A dead Osama releases another tape
“An audio recording purportedly by Osama bin Laden, praising gunmen who carried out a December 6 attack in Saudi Arabia, was posted on the Internet on Thursday, suggesting the Al Qaeda leader is still alive,” reports Reuters .
Interesting choice of words. Of course, there is the adverb “purportedly,” since the corporate media does not really know if it is Osama’s voice on the tape or not, and then there is the assertion, framed as a suggestion, that Osama is not dead, which is a curious inclusion since we all know, if we read Reuters or watch Fox News, that Osama has nine lives and is behind all terrorist attacks, even if he is unable to attack America, the “Great Satan” and nemesis of all Muslims who hate “our way of life, our very freedom,” as Bush would have it.
Funny how Osama is on the same page as the Strausscons. Both want to get rid of Saudi Arabia’s venal monarchy, they simply differ on who should take over. Both want to “make a lot of people very nervous” in the Middle East, as World War IV proponent, neocon, and former CIA director James Woolsey put it. Richard Perle, aka the “Prince of Darkness,” and former Bush speechwriter David Frum have called for Saudi Arabia (and, curiously, France) “to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.” In fact, over at the Department of Defense (war), there is a “think tank” (the Office of Net Assessment ) that spends a lot of time and effort “actively tinker[ing] with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi Arabian governments,” as Jason Vest puts it.
Problem is the Saudis are not on the same page as Bush and the neocons. “The attack on the US consulate in Jeddah has come at a delicate moment in American-Saudi relations,” Reuters wrote on the day after the “purported” al-Qaeda attack. “There’s been tight mutual cooperation in the fight against extremists but increasing pressure from Washington on the kingdom to reform…. Some US State Department officials said the attack showed the need to increase US-Saudi cooperation” in the war on terrorism. In other words, the United States wants the Saudis to stop supporting “radical Islamic terrorists,” as Ivan Eland characterized it. Of course, this support was fine and dandy back in the 1980s when Reagan and the Saudis worked hand-in-hand to recruit, organize, and finance thousands of “radical Islamic terrorists” and unleash them against the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. As JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a neocon outfit) tells us, “Saudi Arabia lavishly funds thousands of ‘madrassas’ —Islamic religious schools throughout the world, including in the US—which spread hatred of America and Israel,” although, not long ago, these very madrassas were funded by Pakistan’s ISI in collaboration with the CIA. Farrukh Saleem writes:
Ronald Reagan took over the White House on 20 January 1981. The game-plan then revolved around the production of a hundred thousand religious fanatics to fight the ‘godless Russians’. In 1979 an estimate on the total number of madrassas stood at around 1,000. Most of these madrassas concentrated on the formal instruction of Islamic theology. Between 1983 and 1988, CIA aid had helped establish an additional 1,891 madrassas. The new ones doubled as guerrilla training camps producing an average of at least fifty battle-ready alumni a year. That’s roughly a hundred thousand Mujahideen a year. Osama bin Laden on his own is estimated to have recruited, financed and trained an additional 35,000 non-Afghans.
In other words, the United States had no problem with Wahhabism and Islamist extremism, so long as it served U.S. foreign policy needs. James Woolsey has described this extremism as “the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing,” conveniently ignoring the obvious fact that the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI encouraged and financed much of this extremism. In fact, this “soil” is considered “the largest and most successful CIA operation in history” and “the one morally unambiguous crusade of our time,” as George Crile , veteran producer for the CBS television news show “60 Minutes,” characterizes it. Or as the architect of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Zbigniew Brzezinski , told Le Nouvel Observateur, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”
Naturally, all of this has been relegated to the memory hole, especially after “everything changed” on September 11, 2001. Now the problem is “stirred-up Moslems” and the locus of evil is Saudi Arabia. “9/11 has done more to convince Americans that Saudi Arabia is an enemy and not a friend,” Laurent Murawiec , a senior fellow at the neocon Hudson Institute, declared at a JINSA policy forum on September 17, 2003. According to Murawiec,
it is the “grand strategy” of the Saudi monarchy to spread Wahhabism throughout the Islamic world. Murawiec, of course, failed to mention that doing so is considered “the largest and most successful CIA operation in history.”
In fact, it is the “grand strategy” of the neocons to make it appear Saudi Arabia is about to fall into the hands of that Wahhabi zealot par excellence, Osama bin Laden, never mind that he was a CIA asset and is now dead.
Of course, for the neocons and their fellow travelers at JINSA, PNAC, AEI, and elsewhere, the real problem with Saudi Arabia is that they “purportedly” finance Hamas and Islamic Jihad, according to Dan Naveh , Israeli Minister for Parliamentary Affairs. As usual, it’s all about Israel because, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has noted, a few “stirred-up Moslems” are not a problem for the United States, even though we are told—minus absolutely any corroborating evidence—that 19 Saudi hijackers are responsible for 9/11.
So here we are, with another Osama tape reminding us that al-Qaeda “purportedly” attacked the consulate in Saudi Arabia, minus any evidence. It is all designed to get the American people solidly behind an invasion of Saudi Arabia down the road—or at least an occupation of their precious oil fields. The Hudson Institute’s co-founder Max Singer, elaborating on Israel’s master plan for the Muslim Middle East, has “urged the dismemberment of Saudi Arabia, in the spirit of the post-World War I reconfiguration of what had been Ottoman Arab territory.”
The Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia could, Singer argued, constitute a new Muslim Republic of East Arabia, peopled primarily by Shiite Muslims unsympathetic to the dominant ‘Wahhabi’ (more properly, Muwahhidun) school of Islam in Saudi Arabia, leaving Mecca and Medina in the hands of the ‘Wahhabis’ while placing the oil fields, concentrated in the east, in the hands of western oil companies. The British MP George Galloway, Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party Foreign Affairs Committee (and passionate antiwar activist) says that in British government circles some are saying: ‘Saudi Arabia could easily be two if not three countries, which would have the helpful bonus of avoiding foreign forces having to occupy the holiest places in Islam, when they’re only interested really in oil wells in the eastern part of the country.’” Disinfopedia notes:
The Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia could, Singer argued, constitute a new Muslim Republic of East Arabia, peopled primarily by Shiite Muslims unsympathetic to the dominant ‘Wahhabi’ (more properly, Muwahhidun) school of Islam in Saudi Arabia, leaving Mecca and Medina in the hands of the ‘Wahhabis’ while placing the oil fields, concentrated in the east, in the hands of western oil companies. The British MP George Galloway, Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party Foreign Affairs Committee (and passionate antiwar activist) says that in British government circles some are saying: ‘Saudi Arabia could easily be two if not three countries, which would have the helpful bonus of avoiding foreign forces having to occupy the holiest places in Islam, when they’re only interested really in oil wells in the eastern part of the country.’”
Is it possible the “attacks” in Saudi Arabia are setting the stage for the dismemberment of Saudi Arabia? In fact, the Israelis have planned to Balkanize the Muslim Middle East for decades, as Israel Shahak pointed out, citing a document by Oded Yinon. If you want to see this policy in action—invasion, chaos, civil war, dismemberment, and ultimately the creation of ethnic and tribally divided statelets—look no further than what’s going on in Iraq.