King Abdullah, the king of Saudi Arabia has died aged 90. The leader took the blood-soaked throne in 2005; aged 81, young and liberal, just as Saudi Arabia’s lineage has always maintained and demanded of successors.
The king inherited the kingdom at a time of dormant and stagnant progression, as the many ideologically opposed groups in the country were seeking to exercise their authority meant that unemployment, corruption and terrorism was prevalent amongst the silky smooth thawb-wearing hypocrites. Wait-dettatchment. Let me begin once more.
Many situations which was plummeting the country wasn’t within his reach. The dying economy, the archaic system of governance and constant excitement with the flogging laws were pillars seemingly too big for the king to shift. However, the maintaining of the fundamental ideology of Wahhabism questioned many of Saudi and global spectators under his rein.
However, let us delve into what was in his command and influence; Saudi Arabian flirtatious nature towards rebel terrorist groups. Hillary Clinton claimed the state was the world’s largest source of funds for islamist militant groups such as Taliban and Lashkar-Taiba; but what does former American First Lady of state know anyway? Right?
“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Saudi terrorist groups worldwide,” she claimed.
Many claim Saudi Arabian government have had no part in the funding, citing private donors who make the donations, however many of the ‘private donors’ were found by Wikileaks cable document, showing they were actually front companies set up to launder funds and receive money from government sanctioned pseudo-charities.
One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005, the same year of Abdullah’s appointment; lets get down to business, indeed.
When Washington critiqued three charities classified as terrorist entities, the Saudi government simply said no.
Is it King Abdullah’s fault? Questionable; however we should stare ourselves in the mirror before the critique commences. 13 years on the ‘war on terror’ we’ve seen no progression, instead, support Saudi Arabia and the insane laws they carry, such as the 2,000 decapitated bodies since 1985; bodies left in towns as a form of warning.
So where do we go from here? our battered Britain beseeched by anti-immigrant rhetoric; claiming its the only way to stab at terrorism. The voice of Hitler still echoed; as Murdoch spews venom on muslims; and Paul Dacre still edits a newspaper that once said ‘Hurrah’ for the volunteer Nazis.
Where do we go? Maybe we cease our biggest military market to Saudi Arabia, worth £1.6bn, wait, no, we can’t because it may hurt our economy; which is more important than tearing apart Syria, creating a second Afghanistan… Maybe we cut ties with a government that persecutes their people for religious preference, flog those that utter the word ‘terrorist’, or decide that they dislike the way their own country is being run.
2012 wasn’t the end of the world; but it was the year where King Abdullah’s government decided they didn’t like atheism, and implemented legislation banning conversing about atheism, claiming it was a terrorist offence.
If Pookie from New Jack was ever political; King Abdullah is his doppelgänger.
Ding, dong, the devil is dead.