Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

In a way, terrorism benefits the incumbent powers of western democracies, allowing them to sow fear and discord in their populace, far beyond the actual harm that the terrorism itself causes, allowing them to enact expansions of power and continue the cycle of hate and domination via the military and fossil energy industrial complex that represents a lot of their existing benefactors.

What's really terrifying... is that the nature of the relationships between these entities aren't direct and clandestine (although some of it is likely to be) - but diffuse, and part of our social cultural assumptions.

Politicians supporting the military industrial complex to prop up their own state economies, to ensure that they continue to see reelection...

Politicians supporting the oil, coal and gas industry in order to ensure the 'stable and continued' energy growth, without having to go through the pain of a widescale changeover.

As a people... we hardly create enough disincentive for them to behave in this way...

We create terrorism for ourselves by willfully ignoring the interconnected nature of economics, military, politics and culture.

 

[Ovid]

Why doesn't the West simply occupy SA like they did with Iraq but with an actual legit reason (root of terrorism) and take control of all the oil like in Iraq? It's not like the Saudi monarchy use it to benefit their people, since they waste it on super expensive cars, wild exotic animals, etc. And I realize that the elites aren't all the people in SA but maybe the West can break up the elites and redistribute the wealth to everybody else while also getting a deal on oil. My question is, why is SA special in comparison to Iraq? Military wise, the Saudis spend a lot but they're still no match for the West. Now obviously I don't want a war and more death and destruction and I know the real solution is to switch to renewable clean energy, it's just that the choice to occupy Iraq instead of SA by the West is kinda strange, why not go for the bigger fish?

A Christian coountry occupying the country with the holiest site in Islam?

Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[Suikoguy]

- 20+ pages of the 9/11 Commission's report are classified.

- 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals.

- The US recently complete a $1 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

- Saudi Arabia is flooding the market with cheap oil; hurting Russia and Iran; helping us

We're in bed with them and they don't even like us.

Has it been determined this is the primary reason for lower oil prices, or just part of the reason?

 

[TheRealTalker]

Why doesn't the West simply occupy SA like they did with Iraq but with an actual legit reason (root of terrorism) and take control of all the oil like in Iraq? It's not like the Saudi monarchy use it to benefit their people, since they waste it on super expensive cars, wild exotic animals, etc. And I realize that the elites aren't all the people in SA but maybe the West can break up the elites and redistribute the wealth to everybody else while also getting a deal on oil. My question is, why is SA special in comparison to Iraq? Military wise, the Saudis spend a lot but they're still no match for the West. Now obviously I don't want a war and more death and destruction and I know the real solution is to switch to renewable clean energy, it's just that the choice to occupy Iraq instead of SA by the West is kinda strange, why not go for the bigger fish?

I don't want to be rude but your post is overly ignorant and you also gave the worst idea ever

 

[Ovid]

Has it been determined this is the primary reason for lower oil prices, or just part of the reason?

Part.

 

[Barajas_201]

I don't want to be rude but your post is overly ignorant and you also gave the worst idea ever

My intention wasn't to propose it but to learn why the choice of invading Iraq instead of SA, and apparently SA is the equivalent of the Vatican for Islam, yes?

 

[Ovid]

My intention wasn't to propose it but to learn why the choice of invading Iraq instead of SA, and apparently SA is the equivalent of the Vatican for Islam, yes?

Correct.

It's the site of Islam's holiest shrine, Masjid al-Haram in Mecca.

 

[Stumpokapow]

people always claim this, but the Saudi Arabian government has been cracking down on that stuff for years, especially after 9/11.

you can't talk about jihad in mosques, any figure that shows a hint of support for ISIS or Alqaeda is tossed in jail. Not even during the height of the Iraq war, when most of the civilians were against it, no one was allowed to talk shit about america in mosques or khutbas.

Saudi Arabia isn't really the best place for one to exercise free speech.

It is possible to censor dissent against the Saudi state while not censoring content that leads to violence elsewhere.

 

[Oriel]

KSA is probably what Islamic State would look like if it were to somehow gain control of Damascus and be recognised as a nation by outside countries. They're not that different ultimately, barring the oil maybe:

Why doesn't the West simply occupy SA like they did with Iraq but with an actual legit reason (root of terrorism) and take control of all the oil like in Iraq? It's not like the Saudi monarchy use it to benefit their people, since they waste it on super expensive cars, wild exotic animals, etc. And I realize that the elites aren't all the people in SA but maybe the West can break up the elites and redistribute the wealth to everybody else while also getting a deal on oil. My question is, why is SA special in comparison to Iraq? Military wise, the Saudis spend a lot but they're still no match for the West. Now obviously I don't want a war and more death and destruction and I know the real solution is to switch to renewable clean energy, it's just that the choice to occupy Iraq instead of SA by the West is kinda strange, why not go for the bigger fish?

There's so many reasons why this is a terrible idea I don't know where to start.

 

[params7]

Has it been determined this is the primary reason for lower oil prices, or just part of the reason?

The way I see it, SA hasn't taken well to OPECs falling influence due to America becoming a major player. By keeping the prices low worldwide, they hurt the frackers because its difficult to operate at such low market price when it comes to fracking while SA can still crank out profits.

 

[TheRealTalker]

My intention wasn't to propose it but to learn why the choice of invading Iraq instead of SA and apparently SA is the equivalent of the Vatican for Islam, yes?

not only that but

a) Saudi citizens (majority, not the Shia minority and expats) are well off and or okay financially

b) bunch of infrastructure projects and development has been done in the country in recent years and is also still being done.... blowing shit up when modern projects were rising will not in any way have the populace celebrating their invaders as heroes.

c) Global market could crash due to a war with Saudi Arabia as a bunch of international co operational deals from science, to infrastructure, to medical, to private sector , to
energy, to education would be in jeopardy. Plus a bunch of companies are either funded or owned by Saudi businessmen

d) Bunch of international workers live in SA and Aramco on of the largest energy and research companies in the world would be in danger which would have global implications from Japan to the US.

e) The super power vacuum that this would cause is insane let alone WW3 would likely start.


There are a ton of more stuff.... quite frankly the list is gigantic. Diplomacy is the only way.

Bombing stuff and occupying stuff isn't the solution to everything... we are in this mess because of stupid stuff like that in the first place.... Our world needs to stop rushing blindly due to emotion and warmongering but we need to step forward with smart decisions.

 

[Barajas_201]

not only that but

a) Saudi citizens (majority, not the Shia minority and expats) are well off and or okay financially

b) bunch of infrastructure projects and development has been done in the country in recent years and is also still being done.... blowing shit up when modern projects were rising will not in any way have the populace celebrating their invaders as heroes.

c) Global market could crash due to a war with Saudi Arabia as a bunch of international co operational deals from science, to infrastructure, to medical, to private sector , to
energy, to education would be in jeopardy. Plus a bunch of companies are either funded or owned by Saudi businessmen

d) Bunch of international workers live in SA and Aramco on of the largest energy and research companies in the world would be in danger which would have global implications from Japan to the US.

e) The super power vacuum that would cause is insane let alone WW3 would likely start.


There are a ton of more stuff.... quite frankly the list is gigantic. Diplomacy is the only way.

Bombing stuff and occupying stuff isn't the solution to everything... we are in this mess because of stupid stuff like that in the first place....

Thanks for clearing things up, and I totally agree with the last paragraph, my doubt was why did the West chose Iraq over SA in 2003 and now I know.

Correct.

It's the site of Islam's holiest shrine, Masjid al-Haram in Mecca.

Okay now I know why, Thanks. I only see two solutions, either religion fades out or we switch to renewable energy, the latter is more feasible but it will take a while unless if there is an Arab spring or similar movement to take control away from the monarchy but SA strikes me as an North Korea-like regime with total control over the people.

 

[TheRealTalker]

Thanks for clearing things up, and I totally agree with the last paragraph, my doubt was why did the West chose Iraq over SA in 2003 and now I know.

Okay now I know why, Thanks. I only see two solutions, either religion fades out or we switch to renewable energy, the latter is more feasible but it will take a while unless if there is an Arab spring or similar movement to take control away from the monarchy but SA strikes me as an North Korea-like regime with total control over the people.

Well pressure is on a all time high right now in SA and this is the best time to do strategic, tough diplomacy.

Look at my past past on the last page to see what I mean.

 

[theignoramus]

What does Israel think of Saudi Arabia?

Israel is an inadvertent asset to their war against Iran. And it helps that apart from Hamas, the main groups that Israel has fought the last decade are Shia, which the house of Saud despises because theyre paranoid about Iran coopting Shia political movements.
Thats why they went into Bahrain and stamped out those Shia protests. (while the US and the UK turned a blind eye, I might add)

 

[ZiZ]

And yet the US government (Hilary Clinton when she was SecState is my most recent recollection) still complains that Saudi Arabia is a huge source of revenue for Islamic terror groups because of private donors in that country.

yes I am sure there are a few who do intentionally support ISIS financially, but they are few, and the government does not tolerate that.

however, a lot of money comes from sources that do not intentionally want to support ISIS, for instance support that was intended for the rebel groups fighting Assad. Also, since the government has cracked down on all money going to Syria, many Saudi's want to help the Syrian people by donating money to them (for food, shelter..etc), but end up going through dubious sources that ends up in the hands of the extremists.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia is the poster boy and rich backer of wahhabism that is at root of all the intolerant islam causing havoc in the world, and polar opposite of progressive islam that has created relatively more stability and wealth in the world.

Essentially the muslim world is at civil war, where one side is the wahhabism inspired zealots, and other side the progressive muslims that try to look the other way. So it doesn't help is Saudi government is trying to root out extremists, when what should be rooted out is the entire wahhabi ideology, i.e. Saudi plan of record.

people keep saying wahhabism when it really isn't defined. Saudi's don't call themselves Wahhabis nobody can define the tenants of wahhabism. As such the beliefs they hold now are very different from the beliefs that they had back when it first appeared. It's true that some of it remains but it is gradually changing, most of the ideologies held by the terrorists are not the ideologies that are propagated in Saudi Arabia.

the way I see it is,
- "Wahhabisim" appeared a few centuries ago during the "first" Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the current one is the third), it was a salafist movement.
- it then cooled down.
- then the siege of Makkah Happened in 79, reviving it.
- many extra religious muslims went to Afghanistan to join the Mujaheddin with support from the CIA and the people back home (the people had a positive view of them, hell even Rambo III was dedicated to them).
- while Wahhabism began to cool down again in Saudi Arabia, it not only thrived in Afghanistan with Alqaeda and the Taliban, but after being incubated in a tribalistic war zone ruled by zealots, it mutated into something else.
- Alqaeda export their form of wahhabisim mostly to areas where they have influence like war torn Iraq.
- Then ISIS comes around fueled more by bigotry and conflict between the shia and sunni's (Shia's were fucked under Saddam, so when they came into power post Iraq war, they fucked the sunni's back) and this made it mutate further.

in general the views held by members of ISIS differ greatly from what even the very religious people in Saudi Arabia believe and teach.

god know's Saudi Arabia has its problems, I know that more than most, but going "Grr those evil Saudi's are the root of all evil" is very misleading especially when ISIS was born as a result of the West's War on Iraq.

But people want a scapegoat and Saudi Arabia is the easiest target.

what do you think will happen if the west turns on them? do you think they will support ISIS even less?

what will happen if the government loses control? do you think all the extremists would renounce religion and live happily ever after, or do you think they will double down on the crazy juice and drag the people with them. It would very likely turn into a bloodbath. ISIS would sweep in from the north, Alqaeda and the houthi's would run in swinging from the south, the Shia's in the east would be massacred unless Iraq and Iran jump into the ring and you know they will and god knows how many other factions will be born in that mess.

You can't force these changes, change happens little by little (and believe me it is happening), all you can do is guide it towards the right path.

It is possible to censor dissent against the Saudi state while not censoring content that leads to violence elsewhere.

it is, but that isn't what's happening, all mainstream religious scholars are denouncing the actions of ISIS and Alqaeda.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Why doesn't the West simply occupy SA like they did with Iraq but with an actual legit reason (root of terrorism) and take control of all the oil like in Iraq? It's not like the Saudi monarchy use it to benefit their people, since they waste it on super expensive cars, wild exotic animals, etc. And I realize that the elites aren't all the people in SA but maybe the West can break up the elites and redistribute the wealth to everybody else while also getting a deal on oil. My question is, why is SA special in comparison to Iraq? Military wise, the Saudis spend a lot but they're still no match for the West. Now obviously I don't want a war and more death and destruction and I know the real solution is to switch to renewable clean energy, it's just that the choice to occupy Iraq instead of SA by the West is kinda strange, why not go for the bigger fish?

You want to occupy a country with the holiest site in all of Islam?

 

[rrvv]

Why doesn't the West simply occupy SA like they did with Iraq but with an actual legit reason (root of terrorism) and take control of all the oil like in Iraq? It's not like the Saudi monarchy use it to benefit their people, since they waste it on super expensive cars, wild exotic animals, etc. And I realize that the elites aren't all the people in SA but maybe the West can break up the elites and redistribute the wealth to everybody else while also getting a deal on oil. My question is, why is SA special in comparison to Iraq? Military wise, the Saudis spend a lot but they're still no match for the West. Now obviously I don't want a war and more death and destruction and I know the real solution is to switch to renewable clean energy, it's just that the choice to occupy Iraq instead of SA by the West is kinda strange, why not go for the bigger fish?

*look at Iraq*

Yeah that certainly work well.

Funfact. China won most of oil contract in iraq not US

 

[gutter_trash]

Brits done goofed

 

[Lamel]

Invading SA is bad for many reasons.

Think of it this way:

The "west" decides to invade SA because they say "it is the root of all terrorism"; this sends a pretty clear message to the Muslim world that we are attacking you, and likely SA's many muslim allies will join in. These are all countries with strong, modern militaries. It would be horrific and the biggest divide between the west and the east you'll likely ever see.

 

[Valhelm]

I agree completely with OP. In supporting the Saudi government, the US and our allies are essentially condoning the Wahhabist threat that we claim to oppose.

Until we abandon Saudi Arabia as a friend, we won't be able to properly combat ISIS and other Sunni extremists.

 

[rrvv]

Has it been determined this is the primary reason for lower oil prices, or just part of the reason?

Is more complicated than that but certainly one of the main reason why Saudi lower the oil price

 

[gutter_trash]

the West should stop doing business with Saudi Arabia and concentrated their focus on Renewable Sources of Energy

 

[RustyNails]

Few points:

"Wahhabism" is basically Islamic reformation. It's not even a sect, or a school of thought (madhab). It's a 16th century reactionary movement to Turkish opulence. This movement was started by a person by the name of Muhammad Abdul Wahhab, a 16th century renegade preacher. It is simple austerity (in faith), which is opposite of opulence. As an example, the Turks famously decorated the graves of well known Islamic leaders, saints and individuals. Saudis leveled them and put a simple identifying stone in place. In some cases the graves were demolished. This movement does not place sentimentality any value to those gone away.

Way of the Salaf means to follow the footsteps of the immediate successors: The 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs (Rashidun Khalifa), the People of the House (Ahlul Bayt), and the first 2-3 generations of the companions - the Righteous Predecessors (Tabi'oun wa Tabi'een). Being a "salafist" means you're going for the ultra-conservative approach.

Saudi Arabia does not support "Islamism", which is basically using a shared political ideology to unite people under Islam, for example Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc. It does not tolerate Islamism because that will cause a challenge to the monarchy. It also does not tolerate terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaida. AQ and ISIS want nothing more than to destroy the House of Saud which they see as in the pockets of America. The House of Saud, no matter how inconceivably bad, is bulwark against the radicalist voices that will undoubtedly take over if it falls. This is because the Sauds themselves are not terribly conservative. They derive their authority from the religious Ulema, whose head is the aging, half-blind Imam of the grand mosque of Mecca Sheikh Al as-Sheikh. The Sauds have long married into the as-Sheikh family to solidify the ties between the Throne and the religious authority. The religious ulema provide the House of Saud legitimacy it needs, such as cracking down on Al Qaida or waging war in Yemen. The people see the King being in favor, hence he gets more support.

But...there has always been a detente between the throne and the ulema, as they also try to act as check against one and other. This detente was broken in 1979 when the religious authority superseded the will of the King after the Grand Mosque Seizure. Seriously, read as many books you can about this incident. It will give you much insight into what goes on over there.

 

[andythinkpad]

More like the US.

Saudi is not selling oil in Euros or RMB.

 

[PantherLotus]

(note about how the current oil glut is not an accident and it puts very real pressure on the very people we're talking about, up to and not excluding both Iran and Russia)

 

[Kralamoonard]

Few points:

"Wahhabism" is basically Islamic reformation. It's not even a sect, or a school of thought (madhab). It's a 16th century reactionary movement to Turkish opulence. This movement was started by a person by the name of Muhammad Abdul Wahhab, a 16th century renegade preacher. It is simple austerity (in faith), which is opposite of opulence. As an example, the Turks famously decorated the graves of well known Islamic leaders, saints and individuals. Saudis leveled them and put a simple identifying stone in place. In some cases the graves were demolished. This movement does not place sentimentality any value to those gone away.

Way of the Salaf means to follow the footsteps of the immediate successors: The 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs (Rashidun Khalifa), the People of the House (Ahlul Bayt), and the first 2-3 generations of the companions - the Righteous Predecessors (Tabi'oun wa Tabi'een). Being a "salafist" means you're going for the ultra-conservative approach.

Saudi Arabia does not support "Islamism", which is basically using a shared political ideology to unite people under Islam, for example Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc. It does not tolerate Islamism because that will cause a challenge to the monarchy. It also does not tolerate terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaida. AQ and ISIS want nothing more than to destroy the House of Saud which they see as in the pockets of America. The House of Saud, no matter how inconceivably bad, is bulwark against the radicalist voices that will undoubtedly take over if it falls. This is because the Sauds themselves are not terribly conservative. They derive their authority from the religious Ulema, whose head is the aging, half-blind Imam of the grand mosque of Mecca Sheikh Al as-Sheikh. The Sauds have long married into the as-Sheikh family to solidify the ties between the Throne and the religious authority. The religious ulema provide the House of Saud legitimacy it needs, such as cracking down on Al Qaida or waging war in Yemen. The people see the King being in favor, hence he gets more support.

But...there has always been a detente between the throne and the ulema, as they also try to act as check against one and other. This detente was broken in 1979 when the religious authority superseded the will of the King after the Grand Mosque Seizure. Seriously, read as many books you can about this incident. It will give you much insight into what goes on over there.

Jazakhallah khair once again Rusty for all this info, much appreciated bro.