► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Saudi Arabia’

Our Friends, the Wahhabists…and the Saudi Textbooks.

by coldwarrior ( 129 Comments › )
Filed under Islamic hypocrisy, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Terrorism at June 30th, 2010 - 4:30 pm

Our old friends the House of Saud are in the news again, this time not for funding terrorism aimed at a sky scraper near you but for breaking yet another agreement. See, in islam, it is OK to lie to the non believer, in fact it is encouraged in the march toward the Ummah. They agree to reform, and don’t, and we will never ever call them on it. If you would like to know what the House of Saud backed  Wahhabi world view has in mind for you, o infidel, read what they teach to their kids: via NRO

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah will be received by President Obama in Washington today, nearly two years after the deadline by which the kingdom’s educational curriculum was to have been completely reformed. As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom wrote to the president last week, “This promise remains unfulfilled.”

Saudi textbooks teach, along with many other noxious lessons, that Jews and Christians are “enemies,” and they dogmatically instruct that various groups of “unbelievers” — apostates (which includes Muslim moderates who reject Saudi Wahhabi doctrine), polytheists (which includes Shiites), and Jews — should be killed. Under the Saudi Education Ministry’s method of rote learning, these teachings amount to indoctrination, starting in first grade and continuing through high school, where militant jihad on behalf of “truth” is taught as a sacred duty. These textbooks are used not only in Saudi Arabia but in Saudi-funded schools around the world.

Levey stressed the primary importance of directing our policy at preventing people from embracing violent extremism in the first place. He warned, “Among other things, we must focus on educational reform in key locations to ensure that intolerance has no place in curricula and textbooks. . . . [U]nless the next generation of children is taught to reject violent extremism, we will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.”

The primary “key location” is undoubtedly Saudi Arabia. The kingdom is not just any country with problematic textbooks. As the controlling authority of the two holiest shrines of Islam, Saudi Arabia is able to disseminate its religious materials among the millions making the hajj to Mecca each year. Such teachings can, in this context, make a great impression. In addition, Saudi textbooks are also posted on the Saudi Education Ministry’s website and are shipped and distributed by a vast Sunni infrastructure established with Saudi oil wealth to Muslim communities throughout the world. In his book The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright asserts that while Saudis constitute only 1 percent of the world’s Muslims, they pay “90 per cent of the expenses of the entire faith, overriding other traditions of Islam.

Please read the Rest here at NRO.

Video from NBC, of all places.

Excerpts from Saudi textbooks via Hudson Institute

Some background on our friends, the House of Saud and religion

As Traditional Allies Refuse To Attend Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit, Widening Rifts Are Exposed

by WrathofG-d ( 107 Comments › )
Filed under Nuclear Weapons at April 14th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

Much-to-do has been made of Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision not to attend the ‘nuclear security summit’ being held by President Obama.  (Israel sent an intelligence minister instead)  What has been remarkably under reported however is that Bibi is not the only  traditionally key U.S. ally not to be attending or feeling a coldness towards the United States as a result of President Obama’s repeated humiliation of America’s traditional allies.  Among others, Britain, Australia and Saudi Arabia also stayed home. (England is sending Foreign Secretary David Miliband).

Specifically, there is speculation that the refusal to attend by Great Britain’s Prime Minister (although they used the official excuse of needing time to campaign) is more evidence of a widening rift created by President Obama between the two traditional allies’ once special relationship.

I suspect there is far more to it than mere concern over missing a day or two on the election trail. This is almost certainly payback for Obama’s shoddy treatment of the Prime Minister during his previous two trips to the US. It is important not to underestimate the degree to which Brown was utterly humiliated when he went to the White House in March last year and was denied the courtesy of an official press conference or an official dinner with the president. To add insult to injury, Brown was made a laughingstock internationally when it was revealed the president had given him a derisive gift of 25 DVDs. In September, more embarrassment was to follow when Brown traveled to New York to attend the UN General Assembly, with President Obama declining to meet with his British counterpart after no less than five official requests.

There is certainly no love lost between the two leaders, and Brown’s decision to stay away from Washington has all the hallmarks of a significant transatlantic spat…

Although practically unreported, President Obama seems to be chasing our traditional allies away and realigning America with the totalitarian dictators of the world at a blistering pace. This destruction of traditional alliances however doesn’t only apply to Israel and Great Britain.

As remarkable as it is, the fact that neither British Prime Minister Gordon Brown nor Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are attending President Obama’s nuclear security summit in Washington Monday and Tuesday is not altogether surprising.

Relations with both countries — Israel in particular — have grown strained under Obama. Combined with Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent defiance of the administration, questions are growing about the president’s ability to maintain important relationships.

“It is a curious state of affairs when relations with our major democratic allies are all wobbly at once,” said Michael Green, a former foreign policy adviser to President George W. Bush, who also listed Japan and South Korea as traditional allies whose relationships with the U.S. have frayed under Obama.

The president’s critics, many of them from the Bush administration, say the summit absences — heads of state from Australia and Saudia Arabia also are not attending — are the most glaring examples of a floundering foreign policy that treats rivals and enemies better than friends.

“He seems to want to engage rivals, even enemies, more than spend time with friends and allies,” said David Kramer, a top State Department official in the Bush administration.

Elliot Abrams, another former top Bush administration foreign policy adviser, said the current White House was guilty of “diplomatic malpractice.”

“In his treatment of Karzai and Netanyahu, the president has shown an odd understanding of what it means to be a U.S. ally. Surely it should mean that inevitable disagreements are handled privately whenever possible. Surely it should mean avoiding steps that seek to weaken or humiliate a foreign leader,” Abrams said.

Though relations with Karzai grew strained at the end of the Bush administration, the Obama administration’s relationship with the Afghan president — the leader of the country that is currently home to the biggest concentration of U.S. military forces on the planet — has been a soap opera.

During Obama’s trip to Kabul just two weeks ago, he did not praise Karzai and his top officials made clear he was there to put pressure on the Afghan president to do a better job of governance and rooting out corruption.

Karzai responded by denouncing Western interference in last summer’s elections and by talking of joining the Taliban himself.

“Surely we should be treating [Karzai and Netanyahu] better than we treat enemies like [Syrian President] Bashar al-Asad or [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez, or the Russian and Chinese leaders, who if not enemies are certainly not friends,” Abrams said.

Even major European leaders got meetings with Obama this week only at the last minute. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s one-on-one meeting with Obama was scheduled for Tuesday late on Sunday, only after meetings with the leaders of India, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Pakistan, Nigeria, China, Jordan, Malaysia, Ukraine, Armenia and Turkey.

Saudis against Valentine’s day

by Phantom Ace ( 123 Comments › )
Filed under Islamic hypocrisy at February 12th, 2010 - 12:00 pm

The beloved Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has now decided that Valentine’s Day is bad. They are banning any store from selling red items. The reason they are banning Valentine’s Day is because it’s a Christian Holiday!

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – The Saudi religious police launched Thursday a nationwide crackdown on stores selling items that are red or in any other way allude to the banned celebrations of Valentine’s Day, a Saudi official said.

Members of the feared religious police were inspecting shops for red roses, heart-shaped products or gifts wrapped in red, and ordering storeowners to get rid of them, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

Red-colored or heart-shaped items are legal at other times of the year, but as Feb. 14 nears they become contraband in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom bans celebration of Western holidays such as Valentine’s Day, named after a Christian saint said to have been martyred by the Romans in the 3rd Century.

Read the rest.

Islamic Tolerance, they ask for it here but show none in their homelands. This shows you how miserable this culture is and why me must be intolerant of them. It is time to remove the stench of Saudi influence from American politics. We don’t need them as “allies” or their oil. Screw Saudi Arabia they are an enemy and it’s time America realized it.

Blogmocracy Dictionary Part 2: “Dialogue”

by Delectable ( 133 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, CAIR, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives, Tranzis at November 25th, 2009 - 10:35 am

At an interfaith gathering in Nashville Tennassee, a Rabbi Falcon received a hug from the local Islamic Center.

Hug!

As mentioned before, a project I am undertaking with Blogmocracy is a dictionary. The goal of the dictionary is to show how words have been abused and desecrated, and then to reintroduce the words back into the English language.

This is a word that progressives love to bandy around: “dialogue.” And the New York Times is no exception. Check out this news story (hat tip – Debbie Schlussel):

They call themselves the “interfaith amigos.” And while they do sometimes seem more like a stand-up comedy team than a trio of clergymen, they know they have a serious burden in making a case for interfaith understanding in a country reeling after a Muslim Army officer at Fort Hood, Tex., was charged with opening fire on his fellow soldiers, killing 13.

“It arouses once again fear, distrust and doubt,” Sheik Rahman said, “and I know that when that happens, even the best of people cannot think clearly.” . . .

They began to meet weekly for spiritual direction, combining mutual support with theological reflection. Their families became acquainted over meals. They started an AM radio show, and they traveled together to Israel and the occupied territories. Recently, they wrote a book, “Getting to the Heart of Interfaith.”

At one point, the rabbi read a line the sheik had written about the security wall in Israel and announced, “If that line is in the book, I’m not in the book.” After vigorous discussion, Sheik Rahman rewrote the line in a way that both men felt was respectful of their principles.

But what exactly does it mean to “all get along”? Is it, as this article implies, simply a heavy dose of kumbaya?

CAIR has an office of “interfaith dialogue.” The Saudi king launched an “interfaith dialogue” in Madrid (Israelis were banned and Neturei Karta were allowed, of course). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched an “interfaith dialogue” with Mennanites and Quakers.

On the other hand, Seeds of Peace has its own “dialogue” between Israelis and ‘Palestinians.’ Of course, its most famous graduates are Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Aarraf…who went on to form the Hamas-linked International Solidarity Movement.

The Pope launched his own “dialogue” as well, welcoming in numerous Islamic leaders.

And lastly and most importantly, we have our “dialogian in chief,” Barack Obama. He called for “dialogue” in his Cairo “speech to the Islamic world,” and is launching a fruitless “dialogue” with Iran.

Through it all, it appears this “dialogue” is one way. The actual definition of dialogue is to have a give and take – an exchange of ideas. There thus should be some sign – even if a small one – that both sides are willing to listen to what the other has to say.

This is dangerous in two respects: (a) What if the “other side” is an Islamist, and “listening to what they have to say” means listening to, and paying heed to, Islamist propaganda?; (b) What if the “other side” does not listen to what YOU have to say? At what point does it make sense to stop speaking?

Lest we forget, Muslim Mafia outlines how CAIR and other Islamist groups are actually using “dialogue” as a tool for their propaganda. To what extent did “dialogue” and discussions help stop Nazi Germany? And if that did not help, why is it always “evident” that talking is always useful?

It is apparent, based on what I have shown, that “dialogue” to the progressives has been defined as a tool to sit around and say kumbaya, while conceding the store. There is little to no background checks on these “dialogians,” and one such “chief dialogian” is Tariq Ramadan, an outright Islamist.

I urge Blogmocracy netizens to use the proper definition of “dialogue,” which is an open and frank discussion, including a give and take of ideas. “Dialogue” does not necessarily lead anywhere, and should not be seen as some holy grail, and an achievement in and of itself.

I myself have personally sat in on a “dialogue” session between Jews and Muslims, and I was disheartened by what I saw: it was essentially a “blame the Jew” session.

This term “dialogue” is neither good nor bad, as “dialogue” is not always warranted. It is time that world leaders become realistic about what “dialogue” actually means, and start to implement it only when it is warranted.