Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

Why Is Saudi Arabia Building A Nation City The Size Of Massachusetts, To Be Governed By Technocracy?

Under the leadership of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a $500 billion “mega-city” is being constructed in the northwestern corner of Saudi Arabia.  This city has been named “Neom”, and when it is fully completed it will be approximately “the size of Massachusetts”.  The Wall Street Journal was able to recently examine 2,300 pages of classified documents related to this project, and what they discovered is absolutely stunning. 

This “city of the future” will feature an artificial moon, flying taxis and robot maids, but there will also be gene-editing in order to make humans stronger and smarter, and everyone living there will be subjected to 24 hour surveillance.  In addition, we are being told that this will be “the world’s first independent international zone”, and many are concerned about what exactly that is going to mean.

“Neom” certainly has a futuristic ring to it, and according to Digital Trends it was derived by combining a Greek word and an Arabic word…

Called Neom (a mix of the Greek word for “new” and Arabic word for “future”), the project aims to construct a $500 billion city, covering 10,000 squares miles of coastline and desert in northwest Saudi Arabia. With its mixture of high-tech amenities and luxury services like restaurants and shops, the goal is to build what the Wall Street Journal describes as a superior to “Silicon Valley in technology, Hollywood in entertainment and the French Riviera as a place to vacation.”

It has been reported that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman originally came up with the idea for the city when he “pulled up a map of his country on Google Earth and saw its northwest quadrant was a blank slate.”  He ultimately decided that it would be an ideal location for “the city of the future”, and he enlisted an army of U.S. consultants to help him fulfill his dream.

But will his dream ultimately become a nightmare?  There are some extremely alarming things that I want to tell you about, but first let’s talk about some of the cool stuff that is planned for the city

The in-development Saudi Arabian city-state will have robot maids, flying taxis, and glow-in-the-dark sand, according to confidential planning documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. An artificial moon will light up the sky every night, and a Jurassic Park-style island will let visitors mingle with robot dinosaurs.

Sounds like a fun place to live, right?

And even though the climate of the region is extremely, extremely dry, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman plans to use “cloud seeding” to produce rain whenever it is needed.

In other words, the fact that they will be using geoengineering to control the weather in this city is not even being hidden.

There will also be gene-editing facilities that will be used to make humans stronger and smarter than ever before, and according to the Wall Street Journal, Neom’s board plans to make it a fully automated city “where we can watch everything”

“This should be an automated city where we can watch everything,” Neom’s founding board is quoted as saying in the documents, according to the WSJ. “[A city] where a computer can notify crimes without having to report them or where all citizens can be tracked.”

That means while you’re chilling on the glowing beach, daydreaming about your next prix fixe meal, a drone equipped with facial-recognition technology will likely be transmitting your location to Neom’s “1984”-esque law enforcement officials.

Hmmm – that actually doesn’t sound like such a fun place to live after all.

In fact, it basically sounds like the sort of dystopian nightmare that I have always been warning about.

But even more alarming is the fact that this city is being billed as “the world’s first independent international zone”

The city itself will be “the world’s first independent international zone,” presents its marketing literature. How independent it will actually be remains to be seen. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia set up a “special authority,” chaired by the Crown Prince himself, to supervise the development of the project. Once its built, the zone will be managed via a “regulatory framework that will adopt world-class investment laws to support residents and targeted economic sectors,” declares its presentation, which also purports the city-state will have an “autonomous judicial system.” Its laws, enforced by city-wide automation and tracking of its citizens, would be independent of Saudi Arabia’s, created by a slate of both local and foreign investors “in accordance with international best practice.”

So this city will not technically be part of Saudi Arabia.

It will actually be a “city-state” with its own laws, rules, regulations and judicial system.

Could it be possible that this giant “independent international zone” will one day be the home base for an “international leader”?

I don’t know.  I am just throwing that out there.

Obviously there is an agenda here.  Why else would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up a giant tract of land the size of Massachusetts for a futuristic mega-city that won’t even be under their jurisdiction?

As is the case with so many other things, this isn’t being hidden from us at all.  It is being done right out in the open, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is being quite clear that his intention is to make Neom the most important city on the entire planet.

But to me it sounds like a prison, and the truth is that this is the direction the entire globe is heading.

Already, virtually everything that we do is being watched, monitored or tracked somehow.  With each passing year, the global Big Brother surveillance grid becomes even more extensive, and we have very little privacy left.

So perhaps we should stop talking so much about the dystopian nightmare that is coming, because to a very large degree it is already here.

Source: by Michael Snyder | ZeroHedge

WATCH: CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Says War against Yemen Protects American Jobs

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/jobs-yemen-1392x731.jpg

The current conflict in Yemen, which was manufactured as a proxy war by Saudi Arabia, targeting its bitter enemy, Iran, is America’s dirty little secret which the media refuses to question. According to an analysis from Unicef, more than 5,000 children have been slaughtered in the war, with the death toll from violence alone surpassing 10,000—as millions teeter on the brink of starvation. The number of casualties has only continued to increase, as a report from the United Nations noted that the parties involved are conducting operations “heedless of their impact on civilians.”

As The Free Thought Project has reported, the current situation in Yemen is nothing short of genocide, as there are 7 million civilians in starvation, and 19 million out of the country’s 27 million population in need of some form of aid.” Saudi Arabia has repeatedly facilitated famine, continued to murder children, and all of it is with the help and approval of the United States.

Just last week, TFTP reported on a bombing that took place at a wedding near Yemen’s capital city of Sana’a. A report from the Associated Press which barely registered as a blip in the rest of the media claimed that the majority of people who were killed were “women and children who were gathered in one of the tents set up for the wedding party in the district of Bani Qayis.”

The bride was killed and the groom was one of more than 50 people who was wounded. Ali Nasser al-Azib, deputy head of the hospital, told the AP that at least 30 children were among the injured—several are suffering from shrapnel wounds and severed limbs, and are in critical condition.

The AP reported that this bombing is the third that has targeted Yemeni civilians in as many days—an entire family of five was killed after an airstrike hit their house on Sunday, and at least 20 civilians were killed after an airstrike hit a commuter bus leaving the war-torn district of Mowza.

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out last week, this most recent slaughter of innocent women and children comes after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman went on a publicity tour across the United States, meeting with elites from all sides of the political spectrum and industry.

As the Yemen war enters its fourth year of being ignored by the media, RT’s In the Now has republished a forgotten clip from 2016 in which CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviews Rand Paul. The clip is nothing short of chilling and explains why the media and politicians continue to ignore the war, while silently supporting it—the slaughter of innocent children is good for business.

As the clip begins, Rand Paul is explaining that “There are now millions of displaced people in Yemen. They’re refugees. So we supply the Saudis with arms, they create havoc and refugees in Yemen. Then what’s the answer? Then we’re going to take the Yemeni refugees in the United States? Maybe we ought to quit arming both sides of this war.”

To give specific details of the US involvement in the slaughter of children, Paul noted, “We are refueling the Saudi bombers that are dropping the bombs. It is said that thousands of civilians have died in Yemen because of this.”

CNN’s Blitzer responded, “So for you this is a moral issue. Because you know, there’s a lot of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense contractors stop selling war planes, other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there’s going to be a significant loss of jobs, of revenue here in the United States. That’s secondary from your standpoint?”

Paul countered, “Well not only is it a moral question, its a constitutional question.” He then noted that it was Obama who partnered with Saudi Arabia to wage war on Yemen without Congressional approval. “Our founding fathers very directly and specifically did not give the president the power to go to war. They gave it to Congress. So Congress needs to step up and this is what I’m doing.”

Since this original report aired, the admitted scope of the US role in Yemen has become far greater than just bombs and refueling. The Defense Department released a statement in December 2017, in which it admitted for the first time that U.S. forces have conducted “multiple ground operations and more than 120 strikes this year” in Yemen.

Sadly, this slaughter shows no signs of slowing and is arguably getting worse.

Only a few weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump made clear his policy of continuing the annihilation and genocide of the citizens of Yemen. Following in Barack Obama’s footsteps, Trump launched an attack on Yemen only days after taking office which led to the death of multiple civilians, including women and children.

Among the dead was the 8-year-old granddaughter of Nasser al-Awlaki, Nawar Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also the daughter of Anwar Awlaki — a US citizen extrajudicially murdered by the Obama administration. Nasser al-Awlaki explained that his granddaughter was shot in the neck and suffered for hours as she bled to death.

Nawar’s death epitomizes the rapacious and savage nature of the US presence in Yemen and their continued aid to the terrorist nation of Saudi Arabia who indiscriminately bombs schools, hospitals, and civilian neighborhoods within the nation.

And all of it, according to CNN and the rest of the military industrial complex—is good for business.

Source: Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Saudi Arabia: Panel of Scientists Admits Women are Mammals, yet ‘Not Human’

Riyadh | In an unprecedented ruling, a panel of Saudi scientists has concluded that women are actually mammals, granting them the same rights as other mammal species such as camels, dromedaries and even goats.

https://i1.wp.com/worldnewsdailyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/saoudien-science.jpg

The verdict, which fell just hours before the International Women’s Day, is considered “historic” by some experts and advocacy groups for women’s rights.

“This is a great leap forward for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia,” concludes Jane Austin, spokeswoman for the Women’s Liberation Action Network. “It may seem too little, too late, but it is truly a milestone event for all women in the region,” she says, visibly excited. “From now on, women will be considered as members of the mammal class, whereas before women shared the legal status of an object, similar to that of a home appliance,” she admits.

Jillian Birch, spokeswoman at Amnesty International, said she is optimistic about the future as women will no longer be considered as “soulless objects” but as fully fledged mammals.

“Soulless objects”

The recent verdict could completely upset all laws currently enforced in Saudi Arabia believes Jillian Birch, spokeswoman at Amnesty International.

“This verdict shows the incredible progress the women’s rights movement has made in the past 50 years,” she admitted in a press conference this morning. “Finally, women will no longer be simply considered as objects without souls, but as full-fledged mammals, with the same rights as other animals of their species such as camels and goats,” she said, visibly emotional. “Women are still far from being considered 100% human, but their condition will improve drastically with this decision,” she firmly believes.

Unprecedented Verdict

The verdict, which fell like a ton of bricks on the Saudi state, has clearly not found unanimous support among religious authorities and the political elite, concede experts.

“It could create significant turmoil in the current legal state of affairs and the judiciary system of Saudi Arabia,” says political analyst specialized in the Middle East, Anthony Bochstein. “If before women had the same rights as a chair or a table and were seen more as individual property, they now have an equivalent status to certain animal species, and thus must receive, at the very least, feeding, watering and be conferred a minimum of attention and respect, which was not the case previously,” he explains.

According to the expert panel that ruled on the matter, women are still devoid of a soul but have been shown to possess qualities common to the mammal species, which would explain their ability to procreate and breastfeed, as well as why they are equipped with seven cervical vertebrae, a characteristic unique to the mammal species.

https://earloftaint.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/theyre-with-me.jpg?w=945

Source: World News Daily

“Something is Going On” – And It’s Far Worse Than You Thought

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M1193f552cf1b35d2bf2254fcd5bf2830o0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&sp=595de004bf84b2dd133168e83b8b2d14

We have finally unlocked the Great Mystery why the Obama administration, UniParty house and senate leaders, and the Clinton campaign are so reluctant to utter the words radical islamic terrorism.”

I used to wonder why in the heck right-wing commentators on Fox News kept repeating the same mantra over and over again: sitting through the Republican debates, my eyes glazed over when I heard each and every candidate denounce the Obama administration for refusing to say the Sacred Words: “radical Islamic terrorism.” What are these people talking about, I thought to myself: they’re obsessed!

In short, I wrote it off as Fox News boilerplate, until the other day when, in the wake of the Orlando massacre, Donald Trump said the following on Fox: “Something is going on. He doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other.” Reiterating this trope later on in the same show, he averred that the President “is not tough, not smart – or he’s got something else in mind.”

The Beltway crowd went ballistic. Lindsey Graham had a hissy fit, and other Republican lawmakers started edging away from the presumptive GOP nominee. The Washington Post ran a story with the headline: “Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.” Realizing that this level of bias was a bit too brazen, the editors changed it an hour or so later to: “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to Orlando Shooting.” Not much better, but then again we’re talking about a newspaper that has a team of thirty or so reporters bent on digging up dirt on Trump.

In any case, Trump responded as he usually does: by doubling down. And he did it, as he usually does, on Twitter, tweeting the following:

“Media fell all over themselves criticizing what Donald Trump ‘may have insinuated about @POTUS.’ But he’s right:”

The tweet included a link to this story that appeared on Breitbart: an account of a 2012 intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency predicting the rise of the Islamic State in Syria – and showing how US policy deliberately ignored and even succored it. Secured by Judicial Watch thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the document says it’s very likely we’ll see the creation of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” And this won’t just be a grassroots effort, but the result of a centrally coordinated plan: it will happen because “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” then engaged in a campaign to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar).”

This is precisely what happened, and, as we see, the Iraqi Army is now in the field – with US support – trying to retake Mosul and Anbar, with limited success. Yet it’s not like we didn’t know this was coming – and didn’t have a hand in creating the problem we are now spending billions of dollars and even some American lives trying to “solve.” Things are turning out exactly as the DIA report said they would:

“[T]here is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

And who, exactly, are these “supporting powers”? The anonymous author of the report points to “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.” Last I heard, the US is part of the West – although the way things are going, that may not be true for very much longer. And of course the US has had a policy of supporting the “moderate” Syrian Islamist “opposition,” which ended in massive defections from the so-called Free Syrian Army to openly jihadist outfits like al-Nusra and ISIS.

There was a split in the administration over this policy, with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then CIA director David Petraeus arguing for a full-scale effort to overthrow beleaguered Ba’athist strongman Bashar al-Assad with massive aid to a loosely-defined “opposition.” Petraeus even openly argued for arming al-Nusra – the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda – and there were indications that, before Hillary left Foggy Bottom, an arms pipeline was opened up between the Libyan jihadists we aided in overthrowing Ghaddafi and their Syrian brothers.

Obama was reluctant to get more involved, but Hillary and Petraeus were gung-ho, along with the usual “humanitarian” interventionists in the administration and the media, who were accusing the President of standing by while “genocide” was being carried out by Assad. In reality, the jihadists were chopping off heads and wreaking just as much devastation as the Syrian army, but these facts didn’t make it into the media narrative.

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.franklincountyvapatriots.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FBarack_Obama_vs_Hillary_Clinton_by_GaryLocke.jpg&sp=2ff15fa17e82b98190448471d408f0c5

In any case, the administration split was finally resolved when the President announced he was going to intervene in Syria with air strikes. This provoked a huge backlash from flyover country, with congressional switchboards tied up and protests coming in fast and furious. Clearly, the American people didn’t want another war in the Middle East, and, one by one, members of Congress who had planned on voting yes began to back down. The President backtracked – happily, I imagine. Hillary, who had already left the administration, was handed her final rebuke. Yet the seeds planted by her Syria policy would soon sprout into flowers of evil.

War was avoided, at least for the moment – but the prediction of that anonymous DIA agent was coming true. As thousands of US-trained –and-equipped rebels joined ISIS, along with the arms and other goodies provided courtesy of the US taxpayers, their leader declared the “Caliphate” and expanded its operations into North Africa, Europe – and the US.

The long reach of the Islamic State has been felt in this country twice in recent months: first in San Bernardino, and now in Orlando. Both terrorists traveled to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly for religious purposes, where they may have received training – and instructions.

When Omar Mateen opened fire in that Orlando nightclub, killing fifty people and wounding nearly one-hundred, the monster we created came back to haunt us. It didn’t matter that he may not have had direct links to ISIS: inspired by them, he carried out his grisly mission as he swore allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the “Caliph” of the Islamic State.

The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump’s mouth, ran an article by Glenn  Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing important and that we should all just move along because there’s nothing to see there. He cited all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission: Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an extensive interview:

Al-Jazeera: “You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.”

Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don’t want to talk about that. Neither do the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them much more than they got. They’re all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.

Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible pick for Vice President.

The idea that we could use Islamist to fight jihadists was always crazy, and yet that is what the foreign policy Establishment and the congressional war hawks in both parties have been pushing. The “Sunni turn,” initiated by the Bush administration, supported (and funded) by the Saudis, the Turks, and the Gulf states, and escalated by the Obama administration, has empowered our worst enemies and endangered the American people. And here is the ultimate irony: it was done in the name of “fighting terrorism.” This gives new meaning to the concept of “blow back,” CIA parlance for an action (often covert) that has the unintended consequence of blowing back in our faces.

It certainly blew back in the faces of those party goers in Orlando – in a hail of bullets.

That Trump gets this is little short of amazing, and yet truth often comes to us in unexpected ways. He may be an imperfect vessel – and that is surely an understatement – but he is absolutely correct in this instance: this administration and this President either “doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other.”

The media and the Never Trumpers leaped on this statement and translated it into the old Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim trope, but that’s not what he was talking about. He was talking about the largely unknown history of our intervention in Syria, where Hillary Clinton was the jihadists’ best friend and benefactor. It was she who led the charge to “liberate” Syria, to arm the “moderate” head-choppers and do to that war-torn wreck of a country what she had done to Libya. Obama knows it: and so does the media. But their lips are sealed.

Fortunately, mine aren’t:

So we finally unlock the Great Mystery: why oh why does is this administration and the Clinton campaign so reluctant to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism”? Is it because of political correctness and a fear of inciting “Islamophobia”? Don’t flatter them: they’re not above that, when it serves their purposes. But it doesn’t serve their purposes this time.

What they’re afraid of is alienating their allies in the Middle East – not just the jihadists they’ve funded and succored in an effort to overthrow Assad, but primarily the Saudis, the Turks, and the Gulf sheikhs who are all in on the game and are playing it for all it’s worth. And of course there’s the Clinton Foundation, which has received millions in “donations” from the Saudi royals and their satellites.

The US policy goal in the region is to block the Iranians and their Shi’ite allies, including Syria’s Assad, from expanding their influence in the wake of the failed Iraq war. That war installed a Shi’ite regime in Baghdad, and in order to protect our vaunted ally Israel – which is set on regime change in Syria – we are backing and have been backing Sunni radicals, precisely those “radical Islamic terrorists” whose name will never pass Hillary Clinton’s lips.

We’ve been pointing this out on this site for years: I’ve written about it extensively. And now the Republican candidate for President is talking about it. To all those well intentioned hand-wringers out there who think I’ve gone overboard in my coverage of Trump, contemplate that amazing fact for a while – and then get back to me.

by Justin Raimondo | ZeroHedge

Castrated

https://i2.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2016/04/obama-king-salman-saudi-arabia-ap-640x480.jpg?zoom=2

After three decades of internecine war, Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, allied with the fundamentalist Wahhabist Islamic sect, consolidated the House of Saud’s dominance over Arabia in 1932 with the tacit support of regional imperial power Great Britain. The bedrock of the Saudi Arabian economy, the massive pool of oil in the Al-Hasa region along the Persian Gulf coast, was discovered in 1938 and development began in 1941. Towards the end of World War II, President Roosevelt and Abdul-Aziz reached a handshake deal that has governed relations between the two nations ever since: Saudi Arabia would guarantee the flow of oil to the US at a reasonable price; the US would protect the Saud regime.

Like so many born into wealth, the House of Saud has mistaken fortuitous circumstances for divine favor, haughtily condescending to a world that goes along with its pretensions because of its oil. Saudi Arabia is dependent for its security and armaments on the west, particularly the US. No particular skill is necessary to extract (its reserves are among the world’s shallowest and easiest to tap), transport, or export its oil. It exports most of its oil because it has little industry, although its riches have made it a financial center and funded one of the world’s most generous welfare states. Much of the actual labor is performed by immigrants. The partial diversion of oil revenues has kept the non-House of Saud population pacified.

Oil has made the House of Saud one of the wealthiest extended clans in the world. It retains this privileged position by virtue of US military and intelligence support and its relationship with the Wahhabist clerics. Essentially, the clerics give their unwavering support to the regime, and the regime faithfully executes Sharia law (and those who violate it) in accordance with the dictates of the clerics.

It is an unfortunate tendency of the silver-spoon set not to confine itself to philanthropy, collecting art and fast cars, and other harmless pursuits. They seem compelled to tell the rest of us how to live and think. The Wahhabists make the do-gooders plaguing America look benign. It may be true that some sects of Islam are peaceful and only want to live and let live, but not the Wahhabists, it’s their brand of Sunni Islam or nothing. Everyone else is an infidel, to be converted or beheaded. So rather than just building big palaces in the desert, praying five times a day, and shopping in Paris, London, New York, and Beverly Hills, Saudi silver-spooners export their Puritanical Islam and expect obsequence from the rest of the world.

The US government promised Saudi Arabia that it would remove the military bases it erected there during Gulf War I after Saddam Hussein had been vanquished from Kuwait. It did not do so. Fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Osama bid Laden, a native of Saudi Arabia from a wealthy and well-connected family, had been happy enough to accept aid from the US. His anger at the bases and the broken promise reportedly sparked the 9/11 attacks.

Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Twenty-eight classified pages of a 2002 Congressional 9/11 investigation may well show that they received assistance from members of the Saudi Arabian government and royal family. Family members of 9/11 victims have long pressed for their release, although it will not, because of the sovereign immunity doctrine, help them in their efforts to sue the Saudi government. Senate Bill 2040 would declassify the 28 pages and suspend sovereign immunity for any government found complicit in a terrorist attack that kills Americans on US soil.

The Saudis have cranked up their greasy US lobbying apparatus to stop the bill, and have threatened to dump $750 billion in US debt if it becomes law. The 28 pages should be released because it will add to what we know about 9/11, but there is no chance Senate Bill 2040 will become law. President Obama has pledged to veto the legislation if it passes, and went to Saudi Arabia last week to “reassure” its leaders. Even if it didn’t upset the apple cart of the US-Saudi Arabian alliance, it would open the door to other nations and multinational bodies suspending the US’s sovereign immunity for say, drone strikes and indiscriminate bombings that have killed innocent people, arguably terrorist acts.

Unfortunately, the 9/11 imbroglio will probably not be the catalyst for a rupture in the alliance. Further exposure of Saudi duplicity would underscore an argument SLL has repeatedly made: the Saudis play a double game with the US. They have funded al Qaeda and its offshoots, notably ISIS, and have underwritten the world-wide export of Wahhabism and its doctrines of jihad and Islamic domination. The US friendship with the Saudi regime undercuts its claim of moral exceptionalism; the regime is among the world’s most repressive. Its Sharia law outlaws homosexuality and makes women chattels. Civil liberties are nonexistent, and lashings or beheadings await those who dare to speak out against the regime.

The proper US response to the Saudi’s threat would have been the middle finger. Ever-happy-to-monetize central banks and the world’s capital markets can handle a $750 billion sale of US debt. There would be a price concession as markets soaked the Saudis, but after the sale prices would rally and there would be no permanent damage. That the US would allow itself to be threatened illustrates what happens when a confederated empire rests on borrowed money. How long can an empire last that succumbs to its creditors’ threats? (China has a lot more US government debt than Saudi Arabia.)

Mostly what the US response illustrates is what happens when you have a government run by eunuchs. A bipartisan, bought-and-paid-for coalition of chicken hawks sends in bombers, drones, special forces, and the NSA to wage lucrative, costly, bloody, doomed-to-fail, civil-liberties-destroying wars against terrorist “threats,” but sucks up to an empty-robe regime that has indoctrinated, funded, and armed al Qaeda and ISIS. What would the Saudis do with their oil if the world’s largest oil consumer bought elsewhere, especially as the low oil price bleeds Saudi Arabia’s foreign currency reserves? What would their military—which can’t take out fourth-rate Yemen—do if the world’s number one arms supplier refused to sell to it? What would their corrupt and tyrannical alliance of mosque and state do if the US denounced the corruption and tyranny? What leverage would the Saudi’s have after they sold their $750 billion in debt?

by Robert Gore | Straight Line Logic