[relyio]

>1. There Wahabi radical islamic movement was largely funded by SA at it's inception. SA continues to be it's largest donor, both in money and security. This movement has brought the world the 9/11 attacks, Al Queda, terrorism world wide, and has radicalised liberal Islamic populations.

True, and for the anecdote. My family suffered from this directly as we had to flee a country for another because of the rise of Saudi funded radicalism.

With that said, all the things you quote (increased radicalization, terrorism etc.) are mostly - and it hurts to say this - spectacular inconveniences in terms of scale.

And I prefaced this to let you know that I don't see the terrorism from a pure Western perspective where there is one such act every now and then. I know that there are many atrocities which we don't hear about (e.g the 2007 Yazidi bombings).

Yet, if you compare all of these punctual tragedies with the damage, violent deaths, and chaos that the second gulf war has brought. You must see that the two process have different magnitudes and inverse shock values for western audiences.

>2. They're brutalistic about Shias - i.e. they refuse Shias (from Syria) refugee status, and continue funding any military action that targets Shias.

True, obviously this goes both ways though. Sectarian disputes have always been ugly in the region.

>3. They play a central role in money laundering of terrorist funds.

See my first point, I think that in the grand scheme of things terrorism does not matter much. It's evil and despicable and spectacular, and that's about it.