edit: I undertand it's a big step to see a government agency make an official announcement that will have a lot of diplomatic fallout. The big news is that the BND said it, not that someone was surprised by what they said.
Now, at least, se can all talk about the elephant in the room.
If a public government figure comes out and makes a public statement like that - there will be immediate follow-up for proof/concrete evidence.
When the national intelligence agency "independently" makes such a claim, it allows the leadership to defer proof. Additionally, it provides a subtle message of credibility and hints that "they" know something "we" don't.
It's a big step (and fraught with diplomatic problems) that a government agency is saying this openly. Have any other (major, Western) governments or their agencies done so already?
It was mentioned by one of the candidates in the republican presidential debate for example (I forgot who), so it definitely is part of the mainstream discussion.
Who defines what's a "terrorist" ? Were the IRA terrorists? Were the Red Brigade? Shining Path? Castro & Co.? The list could go on. Why is it OK for the West to fund their buddies, but no one else is allowed to?
19/20 hijackers were Saudi (and more recently, so was one of the San Bernardino shooters, for all practical purposes). UBL was Saudi. Please point out to me terrorists with similar profiles who are/were Iranian.
Iran's funding of Hezbollah can be legitimately seen as defending their own interests. Just like we fund scores of militias all over the region.
>Iran's funding of Hezbollah can be legitimately seen as defending their own interests.
Which part of assassinating Lebanese politicians, kidnapping and torturing soldiers, starting a war with a nuclear-armed state, and randomly firing unguided rockets into civilian towns can be legitimately seen as defending Iran's own interests?
Arming the rebels fighting in Yemen just for one tiny example. For the worst thing in recent memory, the Shiite death squads in Iraq were well supported by Iran (granted this was a response to Sunni death squads, by that is hardly a rationalizing for murdering innocents).
What's your point? I doubt anyone except a Saudi propaganda minister would argue against you. I was responding to the parent asking for Iranian instances.
But YOU are the one bringing Iran into the discussion. You compared them with the Saudis, by saying "but Iran is too!"
I honestly have no idea where the hate for Iran comes from. They really haven't done much to hurt US interests, even though they lost 10s of 1000s of men in the Iran-Iraq war as a direct result of US involvement.
When you say "haven't done much to hurt US interests" does arming Iraqi insurgents with Iranian made weapons that killed many coalition soldiers, and further destabilized Iraq causing who knows how many innocent deaths, not count?
And why would the US get more blame than the USSR or France and Germany? The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam.
> "When you say "haven't done much to hurt US interests" does arming Iraqi insurgents with Iranian made weapons that killed many coalition soldiers, and further destabilized Iraq causing who knows how many innocent deaths, not count?"
Why did the US continue to support ISIS even after it was clear they were becoming a serious threat in the region?
The point is, the whole thing is a mess, and not one of the main countries involved is free from blame. The most messed up thing from a political point of view is that Turkey are a member of NATO, in other words we're fighting a group that's funded by allies of US and Europe. Throw Russia in the mix with its support of Assad and we really could be looking at the start of World War 3. Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but it does seem plausible.
> "The USSR sent soldiers and pilots to fight for Saddam."
Are you referring to the Gulf War (1990) or the Iraq War (2003)?
Here's a key quote (from Robert Baer, a former CIA officer):
"And how important [is] Hezbollah? ...
It's extremely important. Hezbollah's divided into many parties. There's the Islamic Resistance in the south, which beat the Israelis. They attacked the Israeli army. They defeated the Israeli army on Lebanese soil. I do not know how we can describe that other than a national liberation movement.
I don't agree that Hezbollah itself is a terrorist organization. It delivers powdered milk; it takes care of people. It's a social organization; it's a political organization. It fights corruption.
Then there's the Islamic Resistance, which is an army, which is a guerrilla force, fighting for control of its own country. And then, under the Hezbollah umbrella, was the Islamic Jihad, which I call their special security, which was controlled by Iran, which carried out terrorism against the West. And you can paint Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. You can do that for political reasons, but strictly speaking, it is many things. Just as [with] the IRA, you got Sinn Fein and you've got the real IRA, which is conducting terrorism."
I have a question for all the folks out there who preach the "give them all jobs" line to ending terrorism: What happens when oil has no value cause we don't need it anymore? You know, the same oil that bankrolls half the paragon countries on the planet like our good friends the Saudis.
In case you can't tell, I believe that line of reasoning is complete garbage.
I believe the GP is talking about the fact that most of the jihadi foot solders are unemployed/under-employed with poor job prospects, and many are unmarried with poor marriage prospects. For instance, Saudi Arabia for a time had a program where they took convicted jihadis, gave them job training and loans/grants for dowries (and maybe ran some kind of matchmaking service... I forget the details) and saw significantly lowered re-arrest rates for jihadis who got jobs and wives shortly after leaving prison.
Improving economic outlook reduces the pool of recruits, but the GP is questioning the long-term macroeconomic outlook in the region, and in turn questions the long-term viability of harming extremist recruiting by improving job prospects for young unmarried men.
You can't attack Saudi Arabia because that's tantamount to the attacking the entire Muslim world. Not many Muslims I know have any love for the Saudi regime, but almost all have a huge emotional connection to the holy cities of Makkah and Medina that they don't even have for their own countries.
The cultural cities usually were exempted from destruction. See the siege of Leningrad (with targets being hospitals or bazaars but not bridges or other cultural artifacts, when it would have been easy to rake the ground all over) or the avoidance to target Kyoto (when almost every city over 30k people all around Japan having been bombed at one time or another).
> After 9/11 we should have taken over Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq since that is where the money came from.
You can't do that, it would be like declaring war against Islam, since the Saudi are "custodian" of Muslim holly places like Mecca.
Furthermore, while most hijackers were Saudi and Egyptian, ISI, Pakistani secret services financed the attacks. But you can't really destabilize Pakistan either, since they have they are an nuclear power.
Basically, we are in a situation, I believe, where western nations are faking their war on terror, for various reasons (they can't tackle the Saudi issue, for instance). All the countries that were invaded/attacked by the west since 9/11, safe from Afghanistan, which was more or less warrant-able, had nothing to do with 9/11 : Iraq, Libya, Syria...
I'm skeptical. Wouldn't it be more beneficial for them to have a stabilized region under their control than a destabilized one? They have enough economical power to pull this off, so I assume the destabilization is merely a side effect of supporting the wrong groups due to religious association than a dedicated effort at destabilization.
When Iran was supporting Shiite death squads in Iraq, I'm sure part of their plan was to destabilize the US backed unity government in order to further Shiite control of that government. Which looks like it pretty much worked. Destabilizing the Yemen government would allow the Shiite rebels to gain more power.
Discrediting the recognized government (can't really say legitimate to any government over there), is an old strategy intended to grant leverage and the eventual bargaining table.
But the ultimate enabler of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran is the US/West by 1. making them rich through oil-buying (some of the money goes to fund terrorism) and 2. selling them arms.
So the West is to blame indirectly (and directly), too.
edit: I undertand it's a big step to see a government agency make an official announcement that will have a lot of diplomatic fallout. The big news is that the BND said it, not that someone was surprised by what they said.
Now, at least, se can all talk about the elephant in the room.