Poetic.Injustice
Member
Edit: nvm.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Saudi Arabia has received 2.5 million Syrian refugees, slams media claims
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
The Artisan
Member
i've been really ignorant about all this. i don't even know what the deal is with syria.
So you dont think religion has anything to do with the current situation? Or that wahabbiism has anything to do with it? Interesting.
I suppose its just economics, huh?
FriedConsole
Banned
Some people want to hold to the narriative that those Arabs should to take in other Arabs instead of having people coming to their country that are different than themselves. Some of these people call themselves progressives.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
A few posters are arguing semantics here. In a country where civil war has affected every corner and 50% of people are displaced, taking in anyone should be commended.
Hopefully this gives xenophobic Westerners one less excuse for their own country to take in more refugees.
Hopefully this gives xenophobic Westerners one less excuse for their own country to take in more refugees.
I'm not the CIA or the FBI but you should find this interesting reading, and it VERY MUCH takes the Saudi government side, while looking at the problems of private donations.
http://www.businessinsider.com/theory-that-saudi-arabia-funds-isis-2014-6
However I believe the Washington Institute to be strongly pro-Israel so
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html
And this story focuses on Qatar being "worse" than Saudi in this regard
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/is...hy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006
And a European perspective with some older historical takes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ke-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
Officials in most Western countries have seen plenty of evidence and the claim is not even mildly controversial, except apparently to you.
Wealthy Saudi donors are helping fund both ISIS and their enemies, Al Qaeda, as a Sunni/Wahabbiist support mechanism. It's not even remotely in question. it's happening.
The Al Sauds have a serious internal problem on their hands.They manage it delicately, but they have plenty of internal dissent and plenty of very wealthy enemies within their ranks - and more complicated, nuanced relationships with the problem than mere dissent.
This is neither a judgment on the house of Al Saud, nor on the regular citizens of Saudi Arabia, it's a bout wealthy extremists and hobbyists within the country.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Now this thread has evolved to fully crazy with a person pondering if the world would be better off if the WW2 Axis powers won and someone thinking that removing Assad completely wouldn't have created a huge power vacuum that ISIS or another violent group would have taken advantage of.
And posters who both denied that Saudi Arabia is fomenting dissent in one post, and then saying it's "our" fault for encouraging Shia shenanigans in the next.
Don't get me wrong, America has done FAR more to hurt the general situation in the Middle East than any other country - and helped create a problematic Saudi Arabian situation with nonstop two faced antics in the region for decades. But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss internal issues there.
Learn? I am from the region, from Lebanon, I' ve lived through a civil and three wars against Israel, I've had to live through three suicide car bombs perpertrated by Saudi backed assholes, aka the Nusra front. There's no need to complicate things when the simple answers are evident, the KSA is Wahabbi based, they founded Al Quaeda which in turn is Wahabbi based, AlQuaeda splintered and now we have ISIS more radical than your average Wahabbi but still Wahabbi nonetheless.
Both the religious establishment in the KSA and ISIS rely on the teachings of Ibn taymiya and his interpretation of Islam, both regard all non Wahabbi as apostates, have you ever asked a Wahabbi in Riyadh what he thinks of Shia? The answer isn't pretty, even when ISIS blew up the Shia mosque in the eastern Saudi province, the majority of the Saudi reaction from what I witnessed was either victim blaming or cheerful.
I have cousins who have to hide their Shia identity or they will be deported, my own mother was stalked by the KSA religious police and they taunted her during Hajj and calling her and her friends apostates.
The reason why the KSA fights ISIS is they fear their growing influence in the Kingdom itself and their monarch fears for his thrones.
Hah, so much for civility, guess we know who the uncivilised here is. Kind of expected that type of reactionary defensive response from you, I guess from where you stand the KSA is a utopian multi faith heaven filled with free thinkers where people from all persuations are treated equally...
Guess next time my mother goes to Hajj I should ask her to film her journey. Here's a quick question, can a Shia enter the Imam's graves in the Baqui cemetery?
I would love to have your naive view if you actually believe what you're saying but you strike as more of a shill and an apologist for the Wahabbi regime.
as i said before i am wahabbi and what you said is bullshit.
regarding to your Q it is no he cant disgrace graves it is not allowed in Saudi Arabia and almost 90% of world and will never dare to do it.
Nope, the correct answer is Shias are not allowed to visit the graves because the regime and the religious institution that your regime has established believes what the Shia do is grave worshiping. Your government demolished the grave of the Prophet's (PBUH) wife Khadija in Mualla back in 1925 at the same time they demolished many of the graves in Baquee, don't talk to me about disgracing graves, Wahabbis do not believe in grave sites nor in visiting graves, what your government did back in 1925 is the epitome of disgracing graves.
Some of your regime's handiwork, aka grave desecration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia
Either you know nothing about your own sect and history or you think anyone would fall for your nonesense, I've read the teaching of Ibn Taymiya and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
Some work on the correlation of Wahabbism and modern day terror.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ort-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism
It is really amazing and striking yet not surprising how many hits you get on google when you type Wahabism and terror in the search engine.
Nope. Wikipedia with dead links and opinion pieces don't count for nothing but videos do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_BY39tnOkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnb-CbE0XDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiP_0vzSRZk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPW4BbJqN14
and you call us religious fanatics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vez_J1o4yxA
GRAPHIC CONTENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asOPNff1P18
Lol, never mind the articles I posted but sure ok disregard history for the sake of your own delusions, I'm supposed to trust youtubers posting videos calling Shias derogatory terms such as rafidah? Sir you just unmasked yourself as a sectarian and proven my point that about Wahabbis being supremacists and sectarian in accordance to the teachings of their founders.
Here I can play as well.
While the Iranians clashed with Saudi police who wanted to suppress their demostration back in 1987, Wahabbis tried to take over Mecca.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure
I don't suppose they teach that in Saudi schools do they? Regardless reported your post for heavy racism and sectarianism.
lol did not you call me wahhabi and isis and al qadia.
and you call me sectarian.
so you cold not prove me wrong and your only exit a youtuber called you rafidah not me.
one accident in history of makkah from retarded individual and we dealt with them.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Like the claim that Saudi Arabia received 2.5 million Syrian refugees?
No actually you confessed being a Wahabbi yourself, and never once did I call you ISIS or AlQuaeda, at most an apologist for the Saudi regime.
Your own words.
And are you mad for being called a Wahabbi? Why?
I proved you wrong over and over, you merely chose to gloss over the facts presented and act as either they don't exist or they're irrelevant, the true mark of a shill or a brainwashed zealot. I managed to present educated proof while you had to resort to sectarianist video used by Al Qaeda.
Even if I were to present to you every undeniable proof there is to offer, you will still snub it over. You're a hopeless cause same as the millions of others who would cheer for their Wahabbi doctrine that has regressed the once great Arab and Muslim nation to a cesspool of religious sectarian lunatics. At this point all I can say is welcome to my ignore list, can't say it's been fun.
prove otherwise and im happy to apologies.
it is only one page back.me on the other hand never called you names
Before I sign and finalize your admittance to my ignore list, I actually bothered to provide articles and I can provide more.
http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/
http://www.realclearworld.com/2014/08/29/to_understand_isis_start_with_wahhabism_161194.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-dictionary-allah-wahhabism-lexicon-islamic-state-1505025
And more and more. There's undeniable evidence and only an ignorant would argue otherwise that ISIS and AlQuaeda are not Wahabbi and do not follow the Ibn Taymiya teachings. You on the other hand posted ISIS propaganda, so good luck with that and thank you for proving my point. Bye.
lol do you guys believe this i asked him if i ever called him names which i never did.
and showed him his own post calling me names and his response is this. very mature of you.
It's RustyNail, he usually takes a very defensive stance when it comes to the Saudi regime, probably from the fact that many non-Arab Sunni muslims usually see the Gulf States as the role models for Sunni Muslim nations, and KSA as the current "center" of the Sunni Muslim world (and no I am not talking about Mecca). Not only does he have a very defensive stance when it comes to them, but he has a strong habit of speaking for what Middle Easterners wants/feel; for Saudis, for Syrians, for Iraqis and well.... now for all of them. In fact he recently got more or less told to piss off by a Saudi poster here on GAF (one of my favorite Saudi posters, probably the only one) while he was defending the regime and speaking for the Saudis. It was funny. But what would you know, being from the region, growing up in the region, living through some of this stuff. Just be quiet and get taught about yourself and your region by this newly naturalized citizen of USA. RustlyNails, I suggest that you stick to news about USA and about Indians and Muslims in India. You could even speak for both of them since you actually have a connection to them, unlike the fucking Middle East that you keep putting words for.
As for the topic: I call bullshit, and even moreso when this comes from that terrorist country, the Kingdom of Filth itself. I can tell at least tell you that there hasn't been waves of Syrians going through Iraq to Saudi Arabia (on the other hand there has been Syrians coming and settling down in Iraq), so that's one country out of the picture. That a portion of those are migrant workers sounds more believable.
Not surprised to see some Wahhabis on this forum, wouldn't be surprised if they secretly admire every suicide bomber, the majority who are Saudi nationals, blowing up Iraqi Shias. ISIS base its ideology on Wahhabism and Salafism, and while these two are not from the same origin they are, in modern times, interchangable. It's not like its followers (in particular the top clerics of Wahhabism), who are a majority in Saudi Arabia, hide or even care about hiding their extreme hate and bloodlust for Shia, any other non-Sunni muslim and non-Islamic followers. That doesn't apply to KSA only but to the rest of the Gulf States as well, with exception to Oman who mind their own fucking shit and have their own version of Islam or whatever.
this thread going someplaces from discussing Syrian refugees problems to sectarian nutjobs.
RustyNails
Member
I asked you to learn about KSA's history, not tell us why you hate the KSA, as your hate is altogether misplaced. You being from Lebanon should give you an understanding of the events that are happening, not false theories. Nusra Front is not backed by KSA, neither is Al Qaida nor ISIS. Only thing they have common is the Sunni theology. The theology of ISIS and Al Qaida goes beyond Ibn Taymiyyah or Imam Ghazali, towards the Khwarijites. All one needs to do in order to understand somewhat about the current situation is examine the events of 1979 and understand how Saudi Arabia was formed.
After the establishment of Saud Dynasty in 1920 after the disintegration of Ottoman Caliphate, Ibn Saud was able to establish his rule with the help of Ikhwan, the fiercely religious Wahhabist militias that were the enemies of Ottoman Empire and fought for Ibn Saud's army. Before we go to the next bit, it is important to learn that Wahhabism was borne out of anti-Ottoman Turkish sentiment in the 17th century. The Turks famously decorated the tombs and religious locations of saints. Abdul Wahhab basically takfir'ed the Ottomans by saying this is not true Islam, and the very first Saudi State ruler, Muhammad Bin Saud used this burgeoning sentiment to wage rebellion against the Turks in the 17th century. The Turks crushed the rebellion (before which, the Turks imprisoned and released Abdul Wahhab over treason).
Anyways, the leader of Ikhwan in 1920s was Sultan bin al Bajad Al Otaibi. His name is important, as we will come back to that in a bit. Ibn Saud and Al Otaibi fought together to form the Third Saudi state, which is present day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It will surprise you to learn that Ibn Saud then realized that Ikhwan were extremely zealous and wanted him to implement their form of Islam, and keep conquering other areas (Transjordan, the Emirati regions, Qatar, etc). Ibn Saud agreed to conquer the peninsula, but did not agree to their form of strict conservative rule, and instead said each area must be governed by local policies. Ikhwan shunned modern technology such as guns or electronics, whereas Ibn Saud embraced them via the British. After all, it was Britain that helped the Arabs revolt against the Turks in Hejaz, which is where the Lawrence of Arabia history takes place. But Brits supported Prince Feisal who was a Hashemite who's family ultimately had to flee Hejaz and establish their rule in Transjordan. Anyways that's going off on a tangent. Various tribes pledged loyalty to Ibn Saud, but not necessarily joined Ikhwan. This rift between the Sauds and Ikhwan grew further and further, until open rebellion started taking place. This ultimately led to a battle with Ibn Saud on one side, and Al Otaibi (the leader of Ikhwan) on the other, his former friend and Ibn Saud crushed the Ikhwan at the Battle of Sabila, and Al Otaibi fled the scene. Ultimately, Ibn Saud granted amnesty to the militia and Ikhwan was abolished. But the True Believers lived on, somewhere in the desert, burned by the betrayal of Ibn Saud and his siding with the British.
The Kingdom was effectively established, and the rule was based on loyalty. Back then, Saudi Arabia was not what it is today. It was still a deeply tribal society. All the tribes pledged allegiance to the rule. Ibn Saud died soon after, and his children took over the Kingdom who are still ruling today. The rule between the 1930s and the 70's was a period of unparalleled economic development after the discovery of Oil in the region. Oil of course changes everything. FDR recognized the country in 1945 where King Faisal famously met FDR on a battleship on the red sea. Skipping forward to 1979, the tectonic plates shifted in the region of which we still feel the ripple effects today.
1. In November 1979, an individual by the name of Juhayman Al Otaibi (name sounds familiar?) leads a group of assault rifle wielding gunmen and enters the Grand Mosque in Mecca. He and his group slaughter the pilgrims, barricade themselves inside the Mosque and make a series of demands in what is known as Grand Mosque Seizure of 1979. His demands were simple:
The Sauds must be overthrown. He also had a person by the name of Abdullah Al Qahtani with him. Al Qahtani claimed himself to be the Mahdi, or the redeemer foretold in Islam. King Khaled was the ruler of Saudi Arabia and ultimately his security forces were able to overcome the siege, capture Al Otaibi and his men, and end the sedition. However, the Saud dynasty realized that the undercurrent of conservative ideology must be acknowledged. Unlike his father however, he did not crack down on the puritans. His solution entailed giving the religious establishment much more leniency and authority in order to keep the zealots happy. Burqa was mandated and a bunch of draconian laws against women came into effect (cannot appear on TV, etc), along with much more focus on religion in schools. The Mutaween was also established, basically a religious police. This was also partly because the Saud dynasty was reacting to the news that they were not able to do the #1 job of protecting Mecca and Medina.
2. That same month, a good bunch of students fed up with the rule of the Shah of Iran stormed a US Embassy in Tehran and seized it which led to the Iranian Embassy Hostage Crisis of 1979. Ayatollah Khomenei was flown back to Iran by the students to rule Iran after the Shah was deposed. Khomenei was a firebrand. He basically called the Saudi royal family the puppets of Imperialist America. Saudi Kingdom saw what was happening to it's neighbor and feared that they were extremely close to the same fate as Iran. The lesson they took was that they need more religion to counter any disenfranchisement, as religion was the glue that kept everyone together. To strengthen the glue you strengthen the religion. At the same time, the Ibn Sauds themselves were not Wahhabist fanatics and never were. But they tried to play a pragmatic game here.
3. The very next month, the Soviet Army thundered into Afghanistan fearing the rise of Islamic government ala Iran in the region. The Muslim world was appalled by the turn of events, as a communist superpower invaded a Muslim country and no one can do anything about it. But Saudi Arabia saw an opening and saw the invasion of Afghanistan as a means of taking a stand. Not only Saudi citizens, but Muslims from everywhere saw that it was their obligation to support the Mujahideen and donated in anyway they could. The royal family saw this something which can be used to satisfy the religious population and the establishment. They were more than happy to send fighters and money to Afghanistan and join the Mujahideen waging war against the evil atheist empire. One such fighter was the son of a multi-billionaire contractor by the name of Osama Bin Laden.
The Soviet Empire collapsed after America also joined Saudi Arabia in supporting the Mujahideen with their high tech weapons, money and intel. Osama Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia with a hero's welcome in 1989, and shared a very friendly relationship with the Al Sauds. That friendship however soon came to a screeching halt as Saddam Hussein's army rolled into Kuwait the very next year in 1990. Bin Laden once again rose to the occasion and said that he will protect Kuwait with his group of Mujahideen and defend the borders of Saudi state. They defeated the superpower and defeating Saddam would be a child's play. King Fahd however was in a very precarious situation now. He saw Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as an existential threat and feared Bin Laden and his ragtag militias will not be able to stand the modern Iraqi army. Fahd instead opted to contact George Bush and seek his help in pushing Saddam back. Bush agreed, provided they can use the military base in Saudi Arabia. Fahd agreed. Bin laden however, was thoroughly incensed. How dare they allow crusaders to step on his holy land, and not take his help? Bin Laden revolted. He was kicked out of Saudi Arabia. He now had two enemies: The christian crusaders from America and the Saudi royal family. Like the Al Otaibis before him, Bin laden was the next one to call for the overthrowing of the Ibn Sauds. He and his followers were given sanctuary in Afghanistan by Taliban and elsewhere in Africa and Yemen. He used his connections and money to establish Al Qaida (which means The Base). You then saw various bombings by this group throughout the 90s such as the Khobar Tower bombings, Aden Bombings, the 93 WTC bombings, USS Cole bombing in Yemen, eventually the 9/11 attacks, the Jeddah US Embassy attack, and bombings elsewhere. All this time, Al Qaida had it's financiers operating in various parts of the world, including Saudi Arabia, but not in the halls of Saudi royal palaces.
Bin Laden and Al Saud were enemies, and still are. It is extremely illogical to suggest that they are funding or supporting Al Qaida, which splintered into Al Nusra and other subgroups inside Syria which is it's own nightmare altogether. The overarching Sunni ideology of Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and King Fahd ibn Abdul Aziz Al Saud did not do them any favors and put them all against each other in a western standoff situation. It again does not align them together with ISIS as much more important things than religion is at play here, which is power.
I haven't seen anyone claim the (primary) Al Sauds are directly funding ISIS, but they certainly have relatives and business acquaintances who are, as they try to juggle internal dissent, external adventurism, oil politics and a population that could flip on them at any time thanks to their own horrible mismanagement of extremism and sectarianism.
The Al Sauds want stability, they may even want a bit more secularism. But they're not going to get it. That country can only possibly go in one direction and it sure ain't reform.
Execute me for witchcraft if wrong.
The Al Sauds want stability, they may even want a bit more secularism. But they're not going to get it. That country can only possibly go in one direction and it sure ain't reform.
Execute me for witchcraft if wrong.
RustyNails
Member
Executed for Witchcraft.
Soon after King Fahd died in 2004, his half brother King Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz Al Saud came to power. Abdullah, who you see kissing George W Bush in pictures on the internet, had a different idea about his country. When the chickens came home roosting in Saudi Arabia (Al Qaida attacks inside the Kingdom), and the problem of terrorism and rise of extremism engulfing the region, he took a different approach. He did not placate this by making Saudi Arabia more religious like his brother Khaled did in 1980 after the Grand Mosque seizure. Instead, he said reforms were in order. Abdullah, believe it or not, had a vision of turning Saudi Arabia into a knowledge based economy, instead of oil-exporter economy. He commenced various large-scale industrial projects in the country, such as creating the Economic City and establishing scientific institutions. He also was a pragmatist and did agree to the fact that women need to be involved in the public life. He also did the unthinkable, which is restricting the power of religious authority. He always shared an uneasy relationship with the clerical establishment but make no mistake, the Al As-Sheikh family (Grand Mosque Imam) and the Al Saud family are tied in blood and unbreakable. Abdullah over the course of 10 years instituted various reforms, the largest one being the ability of women to participate in Shoura Council (the Parliament) and vote in municipal election, which happened this year. After Abdullah died, his brother Salman came to power this year. So far, he is also following in the footsteps of his brother. So the trajectory (at least at the moment) is more reforms, including women being able to drive eventually (hoping at least).
I wish I shared your optimism. But this thread has started to turn into something akin to a Russian troll attack and the conversation is already poisoned.
Syria and Iraq are really diverse countries formed when Britain and France took control of former Turkish possessions after World War 1. Syria is mostly Sunni but has lots of Shias and Christians. Iraq is mostly Shia but has lots of Sunnis and Christians.
Bashar al-Assad is Shia, unlike most Syrians. He's also a very repressive dictator. Some rebel groups want to get rid of him because he's Shia, while others want Syria to be a democracy. Syria is currently a free-for-all as all of these groups battle Assad and each other.
ISIS came out of western Iraq, the barren desert where almost every Sunni Iraqi lives. They managed to seize control of several important cities and towns a year ago, but have not been able to make significant gains against the Iraqi government, the Syrian government, and the Kurdish army near the border with Turkey. In addition, the US and many European countries are aiding the Kurdish military forces. Iran, Turkey, and Jordan have all conducted air raids or ground operations against ISIS, although Turkey controversially has also attacked some Kurdish factions, because the Turkish government opposes any action that could lead to an independent Kurdish country.
Because there are literally dozens of factions fighting each other (most prominent are the Syrian government, the Iraqi government, the Kurds, and ISIS), millions of people have become displaced from their homes. Most of them have settled in nearby Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey, but about a million have migrated to Europe where they seek refuge. Almost every EU country has begun to give sanctuary to these people, and Germany recently agreed to take 800,000 people. Because the governments have done this without a vote from the people, a lot of Europeans are angry, and there are some fears that there is not enough housing or labor for all of these people.
Saudi Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world, with a big demand for labor. It's also a Sunni Arab country, similar to the majority of refugees. However, it is believed that Saudi Arabia hasn't admitted any refugees. Now they're insisting that they have admitted 2.5 million, but there's no proof.
Saudi Arabia has similar laws to ISIS, and an enormous amount of wealthy Saudi people support ISIS financially. This has caused some people to insist that Saudi Arabia isn't very devoted to the cause of fighting ISIS.
The Artisan
Member
did you mean that saudi arabia isn't devoted to fighting isis in your last sentence?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked