OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics
Economics Education Ethics Foreign Policy Government History Politics Religion Science


Should Saudi Arabia be added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism?

ChristianKl          25 October 2015 08:28 AM


Saudi Arabia is a deeply religious country and many people with political power in it wants to spread Islam all over the world. When the US published the 9/11 report they censored the sections that dealt with the responsbility of some Saudi nationals for the crisis. Syria is destablished largely because Saudi Arabia funded it's opposition groups. The funding of opposition groups and giving them arms is in many cases considered sponsoring terrorism. Saudi Arabia doesn't allow Syrian refuges to enter it, putting pressure on the EU to deal with the refugees. The EU increases it's Muslims when it accepts the Syrian refugees is in the overall interest of spreading Islam which is one of Saudi Arabia's key goals. Is the time ready for the West to say: "We've had enough. Saudi Arabia goes on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism?"



Do you find this topic interesting?
      
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
 

                  Answer                   




Recommended for You Optimates Populares Centrists

Show comments            Sort by        



melian 25 October 2015 09:30 AM
76%

While Saudi Arabia is very rich thanks to the oil exports, militarily it is very weak. Without the US support it would most likely have been conquered by another country (such as Iraq or Iran). With enough political will the US and EU could have easily forced KSA to cut its support for foreign Islamic organizations. That said, applying the “terrorism” label to anything we do not like is not a good idea.
Saudi Arabia doesn't allow Syrian refuges to enter it

Isn’t just a sensible thing to do?
Syria is destablished largely because Saudi Arabia funded it's opposition groups.

The US and EU support of the “Arab spring” was even a bigger factor.
The funding of opposition groups and giving them arms is in many cases considered sponsoring terrorism.

What are the general guidelines for choosing which cases can be considered sponsoring terrorism? Could, for instance, the EU funding of Hamas be considered terrorism? Or the US support for the anti-Vietnamese coalition which included the Khmer Rouge?


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 2 November 2015 08:39 AM
67%

Isn’t just a sensible thing to do?
Both the US and a lot of European countries accept refugees.

It might be in Saudi Arabia's self interest not to accept any but it isn't in the Western interest.

stars0
Reply



Alice 1 November 2015 11:19 AM
74%

Saudi Arabia definitely has its hand in supporting terror (like many other countries unfortunately). But it is also one of the worst states on the planet with regard to human rights. It effectively exercises apartheid against half the population (women), and treats homosexuals, or people with slightly different views of Islam, or non-natives horribly. Why the West continues to turn a blind eye to this is beyond me. If the West required changes as a prerequisite to cooperation with Saudi Arabia, I am sure the situation today wouldn't be so dire.


stars0
Reply



gogog00 29 October 2015 10:16 PM
74%

Two key points need to be addressed before this can be answered:

1. What do you mean by "should"? Do you mean: is *morally* the correct course of action? Is it *definitionally* the correct course of action? Is it in the West's / United States' best interest?

2. What does the list of state sponsors of terrorism represent? Is it literally *any* government which provides any kind of support to entities that intentionally target civilians (in that case you could probably throw several dozen countries on there)? Is it countries that target our allies through unconventional warfare?

The Saudi state almost certainly sponsors terrorism in some manner.

Adding Saudi Arabia to the list would be a complete political disaster and is completely unrealistic.



stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 2 November 2015 09:25 AM
61%

I'm speaking about whether it's in the best interests of the West. Saudi Arabia action's aren't benefitial to the West.

stars0
Reply


VoiceOfRa 2 November 2015 09:23 PM
70%

If the government of Saudi Arabia is destabilized, what replaces it is likely to be worse.


stars0
Reply



is4junk 25 October 2015 01:16 PM
68%

If the goal is to reduce Saudi spending, I'd suggest a tax-cut to the fracking industry would be more effective. I'd like to see oil consistently at $30-40 a barrel or cheaper if possible.

My guess is that the middle east's influence on world affairs would quickly be reduced to South America's level.


stars0
Reply


Alice 1 November 2015 11:21 AM
74%

Tax-cut to the fracking industry is a great idea.

stars0
Reply


is4junk 1 November 2015 01:25 PM
68%

Saudi Arabia to run out of cash in less than 5 years if oil prices remain as they are ~$50 a barrel

I am guessing they could stretch the money a bit by cutting some funding - but that is far quicker then I had thought.


stars0
View Replies (1)
Reply


gogog00 5 November 2015 05:52 PM
65%

Protectionism is never a good idea.

stars0
View Replies (1)
Reply