Those documents aren't needed to see that the whole Saudi Establishment is the no. 1 reason for jihadist terrorism. Just look at the massive investments the Saudis made since the 1950s to recruite, edjucate and influence muslim clerics basically everywhere in the world. And boy, need I say that civil rights wasn't on their curriculum?!
The Saud Family wants the radicalization of Islam for power reasons that are comparable to the situation of the Papal States and catholic influence over christian countries hundreds of years ago. It's not Islam that is cancerous, it is the Saud Family.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bi...
It claims the Saud family needed to appease conservative clerics to maintain power, so that's why they sponsored all these fanatical clerics. They kicked the can down the road and now their chickens are coming home to roost.
Saudi education literally teaches children that they must wage jihad against the infidels (to spread their faith) and that's after 9/11 when they supposedly reviewed their textbooks for children to remove all texts that might spread hate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05...
I say if that's the only way the Saud family can hold onto power then it's not worth supporting them.
These guys have done more to make Islam look bad than anyone else in the last decades combined.
Who do you think will be in power if the Saudis aren't?
The Hashemites
Boko Haram is direct descendent of this policy.
http://www.robertlacey.com/?q=book/inside-kingdom
[NB Bitter Lake is awesome for both content and style].
It seem to lack fact checking and leaves out one of the main issues surrounding modern arabic history: the delayed formation of nation-states and the threat modernism posed to existing, usually aristocratic power structures.
Specifically Saudi-Arabia felt threatened by movements like Pan-Arabism and Ba'athism and used religeous radicalism as an ideology to counter them.
Yes, the cold-war factions quickly found their adversaries on either side but it doesn't take a grain away from the pile of guilt the Saudi Establishment has amassed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Lake_(film)#Reception
[e.g. I've read multiple accounts of the "why can't the Paras install a washing machine in a hospital" incident - each from wildly different perspectives].
I guess this need to get different perspective might be obvious to trained historian - but my degree is in CS :-)
Do you think that between the British, the French, the Russians, and the Ottomans all controlling the region, the development of nation-states may have been delayed by understandable reasons.
USA = the British England = The French/Catholic Church Germany = France Poland = Germany and Russia
and so on. Threats make possible that people see an "us". I very much like the term "imagined communities" (Benedict Anderson) in this regard.
This is also a major cultural problem to overcome for Muslims before they can be able to build enduring and prospering societies.
The thing is that every major power constantly meddles in the affairs of everyone else and it will never end, that's for sure. The Russians do it to the West, the West to the Russians, same as the Chinese, the Japanese and Indians do.
Yet these societies are not constantly on the verge of collapse and total chaos.
It is because these societies are more resilient to outside influence, because members of these societies feel more strongly connected to their government and to other members of their societies.
On the other hand in many Muslim societies I see tribal attitudes, one clan against all other clans. One Muslim group might even declare another Muslim group as an enemy on the basis of the smallest imaginable disagreement and start total war. No wonder their governments can be toppled and controlled from the outside if many don't feel a strong connection to their own nation and people.
Here this belief that all bad that has happened to you in your life is primarily caused by the US, the Soviets or more generally the infidels gives them an easy way to redirect their energy towards useless fighting (often among each other) instead of working together to improve their own societies.
This is a bad motivator for progress and nothing good or useful will ever come out of it.
If you face outside meddling then work hard on strengthening your own society so you can handle that stress, because it will never, ever stop.
Exactly! In general, everything is the fault of the west/infidels. You see this in nowadays Turkey. And that alone says a lot about the state of muslim countries, since Turkey used to be a beacon of progress (Genocide aside).
I think Atatürk is rolling over in his grave for quite some years now.
Even Bernie Sanders wanted US to remain a partner of Saudi Arabia to "get rid of ISIS", but I don't think he ever thought it through too much.
(But but but he's a racist!!!!)
Sanders has built his popularity on his domestic policies. His record on foreign policy is somewhat less stellar.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubli...
For example, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing. What did Libya have to do with 9/11? Nothing. What did Yemen have to do with 9/11? Nothing. Did Guantanamo help keep the US safer? By many accounts, it mainly acted as fuel for the fire.
By declaring a 'war on terror' rather than targeting the specific groups involved in the 9/11 attacks, the US can now be engaged in perpetual war. How is that going to help make the US safer?
The actions only really make sense when you take into account the military-industrial complex and the desire for imperialism. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse used to push forward on those fronts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...