This is hard to parse without any commentary. What should I, as an average person, take from this? Should I start to think Saudi Arabia as a terrorist country or is there room for interpretation?
I'm very sure, by intuition, that this is important but probably would have been more valuable with some opinions from people who are knowledgeable on the subject.
>Should I start to think Saudi Arabia as a terrorist country or is there room for interpretation?
Sorry, but SA has been supporting terrorism for decades, all around the middle east and the world. In fact much more so than other openly blamed countries.
Not to mention their horrendous fundamentalist human rights, religious laws record. It's just that they have oil and friends (probably because of the first).
If you're just hearing this for the first time, I'm not sure what you can "take away" from this news. I'm certain though that you need to read deeper in the history and related news.
It's not an "agenda book", it might even be described in some stretches as somewhat sympathetic/pragmatic to the regime, but it's a very thorough and very well written history of Saudi Arabia and analysis of its current (as of 2009) situation - politics, economics etc. Wikipedia states (unsourced) that it has "been cited as standard study texts for the diplomatic community working inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia", but I can believe it.
Of course, since it's not news that the Saudi government is willing to fund terrorist groups involved in overseas conflicts, the bigger question which the paper doesn't consider is whether it would have been in the Saudi Arabian government's interest to sponsor the September 11th actions.
I think the answer to this is probably no: it massively boosted the prestige of al-Qaeda - a group which is anti House of Saud first and anti US/Israel second - over Sunni terrorist organisations more closely aligned with Saudi interests and the only part of US foreign policy response that was entirely predictable was the invasion of Afghanistan, well outside Saudi Arabia's area of interest.
To be honest, if you're not already aware of it, the most interesting connection to a national government agency mentioned in the paper is probably two of the hijackers living with an FBI informant...
Monetary interests or Wahhabism extremest religious interest?
60 Minutes had a great show Sunday which actually drew more connections than just the two hijackers living with the FBI informant. I felt after watching there are too many "coincidences" for them to not be involved.
Tbh, I think that whilst the September 11 bombings might have actually helped the Saudi government's monetary interests through increased trade as a key Western ally, they certainly hurt their religious ones.
On the one hand Saudi-funded madrassas find themselves under a lot more scrutiny and a lot more difficulty in even opening in the West. On the other, those people most subject to the appeal of hardline Sunni Islamism the Saudis favour are also likely to be impressed by the success achieved by a charismatic radical whose principal religious objective is driving the House of Saud and their infidel allies out of their holy land, someone whose fatwas explicitly mention "appropriation of Saudi Arabia" as the worst of America's crimes. Especially when the ensuing "War on Terror" results in the House of Saud being drawn into an ever-closer alliance with the infidel American and firmly stuck on the wrong side of the clash of civilizations from the point of view of jihadis regardless of how much austerity their morality police impose and how many beheadings they carry out ostensibly in the name of strict religious observance.
Obviously al Qaeda appeals to the religious interests of some Wahhabist extremist Saudis like fifteen of the actual hijackers, and I'm sure there are plenty of individual Saudis who like to play both sides by becoming fat and rich as business magnates with government connections whilst funnelling some of those profits to extremist organizations just in case that happens to be their ticket to paradise. But I'm really not seeing the motivation for the actual Saudi government or intelligence services funding an organisation which actually represents a bigger existential threat to them than it does to the US, precisely because it appeals to segments of their public.
Of course, there's no secret they directly funded Osama Bin Laden before he fell out with them over their backing of American intervention in Gulf War, back in the 1980s when he was fighting the Soviet Union with the Afghan muhadjeen. But so did the other enemy he devoted the latter parts of his life to rallying the Islamic world against...
In addition to coldtea's point: Saudi is in some respects the bizarro version of the US. While we export American Idol and McDonalds, they build schools teaching extremist Islam all over the world. Many formerly more moderate countries have gotten much more theocratic in the last 20 years, and Saudi evangelism funded by oil money has played a huge role.
For example, when I visited Bangladesh in the early 1990's, seeing veiled women in the capital city of Dhaka was unusual. It's very common today.
> For example, when I visited Bangladesh in the early 1990's, seeing veiled women in the capital city of Dhaka was unusual. It's very common today.
Why do you think SA has something to do with this?
BTW, this is true in some western countries as well (I'm thinking of France where veiled women are everywhere, it wasn't the case in the 80s). I wonder what explains this trend.
Bangladeshi here. SA has to do everything with that. Mostly SA funded madrassas and mosques, and SA has huge influence over the govt. and the people since SA hires many foreign workers from Bangladesh. Before continuing the debate on there is no proof that SA has done that (from my experience, that is how it proceeds), the tremendous economic and religious influence of SA has forced people to stop talking about it. Several secular bloggers have been murdered because they criticized SA branded Islam.
On a related note, I never understand why some people are always so eager to give SA the benefit of doubt.
I don't think HN is the right place for this, there are plenty of studies on this sort of phenomena. In short: there are powerful network effects, which are influenced by various factors. Saudi money going directly to religious organizations abroad is one of them, and can be the catalyst for triggering a number of other processes. This is even more true in very problematic places, like Bosnia-Hercegovina during and after the war or French banlieues.
> Why do you think SA has something to do with this?
There were some leaked Saudi cables (from Wikileaks?), that showed how radical outfits in other countries count on Saudi largesse to further their agenda.
Al Quaeda was founded by Saudi nationals, but it saw the Saudi government as their enemy just as US — so, while a lot of terrorists are Saudi citizens, they are a common enemy for Saudis and US together. Saudi government itself is balancing between international system and wahhabism, which has a lot of local support: if they would suddenly adopt human rights, democracy and other western policies, they would most likely not stay in power for long. So, US relationship with Saudis makes a lot of sense: US is trying to find common interests and build commercial relationship, hoping that it will help gradually promote western values in Saudi society over time. If there would appear a democratic, westernized faction, US would support it over existing government, but it doesn't seem likely in near future. Alternatively, if US would cut ties with Saudi government because of their human rights records (as a lot of commentors here routinely suggest), it would only push Saudi government and society away from western values further into islamism.
Don't forget the agreement between the house of Saud and the religious rulers. The religious rulers will not criticise the house of Saud and they will be pretty much left alone.
Add to that mix tribal allegiances, the cross pollination of all groups seeking their own agendas and you have the situation where some very wealthy religious extremists can fund their agendas worldwide including "terrorism".
Too many posts are seeing everything as black and white. The Saudis from the top down planned 9-11 etc.
Just like in the US, there are hidden agendas, secretive groups akin to the CIA all pushing their own agendas whether financial / religious. And just like some in US politics, there are some pushing for the end of days where their chosen deity / son of / prophet of returns and leads them to paradise / the next world.
Great post. Take the Islamic schools. They are intended to promote Islam and Wahabism. The Saudi government doesn't want to fund extremism as such, it's just that their governance and control over these schools and other Islamic charities they fund is minimal and incompetent. As a result, the money too often gets diverted to causes and pockets the kingdom would never choose to support directly. And yes, some of it gets channelled to terrorist organizations.
So on the one hand it's true that Saudi Arabia and a government funds terrorists and extremists, but that's not at all their intention and as has been pointed out many of these organizations would quite happily slaughter the Saudi royal family.
The again, there are some individuals within the regime and probably at some levels within the royal family itself, that actually do support terrorists and extremists.
> The Saudi government doesn't want to fund extremism as such, it's just that their governance and control over these schools and other Islamic charities they fund is minimal and incompetent.
That's a very charitable view, especially for a monarchy that exerts tight control over many aspects of life in their country. That is not insisting on simplicity. Pakistan's government, and their security services, for example, are manifestly capable of working multiple conflicting agendas. But that doesn't mean they can be excused.
As others on this discussion have pointed out, Saudi has exported both terrorism and the fundamentalism that gives the terrorist fishes a much larger sea to swim in. The US, in part because if its own problems with religious fundamentalism, is unable to forthrightly work against religious fundamentalism and other excesses in religiosity, such as suppression of women's rights, in the Moslem world when that might be the most effective way to reduce terrorist incidents. Imagine trying to end the Soviet Empire without detente.
I don't think that comparing religious fundamentalism of american christians and of islamists is fair. "Fags must die" demonstrations are a long way of overturning governments and genocide.
I'm not comparing them. I'm saying American religious fundamentalism is an impediment to openly opposing religious fundamentalism and anti-equality of the sexes religious doctrine elsewhere, comparable or not. Nonetheless, except for the overt calls for genocide (ours believe The Eschaton will take care of the Jews), you might have picked better examples of differences between the two.
All fair points. It's harder for them to exert control on funding to organizations beyond their borders, but at the end of the day it's their money and they are responsible for where it goes.
My understanding is: Saudis fund the "troublemakers", as long as they stay away from KSA and keep the mayhem outside. It's like bribing the local goons to leave your hood alone; go cause trouble in other areas.
> if they would suddenly adopt human rights, democracy and other western policies, they would most likely not stay in power for long
I think you may be right (I haven't enough information about Saudi Arabians or their views to tell) but I really want to believe that the real-life politics is much more rational than in a game of Civilization.
Well, that's been the case with Arab spring, Syria and Lybia: when US sees (often, mistakenly) that faction with more westernized values can take over, US supports it.
However, it is completely rational: "spreading democracy" is valid not only from idealism, but from the notion that it's much easier to deal with governments and societies that share your values. Of course, US have not always followed this motivation throughout history, but in case of islamic arab countries in the last years, US has pretty solod record in that regard.
Most of the population here aren't as in the media stereotyped depiction. Most of them just like ordinary people around the globe, workers, teachers, doctors, students, business owners, etc...
They just doomed by .. well, you know, I can't say.
Take me as an example. I'm a regular guy from there. All my concerns in life right now is to get high grade in my (scikit-learn/keras)-based CS graduation project.
Looking towards silicon valley and scientific institutes in the world to get inspired. Hoping to get more time to learn React and become pro in rails/DotNET and contribute something that worth to the OSS.
They're not "ordinary people" like Americans or Germans. There is a face people (especially educated people) from these countries like to put on. "Oh, we are just like you." Except the normalization of domestic abuse; inhumane treatment of servants; strict gender roles; condemnation of homosexuals; the deep-seated racism. In the country where my parents come from, 87% of women are the victims of domestic violence: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/In-Bangladesh,-87-per-cent-of....
It's not a "media stereotype." I'm speaking from first-hand experience. I've seen most of the above in my own extended family (which is all educated and upper middle class). It's the dirty laundry and it's deeply ingrained in culture. Obviously, a lot of people do embrace western values. But I've met plenty of educated people from those countries with a western education whose are still trapped by their culture. They might be hackers who code, but they also think women shouldn't work.
Yes. Of course this is true. Governments operate differently than the people of the country. Every single Saudi person I have known has been generous and kind.
First, there is not really such thing as a "terrorist country". Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. To be more precise, one might refer to "state sponsored terrorism" or something to that effect. But that is beside the point.
For context around this particular document, there appears to be the following article:
Terrorism is what "they" do. We do "morally just wars".
Said every side involved in any conflict sense the dawn of humanity.
ISIS: morally just. The west = terrorists. And they are probably right. Our bombs do terrorise. As do the torture weopans we export to their ruling parties.
I agree with what you are saying, "terrorism" is a propaganda word for sure. However it also does have a specific definition; that is, using threats or violence to create a political outcome among civilians.
Your comment highlights my real point though... they are not "our" bombs. Maybe they are Bush's, Cheney's, Raytheon's, Boeing's, Obama's, or Clinton's bombs... but to refer to them as "ours" groups in ordinary people, many of whom do not approve. This is why I took issue with the possibility of categorizing Saudi Arabia as a "terrorist country", and why I prefer a term such as "state sponsored terrorism".
I'm very sure, by intuition, that this is important but probably would have been more valuable with some opinions from people who are knowledgeable on the subject.