DID TURKI AL-FAISAL RESIGN, OR DID THE HARMFUL IDIOTS REMOVE HIM?

secondnotsoroughdraft


THE RESIGNATION


On or about December 12, 2006, we learned of the “resignation,” sudden, of Prince Turki al-Faisal, as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington, D.C. He was said to have resigned in good part because of plotting against him by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former ambassador. It was said that Turki and his brother, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, believed in keeping the neighborly doors open to Iran, while Bandar had adopted the harmful idiots’ confrontation stance against the Islamic Republic. Such is the closest the press came to understanding the reason for the resignation.

Robin Wright in the Washington Post reported that Bandar had been visiting Washington, secretly, almost monthly, behind Turki’s back. She wrote: “Turki was kept so out of the loop that Bandar often did not inform him he was in town, much less tell him what he was doing.”

The New York Times on or about December 27 highlighted differences between Turki and Bandar about Iran–that Bandar adopted the Bush administration approach of confronting Iran, while Turki favored more diplomatic tactics.

I believe that neither newspaper knew to tell the entire story. Perhaps Turki, a former head of Saudi intelligence, had seen something disturbing. Perhaps he had seen that the harmful idiots were angling for civil wars across the Arab world, as part of a colonial divide-and-rule strategy. That the upcoming war on Iran was so enmeshed with Arab blood spilling profusely in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Palestine and–sooner or later–in the Kingdom itself. Only recently, Prince Turki described the consequences of a war with Iran as “catastrophic,” though he did not elaborate. (Financial Times, Jan. 19, 2007, at 2.) I will.

I suspect that there was more to Prince Turki’s “resignation.” I suspect he didn’t resign; he was fired. Not by the King. By the harmful idiots.

Why did the harmful idiots oust him?


THE HARMFUL IDIOTS SEEK TO WIDEN THE RIFT BETWEEN ARAB SUNNI AND ARAB SHIA.

Turki’s “resignation” had more to do with his opposition to war with Iran, and the concomitant policy by the harmful idiots of widening the wedge between the Arab Shia and Sunni. I have no direct evidence of this, only circumstantial.

It would take a lot of space and time to outline the harmful idiots’ new strategy in the Arab World: to push along the Shia-Sunni rift, inside and outside Iraq. To instigate an intra-Arab Sunni civil war in Palestine, and an intra-Arab Shia one in Lebanon. One illustration of their divide-and-rule colonial strategy was the assassination-style and savage execution of Mr. Saddam Hussein and his two aides.


THE LYNCHING OF AN ARAB (SUNNI) LEADER

The harmful idiots had Mr. Hussein and his aides in custody. And there were more charges to take to trial in the Kangaroo court they erected, with harmful idiot judicial advisers! Instead, they speedily handed the Arab Sunni men over to Maliki and his people. All Shia. All (uncertain) agents of the harmful idiots. And none amongst them had graduated from the Nelson Mandela school of politics and humaneness.

The harmful idiots knew what they were doing. It’s their style. Entrap the Iraqi leadership; entrap the Iranian. Sophomoric, but supremely bloody. They made skillful use of the hangings. One of the Arab web publications which I suspect they sponsor as part of their propaganda war featured, day-in-day-out, the hangings as its most prominent articles–with what looked like outrageous, made-up, and doctored photographs.

The harmful idiots knew that the hangings of Sunni by Shia paralleled the lynching by their forefathers of blacks--and the myriad of cries, shrill and helpless, these lynching still draw in the depth of the soul of each and every African-American. In other words, the harmful idiots called on part of their own history, the savage and the racist part, when they delivered Sunni men to Shia politicians. Maliki needed to boost his popularity in relation to Muqtadha among the Shia masses; the harmful idiots wanted to widen the rift between Shia and Sunni, to be “needed,” by the Iraqis-- to stay in Iraq. The hangings proved beneficial to both. They recalled to me what a member of the Israel right-wing cult once wanted me to appreciate: that the Sunni in Iraq should be made to feel that they needed the Americans and the Israelis to protect them from the Shia and Iran. Maliki and his henchmen proved willing to serve.

(Tells you something about the death penalty: it never is about justice.)


THE HARMFUL IDIOTS AND THE ISRAELIS WANT THE SUNNI TO NEED THEM.

I could recite a a number of reasons why the harmful idiots wanted the executions now and not later. Suffice it to say that the executions fit into their colonial policy to further along the drawing of blood between Shia and Sunni–to be “needed,” so to stay in Iraq. To prepare for the eventual assault on Iran. To dominate the region one hundred percent. To control a substantial portion of the future oil needs of China and Europe. To avoid raising taxes at home. To do Empire on the cheap, without sacrifices at home.

Did Prince Turki al-Faisal and his brother stand in the way of this suicidal policy? Indication is they did. In that they were (and are) swimming against the current of Arab Uncle Toms and plantation superintendents who are helping the harmful idiots along and pocketing our money.

PREEMPTING CIVIL STRIFE

My suspicion is that Turki and Saud al-Faisal stood in the way of the harmful idiots’ plan to further the Sunni-Shia rift. They did it not only for humane reasons. I’m confident they’re not naive. They did it for pragmatic reasons as well. The Kingdom has its own sizeable Shia population; Lebanon is majority-Shia; and so is Iraq; and so is Bahrain. And they’re all Arab, albeit a portion are of Iranian descent. But that only matters if you want it to matter. One could hear the Faisals’ Arab-centered approach on December 19, 2006, one week after Turki’s resignation. Prince Saudi al-Faisal, Turki’s brother and Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, declared that the Kingdom stood “equidistant” to all sects and parties in Iraq. In other words, Saud al-Faisal was declaring that all Iraqis were Arab, those who wanted to be and those who didn’t. (The kingdom already was entangled in Iraq, more than it liked to admit. Please refer to earlier posts.)

Then again, on or about January 7, 2007, Saud al-Faisal repeated his “stand equidistant” mantra this time in relation to the sects and parties in Lebanon. Once again, the Arab al-Faisals seemed to be expressing concern , even worry, about the harmful idiots’ sectarian policies, and their mobilization of their countless “assets” in Saudi Arabia and outside to implement these.

To be clear, the Faisals seemed to appreciate that war with Iran entailed civil wars among the Arabs. That the harmful idiots, by insisting on warring with Iran, were bringing the region closer to the abyss. And that the abyss should be one that divides Arab society from the inside–a supremely dangerous proposition. Worse, the harmful idiots’ armies would not be sufficient to extinguish the fires of sectarian warfare. Even worse, neither Sunni nor Shia would accept these armies anyway, or their Israeli proxy.


The harmful idiots couldn’t have been pleased with Saud al-Faisal’s reasonableness and common-sense. They wanted war, come what may. They therefore wanted Turki, his brother, out of their capital. So it seemed. The fact that Adel al-Jubeir, a probable Bandar protégé (he had worked with Prince Bandar when the latter was in Washington), was named ambassador, indicated that the harmful idiots got their way.

CHANCES OF SUCCESS; CHANCES OF FAILURE

The Faisal brothers stand no chance, anyway. The harmful idiots are working to stay in Iraq. For that they will do what it takes. For now, the Kingdom is theirs, not the Faisals’. Their insistence on creating a fait accompli, where war with Iran would become unavoidable, the product of any small “mistake,” is so severe that one of their vassals, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, twice seemed to complain about them. He alluded that the Bush Administration was standing in the way of Israeli-Syrian peace–once on or about January 6, and again, though less clearly, on or about January 9.

TO STAY IN IRAQ.

Staying in Iraq is what the Bush Administration is after, not peace. Its mind set seems to be very much that of the Arab-hating imperial Jewish right wing. Among these, no Arab is allowed to have any pride, or a nationalist feeling, or a peaceful existence. Divide-and-rule is the harmful idiots’ colonial mantra.

Soon , Kurds will be spilling Shia blood; Shia will be spilling Sunni blood, and Sunni will be spilling Shia blood. Baghdad, already Beirut-like (a hundred times worse, really) during Lebanon’s civil war, will be colored red. The blood of Arabs, so sought after by the alliance of the Jewish and Christian right, which has subdued the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and threaten to turn it into a Sunni-Shia proposition of mistrust, should spill, without end.