Frankly, I haven’t paid much attention to those who have claimed for years that THE major sponsor of terrorism in the world today is Saudi Arabia. Now, in the wake of the Paris attacks, many people are, again, making such allegations. Statements to the effect of ‘the major financial backer of ISIS is/was Saudi Arabia’ are appearing over and over again. Calls are being made to severe the US’s cozy relationship with it, to embargo its oil, etc.
Is there actually any convincing evidence that Saudi Arabia sponsors/sponsored ISIS or any other terrorist organization? Is the alleged sponsorship truly state-run or is it being done by individuals who happen to be Saudi Arabian? (in which case it should not follow that Saudi Arabia deserves to be ‘punished’ because of the actions of some of its citizens)
(I am putting this in GD (rather than GQ) because, as I hope my questions indicate, I think it is debatable whether Saudi Arabia is guilty of the allegations.)
There are Saudi citizens who support terror and fund it. Some of them in influential if not official positions
The Saudis have been targeted by Al Qaeda and ISIS is unlikely to be too fond of them either.
Leading on from 1 and 2, the Saudi government has been quite proactive in cracking down on terrorist groups operating within the Kingdom. However, they have been accused of not being too eagar to put down those who are operating overseas from Saudi itself or through Saudi nationals. Whether that is due to a lack of ability, or a bargain to keep their own yard quiet or sympathy… hard to tell.
what do you want to see, bank receipts like bin Laden didn’t?
They’re primitive Medieval Wahhabist fuckheads, who behead more people than ISIS and absolutely don’t gibe a fuck for what the world thinks: Employer chops of maids arm
The first hit on Google - watch the video, read the text:
There is also the issue that the State Sanctioned Wahhabi brand of Islam fosters an anti-western, strongly conservative Islamic bent in the citizens and makes them more susceptible to being recruited by these radical Islamist groups. Most of the hijackers in the 9/11/01 terror attacks were Saudis.
they are not primitive, however it is fun to use the word.
Yes.
The Ibn Saud are caught by the demon of their own creation. They used the Wahhabite sectarians, until them a minor and despised movement, to consolidate power.
But they are prisoners to it and trapped by its logic, so the suppress internally but they promote the teachings internally that lead to a DAESH kind of logic and belief.
The Ibn Saud are great hypocrites.
Of course AK is correct, the funding flow will not be official as the official regimes of the Gulf are afraid of these movements, but there are the well placed and wealthy who will exploit their Wasta to avoid and evade the restrictions, and support such, out of their Bigotry against the Shia and against all who do not believe like them.
Their connections, (wasata, connect). It is a common word there although we do not use it in my dialect. It carries the connotations of special priviledges and ability to jump over the rules due to the connections, especially the family and the tribe connections.
As I understand it, doesn’t ISIS’ long-term agenda eventually require the conquest of Saudi Arabia, the abolition of its monarchy, and its annexation into the Caliphate?
Because that would seem to be a possible disincentive for the Saudis to want to work with them.
From several years of reading various sources.
The Saudi’s fund and use “terrorists” in a few ways. Some of these are compatible with other players goals and methods as well.
They keep very tight control of their country. Dissent is dealt with harshly. One way to keep internal dissent controlled, is to export it. Their radical’s causes can be diverted and funded to make trouble in other countries. Some western countries like to keep control of or at least sow chaos in many middle eastern countries. This is in line with Saudi Arabian interests as well. Keep your neighbors weak and or divided. It also has economic benefits. Regional oil producers are kept at lower output, while Saudi Arabia has little problem there.
Of course supporting radicals has proven potential for blow back. But so far it all seems to miss Saudi Arabia. It ends up being those other western countries and the unfortunate middle eastern countries that suffer. And now, Europe, via displaced people from the blow back. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is seldom touched. The current chaos is designed to allow easier flow of energy from Saudi Arabia, up to Europe, via future pipelines. Funding ISIS and others is a business investment. Saudi Arabia puts in some cash and a bunch of psyched up radicals. Everyone else contributes far more in money, misery, and lost lives.
The game continues. The players all producing the propaganda that best suits their goals.
Of course Saudi Arabia is not the only one funding this chaos. But in many ways, they benefit the most. A whole bunch of sources are funding terror for their various reasons. But it is a wide spray shotgun approach that hits all sorts of things and ricochets off in any direction.
The national government is not a serious source of terrorist funding.
The national government is a confused, (and confusing), conglomeration of a small number of exceptionally rich people who spend as much time playing games, (using tribal rules of association), among themselves as they do actually governing. There are too many factions for there to be a truly unified government that sets policies that all follow.
However, nearly all those plutocrats have money that they have poured into various Wahhabist efforts at proselytizing. Those efforts are often at cross purposes, but they tend to promote that brand of radical Fundamentalist Islam. This is why we find al Qaeda and ISIS at odds with each other, for example; they have different goals financed by different players, cast in the light of the same odd belief system. And since Saudi Arabia has no structure in place to rein in private spending, we can find different factions in the world financed by various Saudi “princes,”* even when the goals are at odds with the stated goals of the national government.
Saudi Arabia is still a tribal society and viewing it from the perspective of secular, democratic societies leads to confusion.
Even the title “prince” conveys an idea, based on European nobility, that does not actually correspond to the roles, powers, and authorities shared among the 12,000+ members of the Saud family with about 2,000 wielding actual power or wealth.
Thank you Tom and everyone else. I apologize for my silence - I posted just before I left for work and haven’t been able to participate again until now.
I’m not sure I understand why anyone (especially a rich and influential one), regardless of tribe, would want to support any movement that threatens to undermine the status quo. Is it as simple as them believing that “it won’t happen here”? What do they gain by it? Absolution from the local Iman?
By the way, are you being a bit hyperbolic or is it really the case that the Saudis have no way of reining in private spending? Can they not even track it?
No proof that Saudi Arabia’s government supports ISIS or AL -Qeada, heck guys like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawhiri loved to overthrow the Saudi government. Just because a prince who is not part of the government or Saudi nationals support or commit terrorist acts, does not mean the Saudi government is responsible.
One of the propagators of this is Iran, which ironically is a STATE sponsored supporter of terrorism, it’s government has sanctioned and supported terrorism and mayhem in other countries.
Saudi society is still tribal. There is no tradition of “the rule of law” as has developed elsewhere in the world over the past few centuries. The various factions of the family include shifting alliances among groups of cousins who can stymie efforts of one group to impose specific rules on other groups. Depending on which “prince” favors what action, (and can pay for it or recruit other members of the family to support it), that action or policy will be carried out. So there are members of the clan who agreed with bin Laden that the country had gone astray from “true” (Wahhabist ) Islam and were willing to support him despite his avowed intention to overthrow the government while other members did not agree, although they did agree with promoting Wahhabism outside the peninsula. The law, generally, is for non-family citizens, not family members. (This is not to claim total lawlessness where they tolerate murder and theft by family members, but the control of family finances is pretty much outside the purview of the state.)
This is very much worth repeating. Despite their wealth, they are not an actually modern country. They govern very much in a medieval mindset from our perspective, and are able to use their oil revenues to placate the populous.