22 replies to this topic

[King Biscuit]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

 

Not the way you were thinkin'.

Perv.

 

But really though.

 

DUH.

Bin laden was a Saudi.

 

DUH.

[Haflinger]

Just a note, Saud is actually a family name (ibn Saud). Saudi Arabia is the part of Arabia ruled by them. bin Laden was not a Saud.

 

He was pretty closely associated with them though.

[King Biscuit]

Edited for accuracy.

[Redezra]

What's that? Saudi Arabian nationals funding terrorists?

 

Who would have guessed?

Edited by Redezra, 17 November 2014 - 10:01 PM.

[Manoka]

What does it matter if he was a Saudi?

 

I guess this means all people in Saudi Arabia and the Royal family support terrorism?

 

 

I don't even. 

 

There's also Americans and British people supporting Al Qaeda, they're an international organization.

Edited by Manoka, 17 November 2014 - 10:38 PM.

[Justavictim82]

Moussaoui, who suffers from mental illness, is in the supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado, and is eight years into a life sentence, having pleaded guilty to terrorism and murder conspiracy in connection with the September 11, 2001, terror hijackings.

 

Quote and immediately discredit the witness as a sociopath. Well done CNN and thank goodness for credible American media

[King Biscuit]

What does it matter if he was a Saudi?

 

I guess this means all people in Saudi Arabia and the Royal family support terrorism?

 

 

I don't even. 

 

There's also Americans and British people supporting Al Qaeda, they're an international organization.

 

It matters in so far as he was a RICH Saudi.

You'd think a family as well off as the bin Ladens would be able to rally support among royalty.

Thus, sense is made.

 

 

Nowhere, at all, did I, or the article, make that stretch.

Manoka, that's all you baby.

[Manoka]

What does it matter if he was a Saudi?

 

I guess this means all people in Saudi Arabia and the Royal family support terrorism?

 

 

I don't even. 

 

There's also Americans and British people supporting Al Qaeda, they're an international organization.

 

It matters in so far as he was a RICH Saudi.

You'd think a family as well off as the bin Ladens would be able to rally support among royalty.

Thus, sense is made.

 

 

Nowhere, at all, did I, or the article, make that stretch.

Manoka, that's all you baby.

Sorry, this is a preemptive argument for people who will think this way. 

 

Not really directed at you, specifically. xP

[Von]

[Redezra]

Given the connections between ISIL and Saudi Arabia (religion/funding/etc), and the connections between Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia... it's pretty clear that there are some number of wealthy Saudi Arabians who fund terrorist organisations. So I'm not sure why this story would be surprising. It does stand to reason that, given the monarchical structure of Saudi Arabia, and the concentration of wealth in the Saud family, it is not too much of a leap to believe that there are elements of the Saud family who are using terrorist organisations for their own gain.

 

Given the public denial, and even attack on ISIL, and the vehement denial of anything to do with 9/11... I'd say it stands to reason that it's not a very large group of Sauds fund these groups, and they use them much as their own personal mercenary corp, more than a denyable military asset. Essentially, they keep creating things that get way out of control.

 

And I'd say that more has to do with the heirachical structure of Saudi Arabia than anything else. If they weren't a large family, bickering over who has the ear of the throne, with each member having next to no oversight of their actions... maybe we wouldn't have so many large, well funded terrorist organisations?

Edited by Redezra, 18 November 2014 - 01:12 AM.

[Manoka]

Given the connections between ISIL and Saudi Arabia (religion/funding/etc), and the connections between Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia... it's pretty clear that there are some number of wealthy Saudi Arabians who fund terrorist organisations. So I'm not sure why this story would be surprising. It does stand to reason that, given the monarchical structure of Saudi Arabia, and the concentration of wealth in the Saud family, it is not too much of a leap to believe that there are elements of the Saud family who are using terrorist organisations for their own gain.

 

Given the public denial, and even attack on ISIL, and the vehement denial of anything to do with 9/11... I'd say it stands to reason that it's not a very large group of Sauds fund these groups, and they use them much as their own personal mercenary corp, more than a denyable military asset. Essentially, they keep creating things that get way out of control.

 

And I'd say that more has to do with the heirachical structure of Saudi Arabia than anything else. If they weren't a large family, bickering over who has the ear of the throne, with each member having next to no oversight of their actions... maybe we wouldn't have so many large, well funded terrorist organisations?

Instead we'd have other rich financiers. xP

 

The Taliban was created by Pakistan in 1994 for instance, by the ISI. So, these types of organizations would exist anyways; the amount of aid Saudi Arabian nationals provided is overall relatively minuscule in the grand scheme of things. 

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Saudi Arabian nationals are typically referred to as Saudis, Haf. You don't have to be a member of the family.

 

That said, there is no news here. We already knew that 19 of the hijackers were Saudi. As for the rest, we're talking about a crazy person in prison. Crazy people in prison say a lot of things. I seriously doubt that any senior officials were involved in a plot to shoot down Air Force One, for example. I'm certainly no fan of the Saudi regime, but they have nothing to gain by damaging the United States, their biggest cash cow. There were undoubtedly Saudis, perhaps even members of the royal family (bear in mind that there are over 25,000 royal princes, most of whom have nothing to do with government) involved in 9/11, but if so they were independent actors and rogue elements. Which is cold comfort, I know, to those who died. But I would be shocked if anyone high up in the Saudi government were actually involved in terrorist plots against the United States. There's too much money to lose.

 

The Bin Ladens are an extremely wealthy Saudi family (although they are originally from Yemen and therefore somewhat looked down upon by the upper echelons of Saudi society). Their construction firm, the Bin Laden Group, built many of the buildings in Riyadh. But they disowned their black sheep son Osama pretty early because they knew he'd be bad for business. Which is not to say that there may not be other family members sympathetic to his cause — no doubt there are. But publicly, at least, they disapprove. Again, there's too much money to lose.

[Haflinger]

Saudi Arabian nationals are typically referred to as Saudis, Haf. You don't have to be a member of the family.

He used Saud, i.e. without the i. Which means the aristocrats.
 
The short version of this story is that aristocracies are a terrible way to run your country, unless you like constantly being at war.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

It depends. England in the 19th century was an aristocracy, yet the social and political progress made between 1800-1900 was astonishing. Even more so when you consider the fact that it was all achieved without a major social upheaval à la the French Revolution or the American Civil War. Instead the English powers-that-be gradually ceded more and more power to the commons until something we would recognize as a modern democracy emerged.

 

Something tells me that's not going to happen in Saudi Arabia's case, though.

[Haflinger]

England in the 19th century was a hybrid mess of systems. The old rotten borough system helped keep the aristocrats in power, but the new bourgeois also had significant power and after 1848 especially the unwashed masses started to have a voice.

 

Saudi Arabia is more like 12th century England than 19th.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

There are plenty of bourgeois in Saudi Arabia.

[Haflinger]

Yeah, but they're not in charge.

 

I said "more like" not "identical." Of course Saudi Arabia is a modern country in that it exists in the 21st century, it's going to have a middle class.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Like bourgeois everywhere, they have more power than outsiders realize. Saudi Arabia is changing, and faster than people might think. I saw it when I was there. Rumor has it they'll even be letting women drive soon! So yeah, pretty soon they'll be on par with the social advances of the 19th century. Heh.

 

Not that 12th century England was all bad. My ancestors did great.

[Haflinger]

19th century England was a time of great social upheaval. That would be interesting to see.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

But there were no civil wars, no widespread breakdown of the social order, no wholesale destruction of the status quo (unlike in France, for example) in 19th century England. I am skeptical that Saudi Arabia can make a similar transition so peacefully.