The Head of the Snake
Reader comment on item: [Freedom House report on] Saudi Venom in U.S. Mosques

Submitted by Don Castella (United States), Feb 1, 2005 at 12:53

Heretofore, generations of American administrations have failed to confront the Saudi imperialist invasion publicly, preferring to engage in private diplomacy. The few public references to their Hanbali Wahhabist royal religious hegemony are typically veiled in anonymous lofty rhetoric as in President Bush's recent inaugural address. This acquiescence makes one wonder just how far 'over the proverbial oil barrel' the Industrialized World truly is . The failure of our public policy announcements to name the obvious source of Islamist fascist imperialism clearly answers that question. The long overdue addition of the Saudi kingdom to the US State Department list of Countries of Particular Concern in 2004 was a small step long overdue.

As the October 6, 2004 testimony of Saudi dissident Ali Ahmed to the U.S. House of Representatives - Committee on International Relations so clearly demonstrates, the house of Saud is actively exporting the same hateful, intolerant, Salafist dogmatic propaganda it shoves down the throats of its own citizenry clear 'round the world.

It is high time that our policies, both public and private, recognize and confront the painfully obvious, and adopt programs that steer our country away from this multi-faceted menace within our midst. Nothing short of a sea change in US public policy is necessary to commence a strategic response to the multi billion-dollar Saudi religious trojan horse our pluralistic freedoms invited to America's shores. We must acknowledge that military efforts are only one part of the battle, and mount new Manhattan Projects to deal with our oil thirst vulnerabilities before our airlines are all bankrupt, and our economy weakened.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.