Idk if you missed that on purpose or if you don't even understand what you're saying. The government which you would be happy if it falls doesn't allow people to go to Syria or Iraq. Some old people who went to fight Russia in the Afghan war were taken to prison even there was no evidence whatsoever that they will go there. Now the prisons are full of these people that without this exact government they would have been already in Syria and Iraq. Also calling Saudi people to go there is not allowed and is punishable by prison, so that's another thing that shows how little shit you know about SA.
The government is basically the only thing stopping 100s of people going there so how is the government going away any good? if the situation there destabilize then all these people won't just decide not go there. Also if we're talking about destabilizing other countries then how about suggesting Iran to be on that list too.
You're excusing a current problem of a massive influx of Saudi terrorists into Syria and Iraq. The Saudis may have imprionsed a few and set out "rules" against those joining the fights abroad for a nice PR abroad when they aren't busy killing and beheading their minorities demanding more rights, but the facts on the ground are different: Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the most represented nationalities in ISIS and other Sunni extremist groups, only behind Tunisia and Jordan (and when it comes to Jordan it's Palestinians in specific, the group where ISIS enjoys the strongest support). Their citizens are killed frequently in operations launched by the Iraqi army & PMU.
This is a country that has shown no incompetence in keeping a strict eye on their majority, crushing the slightest hint of protest or suspicious movements from them, a group that makes up 2-3 million people in the country, yet you expect me to believe that they can't handle an influex of several thousand of their citizens joining wars abroad, alright. This is not even counting how Saudi vehicles, rifles and alike with Saudi's coat of arms and food from Saudi Arabia is frequently found in areas liberated from ISIS in Iraq. This is while also dismissing Saudi support for extremist movements in Syria, Saudi meddling into Iraqi politics and Saudi support for Islamist movements in Iraq. This is while ignoring that in South Yemen, a stronghold of GCC and Southern Yemen rebels/nationalists who've fought against the Yemeni army & Houthis, Al-Qaida and ISIS have been appearing to fight along GCC forces against them (and on one occasion attacking some GCC country's military post). This is while also ignoring how the clerics in Saudi Arabia constantly call for a Jihad againts the heretic Shia muslims, or how they've spread their ideology across the Middle East, Europe and Asia with Asian Muslim countries becoming increasingly more radical in the last two decades and European mosques having radical preachers.
Or as Bandar bin Sultan,
a prominent member of the Saudi government, once ambassador to US and the director of GID, once put it:
"The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."
His quote has proven to be quite accurate given the current situation in the past decade.
Yes. I can clearly see how Saudi Arabia have truly tried their best to just mind their own business, clearly an example for everyone to follow!
A destabilized Saudi Arabia in internal turmoil would be one of the greatest things to happen in Middle East:
1. Country going further bankrupt reducing their influence across the world.
2. A nation that will think twice about setting up another sectarian coalition to commit war crimes and bomb the shit out of Middle East's poorest country.
3. Clerics who will be busy with their own problems instead of inciting hatred towards non-Sunni muslims, fueling conflicts abroad and encouraging their own citizens and about any Sunni muslim to travel abroad and join some Jihad
4. Hopefully a strongly reduced Islamic Saudi influence abroad so there will be less radicalization among European , Asian and even Middle Eastern Sunni muslims.
5. A portion of pissed of citizens who'll think twice about going abroad to blow themselves up instead of fixing their own country. Perhaps they'll blow themselves up in their own country but that's Saudi's problem.
7. Saudi minorities having an opportunity in the middle of all the turmoil to ask for more rights, or even better, demand independence so they can stop being treated like dogs and stop being practice targets for Saudi terrorists. Of course, since they mainly live in the oil-rich regions it doesn't even matter if Saudi Arabia could stop them or not, US and their closest allies would never accept a majority-Shia state to be formed in an oil-rich region.
With regards to Iran, calling their involvement in Iraq as a destabilization would be utterly stupid. In Yemen there's not even any proof of their involvement, and instead it's mostly GCC just screaming "Iran Iran Iran Iran" as soon as there's anyone opposing their rule or geopolitical interest, the same thing they do to their own minorities and interestingly a behavior very similar to their old friend
Saddam Hussein. Their hate for Iran, or to be more specific, their hate for Shia muslims is in their blood.
You can argue about Iran's involvement in Syria: it all comes down to if you support "moderate" head chopping, women opressing, sectarian motivated and civilian torturing ISIS-allied rebels who'll kill you for having the wrong faith in their lawless lands, and end up with something similar to Libya, or you could support a secular Baathist dictatorship who doesn't have a problem killing anyone against it (or tortuing people) but with a more resemblance of order compared to the religious theocracy that's being offered. I know which side I'd take and therefore I see Iran as a stabilizing factor.
Speaking of Saudi Arabia and their relation to Syria: Saddam's Baath Regime was hundred times worse than whatever Syria's Baath regime ever did. When the US wanted to invade Iraq Saudi Arabia opposed the plan, stating that it would split Iraq along sectarian lines, something that proved to be accurate. Yet this was an obvious outcome in Syria that anyone could tell but they sure didn't mind that and intensified it. One was under a Sunni leadership, and the other isn't. Hypocritical filth. Keep being an apologist for them though, they are the beacon for humanity.
The day Saudi Arabia goes down is the day fucking cancer is removed from Middle East. I'm sure there's a great mass of young educated people in Saudi Arabia who could take their country in a much better direction, but until then I will have no issue saying it: Fuck Saudi Arabia and fuck their radicalism and most of all fuck their terrorism.
For the entirety of Saudi Arabia's existence, this never happened.
Interesting, thanks. I'd expect some successions in the past to have had strong influence from the clerics but then the monarchy isn't that old is it?
I never said they would do it for religious reasons (some would but many wouldn't), religious leaders can be bought, or thrown in jail if they don't comply. A very famous and popular cleric was tossed in jail recently because he was pro jihad in Syria.
The people look to the clerics regarding matters of religion, a cleric can say "I support X because he is more religious than Y" but if he were to say "I support X because of Y's views on healthcare" no one would care what he thinks, and it would weaken his argument.
You did say they'd go against the king if it was for a very obvious religion reason, and I meant to say that their interest may not lie just in the context of religion. Anyway the last part makes more sense, and overall I think we're more or less saying the same thing. In the end anyone can be bought.
