http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27510954 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27510954)
Quote
Dutch send envoy 'to avert Saudi sanctions'
The Netherlands will send an envoy to Saudi Arabia in a bid to ease the Gulf kingdom's anger over the distribution of anti-Islamic messages, the foreign ministry has said.
Saudi Arabia has yet to announce any sanctions, but local media said certain measures had already taken effect.
The row began when far-right politician Geert Wilders distributed stickers bearing slogans derogatory to Islam.
The stickers were printed in the colours of the Saudi flag.
Dutch exports to Saudi Arabia are worth about 2bn euros ($2.7 bn) a year, according to the Dutch statistics office.
'Adolescent behaviour'
Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative Muslim countries in the world, and enforces a strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans told reporters that, in discussions with the Saudi authorities, he had stressed that the Netherlands allowed freedom of expression, but that Mr Wilders' standpoint on this issue "was not shared by the Dutch government''.
He said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''
"We will do everything possible to keep the consequences for the Netherlands as limited as possible," he told Dutch broadcaster RTL.
.....
How are they going to get those deep, dark strain removed from their cheek bones? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on May 21, 2014, 12:44:37 PM
Quote
Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative Muslim countries in the world, and enforces a strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Man it gets old how 'idiotic and considered entirely wrong by most theologians' gets considered a 'strict interpretation' as if somehow the Saudis are the best Muslims and everybody else is lax.
I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement. :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 21, 2014, 12:44:37 PM
Quote
Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative Muslim countries in the world, and enforces a strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Man it gets old how 'idiotic and considered entirely wrong by most theologians' gets considered a 'strict interpretation' as if somehow the Saudis are the best Muslims and everybody else is lax.
Meh, this happens all the time with religions. See for example how non-Jews tend to view Orthodox Jews as the "real Jews", as if wearing 17th century Polish outfits was
the sign of Jewishness. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 21, 2014, 12:44:37 PM
Quote
Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative Muslim countries in the world, and enforces a strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Man it gets old how 'idiotic and considered entirely wrong by most theologians' gets considered a 'strict interpretation' as if somehow the Saudis are the best Muslims and everybody else is lax.
They've been very busy spreading Wahabism, though. From refugee camps in Pakistan, fun imams sent to European mosques to generally using their soft power well around the Gulf and in the Arab world.
I'm not sure what I dislike the most; Wilders or the rather undiplomatic description of him and his activities as "adolescent".
His party works within the framework of a liberal democracy - Saudi-Arabia has issues with women driving, as it leads to sin. It's like Norway apologising to the PRC for giving the Dalai Lama the Nobel Peace Prize.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement. :mellow:
Your inability to see things really doesn't say anything about the things you are unable to see, though; it only says things about you and your abilities.
Quote from: Norgy on May 21, 2014, 01:08:39 PM
I'm not sure what I dislike the most; Wilders or the rather undiplomatic description of him and his activities as "adolescent".
His party works within the framework of a liberal democracy - Saudi-Arabia has issues with women driving, as it leads to sin. It's like Norway apologising to the PRC for giving the Dalai Lama the Nobel Peace Prize.
I am
quite sure which I dislike the most. The government is obviously free to disassociate itself from the actions of Wilders, and ministers may privately call Wilders and adolescent or an idiot (or both), but a government minister cannot officially throw a country's elected legislators under the bus to appease foreign despots without looking like a poltroon whose party should lose power soonest.
Quote from: Malthus on May 21, 2014, 12:51:13 PM
Meh, this happens all the time with religions. See for example how non-Jews tend to view Orthodox Jews as the "real Jews", as if wearing 17th century Polish outfits was the sign of Jewishness. ;)
I am pretty sure Moses and Maimonides both dressed like 17th century Poles. The Torah commands it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 21, 2014, 01:16:24 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 21, 2014, 01:08:39 PM
I'm not sure what I dislike the most; Wilders or the rather undiplomatic description of him and his activities as "adolescent".
His party works within the framework of a liberal democracy - Saudi-Arabia has issues with women driving, as it leads to sin. It's like Norway apologising to the PRC for giving the Dalai Lama the Nobel Peace Prize.
I am quite sure which I dislike the most. The government is obviously free to disassociate itself from the actions of Wilders, and ministers may privately call Wilders and adolescent or an idiot (or both), but a government minister cannot officially throw a country's elected legislators under the bus to appease foreign despots without looking like a poltroon whose party should lose power soonest.
I agree. Well put.
Quote from: Malthus on May 21, 2014, 12:51:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 21, 2014, 12:44:37 PM
Quote
Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative Muslim countries in the world, and enforces a strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Man it gets old how 'idiotic and considered entirely wrong by most theologians' gets considered a 'strict interpretation' as if somehow the Saudis are the best Muslims and everybody else is lax.
Meh, this happens all the time with religions. See for example how non-Jews tend to view Orthodox Jews as the "real Jews", as if wearing 17th century Polish outfits was the sign of Jewishness. ;)
Yeah, you're right it does seem the automatic assumption to make. :blush:
Quote from: grumbler on May 21, 2014, 01:16:24 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 21, 2014, 01:08:39 PM
I'm not sure what I dislike the most; Wilders or the rather undiplomatic description of him and his activities as "adolescent".
His party works within the framework of a liberal democracy - Saudi-Arabia has issues with women driving, as it leads to sin. It's like Norway apologising to the PRC for giving the Dalai Lama the Nobel Peace Prize.
I am quite sure which I dislike the most. The government is obviously free to disassociate itself from the actions of Wilders, and ministers may privately call Wilders and adolescent or an idiot (or both), but a government minister cannot officially throw a country's elected legislators under the bus to appease foreign despots without looking like a poltroon whose party should lose power soonest.
Yes, it's not pretty, is it.
Not a huge problem with the Dutch statement. Saudi Arabia is a shithole that should be glassed but that's a different question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement. :mellow:
Same. Don't really mind a government making clear that they're not represented by x loony lawmaker.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement. :mellow:
Same. Don't really mind a government making clear that they're not represented by x loony lawmaker.
Agreed. I don't see the contraversy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement. :mellow:
Same. Don't really mind a government making clear that they're not represented by x loony lawmaker.
If the Dutch government had just said that, there wouldn't be a controversy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement. :mellow:
Same. Don't really mind a government making clear that they're not represented by x loony lawmaker.
Well they did that, which was fine, but then begged not for the righteous Saudis not to punish them for the sins of one lawmaker. :lol:
Pretty pathetic.
What's the objectionable bit?
Countries like Saudi Arabia often have a hard time (or claim to have a hard time) understanding liberal democracies and how in those not everything is decided by the government. Edumacating them seems inoffensive to me.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:18:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
I don't see the problem with the Dutch statement. :mellow:
Same. Don't really mind a government making clear that they're not represented by x loony lawmaker.
Well they did that, which was fine, but then begged not for the righteous Saudis not to punish them for the sins of one lawmaker. :lol:
Pretty pathetic.
Is this the bit you are talking about:
QuoteHe said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''
If so, what is the problem? One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing. What am I missing?
Quote from: The Brain on May 21, 2014, 04:26:27 PM
Countries like Saudi Arabia often have a hard time (or claim to have a hard time) understanding liberal democracies and how in those not everything is decided by the government. Edumacating them seems inoffensive to me.
Yeah I imagine Britain will have to spend some time explaining to Putin that Prince Charles doesn't represent the British government when he compares him to Hitler :lol:
That's not Britain apologising for being a constitutional monarchy. But the same goes for the press. I've read the British government routinely has to reassure countries that as we have a free press they've no control over what the newspapers publish.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2014, 04:34:01 PM
If so, what is the problem? One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing. What am I missing?
I think what I said was pretty self explanatory. The ton of it all was pretty absurd. Just disavow him, no reason to beg for leniency.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 04:34:48 PM
Yeah I imagine Britain will have to spend some time explaining to Putin that Prince Charles doesn't represent the British government when he compares him to Hitler :lol:
The government controlled Russian press does that regularly to Britain, the US, and company so I don't see why the Russians would mind much.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2014, 04:40:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2014, 04:34:01 PM
If so, what is the problem? One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing. What am I missing?
I think what I said was pretty self explanatory. I mean besides calling out the voters who voted that guy in as adolescents.
Maybe self explanatory to you. But you appear to be reading in a lot that doesnt actually appear in the article.
QuoteOur country is a liberal democracy, everyone who lives here has the Freedom to think and say whatever they wish within certain limits, typically advocating the harming of others is an example of what isn't socially or legally acceptable.
Otherwise people have the rights to exercise their freedoms and get to vote on choose the government that 'runs' the country, rather than the state and it's people being the playthings of unelected, self-appointed guardians of God's will on earth.
The upshot of this is the opinions of the people are diverse, strong and persons don't fear to speak their minds. The government of the day holds 'opinions' that are often different to many of the people it serves, but which we hope are in their best interest.
And if the government's actions based on those 'opinions' turns out to not best serve the people, then they will, through the regular exercise of a legal, not violent process remove their representatives and government, putting in place one they feel will better serve them and their concerns.
This is democracy, we strongly recommend you give it a try one day, most advance countries eventually give it a go.
Possible alternative Dutch response? :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2014, 04:34:01 PM
Is this the bit you are talking about:
QuoteHe said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''
If so, what is the problem? One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing. What am I missing?
If the Saudis don't know at this point that the views of one legislator don't represent the views of the entire government, there's no point in repeating it again--they're never going to get it. If they do know it, then it doesn't need to be said.
Quote from: mongers on May 21, 2014, 06:10:19 PM
QuoteOur country is a liberal democracy, everyone who lives here has the Freedom to think and say whatever they wish within certain limits, typically advocating the harming of others is an example of what isn't socially or legally acceptable.
Otherwise people have the rights to exercise their freedoms and get to vote on choose the government that 'runs' the country, rather than the state and it's people being the playthings of unelected, self-appointed guardians of God's will on earth.
The upshot of this is the opinions of the people are diverse, strong and persons don't fear to speak their minds. The government of the day holds 'opinions' that are often different to many of the people it serves, but which we hope are in their best interest.
And if the government's actions based on those 'opinions' turns out to not best serve the people, then they will, through the regular exercise of a legal, not violent process remove their representatives and government, putting in place one they feel will better serve them and their concerns.
This is democracy, we strongly recommend you give it a try one day, most advance countries eventually give it a go.
Possible alternative Dutch response? :unsure:
Maybe when the country is run by five year olds.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2014, 06:46:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 21, 2014, 06:10:19 PM
QuoteOur country is a liberal democracy, everyone who lives here has the Freedom to think and say whatever they wish within certain limits, typically advocating the harming of others is an example of what isn't socially or legally acceptable.
Otherwise people have the rights to exercise their freedoms and get to vote on choose the government that 'runs' the country, rather than the state and it's people being the playthings of unelected, self-appointed guardians of God's will on earth.
The upshot of this is the opinions of the people are diverse, strong and persons don't fear to speak their minds. The government of the day holds 'opinions' that are often different to many of the people it serves, but which we hope are in their best interest.
And if the government's actions based on those 'opinions' turns out to not best serve the people, then they will, through the regular exercise of a legal, not violent process remove their representatives and government, putting in place one they feel will better serve them and their concerns.
This is democracy, we strongly recommend you give it a try one day, most advance countries eventually give it a go.
Possible alternative Dutch response? :unsure:
Maybe when the country is run by five year olds.
That would certainly be a step-up in Saudi governance standards.
Quote from: dps on May 21, 2014, 06:13:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2014, 04:34:01 PM
Is this the bit you are talking about:
QuoteHe said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''
If so, what is the problem? One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing. What am I missing?
If the Saudis don't know at this point that the views of one legislator don't represent the views of the entire government, there's no point in repeating it again--they're never going to get it. If they do know it, then it doesn't need to be said.
And so since everyone seems to realize that this guy doesnt represent the views of the government what is the harm in saying it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2014, 04:42:14 PM
Maybe self explanatory to you. But you appear to be reading in a lot that doesnt actually appear in the article.
Ok in what way would you like for me to say it? I was commenting on how they were begging for Saudi mercy, saying they should not punish them all for one lawmaker. What about that is hard to understand?
Quote from: dps on May 21, 2014, 06:13:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2014, 04:34:01 PM
Is this the bit you are talking about:
QuoteHe said he hoped the Saudi government would "understand you should not make an entire country pay for the adolescent behaviour of one lawmaker.''
If so, what is the problem? One would hope the Saudi government would understand such a thing. What am I missing?
If the Saudis don't know at this point that the views of one legislator don't represent the views of the entire government, there's no point in repeating it again--they're never going to get it. If they do know it, then it doesn't need to be said.
let's be honest: of course the Saudi's know how things are run in the Netherlands.
But they can play this at home as having humiliated a "decadent western infidel country, Allah rules and Islam is superior! Inshallah!".
I don't think it can be assumed people who live in a dictatorship really understand how things work in a democracy.
Haven't declassified Soviet internal documents proved they were pretty clueless and didn't believe America worked as advertised.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 22, 2014, 01:49:24 AM
let's be honest: of course the Saudi's know how things are run in the Netherlands.
But they can play this at home as having humiliated a "decadent western infidel country, Allah rules and Islam is superior! Inshallah!".
They initially didn't get why an MP couldn't just be silenced by the government, but now they seem to understand. And they know it was just one guy foaming at the mouth, and not the view of the government.
But they'll play this game to get an apology. The Saudi government will get in trouble if they don't.
Also, our vice prime minister calling the sanctions a ludicrous threat didn't help much, either :bleeding:
A private note to the King along the lines of "The government doesn't support this but if we make a public apology he'll get more votes next time 'round" would be my tactic.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2014, 02:44:14 AM
I don't think it can be assumed people who live in a dictatorship really understand how things work in a democracy.
Haven't declassified Soviet internal documents proved they were pretty clueless and didn't believe America worked as advertised.
I liked the bit from The Americans where the KGB thought Al Haig had led a coup. :lol:
Khrushchev (or was it Brezhnev) thought that the supermarket he was taken to was a Potemkin village.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 22, 2014, 03:15:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2014, 02:44:14 AM
I don't think it can be assumed people who live in a dictatorship really understand how things work in a democracy.
Haven't declassified Soviet internal documents proved they were pretty clueless and didn't believe America worked as advertised.
I liked the bit from The Americans where the KGB thought Al Haig had led a coup. :lol:
I'm always baffled by the ability of projection to skew humans ability to comprehend.
Arabs really believe the CIA is an american Mubakaharat.
The Soviets really believed NATO governments were American Puppets.
Virtually every historical conspiracy perpetrator was first a conspiracy theorist.
Virtually every genocider in history feared a genocide against his own people.
Ultimately people can only ascribe motives to others which they comprehend and often share. Personally I was convinced none of the worlds professed religious believers actually believed until 9/11 cured me of that delusion.
It follows that anybody who makes such total mis-comprehensions of how the west works couldn't even be a democrat if he wanted to since he can't comprehend what it means. I think people should spend more time looking at what the dictators of the world say about the west to understand what they really think about themselves.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2014, 03:40:12 AM
Khrushchev (or was it Brezhnev) thought that the supermarket he was taken to was a Potemkin village.
Because the real Americans were in the hinterlands eating random birds and drinking snow.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2014, 03:40:12 AM
Khrushchev (or was it Brezhnev) thought that the supermarket he was taken to was a Potemkin village.
Shoppers were <400 lbs?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2014, 03:45:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2014, 03:40:12 AM
Khrushchev (or was it Brezhnev) thought that the supermarket he was taken to was a Potemkin village.
Because the real Americans were in the hinterlands eating random birds and drinking snow.
Were you able to bring back any good technology from 2015?
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2014, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2014, 03:40:12 AM
Khrushchev (or was it Brezhnev) thought that the supermarket he was taken to was a Potemkin village.
Shoppers were <400 lbs?
Yeah. We wanted them to be smaller than Mrs. Kruschev.