3 ms·
The connection he was making was that wahhabism threatened the monarchy in the 1920s, and ever since the SA monarchy has dealt with the threat via deflection.
by mc32 5y ago
The connection he was making was that wahhabism threatened the monarchy in the 1920s, and ever since the SA monarchy has dealt with the threat via deflection. A couple of those are the religious schools abroad in greater arabia and having their agitators release their vigor abroad in things like the afghan wars. There is a mix and struggle between warlords and taleban and aq. In the end the conflict in AF arose from SA exporting their internal conflict externally --various factions and ethnic group divisions in AF didn't help the situation. All in exchange for propping up the SA monarchy which the West contributes to as well due to the importance of energy to the world.
- denton-scratch 5y agoI got the chain of connections. But I don't think he adequately presented evidence for the various links in that chain. I mean, it all seems fairly plausible; but I felt after watching it that I wasn't convinced. I guess what I need reading material, with links to sources. I just found "The Trap: What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom" on iPlayer. When it came out I only managed to see episode 1, which I liked a lot. So now I'm (re)watching the whole set of 3.
- remarkEon 5y agoI’m not sure the point of the review was to make a convincing argument for the veracity of the preceding claim (SA exported their internal problems, the US unwittingly helped, leading to disaster across the greater Middle East). I haven’t watched the documentary yet but I suspect that wasn’t the “point” of the film either. It’s a complex claim (that I personally find very convincing) that is one historians get to make later with the gift of historical distance from the events in question. So, time will tell I suppose.