I recently read Islamic imperialism, a history from Yale university press. The first thing you need to know is that in the Middle East, countries do not exist. What we call countries are conglomerations of loosely associated factions from top to bottom. That’s why there isn’t a single middle eastern state that is stable and also free of brutality, except the black sheep. Even if some Saudi people were involved, saying that “the saudis” were involved doesn’t make sense. The higher levels of the Saudi dynasty were certainly not in favor of 9/11 even if the fundamentalists in the country hadn’t lost any sleep over it.
Bin laden was an outcast. He left Saudi Arabia and went around to various places and at one point ended up in Northern Africa where he was engaged in evicting the Americans from Somalia. He said that the Americans he fought in Somalia were so weak and retreated so readily that it opened his mind to the possibility of inflicting real damage to the United States. But around this time he became more high profile and was evicted from his host country and wasn’t welcome anywhere, including Saudi Arabia. That should be a big hint about the Saudi theory. He made an appeal to the UK for political asylum, which based on his rhetoric at the time was like hitler asking for asylum in Israel. If the UK had granted him asylum 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. But they didn’t.
From there he ultimately moved on to Afghanistan and the tribal regions of the Pakistan border where there is no presence of government.
Bin laden was a religious fanatic who outwardly pursued The universal adoption of islam and protested foreign occupation of the pan-Arab community, even the willful presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Kuwait. He killed 3,000 people because the saudis willingly hosted American troops. Mind-bending. But this leads to the next point which is that despite his outward behavior, inwardly he probably had political ambitions and all indications point to yet another repetition of history in that region — a small group of people justify violence in the name of Islam and then promptly transform into a conventional state, built upon violations of Islam, as soon as they have captured the material means to do so. Bin laden, who probably thought 9/11 would cause the United States to remove itself from the Middle East, only made it to step one.
And this has interesting consequences for the future landscape of terror. We probably won’t see another attack from the Middle East. Attacks from these groups are almost always pragmatic, even if they are done in the name of “Islam,” and almost always the pragmatic target is some other player in that region.
> because the saudis willingly hosted American troops.
Saudi royal family are one thing, and Saudi nation is another.
Saudi royal family is effectively an occupational regime, largely propped by American handouts, and backing, on top of gigatons of $$$ coming from ArAmCo
Well the key word is occupational. They are just a regular regime, not occupational. And they take “handouts” from their ally of choice just like every other state. There’s no occupation going on and they aren’t a puppet state.
If you topple the Saud dynasty then another regime would take their place. They aren’t suppressing some kind of egalitarian wellspring. If you disagree then I have 2000 years of history to show you.
As I said, if they didn’t have support from the US it would just be some other country. And if it weren’t the Sauds it would be some other totalitarian body.
They derive their power from their natural resources. If history is racist then perhaps we should abolish history books?
Bin laden was an outcast. He left Saudi Arabia and went around to various places and at one point ended up in Northern Africa where he was engaged in evicting the Americans from Somalia. He said that the Americans he fought in Somalia were so weak and retreated so readily that it opened his mind to the possibility of inflicting real damage to the United States. But around this time he became more high profile and was evicted from his host country and wasn’t welcome anywhere, including Saudi Arabia. That should be a big hint about the Saudi theory. He made an appeal to the UK for political asylum, which based on his rhetoric at the time was like hitler asking for asylum in Israel. If the UK had granted him asylum 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. But they didn’t.
From there he ultimately moved on to Afghanistan and the tribal regions of the Pakistan border where there is no presence of government.
Bin laden was a religious fanatic who outwardly pursued The universal adoption of islam and protested foreign occupation of the pan-Arab community, even the willful presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Kuwait. He killed 3,000 people because the saudis willingly hosted American troops. Mind-bending. But this leads to the next point which is that despite his outward behavior, inwardly he probably had political ambitions and all indications point to yet another repetition of history in that region — a small group of people justify violence in the name of Islam and then promptly transform into a conventional state, built upon violations of Islam, as soon as they have captured the material means to do so. Bin laden, who probably thought 9/11 would cause the United States to remove itself from the Middle East, only made it to step one.
And this has interesting consequences for the future landscape of terror. We probably won’t see another attack from the Middle East. Attacks from these groups are almost always pragmatic, even if they are done in the name of “Islam,” and almost always the pragmatic target is some other player in that region.