE BY FAREED, GO TO time.com/zakaria


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)