How can Saudi help fight ISIS when they are their biggest backers?

[yurbud]

Our government has an odd way of fighting terrorists.

Saudi Arabia funded, through their agents, the 9/11 hijackers. They also funded al Qaeda to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year before 9/11


Rather than at a minimum, freeze their financial assets here and use any means necessary to stop the flow of money from them, two days after 9/11, President Bush smoked cigars on the back porch of the White House with Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, whose wife wrote checks to the handler of the hijackers.



Instead of clearing up the role of the Saudi government in the attacks, Bush classified that portion of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 report.

Likewise, Saudi sent more foreign fighters into Iraq to stir up sectarian divisions than any other country did.

And when a corruption investigation in Britain got too close to Prince Bandar, he threatened the UK with acts of terrorism. Tony Blair took the threat seriously enough to back off.

Saudi is also the major funder of ISIS.


Even Hillary Clinton was forced to admit the Saudi role in terrorism:

The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups." She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa'ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

The usual excuse made is that it's some "rogue" elements of the Saudi royal family or the Saudi equivalent of the Koch brothers making foreign policy on their own, but if they truly were loose cannons and their government did nothing to stop them, that government owns their actions.

Our own government has backed Sunni extremists when it was helpful to chase the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 80's, to help break up Yugoslavia in the 90's, and even after 9/11, Bush quietly backed Sunni extremists trying to destabilize Iran.

I do not oppose all military actions.

But if the president is going to start bombing other countries, I'd like to know if any other countries that are a far greater threat to us are being ignored, or worse, allowed or encouraged to stir up trouble to give our government an excuse to attack Syria and go back into Iraq.

At a minimum, Obama should declassify those pages on foreign governments' involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and if he doesn't, someone else either in Congress or intelligence agencies should figure out how to get that information to the public.

[get the red out]

1. This has upset me for years

The Saudis are a HUGE part of the terrorist problem and NO ONE will address this. They are not our friends.

I know: OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL

[TheNutcracker]

2. They can help by PAYING FOR IT

[Dragonfli]

6. But that's the point, it's a conflict of interest as they back the terrorists in question

They are on the side of the radical Sunni.

[whatchamacallit]

3. The bitter pill nobody wants to swallow

The Saudis and Neocons, along with some other invested parties, are partners in corpro-terraforming the Middle East.

[yurbud]

9. terrorforming

[whatchamacallit]

10. Ha good one!

[CJCRANE]

4. Many of our allies

were involved in creating this latest monster.

There is no real democracy, just a transnational neocon cabal.

[cali]

5. sorry, your post is chock-a-block full of irrelevancies and factual inaccuracies.

SA is despicable, but they're all too aware that ISIS has its sights on them. ISIS has made no secret of this. There is no evidence that the Saudis are financing ISIS.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/islamic-state-saudi-arabias-oil-wells-are-the-ultimate-goal-for-isis-30579087.html

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — As ISIS continues to grow, many commentators have been pointing to Saudi Arabia as the source of the group, and most assume that the United States is the only force that can stop it. Both of these assertions are incorrect.

Saudi Arabia is not the source of ISIS, it’s the group’s primary target.

ISIS’ core objective is to restore the caliphate (an Islamic empire led by a supreme leader), and because Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam and the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina, ISIS’ road to the caliphate lies through the kingdom and its monarchy. Indeed, ISIS has even launched a campaign against Saudi Arabia, called qadimun, or “we are coming” to take over the country. Saudi Arabia has put the group on its list of terrorist sponsors, declared that funding ISIS is a crime with severe penalties, and arrested ISIS supporters and operatives over the past several months.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-saudis-can-crush-isis.html

[yurbud]

7. There had been so much misinformation about terrorism

That it's hard to take that seriously. The same was said about Al Qaeda while Saudi was funding them.

[yurbud]

8. One of the authors of that piece works for a Saudi funded department

That's like asking Tony soprano if Paulie Walnuts works for him right after Paulie's been caught kneecapping someone.

[yurbud]

11. Which of the historical links is inaccurate?

[grahamhgreen]

12. The goal is perpetual war.

[YoungDemCA]

13. The Saudi royal family has approx. 15,000 members

Of which, only 2,000 hold most of the wealth and power.

I think it's not only possible but entirely plausible that some of the House of Saud's members fund terrorism abroad as a way to influence and manipulate events outside official channels. In countries like Saudi Arabia, there's not a clear line between the private interests of government officials and the public interest that they theoretically serve (even though they are not a democracy at all, but a top-down hierarchical monarchy, the rulers of KSA still want to maintain at least some level of legitimacy in their country). And Wahhabism is the entire rationale and ideological justification for the House of Saud's rule, along with controlling Mecca and Medina-which gives them (theoretically, at least) some level of legitimacy.

All of this is to say that Saudi Arabia is extremely difficult to deal with.

[liberal_at_heart]

14. K&R