Why hasn't Saudi Arabia faced consequences for their role in terrorism?

John McCain - is that you?:slight_smile:

It sort of complicates things when backers of extremist Muslim organizations turn out to be half-brothers, sons, or cousins of the King. And there’s jealousy involved too, i.e. “Why does my half-brother get to be Crown Prince? Why not me?”

Yes. Saudi isn’t so much a State as The Ewings writ very large. But ostensibly the government has been cracking down on funding. But dark rumours about what their intelligence services get up to regarding Sunni terrorist groups abound.

But when it comes down to it we’ve all been inadvertently arming ISIS. Either via the Iraqi Army or via the Syrian rebels.

Read one ISIS commander quote the other day - to paraphrase.

‘We like it when the USA gives sophisticated weapons to other groups. We either get them by intimidation or bribery.’

Plus he might have added, through supposedly moderate groups joining them.

We’re just so clueless sometimes.

Hm, so then it’s possible that there is just a power struggle in Saudi Arabia between the wahhabists and state.

Also there are those 28 pages of the 9/11 report that still haven’t been released.

I’m wondering what consequences the OP thinks Saudi Arabia should be facing? Would it be the same ones the US faced for giving weapons to terrorists in Afghanistan, funding rebels in Nicaragua, overthrowing the Iranian government etc.?

The Missing Pages

Saudi Arabia is not just a large oil producer. They are also essentially the entire spare production capacity in the world.