Replies

I wasn't speaking simply about Saudi students abroad, but muslim families abroad, who send their children to Islamic schools where Islamic teachings are on the curriculum. Sunnis in particular, who constitute 85% of the muslim population around the world.

I agree with this. I hadn't intended to group these people in, but I agree they do exist. I also believe they can be very anti-American/Christian in their teachings too. And as opposition goes, there are a lot of protestant churches that look very dimly on the Catholic Church. The difference is, they don't advocate for killing Catholics or harming them eather. Islam does teach violence. It is justified in their minds. It is even required in their minds. Bad! Very bad.

True, there are muslims who go to Western schools with no Islamic teachings on the curriculum, and later in life become radicalized by attending mosques or moving in certain social circles. But that doesn't mean that funding Wahabi teachings don't at the very least contribute to developing a certain Islamic mindset from a very young age, in the West.

I agree. This is the fundamental reason I do not advocate for the followers of Islam to be here on our soil. It cannot be anything but destructive. Even if it isn't in a certain period, it is latent. It's there. If something triggers it, we're in trouble.

Actually, the Saudi royal family as the custodians of the holy cities (Mecca and Medina) are obliged to not only protect the land of the prophet but also to morally and financially support muslims. They have so far chosen to do precisely that.

To be honest, I don't have a problem with this. Mecca is on Saudi soil, and it's not a crime to allow the hoge. (sp?) Islam is what it is, We know it's bad traits. I don't believe the hoge is a problem per se.

We could also discuss how the Taliban came about and how they were funded by the Saudi ruling class (and friends) initially to overthrow the USSR... until we felt the Taliban were a threat, when several Saudi nationals blew up buildings with a lot of people in them.

We have a tendency to make a big deal out of things the Saudis do. If you think about it, didn't we help create the Taliban. When the U. S. S. R. was in Afghanistan, we helped arm it's enmies there. I think that was the early stages of the Taliban. I know we give Hamas funds. It angers me, but we do in Gaza. So couldn't we be judged by the same measure as the Saudis?

I fully appreciate not everyone in the Saudi ruling class funds terrorists or spreads their version of Islam. But to deny that KSA and its ruling class have played a big role over the last 3 or 4 decades in the spread of extremism is being too diplomatic at best.

I know a lot of folks think that way. How many aircraft did Saudi Nationals hijack back in the 60s and 70s? How many times have the Saudis come out and demanded Israel be pushed into the sea? How much money does Saudi Arabia give to Hamas in the Gaza strip? Fact is, we finance Hamas. So does Europe. I don't belive Saudi Arabia does. Even if they do, so do we.I think we get angry at the Saudis for doing some of the same things we do.

Re the Taliban: Maybe I should've elaborated when I said (and friends). Saudis mostly funded, the US armed and trained, Pakistanis provided most of the facilities for education. During very early days of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, most madrassas (schools), where Wahabi and radical Islamic teachings took place, were in Pakistan.

The Saudis like the Mullahs in Iran operate by proxy, not directly. The US too on several occasions. However, I'd say the geopolitics of 60s and 70s was different to today. PLO and co were the big hijackers during the 70s in particular. Whether they were also funded by KSA, I don't know. The geopolitics of the M.E. and N. Africa changed dramatically after the fall of the USSR at the end of 1980s, in turn giving rise to Islamism.

Frankly, neither the Mullahs in Iran, nor the Saudi ruling class, nor any other Gulf Sheikhdoms could've survived as long as they've were it not for the indirect & direct support of the U.S. and on occasions Britain. Of course it applies more to S. Arabia & the Gulf Sheikhdoms. The Iranian regime nowadays depends more on Russia and China.

In terms of KSA and Mecca/Medina, I mentioned it because someone in this thread was saying the Saudi King is Islamophobic. Well, I hope for the sake of the King most don't think so in S. Arabia or elsewhere in the muslim world! Because he'll be in BIG trouble. The House of Saud was installed by the British after WWI to be the custodian of the holy land of the prophet. It was accepted by the majority of the muslims around the world, on the conditions that the House of Saud protects the holy lands, morally and financially assists muslims and the muslim cause, around the globe. Prior to that Mecca was protected by the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire.

I do think, as someone else also said here, that the House of Saud has been burning both ends of the candle for many years. It's doubtful that they will be able to continue to strike a balance between their obligations to the muslim world and their Western allies. We shall see how matters develop in coming years...