Saudi Arabia's help during war

[Haseena]

Bismillah,

 

Salamu Aleikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barkatu,

 

Sheikh Ibn Baz stated (Al-Fatawa 1/274): "There is a consensus amongst the scholars that whoever supports the disbelievers against the believers (Dhahar Al-Kuffar 'Ala Al-Muslimeen), and assists them by any means of assistance, then he is a disbeliever just like them (the disbelievers he supported)…"

 

Saudi Arabia's help during war was more extensive, officials say

By Associated Press

Published April 25, 2004

 

WASHINGTON - During the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia secretly has helped the United States far more than has been acknowledged, allowing operations from at least three air bases, permitting special forces to stage attacks from Saudi soil and providing cheap fuel, U.S. and Saudi officials say.

 

The American air campaign against Iraq was essentially managed from inside Saudi borders, where military commanders operated an air command center and launched refueling tankers, F-16 fighter jets and sophisticated intelligence gathering flights, according to the officials

 

Much of the assistance has been kept quiet for more than a year by both countries for fear it would add to instability inside the kingdom.Many Saudis oppose the war, and U.S. presence on Saudi soil has been used by Osama bin Laden to build his terror movement.

 

But senior political and military officials from both countries told the Associated Press the Saudi royal family permitted widespread military operations to be staged from inside the kingdom during the coalition force's invasion of Iraq.

 

While the heart of the ground attack came from Kuwait, thousands of special forces soldiers were permitted to stage their operations into Iraq from inside Saudi Arabia, the officials said. These staging areas became essential once Turkey declined to allow U.S. forces to operate from its soil.

 

In addition, U.S. and coalition aircraft launched attacks, reconnaissance flights and intelligence missions from three Saudi air bases, not just the Prince Sultan Air Base, where U.S. officials have acknowledged activity.

 

Between 250 and 300 Air Force planes staged from Saudi Arabia, including AWACS, C-130s, refueling tankers and F-16 fighter jets during the height of the war, the officials said

 

Air and military operations during the war were permitted at the Tabuk air base and Arar regional airport near the Iraq border, the officials said.

 

Saudis also agreed to permit search and rescue missions to stage and take off from their soil, the officials said.

 

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, a top Air Force general who was a key architect of the air campaign in Iraq, called the Saudis "wonderful partners," although he agreed to discuss their help only in general terms.

 

We operated the command center at Saudi Arabia

We operated airplanes out of Saudi Arabia, as well as sensors, and tankers," Moseley said He said he treasured "their counsel, their mentoring, their leadership and their support."

 

U.S.-Saudi cooperation raised eyebrows last week after it was disclosed that President Bush shared his Iraq war plans with Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan before the start of the war.

 

Some lawmakers have demanded to know why a foreigner was brought in on private war planning.

 

When asked about the briefing, Bandar played down the extent of Saudi help. "We were allies. And we helped our American friends in the way that was necessary for them. And that was the reality," he said.

 

U.S. and Saudi officials said Bandar was briefed several times before the war as part of securing Saudi assistance, and received regular updates as U.S. needs changed.

 

Preparations for U.S. operations inside Saudi Arabia started in 2002 when the Air Force awarded a contract to a Saudi company to provide jet fuel at four airfields or bases inside the kingdom, documents show.

 

When the war started, the Saudis allowed cruise missiles to be fired from Navy ships across their air space into Iraq.A few times missiles went off course and landed inside the kingdom, officials said.

 

The Saudis provided tens of millions of dollars in discounted oilgas and fuel for American forces

 

During the war, a stream of oil delivery trucks at times stretched for miles outside the Prince Sultan air base, said a senior U.S. military planner.

 

The Saudis also were influential in keeping down world oil prices amid concern over what might happen to Iraqi oil fields. They increased production by 1.5-million barrels a day during the run-up to war and helped keep Jordan - which had relied on Iraqi oil - supplied.

 

Saudi officials said they provided significant military and intelligence help on everything from issues of Muslim culture to securing the Saudi-Iraqi border from fleeing Saddam Hussein supporters.

[LANDER]

Haseena, the real enemy of the ppl indeed is not so much the American imperialist but those arab regimes who betray their own. Until Bandar Bush and co. are brought down, this calacal the arabs seem to demonstrate time and again against the Americans in my opinion is misguided. They should turn their attention inward first, before they start blaming external forces which they have no hope of stoping. The Irony I see in our arab brethren is sort of like the somali old-age habit of blaming ethiopians for internal somali issues.

[Strawberry_Xu]

Sheikh Ibn Baz stated (Al-Fatawa 1/274): "There is a consensus amongst the scholars that whoever supports the disbelievers against the

believers

(Dhahar Al-Kuffar 'Ala Al-Muslimeen), and assists them by any means of assistance, then he is a disbeliever just like them (the disbelievers he supported)…"

I'm confused.

 

Question: What do you mean believer? Is anyone who claims the name 'muslim', automatically a believer? Does that mean muslims can't fight an other muslim who is a tyrant? Was Saddam a believer? How about the Taliban guys who were running the show in Afghanistan?

 

BTW, this might not have anything to do with the topic. I'm a bit confused about this, would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

 

I'm not saying the US/UK/etc were right to go to war, but only because it was illegal and for immoral reasons and the war cost too many lives. However, I didn't like Saddam. So, are the Saudis really wrong to aid the US forces?

 

(I know the Saudis aren't doing this out of kindness, for they commit the same crimes Saddam is always accused of, but let's say they were, aren't there grounds for muslims to dispose of other muslims if they are too .... evil?).

[wind.talker]

Originally posted by LANDER:

the real enemy of the ppl indeed is not so much the American imperialist but those arab regimes who betray their own.

Very true. I'm still waiting for another Gamal Abdelnasser to spring up amongst the Arabs.

 

XU -

 

The majority of the people of Iraq are Muslims, which makes them "believers." As in believers in Allah swt. Saddam Hussein was a terrible tyrant, and I have a hard time seeing a distinction between him and the bin Saud family. But, the bin Sauds allowed non-believers to launch an attack on a fellow Muslim nation, whatever the cause! Which is betrayal of the highest caliber!

[Strawberry_Xu]

Originally posted by wind.talker:

quote:Originally posted by LANDER:

the real enemy of the ppl indeed is not so much the American imperialist but those arab regimes who betray their own.

Very true. I'm still waiting for another Gamal Abdelnasser to spring up amongst the Arabs.

 

XU -

 

The majority of the people of Iraq are Muslims, which makes them "believers." As in believers in Allah swt. Saddam Hussein was a terrible tyrant, and I have a hard time seeing a distinction between him and the bin Saud family. But, the bin Sauds allowed non-believers to launch an attack on a fellow Muslim nation, whatever the cause! Which is betrayal of the highest caliber!

Another question here. Does the cause really not matter? Would for instance, the Saudis have been right in ignoring Saddam and forcing the West to ignore him too, if he was committing terrible crimes, because any attack would involve the killing of Iraqi muslims?

 

Also, in your opinion, are muslim deaths as collateral damage ever acceptable?

 

How about those muslims who were fighting to keep Saddam in power, as soldiers, police, guards and informants?

 

I have more questions, but I'll wait for the answers to these for now.

[wind.talker]

Originally posted by Xu:

Does the cause really not matter?

Cause always matters. Since the bin Saud family allowed non-Muslims to launch an attack on a Muslim country, I believe they’ve committed the worst kind of treason. The Iraq War was so wrong, so ill-timed that even the Christian nations, such as France, wholly opposed it (albeit, France had its own interests in the region)! So, what “cause†does the bin Saud family have for supporting America’s imperialist agenda? Saddam Hussein was a terrible tyrant – that’s a given. I actually agree with GW Bush when he said the world is “better off†without Saddam. Yet, the bin Sauds lacked the foresight to see today’s dilemma! Saddam is gone, Iraq is in shambles. Whatever injustices Saddam committed over the course of his dictatorship has been matched and passed by American arrogance and xoog-isku-sheeg-ism in the short, two-year period they’ve been there.

 

Originally posted by Xu:

Would for instance, the Saudis have been right in ignoring Saddam and forcing the West to ignore him too, if he was committing terrible crimes, because any attack would involve the killing of Iraqi muslims?

Saddam Hussein is a Muslim who ruled a Muslim nation. Therefore, I think it would’ve been wiser to find a Muslim solution to a Muslim problem. As Muslims, we’re taught to think of each other as “brothers and sisters.†When one of the “brothers†is being trouble, it’s a family matter that needs to be solved from within. America is a foreigner and had no right interfering into the affairs of a family! If the bin Sauds really sought to take Saddam out of power, would they have waited for GW Bush’s religious crusade? This guy (GW Bush) calls the Iraq war a “crusade.†The language should’ve been enough to renounce any attack on a fellow Muslim – and Arab – nation.

 

Originally posted by Xu:

Also, in your opinion, are muslim deaths as collateral damage ever acceptable?

In war, there will always be collateral deaths. But this was an unjustified and imperialist war based on GW Bush’s religious beliefs and stereotypes. There are many “tyrants†in the world – yet, Iraq had to be the #1 tyrant. If he’s serious about punishing tyrants, why doesn’t he attack North Korea? Over a million people have died from government-imposed starvation alone! The Bush administration’s anti-Iraq nature has been a well-documented saga stretching back to the first Gulf War. The bin Sauds were well aware of all this – yet, they decided to support him militarily in his efforts to colonize a Muslim nation. I’m sure they factored in collateral Muslim deaths in their decision to support the Iraq war – so, I suppose they find collateral Muslim deaths as acceptable.

 

Originally posted by Xu:

How about those muslims who were fighting to keep Saddam in power, as soldiers, police, guards and informants?

Saddam had a government. Of course, some people supported him. Some people supported (and still support) Hitler’s “final solution.†But, that’s just a minority. They were in a privileged position in Iraqi society – why would they give that up? I’m not going to justify their actions, but the reality on the ground gave them little choice. Those soldiers and policemen have families to feed. The decisions came from the upper echelons of power – they were the mere footmen.

 

I’ve answered your questions to the best of my ability. And now, my fingers hurt.