
Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It - kawera
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html
======
she_moves_on
One frustrating thing that the author gets wrong is labelling Iran the "Gray
Daesh."

Iran has geopolitical conflict with the West, but it's a false equivalent of
Saudi Arabia. Iran is a theocracy trying to control a population that
growingly wants to be secular. Women in Iran go to university at higher rates
than men, can drive, hold office, and vote. Life in Iran for a women is not
perfect but is heaven compared to Saudi Arabia.

Iranian sponsored militias like hezbollah are in geopolitical conflicts as
Iran wants more regional influence. They want regional islam. They are not
trying to establish a global Shiite islamic state.

Like most things it comes down to money and power. Saudi plays ball with
America economic hegemony and Iran does not. So rather than allying with the
more moderate/educated nation with huge potential to be progressive, we ally
with the one that is best for big business and willing to cede military
control of the region to us.

The Iranian theocracy is fucked, don't get me wrong. But we really have our
priorities in a mess.

~~~
0xFFC
As Iranian (I am commenting from Tehran) I completely approve your point of
view.I even explained in long comment in this post(you can find it in
bottom).Iranian regime nightmare is liberal people( because they are the most
effective opposition to current regime, all of other opposition's dismantled
by regime very easily they don't even exist in society).

you know why? Because they are only threat to nature of this unbeatable
regime(which have money manpower and religion).but west politicians keep
ignoring this fact.Iran society is way ahead of its regime.Maybe far better
than turkey in term of progressiveness And regime knows perfectly. Not
Isis.not USA.not Israel.non of them is serious threat for them in long
term.but a huge young population with secular believes is THE most threat for
regime nature.people who use internet and spend time behind porn sites and
don't give fuck about Islam is the most threat (and lose) for Iran regime.

You want change middle east . change their fucking -stupid- culture with
internet, with porn.

~~~
nickff
From the perspective of a Western government, Iran's international relations
are the problem.[1] The fact that Iran's society is relatively advanced does
little to console the families of the 1100 American soldiers killed by Iranian
proxies in Iraq; nor does it console the families of the hundreds (if not
thousands) of Israeli civilians killed by (Iranian government supported)
Hamas. State support for the Assad regime isn't helping the Iranian
government's international reputation either.[2]

If you want to change the West's attitude towards Iran, a good first step
would be to push for the release of Jason Rezaian, and the end of state
support for terrorism.[3]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-
sponsored_terro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-
sponsored_terrorism)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War)

[3] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/stories-jason-
rezaian/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/stories-jason-rezaian/)

~~~
jacquesm
I think the US/Iran resentment goes back a bit further, roughly to the time
that Iran took a whole pile of US hostages that were held for more than a
year.

That's not the sort of thing that is easily forgotten and it is one of the
cornerstones of West/Islam conflict.

After that it was mostly a downward spiral, with some recent relaxation on
both sides of the line.

~~~
hackuser
> I think the US/Iran resentment goes back a bit further, roughly to the time
> that Iran took a whole pile of US hostages that were held for more than a
> year.

But that didn't happen in a vacuum either. The U.S. engineered or facilitated
the overthrow of a mostly democratic Iranian leader in 1953, and put in his
place a mini-dynasty of dictators who brutally oppresssed Iranians, with U.S.
support, until that day in 1979. I'm not saying the Iranians should have taken
those innocent Americans hostage but they didn't pick the American embassy and
take hostages in a random act of violence.

... and I'm sure the 1953 coup didn't happen in a vacuum either.

~~~
jacquesm
I said 'US/Iran' resentment. The 'Iran/US' resentment dates back even further,
and if you trace it all to its roots you end somewhere in the 1700's or so,
but then it was still (mostly) the UK and not the US.

~~~
hackuser
> I said 'US/Iran' resentment

If you mean "US/Iran resentment" means "US resentment of Iran but not Iranian
resentment of the US", I now understand what you intended. Unfortunately, your
syntax is undocumented and not defined in the language standard. :)

------
Animats
The author has a point. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Bin Laden was
a Saudi. Saudi Arabia is a dysfunctional country propped up by oil money.

It's even more insular than it used to be. Saudis used to send their kids to
the US to go to college, with Government funding. Now Saudi Arabia has enough
educational institutions that they don't do that.

Years ago, I met a Saudi girl finishing Stanford who mentioned she was going
to drive to New Orleans. That route meant a long drive through the boring part
of the US. She said it was the only time in her life she'd be allowed to drive
on a long car trip. That was decades ago, and Saudi Arabia still doesn't let
women drive.

Here's a good set of articles by a Saudi expat in Britain:
[http://muttawa.blogspot.com/](http://muttawa.blogspot.com/)

~~~
nickbauman
As someone pointed out to me earlier this week here on HN, Seymour Hersh's
article on the Bin Ladin assassination, the real story of Al Qe'da is that the
Saudis funded it tacitly. And as a result Saudi government is partially
responsible for 9/11.

The sooner we figure out how to make petroleum irrelevant, the sooner places
like Saudi lose their influence. Gas == War.

~~~
lobster_johnson
The US only imports about 15% of crud oil and related products (such as gas)
from Saudi Arabia. 70% is non-OPEC, and 40% is from Canada [1]. At the same
time, the US produces roughly the same amount that it imports [2]. So at this
point in time, the US no longer needs the Middle East for oil.

[1]
[http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_...](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm)

[2]
[http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MC...](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M)

~~~
nickbauman
Completely true: the US doesn't need middle eastern oil. But the politics
around oil are not just about getting it. It's also about _preventing_ certain
groups from getting it AND controlling access to oil to our strategic allies.
Oil is the lever of all geopolitics. To understand the balance of power, the
economics and politics of oil go hand in hand. It's not just about driving
your car: it's about ruling the world.

------
fukusa
_Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi
Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood,
battles may be won, but the war will be lost. Jihadists will be killed, only
to be reborn again in future generations and raised on the same books. The
attacks in Paris have exposed this contradiction again, but as happened after
9 /11, it risks being erased from our analyses and our consciences._

The best summary I have read so far.

~~~
tallerholler
the guy nailed it.. great read

------
turar
[http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303...](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/01/20150123_saudi.jpg)

~~~
dorfsmay
This make sense, both follow the same book, both are considred ultra-orthodox
movement, which does give credence to the OP.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-
Wahhab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement)

------
justboxing
Saudi Arabia is also the biggest exporter of Radical Islam

" Indian intelligence says that in India alone, from 2011 to 2013, some 25,000
Saudi clerics arrived bearing more than $250 million to build mosques and
universities and hold seminars. "We are talking about thousands and thousands
of activist organizations and preachers who are in the Saudi sphere of
influence," said Usama Hasan, a researcher in Islamic studies.

These institutions and clerics preach the specifically Saudi version of Sunni
Islam, the extreme fundamentalist strain known as Wahhabism or Salafism."

Source: [http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-
exports-...](http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-
radical-islam)

~~~
sharanAntenna
With polygamy being legal, they take underage Muslim girls from cities like
Hyderabad on their return journey to Middle East after "buying" them from
their parents.

~~~
justboxing
Unbelievable. I didn't think this was true, but you are right. There are 100s
of stories of how Women in Hyderabad are being sold to Arab Sheiks. Very
disturbing. Found a news item of a Gang busted too =>
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0eNGDcBoGM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0eNGDcBoGM)

~~~
calbear81
Seems like the scene from taken with the Sheiks buying young drug addicted
women from underground auctions was not that far off from the truth.

------
jalammar
As a Saudi HNer who has spent his life between Saudi and the US, I hope I can
point out a few things here. I understand the point the author is trying to
make. It does, however, come off to me as unnecessarily hostile and
overreaching.

\- Saudi Arabia has 18 million nationals. The vast majority of which are sunni
salafis (the nomenclature preferred to "Wahhabism"). If Wahhabism was driving
motivation for ISIS, then ISIS would have been at least 1000 times the size it
is now. Which is clearly not the case.

\- While ISIS has similar sounding rhetoric to some hardcore Saudi hardliners,
it is almost uniformly reviled and regarded by almost everbody in Saudi as an
extreme perversion. And not only since they blew up a number of mosques in the
country (or since releasing that video of a Saudi ISIS member executing his
own cousin who lay begging for mercy in the begining of that fateful video).
But their gruesomeness is as repulsive to Saudis as it is to everbody else in
the world. And they are seen as one of the biggest obstacles to the ouster of
Bashar Al Assad in Syria (who is responsible for a civil war that has killed
more than 200,000 people, mostly Sunni).

\- The article makes little effort to distinguish between the Saudi people and
the Saudi government. It demonizes the saudi populace even though it is at
times the first victim of some of the unsavory consequences of the alliance
between the monarchy and the "clergy" (a rather inaccurate term since there is
no real hierarchy. The closest thing there is a counsel of elder scholars and
those are usually selected for being unwaveringly loyal to the government).
There is a subtlty to the dynamic of the populace, monarchy, and clergy that
few in the west try to understand. I can expand on this later.

\- None of this is to deny the existence of an activist, xenophobic, hateful,
Quran-thumping segment that is a loud ultra-minority from which Alqaeda and
ISIS try to recruit (with Saudi being one of the first places they often like
to target). The government have clamped down HARD on the vast majority of this
segment ever since the string of terrorist bombings in Riyadh in the early
2000s.

\- Like I try to explain Saudi here, I often try to explain the US to people
in Saudi. If there's anything you'd like me to clarify about Saudi, AMA.

~~~
DrScump
Care to speculate on why Saudi Arabia itself isn't accepting Syrian refugees?

~~~
jalammar
What I understand is that Saudi is already home to ~1 million Syrians and the
government says they have granted residency visas to 500K more since 2011 --
not as refugees, but as residents. I can't say for certain if they are
refusing more refugees or why. But I would guess that the political
consequences for such a shift in demographics would be too complicated for the
(rather rigid) system of government in Saudi to deal with. Especially with
instability in the north and South of Saudi and the complications of the low
price of oil. Just a guess, though.

~~~
lotux
Ihis is UNHCR report for end of 2011
[http://www.unhcr.org/516286589.html](http://www.unhcr.org/516286589.html) , I
don't see the name of Saudi Arabia in list of popular refugee hosting
countries, But I see Iran as one of top to refugee hosting countries, Iran is
actually one of top two since many years ago, due to hosting Iraqis and
Afghanis,
[http://www.unhcr.org/516286589.html](http://www.unhcr.org/516286589.html) ,
you can see more of stats for other years too

~~~
_nedR
This huffpost explains the discrepancy (and how western media organisations
choose to ignore the reasons in their self-absorbed vilification and chest-
thumping) : [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-
crisis-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-
refugees_b_8175924.html)

" The UNHCR counts refugees by noting only those "persons recognized as
refugees under the 1951 UN Convention/1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention,
in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a complementary form of
protection and those granted temporary protection." Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Qatar, and the UAE are not parties to any of the UN protocols on refugees, and
so through this technicality, they, along with most of their refugees, are
excluded from many refugee counting mechanisms."

"With Saudi Arabia's non-signatory status, the Syrians residing in Saudi
Arabia are classified as "Arab brothers and sisters in distress" instead of
refugees covered by UN treaties"

"The government itself of Saudi Arabia has stated that it has, over the past
five years since the start of the conflict hosted 2.5 million refugees."

~~~
lotux
Iran calls Afghani,Iraqi and Syrians brothers and sister in distress too.
still UNCHR should shows how many are displaced and where moved, regardless of
what hosted country is calling them. visit UNCHR, I am wondering why there is
no report yet for 2014 and 2015?

~~~
_nedR
Iran is a signatory to the 1951/1967 convention
([http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf](http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf))

Saudi arabia (along with most gulf states) is not. As a result they are not
included in UNHCR statistics.

edit: Weird. The comements above seem different from what i remember. Either
they were edited different from what i orginally replied to or i replied to
wrong comment

------
vinceguidry
I have to say, the quality of mainstream media coverage of the Middle East has
gone up remarkably since 9-11. I think perhaps in the next fifty years or so
we'll finally figure out how to handle the problems of the region with grace
and magnanimity rather than hatred and endless warfare.

~~~
user_0001
1) stop interfering

2) goto 1

Pretty much covers it I reckon

~~~
Elizer0x0309
Stop arming groups and practice diplomacy.

------
smegel
And when the oil runs out, just another ISIS.

~~~
notliketherest
This. The oil that turns the crank of industry and provides the energy that
produces so much of every comfort we hold dear in the west finances the very
evil that seeks to destroy it. Until we end our reliance of oil, the middle
east and Islam will continue to threaten the West's existence. It's a horrible
irony.

~~~
llamataboot
Islam is not threatening the West's existence.

~~~
raverbashing
No, of course not

We just have "Sharia Law" areas in the UK, honour killings in Canada, people
getting shot in France and elsewhere because of drawings, etc

And if someone disagrees I'd like to hear your opinion.

~~~
criley2
We also have Christians murdering abortion doctors, setting bombs and fires at
clinics, Christian Sovereign Citizens murdering police on a near monthly
basis, advocating for a theocracy in America (God above Country or
Establishment of a national religion), advocation of Christian Law above
secular law, etc, and we manage to keep our society from becoming a theocracy.

Frankly, if a few evangelical Muslims are capable of destroying the secular
foundation of your systems, those systems were weak in the first place.

~~~
vox_mollis
Well the obvious answer here is that _all_ Abrahamic religions are suspect for
breeding violence. But you can't say that in polite company for fear of the
ADL, et. al.

~~~
criley2
Any ideology can breed violence. The Bolshevik Revolution by Marxists, or
Mao's Cultural Revolution, are examples of non-religious ideologies that led
to violence.

------
vowelless
Article rings true for me. Growing up in the Khaleej, I saw an increasing
influence of the Salafi mindset around me. Maybe as a child I didn't pay
attention to it, but in my teens and certainly visiting now after a decade, I
see a very different, more conservative region.

As an aside, _The Mersault Investigation_ by Kamel Daoud (author of this
article) is a very interesting book. I recommend it to people who have liked
_The Stranger_.

------
davidw
Significant portions of the commentary here are 'Exhibit A' for why politics
should be banned from HN. See:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10602313](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10602313)

------
bayesianhorse
Luckily IS/ISIS doesn't show any signs of becoming a functioning state. Their
income is big for a "terrorist" organization, but small for a state.

And with the kind of international "attention" it's getting lately, this won't
change soon.

------
0xFFC
I commented this in a post 3 days ago.it is completely applicable here,I know
maybe this is not right thing to do -copying my old cm- but those point I
think closely related to the topic.( there will be Isis like groups until
West's ally in middle East is most corrupted regime maybe in world.how do you
want people to not be terrorist when Saudi Arabia is one of the closest
society in planet . how do you expect people to change to secular ,atheist
people -like people in Scandinavian,I don't remember where but there was
measurement which stated 2/3 of Saudi Arabia people likes Isis and supports
it.maybe it is not correct number.but the was is almost indisputable, there is
huge support base for Isis in Saudi Arabia ,both government and people- when
the government does not allow women to drive?.imagine the level of
dictatorship. And the worst part is Saudi Arabia is us closest ally after
Israel,what was the last time us puts hard sanction against Saudi Arabia
because of their human right issue.what was last time us decrease relationship
because of human right.as Iranian I only can say this to west politicians: go
fuck yourself.

This was my old cm:

Am pretty angry about what is going on in world , so if you felt insulted , I
am so sorry , and You should understand I don't want to insult you or any
other person specifically,But I want insult Ideologies pretty badly.

As person who LIVES in heart of middle east (Iran) and I have seen shia
militant from very close(I know people who works in IRGC),You are completely
and pure wrong , do you know what would generate another generation of
terrorist ? another invasion. I am atheist and liberal with a little being
gay,I am not gay , but sometime things go wrong - and believe me these are
pretty dangerous thing to be in Iran and would get me killed, without doubt -
but I can realize the only thing will give terrorist another opportunity is
invasion of a country in middle east. This is not your fucking war.This was
not west fucking war at all. They shouldn't come here in any circumstance.You
know what ? because Paris like terrorism act will happen again and again and
again. West should understand they were wrong all the time. What the fuck are
you doing in middle east ? You know what ? no body more than me would be glad
to live in secular community with secular government, but it seems politician
in west do not realize , being in middle east is equal to raising radical
movement against them. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND , MIDDLE EAST SHOULD FIGHT FOR
ITSELF, EVEN IF ISIS KILL ALL OF US, this is not your fucking war.I do not
remember reading if any alien did help west during the renaissance. Society
should grow.

PLEASE , do for humanity a favor , understand militarism is equal to
terrorism. I was talking with one idiot yesterday , and he mentioned I do not
believe France invade Iraq. Yes your are right idiot . France did not . but
west did . These fucking killers in middle east , do not see countries , they
see Islam against West.

Do you know who fights in Iran against mullah's ? Christians ? Are you kidding
me, mujaheddin khalgh ? Those fucking traitors, no way.

Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting
against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution
history.This regime is almost unbeatable in political sense- because they have
money and manpower and oil- but do you know they are seeing liberals in their
nightmare. They even don't care about West invasion against Iran(some stupid
person like G.W Bush may even consider that option).Because at the end they
know the can manage harm West military pretty badly. Worse than maybe Vietnam
war.BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who USE TOR.
Give them internet , provide them satellite , Facebook/twitter/YouTube/porn ,
Show them fucking beautiful women in Texas(with respect to women, I just want
show sexual incentives), show them there is no need to kill so many people to
get those woman , you can fuck like heaven in earth without killing people.
And BOOOOOM this is the sound of explosion of foundation of religion.

Ruin their stupid culture , and then you are going to see middle is will
revive. and turn to into secular place.

and Do you know who is supporting ISIS ? Which countries? I would suspect
Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you
fucking believe it ? This is not double standard. This is fucking fraud
against humanity.At the end we all know , non of the west's politician's give
fucking flying shit about terrorism in middle east. If they did , They weren't
this double standard'ed against corrupted (I would say most corrupted regime
in whole world) regime in Saudi Arabia.What was last time you checked women
condition in Saudi Arabia.And why the hell us have this much relation ship
with country which behead people like candy. This is what I mean when I am
saying double standard.

p.s. if you felt I insult you , I am so sorry , I was talking broadly than
talking with you.I hope respectively, you understand there was something HUGE
wrong with west policy in middle east.

~~~
Thriptic
> Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting
> against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution
> history...BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who
> USE TOR. Give them internet , provide them satellite ,
> Facebook/twitter/YouTube/porn , Show them fucking beautiful women in
> Texas(with respect to women, I just want show sexual incentives), show them
> there is no need to kill so many people to get those woman , you can fuck
> like heaven in earth without killing people. And BOOOOOM this is the sound
> of explosion of foundation of religion.

I see where you are coming from, and I am in agreement with this element of
your comment. Backward, unproductive ideologies will not stand the test of
time and will eventually crumble under the pressure of globalization unless
they can bring tremendous force to bear against the rest of the world. I think
what you say will be useful in the future, but the question is what do we do
right now? Do we sit back and let ISIS attack Europe without responding? Do we
let Russia deal with the issue? Are we willing to allow further areas to be
destabilized?

~~~
iofj
You need to explain why this is not working in Europe before going down this
path. None of the terrorists in Europe were lacking in access to internet,
porn, ... Any lf that.

Yet they still kill.

In fact if most of the isis fighters do co e from the west, that goes for most
of them too.

So imho this explanations doesn't work.

~~~
0xFFC
Because they taking revenge.my whole comment hinges on two base.first let
middle East alone.( after that you are not going to encounter terrorist like
those). And you can work peoples mind simultaneously to show them how stupid
is their religion.

Let middle East alone.West has 50 year of stupid policy history in middle
East.invasion a country, are you fucking kidding me.do you want bring
democracy with that.yeap,of course invasion will generate Osama bin laden and
like those.

~~~
iofj
Well if that's true then it's basically eternal war. If perceived/reported
"injustices" 10000km away in a language they don't understand cause these guys
to massacre civilians ... there's nothing to do but use military force against
them. Merely stopping a policy won't do anything to prevent more revenge.

------
gwbas1c
From:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic."

Is this article really appropriate for Hacker News?

~~~
tptacek
Not even a little bit. I flagged the article, as did many others.

~~~
kawera
I deeply regret posting this article. Somehow I thought it was interesting and
in tune with many other articles we've discussed this week but seeing what
happened here, oh my... I'm really sorry, won't happen again.

~~~
dang
FWIW, the story has fallen off the front page because (a) users flagged it and
(b) moderators have downweighted it, as we typically do when a story is either
a piler-on or a riler-upper or both.

~~~
tptacek
Unfortunately, by the time the admins notice that there's a riler- upper -
piler- onner, a lot of the damage is done. Look at how many points and
comments this story has.

~~~
dang
I'm not persuaded that it would work to control it more tightly than that.
It's always been the way HN works that these things surge up and then get
flagged or weighted down. There's a kind of equilibrium in there that we're
loth to mess with; asking for too much would be a mistake.

This concern is perennial. I recall having the same debate many times with you
and davidw years before I ever worked on HN. And I am happy to report that my
view has shifted a lot closer to the two of yours since then! But is there
reason to believe this has deteriorated recently? An external provocation
(ISIS and Paris attacks) has certainly spiked, as happens quarterly or so, but
I don't see that the HN-community-system is markedly different.

~~~
tptacek
If you had a daily snapshot of the front page of HN at 3:00PM PST from 2011 to
today, I think you'd see approximately the same number of political stories.

The difference is that the stories you'd see today are more focused: where
before you'd see the occasional Ron Paul story, or something about Israel, or
something about the banksters, today you're almost certainly going to see a
police misconduct or asset forfeiture story.

What there should be is a clearer guideline. "Don't post stories about
politics or religion".

------
tdkl
Fair to add that the large amount of funding came from the USA in eagerness to
overthrow Assad. [1] So, if we have the mother and father: shall we call the
USA a dumb rich uncle ?

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/110928687...](https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/1109286879117550/?pnref=story)

~~~
idibidiart
More like the Godfather, definitely not a dumb participant.

------
throwaway_user
There are a few important differences. People from different countries can get
a visa and visit Saudi Arabia, stay and come back safely as long as one obeys
their laws. (Whether we agree with these laws is a different matter).

Muslims from different all sects can go for Hajj and are not executed for
heresy because of their sectarian background.

Saudi Arabia has diplomatic relations and is a signatory to various
international agreements.

One of the problems with Daesh is that they seem to be incapable of doing any
of these things not because they haven't "made it", but because they are
ideologically opposed to it.

------
findyoucef
It's worth noting that Kamel Daoud is an ex-islamist. He was allied with the
Islamist that nearly destroyed our country (Algeria) in the 90s. It's just an
interesting footnote.

~~~
idibidiart
Yup, and now he has internalized racism toward Muslims. Psychology 101.

------
azth
ISIS is not viewed as legitimate by practically the vast majority of Muslims
in the Middle East. Here is just one example of how we are speaking out
against them (unfortunately, the captions contain spelling and grammar
mistakes):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ2HlIYRvCM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ2HlIYRvCM)

------
pearjuice
This is a friendly reminder that the United States have sponsored ISIS when
they were still considered freedom fighters against Assad. The United States
also happily still do business with ISIS in that they are buying extremely
cheap, under market value, oil and capital goods from Iraq exported by ISIS.

Of course, none of this is officially documented, just like how not a dollar
its whereabouts, of the 40 billion dollar cash the United States sent to Iraq
circa 2004, is documented.

It is no secret the United States have selectively supported "freedom
fighters" and militant groups when they deemed that would be more productive
for the petrodollar and their Zionist friends than putting their own boots on
the ground. Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, Gadaffi, ISIS and countless of others
have all been supported by the United States and their removal has always been
justified either because they turned their back on the United States and their
allies (with Zionists being the most prominent) - or because they could be
replaced by a better/cheaper/more productive puppet.

\--edit: if you are downvoting this reply, consider offering substantial
content to the discussion instead of trying to cloak statements which do not
strike well with your opinion or observation of geopolitics. Thanks in
advance.

~~~
ptaipale
> This is a friendly reminder that the United States have sponsored ISIS when
> they were still considered freedom fighters against Assad.

Not really. United States sponsored other opponents to Assad, which were then
sufficiently marginalized as to be either annihilated or convert to Daesh, but
they clearly weren't Daesh at the time.

~~~
idibidiart
Opponents of Assad? LOL. Have you been in a war before? Obviously not, not
even close.

Here, educate yourself on how wars work:
[https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/110928687...](https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/1109286879117550/?pnref=story)

------
krmmalik
I'm sorry but i find that article rather myopic. Most of the claims in that
article seem more opinion than good research. For those that are interested in
getting a balanced view can get their own research on what life is actually
like in Saudi Arabia by talking to a large community of expats there that
would rather not return to home soil.

That said, Saudi arabia enjoys healthy support from the west and has done so
right from its inception. The country is barely 100yrs old and Britain played
an instrumental role in creating the country as well as shaping most of the
middle east. That has striking parallels to what is going on with ISIS right
now.

Here is a well researched lecture on the subject by Dr Yasir Qadhi:

[http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=659f5wuTgzY](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=659f5wuTgzY)

You'll need to watch part 2 as well to get the full picture and if you have
time might also want to watch the video on the creation of Israel which is
equally damning.

And regards ISIS here's Putin's statement -- that interestingly was not
covered by western media -- but is congruent with the lecture and my point
above.

[http://youtu.be/t1qHORKKLls](http://youtu.be/t1qHORKKLls)

Please feel free to do your own independent, balanced research.

~~~
tosseraccount
"more opinion than good research"?

The page says "The Opinion Pages"

MSM is full of opinion; I'm just happy when they label it opinion and not
"news".

~~~
NiftyFifty
Praise be to Allah.

------
idibidiart
[https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/110928687...](https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/1109286879117550/?pnref=story)

US and Saudis are both funding ISIS, and the latter cannot do it without the
permission of the former.

------
NiftyFifty
The major problem I have with this opinion piece is not the perspective, but
the writer - Kamel Daoud. One of his major influences is a cross-section of
experience between living in Algeria and being bifurcated with the west. His
bleed out on the screen, seems more jaded than informative. At the very least
he's sloppy in respecting certain parts of the Saudi national, with terms like
Wahhabi which by all accounts is derogatory. Which through admission, I'm a
white middle class IT professional living in the Rust Best, and the subtle
nature of his cantor is a bit tasteless in my opinion. However, Saudi Arabia
is by all measures secular and demands it be, because of its place in the
world - it's the holder of the great sites of Islam, playing host to the
yearly travel of millions of pilgrims of the Islamic faith. Regardless, it's
just a bit slap-stick on journalism to be provocative from my perspective.

~~~
chappi42
> Saudi Arabia is by all measures secular and demands it be

hu, secular???

It seems very plausible to me, that he is spot on with the article. Should be
plastered all over the billboards and newspapers. Good to read some 'straight
talk'.

------
lotux
Have you ever noticed that All these countries that have members in ISIS Army,
are the same one were fighting Iran along with SADDAM?

------
johansch
So why doesn't US take Saudi Arabia, like it took (and then abandoned) Iraq?

------
dennisgorelik
> rape of Iraq

That is an interesting metaphor.

So ISIS is an illegitimate child of George W Bush then.

------
raspasov
This is so on point. A prime example of the hypocrisy of western governments.
Until we have leaders that truly do what they claim to believe, we deserve
everything that comes upon us.

~~~
happyscrappy
So hypocrisy justifies spraying random Frenchmen with machine guns? Think
harder.

~~~
pearjuice
The thing is that most people condemn the "spraying random Frenchmen with
machine guns", but applaud when the day after France carpet bombs Raqqa, a
Syrian city with a population of over 200000 with the civilians being trapped
in the oppression of ISIS.

Apparently, then the death of dozens of innocent civilians which had no choice
other than getting trapped between bombs falling from the sky or ISIS
militants controlling the city borders, is justified because "look what
happened in Paris!".

~~~
calbear81
From what I read, it seemed like the French were not given the option to
carpet bomb Raqqa but instead got to fulfill a long list of kill orders on
strategic targets instead of the usual method of doling them out to different
allies to take care of.

~~~
jasonm23
Well, thanks to the extensive coverage (/s) we all know how it went down.

------
jackreichert
> "One has to live in the Muslim world to understand the immense
> transformative influence of religious television channels on society"

Ahem, Fox News

------
idibidiart
This feels like it could have come out of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. The
xenophobic S.O.B.s of America.

------
gohrt
Awkardly written, either by Kamel Daoud, or the translation by John Cullen
from the French. I don't know which parts were literal and which were
metaphor.

~~~
zeeshanm
This is the French way of writing. See "Simulacra and Simulation" by
Baudrillard for more examples of this writing style.

~~~
maldusiecle
Baudrillard is fun every once in a while, but it's certainly not accurate to
describe a controversial, notoriously abstruse poststructuralist philosopher
as typical of "the French way of writing."

