Full Version: Our friends the Saudis still at it
they boast of funding mosques and research centers
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/401
They boast of training the imams who became radicalized chaplains in American prisons.
http://www.geocities.com/munichsept...ifth_column.htm
They have introduced Wahhabism to the university campuses via the Muslim Student Association.
http://www.meforum.org/article/603
They proudly annouce support for islamist organization that themselves have had ties to terrorists at times.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/36
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religio...NAL%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2384
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Ar...le.asp?ID=16814
Today the New York Sun has an editorial on the Freedom House report and its implications for the war against radical Islam
http://www.nysun.com/article/8565
BINGO!!
Question;
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/401
They boast of training the imams who became radicalized chaplains in American prisons.
http://www.geocities.com/munichsept...ifth_column.htm
They have introduced Wahhabism to the university campuses via the Muslim Student Association.
http://www.meforum.org/article/603
They proudly annouce support for islamist organization that themselves have had ties to terrorists at times.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/36
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religio...NAL%20FINAL.pdf
QUOTE
Freedom House's Muslim volunteers went to 15 prominent mosques from New York to San Diego and collected more than 200 books and other publications disseminated by Saudi Arabia (some 90% in Arabic) in mosque libraries, publication racks, and bookstores.
What they found can only be described as horrifying. These writings - each and every one of them sponsored by the kingdom - espouse an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, jihadist, and supremacist outlook. For example, they:
Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes "that churches are houses of God and that God is worshiped therein is an infidel."
Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam ("should be killed"), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of Shariah in America.
See non-Muslims as the enemy: "Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.
See America as hostile territory: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways.
Prepare for war against America: "To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."
What they found can only be described as horrifying. These writings - each and every one of them sponsored by the kingdom - espouse an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, jihadist, and supremacist outlook. For example, they:
Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes "that churches are houses of God and that God is worshiped therein is an infidel."
Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam ("should be killed"), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of Shariah in America.
See non-Muslims as the enemy: "Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.
See America as hostile territory: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways.
Prepare for war against America: "To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2384
QUOTE
With the February 5-8 Saudi counter-terrorism conference approaching and the U.S. reportedly attending, it is important to understand the Saudi position vis-à-vis Jihad against U.S. troops in Iraq. While Saudi officials proclaim that Saudi Arabia does not support this Jihad, a look at the Saudi government media and statements by religious leaders and Iraqi government officials prove otherwise.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Ar...le.asp?ID=16814
Today the New York Sun has an editorial on the Freedom House report and its implications for the war against radical Islam
http://www.nysun.com/article/8565
QUOTE
In his inaugural address, President Bush told Americans that “We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source,” which he identified as “ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder.” If this is true - and we think it is - then Saudi Arabia must be counted among America’s chief enemies. No other country or organization is as responsible as the Saudi government for publishing and promoting hate-filled, violent propaganda abroad. The Saudis’ brand of fundamentalist Islam, Wahhabism, is perhaps the greatest obstacle to promoting democracy in the Muslim world. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Senator Kyl, has concluded, “A growing body of accepted evidence and expert research demonstrates that the Wahhabi ideology that dominates, finances and animates many groups here in the United States, indeed is antithetical to the values of tolerance, individualism and freedom as we conceive these things.”
BINGO!!
Question;
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
1) Your first link is to someone's weblog, which whilst no doubt interesting to someone isn't really relevant.
2) Your second link doesn't link to anything. How exciting
3) Well, that link says that a Saudi university supports Wahhabism. Okay, but that isn't quite the same as saying it's the official government stance. Fair enough Wahabbism doesn't sit well with Americans & Europeans, however, universities 'should' be generally free to promote what they like.
4) Again a weblog, a weblog with broken links, nonetheless.
5) These are fairly generic beliefs, common to most religions. Veyr few religions survive in the long term by saying 'oh yeah, people with other religions might be right too'. I don't see anything promoting violence in there. Incidentally, the link doesn't work. Freedom House has shown that Islam dislikes unbelievers. Fine, it has NOT shown any attempt by mosques to argue that violence against unbelievers is therefore justified.
6) Who is Daniel Pipes? Apart from quoting links that show that Saudi Arabia is (gasp) strongly Islamic, he aint saying much.
7) The NY Sun article doesn't actually say anything other than 'some mosques disapprove of unbelievrs and Jews' and the quotes - oh - Freedom House again. It's a religion - what do you expect it to say. Christians belive that non-Christians go to hell. Does that count as 'hatred of non-Christians'?
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
The House of Saud does not support Wahhabism beyond the level that the Saudi populace demand. They aint likely to support fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, given that they themselves enjoy living lives full of vice. Do I approve of US or UK support of Saudi Arabia? No. But only because they are despots. To try and argue that the House of Saud is supporting terrorists is woefully naive. They have as much to lose from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as anyone.
2) Your second link doesn't link to anything. How exciting
3) Well, that link says that a Saudi university supports Wahhabism. Okay, but that isn't quite the same as saying it's the official government stance. Fair enough Wahabbism doesn't sit well with Americans & Europeans, however, universities 'should' be generally free to promote what they like.
4) Again a weblog, a weblog with broken links, nonetheless.
5) These are fairly generic beliefs, common to most religions. Veyr few religions survive in the long term by saying 'oh yeah, people with other religions might be right too'. I don't see anything promoting violence in there. Incidentally, the link doesn't work. Freedom House has shown that Islam dislikes unbelievers. Fine, it has NOT shown any attempt by mosques to argue that violence against unbelievers is therefore justified.
6) Who is Daniel Pipes? Apart from quoting links that show that Saudi Arabia is (gasp) strongly Islamic, he aint saying much.
7) The NY Sun article doesn't actually say anything other than 'some mosques disapprove of unbelievrs and Jews' and the quotes - oh - Freedom House again. It's a religion - what do you expect it to say. Christians belive that non-Christians go to hell. Does that count as 'hatred of non-Christians'?
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
The House of Saud does not support Wahhabism beyond the level that the Saudi populace demand. They aint likely to support fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, given that they themselves enjoy living lives full of vice. Do I approve of US or UK support of Saudi Arabia? No. But only because they are despots. To try and argue that the House of Saud is supporting terrorists is woefully naive. They have as much to lose from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as anyone.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ Feb 3 2005, 03:21 AM)
3) Well, that link says that a Saudi university supports Wahhabism. Okay, but that isn't quite the same as saying it's the official government stance. Fair enough Wahabbism doesn't sit well with Americans & Europeans, however, universities 'should' be generally free to promote what they like.
Okay maybe this does.
Saudi Arabia How about this fact
5) These are fairly generic beliefs, common to most religions. Veyr few religions survive in the long term by saying 'oh yeah, people with other religions might be right too'. I don't see anything promoting violence in there. Incidentally, the link doesn't work. Freedom House has shown that Islam dislikes unbelievers. Fine, it has NOT shown any attempt by mosques to argue that violence against unbelievers is therefore justified.
Not true, how does more than 5,000 years count in the term “long term”, because Judaism does exactly that.
6) Who is Daniel Pipes? Apart from quoting links that show that Saudi Arabia is (gasp) strongly Islamic, he aint saying much.
Dr. Daniel Pipes is an expert scholar on the Middle East (gasp), and a member of Council on American-Islamic Relations. So yes what he has to say might just be of interest.
7) The NY Sun article doesn't actually say anything other than 'some mosques disapprove of unbelievrs and Jews' and the quotes - oh - Freedom House again. It's a religion - what do you expect it to say. Christians belive that non-Christians go to hell. Does that count as 'hatred of non-Christians'?
How about reading the report itself? Freedom House Report
Just a few quotes from the report this one concerns methodology
This report runs 95 pages that you can read for yourself.
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
The House of Saud does not support Wahhabism beyond the level that the Saudi populace demand. They aint likely to support fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, given that they themselves enjoy living lives full of vice. Do I approve of US or UK support of Saudi Arabia? No. But only because they are despots. To try and argue that the House of Saud is supporting terrorists is woefully naive. They have as much to lose from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as anyone.
Not exactly the truth, between 5 and 10 percent of the population are Shia's and they do not support Wahhabism at all, in fact they suffer as much discrimination in Saudi Arabia as the Blacks did in South Africa. Okay maybe this does.
Saudi Arabia How about this fact
QUOTE
The king's powers are theoretically limited within the bounds of Shari'a and other Saudi traditions. He also must retain a consensus of the Saudi royal family, religious leaders (ulema), and other important elements in Saudi society, but his decrees are not subject to democratic approval or accountability. The state's ideology is Wahhabism. This sect of Islam is attempting to gain adherents by funding the building of mosques and Qur'an schools around the world. The leading members of the royal family choose the king from among themselves with the subsequent approval of the ulema. The House of Saud rules the nation, which is named after it.
Did we miss something there?5) These are fairly generic beliefs, common to most religions. Veyr few religions survive in the long term by saying 'oh yeah, people with other religions might be right too'. I don't see anything promoting violence in there. Incidentally, the link doesn't work. Freedom House has shown that Islam dislikes unbelievers. Fine, it has NOT shown any attempt by mosques to argue that violence against unbelievers is therefore justified.
Not true, how does more than 5,000 years count in the term “long term”, because Judaism does exactly that.
6) Who is Daniel Pipes? Apart from quoting links that show that Saudi Arabia is (gasp) strongly Islamic, he aint saying much.
Dr. Daniel Pipes is an expert scholar on the Middle East (gasp), and a member of Council on American-Islamic Relations. So yes what he has to say might just be of interest.
7) The NY Sun article doesn't actually say anything other than 'some mosques disapprove of unbelievrs and Jews' and the quotes - oh - Freedom House again. It's a religion - what do you expect it to say. Christians belive that non-Christians go to hell. Does that count as 'hatred of non-Christians'?
How about reading the report itself? Freedom House Report
Just a few quotes from the report this one concerns methodology
QUOTE
The material collected consists of over 200 books and other publications, many of which titles were available in several mosques. Some 90 percent of the publications are in Arabic, though some are in English, Urdu, Chinese and Tagalog. With one exception, 2 an Urdu-language document, the materials for this study were in Arabic and English. The Center had two independent translators review each Arabic document.
All the documents analyzed here have some connection to the government of
Saudi Arabia. In some instances, they have five connections. The publications under study each have at least two of the following links to Saudi Arabia. They are:
• official publications of a government ministry;
• distributed by the Saudi embassy;
• comprised of religious pronouncements and commentary by religious
authorities appointed to state positions by the Saudi crown;
• representative of the established Wahhabi ideology of Saudi Arabia;
and/or
• disseminated through a mosque or center supported by the Saudi crown.
In many examples, the Saudi link is readily apparent from the seal or name
appearing on the cover of the publications of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, or of the
Saudi cultural, educational or religious affairs ministries, or of the Saudi Air Force.
So to claim that is does not has Saudi Government approval is bogus.All the documents analyzed here have some connection to the government of
Saudi Arabia. In some instances, they have five connections. The publications under study each have at least two of the following links to Saudi Arabia. They are:
• official publications of a government ministry;
• distributed by the Saudi embassy;
• comprised of religious pronouncements and commentary by religious
authorities appointed to state positions by the Saudi crown;
• representative of the established Wahhabi ideology of Saudi Arabia;
and/or
• disseminated through a mosque or center supported by the Saudi crown.
In many examples, the Saudi link is readily apparent from the seal or name
appearing on the cover of the publications of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, or of the
Saudi cultural, educational or religious affairs ministries, or of the Saudi Air Force.
QUOTE
Washington, are openly acknowledged to receive official support by the Saudi king as recorded on his website.7 While some observers distinguish between funding from the Saudi state and donations made by individual members of the Saudi royal family, it should be noted that King Fahd makes no such distinction. His website asserts, “King Fahd gave his support, either personally or through his Government….” The website also asserts that “the cost of King Fahd’s efforts in this field has been astronomical, amounting to many billions of Saudi Riyals,” resulting in “some 210 Centers wholly or partly financed by Saudi Arabia, more than 1,500 Mosques and 202 colleges and almost 2,000 schools for educating Muslim children.” The King and his son donated millions of dollars to the King Fahd mosque.8 Furthermore, the Saudi government has directly staffed some of these institutions. The King Fahd mosque, the main mosque in Los Angeles, from which several of these publications were gathered, employed an imam, Fahad al Thumairy, who was an accredited diplomat of the Saudi Arabian consulate from 1996 until 2003, when he was barred from reentering the United States because of terrorist connections.
Gee now how can that be?QUOTE
Several hate-filled publications in this study were also gathered from the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in Fairfax, Virginia. According to investigative reports in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., served as chairman of this school’s Board of Trustees, and some 16 other personnel there held Saudi diplomatic visas until they were expelled for extremism by the State Department in 2004.10 Until late 2003, the institute was an official adjunct campus of the Imam Mohammed Ibn-Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, part of Saudi Arabia’s state-run university system, funded and controlled by the Saudi Ministry
of Education.
of Education.
This report runs 95 pages that you can read for yourself.
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
The House of Saud does not support Wahhabism beyond the level that the Saudi populace demand. They aint likely to support fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, given that they themselves enjoy living lives full of vice. Do I approve of US or UK support of Saudi Arabia? No. But only because they are despots. To try and argue that the House of Saud is supporting terrorists is woefully naive. They have as much to lose from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as anyone.
To say that President is a hypocritic on this issue is beyond question. He has no intension of doing anything to upset the House of Saud and their support of terrorism anymore than he would end the US support for terrorist organizations that do not harm America.
QUOTE
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
Hmmm, a three letter word for hypocrisy: OIL. If the Saudis didn't have it or we didn't need it, we'd have no reason not to condemn them as much as we do Syria. So that's what it's all about, oil.CP
We had a thread on a similar topic a while back, where I pretty much said everything I have to say on this. The House of Saud is more a target of bin Laden than we are. Withdrawl of support would be a very bad idea, and we’d be acting contrary to our national security interests. I’ll say it again…Severing ties would lead to more terrorist-friendly conditions within Saudi Arabia as the Al Sa’ud would have to cater more toward its Islamist supporters or be deposed by an Islamist regime. A Saudi collapse would bring to power worse despots whose government would inflict infinitely more pain on the Arab masses, and likely us as well. Not a pleasant scenario to combat terror. Like it or not, work with them or not, Saudi has a key role in the war on terror. Sometimes reality conflicts with idealism. Working with the comparatively moderate and western-friendly Saudi government is arguably less hypocritical than working with the Soviets during World War II.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 08:02 AM)
We had a thread on a similar topic a while back, where I pretty much said everything I have to say on this. The House of Saud is more a target of bin Laden than we are. Withdrawl of support would be a very bad idea, and we’d be acting contrary to our national security interests. I’ll say it again…Severing ties would lead to more terrorist-friendly conditions within Saudi Arabia as the Al Sa’ud would have to cater more toward its Islamist supporters or be deposed by an Islamist regime. A Saudi collapse would bring to power worse despots whose government would inflict infinitely more pain on the Arab masses, and likely us as well. Not a pleasant scenario to combat terror. Like it or not, work with them or not, Saudi has a key role in the war on terror. Sometimes reality conflicts with idealism. Working with the comparatively moderate and western-friendly Saudi government is arguably less hypocritical than working with the Soviets during World War II.
So, i'll sum up your position, Mrs P, if I may:
Better to have the dictator you know than the democracy you don't know*
*except for Iraq and Afghanistan
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 05:05 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 08:02 AM)
We had a thread on a similar topic a while back, where I pretty much said everything I have to say on this. The House of Saud is more a target of bin Laden than we are. Withdrawl of support would be a very bad idea, and we’d be acting contrary to our national security interests. I’ll say it again…Severing ties would lead to more terrorist-friendly conditions within Saudi Arabia as the Al Sa’ud would have to cater more toward its Islamist supporters or be deposed by an Islamist regime. A Saudi collapse would bring to power worse despots whose government would inflict infinitely more pain on the Arab masses, and likely us as well. Not a pleasant scenario to combat terror. Like it or not, work with them or not, Saudi has a key role in the war on terror. Sometimes reality conflicts with idealism. Working with the comparatively moderate and western-friendly Saudi government is arguably less hypocritical than working with the Soviets during World War II.
So, i'll sum up your position, Mrs P, if I may:
Better to have the dictator you know than the democracy you don't know*
*except for Iraq and Afghanistan
Or possibly 'Better to have the friendly dictator you know than the scary fundamentalist dictator who might replace them and cut off your oil supply'
logophage
I would be happy if we trod a different path myself. Anything besides the House of Saud would be an improvement.
QUOTE
So, i'll sum up your position, Mrs P, if I may:
Better to have the dictator you know than the democracy you don't know*
*except for Iraq and Afghanistan
I think that does sum up what she said, I think the Freedom House Report said that there is not a more extreme sect on the planet. Better to have the dictator you know than the democracy you don't know*
*except for Iraq and Afghanistan
I would be happy if we trod a different path myself. Anything besides the House of Saud would be an improvement.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ Feb 3 2005, 04:21 AM)
6) Who is Daniel Pipes? Apart from quoting links that show that Saudi Arabia is (gasp) strongly Islamic, he aint saying much.
He wrote Militant Islam Reaches America, which is a book anyone concerned about the Middle East should read. He differentiates between Islam and Radical Islam, which is a very important distinction. One is a religious group, the other (from which terrorism springs) is much more of a political entity. It is fundamental to the WoT that this difference is understood.
QUOTE
If bush means what he says about freedom then how can he take such a hypocritical stance about a clear enemy in the saudis?
The House of Saud does not support Wahhabism beyond the level that the Saudi populace demand. They aint likely to support fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, given that they themselves enjoy living lives full of vice. Do I approve of US or UK support of Saudi Arabia? No. But only because they are despots. To try and argue that the House of Saud is supporting terrorists is woefully naive. They have as much to lose from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as anyone.
The House of Saud does not support Wahhabism beyond the level that the Saudi populace demand. They aint likely to support fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, given that they themselves enjoy living lives full of vice. Do I approve of US or UK support of Saudi Arabia? No. But only because they are despots. To try and argue that the House of Saud is supporting terrorists is woefully naive. They have as much to lose from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as anyone.
Half-right. The House of Saud support Wahhabism to the level that benefits it, not its people. Ditto for their part in supporting the WoT. It is unrealistic to expect the Saudi governement to support activities that will result in revolution and their own removal from power (which, one could only surmise, would also likely have a very gruesome ending). There is a lot of unrest in Saudi Arabia...for both political and economic reasons. Wahhabism provides a vent for that unrest...which would otherwise be centered on the Saudi Government. Further, it must be kept in mind that Saudi Arabia is extremely influential in the region. So, is that really a government we want overthrown and taken over by radical Islamic fundamentalists? I think not. Will we sometimes appear hypocritical in our relationship with them, then? Yes, we will. What is important is not so much their current activities...but the direction they are heading. As long as progress is being made (and I think it is), then we can tolerate some level of these types of activities. Once that stops, then the equation changes. It all goes back to my stauch belief that foreign diplomacy is inherently pragmatic...idealism just doesn't fit into the process. It is a world where the ends justify the means, and certain activities must be overlooked if others are enacted. Not that I like it that way...but that is the way it is. Would it really be worth our ideals on this issue to have the Saudi gov't overthrown and replaced by true radical fundamentalists...thereby throwing the whole region into turmoil, drastically strengthening the terrorist movement worldwide, and possible engulfing the world in war? I think not.
FWIW--the invasion of Iraq likely had the issue as one of its motivations. While we couldn't exert too much overt pressure directly on the House of Saud to move to democracy....showing the people of Saudi Arabia that democracy was an answer was a backdoor way to instigate change there. Just something to keep in mind.....
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Feb 3 2005, 09:11 AM)
I would be happy if we trod a different path myself. Anything besides the House of Saud would be an improvement.
While I understand the sentiment, I find it highly unlikely you actually believe that anything is better than the House of Saud. I can think of things much worse. I can think of democratically elected outcomes which are much worse from both an economic and political perspective. That said, there does appear to be a level of hypocrisy in the US administration with respect to advocating democracy only when it politically suits them to do so. As long as one doesn't openly defy US interests, one can get away with many less than savory political practices. I do agree with Hobbes, however, that there is a pragmatic side (Machiavellian if you will) to all of this. But, let's be honest, it is not principles that are the prime motivators of US actions in the Middle East, it is pragmatics, even cynicism. The ideals being bandied about are but window dressing to the US's economic and strategic interests in the region.
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 11:13 AM)
While I understand the sentiment, I find it highly unlikely you actually believe that anything is better than the House of Saud. I can think of things much worse. I can think of democratically elected outcomes which are much worse from both an economic and political perspective. That said, there does appear to be a level of hypocrisy in the US administration with respect to advocating democracy only when it politically suits them to do so. As long as one doesn't openly defy US interests, one can get away with many less than savory political practices. I do agree with Hobbes, however, that there is a pragmatic side (Machiavellian if you will) to all of this. But, let's be honest, it is not principles that are the prime motivators of US actions in the Middle East, it is pragmatics, even cynicism. The ideals being bandied about are but window dressing to the US's economic and strategic interests in the region.
I can not and do not find fault with pragmatic statement. The US administration does support democracy only when it suit them. But yes I do believe that the House of Saud is the largest supporter of terrorism in the world and is the most hostile regime to America and American interests in the world.The House of Saud are doing their utmost to destroy the United States and democracy in the world. An open enemy would be better than the stab in the back that we get from the Saudis, so yes anything would be better than what we have today.
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 09:05 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 08:02 AM)
We had a thread on a similar topic a while back, where I pretty much said everything I have to say on this. The House of Saud is more a target of bin Laden than we are. Withdrawl of support would be a very bad idea, and we’d be acting contrary to our national security interests. I’ll say it again…Severing ties would lead to more terrorist-friendly conditions within Saudi Arabia as the Al Sa’ud would have to cater more toward its Islamist supporters or be deposed by an Islamist regime. A Saudi collapse would bring to power worse despots whose government would inflict infinitely more pain on the Arab masses, and likely us as well. Not a pleasant scenario to combat terror. Like it or not, work with them or not, Saudi has a key role in the war on terror. Sometimes reality conflicts with idealism. Working with the comparatively moderate and western-friendly Saudi government is arguably less hypocritical than working with the Soviets during World War II.
So, i'll sum up your position, Mrs P, if I may:
Better to have the dictator you know than the democracy you don't know*
*except for Iraq and Afghanistan
Um, no. Better to have a nonIslamofascist non terrorist regime in Saudi than an Islamofascist terrorist one, or simply Islamofascist anarchy. Democracy and constitutionally protected freedom is always preferable to a dictatorship. Is there some option for that in Saudi which I'm missing? Would abandoning support for the house of Saud increase that possibility?
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 09:05 AM)
So, i'll sum up your position, Mrs P, if I may:
Better to have the dictator you know than the democracy you don't know*
*except for Iraq and Afghanistan
Better to have the dictator you know than the democracy you don't know*
*except for Iraq and Afghanistan
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 10:31 AM)
Um, no. Better to have a nonIslamofascistnon terrorist regime in Saudi than an Islamofascist terrorist one, or simply Islamofaschist anarchy. Democracy and constitutionally protected freedom is always preferable to a dictatorship. Is there some option for that in Saudi which I'm missing?
Well, yes, there are many "options" you're missing. The outcome of a democratically elected government in Arabia is not necessarily beneficial to US strategic and economic interests. Arabia could use the euro as the currency of exchange for its oil. Arabia could choose to dramatically limit the oil it sells to the US. A Wahhabist government could be elected with positions explicitly supportive of an anti-US agenda. There are many unpleasant outcomes which could occur. There are many, many historical examples of democracies (particularly in Central/South America) being considered, justifiably or not, against US interests. It just happens the stakes are so much higher when half the world's oil supply is involved.
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 10:47 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 10:31 AM)
Um, no. Better to have a nonIslamofascistnon terrorist regime in Saudi than an Islamofascist terrorist one, or simply Islamofaschist anarchy. Democracy and constitutionally protected freedom is always preferable to a dictatorship. Is there some option for that in Saudi which I'm missing?
Well, yes, there are many "options" you're missing. The outcome of a democratically elected government in Arabia is not necessarily beneficial to US strategic and economic interests. Arabia could use the euro as the currency of exchange for its oil. Arabia could choose to dramatically limit the oil it sells to the US. A Wahhabist government could be elected with positions explicitly supportive of an anti-US agenda. There are many unpleasant outcomes which could occur. There are many, many historical examples of democracies (particularly in Central/South America) being considered, justifiably or not, against US interests. It just happens the stakes are so much higher when half the world's oil supply is involved.
I can't imagine you truly believe that the house of Saud is standing in the way of a Constitutionally protected democratic Republic in Saudi. If not for the current government, if we abandoned our support, all people have equal rights before the law? Fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association? Constitutional limitations on government power? Policies and leaders determined through open, competitive elections? The Saudi family is arguably the moderating influence on tribal loyalties and religious extremism in that country.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 11:01 AM)
I can't imagine you truly believe that the house of Saud is standing in the way of a Constitutionally protected democratic Republic in Saudi.
This House of Saud is standing in the way of democratic republic in Arabia. Now whether or not this is bad or good....
QUOTE
If not for the current government, if we abandoned our support, all people have equal rights before the law? Fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association? Constitutional limitations on government power? Policies and leaders determined through open, competitive elections? The Saudi family is arguably the moderating influence on tribal loyalties and religious extremism in that country.
Oh, I agree. The Saudi government is a moderating influence on those things you've mentioned. What I'm saying is that there are outcomes of bringing democracy to Arabia which could be worse than what we have now. I can see the current adminstration posing the question: why take the risk? And I can see onlookers saying: well, you've taken the risk in other nations; what's different about Arabia? And the answer is: duh, half the world's oil supply.
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 11:01 AM)
I can't imagine you truly believe that the house of Saud is standing in the way of a Constitutionally protected democratic Republic in Saudi.
This House of Saud is standing in the way of democratic republic in Arabia. Now whether or not this is bad or good....
I'll have to disagree there. Democracies which don't offer constitutional protections are the potential rough equivalent of fascist dictatorships. That didn't wash in Kosovo and Bosnia, where parties determined to be "Dayton obstructors" were eliminated as ballot choices. Nor did the Marshall plan allow for pure democracy without protections. It doesn't make a nice soundbite, but we know that the term "democracy", as we use it, doesn't indicate that the strict majority wins all to the subjugation of others. That would defeat the purpose.
QUOTE
QUOTE
If not for the current government, if we abandoned our support, all people have equal rights before the law? Fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association? Constitutional limitations on government power? Policies and leaders determined through open, competitive elections? The Saudi family is arguably the moderating influence on tribal loyalties and religious extremism in that country.
Oh, I agree. The Saudi government is a moderating influence on those things you've mentioned. What I'm saying is that there are outcomes of bringing democracy to Arabia which could be worse than what we have now. I can see the current adminstration posing the question: why take the risk? And I can see onlookers saying: well, you've taken the risk in other nations; what's different about Arabia? And the answer is: duh, half the world's oil supply.
There's also Mecca and Medina. Arabia is the home of the world's two holiest places to Muslims. I still don't see how we are hypocritical to back the moderate forces in that area. Nor why the "current administration" is singled out as special in this case.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 11:08 AM)
This House of Saud is standing in the way of democratic republic in Arabia. Now whether or not this is bad or good....
I'll have to disagree there. Democracies which don't offer constitutional protections are the potential rough equivalent of fascist dictatorships. That didn't wash in Kosovo and Bosnia, where parties determined to be "Dayton obstructors" were eliminated as ballot choices. Nor did the Marshall plan allow for pure democracy without protections. It doesn't make a nice soundbite, but we know that the term "democracy", as we use it, doesn't indicate that the strict majority wins all to the subjugation of others. That would defeat the purpose.
Um, I was unaware that there was any representation occurring in Saudi Arabia. Has this suddenly changed? Because if it has, it certainly is one of the most underreported stories of the century.
QUOTE
There's also Mecca and Medina. Arabia is the home of the world's two holiest places to Muslims. I still don't see how we are hypocritical to back the moderate forces in that area. Nor why the "current administration" is singled out as special in this case.
Yes, it is true about Mecca and Medina. As for hypocrisy, it is only hypocritical if democratization is the goal. If increasing strategic and economic power is the goal, then it is not.
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 12:08 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 11:01 AM)
I can't imagine you truly believe that the house of Saud is standing in the way of a Constitutionally protected democratic Republic in Saudi.
This House of Saud is standing in the way of democratic republic in Arabia. Now whether or not this is bad or good....
QUOTE
If not for the current government, if we abandoned our support, all people have equal rights before the law? Fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association? Constitutional limitations on government power? Policies and leaders determined through open, competitive elections? The Saudi family is arguably the moderating influence on tribal loyalties and religious extremism in that country.
Oh, I agree. The Saudi government is a moderating influence on those things you've mentioned. What I'm saying is that there are outcomes of bringing democracy to Arabia which could be worse than what we have now. I can see the current adminstration posing the question: why take the risk? And I can see onlookers saying: well, you've taken the risk in other nations; what's different about Arabia? And the answer is: duh, half the world's oil supply.
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 01:11 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE(logophage @ Feb 3 2005, 11:08 AM)
This House of Saud is standing in the way of democratic republic in Arabia. Now whether or not this is bad or good....
I'll have to disagree there. Democracies which don't offer constitutional protections are the potential rough equivalent of fascist dictatorships. That didn't wash in Kosovo and Bosnia, where parties determined to be "Dayton obstructors" were eliminated as ballot choices. Nor did the Marshall plan allow for pure democracy without protections. It doesn't make a nice soundbite, but we know that the term "democracy", as we use it, doesn't indicate that the strict majority wins all to the subjugation of others. That would defeat the purpose.
Um, I was unaware that there was any representation occurring in Saudi Arabia. Has this suddenly changed? Because if it has, it certainly is one of the most underreported stories of the century.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Feb 3 2005, 01:19 PM)
The Saudi government a moderating influence?!? Since when? Yes the answer is half the world's oil supply, but you are going to have to go a long ways to prove that there is anything moderate about the House of Saud. They are the ones pushing religious extremism and exploiting tribal loyalties. There is absolutely zero moderation going on.
Compared to the Asir region of religious extremism which wants to oust the royal family (home of the majority of 9/11 hijackers)? Yes, I find them comparatively moderate.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2005, 01:50 PM)
Indeed. You indicated that the House of Saud was standing in the way of democracy, not I. I'm just saying that the the Saudi government today is the much lesser evil of the options I see. A nonConstitiutional Islamofascist "democracy" along the lines of the Taliban (the Afghanis initially were very happy to see the Taliban take over, but it didn't take them long to see the Northern Alliance wasn't as bad as it gets), or the government as it stands today, which is comparatively moderate and western-friendly. Doesn't mean they're perfect, but perfection isn't the option right now. If it were an option, I believe we'd support it. We do buy more oil from Canada than Saudi. I think we (and the world) would be safer if the Saudis had a western style democracy, but it will take a long while to get there.
Are we agreeing or disagreeing? I can't tell. First, I am saying that the current Saudi government is better than other (and not all other) possible governments which you seem to agree with. Second, I am saying that some variants of possible democratic governments in Saudi Arabia (or I guess just Arabia at that point) would be worse than the current Saudi government. I think you agree with this. Third, if the goal of the current administration is to democratize the ME, then a case for hypocrisy can be argued. On the other hand, if the goal of the current administration is to increase/maintain strategic and economic power in the ME, then dictatorships (even moderate ones) are okay if they are sufficiently aligned with US interests. Because I believe that pragmatic, cynical, even Machiavellian interests are at play, I propose that the current administration believes the risks with pushing democratization in Arabia outweigh the rewards.
QUOTE
Are we agreeing or disagreeing? I can't tell. First, I am saying that the current Saudi government is better than other (and not all other) possible governments which you seem to agree with. Second, I am saying that some variants of possible democratic governments in Saudi Arabia (or I guess just Arabia at that point) would be worse than the current Saudi government. I think you agree with this.
Yes, we agree on the first and second points. With the exception that I don’t believe there is a single viable possibility for a democracy (offering respecting rights to the individual) in Arabia at this time. I don’t believe we are hindering “democracy” (as it relates to “freedom”, the question for debate) in lieu of support for the Saudi government. I believe we are supporting the most stabilizing influence in that region available at this time. QUOTE
Third, if the goal of the current administration is to democratize the ME, then a case for hypocrisy can be argued. On the other hand, if the goal of the current administration is to increase/maintain strategic and economic power in the ME, then dictatorships (even moderate ones) are okay if they are sufficiently aligned with US interests. Because I believe that pragmatic, cynical, even Machiavellian interests are at play, I propose that the current administration believes the risks with pushing democratization in Arabia outweigh the rewards.
We agree to some extent here. However, I disagree that it is hypocritical to chose your battles. In fact, it’s suicidal not to. There is no option for promoting “freedom” throughout the middle east via our own installed democracies. To do so in the land of Mecca and Medina would be to wage war symbolically upon the entire Muslim population. To not support the Saudi government would virtually inevitably result in anarchy and/or some radical Islamic fundamentalist regime. Secondly, there is no comparison between the Taliban "government", the government under Saddam, and the Saudi government. They are entirely different entities, we have had entirely different relations with each, and each requires a different approach. The carrot approach is working in Saudi. They are having their first municipal elections this year. I think that we do want democracies in the Middle East with constitutional protections for human rights and individual liberty. Not only would that be good for the citizens of those countries, it would suite out interests. Such democracies are also historically more likely to be western-friendly. Doesn't mean that this is possible everywhere, or we should use identical means to get there.
Ptarmigan
actually, i'd say that historically that is exactly what it counts as. Historically, such hard-core Christians have been very willing to go to any lengths to either convert or accuse. It wouldn't be a far stretch to say that Christianity has killed more people than any other religion.
Hmm. I'm not so sure. Its not a new thing to pay lip-service allegiance to a religion or political line, when it's inconsistant to do so. How many priests? How many politicians?
With both the latter two quotes, you take the line that why would they offer their support, when it is risky. I don't see how it's that risky. Israel has been doing it for donkey's years...
But keeping away from my pet subject (Israel the terrorists), the House of Saud has plenty to gain from assisting those who are powerful within the religion and thus popular within the masses. It's shrewd behaviour.
I don't know how much the fundamentalist leaders question their country's leadership, so I can't comment on that. However, i've never heard any evidence to suggest that their positions would be anything but strengthened within the region and country by such associations. In the wider world, maybe that would be different, but then their oil has bought them plenty of allies - I can't think of a country that doesn't have a vested interest in not getting too unruly towards the House of Saud. Lots of back scratching in evidence. On top of that they're wise and, having been educated in Western schools, they know how to play the game.
Not to be too pointed in this, but ... well... where does America (and indeed the UK to some degree) itself stand in this table of "ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder". You might even add torture and abuse of human rights, to that.
Was not "hate-filled, violent propaganda" used by the allies, within the document prepped to garner support for war with Iraq (and now Iran)?
Finally, Mrs P
I can't imagine that you truly believe that the US government runs a constitutionally protected democracy in America. I mean, it seems that way, sometimes but, seriously?
For the sake of brevity i'll stick to only questioning the following: at what point have pagans been allowed freedom of their religion? Burning at the stake, persecution, and people having their children taken away from them because of their religion - doesn't sound like freedom and constitutionally protected rights to me.
It could be said with fair weight that, until the US can say the same things about itself, it has no right to say them about anyone else. More realistically i'd rather say that it, and we in the UK, should be getting our houses properly in order at the same time. Pretending there is no problem at home undermines the entire weight of statements about another.
All the best
QUOTE
Christians belive that non-Christians go to hell. Does that count as 'hatred of non-Christians'?
actually, i'd say that historically that is exactly what it counts as. Historically, such hard-core Christians have been very willing to go to any lengths to either convert or accuse. It wouldn't be a far stretch to say that Christianity has killed more people than any other religion.
QUOTE
(Regarding Saudi Arabia) They aint likely to support fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, given that they themselves enjoy living lives full of vice.
Hmm. I'm not so sure. Its not a new thing to pay lip-service allegiance to a religion or political line, when it's inconsistant to do so. How many priests? How many politicians?
QUOTE
To try and argue that the House of Saud is supporting terrorists is woefully naive. They have as much to lose from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as anyone.
With both the latter two quotes, you take the line that why would they offer their support, when it is risky. I don't see how it's that risky. Israel has been doing it for donkey's years...
But keeping away from my pet subject (Israel the terrorists), the House of Saud has plenty to gain from assisting those who are powerful within the religion and thus popular within the masses. It's shrewd behaviour.
I don't know how much the fundamentalist leaders question their country's leadership, so I can't comment on that. However, i've never heard any evidence to suggest that their positions would be anything but strengthened within the region and country by such associations. In the wider world, maybe that would be different, but then their oil has bought them plenty of allies - I can't think of a country that doesn't have a vested interest in not getting too unruly towards the House of Saud. Lots of back scratching in evidence. On top of that they're wise and, having been educated in Western schools, they know how to play the game.
QUOTE
In his inaugural address, President Bush told Americans that “We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source,” which he identified as “ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder.” If this is true - and we think it is - then Saudi Arabia must be counted among America’s chief enemies. No other country or organization is as responsible as the Saudi government for publishing and promoting hate-filled, violent propaganda abroad.
Not to be too pointed in this, but ... well... where does America (and indeed the UK to some degree) itself stand in this table of "ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder". You might even add torture and abuse of human rights, to that.
Was not "hate-filled, violent propaganda" used by the allies, within the document prepped to garner support for war with Iraq (and now Iran)?
Finally, Mrs P
QUOTE
I can't imagine you truly believe that the house of Saud is standing in the way of a Constitutionally protected democratic Republic in Saudi. If not for the current government, if we abandoned our support, all people have equal rights before the law? Fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association?
I can't imagine that you truly believe that the US government runs a constitutionally protected democracy in America. I mean, it seems that way, sometimes but, seriously?
For the sake of brevity i'll stick to only questioning the following: at what point have pagans been allowed freedom of their religion? Burning at the stake, persecution, and people having their children taken away from them because of their religion - doesn't sound like freedom and constitutionally protected rights to me.
It could be said with fair weight that, until the US can say the same things about itself, it has no right to say them about anyone else. More realistically i'd rather say that it, and we in the UK, should be getting our houses properly in order at the same time. Pretending there is no problem at home undermines the entire weight of statements about another.
All the best
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.