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.
