Iran is probably the world's largest terror exporter (Pakistan might be worse?) and militarily expansionist. I think they even (internally) argue for their goal of controlling the muslim holy places, etc.
So Iran actively destabilizes Middle East countries. The only good thing with this is that it gave Israel and the Arab countries a common enemy.
Saudi Arabia might export an extremist [...]
but they don't advocate terror
Iran is probably the world's largest [...]
militarily expansionist.
Iran is probably the world's largest terror exporter
>> Iran is probably the world's largest [...]
>> militarily expansionist.
So just because someone is politically/religiously extreme they are violent?
>> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years
2 minutes with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Recovery_of_te...
"The Ottoman Turks and Safavids fought over the fertile plains of Iraq for more than 150 years"
(But I understand -- it was _really_ Iranian to start with. Iran's empires have been the only non-expansionist ones in human history. :-) )
>> Iranian terror.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
(Edit: Wikipedia for terror is simpler than referencing e.g. the South American stuff, because then you will quote the Iranian priests' declarations of innocence. IIRC, once the Iranian leadership even denied supplying Hamas with weapons at the same time Hamas went out and thanked them. Bad coordination. :-) )
2 minutes with Wikipedia:
In a sense it's true; the folks who wanted to violently revolt against the UK government were, in fact, UK citizens. Similarly, the folks who want to topple the house of Saud and impose their own government on Saudi Arabia are mostly Saudi citizens.
But I think it's a stretch to call that relationship "creator" and "sponsor". The UK government, as an organization, is staunchly opposed to the IRA. And similarly for the Saudi government.
At the moment ISIS does promote regime change in Saudi Arabia, so the regime there really don't like them related to that, but the former history is very different.
They also don't complain to ISIS' application of Sharia (punishments, like decapitations and outlawing homosexuals and atheists) as they are anyway prescribed by the same Sharia understanding, in big part common to Saudis and ISIS. They also don't condemn fighting against Shias, as both consider them "unbelievers" who are to be fought and killed.
Assad is also Alawite, also the enemy of both ISIS and Saudis.
Edit: I see you again try to "prove by" (for me false) "analogy with IRA" in your following reply. Please just stay on topic to ISIS. You can't prove anything, at least to me, by avoiding to discuss the relevant facts of the relevant topic.
How can this sentence even be written? The content of that extremist and hateful religion includes jihad, a duty of believers, which is an armed struggle against unbelievers, until the whole world is Muslim and governed by Sharia "a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation."
Activity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrassas_in_Pakistan
1947 there were only 189 madrassas in Pakistan but "over 40,000" by 2008. Mostly financed by Saudis:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses...
"Q: So they were basically recruiting schools? A: They were recruiting, organizing schools which also use Islamic ideology as a way of creating a very efficient guerilla army" "We're dealing with the sort of unintended consequences of that"
I answered that -- it is not in the Saudi interest to rock the boat.
It is fully possible SA is cooperating with the Pakistan government regarding terror against India. But the Saudi government don't want to destabilize the economy of their big customers in the west, at least for now.
[Edit: SA is a brutal dictatorship which spreads religious hatred for internal political reasons, quite like Iran really. I argue that it isn't in their self interest to make the Western world angry. Both as customers and because they want support against Iran. I might of course be wrong, juntas often buy their own hype.]