Why aren't we moving against Saudi Arabia?
![[Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/57f1232cb310ec4720f019fb0cf83549.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 2,113 Forum Member
✭✭✭
While we are meant to be fighting this global war on terror against Islamic extremism with another front seemingly opening up in Africa why are we in the West ignoring the elephant in the room - Saudi Arabia?
From a Guardian article and Wikileaks :
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.
Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding
This is also worth a watch : former CIA operative and head of Bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer : he talks about Bin Laden first but the stuff about the Saudis is from 4 minutes onwards.
His main points are : Bin Laden fought a war because of our policy in the Middle East, the Saudis are the ones who are spreading extremism because they are imperialists and want the world to be muslim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYZizO0f0lk
So why are we allowing these people to get away with this? Is it purely because of oil and arm sales or is it even more sinister - i.e. they create an enemy we can them bomb (good for defence spending) or that they provide a useful radicalising influence on fighters who then go on to attack non-compliant regimes like Syria?
What do people think?
From a Guardian article and Wikileaks :
Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.
Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding
This is also worth a watch : former CIA operative and head of Bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer : he talks about Bin Laden first but the stuff about the Saudis is from 4 minutes onwards.
His main points are : Bin Laden fought a war because of our policy in the Middle East, the Saudis are the ones who are spreading extremism because they are imperialists and want the world to be muslim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYZizO0f0lk
So why are we allowing these people to get away with this? Is it purely because of oil and arm sales or is it even more sinister - i.e. they create an enemy we can them bomb (good for defence spending) or that they provide a useful radicalising influence on fighters who then go on to attack non-compliant regimes like Syria?
What do people think?
0
Comments
Why aren't we killing it at it's source? Weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia as well - very strange indeed.
I think that opposing Muslim sects will continue to attack each other. It's their business not ours.
What exactly do you mean by "moving against"?
Thing is we can knock off anyone we want to in the middle east - we own the Saudis they are our dictatorship and have no chance against us whatsoever. In the unlikely event they wanted to raise oil prices to damage us we have myriad ways to pressure them.
"It's their business not ours?" what does that mean?
In terms of moving against - exposing them for terror backers they are instead of pretending they are perfect middle eastern allies. Doesn't it seem strange to people that Islamaphobia is rife, people are always going on about islamic terror and the war on terror - but when it comes to Saudi Arabia it's like a taboo subject.
Why do you think it's strange? We need the oil, they supply it. They need arms, we supply them. We need a base in the Middle East, they provide it.
Do we care that human rights are zilch, that the regime is repressive and breeds terrorists or that there is zero democracy? Not while they supply oil we don't.
It's called diplomacy.
I didn't know that.
Islamic sects are waging war on each other. It's none of our business. Let them get on with it.
What has Islamaphobia got to do with it?
You cannot fight a war against an abstract concept anyway. Only an idiot like George W Bush would think that you could.
Kinda flies in the face of this whole bogus 'War on Terror' doesn't it? Shows that we aren't really that serious about terrorism and it spreading.
Terrorism is an activity.
Terror is an abstract concept.
In terms of funding of terrorism, the main funders in Saudi who do this sit outside the government, but possibly still within the (vast) royal family.
So what's your point then - the Saudis are funding terrorism which is a definable activity.
So if we are so quick to knock all this lot of for a myriad of spurious reasons - it's weird why we leave the Saudi's alone when they are known financiers, backers and exporters of terrorism.
You keep saying that, yet everyone's disagreeing with you. no one thinks it weird we back the saudis.
Business. We invented the House of Saud, and have a good business relationship with the despotic rulers.
Surely, you don't seriously believe that the people who run this country and America actually give two hoots about liberty and freedom for anyone who can't vote for them. It's all numbers.
Saddam was targeted purely and simply because he chose to trade Iraqi oil in Euros rather than petro dollars. Before that, like when he was killing a million Iranians, he was regarded as an asset.
Prove it.
No we did not.
Let me guess..
CIA..Twin towers?
NWO?
Lizard men?
And everyone is happy....well everyone that matters as far as the powers that be are concerned that is...
Its the Golden Rule in the modern age...He has has the Gold..makes the rules. Just in this case its cash.
It's not weird we back the Saudis because of oil and arms - it's weird that we continue to back the Saudis even though they export terror and we are meant to be in this life and death clash between civilisations.