4 ms·
People make the excuse that the West needs an ally in Middle East. Yes, it needs an ally in ME. But SA is not an ally, it's a back-stabber. They are exporting e
by riyadparvez 10y ago
People make the excuse that the West needs an ally in Middle East. Yes, it needs an ally in ME. But SA is not an ally, it's a back-stabber. They are exporting extremism all over the world (I didn't use the words terrorism because someone will come and start arguing there is no proof SA has funded terrorism and they have issued a diplomatic condemnation when a terrorist attack happened). The West has the diplomatic power over SA to force it to stop exporting its extreme ideology all over the world, it's late, the damage has been done, but further damage can be stopped. Not a single politician or all the altruist medias even call out SA, let alone do something about their back-stabbing.
Decades ago, my country was liberated from Pakistan on the value of secularism. Then SA started to fund madrassas, mosques filled with their extremist ideology and now we are heading back to being another Islamist country. As a third world country with majority of people living in poverty what can we do more when Saudis fund terrorism with their unlimited petro-dollars and the West being their ally.
Like many, I find the West has contributed to Islamic terrorism. But not in the way that the West has invaded other countries, but it has been allies with extremism-exporters like SA and let SA export extremism all over the world.
- atmosx 10y ago> But SA is not an ally, it's a back-stabber. I can assure that whatever SA is doing is under explicit or implicitly allowed/permitted maybe even planned by the US long time ago. It's like being pissed with the 6-year old kid for acting like an idiot when you should really blame the parent for giving him fireworks. Maybe the US/NATO interests in the area are not the ones you think?! Just saying.
- jessaustin 10y agoSaudi haven't been "given" any weapons, and they're rich enough that they could easily have purchased from parties other than USA. You are right to imply that national interests that are commonly understood and discussed differ sharply from the personal interests of those agents charged with pursuing national interests.