Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will.
This was reported by BBC Newsnight Wednesday.
A senior NATO decision-maker said he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama’s counter-proliferation adviser, told Newsnight:
“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan.” Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said:
“The Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don’t bluff on this issue.”
Iran will not be the first Islamic nation that will acquire a nuclear bomb. The Islamic republic of Pakistan has had the bomb since 1998. But since Pakistan in not a treat to other Muslim nations, the Pakistani bomb has not lead to an Islamic nuclear arms race.
The Sunny Muslims do not trust the Shia Muslims of Iran. This is the major reason for why there is a civil war today crippling the Muslim World. And the war is more than 1300 years old. The Sunnis have Saudi Arabia as their major religious center.
If Iran trigger a nuclear bomb, surely Saudi Arabia will get one. And if Pakistan gives the Saudis the bomb, there will be a major nuclear arms race in the Middle East and Persia.
Jesus the Messiah warned us. There will be terrible times, at the end of the age of grace. So terrible, that it has never been worse since the creation of the Earth. So be ready for a bumpy ride, and pray for power and strength to endure till the end. Amen.
On the move for Saudi women to be allowed to drive, Kerry was careful not to appear to take sides.
What should be a ridiculous question is raised by Secretary of State John Kerry’s offensive obeisance to the Saudis yesterday when visiting Riyadh. Here is the AP story:
“On the move for Saudi women to be allowed to drive, Kerry was careful not to appear to take sides. Noting that while the United States embraces gender equality, ‘it is up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure and choices and the timing of whatever events.'”
Apparently, far be it from us to criticize Saudi repression of women and the ludicrous and offensive practice of preventing women from driving. How far does Secretary Kerry go with this “your own decisions about your own social structure?” Does it matter to him that “Saudis” don’t get to make that decision — because the country has no democratic institutions whatsoever?
Mr. Kerry’s abandonment of American standards when addressing the Saudi leaders was not only offensive, it was useless and unneeded.
When his predecessor Condoleezza Rice used to visit there, she refused to cover her hair as current Saudi practices demand; they got over it. Had Mr. Kerry replied,
“Well, as an American of course I think that rule about driving is ridiculous,” do we think they’d have declared war?
Kerry was speaking with Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, a graduate of Princeton University who also went to prep school in the United States.
Does the secretary believe that Saud actually thinks women should not be permitted to drive, and that saying so would have offended him?
Does the secretary think he increases respect for the United States when he refuses to defend our view of equality before the law?
The Saudi episode came a day after Kerry made an inaccurate and unfortunate statement about Egypt: that it is moving toward democracy under army rule. In an editorial, The Washington Post said it all:
“A Freedom House report released Monday concludes that ‘there has been virtually no substantive progress toward democracy … since the July 3 coup,’ despite the military regime’s supposed ‘road map.’
But that’s not how Secretary of State John F. Kerry sees it.
‘The road map is being carried out to the best of our perception,’ he pronounced during a quick trip to Cairo on Sunday. A liberal constitution and elections? ‘All of that is, in fact, moving down the road map in the direction that everybody has been hoping for.’
The plan for a military campaign demonstrate that the U.S. is fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda against the Syrian regime.
These are the words of Odd Kartsten Tveit, a secular Norwegian senior journalist who has worked with Middle East Issues for more than 30 years.
This is recorded by Norwegian media:
If the U.S. goes to attack Syria will be the first time in history that an American president is on the same side as Al Qaeda.
Earlier, in Afghanistan, Americans contented themselves with equipping extreme Islamists with weapons to fight a common enemy. It was once the enemy the Soviet Union.
Of course, Americans do not agree that they are on the same side as those who attacked the United States for almost exactly 12 years ago, 11 September 2001.
There are other ironies. Unmanned U.S. doner kill Al Qaeda people in Yemen and Pakistan. In addition, many civilians lose their lives in these attacks.
But Syria is Al Qaeda’s twin, Al-Nurse-front, material help of America’s allies. Al-Nurse-front is one of many groups that will remove Assad. If they all have a common goal, they disagree about what should happen next in the country.
Let me underline that Odd Karstein Tveit is notorious for his support of Arab forces, during their wars with Israel. Still I acknowledge that in regards to the conflict in Syria, he has drawn the correct conclusion.
Obama is not a Christian. He is born by a Muslim father. The not converted US Commander in Chief, consider Islam to be the “religion of peace”. No true Christian will ever utter such words.
Osama Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia, into a family of Sunny Muslims. That 11 of the 12 attackers on September 11th 2001 were Saudis, did not result in a US military attack to punish the regime in Riyadh.
Washington today, seems convinced that the Shia supported regime in Damascus, must be punished for the crimes done by Syrians, using nerve gas on their own brethren.
Such a response is not logical, and can be compared to the US onslaught on Afghanistan, while continuing to support Saudi Arabia.
Lets take a look at some pictures, that display the reason behind the absence of common sense and logic.
For George W. Bush it was simply not possible to attack Saudi Arabia. Not only did the US import 20 per cent of its oil supplies from the Saudis. The Islamic King of Saudi Arabia is an Order brother of W. Bush, who already had gifted the US President with an Islamic Order medal.
In regards to Barach Hussein Obama, his support for al-Quade is neither based on convenience, nor by bribes, like in the case of W. Bush. Obama is convinced that his Sunni Muslim brothers, are fighting for “allah”. Obama feel he silently support a noble cause, and desire to bring an end to the Islamic civil by the use of the supreme military powers of NATO.
The majority of people in the secular west have turned to hedonism, and live a life in self indulgences and denial of the truth. If the West were still connected to reason, there would be a massive revolt in protest of this kind of misuse of NATO. But since the Islamic threat has been imported to Europe too, the cowards remain silent. If there is any logic, the logic seems to be: As long as the bombs keep on falling in my neighbors garden, no need to worry.