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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_with_the_Devil
Also the excellent Adam Curtis BBC documentary Bitter Lake - which is probably the best thing I've watched in the last year:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004YE4U5Y/ref=dp-kindle-redirect...
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.
Those items I linked to do very much have an agenda so it's good to see something that is giving a different perspective.
Power of nightmares especially in relation to "terrorism". But also the others.
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...
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.
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...
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.
There were some leaked Saudi cables (from Wikileaks?), that showed how radical outfits in other countries count on Saudi largesse to further their agenda.
On a related note, I never understand why some people are always so eager to give SA the benefit of doubt.
And that's the subject of another Adam Curtis documentary, The Power of Nightmares.
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.
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.
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.
It's a real mess.
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.
So, yes, that is a real mess.
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.
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.
Good luck!
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.
For context around this particular document, there appears to be the following article:
https://28pages.org/2016/04/19/exclusive-a-buried-envelope-b...
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.
and vice versa
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".