Typically, when people refer to a country by name in this manner, such as “Saudi Arabia”, they are referring to the government/ruling class of that country, not the people as a whole. The Bin Laden family had demonstrable ties to the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
You forgot the part where Saudi Arabia started courting American aid and literally expelled Bin Laden for being anti-American. That doesn’t make SA “the good guys” but it makes a huge difference in how your framing paints SA’s position and involvement with Al Qaeda during the 2000s. Their history is long and complicated, but during the war on terror, SA was much more aligned with the US against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
The international mujahadeen movement was born in Saudi Arabia; funded by Saudi Arabia; created out of a quasi death cult of islam called Wahabism founded in Saudi Arabia; bin Laden was a major figure in Saudi politics and society and from one of the richest, non-Royal families in the country; almost all the members of Al-Queda were Saudi.
If Saudi foreign policy and money created the mujahadeen, then they are Saudi.
You forgot the part where Saudi Arabia started courting American aid and literally expelled Bin Laden for being anti-American. That doesn’t make SA “the good guys” but it makes a huge difference in how your framing paints SA’s position and involvement with Al Qaeda during the 2000s. Their history is long and complicated, but during the war on terror, SA was much more aligned with the US against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
Of course, it’s far too nuanced an issue to boil down in a couple of sentences but such is the nature of online discourse.
I see Al quaeda, and in a more general sense, Sunni extremism as a whole as the child of Saudi Arabia. The bombing of the US Cole was probably the point when the Saudi regime realised that exporting Salafist Jihad abroad had bigger consequences than they intended (attack regional opponents like Israel and Iran) and that it was quickly getting out of control and so they attempted to distance themselves in case America and Britain turned around and cut off their military aid.
I’m not sure how much the kingdom was involved in Al Qaeda’s early years, unless you count American-Saudi-British funding of MAK/other Mujahideen during the soviet-afghan war. However, it’s clear Al Qaeda was already declaring against the kingdom a couple years before the USS Cole in '98. But sure I’d see Al Qaeda being a child of SA in a way similar to the KKK being a child of the US
since when is Bin Laden + a couple of goons the whole people of Saudi Arabia ?
Typically, when people refer to a country by name in this manner, such as “Saudi Arabia”, they are referring to the government/ruling class of that country, not the people as a whole. The Bin Laden family had demonstrable ties to the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
it’s called synecdoche!
You forgot the part where Saudi Arabia started courting American aid and literally expelled Bin Laden for being anti-American. That doesn’t make SA “the good guys” but it makes a huge difference in how your framing paints SA’s position and involvement with Al Qaeda during the 2000s. Their history is long and complicated, but during the war on terror, SA was much more aligned with the US against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
they did say “the people”
Yes, in reference to “Saudi Arabia”, which refers to their government
I added the comma for clarification, but that’s what was said
They didn’t say “the people of Saudi Arabia did 9/11”
The international mujahadeen movement was born in Saudi Arabia; funded by Saudi Arabia; created out of a quasi death cult of islam called Wahabism founded in Saudi Arabia; bin Laden was a major figure in Saudi politics and society and from one of the richest, non-Royal families in the country; almost all the members of Al-Queda were Saudi.
If Saudi foreign policy and money created the mujahadeen, then they are Saudi.
You forgot the part where Saudi Arabia started courting American aid and literally expelled Bin Laden for being anti-American. That doesn’t make SA “the good guys” but it makes a huge difference in how your framing paints SA’s position and involvement with Al Qaeda during the 2000s. Their history is long and complicated, but during the war on terror, SA was much more aligned with the US against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
Of course, it’s far too nuanced an issue to boil down in a couple of sentences but such is the nature of online discourse.
I see Al quaeda, and in a more general sense, Sunni extremism as a whole as the child of Saudi Arabia. The bombing of the US Cole was probably the point when the Saudi regime realised that exporting Salafist Jihad abroad had bigger consequences than they intended (attack regional opponents like Israel and Iran) and that it was quickly getting out of control and so they attempted to distance themselves in case America and Britain turned around and cut off their military aid.
I’m not sure how much the kingdom was involved in Al Qaeda’s early years, unless you count American-Saudi-British funding of MAK/other Mujahideen during the soviet-afghan war. However, it’s clear Al Qaeda was already declaring against the kingdom a couple years before the USS Cole in '98. But sure I’d see Al Qaeda being a child of SA in a way similar to the KKK being a child of the US
Source?