https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/saudi-arabia-al-nimr-beheading-calls-boris-johnson-act
QuoteBoris Johnson told to act over Saudi execution threat
Foreign Office urged to reject Riyadh's 'fictions' as evidence points to an imminent beheading of Ali al-Nimr over protest charges
Jamie Doward
Saturday 30 July 2016 21.52 BST Last modified on Saturday 30 July 2016 23.50 BST
Fears are growing that Saudi Arabia is about to behead a man for crimes committed when he was a juvenile – in violation of both international and Saudi law – triggering calls for the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, to publicly reject Saudi "propaganda" claims that the accused should have been considered an adult at the time of the crime.
Human rights groups are concerned that a Twitter account with close links to the Saudi government is now raising the profile of Ali al-Nimr, who was sentenced to death on charges relating to his role in anti-government protests in 2012 when he was 17. In the past, similar activity on the Twitter account has been a signal that an individual is about to be executed. Two other men, Dawood al-Marhoon and Abdullah al-Zaher, convicted of similar offences when juveniles, also face beheading.
Under Saudi law juveniles cannot be executed. But, in its latest Human Rights Priority Country assessment for Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Office states that "all three were convicted of crimes committed when they were juveniles, although under Saudi law they are considered to have been adult at the time".
The case of al-Nimr was highlighted by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn last year and became a cause célèbre. Following Corbyn's appeal, the Foreign Office, which raised the matter with the Saudis, said it did not expect the three to be executed. But the Foreign Office's decision to repeat the Saudi claim has alarmed human rights groups, who are concerned about the signals it sends out to the kingdom.
"The British government should not be accepting the Saudis' excuses for their appalling plans to behead people sentenced to death as children," said Maya Foa, director of the death penalty team at international human rights organisation Reprieve.
"The government must stop hiding behind the fiction that Abdullah, Ali and Dawood are considered adults under Saudi law. The reality is that the Saudis are breaking both their own laws and international law in their plans to execute these three – all of whom were arrested when they were under 18 and accused of involvement in protests calling for reform."
Saudi law stipulates that juveniles can be classed as adults if they have hit puberty and are close to adulthood. But this has to be made clear at their trial. Reprieve insists this was not the case. It points out that all three were held in juvenile detention on arrest, and has written to the Foreign Office urging it not to accept the Saudi line. It has also raised the matter in a letter to Johnson.
"The attention the Foreign Office has paid to these cases so far is welcome," Foa said. "However, they must ensure they are not giving support to Saudi government propaganda, as they have done all too often before. Boris Johnson needs to set the record straight and call on the Saudi authorities to immediately commute the death sentences handed down to these three juveniles."
The issue represents an urgent challenge to Johnson's authority. As foreign secretary he must recognise the UK's commitment to human rights – but will also understand the need to placate the Saudis, who have bought billions of pounds' worth of UK jets, weapons and military hardware.
The three young men claim that they were tortured into confessions. Along with serious crimes such as making and throwing Molotov cocktails at police, they were convicted of an array of offences including "observing the movements of vehicles belonging to the security forces", "buying for and distributing water to protesters" and "explaining how to give first aid to protesters".
All three deny involvement in violent activity. There are widespread concerns that their trials did not follow due process, as lawyers for the three were denied access to the evidence against them.
There have also been claims that the case against al-Nimr is politically motivated because he is the nephew of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a reformist cleric who called for an end to corruption and discrimination against minorities. Nimr was executed in a mass execution of 47 prisoners last January, including Ali Saeed al-Rebh, 18, who was arrested after attending protests when he was 17.
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "The government's position is clear and understood by Saudi Arabia: we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and in all countries. We regularly raise the case of Ali al-Nimr, and the two others who were juveniles when they committed the crimes of which they have been convicted, including during the former foreign secretary's most recent visit to Saudi Arabia. We expect that they will not be executed. Nevertheless, we continue to raise these cases with the Saudi authorities."
Saudi Arabia needs to go. They are moral monsters on a level with ISIS, and the ideological womb of the toxic idea of global jihad and Islamic supremacy. Fuck them in every way possible.
I fail to be upset by a country trying 17-year-olds as adults. It's the other stuff about Saudi Arabia (in these cases and in everything else) that's the problem. The Saudis are thrilled to have the discussion focus on their age.
Quote from: The Brain on July 31, 2016, 03:35:21 AM
I fail to be upset by a country trying 17-year-olds as adults. It's the other stuff about Saudi Arabia (in these cases and in everything else) that's the problem. The Saudis are thrilled to have the discussion focus on their age.
You know what? You are right.
Well, don't expect America to toughen its attitude towards the Saudis under the Clinton administration.
Quote from: Hamilcar on July 31, 2016, 03:36:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 31, 2016, 03:35:21 AM
I fail to be upset by a country trying 17-year-olds as adults. It's the other stuff about Saudi Arabia (in these cases and in everything else) that's the problem. The Saudis are thrilled to have the discussion focus on their age.
You know what? You are right.
Yeah, heck, I'm in favor of the death penalty, and I don't have a problem with trying 17 year olds as adults under some circumstances. Neither of these is the real problem here--the problem is that taking part in a political protest in general shouldn't be a crime in the first place. (If they really did throw Molotov cocktails, OK, that's criminal, but assuming that they didn't kill anyone, not something that should carry the death penalty.)
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2016, 04:11:12 AM
Well, don't expect America to toughen its attitude towards the Saudis under the Clinton administration.
Trump will likely take a tough line on Saudi Arabia, until the king pays him a few complements, after which Trump will declare King Saud a great king and the leader of a great country. Trump will deride critics of Saudi Arabia as just being jealous and disappointed King Saud didn't complement them as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2016, 11:10:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2016, 04:11:12 AM
Well, don't expect America to toughen its attitude towards the Saudis under the Clinton administration.
Trump will likely take a tough line on Saudi Arabia, until the king pays him a few complements, after which Trump will declare King Saud a great king and the leader of a great country. Trump will deride critics of Saudi Arabia as just being jealous and disappointed King Saud didn't complement them as well.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2016, 11:10:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2016, 04:11:12 AM
Well, don't expect America to toughen its attitude towards the Saudis under the Clinton administration.
Trump will likely take a tough line on Saudi Arabia, until the king pays him a few complements, after which Trump will declare King Saud a great king and the leader of a great country. Trump will deride critics of Saudi Arabia as just being jealous and disappointed King Saud didn't complement them as well.
I know it's a typo, but this works even better with "complement" than "compliment."
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2016, 11:10:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2016, 04:11:12 AM
Well, don't expect America to toughen its attitude towards the Saudis under the Clinton administration.
Trump will likely take a tough line on Saudi Arabia, until the king pays him a few complements, after which Trump will declare King Saud a great king and the leader of a great country. Trump will deride critics of Saudi Arabia as just being jealous and disappointed King Saud didn't complement them as well.
Ok?
Aw, Martinus doesn't like to see people make fun of Daddy.
Quote from: Jaron on July 31, 2016, 01:38:30 PM
Aw, Martinus doesn't like to see people make fun of Daddy.
Did Milo really start the "daddy" meme? If so, kudos to the fabulous faggot.
Quote from: Jaron on July 31, 2016, 01:38:30 PM
Aw, Martinus doesn't like to see people make fun of Daddy.
I just don't see how this is relevant. Assuming Trump loses the elections in November, if there is any use of him, it's to use him to pressure Clinton towards more hawkish positions on Islamism - much like Sanders has been used to push her into more leftist positions on Citizens United and the like. Trump is obviously not an ideal candidate, but where Clinton (and the Democrats) currently fails the most it's their position on Islamism. Although let's hope she is at least more capable than Obama.
Quote from: Zanza on July 31, 2016, 02:30:06 PM
I haven't looked into his policies in detail, but all I can remember are anti-constitutional matters like a blanket ban on Muslims travelling to the United States or using torture and warcrimes against the Islamic State. Not sure what kind of policy positions Clinton could or should adopt here.
People like Marti believe that Trump actually has "positions" rather than mere feelings, and so equates Trump's puffery with the actual political statements by actual politicians.
It is kind of endearing, really. He's like the middle school student who really believes that, if Johnny gets elected student council president, all of the water fountains will dispense kool aide.
I deleted my post as I figured I don't want to discuss with Marty about Trump after all. Seems pointless.
Quote from: Zanza on July 31, 2016, 02:36:21 PM
I deleted my post as I figured I don't want to discuss with Marty about Trump after all. Seems pointless.
Okay. That's a reasonable position to take.
I don't think Hillary should adopt Trump's positions on Islamism any more than she should adopt Bernie's positions on, well, almost anything. But it serves to push her from the default positions of the Democratic establishment, which are also dysfunctional.
I read a bit about travelling to Saudi Arabia and there is something quite surprising to me.
QuoteEntry will be refused to citizens of Israel and to those who show stamps and/or visas from Israel.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Saudi_Arabia
So if I want to visit both Isreal and Saudi Arabia, I must do Saudi Arabia first. Or I need two passports, the Canadian one for Israel and the UK one for Saudi Arabia etc.
When it comes to foreign policy the most harmful thing to come out of the GOP in a long time is the "we may or may not defend NATO allies" thing, IMHO.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2016, 02:44:21 PM
I read a bit about travelling to Saudi Arabia and there is something quite surprising to me.
QuoteEntry will be refused to citizens of Israel and to those who show stamps and/or visas from Israel.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Saudi_Arabia
So if I want to visit both Isreal and Saudi Arabia, I must do Saudi Arabia first. Or I need two passports, the Canadian one for Israel and the UK one for Saudi Arabia etc.
I have heard that Israel is very good about issuing a disposable entry permit, not stamping the passport, for exactly this reason.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2016, 02:49:10 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2016, 02:44:21 PM
I read a bit about travelling to Saudi Arabia and there is something quite surprising to me.
QuoteEntry will be refused to citizens of Israel and to those who show stamps and/or visas from Israel.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Saudi_Arabia
So if I want to visit both Isreal and Saudi Arabia, I must do Saudi Arabia first. Or I need two passports, the Canadian one for Israel and the UK one for Saudi Arabia etc.
I have heard that Israel is very good about issuing a disposable entry permit, not stamping the passport, for exactly this reason.
Less good lately for the very understandable reason that they really shouldn't have to do it.
It used to even worse though Mono. My dad was in the merchant navy for years and in the 70s especially before you docked in any Arab port you had to do a total search of the ship and throw out any Israeli products. In the case that customs inspected your ship even if it just had a jaffa orange you wouldn't be allowed to dock. I believe nowadays most countries are more pragmatic about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2016, 02:49:10 PM
I have heard that Israel is very good about issuing a disposable entry permit, not stamping the passport, for exactly this reason.
When I went to the Soviet Union in the 1980s, they did this as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2016, 02:49:10 PM
I have heard that Israel is very good about issuing a disposable entry permit, not stamping the passport, for exactly this reason.
That, and it was also the sort of thing that got your ass separated from the rest of the hostages and put in the "Best if Killed By: Now" pile.
I don't see a good move for the West in regard to Saudi Arabia. I think we should continue business as usual with them, if we have learned nothing from the Arab Spring it should be that the devil you know is often better than the devil you don't. I can't see any real outcome where Saudi Arabia doesn't become worse in every way in response to international pressure. If we destabilized the al-Saud regime evidence is any popular government the Saudi citizenry produced would be far more monstrous, and if we put the al-Saud family were to survive they'd probably become more authoritarian and worse in response to what would likely be a more tenuous hold on power (not dissimilar to Assad getting far worse in Syria than he was before the uprisings.)
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2016, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2016, 02:49:10 PM
I have heard that Israel is very good about issuing a disposable entry permit, not stamping the passport, for exactly this reason.
When I went to the Soviet Union in the 1980s, they did this as well.
My uncle-in-law works in the merchant navy and told me Cuba used to do this in the 80s too (they might still do but he's not been there since).
Cuba was willing to do it for Americans visiting in violation of the travel ban as recently as like 3 or 4 years ago. Friends of mine from Kentucky went to Cuba on vacation using the 'go through Mexico first' trick.
Israel did it for me a couple years ago. I was sort of freaked out about getting an Israeli stamp since so many countries don't like it (I knew you could avoid getting it stamped, but was worried they would do so anyway), but when I handed over my passport and quickly started asking him not to stamp, he said, "don't worry at all, we don't stamp" and just inserted a transit card into the passport. I got the impression he would have done so even if I didn't ask.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 31, 2016, 06:40:41 PM
I don't see a good move for the West in regard to Saudi Arabia. I think we should continue business as usual with them, if we have learned nothing from the Arab Spring it should be that the devil you know is often better than the devil you don't. I can't see any real outcome where Saudi Arabia doesn't become worse in every way in response to international pressure. If we destabilized the al-Saud regime evidence is any popular government the Saudi citizenry produced would be far more monstrous, and if we put the al-Saud family were to survive they'd probably become more authoritarian and worse in response to what would likely be a more tenuous hold on power (not dissimilar to Assad getting far worse in Syria than he was before the uprisings.)
I think the best move on Saudi Arabia would be to tell them that the American public cares about things like beating women for driving, and unless they find a way to reform themselves and transition to a more modern world view, continued American support can not be guaranteed.
The exact same thing should be said to Israel, about policy on the West Bank.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2016, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 31, 2016, 06:40:41 PM
I don't see a good move for the West in regard to Saudi Arabia. I think we should continue business as usual with them, if we have learned nothing from the Arab Spring it should be that the devil you know is often better than the devil you don't. I can't see any real outcome where Saudi Arabia doesn't become worse in every way in response to international pressure. If we destabilized the al-Saud regime evidence is any popular government the Saudi citizenry produced would be far more monstrous, and if we put the al-Saud family were to survive they'd probably become more authoritarian and worse in response to what would likely be a more tenuous hold on power (not dissimilar to Assad getting far worse in Syria than he was before the uprisings.)
I think the best move on Saudi Arabia would be to tell them that the American public cares about things like beating women for driving, and unless they find a way to reform themselves and transition to a more modern world view, continued American support can not be guaranteed.
The exact same thing should be said to Israel, about policy on the West Bank.
Somehow I have the feeling that the US government already had these conversations with the respective parties, and they didn't produce the desired changes.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2016, 10:39:11 PM
Somehow I have the feeling that the US government already had these conversations with the respective parties, and they didn't produce the desired changes.
I would argue that in fact Saudi Arabia has already engaged in noticeable reforms and changes in policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2016, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 31, 2016, 06:40:41 PM
I don't see a good move for the West in regard to Saudi Arabia. I think we should continue business as usual with them, if we have learned nothing from the Arab Spring it should be that the devil you know is often better than the devil you don't. I can't see any real outcome where Saudi Arabia doesn't become worse in every way in response to international pressure. If we destabilized the al-Saud regime evidence is any popular government the Saudi citizenry produced would be far more monstrous, and if we put the al-Saud family were to survive they'd probably become more authoritarian and worse in response to what would likely be a more tenuous hold on power (not dissimilar to Assad getting far worse in Syria than he was before the uprisings.)
I think the best move on Saudi Arabia would be to tell them that the American public cares about things like beating women for driving, and unless they find a way to reform themselves and transition to a more modern world view, continued American support can not be guaranteed.
The exact same thing should be said to Israel, about policy on the West Bank.
Then Saudi Arabia will do exactly the same as Israel: turn toward another ally.
It's not like China and Russia don't want Saudi oil.
It's a little too late for that, especially for Israel. That country will keep expanding until there is no more Palestine but Gaza, and then, they'll make their lives so miserable that they'll leave by themselves. It would have been effective in the early 2000s, when there were no alternatives for Israel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2016, 10:43:50 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2016, 10:39:11 PM
Somehow I have the feeling that the US government already had these conversations with the respective parties, and they didn't produce the desired changes.
I would argue that in fact Saudi Arabia has already engaged in noticeable reforms and changes in policy.
Yes, you are right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations
I largely don't have a problem with Israeli behavior in the West Bank. It's ugly but there's no meaningful alternative, and many have been tried.
I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 12:22:01 PM
I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.
To me the problem comes with considering the Saudis as a sort of a valuable ally. Someone else mentioned Libya under Qadaffi and Iraq under Saddam here. Sure, toppling them proved unwise in retrospect and toppling the Saudis would probably be similarly disastrous - but Western leaders were not, generally, kowtowing to those dictators - they were pariahs that were barely tolerated by the civilised Western nations. Why we do not use the same approach with respect to the Saudis is beyond me.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 10:57:26 AM
I largely don't have a problem with Israeli behavior in the West Bank. It's ugly but there's no meaningful alternative, and many have been tried.
Me neither. In fact, given the recent outpouring of Islamic terrorism in the West, I can't wait for the governments of France and Germany to adopt a similar approach.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:06:31 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 10:57:26 AM
I largely don't have a problem with Israeli behavior in the West Bank. It's ugly but there's no meaningful alternative, and many have been tried.
Me neither. In fact, given the recent outpouring of Islamic terrorism in the West, I can't wait for the governments of France and Germany to adopt a similar approach.
I have an Israeli colleague (IDF service, somewhat senior, now out) who just shakes his head and laughs at Europe. Belgian security in particular has become a running joke.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 12:22:01 PM
I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.
To me the problem comes with considering the Saudis as a sort of a valuable ally. Someone else mentioned Libya under Qadaffi and Iraq under Saddam here. Sure, toppling them proved unwise in retrospect and toppling the Saudis would probably be similarly disastrous - but Western leaders were not, generally, kowtowing to those dictators - they were pariahs that were barely tolerated by the civilised Western nations. Why we do not use the same approach with respect to the Saudis is beyond me.
I think you may have forgotten Qadaffi's extended tour of European capitals in his bedouin tent.
The problem is Saudi is a valuable ally. Cameron was pressed on Saudi repeatedly in an interview (because it's a favourite issue of Corbyn so it had come up) and after being asked in an interview about it three or four times he basically snapped that the reason we're friendly with Saudi is they help our national security and there were a number of occasions when he was aware of Saudi intelligence actually stopping attacks in and over the UK. So the question for politicians and electorates is how much national security you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of being morally correct on human rights and potentially in the long-term, potentially seeing a decline in successful propagandising for Salafi/jihadi ideologies? My suspicion is politicians (rightly would be my guess) think the answer is very, very little.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 12:22:01 PM
I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.
To me the problem comes with considering the Saudis as a sort of a valuable ally. Someone else mentioned Libya under Qadaffi and Iraq under Saddam here. Sure, toppling them proved unwise in retrospect and toppling the Saudis would probably be similarly disastrous - but Western leaders were not, generally, kowtowing to those dictators - they were pariahs that were barely tolerated by the civilised Western nations. Why we do not use the same approach with respect to the Saudis is beyond me.
Lots of things are beyond you. Iraq and Libya invaded their neighbors and were believed to be aligned with the Soviet Union. I can see why you would want the US-Saudi alliance to fail, it benefits the West, something you are not part of.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 01, 2016, 01:08:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:06:31 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 10:57:26 AM
I largely don't have a problem with Israeli behavior in the West Bank. It's ugly but there's no meaningful alternative, and many have been tried.
Me neither. In fact, given the recent outpouring of Islamic terrorism in the West, I can't wait for the governments of France and Germany to adopt a similar approach.
I have an Israeli colleague (IDF service, somewhat senior, now out) who just shakes his head and laughs at Europe. Belgian security in particular has become a running joke.
become? it has always been iirc. But what do you expect? C'est belge... :yuk:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2016, 03:11:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 12:22:01 PM
I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.
To me the problem comes with considering the Saudis as a sort of a valuable ally. Someone else mentioned Libya under Qadaffi and Iraq under Saddam here. Sure, toppling them proved unwise in retrospect and toppling the Saudis would probably be similarly disastrous - but Western leaders were not, generally, kowtowing to those dictators - they were pariahs that were barely tolerated by the civilised Western nations. Why we do not use the same approach with respect to the Saudis is beyond me.
Lots of things are beyond you. Iraq and Libya invaded their neighbors and were believed to be aligned with the Soviet Union. I can see why you would want the US-Saudi alliance to fail, it benefits the West, something you are not part of.
the question is of course to what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world, with significant effect.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2016, 09:14:44 PM
Israel did it for me a couple years ago. I was sort of freaked out about getting an Israeli stamp since so many countries don't like it (I knew you could avoid getting it stamped, but was worried they would do so anyway), but when I handed over my passport and quickly started asking him not to stamp, he said, "don't worry at all, we don't stamp" and just inserted a transit card into the passport. I got the impression he would have done so even if I didn't ask.
On the reverse side, one of our radio supplier's engineers had a project in Syria that required his constant attention over the course of several years. So he came to Israel and they started looking over his passport.
Passport Control Agent: How many times have you been to Syria?
Keith: I don't know, a couple dozen?
He said he had a nice, long conversation with the Mossad after that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 01, 2016, 01:30:04 PM
I think you may have forgotten Qadaffi's extended tour of European capitals in his bedouin tent.
The problem is Saudi is a valuable ally. Cameron was pressed on Saudi repeatedly in an interview (because it's a favourite issue of Corbyn so it had come up) and after being asked in an interview about it three or four times he basically snapped that the reason we're friendly with Saudi is they help our national security and there were a number of occasions when he was aware of Saudi intelligence actually stopping attacks in and over the UK. So the question for politicians and electorates is how much national security you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of being morally correct on human rights and potentially in the long-term, potentially seeing a decline in successful propagandising for Salafi/jihadi ideologies? My suspicion is politicians (rightly would be my guess) think the answer is very, very little.
Carpet bomb the government districts of Riyadh and I guarantee you'll see a reduction.
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:06:31 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 10:57:26 AM
I largely don't have a problem with Israeli behavior in the West Bank. It's ugly but there's no meaningful alternative, and many have been tried.
Me neither. In fact, given the recent outpouring of Islamic terrorism in the West, I can't wait for the governments of France and Germany to adopt a similar approach.
I doubt that the governments of France and Germany are particularly interested in establishing settlements in the West Bank. And if Germany get an expansionistic itch again, why would they go to the Middle East when Poland is still right next door?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 01, 2016, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2016, 03:11:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 12:22:01 PM
I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.
To me the problem comes with considering the Saudis as a sort of a valuable ally. Someone else mentioned Libya under Qadaffi and Iraq under Saddam here. Sure, toppling them proved unwise in retrospect and toppling the Saudis would probably be similarly disastrous - but Western leaders were not, generally, kowtowing to those dictators - they were pariahs that were barely tolerated by the civilised Western nations. Why we do not use the same approach with respect to the Saudis is beyond me.
Lots of things are beyond you. Iraq and Libya invaded their neighbors and were believed to be aligned with the Soviet Union. I can see why you would want the US-Saudi alliance to fail, it benefits the West, something you are not part of.
the question is of course to what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world, with significant effect.
How would ending the US/Saudi alliance put an end to "the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi"?
Quote from: Savonarola on August 01, 2016, 04:17:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2016, 09:14:44 PM
Israel did it for me a couple years ago. I was sort of freaked out about getting an Israeli stamp since so many countries don't like it (I knew you could avoid getting it stamped, but was worried they would do so anyway), but when I handed over my passport and quickly started asking him not to stamp, he said, "don't worry at all, we don't stamp" and just inserted a transit card into the passport. I got the impression he would have done so even if I didn't ask.
On the reverse side, one of our radio supplier's engineers had a project in Syria that required his constant attention over the course of several years. So he came to Israel and they started looking over his passport.
Passport Control Agent: How many times have you been to Syria?
Keith: I don't know, a couple dozen?
He said he had a nice, long conversation with the Mossad after that.
After the first paragraph, I was expecting your story would end, "He got Israel to stamp his passport so wouldn't be allowed back into Syria and would force the company to send him to another assignment." :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 01, 2016, 04:34:59 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 01, 2016, 04:17:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2016, 09:14:44 PM
Israel did it for me a couple years ago. I was sort of freaked out about getting an Israeli stamp since so many countries don't like it (I knew you could avoid getting it stamped, but was worried they would do so anyway), but when I handed over my passport and quickly started asking him not to stamp, he said, "don't worry at all, we don't stamp" and just inserted a transit card into the passport. I got the impression he would have done so even if I didn't ask.
On the reverse side, one of our radio supplier's engineers had a project in Syria that required his constant attention over the course of several years. So he came to Israel and they started looking over his passport.
Passport Control Agent: How many times have you been to Syria?
Keith: I don't know, a couple dozen?
He said he had a nice, long conversation with the Mossad after that.
After the first paragraph, I was expecting your story would end, "He got Israel to stamp his passport so wouldn't be allowed back into Syria and would force the company to send him to another assignment." :lol:
:lol:
Now that would have been funny, but I'm sure he would have just gotten another passport. He had one of those enormous book passports that was quickly filling up.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2016, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 01, 2016, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2016, 03:11:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 01, 2016, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 01, 2016, 12:22:01 PM
I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.
To me the problem comes with considering the Saudis as a sort of a valuable ally. Someone else mentioned Libya under Qadaffi and Iraq under Saddam here. Sure, toppling them proved unwise in retrospect and toppling the Saudis would probably be similarly disastrous - but Western leaders were not, generally, kowtowing to those dictators - they were pariahs that were barely tolerated by the civilised Western nations. Why we do not use the same approach with respect to the Saudis is beyond me.
Lots of things are beyond you. Iraq and Libya invaded their neighbors and were believed to be aligned with the Soviet Union. I can see why you would want the US-Saudi alliance to fail, it benefits the West, something you are not part of.
the question is of course to what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world, with significant effect.
How would ending the US/Saudi alliance put an end to "the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi"?
that's another question alltogether, as you know well enough.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 02, 2016, 07:11:08 AM
that's another question alltogether, as you know well enough.
No, it's the same question. Why is the West allied with Saudi Arabia? You asked "what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world", since not being allied with them has no real effect on them exporting their ideology (with one major exception), nothing is being "nullified". The Western alliance and the Saudi ideology don't impact one another very much which is why the West is allied with them, as you know well enough. One major exception is if Saudi Arabia is conquered by Iran, an undesirable outcome.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2016, 10:52:49 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 02, 2016, 07:11:08 AM
that's another question alltogether, as you know well enough.
No, it's the same question. Why is the West allied with Saudi Arabia? You asked "what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world", since not being allied with them has no real effect on them exporting their ideology (with one major exception), nothing is being "nullified". The Western alliance and the Saudi ideology don't impact one another very much which is why the West is allied with them, as you know well enough. One major exception is if Saudi Arabia is conquered by Iran, an undesirable outcome.
Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.
But here's the thing, Saudi state support for that stuff is part of the bargain between the House of Saud and the crazy Islamists in Saudi Arabia, without it they likely wouldn't be able to govern. If we replace the House of Saud, it'd be with an Islamist government that would do all of these things and more. If we pressure the al-Sauds too much, what are they going to choose: caving to Western demands, or maintaining their grip on power?
I think the light pressure we exert, and having their government as allies (if not their populace) is the best possible scenario here. Any serious change to this status quo makes things worse for us and arguably worse for Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 02, 2016, 12:40:13 PM
Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.
But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.
The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.
If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.
There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.
I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago (:P) but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:00:47 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 02, 2016, 12:40:13 PM
Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.
But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.
The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.
If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.
There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.
I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago (:P) but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.
sure, but it doesn't make it a positive. Neutral at best, unless the other intelligence they have is sufficiently valuable to turn a negative to neutral into a positive.
the saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.
the saudis share intelligence on the problem they created: that's good but since they are unlikely to know about each and every one of the indoctrinated vectors they created this intelligence is insufficient to tip the scales into a positive range. Especially as they continue to undermine societies by spreading said vile ideology. So the balance is neutral at best (but in reality it isn't)
so other intelligence and assets they might have are going to determine what that benefit to the West is. But in the meantime that negative number is getting bigger and bigger, day by day. Not exactly the behaviour of an ally. Just as the USSR was an 'ally' during WW2 it didn't do much to change the fact that it was a force for evil. One can say the same of the Saudis, and be speaking the truth.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 03, 2016, 12:40:48 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:00:47 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 02, 2016, 12:40:13 PM
Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.
But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.
The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.
If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.
There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.
I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago (:P) but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.
sure, but it doesn't make it a positive. Neutral at best, unless the other intelligence they have is sufficiently valuable to turn a negative to neutral into a positive.
the saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.
the saudis share intelligence on the problem they created: that's good but since they are unlikely to know about each and every one of the indoctrinated vectors they created this intelligence is insufficient to tip the scales into a positive range. Especially as they continue to undermine societies by spreading said vile ideology. So the balance is neutral at best (but in reality it isn't)
so other intelligence and assets they might have are going to determine what that benefit to the West is. But in the meantime that negative number is getting bigger and bigger, day by day. Not exactly the behaviour of an ally. Just as the USSR was an 'ally' during WW2 it didn't do much to change the fact that it was a force for evil. One can say the same of the Saudis, and be speaking the truth.
The problem with your analysis however is that it doesn't suggest a better alternative.
Will the Saudi's stop doing these things we object to if we support them less?
I suspect that they will do more of those things in fact, rather than less of them.
I cannot fucking stand them - I hate the things they stand for, and I think the spread of Wahabism is a cancer. But I think that engaging with them in the manner we are doing now is probably the best way to handle the situation. We cannot stop this by being their enemy, like Iran. Their oil makes them incredibly wealthy no matter what we do, so unless we are willing to endure a radical economic and political risk by trying to embargo them or something, there is no alternative approach that will do better than what we are doing now, so far as I can tell.
I do find they repugnant though, so I am a ready audience for a better solution....
One of the most important questions for the world over the next 20 years is how the next generation of young people in Islamic majority countries are going to be educated. Looked that way, the Saudi regime may be the most dangerous in the world today.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 03, 2016, 01:07:34 PM
One of the most important questions for the world over the next 20 years is how the next generation of young people in Islamic majority countries are going to be educated. Looked that way, the Saudi regime may be the most dangerous in the world today.
I don't disagree, at all. Some of the examples of how education works in Islamic funded schools is just horrifying.
Fucking oil.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:00:47 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 02, 2016, 12:40:13 PM
Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.
But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.
The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.
If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.
There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.
I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago ( :P ) but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.
I'm not an "it". :(
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 03, 2016, 12:40:48 PM
sure, but it doesn't make it a positive. Neutral at best, unless the other intelligence they have is sufficiently valuable to turn a negative to neutral into a positive.
the saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.
the saudis share intelligence on the problem they created: that's good but since they are unlikely to know about each and every one of the indoctrinated vectors they created this intelligence is insufficient to tip the scales into a positive range. Especially as they continue to undermine societies by spreading said vile ideology. So the balance is neutral at best (but in reality it isn't)
so other intelligence and assets they might have are going to determine what that benefit to the West is. But in the meantime that negative number is getting bigger and bigger, day by day. Not exactly the behaviour of an ally. Just as the USSR was an 'ally' during WW2 it didn't do much to change the fact that it was a force for evil. One can say the same of the Saudis, and be speaking the truth.
Do you believe that the Ideology of the Saudi state would change if the West was not allied with them?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 03, 2016, 12:40:48 PMthe saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.
I think you're vastly overstating the importance of the Saudis in this, if you disappeared their funding of Wahhabism I don't think you'd see that significant of a decrease in the spread of Islamic terrorism. Lots of major Islamic terrorist organizations have really broken with Saudi Wahhabism anyway.
Plus, we go back to the
why, the mostly cosmopolitan and fairly Western-style House of Saud is in bed with the Islamic fundamentalists--it's part of the deal that keeps their
fundamentalist population from going batshit crazy and rioting in the streets. If we took moves to distance ourselves from Saudi Arabia, we make the al-Saud family weaker, more likely to lose power. If that happens we just end up with a "popular government" even more committed to doing the things you're upset about.
What you're missing is the real problem in SA is their extremely fundamentalist
population, and your prescription is to do things that would weaken their
more pro-Western ruling family. The House of Saud has to walk a razor's edge to maintain power, and I have no reason to think pushing them off of it is to our benefit.
The estimates I've seen are about $3 billion/year in funding for overseas educational institutions. Historically these are key feeders for the Taliban - indeed that is what the term Taliban designates. They are also feeders for terrorism in the sense they propagate a worldview and mental outlook such that once a person is radicalized (perhaps for other reasons) they are primed to respond to the propaganda of the likes of AQ/Nusra/Daesh/etc even if these organizations are not strictly speaking Wahhabi. And perhaps even more significant then direct feed-in to terror organizations is that fact what does NOT happen as a result of such schooling - students are not exposed to broader secular ideas and principles as part of their education beyond some narrow technical training.
As for the pressure from the population, the Saudis have put themselves in a hamster wheel - if you turn over the formation of your youth to fundis, you will get more fundi with each generation, thus reinforcing pressures to make concessions to fundis, etc.
Mind the Afghan Taliban won the 1990s Afghan Civil War primarily because of support from Pakistan. It's not as simple as just Saudi Arabia making this stuff happen. There's also a lot of private support among wealthy Gulf Coast Muslims for funding these sort of things, I'm just not convinced the Saudi Regime is creating the situation so much as it's just caught up in it. If they ended the support they'd create domestic enemies, and wealthy Wahhabists would probably fill in a lot of the gaps.
I don't know how much of the money is "private" vs "public". I put those phrases in scare quotes because of the peculiar nature of the Saudi royal family.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 03, 2016, 02:02:57 PM
I think you're vastly overstating the importance of the Saudis in this, if you disappeared their funding of Wahhabism I don't think you'd see that significant of a decrease in the spread of Islamic terrorism. Lots of major Islamic terrorist organizations have really broken with Saudi Wahhabism anyway.
That's not the point. The point is that Saudi-funded radical Islam in the West is a breeding ground for radicalisation of Muslims living in the West, and such Muslims later go on to join terrorist organisations or perpetrate "lone wolf" style attacks in the name of such organisations, the spat of which we have seen lately.
One good solution, imho, that would not ostensibly compromise our values and freedoms and would not create a situation where discrimination could be alleged, would be to restrict foreign funding of religious organisations based on the mutuality principle.
In other words, you are free, as a non-US (or non-German etc.) citizen/organisation/etc. to fund a religious organisation or building of a place of worship in the relevant country (i.e. US, Germany etc.), if a citizen/organisation/etc. from the US, Germany etc. can go and do the same in your country.
This neatly rules out the Saudis from doing any religious funding in the West, while not, say, preventing Mormons or the Catholic church from operating in Western countries.
Now why the fuck would you want the Catholic Church to operate in your country?
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2016, 12:48:02 AM
One good solution, imho, that would not ostensibly compromise our values and freedoms and would not create a situation where discrimination could be alleged, would be to restrict foreign funding of religious organisations based on the mutuality principle.
In other words, you are free, as a non-US (or non-German etc.) citizen/organisation/etc. to fund a religious organisation or building of a place of worship in the relevant country (i.e. US, Germany etc.), if a citizen/organisation/etc. from the US, Germany etc. can go and do the same in your country.
This neatly rules out the Saudis from doing any religious funding in the West, while not, say, preventing Mormons or the Catholic church from operating in Western countries.
Seems it will be easy to get around such rules. Just set up a front organisation that is owned by a US citizen on the surface, and have that organisation do the religious activities. Saudi Arabia controls that from behind the scenes.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 04, 2016, 01:14:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2016, 12:48:02 AM
One good solution, imho, that would not ostensibly compromise our values and freedoms and would not create a situation where discrimination could be alleged, would be to restrict foreign funding of religious organisations based on the mutuality principle.
In other words, you are free, as a non-US (or non-German etc.) citizen/organisation/etc. to fund a religious organisation or building of a place of worship in the relevant country (i.e. US, Germany etc.), if a citizen/organisation/etc. from the US, Germany etc. can go and do the same in your country.
This neatly rules out the Saudis from doing any religious funding in the West, while not, say, preventing Mormons or the Catholic church from operating in Western countries.
Seems it will be easy to get around such rules. Just set up a front organisation that is owned by a US citizen on the surface, and have that organisation do the religious activities. Saudi Arabia controls that from behind the scenes.
There are already tools we have to track this kind of fraud that we use for anti-money laundering and other similar purposes.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2016, 12:43:29 AM
That's not the point. The point is that Saudi-funded radical Islam in the West is a breeding ground for radicalisation of Muslims living in the West, and such Muslims later go on to join terrorist organisations or perpetrate "lone wolf" style attacks in the name of such organisations, the spat of which we have seen lately.
It's strange that in all my reading about Muslim terrorist attacks in the west, or western Muslims who go to join ISIS or al Shabab or whatever, the reports never mention anything about Saudi-funded mosques or madrasas. Generally they talk about ISIS or other radical Islamic propaganda on the internet.
Events in the USA will help destroy Saudi Arabia without any military action needed :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/31/texas-shale-oil-has-fought-saudi-arabia-to-a-standstill/
Respect for good old American knowhow btw :cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2016, 02:42:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2016, 12:43:29 AM
That's not the point. The point is that Saudi-funded radical Islam in the West is a breeding ground for radicalisation of Muslims living in the West, and such Muslims later go on to join terrorist organisations or perpetrate "lone wolf" style attacks in the name of such organisations, the spat of which we have seen lately.
It's strange that in all my reading about Muslim terrorist attacks in the west, or western Muslims who go to join ISIS or al Shabab or whatever, the reports never mention anything about Saudi-funded mosques or madrasas. Generally they talk about ISIS or other radical Islamic propaganda on the internet.
Are you saying there is no link or that media do not report about this? I thought that there is an established recognised link between Saudi funding for radical imams in the West. But I am open to being corrected on this.
In any case, I think it's a good policy for a country to allow foreign individuals the same rights that its own citizens would enjoy in the foreign country in question.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2016, 03:56:50 AM
Are you saying there is no link or that media do not report about this?
I can't prove a negative. No news report that I've read so far has discussed a link between terrorism and Saudi financed mosques or madrasas.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 04, 2016, 03:48:54 AM
Events in the USA will help destroy Saudi Arabia without any military action needed :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/31/texas-shale-oil-has-fought-saudi-arabia-to-a-standstill/
Respect for good old American knowhow btw :cool:
I have read somewhere that the majority of Saudi oil exports go to Asia, not the US though. China, Japan and India are the biggest buyers of Saudi oil. Also, somehow fracking isn't very successful in China.
It took me 5 minutes to find these with google, with sources ranging from far left to far right and including reputable mainstream ones (like Telegraph):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/saudi_arabia_funds_and_exports_islamic_extremism_the_truth_behind_the_toxic_u_s_relationship_with_the_theocratic_nation/
http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-radical-islam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/22/polling-muslims-in-the-west-increasingly-sympathise-with-extremism-terror/
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-funding-islamic-extremism-west-german-vice-chancellor-sigmar-gabriel-a6763366.html
The news sources also quote high ranking officials of Western governments expressing this view. I am surprised you have never heard of anyone making this claim before. In fact, this seems like one of the few issues that, when it comes to Islamic terrorism, everybody is agreeing upon.
There's loads of Saudi-funded salafist mosques in NE Spain. It's actually one of our top counter-terrorist concerns so they are kept under watch. So far no link has been substantiated between arrested jihadis in Spain and those. Most of those dismantled groups always operate using internet - it just makes sense to be frank, much more difficult to track and detect than a bunch of guys gathering at a mosque.
And I hate the Saudi regime and despise Salafism - but I have grown to accept OvB's position that there's no perfect solution to this. I guess we have to accept gradualism and that exerting soft pressure on the regime and the spread of liberal ideas will slowly (too slowly) make that cesspool a better place.
That said, I have spoken to a bunch of muslims here that plainly refuse to go to the big Saudi or Moroccoan-funded mosques, and prefer the small (and pretty shitty) places funded by the local communities. Like a woman told me several weeks ago "if you take money from the sheikh, you're owned by the sheikh".
Let's not forget that those people are immigrants. If they're here is because they believe their countries of origin are pretty shitty places to begin with.
One thing I don't understand. If those Saudi funded schools in the west are such huge problems, what stops the western governments from dealing with them directly? Arrest and expel the personnel, shut down the schools, infiltrate them, put them on watch lists, refuse to grant them land or licences, give them bureaucratic red tape hell etc. There are lots of ways to deal with this kind of problem.
They are not a problem, since they don't do anything ostensibly illegal.
I think Yi is right that they are a problem, but I think they're a problem on quite a diffuse way. The only direct links I can think of are in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have plenty of additional issues.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 04, 2016, 06:43:06 AM
I think Yi is right that they are a problem, but I think they're a problem on quite a diffuse way. The only direct links I can think of are in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have plenty of additional issues.
That's what I mean. There's no smoking gun, so there's no justification to act against them as a whole.
However, I do think our governments can do much to mitigate their influence, and they should do so. For example, in Spain people get up in arms whenever there's talk of public money going to fund mosques or teaching of Islam (even though public money does flow to the Catholic church in earnest), but ultimately that leaves room for the Saudi Wahabbists to barge in and fill that void.
I'm in principle against funding religion with public money, but since we are already doing that with Christian denominations (in Spain, at least, dunno about other western nations), might as well use that tool to our advantage.
But isn't my solution to deal with the problem quite elegant? I mean, it is difficult to specifically target mosques etc. under our laws, but making sure foreign funding is limited on a reciprocality principle should deal with the Saudis.
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2016, 09:29:25 AM
But isn't my solution to deal with the problem quite elegant? I mean, it is difficult to specifically target mosques etc. under our laws, but making sure foreign funding is limited on a reciprocality principle should deal with the Saudis.
Yes it's a pretty decent idea. You can put your gold star up now. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2016, 12:48:02 AM
One good solution, imho, that would not ostensibly compromise our values and freedoms and would not create a situation where discrimination could be alleged, would be to restrict foreign funding of religious organisations based on the mutuality principle.
In other words, you are free, as a non-US (or non-German etc.) citizen/organisation/etc. to fund a religious organisation or building of a place of worship in the relevant country (i.e. US, Germany etc.), if a citizen/organisation/etc. from the US, Germany etc. can go and do the same in your country.
This neatly rules out the Saudis from doing any religious funding in the West, while not, say, preventing Mormons or the Catholic church from operating in Western countries.
Yeah--this is a good and reasonable policy; particularly because it wouldn't cause any domestic instability in Saudi Arabia as I can see it. It might make the populace more anti-West, but they're already super anti-West, and if anything it may give the al-Saud family a little more street cred with them if they make some statement angrily denouncing (but doing nothing else) about said policy.
Right, aside from the huge invasion of Pakistanis joining the Taliban and swarming over the borders into Afghanistan during the 1990s (by far the biggest factor in the Taliban winning the civil war), often literally direct from these schools, these schools in general aren't "directly linked" to terrorism. The problem is more, they teach a brand of Islam that while it doesn't outright say "start flying planes into buildings", it creates a logical framework in which such actions seem to make sense, and then when those kids grow up, some percentage of them will act on it. Now, a larger percentage won't for various reasons, and some percentage like any other schooling won't "take to it", but its long term effect is to create more fundamentalist Muslims with beliefs incompatible with the modern world.
The reason these schools exist is the exact reason Christian fundamentalists home school or create biblical-oriented primary schools and colleges in the United States. They aren't stupid--they know liberal education and learning how to think skeptically are anathema to maintaining fundamentalist beliefs. So they create a cradle to adulthood path where the next generation can learn fundamentalist beliefs with little exposure to outside ideas, and by the time they're in their 20s the hope is they're so indoctrinated they will themselves start the next generation of indoctrination.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 04, 2016, 09:50:44 AM
Right, aside from the huge invasion of Pakistanis joining the Taliban and swarming over the borders into Afghanistan during the 1990s (by far the biggest factor in the Taliban winning the civil war), often literally direct from these schools, these schools in general aren't "directly linked" to terrorism. The problem is more, they teach a brand of Islam that while it doesn't outright say "start flying planes into buildings", it creates a logical framework in which such actions seem to make sense, and then when those kids grow up, some percentage of them will act on it. Now, a larger percentage won't for various reasons, and some percentage like any other schooling won't "take to it", but its long term effect is to create more fundamentalist Muslims with beliefs incompatible with the modern world.
The reason these schools exist is the exact reason Christian fundamentalists home school or create biblical-oriented primary schools and colleges in the United States. They aren't stupid--they know liberal education and learning how to think skeptically are anathema to maintaining fundamentalist beliefs. So they create a cradle to adulthood path where the next generation can learn fundamentalist beliefs with little exposure to outside ideas, and by the time they're in their 20s the hope is they're so indoctrinated they will themselves start the next generation of indoctrination.
Nicely put together explanation.
Wow Marty that is a pretty good idea :hmm:
1st amendment would cause legal problems in the US though.
Yeah, the 1st doesn't say you get freedom of religion only as long as some other political entity provides it as well.
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 10:46:54 AM
Yeah, the 1st doesn't say you get freedom of religion only as long as some other political entity provides it as well.
I guess I was thinking about foreign governments funding schools over here not outlawing anything.
Quote from: Valmy on August 04, 2016, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 04, 2016, 10:46:54 AM
Yeah, the 1st doesn't say you get freedom of religion only as long as some other political entity provides it as well.
I guess I was thinking about foreign governments funding schools over here not outlawing anything.
Well, it is a tricky thing, isn't it?
For one, is it really foreign governments funding religious organizations here?
Or is it foreign governments funding religious organizations there, and those organizations then dispersing funds here? How do you legally tell some mosque that they cannot operate because you think they took money from some other organization that might have some funding connection to a foreign government without at the same time impeding some individual member of that mosque's freedom to exercise their religion?
I don't find the basic idea unreasonable at all, I am just skeptical of how it could be implemented without running up against immediate constitutional challenges. in practical application.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 10:38:06 AM
1st amendment would cause legal problems in the US though.
Well, remember what Trump said, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2016, 11:37:41 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 10:38:06 AM
1st amendment would cause legal problems in the US though.
Well, remember what Trump said, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
What argument was he trying to make? That he's more effective than the Constitution?
Quote from: Monoriu on August 04, 2016, 06:20:09 AM
One thing I don't understand. If those Saudi funded schools in the west are such huge problems, what stops the western governments from dealing with them directly? Arrest and expel the personnel, shut down the schools, infiltrate them, put them on watch lists, refuse to grant them land or licences, give them bureaucratic red tape hell etc. There are lots of ways to deal with this kind of problem.
Uh, because we have the rule of law in the West; most of that stuff wouldn't fly here. Doesn't apply to other countries, but from the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[b/]".
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2016, 11:47:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2016, 11:37:41 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 10:38:06 AM
1st amendment would cause legal problems in the US though.
Well, remember what Trump said, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
What argument was he trying to make? That he's more effective than the Constitution?
Immigration.
In Germany banning foreign governments from funding schools should be constitutional as our constitution says stuff like "The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the state." or "The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution."
Quote from: dps on August 04, 2016, 12:02:29 PM
Uh, because we have the rule of law in the West; most of that stuff wouldn't fly here. Doesn't apply to other countries, but from the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[b/]".
Mono should know that. HK had rule of law as well until a couple years ago it was replaced by rule of Xi.
Quote from: Zanza on August 04, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
In Germany banning foreign governments from funding schools should be constitutional as our constitution says stuff like "The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the state." or "The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution."
We should start by banning DITIB. <_<
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 04, 2016, 12:25:57 PM
Quote from: dps on August 04, 2016, 12:02:29 PM
Uh, because we have the rule of law in the West; most of that stuff wouldn't fly here. Doesn't apply to other countries, but from the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[b/]".
Mono should know that. HK had rule of law as well until a couple years ago it was replaced by rule of Xi.
He said, Xi said.
:bleeding:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F66.media.tumblr.com%2F94a68d8e00c11fdaff33c7ec125212bc%2Ftumblr_mtp62wUutg1sd5qb4o1_500.gif&hash=fdf05f3bb5c138c960d0c3ce88c568f2673f6403)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmlb.mlb.com%2Fimages%2F8%2F9%2F8%2F153531898%2F1006_hounyy_crystal_reax_med_1hvilmyw.gif&hash=3248bee75c472c9d537fadd03954f416d5aec20f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F1klk-but-i-have-no-money-for-shame-this-day-is-sad-purse-is-empty-of-cash_zps7xbqtthr.png&hash=9cb65c80e8c833a275cf3af4cd05fa3bf0155efe) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/1klk-but-i-have-no-money-for-shame-this-day-is-sad-purse-is-empty-of-cash_zps7xbqtthr.png.html)