What about Saudi Arabia?

[MetaTrope]

They share as large a border with Iraq as Iran does...and we know that, unlike Iran, Iraq and Syria, Saudi citizens played the major role in the 9/11 attack, setting up conditions for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. So is there any evidence that the Saudis are conducting incursions into Iraq to incite further destabilization?

[baldguy]

1. Why do you hate America, you moonbat conspiracy nut??

EVERYONE KNOWS that it was Saddam & al Qaeda that did 9/11. Our very good friends the Saudis had nothing to do with it.

:sarcasm:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. ignore those 11 of 19 folks. Coincidence, nothing more.

really.

trust us.

we are series, this time.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. Here is Tony Snowflake's response:

How can you even ask a question like that? Seriously, that simply ignores the facts on the ground. Look, we are fighting a long, hard battle against Al Qaida. Saddam is now gone because our brave troops have fought hard for the Iraqi People. 12,000,000 of them voted for democracy and they now have the best constitution in the region. You have got to realize that asking questions like that will get us nowhere. I am not going to dignify that question with an answer. And anyway, the American People have spoken. They want us to go forward in Iraq, to make sure the job gets done. And quality is job one here. Because, we are fighting them over there to protect our way of life here. Does anyone really want a cloud of mushrooms on our doorstep? Next question.

[Jeanette in FL]

3. Shhhhhhh, we don't talk about family like that

You should know better than that. :sarcasm:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. also saudi's treat their woman terribly.

[cap]

6. they're in there too...

Their families extend across the borders and they are funding the Sunnis.

[maine_raptor]

7. What the Saudi's? I'm shocked you'd even suggest that!

Now hush up and keep buyin' oil. :sarcasm: :rofl:

[halobeam]

8. As I understand it

putting aside their "non" involvement (better said... non-investigation into their non-involvement of 9/11), I believe they are supplying the Sunni's with weapons inside Iraq. After all, Saudi's are mostly Sunni arab.

Now if my info is so completely off, just pardon me, I can hardly keep up with this bitch slapping I've received from the Administration we have.

[Eugene]

9. The Saudis are planning to fence off the border.

(Associated Press)

Saudis Plan Long Fence for Iraq Border

By JIM KRANE
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; 7:51 PM

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Saudi Arabia is pushing ahead with plans to build a fence
to block terrorists from crossing its 560-mile border with Iraq _ another sign of growing
alarm that Sunni-Shiite strife could spill over and drag Iraq's neighbors into its civil
conflict.

The barrier, which hasn't been started, is part of a $12 billion package of measures
including electronic sensors, security bases and physical barriers to protect the oil-rich
kingdom from external threats, said Nawaf Obaid, head of the Saudi National Security
Assessment Project, an independent research institute that advises the Saudi government.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701214.html

Nawaf Obaid (who also proposed flooding the oil market) has been fired since
this article was written, but there is no word the fence has been canceled.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. That fence won't stop Saudi money from getting into the hands ..

of the Sunni in Iraq. I'd be willing to bet the Saudi's have been responsible for more American and Iraqi deaths than the Iranians.

[NI4NI]

10. Is this true?

Although Shia is the predominent relegious sect in Iraq, and Iran, Sunni is the predominent sect throughout the Arab world?

[happyslug]

13. Very True, but not always as clean cut as it is often said.

First, Shiites have been discriminated against since the death of Ali, the Fourth Caliph. As such Shiites for centuries have had a habit of parsing themselves off as whatever is the dominate religion of the area while secretly staying Shiite. Thus you have the story of Souther Iraq being "Sunni when it was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, but "Turning" Shiite since WWI (The real reason seems to be that since WWI both Sunnis and Shiites have been more worried about FOREIGN invaders than each other).

Another complicating factor is that often the religious rules of the Treaty of Westphalia (Which ended the 30 years war in Europe in 1648) is often extended to other countries. The religious rule was the religion of any country is the religion of its rulers. Thus the Persian Gulf State are often marked "Sunni" for that is what their ruling class is, but the people themselves are Shiites (The same for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, in eastern Arabia, which is Shiite not Sunni, but ruled by the House of Saud that is a Radical form of Sunni).

At the present time the Sunni-Shiite divide follows the old Roman-Persian Divide. One's religion is more a produce to one's political and trade connections than any real split in religious outlook. The Shiites are those tribes that even before Islam looked to Persian for leadership. The Sunnis are those tribes that look west to Egypt or Turkey for leadership (And in pre-Islamic days, looked to Rome and than Constantinople for leadership).

My point id DO NOT look at the religious difference as being any more than a reflection of the Economic and Political connections of the people of the region. While it is important to understand the religion it is also important to understand WHY they are that religion. Sometime a change in religion can be fast (The quick conversion of Tunisia after the Arab Conquest) or slow (It took over 600 years for the Majority of Egyptians to become Muslims, and even today 15% of Egyptians are Christians). The difference is how the conquest affected the people. If the conquest caused disruption in the life of people (Such as forcing them to MOVE) then a change in religion can be quick (This seems to what happen in North Africa after the Arab Conquest, caused more by further degradation of the Sahara Desert then any other factor, this degradation lead to massive movement of people). On the other hand if little or no disruption occurs people will stay with they old beliefs. This is what happened in Egypt where the farm products of the Nile Valley was more important than converting the farmers. (This would remain true till the time of the Crusades). During the Time of the Crusades Egypt went through a series of quick changes of Governments of Egypt (From Shiite Rule, an invasion by the Crusaders that temporary held Cairo, to Sunni Rule to invasions by the Crusaders). It is only after this period that you start to see Egyptians convert to Islam do to pressure by the Egyptians Government to Convert. The Mamuluk Government of Egypt did not think it could rule over a Majority Christian Nation so it made it easier to be a Muslim then to be a Christian so that people would convert.

[NI4NI]

14. Thank You,

It will take me more thought to understand fully, it's hard to tell the players without a program. It's bloody obvious that Commander Chuckle Nuts and his neocon pals gave it less than very little consideration before they invaded.
thanks again.

[happyslug]

16. I found a MAP of the tribes at wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_tribes_in_Iraq

The Map:

[CJCRANE]

12. More likely

there are individual Saudis going into Iraq to fight and wealthy Saudis funding the Sunnis. There wouldn't be any official involvement.

[TexasLawyer]

15. A lot of Saudi money is flowing in to the Sunnis

Also, I saw a study in 2005(?) that said somewhere around 10-15% of the "insurgents" were non-Iraqis, and that a majority of these non-Iraqis were Saudi.

Does anyone else remember that study and/or have more recent statistics?

Tom Friedman has an editorial today in the NYT about Saudi Arabia's current role in Iraq.

[MetaTrope]

17. Looking at the proximity of Najaf to the Saudi border...

Wonder if they had anything to do with the recent attack there?