'Pivots' the foreign policy verb, right?
QuoteSaudi Arabia set for diplomatic shift away from US
Intelligence chief tells diplomats he plans to limit interaction with US in protest at its policies on Syria, Israel and Iran
Reuters in Doha
theguardian.com, Tuesday 22 October 2013 14.29 BST
Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief has said the kingdom will make a "major shift" in dealings with the US in protest at perceived American inaction over the Syria war and its overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.
The source said that Prince Bandar bin Sultan had told European diplomats that Washington had failed to act effectively on the Syria crisis and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed a 2011 anti-government revolt.
It was not immediately clear whether Prince Bandar's reported statements had the full backing of King Abdullah.
In an unprecedented move last week, Saudi Arabia rejected its first offer of a seat on the UN security council and denounced the UN for failing to resolve world conflicts. The move appeared largely directed at the US.
"The shift away from the US is a major one," the source said on Tuesday. "Saudi doesn't want to find itself any longer in a situation where it is dependent.
"Prince Bandar told diplomats that he plans to limit interaction with the US. This happened after the US failed to take any effective action on Syria and Palestine.
"Relations with the US have been deteriorating for a while, as Saudi feels that the US is growing closer with Iran and the US also failed to support Saudi during the Bahrain uprising."
The source declined to provide more details of Bandar's talks with the diplomats, which took place in the past few days. But he suggested that the planned change in relations would have wide-ranging consequences, including on arms purchases and oil sales.
Many US economic interests in Saudi Arabia involve government contracts in defence, other security sectors, healthcare, education, information technology and construction.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, appeared keen to play down suggestions of a serious rift between Washington and Riyadh. Speaking after talks about the Syria crisis in London on Tuesday, he said he had held two meetings with the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal in as many days.
"Saudi Arabia signed on to this [Syria] communique," he said. "Saudi Arabia and the US agree on a great deal going forward. We know they were disappointed that the strike [against Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons] didn't take place and have concerns about other things taking place in the region" – an apparent reference to the thaw in US relations with Iran, the conservative kingdom's strategic rival in the Gulf.
On Iran, Kerry said he had told his Saudi counterpart. "I reiterated our position - in any negotiation [with Iran] -that our eyes are wide open, actions are what will speak to us, not words, and 'no deal' is better than a bad deal."
I wonder how much of this (and Putin's aggressiveness and Iran's hints at openness) could be down to domestic oil and gas production in the US and, soon, Europe :mellow:
You know, the Saudis are more than welcome to try and deal with Syria, Iran and Palestine themselves if they wish...
Either a bluff or they're gonna try to cozy up to China. :hmm:
I think it would be good for US to pivot away from the Saudis. Saudis are exceptionally evil even by the standards of the region they're in. I'd rather have us ally with secular dictators in that region rather than radical missionaries.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 23, 2013, 01:17:20 PM
Either a bluff or they're gonna try to cozy up to China. :hmm:
China wasnt exactly a cheerleader for military action in Syria. Pivot to who is the question. And perhaps a better question is who cares now that the West has more secure access to oil.
No surprise. Lately there have been a few news stories of Saudi annoyance over US policy in the region. The US and Saudis in the past have acted in concert quite surprisingly at times. For instance in the 60s or 70s to thwart Egypt's attempt to pull more Arab nations into a closer sphere of cooperation, back when the USSR was an Egyptian ally. Plus other events using US-Saudi cooperation. Even some which generally received approval by the Wahabis, which is important to the Saudi Royals to retain a good working relationship.
Then also there is the possible US energy independence by 2020 which will affect the Saudis. That has to be having worrying the Saudis quite a bit, especially given that some European companies are starting to shift drilling to the US, which may bring more self reliance to some Euro nations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 01:10:23 PM
I wonder how much of this (and Putin's aggressiveness and Iran's hints at openness) could be down to domestic oil and gas production in the US and, soon, Europe :mellow:
The Saudis don't have to worry that much about that, because they are the low cost producer and can still swing world prices given the size of their production and flexibiltiy on capacity.
A key thing always to keep in mind about the fracking revolution is that it has come about as an economic response to triple digit oil prices. Prices must remain high in order to cover costs.
Geopolitically and strategically, emnity between Iran and the US never made much sense; it is an artifact of the ideological dysfunction of the Islamic Republic. The second that ideological pressure is relaxed even slightly there is a natural tendency to rapprochment, as we see now.
The Saudis can pivot around as much as they wish, but their really isn't anywhere for them to go. The Chinese would be glad to be chummy but would have even less interest to signing on to the Saudi agenda re Iran and Syria.
Perhaps 'pivot' in this context means to cover up extremism with the fig-leaf of being sincere ally? :unsure:
Don't worry, Obama's got this. He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 02:08:20 PM
Don't worry, Obama's got this. He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.
Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?
I think we need a reset with SA.
There's left shift and right shift. Major shift sounds fake to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:09:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 02:08:20 PM
Don't worry, Obama's got this. He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.
Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?
I think growing apart could be a bit of a more a problem. SA is a very influential and important nation in the Mid East and the US and Saudis have often worked together, even though that aspect doesn't really get as much attention.
The article mentions the Saudi rejection of a Security Council seat. But there's more to that story. Saudi Arabia wasn't merely offered that spot - they had lobbied for it for years. They had extra diplomats in New York ready to take on those additional responsibilities. But at the last moment they had new orders from Prince Bandar to turn down the seat.
So this "pivot", together with rejecting the security council seat, sounds a lot like a carefully thought out plan, and more like a fit of pique.
But do you think the benefits of working together outweigh the costs of, say, the Saudis funding the jihadist extreme in Syria, Salafist parties throughout the Arab world and Salafist Mosques across the world? What were the benefits and were they really sufficient to outweigh those costs?
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2013, 02:29:22 PM
The article mentions the Saudi rejection of a Security Council seat. But there's more to that story. Saudi Arabia wasn't merely offered that spot - they had lobbied for it for years. They had extra diplomats in New York ready to take on those additional responsibilities. But at the last moment they had new orders from Prince Bandar to turn down the seat.
Yeah. It was a really weird decision. Still not read an article that really explains what the Saudis were thinking with that.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2013, 02:29:22 PM
The article mentions the Saudi rejection of a Security Council seat. But there's more to that story. Saudi Arabia wasn't merely offered that spot - they had lobbied for it for years. They had extra diplomats in New York ready to take on those additional responsibilities. But at the last moment they had new orders from Prince Bandar to turn down the seat.
So this "pivot", together with rejecting the security council seat, sounds a lot like a carefully thought out plan, and more like a fit of pique.
Meh, sounds more like a kid who is upset he didnt get his own way and so wants to take the ball away so nobody else can play.
Problem for the kid is there are lots of balls and the kid can only play with this group of kids.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:09:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 02:08:20 PM
Don't worry, Obama's got this. He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.
Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?
Saudi Arabia is the type of "ally" that you may not like a whole lot, but still benefit from. I'm not a Euro, so I'm not seething with hatred over Saudi Arabia. They're not perfect, and I'd love for us to be in a position where we didn't need them. But I don't think we're energy independent enough just yet to break all ties with them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:30:45 PM
But do you think the benefits of working together outweigh the costs of, say, the Saudis funding the jihadist extreme in Syria, Salafist parties throughout the Arab world and Salafist Mosques across the world? What were the benefits and were they really sufficient to outweigh those costs?
Honestly, I don't know how many decades they have of being able to afford their funding of international Salafism and 20% native workforce participation. They'll be Ghana with Muslim Disneyworld in 4 decades.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:09:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 02:08:20 PM
Don't worry, Obama's got this. He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.
Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?
I'm not a Euro, so I'm not seething with hatred over Saudi Arabia.
You also the guy that was cheering for Syria back in the day until someone explained to you that you were being an idiot.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
You also the guy that was cheering for Syria back in the day until someone explained to you that you were being an idiot.
You mean when I was 8 years old? Yeah, that was me :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 03:57:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
You also the guy that was cheering for Syria back in the day until someone explained to you that you were being an idiot.
You mean when I was 8 years old? Yeah, that was me :mellow:
Most of us knew at the age of 8 who the bad guys in the world were. Especially since, back then, there were only two sides ;)
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Saudi Arabia is the type of "ally" that you may not like a whole lot, but still benefit from.
What do you think are the benefits?
I don't know whether I think it would be a good or a bad thing, so I'm genuinely interested in what everyone thinks.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
And perhaps a better question is who cares now that the West has more secure access to oil.
For now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:57:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 03:57:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
You also the guy that was cheering for Syria back in the day until someone explained to you that you were being an idiot.
You mean when I was 8 years old? Yeah, that was me :mellow:
Most of us knew at the age of 8 who the bad guys in the world were. Especially since, back then, there were only two sides ;)
I grew up in a one-sided era. :)
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:09:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 02:08:20 PM
Don't worry, Obama's got this. He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.
Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?
Saudi Arabia is the type of "ally" that you may not like a whole lot, but still benefit from. I'm not a Euro, so I'm not seething with hatred over Saudi Arabia. They're not perfect, and I'd love for us to be in a position where we didn't need them. But I don't think we're energy independent enough just yet to break all ties with them.
Leaving aside that Europeans get far more of their oil from Saudi than the US does, that an odd thing to say in the light of those 15 Saudis who attack the USA on 9/11, you guys really are remarkably tolerant. :cool:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2013, 03:57:49 PM
Most of us knew at the age of 8 who the bad guys in the world were. Especially since, back then, there were only two sides ;)
I knew the Russians were the bad guys back then. And according to my grandpa, the "Japs" were not to be trusted. I think that was the extent of it for me when I was 8.
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2013, 04:24:47 PM
Leaving aside that Europeans get far more of their oil from Saudi than the US does, that an odd thing to say in the light of those 15 Saudis who attack the USA on 9/11, you guys really are remarkably tolerant. :cool:
Either that, or you guys would cut of your nose to spite your face.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/10/23/the-u-s-saudi-crackup-hits-a-dramatic-tipping-point/
QuoteFor much of the past two years, the closest thing the U.S. had to a back channel with Saudi Arabia was Tom Donilon, the national security adviser until last June. He traveled to the kingdom occasionally to pass private messages to Abdullah; those meetings didn't heal the wounds, but they at least staunched the bleeding. But Susan Rice, Donilon's successor, has not played a similar bridging role.
:lol: No shit.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 06:08:17 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/10/23/the-u-s-saudi-crackup-hits-a-dramatic-tipping-point/
QuoteFor much of the past two years, the closest thing the U.S. had to a back channel with Saudi Arabia was Tom Donilon, the national security adviser until last June. He traveled to the kingdom occasionally to pass private messages to Abdullah; those meetings didn't heal the wounds, but they at least staunched the bleeding. But Susan Rice, Donilon's successor, has not played a similar bridging role.
:lol: No shit.
Yeah a woman, who's black and brighter than him isn't going to sit comfortably with an precious arab princeling.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 04:03:19 PM
What do you think are the benefits?
The Saudis have inside connections with just about every significant Sunni governed state and society in the world. And more than any other single player in the world they exert the most control over oil prices. That control is very real still BTW - they could easily move that price by a lot if they really really wanted to do it.
That said, if we can get a good deal on Iran no way we say no because it will miff the Saudis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 06:25:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 04:03:19 PM
What do you think are the benefits?
The Saudis have inside connections with just about every significant Sunni governed state and society in the world. And more than any other single player in the world they exert the most control over oil prices. That control is very real still BTW - they could easily move that price by a lot if they really really wanted to do it.
That said, if we can get a good deal on Iran no way we say no because it will miff the Saudis.
CdM will be ecstatic, F14 flying again.
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
Yeah a woman, who's black and brighter than him isn't going to sit comfortably with an precious arab princeling.
Yeah, brighter :D
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 06:08:17 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/10/23/the-u-s-saudi-crackup-hits-a-dramatic-tipping-point/
QuoteFor much of the past two years, the closest thing the U.S. had to a back channel with Saudi Arabia was Tom Donilon, the national security adviser until last June. He traveled to the kingdom occasionally to pass private messages to Abdullah; those meetings didn't heal the wounds, but they at least staunched the bleeding. But Susan Rice, Donilon's successor, has not played a similar bridging role.
:lol: No shit.
Yeah a woman, who's black and brighter than him isn't going to sit comfortably with an precious arab princeling.
Aren't they basically the same color? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 07:07:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 06:08:17 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/10/23/the-u-s-saudi-crackup-hits-a-dramatic-tipping-point/
QuoteFor much of the past two years, the closest thing the U.S. had to a back channel with Saudi Arabia was Tom Donilon, the national security adviser until last June. He traveled to the kingdom occasionally to pass private messages to Abdullah; those meetings didn't heal the wounds, but they at least staunched the bleeding. But Susan Rice, Donilon's successor, has not played a similar bridging role.
:lol: No shit.
Yeah a woman, who's black and brighter than him isn't going to sit comfortably with an precious arab princeling.
Aren't they basically the same color? :hmm:
You tell me, though maybe you should also look into the treatment black Africans amongst other, receive there.
Better still why not visit to conduct some field research. :P
People get fooled by appearance all the time. :)
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 02:09:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2013, 02:08:20 PM
Don't worry, Obama's got this. He just needs to bow to the Saudi king again & all will be fixed.
Why would you worry at all? I mean do you think the US and Saudi growing apart is a good or a bad thing?
Saudi Arabia is the type of "ally" that you may not like a whole lot, but still benefit from. I'm not a Euro, so I'm not seething with hatred over Saudi Arabia. They're not perfect, and I'd love for us to be in a position where we didn't need them. But I don't think we're energy independent enough just yet to break all ties with them.
Why would a Euro seeth with hatred over Saudi Arabia? :unsure:
Americans I can understand, what with the Saudis exporting and supporting a virulent strain of religious fundamentalism that has gone on to kill thousands of us, both military and civilian.
Domus Saud delenda est!
Finally. Can we invade and take all their oil now?
Quote from: fhdz on October 23, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
Finally. Can we invade and take all their oil now?
Only if we really take their oil.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 06:25:52 PM
That said, if we can get a good deal on Iran no way we say no because it will miff the Saudis.
Nor is it worth attacking Syria if this deal carries on working out.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F3746%2Fwaho.jpg&hash=055271fe4543bece6aa0eb39304d3615ec6c69dd)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2013, 06:25:52 PM
The Saudis have inside connections with just about every significant Sunni governed state and society in the world. And more than any other single player in the world they exert the most control over oil prices. That control is very real still BTW - they could easily move that price by a lot if they really really wanted to do it.
Exactly, which is why dumping tons of domestically-produced oil onto the market does jack shit. Nobody has production control over their spigots and price impact on the market like the Saudis.
QuoteThat said, if we can get a good deal on Iran no way we say no because it will miff the Saudis.
I dunno, man, don't like that idea...how badly do we have to sell out Israel to get it? It would never be worth it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2013, 06:08:51 AM
I dunno, man, don't like that idea...how badly do we have to sell out Israel to get it? It would never be worth it.
Israel would sell the US out given the slightest opportunity. In fact, they're always selling secret tech to China. Fuck 'em.
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2013, 07:41:47 AM
Israel would sell the US out given the slightest opportunity. In fact, they're always selling secret tech to China. Fuck 'em.
Yeah, well that's just Jews being Jews. We tolerate other nations' peculiarities.
let the saudi's pivot like they're a bunch of dervishes
Nuke Mecca.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2013, 06:08:51 AM
I dunno, man, don't like that idea...how badly do we have to sell out Israel to get it? It would never be worth it.
A deal means getting a credibly enforced commitment to no weapons program. Clearly in Israel's interest.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2013, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2013, 06:08:51 AM
I dunno, man, don't like that idea...how badly do we have to sell out Israel to get it? It would never be worth it.
A deal means getting a credibly enforced commitment to no weapons program. Clearly in Israel's interest.
But it's tough.
I was thinking about this recently. If Iran agreed then there'd need to be a benefit to them: a relaxing or lifting of sanctions. But how much? They'd still be a destabilising and hostile force in the region such as backing Hezbollah and Palestinian groups.
As I say it sees a difficult balancing act to get enough of a credible reward for cooperation on nukes but that won't cause other problems elsewhere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2013, 05:46:48 PM
A deal means getting a credibly enforced commitment to no weapons program. Clearly in Israel's interest.
With the current definitions of dual-purpose technology blurring the lines of non-proliferation enforcement, I really don't see how any deal could comprehensively address those concerns; particularly with a nuclear program such as Iran's, which has been designed flat and loosely connected specifically and intentionally to make compliance verification or enforcement difficult.
And as Shiv says, that won't stop the IRG from getting their Hezbollah on, and any carrots will simply enhance those capabilities.
My concerns are the here and now, for example take the debate on today's news about the Niqab face veil, worth watching for what it tells you about the radicalisation of some British women:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/ (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/)
The scale of the problem is this, as the report mentions despite the French ban only a tiny number of French Muslims ever did or do wear it, something like a few hundreds in the whole country.
Now compare this to the UK where the news item mentions large numbers of women adopting it, it becoming a significant, perhaps soon to be majority garb for the Muslim women in that big community in London.
None of these women claim it's a tradition within their community and say they've taken it up in recent years, certainly no older than 20 years ago.
And the bottom line ? Saudi money flowing in, uncontrolled into the UK, funding cultural organisations, printing religious tracts and pamphlets that flood many UK mosques, schools and cultural centres.
All promoting their particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult version of Islam.
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
All promoting their particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult version of Islam.
As opposed to the particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult cuddly kitten versions of Islam.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2013, 09:33:40 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
All promoting their particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult version of Islam.
As opposed to the particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult cuddly kitten versions of Islam.
I'm sure they're plenty of British Muslims who'd disagree with you, especially women like the brave journalist featured in the debate, who puts with the extremist's death threats and abuse.
Well, Mongers, sorry to disappoint you but in France the niqab is still legal within a mosque and during Carnival ;)
The Saudi connection is nothing new, btw.
PS : the niqab-clad "French" woman interviewed in "France and the banning of the niqab" has some basic grammar issues :yucky: As well some legal finer points comprehension issues :x
She still speaks better French than Ribéry, on the other hand.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 25, 2013, 08:56:51 AM
Well, Mongers, sorry to disappoint you but in France the niqab is still legal within a mosque and during Carnival ;)
The Saudi connection is nothing new, btw.
I know, I was just underline the point about it's increasingly malign influence here.
What percentage of french muslim women would were it in public given the choice and what was the percentage before the ban became law.
The news item implied it was a very small percentage anyway.
Small percentage sounds accurate. Prior to the ban, most occurences of it to me were of Gulf Nationals in the Champs-Elysées. The typical scene would be a man dressed in a western way taking a stroll while the wife carries all the shopping purchases and the kids.
Less common nowadays though as pointed by the report, the police will not necessarily stop and fine any niqabite. They might have something else to do and/or expect trouble in some areas.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 25, 2013, 09:16:42 AM
Small percentage sounds accurate. Prior to the ban, most occurences of it to me were of Gulf Nationals in the Champs-Elysées. The typical scene would be a man dressed in a western way taking a stroll while the wife carries all the shopping purchases and the kids.
Less common nowadays though as pointed by the report, the police will not necessarily stop and fine any niqabite. They might have something else to do and/or expect trouble in some areas.
Cheers for that.
So significantly different to is use as a political tool/statement over here.
As you describe the situation in France, that's exactly what happened in the report, when the young veiled woman walked down the Parisian streets to pay her fine, she passed several groups of police, who basically shrugged, they noticed her, but I presume weren't going to do anything about it, unless forced to by other circumstances.
I guess in the bad banlieues it's a religion and fashion statement as in the UK (e.g Greater London and major cities). The young niqabite was actually shown in the report in the Barbès-Rochechouart neighborhood which is an ethnic enclave in the Paris city centre where one would not be surprised to see niqabs.
I drop there sometimes by night but I don't recall seeing one. Mind you, it's not my neighborhood and outside of metro connections that's only for some cheap shopping.
That area is infamous for having a street blocked by muslims who just pray on the pavement since the mosque is too small. This was revealed by Marine Le Pen who got a boost out of it.
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
My concerns are the here and now, for example take the debate on today's news about the Niqab face veil, worth watching for what it tells you about the radicalisation of some British women:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/ (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/)
The scale of the problem is this, as the report mentions despite the French ban only a tiny number of French Muslims ever did or do wear it, something like a few hundreds in the whole country.
Now compare this to the UK where the news item mentions large numbers of women adopting it, it becoming a significant, perhaps soon to be majority garb for the Muslim women in that big community in London.
None of these women claim it's a tradition within their community and say they've taken it up in recent years, certainly no older than 20 years ago.
And the bottom line ? Saudi money flowing in, uncontrolled into the UK, funding cultural organisations, printing religious tracts and pamphlets that flood many UK mosques, schools and cultural centres.
All promoting their particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult version of Islam.
To some degree, don't we have to have a little faith in the power of our own convictions?
I mean, I believe that it is the case that in the long run, free thinking societies will win out on the merits of their argument.
In the short term, the religious fanatics can create these little pockets of bullshit, but in the long run, I think that women in general are not going to put up with all the bullshit that goes along with thing slike a face veil, if they are exposed to a free exchange of ideas in a free society like Great Britain. They are not isloated from alternative views on the role of women, so efforts to stifle the argument are, to me, generally counter productive.
Let them wear their face veils. It won't last.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2013, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
My concerns are the here and now, for example take the debate on today's news about the Niqab face veil, worth watching for what it tells you about the radicalisation of some British women:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/ (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/)
The scale of the problem is this, as the report mentions despite the French ban only a tiny number of French Muslims ever did or do wear it, something like a few hundreds in the whole country.
Now compare this to the UK where the news item mentions large numbers of women adopting it, it becoming a significant, perhaps soon to be majority garb for the Muslim women in that big community in London.
None of these women claim it's a tradition within their community and say they've taken it up in recent years, certainly no older than 20 years ago.
And the bottom line ? Saudi money flowing in, uncontrolled into the UK, funding cultural organisations, printing religious tracts and pamphlets that flood many UK mosques, schools and cultural centres.
All promoting their particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult version of Islam.
To some degree, don't we have to have a little faith in the power of our own convictions?
I mean, I believe that it is the case that in the long run, free thinking societies will win out on the merits of their argument.
In the short term, the religious fanatics can create these little pockets of bullshit, but in the long run, I think that women in general are not going to put up with all the bullshit that goes along with thing slike a face veil, if they are exposed to a free exchange of ideas in a free society like Great Britain. They are not isloated from alternative views on the role of women, so efforts to stifle the argument are, to me, generally counter productive.
Let them wear their face veils. It won't last.
Berkut, that's a nice positive view, but I don't think it addresses the specific issue of radicalisation here.
The women doing this aren't immigrants or from isolated ethnic communities that haven't yet integrated. The one's I've spoken with and from the sound of it those in the above debate, are British women born here, with British accents and from diverse ethnic backgrounds, a fair number from British Caribbean backgrounds.
Many of them were thoroughly integrated, but have choosen, by most accounts not forced, to adopt this 'backward' dress, it's an active political statement, in part a rejection of western values. Some of the one's I've discussed this with see our society as being degenerate, so adopting this particular form of radical activist islam is a very positive thing in their lives.
Links to a couple of articles by the female muslim journalist I mentioned earlier, I won't quote the whole articles, but encourage you to read the opinion pieces:
Quote
Liberal defenders of the veil have lost their way.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown
Sunday 22 September 2013
Round two of the veil debate. I would prefer not to get into the ring again but must, not because I'm a stubborn mule, but because so much is at stake. Sorry to those Muslim friends and foes who think we should not talk about the veil, that it distracts from "real issues", is an excuse to attack Muslims, an encouragement to racists, an infringement of personal freedom, whipping up hysteria over "just clothes, only worn by a minority", something which is not the business of non-Muslims and part of a sinister secularist manifesto and so on.
They are either frighteningly complacent or in denial, so too are white, black and brown liberals on the left. Were their own daughters to take up the niqab, would they cheerfully accept the decision? Like hell they would. Some good friends and individuals I deeply respect defend the choice as a fundamental liberty. But if accepting and symbolising female inferiority and menace is a freedom, we liberals, human rights activists and anti-racists have really have lost our maps and sense of direction.
I wrote to The Guardian objecting to a long feature on niqabs which left out Muslim women who are against veiling, the silenced majority, victims of liberal censorship. At a spontaneous, "private" meeting I attended, I was screamed at by people whose socialist and egalitarian principles are mine too. Muslims were present, several furious. Apparently I am a self-loathing or fake Muslim, friend of the EDL, an ignoramus, a prostitute of a white man (my husband, an antiracist), a sell out. Later a few attendees, including gentle Muslim men and women, apologised for the way their comrades behaved. But they never spoke up. I hear out there on the web some really nasty stuff has been circulating about my anti-veil views.
I will now quote a letter from my friend Suhayl Saadi, a Muslim Pakistani GP and fine novelist from Glasgow. "Saudi Arabia is the worst thing that has happened to Muslim societies since the Black
.... (Note, seems to be a cut and paste error here in the original article, a few words are missing)......
have furthered the coalition between the Al Saud family and Sunni theocracy of the Arabian peninsula... Our political classes seem pathologically leveraged into the interests of the Saudi regime. Nice white liberals who do not want to tarnish their supposedly inclusive credentials do us no favours by politely helping us into ever deeper pits of ghettoisation... This is not about consumer 'choice', we are not talking here of brands of tiles or toilet rolls. The Left in Muslim countries is under no such illusions and its members are regularly murdered by Islamicist paramilitary ( often state sponsored) death squads operating like the Contras in South America." He calls for "guilty" white liberals and all those on the left, including Muslims, to confront this spreading evil.
A few years ago, I was sent a list by a teacher who worked for a strict Islamic, Saudi-backed school in England. She left because they were forcing her to wear the cloak and hijab and were bringing in the face veil too. ( Note: she, a practising Muslim from a liberal branch of Islam had no right to choose what she wore when teaching.) The list for students and parents was of the reasons they were to give for the veil. Those were as follows: choice, religion, spirituality, freedom, tradition. How many times did you hear these repeated last week by niqab wearers and their friends? Parents of tiny girls with headscarves tell me they are training them to cover themselves. Informed choice is one thing, but trained choice? Or a choice where females know they will be ostracised if they don't comply? This never happened before, not in the west, nor in most of the east. Now it is spreading far and fast. Iranian women don't cover faces but must wear scarves; In Arab countries women are attacked for not conforming with imposed rules. Here the compulsion can be internal or external.
.....
Rest of article here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/liberal-defenders-of-the-veil-have-lost-their-way-8832758.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/liberal-defenders-of-the-veil-have-lost-their-way-8832758.html)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 25, 2013, 08:56:51 AM
Well, Mongers, sorry to disappoint you but in France the niqab is still legal within a mosque and during Carnival ;)
The Saudi connection is nothing new, btw.
PS : the niqab-clad "French" woman interviewed in "France and the banning of the niqab" has some basic grammar issues :yucky: As well some legal finer points :x
She still speaks better French than Ribéry, on the other hand.
Can't figure out if this is serious or not.
Quote from: mongers on October 25, 2013, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2013, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: mongers on October 24, 2013, 09:31:22 PM
My concerns are the here and now, for example take the debate on today's news about the Niqab face veil, worth watching for what it tells you about the radicalisation of some British women:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/ (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/)
The scale of the problem is this, as the report mentions despite the French ban only a tiny number of French Muslims ever did or do wear it, something like a few hundreds in the whole country.
Now compare this to the UK where the news item mentions large numbers of women adopting it, it becoming a significant, perhaps soon to be majority garb for the Muslim women in that big community in London.
None of these women claim it's a tradition within their community and say they've taken it up in recent years, certainly no older than 20 years ago.
And the bottom line ? Saudi money flowing in, uncontrolled into the UK, funding cultural organisations, printing religious tracts and pamphlets that flood many UK mosques, schools and cultural centres.
All promoting their particularly cancerous, suicide death-cult version of Islam.
To some degree, don't we have to have a little faith in the power of our own convictions?
I mean, I believe that it is the case that in the long run, free thinking societies will win out on the merits of their argument.
In the short term, the religious fanatics can create these little pockets of bullshit, but in the long run, I think that women in general are not going to put up with all the bullshit that goes along with thing slike a face veil, if they are exposed to a free exchange of ideas in a free society like Great Britain. They are not isloated from alternative views on the role of women, so efforts to stifle the argument are, to me, generally counter productive.
Let them wear their face veils. It won't last.
Berkut, that's a nice positive view, but I don't think it addresses the specific issue of radicalisation here.
The women doing this aren't immigrants or from isolated ethnic communities that haven't yet integrated. The one's I've spoken with and from the sound of it those in the above debate, are British women born here, with British accents and from diverse ethnic backgrounds, a fair number from British Caribbean backgrounds.
Many of them were thoroughly integrated, but have choosen, by most accounts not forced, to adopt this 'backward' dress, it's an active political statement, in part a rejection of western values. Some of the one's I've discussed this with see our society as being degenerate, so adopting this particular form of radical activist islam is a very positive thing in their lives.
Isn't that all the more reason to let it go?
I mean, if they are not being forced, and are making informed choices, then let them. It is a free country, right?
In the long run, it will fade away - there is a reason women overall don't go around wearing face veils.
You eigher believe in the ideas of liberty and freedom, and accept that there will be outliers of odd behavior as a result, or you do not, and think that overall, freedom and information may in fact result in adverse outcomes in the long run.
I don't think you believe that to be true - I think you believe that in the long run, the freedom to choose coupled with the free availability of information means that people as a group will make generally good choices.
Trying to force those who do not to make a "good" choice anyway by limiting their ability to choose will inevitably backfire, and in the short term simply provides the people trying to romanticize this kind of infantile thinking with ammunition.
Quote from: mongers on October 25, 2013, 02:31:50 PM
Links to a couple of articles by the female muslim journalist I mentioned earlier, I won't quote the whole articles, but encourage you to read the opinion pieces:
Quote
Liberal defenders of the veil have lost their way.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown
Sunday 22 September 2013
Round two of the veil debate. I would prefer not to get into the ring again but must, not because I'm a stubborn mule, but because so much is at stake. Sorry to those Muslim friends and foes who think we should not talk about the veil, that it distracts from "real issues", is an excuse to attack Muslims, an encouragement to racists, an infringement of personal freedom, whipping up hysteria over "just clothes, only worn by a minority", something which is not the business of non-Muslims and part of a sinister secularist manifesto and so on.
They are either frighteningly complacent or in denial, so too are white, black and brown liberals on the left. Were their own daughters to take up the niqab, would they cheerfully accept the decision? Like hell they would. Some good friends and individuals I deeply respect defend the choice as a fundamental liberty. But if accepting and symbolising female inferiority and menace is a freedom, we liberals, human rights activists and anti-racists have really have lost our maps and sense of direction.
I wrote to The Guardian objecting to a long feature on niqabs which left out Muslim women who are against veiling, the silenced majority, victims of liberal censorship. At a spontaneous, "private" meeting I attended, I was screamed at by people whose socialist and egalitarian principles are mine too. Muslims were present, several furious. Apparently I am a self-loathing or fake Muslim, friend of the EDL, an ignoramus, a prostitute of a white man (my husband, an antiracist), a sell out. Later a few attendees, including gentle Muslim men and women, apologised for the way their comrades behaved. But they never spoke up. I hear out there on the web some really nasty stuff has been circulating about my anti-veil views.
I will now quote a letter from my friend Suhayl Saadi, a Muslim Pakistani GP and fine novelist from Glasgow. "Saudi Arabia is the worst thing that has happened to Muslim societies since the Black
.... (Note, seems to be a cut and paste error here in the original article, a few words are missing)......
have furthered the coalition between the Al Saud family and Sunni theocracy of the Arabian peninsula... Our political classes seem pathologically leveraged into the interests of the Saudi regime. Nice white liberals who do not want to tarnish their supposedly inclusive credentials do us no favours by politely helping us into ever deeper pits of ghettoisation... This is not about consumer 'choice', we are not talking here of brands of tiles or toilet rolls. The Left in Muslim countries is under no such illusions and its members are regularly murdered by Islamicist paramilitary ( often state sponsored) death squads operating like the Contras in South America." He calls for "guilty" white liberals and all those on the left, including Muslims, to confront this spreading evil.
A few years ago, I was sent a list by a teacher who worked for a strict Islamic, Saudi-backed school in England. She left because they were forcing her to wear the cloak and hijab and were bringing in the face veil too. ( Note: she, a practising Muslim from a liberal branch of Islam had no right to choose what she wore when teaching.) The list for students and parents was of the reasons they were to give for the veil. Those were as follows: choice, religion, spirituality, freedom, tradition. How many times did you hear these repeated last week by niqab wearers and their friends? Parents of tiny girls with headscarves tell me they are training them to cover themselves. Informed choice is one thing, but trained choice? Or a choice where females know they will be ostracised if they don't comply? This never happened before, not in the west, nor in most of the east. Now it is spreading far and fast. Iranian women don't cover faces but must wear scarves; In Arab countries women are attacked for not conforming with imposed rules. Here the compulsion can be internal or external.
.....
Rest of article here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/liberal-defenders-of-the-veil-have-lost-their-way-8832758.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/liberal-defenders-of-the-veil-have-lost-their-way-8832758.html)
That is a great article, and speaks to why we as a society ought to speak out against women wearing veils, and why we should fight such silliness in the free marketplace of ideas.
What we should not do is make any attempt to fight ideas with restrictions, laws, or legislation.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2013, 09:59:58 AM
I think you believe that in the long run, the freedom to choose coupled with the free availability of information means that people as a group will make generally good choices.
I dunno man, freedom & democracy gave us Keeping Up With the Kardashians. :hmm:
Please don't knock KUWTK.
Not comment on my Latin? I suppose it must have been correct or someone would have called me out on it. :hmm:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/10/saudi_arabia_s_declining_power_the_kingdom_s_frustrations_with_president.html
QuoteA Royal Pain
Saudi Arabia's differences with the Obama administration are tied to the kingdom's weakening position in the world.
By Fred Kaplan
Are the Saudis about to call it quits with America? They're certainly trying to make President Obama think so. Last week Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, Prince Bandar Sultan al-Saud, told European diplomats that the kingdom was losing trust in Obama's judgment and may reassess the whole long, tight web of relations between the two governments.
Some of Obama's recent actions rub Saudi interests the wrong way. But this is only to say that the United States and Saudi interests are increasingly diverging.
Prince Bandar—a very shrewd operator who for many years was the Saudi ambassador in Washington—surely understands that if Obama succeeds at some of his new ventures, especially with Iran and Syria, the Saudi Kingdom will suffer a loss of power in the Middle East. He probably also notices, as many analysts have, that the objective basis of the strategic alliance between Riyadh and Washington—America's dependence on Saudi oil—is eroding.
And so, what's really going on here is a high-stakes power game. The Saudis are playing a bit of highway chicken, warning Obama that if he continues down this path, the Saudis will go elsewhere. Obama's task amounts to a diplomatic balancing act: to convince the Saudis that the rift is not as wide as Bandar is suggesting, while at the same time making it clear that our interests in the Middle East are not as wrapped up with the desires or fate of the royal family as they used to be.
To put it another way: The Saudis need our arms more than we need their oil.
This clash of interests has been brewing for some time. In 2011, during the early days of the Arab Spring, the Saudi royals expressed their alarm at Obama's refusal to rescue Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from his street-demanded ouster (as if any American president could, much less should, have saved Mubarak's skin). This past summer, the Saudis were once again enraged by Obama's less-than-full support for the Egyptian generals' overthrow of the elected president, Mohammed Morsi—and even more flummoxed by his calls for them not to ban Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood party.
Since then, from Riyadh's vantage, the picture has only worsened. First, Obama called off his much-threatened cruise missile strike against Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. Then, perhaps most serious of all, Obama made diplomatic overtures to Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, and is now engaged in formal negotiations to retract economic sanctions in exchange for a drastic cutback in Iran's nuclear program.
All these actions must be viewed in the context of the Sunni-Shiite conflict that is gripping the entire Middle East and that, if tensions escalate, could plunge the region into war. The Saudi royal family sees itself as the leading Sunni power in this faceoff and the Egyptian regime—first under Mubarak, now under Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—as its most stalwart ally. The royals see the Iranians as their major rival and the Syrians as the Iranians' agent in support of Shiite terrorist groups in Lebanon, Gaza, and beyond.
In this framework, President Obama is declining to support Sunni leaders and declining to bomb—when not outright cozying up to—Shiite leaders.
For Riyadh, this amounts to perfidy. The Saudis want to fight the Sunni-Shiite war. They want to see the Muslim Brotherhood wiped out, Assad's Syria pummeled, and, though they can't so say openly (in part because the unmentionable Israel, or its interests, would be involved), they would like to see somebody blow up Iran's nuclear sites and, if possible, its regime, too.
Prince Bandar is upset, in short, because Obama doesn't want to fight this war. But the problem—and Bandar must know this—isn't just Obama. No American president—not even the Bushes, who had warm relations with the Saudis—would want to fight this war, because U.S. interests dictate a very different view of the region. We wouldn't fit on either side of a Sunni-Shiite war; we have allies and adversaries on both. The terrorists of al-Qaida and its affiliates are Sunni (and, by the way, they've received much support over the decades from the Saudi-funded Wahhabi madrassas). The regime of Nouri al-Maliki, which George W. Bush helped install in Iraq, is Shiite. The Shiite mullahs of Iran share an interest—which has sat dormant for a while but could be reactivated—in helping keep the Taliban or al-Qaida from retaking power in Afghanistan. And then there's Israel, which is another matter entirely.
In other words, the chief U.S. interest in the Middle East—and it resonates with U.S. values as well—is to dampen the fever for war. To the extent the Obama administration has threatened or taken military action, it has been for limited aims, which have little to do with the Sunni-Shiite divide.
At times Obama and his aides have made policy in incredibly ungainly ways. But the policies themselves have wind up grounded in U.S. interests. Prince Bandar has discovered something that was masked by the Cold War, when all politics were viewed in light of the U.S.-Soviet standoff and the two superpowers helped suppress the odd eruption of internal chaos: Our interests don't always coincide with his.
So are the Saudi rulers going to walk away from this decades-long alliance? Not likely. First, they have nowhere else to go. The Saudi army and air force are structured along the lines of the American military, which provides them with tremendous amounts of weaponry, support, and training. The French and Russians could offer some assistance, but not nearly as much—and their political interests and alliances wouldn't align so neatly with the Saudis' either.
In fact, Bandar's stratagem may reflect a growing awareness of Saudi weakness. Figures released earlier this month reveal that the United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest supplier of petroleum. To put it another way: The Saudis need our arms more than we need their oil.
Even Bandar's most stunning signal of disenchantment with Washington—his announcement that the Saudis will not accept a seat on the U.N. Security Council, after years of lobbying for the honor—may be more an acknowledgment of this equation. Had Saudi Arabia joined the U.N.'s highest body, it would have been seen as part of the U.S. voting bloc, and whenever it voted differently from the United States, the difference would be dramatized. Perhaps Bandar, recognizing that there might be frequent differences, would prefer that they not be highlighted.
That doesn't mean that the United States will, or should, shrug off Bandar's diatribe. Obama has already dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to assuage Saudi concerns, noting that we still value the strategic relationship, that the emerging détente with Iran is tentative, and that, when it comes to a nuclear deal, we regard a bad agreement as worse than no agreement.
The storm will probably soon blow over. Meanwhile, it may be a good thing, an acknowledgment of new realities, for Saudi Arabia—for all the countries of the Middle East—to pursue more flexible diplomatic arrangements. It would be good if the region's leaders neither relied so heavily, nor blamed their own ailments so conspiratorially, on the United States.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2013, 10:02:38 AM
What we should not do is make any attempt to fight ideas with restrictions, laws, or legislation.
What position do you take on fighting racism with laws like equal rights legislation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2013, 02:10:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2013, 10:02:38 AM
What we should not do is make any attempt to fight ideas with restrictions, laws, or legislation.
What position do you take on fighting racism with laws like equal rights legislation.
I have no problem at all with using the law to protect individuals rights from interference from other individuals.
I don't think it works to pass laws banning things like neo-nazi's and racist groups, for example.