Did Washington Kill Its Favourite Saudi Prince, Bandar Bush?

Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
August 1, 2012

Following unofficial reports by Voltaire Network that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was assassinated on July 26, analysts pointed to the government of Syria as the prime suspect. The motive is clear: revenge. Days earlier, Prince Bandar reportedly oversaw an intelligence operation that caused the deaths of Assad’s top generals.

But the question that must be asked is who else wanted Prince Bandar dead besides Syria? What if a different party is responsible for his death? There are several interpretations about who was behind Prince Bandar’s death because the Saudi leadership is not releasing any information about this shocking story. This article represents only one interpretation. It takes as its premise that the government in Washington is the suspect.

I admit this is conspiracy theorizing, but it is grounded in facts and history. In the attempt to find out why Prince Bandar was killed we must not concentrate on the obvious and point to Syria. Appearances can be deceiving in these situations. If it is shown with proof and official statements that Syria was responsible then take this article’s conclusions as a conspiracy theory, and nothing more.

But until the world knows with absolute certainty who killed Bandar Bush and why, it is our task to ask questions and look at every possible angle. We must keep in mind that many people wanted to see Prince Bandar go away; for some, permanently. A man like him makes a lot of enemies.

Last year, historian Webster G. Tarpley explained on the Alex Jones show that Prince Bandar was preparing to say goodbye to Washington and move Saudi Arabia closer to nuclear Pakistan and China. Over the years, dissent within the Saudi royal family has grown, and it seems that the question of which nuclear power to look to for protection has divided the leadership the most.

The recent assassination of Prince Bandar makes Tarpley’s analysis from last year that much more important. According to Tarpley, Prince Bandar was distancing himself from the American Eagle. He knew his regime was targeted by Washington for regime change, so he started looking at Pakistan to provide security. Naturally, Washington would be pissed by Bandar’s aggressiveness.

The prideful Eagle saw a rebellion looming in Saudi Arabia’s inner circle and wanted blood.

II. Prince Bandar Bush: A Man of Two Clans

Prince Bandar Bush was truly a man of two clans. As Washington’s adopted son, his fate was tied to a hostile house that is famous for disloyaty and betrayal. He was planning to strike against his American father, and as a result he was no longer considered the favourite son in the family. The American father wasn’t in the mood of tolerating a rebellion. So he took out his whip and made sure the Saudi prince knew who was the boss.

There can be only one prince of darkness in this world, and he resides in the White House in Washington.

It is generally known that Prince Bandar was one of Al-Qaeda’s chief financiers but he should not be made the scapegoat. He acted merely as an executioner for the tyrants who control the CIA, Wall Street, and the White House. The sin of creating Al-Qaeda belongs to the CIA alone.

III. The Eagle Sees All: Washington Refuses To Be Checkmated

In this interview with Alex Jones in April 2011, historian Webster G. Tarpley discussed Prince Bandar’s decision to move Saudi Arabia closer to nuclear Pakistan and China, and away from the United States because of its “color revolution” policy. Tarpley says that the prince was wise to Washington’s plot against the Saudi royal regime and sought a future in which Washington was no longer Saudi Arabia’s superpower patron.

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

“The idea that Bandar is turning towards an alliance with Pakistan in order to defend Saudi Arabia against the U.S. is a kind of strategic revolution. Up to now, Saudi Arabia has relied on the United States for security. But now the people around Bandar see, obviously, that Obama is the main threat, that the U.S. regime, the CIA, the NED [National Endowment for Democracy], are the main threat to the internal security of Saudi Arabia. So they’re looking for an option. Now once you say Pakistan, of course, you’re also saying nuclear weapons. You can say in a certain way it’s quite possible that Bandar has arranged that Saudi Arabia is now under the Pakistani nuclear umbrella.

This is quite a new thing in world affairs. These are two countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who have been under the US yoke, totally dominated by the US, bombed in the case of Pakistan, who are trying to make a jailbreak.” [You can hear the quote starting at the 2:45 mark to the 3:40 mark].

Later in the interview, Tarpley added that an alliance between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, and Russia would signal the end of U.S.-British dominance in the Middle East. Washington would essentially be checkmated had Prince Bandar succeeded in disconnecting Saudi Arabia from Washington’s iron grip. This bold move would’ve marked the start of a whole new ball game in world politics.

IV. Washington’s Dark History of Double-Crossing Its Allies

It is said that great powers don’t have permanent allies, only permanent interests. In the case of Washington it couldn’t be more true.

In the late 1970s, Washington threw the Shah of Iran under the bus in a dishonourable fashion after discovering that he had cancer through the Shah’s right hand man, General Hossein Fardoust. Instead of letting the Iranian people decide their own political fate, Washington acted against the Shah by destabilizing his regime while covertly supportinghis successor, Ayatollah Khomeini. Read more about this secret history in, “An Epic Deception: America’s Overthrow of The Shah And The Secret Quest For A One World Government.”

Washington is cold-blooded in its mad pursuit of hegemony in the Middle East, and that is normal behaviour by a superpower. But we don’t live in normal times. The nuclear age and the era of a lone superpower don’t mix. One is coming to an end, hopefully both. Washington must give up its hegemonic power and ambitions peacefully, or else it risks dragging the Middle East and the world to the nuclear abyss.

Saman Mohammadi is the writer and editor at The Excavator

This article was posted: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 5:32 am

Tags: foreign affairs

---

---

---

---