₦airaland Forum

This leostrich guy sounds deranged...

fineguy11:
Exactly..DOnt mind that 'crack sniffing bedroom analyst' called OSTRISH..,who obviously is in a infantile state..

don't mind that boy.

akins56:
if you not a muslim you may not understand why a royal coup in saudi is not possible, there is a strong tie between saudiya's royal stool and islamic sharia, for a coup to be successful, the sunni imams and scholars would have to agree, and in islam we don't remove leaders, you pray for them, even though i hate saudi's royal famiies as well, they are the sponsor of almost all the major terrorist group in the world today.

Saudi Arabia was formed in 1923 by Ibn Saud who waged jihad to unite feuding Arab clans into one kingdom (with much help from the Brits).

Don't make it sound like the monarchy in Saudi Arabia is backed by Islamic doctrine because it isn't.

Ibn Saud was smart enough to adopt the Wahabbi movement as his banner to rule and unite Saudi Arabia. That is where the monarchy ends as a theocracy.

The current monarch has a lot of open critics. Russia can just do what the Americans have been doing all over the world by propping up and supporting an opposition group to the monarchy. As far as I know there are many just like yourself who are Saudis and reject the monarchy .

Russia can easily stir the honest nest by arming and supporting any group they choose and just like that there will be a full blown conflict in Saudi Arabia.

The Iranians will be very happy to support any group opposed to the current Saudi monarchy that I know for sure as there is no love lost between the Saudi govt and Iran.

China will also benefit from this conflict as they will there to sell weapons to both sides for oil and any conflict in Saudi Arabia will surely hurt the US thereby making China and Russia to issue their own currency to replace the dollar.

It's that simple.

LeOstrich:
Saudi Arabia was formed in 1923 by Ibn Saud who waged jihad to unite feuding Arab clans into one kingdom (with much help from the Brits).

Don't make it sound like the monarchy in Saudi Arabia is backed by Islamic doctrine because it isn't.

Ibn Saud was smart enough to adopt the Wahabbi movement as his banner to rule and unite Saudi Arabia. That is where the monarchy ends as a theocracy.

The current monarch has a lot of open critics. Russia can just do what the Americans have been doing all over the world by propping up and supporting an opposition group to the monarchy. As far as I know there are many just like yourself who are Saudis and reject the monarchy .

Russia can easily stir the honest nest by arming and supporting any group they choose and just like that there will be a full blown conflict in Saudi Arabia.

The Iranians will be very happy to support any group opposed to the current Saudi monarchy that I know for sure as there is no love lost between the Saudi govt and Iran.

China will also benefit from this conflict as they will there to sell weapons to both sides for oil and any conflict in Saudi Arabia will surely hurt the US thereby making China and Russia to issue their own currency to replace the dollar.

It's that simple.

It takes a listening ear and an elder to understand you. So far, I am with you as from the past events, especially the arabs springs, it has shown that any little crises in any country can affect the overall growth and peace of that nation. Nigeria is an example. All what Russia or any strong enemy nation of Saudi(God forbid) needs is for the nation to cause unrest and that's all.
I understand you but I am for peace! Russia should not do it either should any country. All what this world needs is peace but you are very correct in your foresight and assertion.

gunuvi:
It takes a listening ear and an elder to understand you. So far, I am with you as from the past events, especially the arabs springs, it has shown that any little crises in any country can affect the overall growth and peace of that nation. Nigeria is an example. All what Russia or any strong enemy nation of Saudi(God forbid) needs is for the nation to cause unrest and that's all.
I understand you but I am for peace! Russia should not do it either should any country. All what this world needs is peace but you are very correct in your foresight and assertion.

The only reason the monarchy in Saudi Arabia is still in power is because they have been bribing their citizens with oil money.

Ibn Saudi was lucky to have benefited early in his reign from revenue from newly discovered oil fields.

It is also a fact that the Saudi monarchy increased social benefits and handouts to it's citizens on the heels of the Arab spring that swept through the Arab world.

It is also no secret that in the midst of these handouts , there were still demonstrations against the Saudi monarchy with 2 arrested protesters since sentenced to death by beheading just last week.

The peace and stability in Saudi Arabia has come at a heavy financial cost on the part of the monarchy to keep it's citizens ''happy''.

But you should understand that the Arabs in Saudi are not used to being under a monarchy and one national banner. The Saudi ARAB owes allegiance to family and tribe above every other consideration.

King Faisal was assassinated in the 70's by the young brother of one of the rebels that was executed of trying to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and replace it with a theocratic govt.

The war in Yemen is also another brewing problem for the Saudi monarchy. Not from Houthi rebels but from their own Generals who may eventually get sick of the war in Yemen and then overthrow the monarchy.

There are so many fault lines and cracks in the Kingdom and sooner or later with the right external catalyst can lead to full blown feudal war.

It will take the wrong Prince or General from the wrong tribe to set off an inter-tribal feudal war.

tobimillar:
This leostrich guy sounds deranged...

fineguy11:
Exactly..DOnt mind that 'crack sniffing bedroom analyst' called OSTRISH..,who obviously is in a infantile state..

[size=18pt]
Is Saudi Arabia Heading Towards A Coup?[/size]
By Amir Mateen

WASHINGTON - The United States is concerned about a possible fall of the House of Sauds in Saudi Arabia. "Is Saudi Arabia heading for an Iranian-style Islamic revolution?" is the question that continues to be debated on major TV networks and newspapers. The New York Times says the issue of Saudi stability has been factored into Washington's strategic thinking for several years.
 
One reason for subjecting Saudi Arabia to the CIA's "hard-target strategy"was concern that the United States could lose its closest ally in the Persian Gulf, just as it lost Iran in the 1979 Revolution. Task forces established after the Alkhober bombing warned that Washington's information void about the threats facing a closed society was so vast that such a conclusion was far from certain.
 
After claims by federal investigators that 15 of the 19 hijackers in the September 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and that some recruiting, financing and planning for the attacks occurred on Saudi soil, there is anxiety once again that the kingdom may be vulnerable to 'enemies' in its midst.
 
That anxiety is compounded by charges from critics in the kingdom that the Saudi royal family is too close to Washington, and by critics in the United States that the family is not close enough, says the Times. It is believed that the Saudis are in a tight fix. The Islamists think the Saudis have sold out to the Americans and the Americans think they have sold out to the terrorists. Eventually this translates into an erosion of legitimacy.
 
But does that translate into popular revolution in the name of Islam? Asks the NY Times. Many believe there are parallels between the House of Saud and the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran. Like pre-revolutionary Iran, Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian, oil-rich monarchy with a Muslim population. It is notorious for corruption and profligate spending, resistant to democratization, viewed increasingly as subservient to the will of Washington, dependent on American weaponry and criticized by radicals in exile and some conservative clerics for not being Islamic enough.
 
But others believe the Shah of Iran was a singular, isolated ruler, while the Saudis have dispersed power throughout the royal family. Many of its 7,000 members hold key political positions (the governors and military commanders in nearly every province are members) and run important businesses.
 
All eyes are on Crown Prince Abdullah. He is regarded as a pious, incorruptible leader more responsive to the people and more willing than his predecessor, King Fahd, to take on Washington, particularly when it comes to policy toward the Palestinians. (King Fadís illness has left him unable to govern.) The strongest nationalist voice in Saudi Arabia today is Abdullah, so he may be able to respond in a way that the Shah could not.The problem today is that the House of Saud is suffering from a steady degradation of support rather than widespread opposition to its rule, says the report.
 
Saudi Arabia has 30 percent unemployment and one of the highest birth rates in the world. Average income has dropped by at least half since the heyday of the oil boom of the early 1980's. Most of the people are under 15, a population bulge that will put even more pressure on an already crumbling infrastructure.

http://www.rense.com/general16/isSuadiarabiahead.htm

[size=18pt]History of Dissent in Saudi Arabia[/size]

AMERICAN soldiers in Saudi Arabia may find themselves in more danger from Saudi opposition forces than they are from the Iraqi army. A quick look at the history of Saudi internal opposition and American involvement in their suppression will explain why. Both Western political historians and Arab journalists claim that the power struggles within Saudi Arabia have been far more violent and more ideologically motivated than American newspapers have indicated. One source of unrest has been the predominantly Shiite population of Saudi Arabia's oil-producing eastern province, who object to the Saudi monarchy on religious, economic, and political grounds.

In 1965, hundreds of Shiite activists, labeled communists, were imprisoned by the Saudi regime. This did not prevent a coup attempt in 1966. The rebels set off bombs near then-Prince Faud's palace, at the office of the senior American adviser in Riyadh, at the post office in Riyadh, at the Saudi security headquarters in Dammam, and at a Saudi airbase near the Yemeni border. At that time, King Faisal sought American help and renewed American guarantees of ``Saudi territorial integrity.'' The Saudi opposition is aware of the role played by the United States in apprehending the rebels.

In 1969, some 200-300 Saudi military officers attempted another coup. These officers were part of the National Liberation Front, a Saudi organization with Baathist and Marxist sympathies. Mass arrests followed. According to Dr. Fatina Shaker, some 2,000 Saudi students were recalled from abroad and arrested for ``requesting that the United Nations investigate the situation of political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.'' Also arrested were hundreds of Ghamidi tribesmen from the Asir (western) region and from the Yemeni border. These tribesmen were accused of being agents of the Iraqi Baathist party.

After this coup attempt, American involvement became deeper. Peter Hobday, in ``Saudi Arabia Today,'' says, ``The [Saudi] secret service was entrusted to an American security firm, Interset, which included in its higher management ... retired CIA men, army generals, and former American cabinet members.'' Despite these precautions, King Faisal was assassinated in 1975 by Ibn Mosaid, a member of the royal family. Some say the assassination was the result of a dispute between King Faisal and then-Prince Fahd over measures used against the opposition.

In 1979, the opposition resurfaced with the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Saudi rebels. According to Saudi dissidents and Egyptian newspaper accounts, these rebels were not the ``fundamentalist extremists'' described in the American press, but a coalition of Saudi liberal intellectuals with the fundamentalists.

Apparently, the revolt had widespread popular support. A Saudi ambassador quoted by a November 1979 report in the New York Times said, ``There's a spreading feeling of unrest and impatience with the uneven justice, with the huge commissions paid to princes, with the double standard we have to live with. The people in Mecca are asking for a change in the ruling system. They are saying that royalty is non-Islamic. This movement is much bigger than its leadership would suggest.'' Some Saudi intellectuals allege that the helicopters that opened fire on the rebel-held mosque were manned by American ``military advisers.''

The Saudi regime is severely repressive. All newspapers and magazines coming into the country are censored or turned back at the border if they unfavorably mention the Saud family. As for the treatment of the internal press, one small indication of its constraint is that in 1981, Saudi journalist Fawzia Al Bakr was imprisoned simply for submitting to her paper a story critical of the regime's policy toward women.

Both eye-witnesses and two Egyptian newspapers report that the 1988 Mecca incident, described in America as an ``Iranian anti-American riot,'' was in fact a demonstration by Saudi Shiites, along with some Iranians, against the Saudi monarchy and in favor of a caliphate. Since Islam explicitly rejects the establishment of monarchies and a caliphate is the approved form of government, the demonstration had considerable religious legitimacy.

The demonstrators must have been unarmed, as Egyptian reports indicated, because Saudi airport security is so strict that it would have been virtually impossible to smuggle firearms into the country. Moreover, the loincloth worn by pilgrims contains no pockets or folds in which to conceal weapons. Apparently, the Saudi security forces simply opened fire on thousands of unarmed men and women in a massacre on the scale of Tiananmen. (One Egyptian man told me of having his jaw broken with a club when he went to the assistance of a woman who had been shot.) After the Egyptian newspaper Saut al Arab printed its account of the massacre, the Egyptian government revoked the newspaper's license at the request of the Saudi King Fahd. It now publishes from London.

Finally, the recent ``stampede'' in Mecca this Haj, supposedly the result of a failed ventilator in a pedestrian tunnel, has provoked rumors that the 1,426 fatalities were victims of a poison gas attack. Some say terrorists pumped gas into the tunnel to discredit the Saud family's custody of Muslim shrines. Others say the Saudi government killed the pilgrims to prevent another demonstration. The immediate burial of the victims in unmarked graves fueled further speculation. Both these rumors may be false. The Wahabi sect of Islam, to which the Sauds adhere, dictates that all graves be unmarked. The existence of the rumor, however, shows the brutality of which the Sauds are believed to be capable.

So we can see that from both past and present, the Saudi monarchy has been fighting day and night to remain in power.

One of the biggest flaw the Saudi monarchy has against it in the eyes of the Muslim world is its monarchical structure.

Islam is anti monarchy and the only form of govt allowed is a theoracracy.

Ibn Saud ( the founder of modern day Saudi Arabia) was supported by the British to unite feuding Arab tribes and clans in what is today present day Saudi Arabia but only on the condition that he does not declare himself Khalifar!

The British had their nightmares of Mahdist movements in Sudan where Khartoum was overran by Jihadist and the Colonial Governor of then Sudan, was beheaded.

Lord Lugard will apply restraint in dismantling the power blocs in northern Nigeria in order not to inspire another Mahdist movement against his relatively small number of troops stationed across northern Nigeria - A region of close to 30,000 sq miles!

Fast forward today, and the same Islamic State which was propped and financed by the US and the Saudi monarchy is now coming home to haunt them.

Even the likes of Osama bin Laden ( a Saudi Prince himself) frowned at the mention of a caliphate since this will undermine his own family legitimate claims to power in Saudi Arabia.

The current monarchy was obviously not paying attention to history and the demands of their own people when they created the Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Now that same model of governance is what most saudis are demanding for to replace the monarchy.

Saudi Arabia is doomed

gunuvi:
It takes a listening ear and an elder to understand you. So far, I am with you as from the past events, especially the arabs springs, it has shown that any little crises in any country can affect the overall growth and peace of that nation. Nigeria is an example. All what Russia or any strong enemy nation of Saudi(God forbid) needs is for the nation to cause unrest and that's all.
I understand you but I am for peace! Russia should not do it either should any country. All what this world needs is peace but you are very correct in your foresight and assertion.

I have also been able to dig up some more intriguing facts for you.

Do you know that the majority of pilgrims who died in this year's stampede were Iranian?

Do you also know that in Iran it is strongly believed that the Iranian pilgrims who died where not killed in a stampede but gassed to death as they made their way through a tunnel passing?

Do you also know that every year the Iranian Revolutionary Council sends a delegation of hajj pilgrims from that country to protest against the Saudi monarchy in Mecca ?

Are you aware of the 1987 riots staged by Iranian pilgrims demanding for an end of the Saudi monarchy? Iran will later be banned for 3 yrs from participating in the hajj.

Despite the political and military upheavals in surrounding countries, Saudi Arabia's internal situation appeared to be under control in early 1992. Most Saudis seemed to accept the authority of the Al Saud and strict observance of Islamic law to ensure domestic stability. However, the kingdom's sudden exposure to international scrutiny after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 brought into sharp relief the polarization between the two competing forces of society--the powerful religious establishment and the liberal reformist elements. The modern sector pressed for greater popular participation in decision making and for greater accountability by the government (see Other Groups , ch. 4). Criticism and anger over corruption by members of the royal family and other members of the elite were more openly expressed than previously. King Fahd promised that he would create a majlis ash shura (consultative council) to respond to political grievances. Such promises had been made in the past, however, with little result.

Some potential for social instability arose from the modernists' belief that the ruling family remained too deferential to traditional Muslim interests. These liberal elements desired the opportunity for involvement in the political process and a share of political power. In May 1991, it was reported that even the conservative religious establishment had petitioned the government for a consultative assembly. This action was accompanied by demonstrations in several cities. Extremists accused the religious establishment of hypocrisy in adhering to Islamic practices and of the maldistribution of wealth, fueling resentments within broad segments of Saudi society.

Marginal political groups of the left and right were considered illegal and their members were subject to arrest and detention by government security organs. These groups included the Organization of Islamic Revolution in the Arabian Peninsula, the Arab Socialist Action Party, and the Party of God in the Hijaz. The sizable alien population, estimated at 4.6 million in 1992 and representing more than half the labor force, was feared as a possible source of divisiveness as well as a disruptive influence on the thinking and attitudes of the indigenous population. It was assumed that clandestine organs of external political movements such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were represented in the labor force. Among the most numerous of the foreign workers were Yemenis, who always tended to be regarded with suspicion. Because many of these workers were employed in strategic economic sectors and in the oil industry, strikes and sabotage were constant dangers. In 1990 the Saudi authorities took measures to identify illegal residents and to regularize their status or deport them. These efforts intensified after the Persian Gulf crisis began, and about 1 million Yemenis as well as Sudanese, Iraqis, and Palestinians were compelled to leave.

In the oil-rich Eastern Province (Al Ahsa) lived between 200,000 and 400,000 Shia. They had endured two centuries of Wahhabi subjugation and remained disaffected elements in Saudi society. Riots in late 1979 and early 1980 among the Shia were believed to have been inspired by taped messages of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Because Shia comprised possibly half of the labor force of the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), from 1988 called the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco), the government treated their presence as a security problem. During the 1980s, the government bolstered its security forces in the area, while at the same time attempting to allay Shia resentment by responding to their social and religious grievances. Among other groups with a distinct identity within the kingdom were the Hijazis, who lived along the mountainous western coast extending to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and the tribes of Asir Province just north of Yemen. Although both groups benefited from the rising wealth of the country, they lacked sympathy for the traditional royalist regime and for the strict religious leadership. Accordingly, questions of their fundamental loyalty to the Al Saud persisted.

The likelihood of schisms within the royal family arising from policy differences or personal rivalries seemed remote but could not be completely discounted. Factional disputes could arise over such issues as the closeness of ties with the United States or curbing the power of the religious establishment. For the most part, the informal assembly of princes has succeeded in keeping rivalries within bounds and has prevented internal differences from becoming public issues.

In view of elaborate security measures, such as the division of armed power between the regular military and the national guard, and the substantial benefits enjoyed by both officers and enlisted personnel, the possibility of an insurrection emerging from the armed forces was regarded as highly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1991 leaflets critical of royal princes were reportedly distributed in garrisons. The influence of radical Islamists among soldiers and lower ranking officers was said to be growing.

The military leadership has been free from serious conspiracies against the regime except for an abortive coup by air force officers in 1969. About 300 air force personnel were arrested even before the plot was set in motion. The dissidents were tried and sentenced to prison, but by the mid-1970s all had been released. High wages and privileges tended to keep discontent among the officer corps to a minimum. The appointment of many members of the royal family to military positions also provided a measure of protection against intrigue. The separate national guard, with its tribal roots, provided an additional safeguard against any threat from the military.

The prestige of the House of Saud was closely associated with the protection of the holy places. When, in 1979, an armed group of about 500 religious extremists occupied the Grand Mosque of Mecca, the standing of the royal family was seriously affected. The insurgent leader condemned the Al Saud for corruption, declaring that the kingdom's rulers had forsaken the primary tenets of Islam. Security forces did not immediately respond to the occupation because of the Quran's strictures against shedding blood in the holy place. Partly as a result of lack of coordination and poor discipline, it took troops, national guard, and security forces fourteen days of heavy fighting to oust the insurgents. Many people were killed. The occupation of the Grand Mosque inspired riots and demonstrations by Shia dissidents, which were answered by the liberal use of firearms and the sealing off of major trouble spots by the national guard (see The Reign of Khalid, 1975-82).

Followers of Ayatollah Khomeini tried to stir up trouble by disrupting the annual hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, on several occasions during the 1980s, but heavy security controls usually succeeded in preventing major incidents (see Pilgrimage , ch. 2). In July 1987, however, more than 400 people died as a result of a serious riot instigated by thousands of Iranian pilgrims. Khomeini called for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family to avenge the pilgrims' deaths. Saudi Arabia, in turn, accused Iran of staging the riots to support its demands that Mecca and Medina be internationalized as pan-Islamic cities. Several Saudi Shia were tried and executed for exploding bombs at Saudi oil facilities in 1988, probably as retaliation by Iran and its sympathizers against restrictions on Iranian attendance at the annual pilgrimage after the 1987 riots. A number of bomb attacks were made on Saudi agencies abroad--primarily offices of the national airline, Saudia. Saudi diplomats were assassinated by groups calling themselves the Party of God in the Hijaz, Soldiers of the Right, and Arab Fury. Both types of attack were thought to be the work of Saudi Shia instigated by elements of the Iranian government. Saudi Arabia accused Iran in connection with two bomb incidents during the 1989 hajj in apparent retaliation for Saudi restrictions against Iranian pilgrims. Sixteen Kuwaiti Shia were executed for these attacks (see Regional Security , ch. 4).

Some easing of relations with Iran occurred after Khomeini's death in 1989. During the 1990 pilgrimage, more than 1,400 pilgrims were trampled to death or suffocated after they were stampeded in an underground tunnel. The incident, however, was not linked to Iran. Disputes over the size of the Iranian contingent and rules governing their conduct prevented Iranians from participating in the hajj for three years. In 1991 the Saudis accepted a quota of 115,000 Iranian pilgrims and allowed political demonstrations in Mecca. Although peaceful, the demonstrations included strident attacks on the United States and Israel.

The Persian Gulf War placed new strains on the government's efforts to maintain the allegiances of both the modern, secular segments of Saudi society and the traditional, religious elements. Although it offered some conciliatory gestures to the modernists, the government appeared adamant and ready to respond forcefully to any dissent against the authority of the Al Saud.

The existence of a large and diffuse royal family, the vast territorial extent of the kingdom, and its widely scattered population centers reduced the likelihood that an attempt to overthrow Saudi rule could succeed. Still, the government continued to exercise control over the information media and strictly supervised or prohibited independent interest groups such as political parties or labor unions.

Islamic radicals were few in number but had undeniable influence, projecting their messages from the public mosques and university classrooms. Their criticism that the government under King Fahd had weakened in its devotion to Islamic principles was difficult to silence because it was offered in an Islamic context. Islamist pressure for greater Islamization in education, the press, and foreign policy appeared to strengthen after the Persian Gulf War.

[quote author=LeOstrich post=38691720]Now let's look at the likely global fallout of a regime change in Saudi Arabia backed by Russia...


The Americans will definitely react to restore their king back and also to protect their multi billion dollar investments in Saudi.

You can expect a full blown war in Saudi Arabia.

The outcome of which will make crude prices soar and then make Russia the largest oil exporter.

This will change the whole dynamics.

The US will need to tap into energy sources both for their local consumption and their war effort.

Countries like Nigeria will be targeted and you can expect Putin to do the same thing in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria by toppling the American puppet in Aso rock or Putin can simply throw Russia weight on the Niger Delta and Biafran seccesion in order to deny US and EU access to Niger delta crude.

tobimillar:
This leostrich guy sounds deranged...

And two years after this thread was created we witnessed a coup attempt in Turkey.

Only God knows how many coups have been suppressed in Saudi Arabia

Now who is deranged between you and the visionary OP?

fineguy11:
Exactly..DOnt mind that 'crack sniffing bedroom analyst' called OSTRISH..,who obviously is in a infantile state..

Was there a coup attempt in Turkey ?

Yes or No?

I can bet my left nut that there have been several attempts to overthrow the House of Saud leadership in Saudi Arabia but the Saudi govt quietly suppressed all dissidents and hid the coup attempt from their people and the world.

I disagree with all your analysis. Toppling the Saudi monarchy will only lead to more chaos with repercussions even Putin can't handle. And to think the Americans will just sit and watch Putin controlling things is not possible.

stonemasonn:
I disagree with all your analysis. Toppling the Saudi monarchy will only lead to more chaos with repercussions even Putin can't handle. And to think the Americans will just sit and watch Putin controlling things is not possible.

Which Chaos?

The world is sick and tired of the Wahabbi desert cultists and it is no secret that the oil is already dried up like their desert sand. The reason why the US has since started de-prioritizing the Middle-East as a strategic energy and security outpost in preference to the SE pacific realm (to check China), the north American corridor bordering Russia and also the West, Central and north African region (AFRICOM) for oil and Uranium in the Sahara, mineral wealth in the Congo and to check Chinese in-roads into the continent with a military base in the Gulf of Guinea.

The Saudis are on their own!

BlowBack:
Which Chaos?

The world is sick and tired of the Wahabbi desert cultists and it is no secret that the oil is already dried up like their desert sand. The reason why the US has since started de-prioritizing the Middle-East as a strategic energy and security outpost in preference to the SE pacific realm (to check China), the north American corridor bordering Russia and also the West, Central and north African region (AFRICOM) for oil and Uranium in the Sahara, mineral wealth in the Congo and to check Chinese in-roads into the continent with a military base in the Gulf of Guinea.

The Saudis are on their own!
Was there a coup attempt in Turkey ?
Yes or No?

Lolz. You guys just like creating scenarios from your wild bigoted imaginations. If I may ask, who planned the failed turkey coup attempt? Is it Russia? Or western countries with the help of Gullen who is loyal to the Saudi royal family?