Suadi Arabia extorts UN Chief to censor list

Discussion in 'World News & Debates' started by TwoHourMotel, Jun 10, 2016.

  1. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member


    Remind me again why we're supporting this regime?

    Oh right money forgot about that lol
  2. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    Stalin predicted very accurately when he stated if Communism won't be brought to the middle east then the whole region will be filled with religious fanatics.
    Also related:
  3. Arcana_Arcanus

    Arcana_Arcanus Well-Known Member

    I'd like to explain the historical background behind Saudi Arabia and also clear some modern misconceptions. I broke it down on several paragraphs hidden in spoilers.

    Back in 1916, Ibn Saud was looking for allies in the upcoming uprising against Ottomans. Brits were pretty much restricting themselves to waving and smiling at that point.
    So he chose the only potent force - Ikhwan tribes. Ikhwan are less of an ethnicity, more of an ideology. They are, factually, khawarij in their core. They are often called Wahhabi (for its turk designation), but actually there are many sub-branches that ultimately point to khawarij. So khawarij are most radical (and you could say pure) of all Sunna. They were batshit crazy even during first fitna (schizm), like when they assasinated Ali (most important figure for shias after mohammed). They were a staunch anti-califate group, which very ironical considering that IS proclaims themselves as the main successor to their views.

    Anyway, Ikhwans were the tool that led house Saud to the throne of unified Arabia. However, they were not a tool you can discard after use. Ikhwans quickly went into opposition against more secular and less socially conservative (I despise word progressive in its current use) monarchy. As early as 20s, they were continiously rebelling against Saudis and even though they ultimately lost, they still enjoyed a massive popular support in the area. One of their more famous recent action was a seizure of Mecca's Grand mosque in 1979, that resulted in great civilian and collateral casulties.

    People often state that the most radical islamism originates from Saudi Arabia. And the truth is, they are not wrong. However they blame House Saud for that, while most of kharijite groups take their root from Ikhwan of Arabia. Yes, both Al-Quaeda, Taliban and many african jihadi group are linked to Ikhwan in one way or another. In fact, most groups (except shias of course, thats whole other story) you could call islamist are ikhwani in their origin (for instance their most famous leader or even founder was from them).

    Does it mean that House Saud is a pure and kind and civilized ruler? No, of course not. But the greatest threat is, that there unfortunately there is no better alternative to them (in the eyes of a typical westerner of course). Ikhwani descenders and groups enjoy very big popularity, and should the fragile contraption of current Saudi Arabia break, it would be quickly consumed by different stamms of wahhabi\jihadi\ikhwani groups.

    House Saud now is one of the greatest enemy to various jihadi groups, and this hatred is mutual. Thousands of ikhwans (and also shia clerics but thats another matter) are held as political prisoners, who knows how many summarily executed by a secret police. The apparatus is full of ikhwan supporters that spread throughout the system like metastasi. It is a constant conflict between the two, and in its current form House Saud is standing on quite a fragile foundation.

    Now for the american (or canadian for that matter :cat:) support of Saudis. It has so many misconceptions, I would only try to cover most basic ones in this paragraph, if you have questions I could clarify further.

    So first for the question of alliance. Greater Powers support House Saud because it is a most stable lever on the whole Middle East. Saudis continiously spread their influence throughout Middle East, however it can be controlled (or even checked to some degree) because of Saudi Arabia considerable shair in a market. Now, Saudi Arabia sells alot of oil. And as long as this oil goes to right hands, and as long as the money (that West has pretty much unlimited source of anyway) go to the right people, their vector can be bend in the favourable direction. More than that, they affect a whole Sunni world in one way or another (being both most wealthy arab country and the holder of Kaaba). As long as that place is stable, you can be assured the hell won't break loose.

    Still, Saudi Arabia is, has always been and still will be an independent player. This is most evident from Oil Embargo of 70-80s, that was triggered by an increased American support of Israel (the subject of numerous popular misconceptions as well). It has actually severely backfired Saudis in return (mostly because of pure economical reasons I can clarify if needed), so they are much less radical in this regard now. However they continue to uphold their policy in the region, and the recent conflict with the US regarding armanent of FSA and MB-affiliated groups is the best example of that.

    [SPOILER="aid" to Saudi Arabia]Now for the subject of direct aid. This one is much easier and shorter. Saudis have oil. Saudis have ALOT of oil. Their oil is the cheapest that there could be, and will always be profitable for them. Saudis do not have any direct aid from any country, they already have enough commodities to support themselves freely. What they need though are more or less favourable contracts. But they are highly profitable both ways. Their arm deals with the US for instance are locked in a loop when Saudis get "preferences" in the deal that actually mean that they are forced to buy large quantities of stuff from the US Military. It pretty much pays for a chunk of american MIC this way. Saudis get what they want with the free oil money, and West gets a lot of those oil money in return for a trinket.[/SPOILER]
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2016
  4. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member


    Just kidding, thanks for the insight, friend.
  5. Madasahat

    Madasahat Well-Known Member

    I find myself cheering for Iran these days. Because it directly opposes Saudi Arabia and has the power and resources to do so. And over time its gaining worldwide favor while Saudi Arabia is losing favor.
  6. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    The problem is that Iran is just as oppressive and theocratic like Saudi Arabia so I honestly don't see that much of a difference between the two.
  7. Madasahat

    Madasahat Well-Known Member

    Yes, but do you see a better one in middle east?

    Every since Rouhani became president of Iran, they have been mending foreign relations with all except Israel. People have been visiting Iran more and more since then, you can read their blogs, experiences etc... most of it is positive.

    Its also the most contributing country in the area when it come to fight with ISIS. Iran as a Muslim country has a very different culture in comparison to Arabian Muslim countries, stemming from its long history. The only common thing between them is the religion of Islam itself, nothing more. For example Iran has one of the most advanced democratic political systems in the world, everything is vote of majority. Now compare it to Arabian countries who still have kings, or whatever they call it in their countries. Emir, Caliph etc...
  8. MWaser

    MWaser Well-Known Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Iranians consider themselves more Persians than associate themselves with the other Arabian nations with Islamic traditions and culture?
  9. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    Honestly no, the only secular country there is Israel, but we know how 'tolerant' they are with muslims.
    But Iran? Well I admit that they are fighting against ISIS quite efficiently but they aren't that far from them. Both of them have a supreme theocratic leader, both of them study the Quran in a very literal way, meaning they are radical Islamists. The only difference is that Iran is shia while Saudi Arabia and ISIS are sunni.
  10. Madasahat

    Madasahat Well-Known Member

    That's true actually.

    I don't disagree with theocratic influence, but Iran is also the most likely country the area to change, because the government does not actually portray its people well. They have been free thinking at some point, actually not that long ago, around 40 years ago. They still are, but the government conceals it.

    My point was west should be supporting Iran more, because as far as middle east goes its one of the good ones. Saudi Arabia has been like that since its existence whereas Iran's regime is quite new and has been undergone many positive changes already. Iran has small number of people from other religions and its quite tolerant of them, even gives them seats on their own version of senate. There are even Jews among them, because in Iran's eyes there is a clear difference between being a Jew and a Zionist. These people are exempt from most Muslim specific rules too, they can buy and eat food during Ramadan for example, they can also do the same with alcohol. Its not much in general but considering the facts, its still something.
  11. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    Yeah Iran was much more liberal and democratic before the 70s revolution and I have heard that the people at heart are more open. Well, they aren't even the same people, they are Persians and if I am correct they speak on a completely different language and they are also shia muslims and throughout their history Persia was much more open minded and developed than the rest of the middle east in general.