Obama between a Saudi Rock and an Egyptian Hard place -- Shoebat Foundation

[bsteadman]

Obama between a Saudi Rock and an Egyptian Hard place

Shoebat Foundation
8/20/2013

Excerpt:

If one traces the funding for groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and scores of other Muslim Brotherhood groups in America, it leads back to Saudi Arabia. The Muslim World League (MWL), a Saudi Royal family outfit, is charged with spreading wahhabist Islam around the globe.

CAIR’s National Executive Director Nihad Awad, once boasted of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s generosity, via Investors Business Daily (h/t Muslim Mafia, p. 170):

“We are planning to meet Prince al-Waleed bin Talal for his financial support to our project. He has been generous in the past.”

The Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) was commissioned by the Saudi Royal family, founded by former General-Secretary of the MWL, Abdullah Omar Naseef, and essentially handed over to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Abedin family to run. The objective of this Institute is to convert Muslim minority countries into Muslim majority countries.

It would seem the Saudi Royal family wants to see the Muslim Brotherhood succeed all over the world, right? If that were true, why do Saudi Arabia and Israel find themselves on the same side when it comes to supporting Egypt’s military against the Muslim Brotherhood? In fact, the Saudis are so invested in backing the Egyptian military that they’re threatening to have long memories if the U.S. doesn’t do the same.

Via Patrick Goodenough at CNS News:

In a blunt warning to countries critical of the Egyptian military crackdown and considering suspending aid, longstanding U.S. ally Saudi Arabia suggested that the decisions they make now will have long-term consequences for their relationships in the Arab and Muslim world.

Saudi Arabia has led the way in supporting the Egyptian military’s actions, first in removing the Muslim Brotherhood administration early last month and in its subsequent steps against supporters of the ousted Islamist president, Mohammed Morsi.

Perhaps an explanation for the seemingly inconsistent Saudi stance is two-fold:

• When it comes to virulent Islam, the Saudis love to open Pandora’s box or let the Genie out of the bottle, if you prefer. However, when the uncontrollable force that is an unleashed Muslim Brotherhood comes to the fore, especially as the head of a nation state, it hits a little too close to home. The Saudis like the work the Muslim Brotherhood does, they just don’t like it cramping their style and prefer that work be done elsewhere.
• The term “Muslim Brotherhood” is becoming increasingly familiar to Americans as it’s found its way into the 24-hour news cycle in the wake of events in Egypt. If the truth about who the Brotherhood is goes mainstream, so does the possibility that Saudi Arabia’s complicity will as well.

This poses a bit of a problem for the Obama administration. Barack Obama has been courting Muslim Brotherhood groups in America for quite some time. If he’s seen backing the Egyptian military, such groups might see this as a great betrayal. If Obama backs the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, it is the Saudis he risks rousing, which is something else Obama doesn’t want to do too much.
................................

View the complete article, including photo and video, at:

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/20/obama-...an-hard-place/

[bsteadman]

Administration: Backing Sunni rebels in Syria not in U.S. interest

WorldTribune.com
Special to WorldTribune.com
8/22/2013

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON — The United States has ruled out any military intervention in Syria.

Officials said the administration of President Barack Obama has told Congress that it would oppose any U.S. military intervention in Syria. The administration said it did not regard Sunni rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar Assad as serving U.S. interests.

“Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said. “It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not.”

The letter marked the latest correspondence between the administration and Congress regarding U.S. policy toward Syria. In July 2013, Dempsey angered some of the congressional leadership by asserting that the United States would require hundreds of fighter-jets for military intervention in Syria.

In a letter to Rep. Eliot Engel on Aug. 19, Dempsey, who heads U.S. military policy, said the administration opposes any military intervention in Syria. The Joint Chiefs chairman, who recommended humanitarian
operations, also ruled out U.S. training of Sunni rebels or establishing a buffer zone.
.............................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/08/...-u-s-interest/