6 ms·

> When a raiding party from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant attacked a Saudi border post last week... This statement seems backward to me. Isn't ISIS sup

• mkohlmyr 10y ago
  I think it's probably fair to say the regime in SA and ISIS have different ideas of what the region should look like in the long term. I doubt either side understood a temporary alignment of interests to be anything more than that. Perhaps not entirely unlike what you saw in the eighties with the U.S. and the Mujahideen. There's probably even more appropriate examples from the same conflict with Russia, Turkey, U.S. et al supporting various factions.
• andy_ppp 10y ago
  Yes, I did have a little chuckle to myself about this irony until I realised there were probably (in total) millions dead at this point because stupid people are allowed to run the world. The sooner we divest from oil reliance the better; hopefully this awful Trump presidency will give the left a mandate to do this in 4 years.
  • madez 10y ago
    Yes, the worlds thirst for oil leads to conflicts and death in many areas of the world. The more countries reduce their oil needs, the better the world is off.
  • blisterpeanuts 10y ago
    The Republican government in the U.S. favors domestic energy production including hydraulic fracturing techniques and expanded traditional exploration on federal lands. They are seeking to enable oil and gas exploitation of Indian lands as well. In addition, they are permitting the pipelines from the Canadian tar sands, which will increase Gulf of Mexico refinery output. The slight rise of international crude prices combined with an energy-friendly Administration has spurred domestic producers, especially frackers, to increase production. The likelihood of continued war in the Middle East, sanctions on Russia, and economic turmoil in Venezuela all are causing a big push to move away from these foreign energy sources. It's quite likely that over the next twenty years, the U.S. will emerge as the world's top energy producer and also the top exporter of raw oil and gas and energy products.
  • mseebach 10y ago
    Obama had all the mandate he could have dreamt of with the 28 pages in the 9/11 report[1]. He also had the opportunity, with fracking and Keystone XL offering the potential for the US/Canada to becomes entirely energy-self-reliant. He didn't take it, preferring instead to accommodate domestic environmental concerns. Such is politics, it is about prioritising between sub-ideal options -- but there's no reason to expect the next president will have significantly different priorities, regardless of what havoc Trump will end up wreaking. De-carbonising the US economy to achieve energy-self-reliance through locally produced renewables through policy (as opposed to eg solar being market-competitive and taking over at scale through market processes) will take decades and be way out of reach for any one president to see through -- it will require a much deeper (in practise, bipartisan congressional) commitment. Also, anyway, these are not exclusive options. It's not materially different to decarbonise from domestically produced oil than from Saudi produced oil -- indeed, it might be easier, as domestic oil is fairly expensive and Saudi is pretty cheap. 1: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases-28-pages-saudis-9-11/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/congress-releases...
• lottin 10y ago
  They don't. Although they do have a lot in common with IS, they only support non-IS insurgents in Syria. Islamic State has no friends at this stage.
  • juskrey 10y ago
    Who sells them weapons and buys oil?
    • Cozumel 10y ago
      Not sure if you're actually asking, but the answers America!
      • josefresco 10y ago
        If by America you mean wealthy Saudi's who are protected by America than yes.
      • ionised 10y ago
        Britain too. We love selling them cluster bombs.
    • lottin 10y ago
      Their weapons are mostly spoils of war and everybody buys oil from them including the Syrian government which is at war against them.
  • josefresco 10y ago
    ISIS is well funded - how do you think they continue to wage war against the superpowers of the world? But you know that - a quick Google search will return hundreds of articles from trusted news sources detailing this - so what is your real motivation?
    • lottin 10y ago
      You mean that they have some "private benefactors" in the Gulf? Sure, but that doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is funding them. Saudi Arabia is part of the coalition that is bombing IS.
• tiatia 10y ago
  http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2015/02/isis-isnt-the-problem-saudi-arabia-is.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2015/02... http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2015/01/saudi-arabia-on-the-edge-of-an-abyss.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2015/01...
• tboyd47 10y ago
  ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda and the Saudis have always been a major target of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden attacked Riyadh before New York. The narrative pushed by many journalists that ISIS is a Saudi ally is a complete fiction and big slander against the Saudis, who are very aggressive against ISIS.. The two have been at war since ISIS began.
  • Cyph0n 10y ago
    This is the correct answer. Other Gulf countries are similar. I've lived in the UAE, and I can tell you that they have a very hard stance on terrorism, both domestic and international. For example, the UAE has been bombing ISIS from the start. The same applies for Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.
  • PutinIsEvil 10y ago
    "we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." Source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774 While the CIA has claimed these emails were hacked by Russia, they clearly stated they are authentic.
• mseebach 10y ago
  > Isn't ISIS supported by the Saudis to overthrow the Shiite government of Iraq? I think it's fair to say that "the Saudis" isn't exactly a monolith in this regard. There's an uneasy alliance between the Wahabi clerisy (who in turn keep the people relatively content) and the house of Saud, who again aren't exactly monolithic, but some of whom have something that at times could be said to approach a reasonably liberal worldview (they, for sure, aren't devout Wahabis). It would not be terribly surprising if some of the more Wahabi-aligned elements are involved in channeling funds and different kinds of support to ISIS (and the Taleban and Al Qaida, for that matter) while the other end knows that if ISIS gets free reign in Saudi Arabia, the foundation under their government can crumble very quickly.
  • tboyd47 10y ago
    What do you base this on? The Wahhabi scholars are conservative but very active in refuting terrorism. In fact the first book I ever came across as a new Muslim detailing the Islamic position against terrorism was written by Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz Aal-ush-Shaykh. Videos can be found online of Saleh Fawzan calling ISIS the "party of Satan."
    • mseebach 10y ago
      I didn't say "Wahhabi scholars", I said "some of the more Wahabi-aligned elements". Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years. Ostensibly a critical ally, sheltered from its enemies by American arms and aid, the kingdom has spent untold millions promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/opinion/the-world-reaps-what-the-saudis-sow.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/opinion/the-world-reaps-w...
      • tboyd47 10y ago
        That's more of an op-ed piece than a proper news report. Even the author admits that no evidence has been found of Wahhabi organizations funding ISIS recruiting.
    • 10y ago
• spangry 10y ago
  ISIS are more of a threat to the Saudi ruling elite than they are an ally. The Saudis essentially pay their population off with oil revenues to buy peace domestically. If oil prices start to dip, revenues dry up (although they have an admittedly large bankroll to fall back on, but it's not infinite). And if they can't buy peace, suddenly Saudi Arabia is fertile ground for radical militant-Islamic groups like ISIS. In this context, it's interesting to consider the growth of US Shale Oil and the lifting of sanctions on Iran, who apparently have made an agreement with OPEC, on which the Saudis took a production hit just to get it over the line (iron clad, because it's not like anyone has ever defected from an OPEC cartel agreement...) War Tard is a great read on this: http://wartard.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-geopolitics-of-2016-oil-war-chaos_18.html http://wartard.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-geopolitics-of-20... . It's a shame he seems to be posting at a rate of about once a year now...
• philtar 10y ago
  This simple answer to this is that the story line where ISIS and Saudi are friends is fabricated by the media. In an openness spectrum, Saudi is a zero, and Isis is in the negatives. But they all look like they're a lower number to us so people just lumped them together. But even the saudis say ISIS are extremists.
• MK999 10y ago
  There was a wiki-leak that made this point.
• jcranmer 10y ago
  ISIS is pretty much the only group in history to be hated by everybody, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah, although al-Qaeda's hatred largely stems from the fact that ISIS has enjoyed a modicum of success in their efforts. It should be noted that al-Qaeda, while being an outgrowth of the Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia nurtures, has targeted Saudi Arabia ever since the Gulf War due to American-Saudi cooperation back then. All of the Middle Eastern regimes are considered desirable targets to al-Qaeda--this is the distinction between the "near enemy" and the "far enemy."