Jihadist states

[IronFist]

Seriously, I can't understand that. Why do we support all those jihadist countries such as Saudi Arabia and attack secular states? Why didn't we support Qaddafi, Saddam and Assad who seem to be much better leaders than those of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We are literally making the deal with the Devil. And that's why all those terrorist movements appear, because Saudi Arabia fuels jihadists everywhere around the world.

[Indy Texas]

Qaddafi, Saddam and the Assads were all members of the Non-Aligned Bloc during the late 20th century - they refused to ally with the West or the Soviet Union and instead played both sides to get money and weapons. They rarely kept their word to either side.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States didn't have this option. The backward, religious, monarchical nature of their countries meant a Soviet alliance would never be in the cards, so they had to plant themselves unconditionally in the American camp.

[CatoMinor]

Its a bit of stretch to call Saudi a "Jihadist State".

[Torie]

Is a state were literally a Jihadist State, meaning the government supported Jihad, and the country was a base for Jihadist operations elsewhere, that state would have a regime change. So I don't think any such nations exist. Sure Iran does some naughty stuff, and so forth, but when it does, to the extent it does, it tries to hide it.

[Sbane]

Is a state were literally a Jihadist State, meaning the government supported Jihad, and the country was a base for Jihadist operations elsewhere, that state would have a regime change. So I don't think any such nations exist. Sure Iran does some naughty stuff, and so forth, but when it does, to the extent it does, it tries to hide it.

This focus on Iran right now is just silly. In the fight against ISIS, they are our ally. Extremist Sunni Islam is the real enemy and while the state apparatus of Qatar or Saudi Arabia may not be directly helping them, they are certainly on the side of ISIS in this civil war. Relying on them to wipe out ISIS would be a huge mistake as it is in their interest to keep ISIS (or related forces) alive and fighting Shias, Alawites, Kurds and anyone else who isn't Sunni Arab.

Yet all we hear about now is Iran. This is the same sort of misguided, ignorant idiocy that led to the Iraq war and the US is falling into the same trap again. Saudi Arabia is against the Iran deal. Just that fact alone tells me the deal is worth supporting.

[moderatevoter]

Is a state were literally a Jihadist State, meaning the government supported Jihad, and the country was a base for Jihadist operations elsewhere, that state would have a regime change. So I don't think any such nations exist. Sure Iran does some naughty stuff, and so forth, but when it does, to the extent it does, it tries to hide it.

This focus on Iran right now is just silly. In the fight against ISIS, they are our ally. Extremist Sunni Islam is the real enemy and while the state apparatus of Qatar or Saudi Arabia may not be directly helping them, they are certainly on the side of ISIS in this civil war. Relying on them to wipe out ISIS would be a huge mistake as it is in their interest to keep ISIS (or related forces) alive and fighting Shias, Alawites, Kurds and anyone else who isn't Sunni Arab.

Yet all we hear about now is Iran. This is the same sort of misguided, ignorant idiocy that led to the Iraq war and the US is falling into the same trap again. Saudi Arabia is against the Iran deal. Just that fact alone tells me the deal is worth supporting.

Saudi Arabia has actually softened their opposition to the deal, now viewing it as a "poisoned chalice" for Iran.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Indonesia, Pakistan & India are our allies and Israel and Turkey.

Saudis were our allies until 911, but we are allowed to use their countries as military bases to go after regimes.

Arabia is far from our allies.

[Famous Mortimer]

Seriously, I can't understand that. Why do we support all those jihadist countries such as Saudi Arabia and attack secular states? Why didn't we support Qaddafi, Saddam and Assad who seem to be much better leaders than those of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We are literally making the deal with the Devil. And that's why all those terrorist movements appear, because Saudi Arabia fuels jihadists everywhere around the world.

As another posted pointed out, our support for conservative monarchies is basically a result of the Cold War. We continue to do it out of the (probably justified) fear that the opposition would actually be even more conservative.

As to why we didn't buddy up with the secular dictatorships after the Berlin Wall fell, well, we probably would have if there human rights abuses weren't so bad. Iraq might have become an ally if they didn't invade Kuwait for no reason. Syria and Libya were on their way to become allies before they started killing their own people.

[Simfan34]

I thought this was going to be about what would happen if the government of, say, South Dakota, became jihadist or something.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Its a bit of stretch to call Saudi a "Jihadist State".

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are some crazy Wahhabis, though.

The FBI needs to quit covering for the Wahhabis.
http://news.jammedup.com/2015/04/13/detailing-the-fbis-cover-up-of-saudi-arabias-involvement-in-the-911-attacks/

[IronFist]

Its a bit of stretch to call Saudi a "Jihadist State".

But it is a jihadist state. Saudi Arabia is a medieval monarchy with completely random borders drawn by Britain. It would be better if it didn't exist, maybe there would be less terrorism in the region.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I was hoping this would somehow be about US States.