Our Saudi and Paki Friends

Our Saudi and Paki Friends


Some Facts

by Mustang

International relations theory holds that national policies always follow national interests — as do interests in forming and maintaining foreign alliances.  Before 2001, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the primary supporters of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (also known as the Taliban).  If international relations theory holds, then Pakistan and Saudi Arabia presumably supported the Taliban because doing so served the interests of all three governments.


“saudi-pakistan” by coolloud is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Thirteen days before the Saudi attack against the United States, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia dispatched a letter to U. S. President George W. Bush, stating, “A time comes when peoples and nations part.  We are at a crossroads.  It is time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests.  Those governments that don’t feel the pulse of their people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran” [Note 1].  For more than a year after 9-11, Saudi Arabia’s interior minister insisted that the attackers were “dupes in a Zionist plot.”  In December 2002, the Saudi government claimed that America’s ire concerning the 9-11 attacks resulted from the intolerance of the American people and their hatred of Arab peoples.

In 2003, the Saudis directed additional Islamist attacks against several US compounds in Saudi Arabia.  Since 2001, the British people have suffered 21 separate Saudi-inspired attacks [Note 2].  According to the US State Department, Saudi Arabia has been (and continues to be) the most significant source of terrorist funding in the entire world.  Moreover, agents of Saudi Wahhabism initiated and continue to operate as the primary source of civil strife in Syria.

Despite these facts, the US State Department claims, “The United States and Saudi Arabia have a common interest in preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region and consult closely on a wide range of regional and global issues.  Saudi Arabia plays an important role in working toward a peaceful and prosperous future for the region and is a strong partner in security and counterterrorism efforts, in military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation” [Note 3].  Additionally, Saudi Arabia is the United States’ most significant customer of foreign military sales.

After the Islamist attacks against the United States on 9-11-2001, Pakistan suddenly became one of America’s “key allies” in the war on terror — pressured to do so by President George W. Bush.  It wasn’t that Pakistan was much interested in helping the US in its so-called war on terror, but rather that Bush agreed to pay bounties for the capture and execution of known Pakistani terrorists.  President Bush “forgave” a $1 billion debt owed to the United States to sweeten the deal further.  In 2005, additional taxpayer-funded millions went to “rebuild” Kashmir following an earthquake there.

Again, according to the US State Department, the United States has been one of Pakistan’s largest foreign investors, with concentrations in consumer goods, chemicals, energy, agriculture, “business process outsourcing” [Note 4], transportation, and communications.  In essence, Pakistan has become part of the American welfare system.

Ranked immediately behind Nigeria in purchasing power parity (gross domestic product) is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ranked 25th globally.  Pakistan’s primary resource is exploitable minerals, but its ore deposits are generally poor, with only two regions of the country noted for high-grade ore.  Irrespective of its poor material wealth, most of Pakistan’s exports are sent to the United States, while its primary source of imports is China.

At the heart of diplomatic alliances is the balance of power among nations, and what must always determine the formation of a partnership is perceived national interest.  Since 1947, the United States has provided Pakistan with close to $100 billion in foreign aid and assistance, most of it in military equipment assistance.  Given that the United States provides arms and equipment to Pakistan — and Pakistan turns around and supplies the Taliban with financing, arms, equipment, and manpower, what are the United States’ national interests in supporting a grossly failed regime such as Pakistan?

Note also that since 2001, 2,312 US military personnel have died in Afghanistan; 20,066 American men and women received debilitating wounds.  In this same period, an estimated 40,000 Afghani civilians have been killed due to military operations.  The cost of the Afghan War to the American taxpayer is roughly $842 billion. The fact is that despite this massive economic burden paid for by the American taxpayer, Pakistan is the primary source of funding, recruiting, and arming the so-called Taliban insurgencies in Afghanistan.


Experts have observed that (in their opinion), the Saudi royal family hangs on to its power by a thread.  Whether true, which I find doubtful given that 85% of the Saudi people are Sunni Moslems, it benefits the Kingdom of Saud to domestically support and export one of the most radical forms of Islam: Wahhabism.  The Wahhabi sect of Islam is akin to puritanism.  Its adherents prefer the term Salafi.  The house of Saud supports Wahhabism because, in doing so, it satisfies the radical-most segment of Saudi society.  Once more, from the mouth of the Saudi Interior Minister, “… governments that don’t feel the pulse of their people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.”  It’s a survival thing.  I understand “survival.”  I do not know why the United States seeks to maintain a “national interest” in a nation that seeks to destroy all Christian and/or secular societies.  Shall we bare our throats to a dangerous enemy by calling him “friend?”

What do we know about Pakistan?  First, it is on the verge of being a failed state — as most Islamic states are.  There is nothing about an Islamic state that is compatible with the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.  Nothing.  In Pakistan, the government also hangs on by a thread.  In a nation of well over 180-million people, 90% of whom embrace radical Islam, the government’s only chance of hanging on to power is to accede to the demands of its predominantly Sunni Salafi Moslem population.  The only word to describe Pakistan is “chaos.”  With that as an easily observable fact, why is the United States government paying Pakistan billions of dollars to make war on the United States in Afghanistan?  Perhaps it has something to do with the additional fact that Pakistan possesses more than 100 nuclear warheads.  The thousands of dysfunctional morons running the government of the United States have no concept of such terms as “national interests” or “integrity.”

United States foreign policy with respect to Pakistan has funneled billions of dollars into that country, first to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and completely ignored the fact that Pakistan spends a large amount of that money toward the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.  The fantastic part of this is that ANYONE in the United States has even an iota of confidence in the United States government.  In exchange for its promise to keep its nuclear weapons secure, the United States has turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s direct support of radical Islamic terrorism.  Who is running Pakistan today?  No, not the orthodontist who serves as president.  The power in Pakistan is the Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI).  The ISI is a divided house: moderate and radical Sunni Moslems.  Pakistan’s government could be the most unstable of all US “allies.”  But — we keep pumping in American tax dollars to prop them up.

China may be the least of our problems, but not by much. In this hazardous environment, the American people continue to elect such unbelievable imbeciles as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Granted, Biden’s corrupt relationship with China should at least demand impeachment … but while China confines itself to killing our people through bio-warfare, Saudi Arabia is content to murder our innocent citizens as they make their way to work in the morning, and Pakistan has its finger on a nuclear trigger.

What could possibly go wrong with our traditionally inept foreign policies?  By the way, Democrats … when you send you children off the school in the morning, will that be the last time you ever see them?



[1] Reported in the Wall Street Journal on 1 October 2001.

[2] The Saudi government continues to claim that terrorist attacks are individually sponsored incidents with no tie to the Saudi government — except that factually, the majority of money supporting terrorists’ attacks comes directly from members of the royal family.

[3] Some 37,000 Saudi students’ study at US colleges and universities each academic year.

[4] Business process out-sourcing is a method used to subcontract various business operations to third party vendors.  By business process out-sources, one might assume that the US State Department means telephone help lines that hardly anyone in the United States can understand.  One can understand why a major US company would out-source certain business practices to the IRP once they realize how cheap labor is in Pakistan and the tax benefits from sending US jobs to overseas locations.  At the present time, the top US companies who engage Pakistan (and other third world countries) to handle their call centers are Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi Group, Hewlett Packard, Sykes Enterprises, Convergys, T-Mobile, and Prudential Financial.  The first five of these companies “went off shore” after receiving taxpayer-funded federal bailouts; Hewlett Packard, Sykes, and Convergys are able to use off-shore call centers because of multi-million dollar federal contracts, and T-Mobile and Prudential Financial receive federal subsidies to operate off-shore call centers.

Thanks Whatfinger for the link… click on the button and check it out.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Check it out –

Saudis gave the Obama Team suitcases of jewels before apology tour

No wonder Hillary loved the Saudis. One can only wonder how much stuff made its way to Chappaquiddick and her foundations. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of jewels were given to the Obama entourage on their visit. Why am I just not sure all of it made its way back to the government as required? A tidbit from Ben Rhodes book that no one will tell you.

But first a flashback.

Remember this?  

Why is Hillary measuring White House drapes in 2016, can’t she reference the ones she stole in 2000?

This was as she and Bill were exiting.

Giving Back

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

But now on to Ben Rhodes book:

Now we know one reason why Obama bowed to the Saudi monarch.
The Saudi Kingdom gave the Obama team suitcases of jewels during their infamous Apology Tour.

The White House later insisted this was not a bow in another lie.

Zero Hedge reported:

Saudi Arabia gave White House aides jewellery worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in large suitcases, according to Ben Rhodes, former speechwriter and deputy national security adviser in the Obama administration.

In his memoir The World As It Is, published on Tuesday, Rhodes recounts a trip to Saudi Arabia in June 2009 soon after Barack Obama became president.

He says on arrival he and other US officials were taken to housing units in a compound owned by the monarchy in the desert.

“When I opened the door to my unit, I found a large suitcase,” Rhodes recounts.

“Inside were jewels.”

The trip to Saudi Arabia was the beginning of Obama’s first tour of the Middle East as president, and preceded his famous Cairo speech which he intended as a message to the Muslim world.

Rhodes says at first he thought the bagged treasure was a bribe, to influence him as he wrote Obama’s speech.

However, he soon learned he was not the only member of the delegation to be lavished with such expense.


Eleven other White House officials were given gift sets by the Saudi government.

The president and his wife, Michelle, were not spared expensive gifts either.

The then Saudi king, Abdullah, gave the Obamas and their daughters almost $190,000 worth of gifts.

A diamond and ruby jewelery set given to Michelle Obama was valued at $132,000 alone.


Why Robert Mueller was selected to be the Special Prosecutor

So who are the real bad guys? Iran or the Saudi’s? Who was really behind the Khobar Towers killings? And what did Comey and Mueller know and what have they done? Take a minute to look at a long and fascinating article which digs into the deepest bowels of the Deep State. My snippets don’t do the Author justice, but gives you a flavor. What do you think?

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

It all began with the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in the Saudi city of Khobar, which killed 19 U.S. military, who worked at the Dharan air base three miles away.

That incident became the lynchpin of the accusation by the Saudi royal family, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, that Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Both Robert Mueller and his longtime ally James Comey (the latter of whose firing as the FBI chief, by U.S. President Trump, had sparked the appointment of Mueller to become the Special Counsel investigating the U.S. President) performed crucial roles in establishing that the Khobar Towers bombing had been a Hezbollah operation run by the Iranian Government – and, starting upon this basis, in helping to develop the case that Iran “is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism.”

However, as has been made clear by several great independent investigative journalists, on the basis of far more-solid documentation than the official account, the Khobar Towers bombing was instead entirely a fundamentalist-Sunni operation, specifically perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which hates Shia and which also hates America’s military presence in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden’s claim of the bombing’s having been done by Al Qaeda, was, in fact, entirely honest and accurate.

America’s “Deep State,” which extends to Saudi Arabia and to a number of other Governments – it’s an international network – is deeply committed to supporting the fundamentalist-Sunni war to conquer and destroy Shia Islam, and not merely to conquer the leading Shia nation, which is Iran. The U.S. Government has intensely taken a side in the Sunni-Shia religious war. That war is comparable in some respects to the 30 Years’ War (1618-1648) between Catholics and Protestants, which killed an estimated eight million Europeans; and, both the United States and Israel have clearly join with the fundamentalist-Sunni leaders, against Iran, and against Shia generally.


Both Mueller and Comey were high enough “at the top” so as to know what the people below them needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers.

The New York Times’s report, on 15 August 1996, quoted a leading Saudi dissident in London as asserting that, “As far as I know, Prince Nayef is keeping the Americans away from all the details at this point.” This report went on: “In a statement responding to the earlier reports of confessions, Prince Nayef said Saudi Arabia would make an announcement as soon as the investigation is completed. His comments were also viewed as refuting earlier suggestions by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, who had said that Saudi investigations might point to an Iranian connection.” In other words, at that time (as of August 15th), the U.S. official was suggesting “an Iranian connection” but the Saudi official wasn’t — at least, not yet — and the expectation was that “confessions” would be providing the decisive ‘evidence’. However, these ‘confessions’, in Saudi cases are typically ‘information’ extracted under torture, and, where that fails to obtain the ‘information’ that’s desired by the Government, then threats to destroy the person’s immediate family are applied; so, the Sauds famously usually do get exactly the ‘information’ that they want (regardless of whether it’s true).


In other words: the head of the FBI believed torture-extracted ‘confessions’ as if such would meet U.S. rules of evidence — which they don’t. And coaching of witnesses is likewise prohibited — under U.S. laws.

On 30 May 2013, The Washingtonian headlined “Forged Under Fire — Bob Mueller and Jim Comey’s Unusual Friendship” and Garrett M. Graff reported:

 Although they’d been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening days of the Bush administration. … As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft’s deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case to Comey.

When he finally did so, Mueller called Comey with a warning: “Wilma Lewis is going to be so pissed.” Indeed, Lewis blasted the decision, as well as both Freeh and Mueller personally, in a press release, saying the move was “ill-conceived and ill-considered.” But Freeh’s gambit paid off.

Within weeks, Comey had pulled together the indictment. During a National Security Council briefing at the White House, under the watchful gaze of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Comey presented overwhelming evidence of Iran’s involvement.

On the eve of the expiration of the statute of limitations, fourteen individuals were indicted for the attack. Freeh, who stepped down the next day, said the indictment was “a major step.”

So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn’t go along with that torture-extracted ‘testimony’ as ‘evidence’, then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller are a team – a team that serves the Bushes and the Sauds. But not the American public.

Our continuing war against Iran is due entirely to their crucial assistance. The Deep State appoints such individuals.

Keep reading over at  Zero Hedge

This might be of interest:

Here is the real James Comey – Let’s take a look

Poor Mooch Obama was dissed by the Saudis

There are questions as to whether the blurred image of Mooch during a broadcast was limited to certain markets. Questions arose as to whether anyone shook hands with her. Either way, it is claimed the Saudi’s are really best friends with the Obama’s (Chuckle time) as the Saudi stone and torture women.

BLOOMBERG – The Saudi state television station apparently blurred out the image of U.S. first lady Michelle Obama in the broadcast of her and President Barack Obama’s meeting with new Saudi King Salman today in Riyadh.

The new king shook hands with President Obama at the Erga Palace but didn’t acknowledge the first lady during a brief meeting at the funeral for King Abdullah. Barack and Michelle Obama cut short their trip to India to attend the funeral.

Read more: Right Scoop

Saudi Women Vow to Breastfeed Their Drivers in Accordance With Recent Fatwa if They’re Not Given Right to Drive…

Let’s think about it. I would say we have some very clever muslim women over in Riyadh. Of all the muslim regions, my impression was they were a bit more advanced In Quatar. But hey, whatever works:

Rest of the storty:
From qatarliving Mag
  Necessity is the motherhood of invention. Breast milk kinship is considered to be as good as a blood relationship in Islam

“A woman can breastfeed a mature man so that he becomes her son. In this way, he can mix with her and her daughters without violating the teachings of Islam,” the scholar said. I love that this article comes from “Quatar Living”

Saudi women plan to turn a controversial fatwa (religious ruling) to their advantage and launch a campaign to achieve their long-standing demand to drive in this conservative kingdom.

If the demand is not met, the women threatened to follow through the fatwa which allows them to breastfeed their drivers and turn them into their sons.

The campaign will be launched under the slogan: “We either be allowed to drive or breastfeed foreigners,” a journalist told Gulf News.

Amal Zahid said that their decision follows a fatwa issued by a renowned scholar which said that Saudi women can breastfeed their foreign drivers for them to become their sons.

“As every Saudi family needs a driver, our campaign will focus on women’s right to drive,” she said.

The controversial fatwa, which was regarded as both funny and weird, issued recently by Shaikh Abdul Mohsin Bin Nasser Al Obaikan, member of Saudi Council of Senior Scholars and adviser to the king, has sparked a debate in society.

The renowned scholar said Saudi women can breastfeed their foreign drivers for them to be become their sons and brothers to their daughters.

Under this relationship, foreign drivers can mix freely with all members of the family without breaking the Islamic rule which does not allow mixing of genders.

Hat Tip Weasel Zippers

%d bloggers like this: