The Ridiculous Nature of Saudi Intelligence: What the Saudi Cables Released by WikiLeaks Say and Don’t Say

WikiLeaks released the first batch of the so-called “Saudi cables” on June 19, 2015. By June 22, a total of 61,214 of the documents were released online. More than half a million of these cables are in the hands of WikiLeaks.

The documents are believed to have been hacked from the Saudi Foreign Ministry in May 2015 by a group calling itself the Yemen Cyber Army as retaliation to the House of Saud’s war against Yemen. The Yemen Cyber Army probably is not Yemeni and almost certainly is an outward show for another actor wishing to either penalize Riyadh or even possibly manipulate it.

In the Arab World there is great interest about the documents. The Lebanese newspaper Al-Akbar has also partnered itself with WikiLeaks to release the so-called Saudi cables, as it has with previous leaks. The Saudi cables, however, do not tell the world and Wikileaks readers anything new about Saudi Arabia.

 

The Buying Influence of Riyadh’s Petro-Dollar

The House of Saud has characteristically tried to buy influence. It wrongly believes that loyalty can be bought. Call them subsidies, grants, bursaries, or business contracts: they are all forms of bribery.

The documents released by WikiLeaks confirm that the House of Saud has used bribery as a major foreign policy tool by financing political figures in other countries—such as the pro-Israeli warlord Samir Geagea in Lebanon—and buying off individuals and organizations to secure its interests. This bribery includes co-opting and recruiting both Arabic and non-Arabic media outlets.

Additionally, the cables confirm that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been spying on its citizens abroad, closely following Saudi university students to see if they want changes in Saudi Arabia, watching dissidents, trying its hardest to handicap Iranian interests, destabilizing Iraq, helping the dictators of Bahrain, and using Saudi-financed media to sanitize its image and deceive Arab audiences. Again, none of this tells us anything new that we did not know about the Kingdom and its decadent rulers.

The House of Saud’s Information War

The documents depict the House of Saud as waging a perpetual and systematic campaign to influence and manage the media as part of a vulgar perception management strategy. Not only are Saudi-owned media outlets like Al Arabiya and Asharq Al-Awsatpart of this, the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information has been central to this policy of “buying influence” using the revenues from Saudi Arabia’s oil sales.

The Saudi cables show that Riyadh’s rulers have used a gradient strategy. The House of Saud’s media strategy starts with co-optation through bribery by what we can call “agents of influence.” Agents of influence can include diplomats, public relations firms, and lawyers. The House of Saud has teams of lawyers, consultants, and public relations firms constantly working for it and monitoring the media and the House of Saud’s public image at all times.

It is the task of the agents of influence to find and contact the media outlets reporting negatively about the House of Saud. In some cases the agents of influence find them and in others Saudi officials in Riyadh order the agents of influence to contact the third parties. The preliminary task of the agents of influence is to “neutralize” the negative reporting about the House of Saud. This is primarily done through bribery. Riyadh has paid for massive subscriptions of Arab newspapers in countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, and Mauritania as a means of inducing the publications to self-censor themselves or to provide positive coverage about the House of Saud.

If bribery does not work then a strategy of “containment” involving slander is applied followed by a strategy of “confrontation” that involves litigation and sabotage. Both the containment and confrontation strategies of the House of Saud involve falsely planting stories under what is generally categorized as black propaganda. Aside from promoting the image of the House of Saud, co-opted media outlets are important for the strategies of containment and confrontation because they launch attacks on those targeted by the House of Saud. Targets have included Arab activists, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, the newspaper Al-Akbar, and Syria.

The Obvious versus the Unmentioned

Again, it has to be noted that it widely known that bribery have been an important and central policy tool for the morally bankrupt Saudi princes. It also has to be emphasized that the information about the Saudi media strategy released by WikiLeaks is not a new revelation. These Saudi activities have widely been recognized.

Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia has reacted to the release of the cables by WikiLeaks by warning its citizens to refrain from reading the documents. Riyadh has emphasized that ignoring the documents is a matter of national security. It has also declared that the documents being released by Wikileaks are doctored fabrications without even providing one example.

What is missing from the Saudi cables that WikiLeaks released heretofore are any documents about the House of Saud’s support for Al-Qaeda and the other armed gangs that are wreaking havoc inside Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. This is important and noteworthy.

The Timing of the Release: Targeting Rapprochement between Moscow and Riyadh?

There are some very important questions to be asked and thought over about the Saudi cables. Are the release of the Saudi cables retaliation for Saudi aggression in Yemen or punishment for efforts by the House of Saud to exert itself independently from Washington? Why is the crisis in Syria and Saudi support for the foreign fighters ravaging Syria largely left out of the leaks? If Saudi involvement in the fighting in Syria was seriously mentioned in the cables released by WikiLeaks it could incriminate other countries, such as the US, Britain, France, and Turkey.

The release of the Saudi cables may hurt Saudi Arabia economically and weaken its media strategy, which will lead to both economic and political instability for the Kingdom as it increasingly fails to control more information about the House of Saud’s actions. Furthermore, the Saudi cables have been released on the eve of important talks and negotiations between Saudi and Russian officials that follow agreements and earlier talks between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The bilateral talks are set to consolidate a series of agreements made on cooperation and trade between the Kingdom and the Russian Federation that will help boost the besieged Russian economy that Washington is trying to crash. This is why it is important to think over the origins and motives of the Yemen Cyber Army and ask who is pulling its strings? Is a genuine Saudi adversary behind the Yemen Cyber Army or an unhappy ally that wants to prevent any rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Russia?

One of the documents that is getting increasingfocus is an agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia to vote for one another to join the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Is it a mere coincidence that UN Watch decided to focus on this agreement to criticize Russia and even refers to it as a dictatorship in an article published by Hillel Neuer on June 21,2015? Conversely, UN Watch has remained silent about the multitude of similar agreements made by the US with the House of Saud and other dictatorships. What has UN Watch said about Bahrain or Gaza? Why does it oppose the Venezuelan government? In reality, the goal of UN Watch has been to use the United Nations Human Rights Council to further the interests of the US and Israel while it undermines the body for criticizing Israeli human rights violations. UN Watch even helped legitimize the war on Libya by NATO in 2011 and has pushed for a war with Syria. Now it is targeting Russia.

Although Riyadh could be manipulating Moscow for Washington, joint funds, space cooperation, nuclear agreements, investments, and arms deals all seem to be in the works. The last time Saudi Arabia made major deals with the Kremlin nothing came out of them, either because the House of Saud was toying with the Russians or due to orders being sent from the US to Riyadh.

The Ridiculous Nature of Saudi Intelligence

Another point that is worth mentioning is the unprofessional nature of the Saudi intelligence structure. This is not new information either, but it still worth mentioning. Reading the leaked documents it becomes very clear that the Saudi intelligence structure is sloppy, unsophisticated, and badly trained. The analyses made in the Saudi intelligence reports are ridiculous and even rely on both tabloids and unverified internet research from open sources.

A case in point is the Saudi intelligence report that mentions this author. As one of the subjects inside the initial batch of Saudi cables that WikiLeaks released, I took particular interest in looking over the Saudi intelligence memorandum that I was wrongly mentioned in as “Mahdi Nazemroaya Darius.” This particular Saudi intelligence memo relies on internet research to look at the background of myself and several colleagues who have pointed out how Saudi Arabia has supported terrorism and worked with the US and Israel in a destabilization campaign in the Middle East and North Africa.

Probably based on an assumption that I am of Iranian origin based on the name Darius, the memo ambiguously and wrongly speculates that I could “be working for Iran” without giving any context to what that could mean. The description of others are also all vulgar caricatures that simply refer to them as “anti-American” or “anti-Western.”

A Deficit of Critical Thinking in the Information Age

The type of misanalysis that is exemplified by Saudi intelligence analysts is increasingly endemic of intelligence services and the consultative firms that governments around the world, including in the United States, are increasingly relying on. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that this is actually the second time that I found myself mentioned in a document released by WikiLeaks; the first time was in 2013 when WikiLeaks released a hacked email about the possible whereabouts of Muammar Qaddafi from the Texas-based intelligence consultation company Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor). Stratfor was also off. The Texas-based company mistakenly listed me as an employee of the Associated Press inside Libya during NATO’s bombing campaign while it was discussing the situation in the Rixos Al-Nasr and making arguments based on association fallacies.

In regards to the Saudi intelligence memo, it is clear that no real efforts were made to do proper background checks outside of the internet. It makes one cynically ask if Saudi Arabia’s intelligence structure does much more than police the Kingdom’s local population and if it is the intelligence bodies of the US and other countries, including Britain and Israel, that are doing most the important intelligence work for Riyadh.

Looking over the documents released by WikiLeaks it becomes clear that they confirm what is already known about the House of Saud and that there is a serious problem of analysis in the organizational structures of Saudi Arabia. A lack of critical thinking is not a problem that money and bribery can solve either. With this type of mentality and lack of analytical thinking about the world, it is of little wonder that Riyadh got itself in a quagmire in Yemen. There, however, remain important questions about the motives for the release of the Saudi cables and about the background of the Yemen Cyber Army.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

Copyright © Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2015

Wahhabism, Al Saud and ISIS – the Unholy Trinity

This article by Catherine Shakdam starts off brilliantly but tapers off towards the modernist approach rather than stick to its original point of Islam being perfect - and implementing Islam based on its core sources such as Quran, Sunnah, Ijma' and Qiyaas. 

However it is still worth blogging the points that are true from this piece of writing. If you wish to read the full article you'll find the link at the bottom. 

Key Points:

Although ISIS has certainly been sold as an Islamic movement, everything it professes and teaches stands against Islam and its teachings. This divide actually goes beyond Islam’s great schism – which schism it needs to be noted remains part of this myth Saudi Arabia has been so eager on selling the world.

If indeed religious disagreements have occurred over the centuries and if Muslims have in truth fought and argue over the legitimacy, legality and religious superiority of their schools of thoughts and judicial principles, scholars did so in the knowledge and express belief that while men are flawed, Islam is perfect.

Islam’s disagreements came about out from a desire to walk better on God’s path, not to obliterate people with an implacable and merciless truth.

Looking back at the long line of prophets, from Adam to Noah, Ibrahim, Jesus, Yehia and Mohammed (PBUT), all shared in the Oneness which is God’s ultimate command, God’s boundless mercy onto His creation and His injunction of peace. And if those holy messengers came at different times and places in our history, the essence of their message has been as permanent and immovable as God’s will. From Adam’s first cries of remorse and calls for forgiveness, to Prophet Mohammed’s last breath, God’s message onto us has always been Islam, as Islam means submission. In truth, the only real freedom which was ever given to us is that to submit body and soul to The Creator of All things.

Islam did not start at Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), rather it was reborn with him and through him; a last call before the sunset, a last mercy and guidance for us to follow – or not – a last ray of hope before evil can get its fill and the last chapter of our fate written down.

Islam was on the first day as it will be on the last day – it is us which have called it many things in our need to possess and label the divine. It is us again which have strayed and plotted, coveted and perverted to serve very earthly ambitions.

Wahhabism is no more than an engineered perversion, a division, an abomination which has but spread like a cancer onto the Islamic world and now threatens to destroy all religions.

Wahhabism and its legions: Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and all the rest of it, are but the manifestation of a reactionary atheist movement which seeks the death of all faiths.

Wahhabism is not of Islam and Islam will never be of Wahhabism – it is a folly to conceive that Islam would ever sanction murder, looting and atrocious barbarism. Islam opposes despotism, injustice, infamy , deceits, greed, extremism, asceticism – everything which is not balanced and good, fair and merciful, kind and compassionate.

If anything, Wahhabism is the very negation of Islam. As many have called it before – Islam is not Wahhabism. Wahhabism is merely the misguided expression of one man’s political ambition – Mohammed Abdel Wahhab, a man who was recruited by Empire Britain to erode at the fabric of Islam and crack the unity of its ummah (community).

As Wahhabism began its land and mind grab in Hijaz – now known as Saudi Arabia – one family, Al Saud saw in this violent and reactionary school of thought a grand opportunity to claim and retain power. This unholy alliance has blotted the skies of Arabia for centuries, darkening the horizon with its miasm.

Wahhabism has now given birth to a monstrous abomination – extreme radicalism; a beast which has sprung and fed from Salafis and Wahhabis poison, fueled by the billions of Al Saud’s petrodollars; a weapon exploited by neo-imperialists to justify military interventions in those wealthiest corners of the world.

But though those powers which thought themselves cunning by weaving a network of fear around the world to better assert and enslave are losing control over their brain-child, ISIS and its sisters in hate and fury, as they all have gone nuclear, no longer bound by the chains their fathers shackled them with.

ISIS’s obscene savagery epitomises the violence which is inherent and central to Wahhabism and Salafism, its other deviance. And though the world knows now the source of all terror, no power has yet dared speak against it, instead the world has chosen to hate its designated victim – Islam.

In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism, and yet the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemning ISIS in the strongest terms, has insisted that “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”. But then again the Grand Mufti might remain oblivious to the history of Wahhabism or what Wahhabism actually professes.

Wahhabism 101

During the 18th century, revivalist movements sprang up in many parts of the Islamic world as the Muslim imperial powers began to lose control of peripheral territories. In the west at this time, governments were beginning to separate church from state, but this secular ideal was a radical innovation: as revolutionary as the commercial economy that Europe was concurrently devising. No other culture regarded religion as a purely private activity, separate from such worldly pursuits as politics, so for Muslims the political fragmentation of society was also a religious problem. Because the Quran had given Muslims a sacred mission – to build a just economy in which everybody is treated with equity and respect – the political well-being of the ummah was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed, the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.

If 18th-century reformers were convinced that should Muslims ever regain lost power and prestige, they would have to return to the fundamentals of their faith, ensuring that God – rather than materialism or worldly ambition – dominated the political order, Wahhabism would come to pervert such desires.

There was nothing militant about this “fundamentalism”; not yet, rather, it was a grassroots attempt to reorient society and did not involve jihad.

Only, if the idea of going back to the root of Islam at a time when society had strayed from the path was indeed laudable, Wahhabism would work to betray such ideal by twisting on its head Islam’s most sacred pillars, perverting Islamic law and the interpretation of its scriptures to serve the mighty and enslave the weak.

Under Wahhabism’s interpretation of Islam, women reverted to being objectified. Those many great women Islam saw rise under the strict protection of the Quran, those models Muslim women came to look up to and aspire to become – Maryam, Khadija, Fatma, Zaynab, Mohammed Abdel Wahhab would have had locked up in chains in their home.

When Islam gave women their rightful place within society, Wahhabism denied them everything.

And for those of you who continue to live under the premise that Islam is profoundly unfair against women, do remember it is not Islam but rather men’s interpretation of it which is the source of your ire.

Islam secured women’ status according to God’s will. Islam poses both men and women o a equal footing in terms of their faith – it is only in their duties and responsibilities which they differ, not worthiness. Islam calls on men to provide for women and offer them security, both financial and physical. Under Islam women are free to marry, divorce and work. Under Islam women cannot be bought, bartered or oppressed. Under Islam women enjoy more freedom than most western women have been given. It is society which has denied them those rights, not Islam. Read the Quran and you will see!

Like Martin Luther, Abdel Wahhab claimed he wanted to return to the earliest teachings of Islam and eject all later medieval accretions. To achieve such ambitions he opposed Sufism and Shia Islam, labelling them as heretical innovations (bidah) as both opposed tyranny in faith. He went on to urge all Muslims to reject the learned exegesis developed over the centuries by the ulema (scholars) and interpret the texts for themselves, or rather under his guidance.

This naturally incensed the clergy and threatened local rulers, who believed that interfering with these popular devotions would cause social unrest. Eventually, however, Wahhab found a patron in Mohammed Ibn Saud, a chieftain of Najd who adopted his ideas. Ibn Saud quickly used Wahhabism to support his military campaigns for plunder and territory, insisting such violence was all in the name of the greater good.

To this day Al Saud’s house is following in such bloody footsteps.

Although the scriptures were so central to Abdel Wahhab’s ideology, by insisting that his version of Islam alone had validity, he distorted the Quranic message in the most violent way. The Quran firmly states that “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256).
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/

First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/

After Wahhab’s death, Wahhabism became more violent, an instrument of state terror. As Al Saud sought to establish an independent kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Hussain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children; in 1803, in fear and panic, the holy city of Mecca surrendered to the Saudi leader.

Little do we remember the sacking of the holy city of Medina, when Al Saud’s legions ransacked mosques, schools and homes. Al Saud’s army murdered hundreds of men, women and children, deaf to their screams. As imams pleaded for the most sacred relics of Islam to be protected, Al Saud’s men pillaged and looted, setting fire to Medina’s library. Al Saud made an example out of Medina, the very city which proved so welcoming to Islam. On the ground which saw rise the first mosque of Islam, Al Saud soaked the earth red with blood.

Where the footsteps of the last Prophet of God still echoed, Al Saud filled the air with ghastly cries of horrors.

But such terror has been erased from history books. Such tale of blood and savage betrayals have been swallowed whole by Al Saud as this house attempted to re-write history and claim lineage to the house of the prophet.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/

Saudi bombing Yemen on behalf of the U.S.

#Saudi bombing #Yemen on behalf of the #US #MuslimsSalvageYourselves

It has been proven that Saudi are now using cluster bombs to attack Muslims in Yemen. Note that it is not just the Houthi's being targeted as the attacks have not in any way, shape or form been targeting rebels but rather has been random attacks to destroy the infrastructure of Yemen including schools, roads, airports and industry as well as innocent Muslim lives. Human Rights Watch has reported the use of such weaponry with photo evidence as well as proof of the trade deals between Saudi and US to acquire such sophisticated and destructive bombs that should never be used in any type of war due to their uncoordinated use which will inevitably kill more civilians than it would strike actual targets.

"Bombs containing BLU-97 submunitions were transferred by the United States to Saudi Arabia as part of arms sales announced in the early 1990s". ~ Human Rights Watch

Dear Muslims, salvage yourselves. Account the rulers that disobey Allah (swt) when the Prophet ﷺ  said: "The wiping away of the World means less to Allah than a Believer to be killed unjustly" Ibn Maja 

Sources: http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/31/yemen-cluster-munitions-harm-civilians

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/12/saudi-led-air-strikes-target-yemen-rebels-before-start-of-ceasefire

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/can-the-un-talks-bring-peace-to-shattered-yemen/

Why ‪#‎Democracy‬ is flawed by its very nature and ‪#‎SanSuuKyi‬ silent on ‪#‎RohingyaCrisis‬ to secure ‪#‎Buddhist‬ votes

Why ‪#‎Democracy‬ is flawed by its very nature
‪#‎SanSuuKyi‬ silent on ‪#‎RohingyaCrisis‬ to secure ‪#‎Buddhist‬ votes

Brilliant article by the BBC - for once - on why San Suu Kyi remains silent on the Rohingyan ethnic cleansing. A democratic leader would be against the persecution of ethnic minorities usually but due to this call for stopping the persecution on Muslims would not really give her any votes (As the Rohingyan can't vote anyway), she decides to remain silent on the issue to appease the Buddhist majority who will be most likely putting her to power on the next elections.

This article by the BBC highlights how democracy is flawed by its very nature. When mankind is allowed to legislate they naturally are biased towards the 'societal norm' and not what is correct.

Her democracy (power for the people by the people) tells her that the Rohingya are not humans, they are animals to be slaughtered and eaten, driven out and raped - because this is what the majority believe and therefore it is democratic of her to believe in this too. It also makes her a 'good' political leader as politics is looking after the affairs of the people. The affairs of the Buddhist majority would like to ethnically cleanse their land of Muslims as they believe them to be taking all the jobs, over populating and raping Buddhist girls (propaganda as a pretext).

We should take lessons from such democratic leaders that have been put in place by the West. Lessons on how democracy does not bring justice but is formed on the basis of public opinion, societal norms, biases and corruption. Whereas Islam is based on fixed principles that do not change over time.

Read my blog post on proofs that Aung San Suu Kyi is a Western puppet - its out in the open that the US back her and fund her heavily.

http://insiyaa.blogspot.co.uk/…/aung-san-suu-kyi-american-p…

Here's the BBC article top points if you don't want to read the entire thing.

"Now at liberty, living in the same Yangon house but in a much-changed country, Aung San Suu Kyi is free to speak her mind. But she's selective about her causes."

"In parliament, where she sits as an opposition MP, the 69-year-old frequently criticises the government for the slow pace of reform, and restates her increasingly forlorn demands for constitutional change.
But on the persecution of Myanmar's most famously forgotten minority Ms Suu Kyi is silent."

"From a simple human rights perspective it's a continuing outrage that should shame us all.
So why, despite the calls from around the world is Ms Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, reluctant to raise her voice?"

"The simplest explanation, voiced repeatedly over the last few weeks, is that she's always been a pragmatic politician not a human rights activist.
By defending the Rohingya, Ms Suu Kyi would immediately put herself at odds with powerful Buddhist nationalist groups, potentially changing the dynamics of this year's all important general election.
An already unpredictable vote would become super-charged with religious and ethnic tensions."

"There was some evidence of Ms Suu Kyi's extreme caution earlier this year when United Nations envoy Yanghee Lee visited.
After Ms Lee highlighted the plight of the Rohingya, the monk Ashin Wirathu delivered a vulgar speech describing the South Korean in derogatory terms."

"It was demeaning and outrageous and the UN's human rights chief in Geneva soon called on all of Myanmar's leaders to condemn the monk.
Opposition leader Ms Suu Kyi remained silent."

"That's despite Yanghee Lee being Asian, female, a human rights advocate and being described in the most misogynistic language possible in Ms Suu Kyi's home town. It didn't look good."

(Basically Wirathu called the UN envoy Yanghee Lee a 'whore' in a public speech)

"Giving a strong quote on the Rohingya or Yanghee Lee might hand out a bloody nose or two and satisfy the human rights lobby, but it won't actually change anything on the ground."

"With ethnic minority parties likely to pick up a chunk of the seats, and a quarter automatically allocated to the army, Ms Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), needs to dominate the ethnically Bamar constituencies."

"To do that she'll need the support of the monks and a solid claim to be patriotically defending the Buddhist state. Sadly there are only votes to be lost in Rohingya rights."

Tags: ‪#‎Burma‬ ‪#‎Myanmar‬ ‪#‎Rohingya‬ ‪#‎RohingyanCrisis‬‪#‎RohingyanMuslims‬ ‪#‎EthnicCleansing‬ ‪#‎Wirathu‬ #SanSuuKyi

Aung San Suu Kyi the American project for democratising Burma

Aung San Suu Kyi

-          Leader of the National League for Democracy political party

-          Under house-arrest for 15 years and gaining prominence as world’s most prominent political prisoner.

-          Presented with the Congressional Gold Medal, which is, along with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.

-          Religion: Buddhist

Events that prove that San Suu Kyi has western backing

In 1996 San Suu Kyi was first detained and imprisoned and shortly after in the same year the U.S. created a broadcasting media under the name of ‘Radio Free Asia’ to broadcast in East Asia, a part of the Broadcasting Board of Governors that is a United States government agency and receives full funding from U.S budget. This radio station is seen as a staunch supporter of San Suu Kyi and helped build her reputation throughout her 15 years in prison to become the world’s most famous political prisoner. It is funded by U.S. and located in Washington – one of many ways America uses the media to push its political aims.

Her arrest and subsequent trial received worldwide condemnation by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Security Council and Western governments.

In 2006 a Washington based organisation called ‘Freedom Now’ which mainly focuses on releasing democratic activists, i.e. those activists that America has placed in certain countries to push reforms and democracy, had enlisted San Suu Kyi as their goal to release from prison.

Freedom Campaign, which is a joint venture between the Human Rights Action Center and U.S. Campaign for Burma have events planned to stage huge concerts with well-known talents such as Black-Eyed Peas and Damien Rice to raise awareness about San Suu Kyi as well as gain more popularity for democratic alternatives to military rule. They have also released a documentary film ‘Freedom from Fear’ that will be secretly filmed in Burma via satellite – this movie is focusing on the life of San Suu Kyi.

U.S. Campaign for Burma is a democracy movement in Burma that evolved out of the ‘Free Burma Coalition’ that also was established in the U.S. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Its aims changed slightly in 2008 to be primarily focused on ending military rule in Burma for a democratic rule under San Suu Kyi. Yet another movement directly funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society George Soros Foundation. One of its few missions states “To strengthen the position of the rightful leaders of Burma, 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratically elected National League for Democracy, by cutting the political and economic lifelines of the ruling military junta”

Burma Campaign UK is a UK based NGO that has similar aims to the U.S. Campaign for Burma and has been vocal in the issue of Rohingyan Muslims persecution. It seems from the apparent that they are using the pretext of inequality to push an all-inclusive democratic Burma representing the people, i.e. participatory democracy. However San Suu Kyi has remained silent on the issue of Burmese Muslims genocide and ethnic cleansing – mainly due to the credibility the party would lose from the Buddhist majority.

U.S. President Barack Obama personally advocated the release of all political prisoners, especially Aung San Suu Kyi, during the US-ASEAN Summit of 2009.

In a personal letter to Suu Kyi, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown cautioned the Burmese government of the potential consequences of rigging elections as "condemning Burma to more years of diplomatic isolation and economic stagnation"

On 21 December 2011, Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra (a known U.S. agent backed and funded by the West) met Suu Kyi in Yangoon. Shinawatra regime have been known to have conducted mass murder and genocide in Thailand but the U.S. have never bat an eyelid on the issue, but rather they have expressed concern o Shinawatra leader Yingluck’s removal from power in 2014.

The link between U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros’ Open Society and Burma

In the DFID (Department for International Development) policy review of Burma titled ‘Failing the People of Burma’[1] it states:

“The restoration of democracy in Burma is a priority U.S. policy objective in Southeast Asia. To achieve this objective, the United States has consistently supported democracy activists and their efforts both inside and outside Burma…Addressing these needs requires flexibility and creativity. Despite the challenges that have arisen, United States Embassies Rangoon and Bangkok as well as Consulate General Chiang Mai are fully engaged in pro-democracy efforts. The United States also supports organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities. U.S.-based broadcasters supply news and information to the Burmese people (i.e. Radio Free Asia), who lack a free press. U.S. programs also fund scholarships for Burmese who represent the future of Burma”

It goes on to specifically state San Suu Kyi as a specific aim for these broadcasting services:

“RFA/VOA In addition to programs supported by Burma earmark funding, the United States also continues to fund multimedia broadcasting services for the Burmese people independent of the influence of the military junta in Rangoon. Both Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) have Burmese services. VOA broadcasts a 30-minute mix of international news and information three times a day. RFA broadcasts news and information about Burma two hours a day. VOA and RFA websites also contain audio and text material in Burmese and English. For example, VOA's October 10, 2003 editorial, "Release Aung San Suu Kyi" is prominently featured in the Burmese section of VOAnews.com. RFA's website makes available audio versions of 16 Aung San Suu Kyi's speeches from May 27 and 29, 2003. U.S. international broadcasting provides crucial information to a population denied the benefits of freedom of information by its government. Broadcasts reach a broad spectrum of society and a broad swathe of the country, influencing Burmese decision-makers and offering support to future democratic leaders. Anecdotal evidence indicates that government officials listen to these broadcasts frequently…The State Department provided $150,000 in FY 2001/02 funds to provide scholarships to young Burmese through Prospect Burma, a partner organization with close ties to Aung San Suu Kyi”

Link between San Suu Kyi and Ashin Wirathu, the lead Buddhist that is ordering the genocide of Muslims in Burma

The “Saffron Revolution” movements in Burma were historically aimed at calling for greater freedom from the oppressive military junta regimes in both Thailand and Burma with San Suu Kyi being the figurehead for the movement. However the most recent rally called for the expulsion of Muslims, often referred to as ‘Kalars’ (Blacks) or ‘Bengali’. The fact they came to the streets to deny thousands of Muslims to be represented as Burmese is quite obvious that the aim of the “Saffron” movements is aimed at harming the Muslims and not for the greater ‘freedom’, which is a flawed ideal in itself.

Ashin Wirathu, also known as the "Buddhist Bin Laden," led Aung San Suu Kyi's "Saffron Revolution" in 2007 and his followers regularly fill the ranks of street mobs organized in support of her political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). Both Suu Kyi's NLD and her "Saffron" mobs, are fully funded, backed, protected by, and in absolute servile obedience to both US and British special interests.

San Suu Kyi remains silent on her links with the Buddhist extremist Wirathu but their alliance is quite clear. Washington Post[2] reported on the state of Sittwe where the Muslims have been persecuted the most:

“Often these attacks have been spearheaded by the same orange-robed monks who led a series of demonstrations against the junta in 2007, known as the "Saffron Revolution". A warped and violent version of Buddhism has grasped hold of many monasteries in Burma, with hate-speech directed against Muslims across the country, and particularly the Rohingya. Mosques have been attacked, villages set on fire and thousands chased from their homes. Massacres have leapt from village to village in Rakhine State, with machetes the weapon of choice.”

A video that proves that the authorities in Burma are allowing the ethnic cleansing of Muslims is viral, it shows “Burmese police officers stand by as an already bruised and bleeding middle-aged Muslim man is tied by his ankles behind a motorbike by Buddhist youths. There is cheering as the bike roars off down the rock-strewn road, flaying skin from the bouncing body as it goes.” Now almost a quarter of a million Rohingya have been rounded up into concentration camps along Rakhine's low-lying coastline.

Wirathu wears a deep-blue tattoo of a peacock on his inner arm - symbol of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League For Democracy party.

Summary

Events in Burma may not be directly in line with the Greater Middle East Initiative but it is still important in terms of the persecution of Muslims and the shedding of the Ummah’s blood. This written piece aims to provide tangible facts to the situation in Burma and how Western NGO’s that the Muslims consider as ‘support’ are in fact funding the downfall of Islam. National Endowment for Democracy and Open Society are the biggest players in this field and has funded huge pro-democratic developments within the Middle East, such as the April 6^th movement and other movements during the Arab spring. These are hard facts and by understanding how Western democracy funding organisations distribute its ‘support’ we can ultimately understand its venom as well as identify those groups, movements and parties that are Western led.

---

[1] http://burmacampaign.org.uk/images/uploads/DFIDReview.pdf

[2] http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2015-02/12/ashin-wirathu-audience-with-the-buddhist-bin-laden-burma

So convenient. ISIS was gifted 2300 Humvees by the West

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/18967-isis-captured-2300-armoured-vehicles-from-iraqi-army

Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armoured vehicles to the Islamic State in Mosul last summer, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi revealed.

"In the collapse of Mosul, we lost a lot of weapons. We lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul alone," Al-Abadi said, pointing out that "several Russian and American maintenance companies and contractors left the country because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq."

Last year, the US State Department approved the sale of 1,000 Humvees with increased armour, machine guns, grenade launchers, other gear and support, estimated to cost $579 million.

Source: http://rt.com/news/263769-iraq-isis-humvees-weapons/

Meanwhile the US approved new arms deliveries to the Iraqis last December to replenish the stock ransacked by IS. One contract allows the sale of 175 heavy M1A1 Abarams worth $12.4 billion, while another approves the delivery of 1,000 Humvees, equipped with M2.50 caliber machine guns and MK-19 40mm grenade launchers.

They are exactly the types of weapons IS used to gain vast amount of territory both in Iraq and northern Syria. In fact, the first use of US-Humvees on Syrian territory was reported last year shortly after Mosul has fallen to jihadists.

Sheikh of Al-Azhar meets far right-wing French National Front leader in Cairo

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/18968-meeting-between-sheikh-al-azhar-and-marine-le-pen-fulfilled-different-objectives

Marine Le Pen and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib have both defended their recent meeting in the Egyptian capital. The leader of the extreme right-wing French National Front met the Sheikh of Al-Azhar on Thursday in his Cairo establishment. Their defence came in the face of a storm of criticism due to Le Pen's well-known hostility towards Muslims. Al-Azhar has come under pressure from coup leader Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who met with Al-Tayyib last Wednesday. The meeting was followed by a statement issued by the Egyptian presidency alluding to an agreement to make changes in the curricula of Al-Azhar University.

Observers claim that the French extremist intends to use the visit to rid her party of the stigma of extremism, not least because she will be standing in the French presidential election in 2017. Local sources in Cairo said that Al-Tayyib tried through this meeting to divert the anger of Al-Sisi, who is displeased with him for not responding sufficiently to his demand to "renew" religious discourse, which to the coup leader means manipulating what is taught at the historic university.

In an exclusive interview with Sky Arabic TV on Saturday, Marine Le Pen said, without a touch of irony, that it was important for her to visit Egypt for the first time because of its vital role in the context of the influence of "extremists and terrorists" who now constitute a real global problem.

"President Sisi's speeches, which I consider to be very brave, have motivated me [to visit Egypt]," said Le Pen. "I wanted through this visit to clarify the misunderstanding we have about our vision of the Arab world and the events there and to discuss the efforts to combat extremism."

The right-winger stuck to her position of objecting to Muslim women wearing the headscarf and what she described as "the Muslims praying in the roads". She stressed that France is a secular country and that Muslims in France should respect the law of the land.

The Deputy Dean of Al-Azhar, Dr Abbas Shuman, said that receiving the National Front leader, who is known for her extremist and anti-Islam opinions, does not mean she was welcomed by Sheikh Al-Azhar. It simply means, he insisted, that Al-Azhar is opening up to the Other and that it is implementing the true Islamic teachings, proving that Sunni Islam is well advanced compared to political trends across the entire world, especially in the West.

In a statement made on Saturday, Shuman denied that the Azharis were furious because Sheikh Al-Azhar received Le Pen. "Whoever spoke about the anger of the Azharites because the Grand Imam received the leader of the French party only exposed their identity after they claimed that Al-Tayyib remains indifferent while seeing blood being spilled." He pointed out that the stances of Sheikh Al-Azhar towards bloodshed is known to all. However, he did not explain what he meant by that.

Within the same context, a source at the French embassy in Cairo disclosed that Le Pen's visit was unofficial, with no coordination by the embassy to organise it; the meetings took place away from any official protocol and the embassy had no idea why she was visiting Egypt.

In the meantime, the Washington Post published a detailed report about the visit and said that some observers abroad criticised Le Pen, stating that the timing was inappropriate. The deputy director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa department, Nadim Houri, said: "Perhaps Le Pen's visit will be interpreted as a means of support for President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi."

This would be embarrassing for the Egyptian regime, given that Le Pen's party wants to stop issuing licences to build mosques in France and she has likened Muslim prayers in the street to the Nazis. This is problematical because the head of the French Council for the Islamic Religion, Dalil Abu Bakr, has called for doubling the number of mosques in France in order to solve the issue of the lack of places for millions of French Muslims to hold their acts of worship. There are only 2,200 mosques in France; this number needs to be doubled, he said, in order to fulfil the needs of the increasing number of Muslims.

In a long statement issued after her visit to Cairo, Le Pen expressed her extreme views openly as she mentioned what she believed are issues of mutual agreement between her and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib: "The vital importance of ten million Coptic Christians, the descendants of Ancient Egyptians, who pay a heavy price for Islamic intolerance and the balancing role that France and Egypt should play in the conflicts raging across the Arab world; the stabilising role that Egypt should play in Libya; and the importance of convincing the citizens of North Africa and the Middle East not to relinquish the lands of their ancestors in pursuit of an unknown future in Europe."

Observers have concluded from this that the meeting between Sheikh Al-Azhar and Marine Le Pen had a political agenda for each of them. While the latter sought to make political gains within the French political arena as a result of the meeting, the former sought to appease Al-Sisi. That he needed to do this is evident from the repeated calls within the pro-Sisi media outlets for Al-Tayyib to be sacked from his prestigious position.

Tension between #Cairo and #Riyadh escalates over #Brotherhood in #Syria and #Yemen - MidEastMonitor

Sources: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/18963-tension-between-cairo-and-riyadh-escalates-over-brotherhood-in-syria-and-yemen

Official sources in Egypt have said that Cairo has conveyed to Riyadh its concern over what it describes as "an exaggeration" in opening up to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world and "attempts to rely on the group in resolving the crisis" in Yemen and containing the situation in Syria. This, claims the Egyptian regime, will definitely lead to adverse consequences for regional stability; once the Brotherhood seizes the reins of government in certain Arab countries with the help of Saudi Arabia it will not stop there but will seek to seize control over all Arab capitals.

"Saudi Arabia itself," said one source, "despite its tight internal security policy, may find itself facing a new predicament associated with the Brotherhood, just like the other Gulf States. In this regard we have been talking to our brothers in the United Arab Emirates in an attempt to raise the issue quietly within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council."

There is widespread dismay within the folds of the Syrian opposition, he added, because of the enhanced communication between Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood there in parallel with Turkish military support for Syrian factions affiliated with the movement in one way or another. European diplomatic sources have told Al-Shorouk that the countries they represent have informed Cairo, directly or indirectly, that any vision of the political future of Syria after Assad cannot exclude the Brotherhood in the way that Egypt wants.

According to the same Europeans, it is not possible to expect Saudi Arabia to counter the increasing involvement of Lebanon's Hezbollah in support of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria without Riyadh taking action in order to mobilise what it considers to be the "likely Sunni" alternative. This is a reference to the Sunni forces that are not part of the ISIS umbrella; the Saudis consider the moves by Hezbollah to be a Shia dynamic supported by Iran, Riyadh's arch enemy.

In the meantime, officials in Cairo say that the Egyptian regime has received an unequivocal message about the rise in the level of discomfort among Yemeni factions opposed to the Houthi expansion as a result of the rise in Saudi support for the Brotherhood in the country. He added that leaders of the Yemeni factions have told Cairo of their displeasure with the political prescription that may come out of the ongoing communication between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic movement. "I think that they do not object to allocating a share for the Brotherhood but they can see that Saudi Arabia is heading towards offering the movement a majority and not just a share."

As for the Saudis themselves, according to Arab and Western diplomatic sources they do not intend to change their strategy or ideas regarding Yemen. "With regards to Yemen," said one European ambassador in the Egyptian capital, "we know very clearly that Riyadh is angry because of what it considers to be balking on the part of Cairo and a failure to provide support. The House of Saud does not intend to listen to what the Egyptians have to say. With Syria, the matter may be slightly different, whereby Riyadh will seek to ensure Egyptian support of some kind. It will proceed with formulating something and then will ask Cairo to support it, but it will not move in conjunction with Cairo."

The Egyptian government has told the Saudis that it understands their concern regarding the Iranian expansion "We share some of that concern," said a diplomatic source. "However, at the same time we do not want to confront religious forces with other religious forces."

He acknowledges that Riyadh is accusing Cairo of hindering its moves that are aimed at grouping together political formulations with a Brotherhood base in both Yemen and Syria. "We cannot support the ascension of the Brotherhood to power in any Arab state, however; for us this is a closed case."

Egyptian officials across various sectors keep reiterating the same phrases about the Turkey-Qatar concord intended to boost the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in as many Arab capitals as possible in what they insist is a move prompted from within some political circles in Washington which want to put Islamists in power. The talk in this regard is focused on the White House and not the State Department.