-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Isis planned to assassinate Saudi King Salman in foiled Malaysia terror attack
- Thread starter DXB-KNIGHT
- Start date
- Status
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Malaysia is the go-to "assassinate a foreign political figure" destination of 2017...
My first thought
JonnyDBrit
Member
Well that would be weird on the travel brochure.
More seriously, that could have created an absolute clusterfuck, though I wonder if it might make the Saudis look a bit more closely at who might be funding the likes of ISIS...
Boss Mog
Member
LOL
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Malaysia can't catch a break.
But at the same time I'm not exactly comfortable with this being relatively close to my own country.
But at the same time I'm not exactly comfortable with this being relatively close to my own country.
Aceofspades
Banned
Believe me, getting rid of Saudi royalty is not a good thing at all. Look at what happened to Iran after 70s revolution, religious extremest seized the opportunity to ruin the country. Same thing can happen in SA.
Had to laugh imagining this although this is a serious topic
They have been already doing this. SA has been hit multiple times by attacks from ISIS.
Religious extremists could seize power in SA? So who the hell's running it now?
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I thought the royal family was known to fund terrorists?
Women not only can vote but are in parliament now. They can study in any field the same as men. Music concert are everywhere. They even had their first Comic-con a few weeks back. You think it'd be the same if the royal family fall and extremists seize power?
Thelonelykoopa
Member
It's way to early in the morning , I read this as " Isis(Egyptian Goddess ) planned to assassinate King Solomon."
Succinct Verbosity
Member
As bad as this sounds, it probably would have been the thing that ended Isis so in the most morbidly depressing way.
Marked difference between this government and radicals. They're not a death cult like Taliban/Al Quida and Isis. More destabilization in that region would rock the world, especially if its SA.
1st Course
Member
Without the royal family the country will probably go full ISIS.
Imperfected
Member
I know I shouldn't find levity in this, but I can't help imagining a scenario where everyone from every other country was trying to assassinate a rival political figure in Malaysia at the same time and the assassins were all tripping over one another in the process, with only the most unlikely and ill-conceived effort succeeding.
FlutterPuffs
Member
Impressed, but Ive heard many good things about my nation's police and army capability.
Well, heard bad things too regarding shitload of bribery and corruption within it, but at least they are good at what they do.
Well, heard bad things too regarding shitload of bribery and corruption within it, but at least they are good at what they do.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Check in the before and after history of the Middle East for the following
Iran Revolution
Iraq
The Arabic Spring Countries
Agreed.
Needless to say that I wouldn't have posted this if the attack hadn't been foiled.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Saudi Arabia without the monarchy would be like shangri-la for ISIS.
1) Kill king and eliminate monarchy
2) Seize power in the vacuum created
3) Control holiest site for muslims and have the easiest to recruit demographic
bada-bing
bada-boom
1) Kill king and eliminate monarchy
2) Seize power in the vacuum created
3) Control holiest site for muslims and have the easiest to recruit demographic
bada-bing
bada-boom
BrassDragon
Member
The ASEAN military / intelligence alliance of which Malaysia is a member has been very effective since they shifted to joint counter terrorism strategies. This is pretty high profile intervention but they've been key to foiling smaller plots as well. On an operational level, they can more than hold their own.
ASEAN is able to work closely with Western agencies because it's 'one step removed' from the national governments and won't spark as much criticism from anti-western oppositions in their home countries.
Not to mention the worldwide socioeconomic implications of skyrocketing fuel prices and the inevitable second refugee crisis that will result.
King Gilga
Member
I don't really see what you're getting at.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Oh fudge.
How could I forget about the oil. I can see the propaganda blaring at full power from the white house "NUKE THEM TAKE THE OIL"
And seeing as it would hypothetically be ISIS in power they would have many countries and people ok with it. I mean lets look at who wins in this scenario:
1) The cunt jihadis from the middle east and talibangelicals from the west get the "holy" war they've both been collectively masturbating about.
2) The war hawks in the west get to invade and spend muchos deniro on the miltary and bombs
3) The corporate fucks get to profit from the oil
4) The far-right politicians can use the impending refugee crisis to further spread FUD about the invading foreign hordes.
I'm actually glad this didn't happen cause it would have caused the middle east to de-stabilize for another 50-100 years. If things weren't shitty as it is
First off, each country has it's own circumstances.
Second, you romanticise how those places were before.
Third, if you're gonna mention 1979, you can't ignore Juhayman's seizure of Mecca. That arguably had as big an impact as the Iranian revolution.
The lesson to take isn't that these places were better off with the status quo, they were ripe for change, the lesson is that regimes either proactively respond and change or risk things getting ugly.
Nah. ISIS are a fringe in Salafi circles. The mainstream salafi's won't risk all the power they've consolidated over the years.
The biggest risk if there's sudden regime change is the breakup of the country.
If we're playing what ifs...
The Hijaz, home to Mecca and Medina, will certainly try to secede, as would the oil rich east. In an attempt to keep hold of them, Najd will play the sectarian card against the Shia in the east, and the tribalism card against the cosmopolitan liberal elite of the west.
Neighbouring countries will get sucked in. Jordan and Egypt will use historical and ancestral claims for the Hijaz.
Iraq, Bahrain, Abudhabi, and the US will intervene in the eastern province.
We haven't even talked about the mess that's the south.
Religious leaders gained a lot of the power they currently hold following the Masjid Al-Haram hostage crises in 1979. Instead of going ham and weeding out the centres and madrasahs responsible for breeding such movement, the King at the time decided to appease the fanatics by giving concessions to religious groups.
The Saudi monarchy it seems is slowly trying to wrestle these powers back.
Electric Eye
Banned
The Saudi kingdom has hundreds of people in line to succeed the king. There would be no power vacuum.
Rule has historically passed from brother to brother. The next king won't be. When the king dies, we'll be in new territory.
The Albatross
Member
Doubtful. Hezbollah assassinated Rafic Hariri (Prime Minister of Lebanon) in 2005 and Pierre Gamayel (Son of former Lebanese Prime Minister) in 2006 (and many others), and Hezbollah still operates in Lebanon, controlling significant portions of the country.
Isn't there someone appointed to be the next king already? He's not a brother but there is someone nevertheless.
The crown prince, Mohammad bin Nayef, is the next in line. MbN is the minister of interior.
The second in line is the King's son, Mohammad bin Salman. MbS was suddenly propelled from obscurity when his father became king and has amassed a concentration of power.
The problem is that originally, Prince Muqrin was appointed to be the next in line, with MbN second. His replacement as crown prince has created a precedent. There's a lot of potential for palace intrigue.
"Known" like it's "known" that 10-15 million illegal immigrants won Hillary the popular vote.
The royal family hasn't cracked down as hard on fundamentalists as some (external entities) would like, but the kingdom's history has long been a struggle between radical conservative forces and the modernization efforts of the monarchy. In order to prevent outright civil war, the monarchy has been forced to make concessions to conservatives throughout the last hundred years -- particularly around the Meccan siege of 1979 involving proto-ISIS.
That said, it's certainly possible that there are far-removed minor princes who covertly support terrorism. A half-nephew of the then-king led an armed assault on government's first TV station in 1965.
wesleyshark
Banned
Starring Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson
That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked