...I do not support arms sales to Muslims...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 10:54 AM

Nothing of higher technological value that WW I Spads or Fokker D-7's should be allowed into the mitts of these theocratic throwbacks.

Lenin was right: "They will even sell their enemies the rope to hang them with."

Crapitalism at its most obstuse.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 28, 2007 11:04 AM

Crap. I am going to write my representative and senators about this.

You can find yours here

http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

(Your need the zip code in ZIP+4 format, e.g.12345-6789)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Posted by: non-redneck at July 28, 2007 11:04 AM

DEBKA Reports: Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia ...

.....that is a sizable force.....I hope Israel is beefing up its ground to air missile systems....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 11:06 AM

non-redneck-

Already on it, but good links. Thanks.

No suicide for oil!

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 28, 2007 11:09 AM

Spencer asks:

Against whom will the Saudis use these arms?

Hugh Fitzgerald has offered the theory that should the Saudis (Sunnis) and the Iranians (Shia) fight each other, that will help weaken the Camp of Islam.

Hugh Fitzgerald might be right, but ONLY if both sides are sufficiently equally matched that such a war doesn't end quickly with a decisive victory for Iran. Because in that case, Iran will own Mecca and Medina and most of the Arabian peninsula, and will be the most powerful Islamic force in the Middle East in many decades. Then it will be next to impossible for the U.S. Navy to keep the Persian Gulf open to shipping, because now it will be surrounded on both sides by Iranian forces.

Arming the Saudis to offset the Iranian numerical advantage makes sense in that regard.

Posted by: Steven L. at July 28, 2007 11:20 AM

Steven L.-
Arming Saudis, buying Saudi oil, gifting 7th bentury plunderers and barbarians (who are religiously obligated to crush us) with the fruits of our civilization does not and NEVER will make sense.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 28, 2007 11:29 AM

"the U.S. has no more troops available to defend Saudi Arabia,..."

....it is time to tell the saudis goodbye, anyway....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 11:41 AM

The point made about arming the saudis is quite valid. There is NO point in NOT arming them if others are arming Iran. However I agree that if Iran were not being supplied by China,NK and russia then we should not sell arms to the Saudis.

We can always hope that a Saudi vs Iran war occurs but I think that there may be a population disparity here unless the other Sunni states come to the aid of the saudis.

However if it were up to me I would not give any of the the sods even a boomerang, but perhaps quite a few white raisins might not go amiss.

Posted by: MisIslamist at July 28, 2007 11:44 AM

Steve makes an interesting case. But there is much more to it. For as long as we're in the position of using fossil fuels to power our cars and factories, our relationship with the Saudis has profound implications for our economic well-being. Saudi Arabia is the one country with the production capacity to single-handedly determine the price of oil in the world, and thus to make $77 a barrel oil look like the good old days.

Before you all start sounding off, keep in mind that personally, I despise the House of Saud and am incredulous that 33 years after the first Arab oil embargo, our economy is more dependent on petroleum than ever. But reality is reality. This is a very important relationship.

They have us over a barrel.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 28, 2007 11:51 AM

"We can always hope that a Saudi vs Iran war occurs but I think that there may be a population disparity here unless the other Sunni states come to the aid of the saudis."

....Iran had better hope the other Sunni states do not show up for the big brawl....Sunnis out number the Shi'ites (The muslim world is 85% Sunni)...

....coming soon....The Fall Brawl....brought to you live by Islam.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 28, 2007 11:55 AM

Posted by: Steven L
"The Saudis are getting increasingly nervous about Iran. With Saddam gone and the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, the Iranians are really throwing their weight around lately."

Any Iranian land-based invasion of Saudi Arabia would have to go through Iraq, which would trigger a large-scale coalition attack on Iran in response. A bit of shock and awe on downtown Tehran would soon cool their heels.

Posted by: Matamoros at July 28, 2007 12:07 PM

Remember the Saudi Sunnis and Persians Shi'ites may hate one another -in a family feud kind of way- but they all are united in their Koranic hatred infidels far more.

This move of "we're afraid of each other, give us arms" may be a tactical Muslim game of "play the infidel suckers (Russia/China, etc. vs U.S./U.K., etc.) off each other for gaining advanced kaffir weaponry for the entire Ummah".

War is deceit, as Mohammad advised them.

They are joined in their Greater Hatred of us (with a nod to their concept of the Lesser and Greater Jihad), over their Lesser Hatred of one another.

No arms for theocratic terrorists of any stripe.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 28, 2007 12:32 PM

BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AT ONCE.

This President should be impeached. He is infinitely more deserving of that impeachment than either Nixon or Clinton. Simply going into Iraq and staying there (having lied about the reason(s) for doing so), among other reasons including this treasonous sale of advanced weaponry to an enemy of the US – an enemy with whom we are at war, are good enough reasons to begin impeachment proceedings. SA is that enemy.

Bush believes his enemies are only Al Sadr, Sunni “insurgents” and the democrats. This imbecilic president and his cronies are also more concerned with their Jesus and my penis than they have been in defining the enemy or this war to a bewildered populace and West. The only reason Democrats have not started impeaching Bush is because they fear being branded as the party who attacked the president in a time of war. But despite the feeble attempts at refutation of Bush’s critics by such rags as the Weekly Standard or NR, the American public has finally come to terms with the magnitude of the disaster that this administration has unleashed.

We must work diligently to make sure congress does not approve of this purchase or least provides for infinitely. Contact your Senator and Congressman at once.

Giving Israel more military aid to "offset" the SA deal is madness when one considers that even relative parity in military power between the Arabs and Israel inures to the benefit of the Arabs who have the advantages of both land and vast armies (and terrorists who are nothing more than militia men).

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at July 28, 2007 12:41 PM

It is a moot point now but Bush in the white house is one mistake American generations (if America survives) will regret. Starting with Mexican family values (we just have to open the crime page overflowing with innocent American men women and children raped, murdered and destroyed by, in Bush's speak, "those who do jobs Americans won't do" or "family values don't stop at Rio Grande") to American "friends" Saudi Arabia (never mind wahhabis killed 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11} was not enough. Now, selling the rope to hang his fellow countrymen, women and children.....

As they say.. people get the government they deserve.

Posted by: Alert at July 28, 2007 1:06 PM

please, lets vote these people out of office. even the democrats at the last election wanted no more relations with these people. god i will vote for anyone that stops dealing with these people. even a certain uk party wants no more dealings with this fascist filth.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at July 28, 2007 1:36 PM

god i will vote for anyone that stops dealing with these people.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at July 28, 2007 1:36 PM

That candidate would be Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-CO.: www.teamtancredo.com . His record against Islamic terror and Illegal immigration speaks for itself.

Posted by: Alert at July 28, 2007 1:42 PM

Try this: http://www.teamtancredo.com

Posted by: Alert at July 28, 2007 1:43 PM

alert

this guy would be hailed as a "neo-fascist" if he came out with these sensible views in the UK. he seems like a great level headed nationalist. his views are straight and to the point. i have added myself to his campaign.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at July 28, 2007 2:12 PM

I suppose we could spare some bows and arrows............

Posted by: tanstaafl at July 28, 2007 2:27 PM

this guy would be hailed as a "neo-fascist" if he came out with these sensible views in the UK.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at July 28, 2007 2:12 PM

Coming from UK, you well know that Jefferson, Washington and Adams were branded as traitors. Gandhi was tried for treason. Is any of the above less patriot than another? True patriots do what is right for the nation, regardless of how they are percieved. Infact, in these times of political intimidation, US needs statesmen with guts and spine, more than smooth-talking, media-savvy politicians, if you see the difference. Again, Tom Tancredo, in all his human limitation, does not lack in patriotism or statesmanship: http://www.teamtancredo.com

Posted by: Alert at July 28, 2007 2:33 PM

This is INSANE. We are providing modern armory to the Pals, Hamas (they got the stuff we gave to Fatah in Gaza), Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey. Bush is trying his best to get a Muslim state created in Kosovo.

Are they truly no advisors anywhere near Bush that have a clue about the big picture Islam? Or do all of them not take religion seriously?

Posted by: John Sobieski at July 28, 2007 4:10 PM

Against whom will the Saudis use these arms?

Uh, against Iran (and Iraq, once we pull out and the Iranians' Shiite allies take over completely there)?

But maybe that's OK, because the Shiites in Iraq will totally be grateful to us and pro-American and all, because we'll have let them dominate the Sunnis. It will be even better when the Iraqis and Iranians encourage the Shiites in the Eastern (oil-producing) Province of Saudi Arabia to rebel, so the Province can come under Shiite rule. I'm sure the Shiites there will thank us too for having denied arms to the Saudis. The way the Iranians thanked us for having cut the Shah off at the knees. Oh, wait. . .

Posted by: Seamus at July 28, 2007 7:51 PM

Hopefully they are gearing up against Iran. The keepers of the holy places may be a more acceptable occupation force.

Posted by: shokk at July 28, 2007 8:12 PM

about gearing up against Iran,

I'm not so sure...

I am not like up on all the names etc [because its not been the area of focus I've worked on] but,

question,

maybe some of you could answer.

1. Iran is right now in turmoil, the students have been revolting, the gov/mullahs are cracking down hard due to the resistance and people fed up with the totalitarianism,

2. the communist left/worker's party [and Rajavi--Marxist] ARE ALL up against the Iranian regime, and growing

3. Bush and the pending war with Iran

then this, the arms with Saudies,

but wasn't it the Wahhibi, from Saudi, in 2006,

to a video in UK [the video is on the youtube, hidden Mosque video--if you haven't seen it you should, somebody posted it on here]

but he said, that when they get the 'call from Saudi' then worldwide Jihad will result--that for now they are abiding by the laws, man made laws of the west but not for long...

so, are we so sure they will use these arms against Iran,

or against

the west?

could it be a big deception, to pretend they are divided to dupe the west into a war--then turn it against the west?

It just seems a tad odd that it was the Iman from Saudi who is dictating this major jihad to the Mosques not only in UK but here in the states I'm sure--[the Mullah or Iman of this mosque too was an American, converted over to Islam],

just something 'off' about it--Saudi as an ally--against Iran,

something amiss there. I mean on one hand I see on gender and religion all the time about these talks in Saudi over changing laws regarding women yet, they turn right around and kick out Canadians I believe it was, over this whole gender segregation and these Canadian women had to fly back home--they were outraged of course,

but I would think any arms deals with Saudi or any Islamic country would be suicide.

it just doesn't add up. [so whats the agenda behind Bush's decision?]

Natasha

Posted by: Natasha at July 29, 2007 1:02 AM

bows and arrow? Never... only snowballs at $100 per barrel

Posted by: lonewolf at July 29, 2007 1:39 AM

If this is part of the multi billion dollar deal. We should not send them our bottled tap water for their camels.

I would not sell them our sand, if they needed more sand!

MK

Posted by: Malaria_Kidd at July 29, 2007 3:46 AM

DEBKA Reports: Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia ...

Yeah so WHAT..??!!! The Israelis simply ***FLY*** better.

As long as noone holds them back I have faith they can take care of bizniz.

Let these islamos buy all the arms they want.. they have to learn how to USE them.

The peoples of the World.. meaning Western Nations.. invent this stuff.. and it becomes obsolete as soon as it is ready for delivery.

I am not nearly as afraid of all-out war as I am of this creeping islamification by immigration.

i ***WISH*** they'd attack Europe or the USA with weaponry.. so we can FINALLY take OFF the gloves already!!!!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at July 29, 2007 4:32 AM

This arms deal, for $20 billion, is supposedly prompted by "fear of Iran." But this is nonsense. It is a sign of complete mental exhaustion and utter confusion by those who presume, obstinately still ignoring the nature of Islam, incapable of thinking in world-historical terms and only of this particular time and only about the Middle East (the main threat is not in the MIddle East, the main threat comes from the Money Weapon that supports Da'wa and demographic conquest by providing the wherewithal for mosques, and madrasas, and Islamic propaganda, aided by Muslims and non-Muslim Western hirelings and unpaid ideological collaborators prompted either by anti-Americanism or antisemitism -- to disarm European opposition to a burgeoning Muslim presence.

That Money Weapon comes from Saudi Arabia and the rich Arab sheikdoms and sheiklets, and it is these which are about to be offered, in an act of supreme folly for which the most absurd and transparent rationales will be, are being, offered (does anyone think that the Saudi regime will really be threatened by Iran's armed forces? Isn't the threat only one of disturbances by local Shi'a in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, in Bahrain, in Kuwait, and possibly Yemen? What would rockes and missiles, with the latest technology, do about that threat? And isn't it true that the Saudis themselves will not be capable of using such weapons, but that a free-floating international group of Sunni warriors (possibly even Iraqis) can manage to master some of the technology, and that it is folly to pretend that Israel will not be the immediate victim of - and certainly have to spend much of its time worrying about, war-planning for (and the same Administration, or others, really expect Israel, given the forces now to be supplied with every conceivalbe modern weapon -- Egypt to its west, and Saudi Arabia and all of those smaller Gulf states to its south and east, and who knows how long it would be for Jordan, or assorted "Palestinian" groups, their appetite only to be whetted by further Israeli territorial surrenders, in or out of Jordan, or Syria (its regime to be "won" away from the Iranian Shi'a "axis," the Saudis will plausibly --- oh, whatever Saudi Arabia says immediately becomes plausible in the minds of policymakers in Washington, who have been throughly corrupted and brainwashed by decades of Aramco propaganda followed by decades of money being handed out right and left, directly and indirectly finding its way to the pockets of the well-connected, of both parties -- and not only from the egregious smiler Prince Bandar (who apparently barges into top-secret war-planning sessions with impunity, and Saudi generals even now are self-assuredly walking the halls of the Pentagon -- and have been for the past year or more, no doubt discussing that "arms sale").

Saudi Arabia, or rather the Al-Saud, may or may not worry about local Shi'a threats. But there is no conceivable threat of Iran crossing all of Iraq, and the western desert of Iraq, into Saudi Arabia (Saudi volunteers now go to Syria in order to enter Iraq). It's a false worry, and the Adminstration, incapable of coming to grips with the problem of Islam, incapable of seeing Saudi Arabia not as an "ally" but as an enemy, an enemy in the end far more dangerous, if the menace is understood to be not local but world-wide, to Infidels, than Iran is or every could be.

Iran is a threat only because of the local Shi'a populations. Fine. Let those populations be a source of permanent anxiety to the Al-Saud, to the As-Sabah, to the Al-Khalifa, and all the others. We don't need, we shouldn't even desire, stability in those countries. We want the Saudis to feel under threat, preferably the kind of threat that involves other Muslims. We do not want them to manipulate us- y, how easy it is for them -=- into supplying weaponry which only a fool would pretend will always be in "safe hands." First, there is always the possibility of the Al-Saud falling in Saudi Arabia, and something even worse coming along. Second, there is always the possiblity of elements within the Saudi military managing to gain control of some of this weaponry and passing it off to others, outside Saudi Arabia. Third, there is the question of technical knowhow, and of what China, a country now courting Saudi Arabia, learning about American weapons foolishly being given to a country such as Saudi Arabia (does anyone think the Saudis would hesitate a minute to allow the Chinese to inspect such weapons if they thought it served their purposes? Or could weaken the Camp of Infidels, and the Americans at its head? Oh, but Americans will be there, to make sure it doesn't happen? Really? So it is inconceivable that overnight the Saudis could order the American military advisers and overseers out, the way Khaddafy ordered them out, and took over Wheelus Air Base in Benghazi, after his coup in 1969? Just not possible? And isn't it possible that those American advisers, or some of them, might under the inducement of fabulous sums, manage to become Muslims, and to enter the service of the Saudi government, perhaps secretly, perhaps overtly, sharing weapons-systems secrets on maintenance and use? None of that, really, is conceivable?

And if Saudi Arabia, Qatar (the supporter of Al-Jazeera, an organ of enemy propaganda every bit as much as Radio Berlin or Radio Tokyo were), Kuwait, the Emirates are all to receive American weaponry (you can hear it now, can't you: the bleating voices in unison telling Congress "but if we don't sell them they will turn to the Chinese" and the members of Congress not being able to see right through that hollow threat, for in the end the only force that the rich Arabs can rely on --until the Chinese navy starts patrolling the Straits of Hormuz, which is not happening in the next 5-10 years at least -- is the United States.

The American government should do nothing to curry favor with Saudi Arabia. What it should be doing is on every occasion reading the Saudis the riot act.

And the one thing that the Saudis must do has nothing to do with cosmetic visits by the Arab Leauge to Israel. No, Saudi Arabs cannot be expected to give up their ardent desire, a desire shared by almost all Arab Muslims -- to eliminate the Infidel state of Israel, by the w (and it is silly to expect that change of heart, but equally silly not to see through their transparent attempts to occasionally hint or pretend, purely for Western leaders, that they might, just might, accept a rump state,Israel in the 1949 Armistice Lines, without control of the Judean Heights or of aquifers on which Israel depends, thus the people of Israel being forced to live, in a dhimmi-state that will exist in a condition of permanent, maximum, utterly intolerable vulnerability, and slowly but surely emptied out of its threatened Jewish population, unable to stand living in such a situation).

When it comes to Israel, the right course is not to urge the Arabs to "change." They may pretend for the sake of furthering the Slow Jihad, but that has nothing to do with their unchangeable goals). Instead, the Americans (and the Europeans, if they could figure out that the menace to them and to Israel is not a different, but the same menace, prompted by the same texts, tenets, attitudes), should work to ensure that Israel remains, in its control of necessary territory (territory to which, it needs to be constantly repeated, it has legal, historic, and moral title, beginning with the precise terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and what underlay that Mandate, and with the larger question of how non-Muslim minorities in Dar al-Islam are to be treated, are to be permitted some form of escape or liberation from their Muslim overlords and dhimmi condition, without simply becoming exiles permanently deprived of the right to their own homeland).

But there is something we can ask of the Saudis, or rather several things. One is that we make clear that in the end it is not the weaponry we sell (or, one hopes, do not sell) them, that will determine whether or not the "threat from Iran" --while they at times seem to be deliberately exaggerating their worry over this "threat from Iran" (the Americans, you see, wouldn't understand or sympathize if the Saudis told the truth, and explained that what they are really worried about are internal problems with local Shi'a whom the Saudis have so mistreated, and intend to continue to mistreat, for they know of no other way to deal with those they consider niot to be full Muslims, or non-Arab Muslims (a word of condemnation about Darfur, not to mention the 1.8 million black Africans who died in the southern Sudan at Arab Musliim hands, from Saudi Arabia? Don't be silly).

By agreeing to sell these weapons, the American administration continues to base policy on what should by now have been understood to be a misunderstanding about Islam, about Saudi Arabia, and about the extent of the world-wide threat. When it comes to the campaigns of Da'wa and demographic conquest in the West, it is not Iran but Saudi Arabia that is the enemy. The Americans should not be signalling, with this weapons sale, that they have learned nothing and that they continue to regard Saudi Arabia as an "ally" or "staunch ally" (it never was, it never will be, for it cannot be --how can a state built on, that prides itself on, Islam ever conceivably be a true friend to Infidels? It makes no sense. It shows a colossal, wilful, dangerous misunderstanding still of Islam. And those who continue to hold such views are endeangering the rest of us, the very people whom those in Washington are supposed to instruct and protect. But clearly, some of them cannot learn new tricks, new things, simply will not see Islam steeadily and whole, will not take the time to study, with comprehension, the texts, nor the history of Jihad-conquest and mistreatment, everywhere, of the non-Muslims who were conquered.

And most fantastic of all is the inability to see the problem not merely as "terrorism" but as Jihad, Jihad conducted by means of various instruments. And if Jihad is the problem, if Islam is the problem, then the question in Iraq is not how to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" but, rather, how to use the situation in Iraq for the benefit of Americans and other Infidels, how, that is, to weaken the Camp of Islam.

And in Iraq, the answer should be, but apparently (to judge by the inability so far of others, the prominent ones, to recognize, and grasp, what has been written so often here). The fissures, sectarian (Sunni and Shi'a) and ethnic (Arab and Kurd) in Iraq long predated the American invasion. a Iraq, not to see how the re-emergence of pre-existing sectarian and ethnic fissures, held in check only through the iron fist and state terror and intermittentmass murder employed by Saddam Husein, was inevitable. And those Americans who continue to overlook what should be obvious (this has been discussed at this website since early 2004, with hundreds of postings devoted to this very subject, in an attempt to din it into the minds of JW visitors, in the hope that it would percolate outward, upward, downard, a tous azimuths) must be told yet again that the fissures, the first one dating back to the first century of Islam, and the second -- the Arab misreatment, including murder, of the Muslim but non-Arab Kurds, also dating back to early Islam, when it soon became established that whatever its universalist pretensions, Islam was in fact then, and has remained ever since, a vehicle for Arab imperialism, linguistic, cultural, and political.

By allowing such fissures to be vividly on dispaly in Iraq (and there is no chance, none, of the Sunnis ever acquiescing in their loss of Baghdad, loss of power in Iraq, to the "Rafidite dogs" the Sh'a; and no chance, none, of the Shi'a ever forgiving the Sunnis or not wishing now to keep the power that, by their numbers -- more than 60% of the population -- they are entitled to if head-counting, or purple-thumb counting, is to be the "democratic" basis of their government) the Americans will have not created a sitatuion, but simply have stopped squandering resources trying to prevent what they should not be trying to prevent, but rather welcome. And if the Kurds achieve more than local autonomy, and obtain an independent state, that will not only cause unsettlement among Iran's Kurds and other non-Persian minorities (and be far more effective in limiting Iran's mischief-making than all that weaponry that is supposed to be sold to the Saudis) but also do the same in Syria (there are ways for the Americans, the sole support of the Kurds, to extract a promise from the Kurds that whatever they do in Iran or Syria, they will make no territorial demands on Turkey; at the same time, the Americans should obtain from the Turkish army, which uses American weaponry, a promise not to act against Kurdistan, and in return the Americans will support, rather than deplore, any possible army action to protect Kemalism against the slow creeping islamisation which only secular Turks, not naive outsiders, can sense the full danger of, and which they may need to act against, but will need the assurance of American (and European) understanding and approval. Kurdish independence, or the mere resisting by the Kurds of Arabs insistent on keeping the Kurds under Arab control, would be a useful example for the Berbers and other non-Arab Muslims, useful in raising, and emphasizing, and making the subject of great and constant official and unofficial attention, the question of Islam as a vehicle of Arab imperialism. This topic needs to be stressed -- stressed in Indonesia, and in sub-Saharan Africa, and among the Berbers (in Algeria, Morocco, and in France), for 80% of the world's Muslims are not Arabs, and many of them, the most advanced intellectuals, keenly feel and deeply resent the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs, and wish to distance their own Islam (see the Pakistani lawyer who, leading the demonstrations against Musharraf, dares to state - a bit too optimistically, I'm afraid -- that "South Asian Islam" is not like "Arab Islam" and "Pakistan" is "not Saudi Arabia, not Kuwait." The mere public expression of such a sentiment begins to get us closer to the theme that needs expression: Arab Supremacism Within Islam. For this will not only make it harder for the Arabs to dictate the most militant line to other Muslims, but may make some of that 80% of the world's Muslims more willing to consider that Islam has not done them any good, that they are not obligated to remain in thrall to the Arab-supremacist ideology of Islam. Once this theme is brought forth and raised at every forum, it will be hard for the Arabs, and non-Arabs alike, to deny the truth of this Arab supremacism. And if the Kurds can become the first non-Arab Muslims to successfully throw off the Arab yoke, this will be an important achievement for both non-Arab Muslims and for Infidels.

The second fissure, that between Sunnis and Shi'a, is to be found nowhere else with the forces so matched. Everywhere else in Dar al-Islam, the Sunnis greatly outnumber (save in tiny Bahrain) the Shi'a, that they have not dared to win power. The only exception is Iran, where the situation is reversed. Within Islam the Shi'a constitute only 15% of the population, yet right the Shi'a constitute 50% of the population around the Persian Gulf, with all of its oil and gas deposits. What that means is that the fight here is much more evenly matched, and that is a good thing, for our stake is not in stability butin constant strife within the Camp of Islam. Because of Islam itself, which encourages an aggressive and violent attitude, a worldview of Victor and Vanquished (not the Western world of intelligent compromise), a world where one makes agreements only in order to break them at the earliest opportunity, a world where every game is zero-sum and one is more interested in denying people of another tribe or group benefits, than in receiving them oneself. American soldiers who while in Iraq dealt with various aspects of "rebuilding" have recounted to me (and to others) the behavior, the incredible selfishness, the lack of any sense of a nation or much of anything larger than their own group, exhibited by all kinds of Iraqis. No, there will be no peace based on sweet-reasonable Shi'a and Sunnis, in Iraq. And co-religionists on both sides will send in money, materiel, volunteers.

And that is not to be deplored. That is to be welcomed.

What is not to be welcomed, what is to be deplored, is this massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia. It allows the Saudis to think that they can continue to treat us as they have, offering the thinnest veneer of support, all the time working malevolently, both the government and rich individual Saudis, to spread Islam and to weaken the civilization of the West, in Western Europe and North America. The Saudis are protected from Iran not by the weapons some foolishly think they should be sold but by American naval and other military forces. The way to “recycle petrodollars’ intelligently is not to sell Saudi Arabia the most advanced weapons that will make hellishly difficult the defense planning of permanently-imperilled Israel, the survival of which should be of major concern to all intelligent members of the Western world, and not only because of the complete moral collapse that permitting Israel to live in a permanent condition of such imperilment would cause, but what the weakening or ultimate disappearance of Israel (Pim Fortuyn’s last book was called “Israel, Fifty Years….And Then?”) would mean for Muslim triumphalism, for the sense not, as some fondly tink would happen, that “good, we got rid of Israel and now we can be true friends of the Infidels without that business getting in the way” but rather, what would of course happen – “we finally did get rid of Israel, because we were patient and used all the instruments of Jihad with great cleverness. And we shall do the same with France and Germany and Spaiin and Italy and the Nethrlands and Great Britain and Denmark and Belgium and Norway and Sweden. Yes, truly, after a centuries-long slumber Islam is On the March.”

No Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia (nor to any Arab Muslim regime, and certainly not to hostile treacherous malevolent Egypt, discovered by the Americans –have you forgotten? – to have been deeply involved in joint weapons development projects with the Iraqis. The Mubarak Family-and-Friends Regime, receiving more than $60 billion in American aid so far, has not fulfilled a single one of its solemn commitments under the Camp David Accords to end “hostile propaganda’toward Israel and to encourage peaceful relationis. Instead, Egypt has in its press and on televisioin, become a world center of antisemitism, not least with a recent television series based on “the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” As for the continued unpunished, and often officially-sanctioned, mistreatment of the original Egyptians, the Copts – is that behavior, too, to be rewarded rather than punished/? Are those who make policy simply terrified of cutting off aid to Egypt – that is, to they regard such aid as essential to be continued, “lest the Egyptians react badly” – that is, lest Muslims who have chosen to regard the aid from Infidels as a tribute that is theirs by right, not to be interrupted, chosen to regard it with the classic attitude of Muslmis receiving the Jizyah from Infidels – are we too, the donors, going to continue, when the rich Arabs have taken in ten trillion dollars since 1973 and Saudi Arabia alone now pockets nearly a billion dollars a day in entirely unmerited, undeserved oil revenues – to support the Egyptians and other Arabs, and not demand that they go with their requests for such aid to the rich Arabs, and especially to the Saudis?

What is wrong with those who make policy not only about the Middle East, but about Islam? Again and again they have shown themselves to be out of their depth. Carter and Brzezinski and the egregrious Gary Sick (the “Iran expert” did nothing to support the Shah, and indeed Carter seemed to welcome as a fellow “man of God” the Ayatollah Khomeini (and Carter hasn’t looked back since). Generations of policymakers chose to believe Aramco propaganda, a tale that, as J. B. Kelly once wrote (see “Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies” written in 1979), “the ghost of Scheherezade could not have bettered.” Even if the general ignorance of Islam needed a kick to come to an end, that kick was provided on September 111, 20001. The leaders and those in the media who have a responsibility to learn, ought to have been spending every available moment, not chopping wood outside Waco (Bush), or luxuritating in one of Berlusconi’s villas (“Blair), nor reading the biography of some Great Man, but rather in learning about Islam, about its texts and tenets (ands not from armstrongs and espositos and tariq-ramadans and david-fontes), and about doctrines that are not muddied or ambiguous but clear, and based on immutable texts, and interpretive methods ( “naskh” or “abrogation”) that only make the message for us, the Infidels, more aggressive, hostile, menacing.

In Islam, adherents are taught, are inculcuated in the belief, that the world is divided uncompromisingly between Believers and Infidels, between Dar al-islam and Dar al-Harb. A state of permanent war, though not necessarily open warfare, exists between Believers (Muslims) and Infidels (non-Muslims). Every available means must be used to further the cause of Islam, to engage in Jihad so that Islam dominates everywhere, and everywhere Muslims rule. The instruments need not be those of “terrorism” or even of combat or “qital”, but can be whatever comes to hand. At present “terrorism” is not the only or main instrument of Jihad; far more important than what Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri manage to do, is what the Saudis and other rich Arabs, either as individuals or through semi-private Islamic foundations, and through governments, institutions and their government, do in deploying the Money Weapon to support other Muslims, those living within Western Europe and North America, by paying for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, academic centers for the “study” of Islam or the Middle East, publications (Aramco World and other glossies sent to every library in the lands of the Infidels), full-page ads or whole supplements trumpeting the wonders of beneficient Saudi Arabia or the Emriates or Kuwait and their wise, Muslim rulers, and the marvels of Islam as demonstrated by, inter alia, skyscraper luxury hotels in Doha, and Qur’anic calligraphy in a museum in Kuwait. And then there are such groups as CAIR in every land, pushing and pushing the Muslijm demands, the Muslim agenda to dismantle, step by step, whatever “obstacles” to the spread of Islam may exist, in the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements and understandings, of the local Infidels who are seen as only temporarily, and most illegitimately,in control of lands that are still part – but not forever, and not necessarily even for every long – parts of Dar al-Harb. And finally, there are those well-financed and relentless campaigns of Da’wa, concentrating for the moment on the literally captive audiences that can be found in prisons (especially among blacks and other minorities to whom the appeal is made that Islam is an instrument of “social justice” – just look at the distribution of wealth and power in Muslim lands to disabuse yourself of that idea), and outside prisons, among all those who are disaffected, the psychically marginal (the John Walker Lindhs and Richard Reids and even the odd, Shi’a –loving Spiritual Searcher who stops his own private Spiritual Search bus at the stop marked “Islam” and descends, and the bus takes off, and he can never get back on again), and the economically marginal (aw-shucks good-country-people out of Nawfalk, Virgina Mahdi Bray et al.).

They have their war on the Infidels, their Jihad, down to a science. And we? What do we have? We have an Administration whose members have refused, simply refused, to learn about Islam and about Jihad conducted in Western Europe through means other than “terror.” We have an Administration that made plans to build a $600 million embassy complex, on the idiotic assumption, for which there was not the slightest evidenc,e that the Americans would remain welcome, as Mr. Big Brother, for decades to come in Iraq, for they never foresaw, those brilliant planners, what should have been obvious and was to those who took the trouble to learn about Islam, and to learn about the history of Iraq: that the Sunni-Shi’a split was deep, enduring, permanent, and that once Saddam Hussein was gone, the murderous humpty-dumpty who had a great fall (from the gallows) would not be around to put either himself, or the country, together again, with the glue that he provided of state terror and mass murder.

Yes, they have their war on us. And we? What do we have, what are we doing? What we are doing, after having spent $880 billion on Iraq, on trying to make the silk purse of Western, advanced democracy out of the immutable sow’s ear of Islam, that is having spent more on this colossal misadventure, a misadventure that was entirely avoidable had both those in power who have continued the war in Iraq, and those who deplore the war in Iraq but for all the wrong, rather than the right and convincing and unanswerable reasons that exist, to deplore that war, or rather to deplore continued American involvement in Iraq after February 2004 at the latest.

This is what we have. We have the proposal to give$13 billion in weaponry to our non-ally, permanently hostile Egypt (will that win us friends in Egypt? Will it win us “Egyptian cooperation”? “Coooperation” about what? About Sudan? About ending the Lesser Jihad against Israel, whether conducted by the Slow Jihadists of Fatah or the Fast Jihadists of Hamas?) What exactly will such support do?) ). We have the proposal to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry, to Saudi Arabia, the most malevolent and powerful supporter of the world-wide Jihad.

That’s what we have. That’s what Bush, and Rice, and Hadley, and Elliott Abrams, and the State Department, tutti quanti, have come up with as a brilliant way to “keep the Saudis closer” and make sure that they stay “our friends” and not a threat (but they are, they will always be a threat to non-Muslims). And, it is more than hinted, “if we don’t sell them the weapons” others – bad China, bad Russia -- will. This is the permanent rhetorical trump card and is utterly phony. For China or Russia have both been stout defenders of Iran’s nuclear project. And neither China nor Russia shows any sings of sending a fleet – of possessing a fleet capable – of remaining in and around the Persian Gulf, should the case really arise, to defend, if not the Al-Saud and Al-Thani and Al-Maktoum and Al-Sahab and Al-Khalifa, then the oilfields (which would not be hard to seize, far easier in fact to seize those right on the western side of the Persian – sorry, Arabian – Gulf – and to offload the oil onto tankers, the revenues being held in “escrow”{ with a little something taken off the top to reimburse us – say, one hundred billion a year to start – for the cost of protecting not “our oil” but oil that oil-consumers everywhere rely on.

A new attitude toward Saudi Arabia needs to be displayed so that the Saudis stop funding the Jihad in Western Europe and North America.. Offering to sell $20 billion dollars in the most advanced American weaponry is not the way to do it.

Posted by: Hugh at July 29, 2007 9:56 AM

"A new attitude toward Saudi Arabia needs to be displayed so that the Saudis stop funding the Jihad in Western Europe and North America.. Offering to sell $20 billion dollars in the most advanced American weaponry is not the way to do it.

Posted by: Hugh"

...The Saudis need a significant emotional event to get their attention....like a sudden disappearance of their oil/gas pipeline to Russia, or the sudden disappearance of their only gas refinery...or a sudden disappearance of all their fighter/bomers as they sit on the ground....or the sudden cutoff of all foreign aid payments.......all followed up by a menacing threat of complete annihilation of their country as they now know it.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 29, 2007 10:17 AM

DEBKA Reports: Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia ...

Yeah so WHAT..??!!! The Israelis simply ***FLY*** better."

.......perhaps...remember the Germans when attacking Russia had better equipment, better planes, better trained troops....but they lost because they simply could not kill all the attacking Russians....They Russians, depite losing millions, kept coming and kept attacking....

....As good as the Israelis are, they cannot compete on a conventional numbers game....but they do have DA BOMB....(a serious numbers equalizer)....and they have more than one...if their backs are pushed to the wall (and they are be pushed to the wall, with no where else go go), they just may use DA BOMB.....and Iran will be but just a footnote in future history books...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 29, 2007 10:31 AM

This president makes any thinking person despair. The West is a more dangerous place now than it ever has been. And to think that Blairhead helped him along!

Where is that truly great leader - the one who will lead us to victory over our enemy: Islam?

Posted by: Mark Alexander at July 29, 2007 12:55 PM

This information lends support to the theory that George Bush and Co are collaborating with the regime in Saudi Arabia at the expense of the American people and free people throughout the world.

that the attack on the World Trade Centre was conducted with the full knowledge (if not of George Bush, then of his cronies) with a view to rushing the Patriot Act through Congress and securing draconian powers for the Presidency

I have replayed the footage of the collapse of those towers and I am increasingly persuaded that it was an 'expert demolition job'.

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at July 29, 2007 4:13 PM

This administration,amongst other government agencies which shall remain nameless, continues to labor under the delusion that the Shia/Sunni spilt is to be manipulated via arms deals. Arm both sides in a small scale perhaps,but in the end you place weapons in the hands of Muslims, period.

Then you had that whole Dubai port debaucle. Just what is the primary source of this perpetual blackmail by Emirate states? Perhaps they just offered too many available tits for all to many willing "entrepreneurs".

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at July 29, 2007 4:42 PM

LondonBorn&Bred,

What's really gonna cook your noodle is: where those towers realllllly ever there to begin with,mate? After all look what David Copperfield did? About time to eat another Kabob in Camden yet?

Posted by: kafir world at July 29, 2007 4:51 PM

I am not very intelligent so maybe someone can explain this to me.

As I understand it, most of the money paid into pro islamic funds is from Saudi Arabia. Most of the money used to promote islam to our children comes from Saudi Arabia. Most of the extremisism COMES from Saudi Arabia.

WHY are we selling arms to them? They have a contract for a number of typhoons. What do we think they are going to do with them? Patrol their borders?

How stupid are we?

Posted by: DaveMate at July 29, 2007 7:36 PM

There are now reports that "Israel approves of deal." What nonsense. Better to have reported accurately: the current leaders of Israel, Ehud Olmert and Haim Ramon and Tsipi Livni, each more uncomprehending of Islam, and of what Israel is forced permanently to endure, and of course incapable of fighuring out, given that Lesser Jihad against the Infidel state of Israel, makes the most sense, have simply succumbed to Bush-Rice blandishments and implied threats.

It is disgusting to use the incompetence of the current Israeli leaders as a way to blunt criticism of this arms deal which, if Israel did not exist, should still be opposed for it gives the Saudis exactly what they want, and they must never ever be given what they want. They must not be allowed to continue, with impunity, to spend tens of billions of dollars spreading Islam in the Western world -- possibly a total of $100 billion has been spent in the last decade or two on the building, and maintenance, of mosques and madrasas all over the Lands of the Infidels, along with public-relations campaigns, the funding of "academic centers" so as to throttle the intelligent study of Islam and subjects intimately related to it (such as the Arab war on Israel), and the moneys distributed to armies of Western hirelings, directly or at times -- as with "donations" made to Carter and Baker Centers and assorted presidential libraries, or those fat lecture fees that Clinton enjoys picking up in Doha, or George Bush, Sr. did in Kuwait -- indirectly.

Saudi Arabia should be given a clear signal that we do not buy the exaggerated hysteria over a "Shi'a crescent" which is merely an attempt by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt to further maniuplate the Americans, this time on behalf of Sunnis as before, it was Shi'a who inveigled the naive Americans into entering Iraq because, they were assured, the greeting they would receive after "liberating" Baghdad would "make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession."

Do the Al-Saud need protection? Oh yes. Should we supply them with $20 billion, or $5 billion, or even $1 billion, in arms that are bad enough in their hands, but potentially even worse if some of that weaponry, or its technology, were to fall into the hands of other Arabs and Muslims, some within Saudi Arabia, some without.

When the Saudis talk about their "fears" of Iran what is it they mean? They cannot mean that the army of Iran will somehow cross all of Iraq and enter Saudi Arabia, without being stopped by any number of forces, including a few well-placed bombing runs by the American air force. Nor is it conceivable that the hardly existent Iranian navy will cross the Gulf and somehow join up with those Shi'a in Bahrain and Al-Hasa province. No. What the Saudis mean is that they don't want the Shi'a in the Eastern (al-Hasa) Province getting too restless, and causing domestic worries. That's what they mean. But what do we care if the Al-Saud have to be preoccupied with domestic opposition? Why should we care if Shi'a in the Gulf cause trouble for their rulers? Saudi Arabia is, on the world stage, far more effective, and menacing, and malevolent, than Iran -- though Iran, for the moment, is the greatest physical threat to our permanent ally whose security should be, is, a permanent interest of the collective Infidel world (and can be understood as such by those who have come to their senses).

Instead of $20 billion in arms, Saudi Arabia should be sold an insurance policy. We -- the Americans -- will guarantee that no Iranian forces will cross the Gulf, or cross Iraq, to threaten you. And for that guarantee, that insurance policy, we will need payment. Some of us think $100 billion a year will do it -- a way to recoup some of our enormous expenses. Others, on the other hand, are willing to start at, say, $50 billion a year.

Of course, there will be cost-of-living adjustments along the way.

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2007 8:28 AM