Taliban Law

Remove all ads!

All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilence.

I think these are sayings the world (regardless of their religion) needs to remember more frequently. They were penned by men who knew what they were talking about.

 

I like reading these articles slanted in favor of Islam as it is completely different to my own views but I must question that if religion this little to do with the events here then why are the only places this sort of thing happens is in the "large and varied" Muslim world, from Malaysia to Morocco.

 

Tekee - My own personal opinion is that it is the autocrats that are already in power, the orthodox, conservative, old men who have the most to lose from true political, and yes, religious reform. It's no surprise, in that regard, the Saudi Crown funds half the terrorists in the region, while holding up the plight of the Palestinians as an excuse "for all things evil" from the West. If the Palestinians and Israelis shook hands tomorrow half the despots in the region would be out of power. But that's just my own opinion.

 

Bad example, considering the rather healthy relation that Saudi Arabia has with both Israel and the USA. The most they've done for the Palestinians in the past 20-something years is pretend they're interested, give some bored speech about how much they support Palestine and how evil Israel and the USA are, then they go back to their usual chores (which mostly involve ignoring the Palestinians and doing business with their so-called "enemies" Israel and the USA). Where do you think all the Palestinian refugees (and more to the point armed militias) went when they ran away from Israel? Not one made it into Saudi Arabia.

Also the ruling family of Saudi Arabia (families if you count all the associates) do not fund any terrorists. Not because they're nice people mind you (they're not) but instability of any kind is not really to their advantage. The only way they've managed to stay in power and maintain one of the most oppressive dictatorships still around is because they can maintain stability and have lots of money and the full support of the USA (US presidents can "talk tough" all they want, when it comes to actually doing something they're always helping and being helped by Saudi Arabia).

People too often tend to confuse specific terrorists from Saudi Arabia (Ossama Bin Laden anyone?) and the tyrants running Saudi Arabia (Al Saoud, the Bin Laden family and all their friends). Keep in mind that all the US military bases in Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait and Qatar and the UAE...) were not set there in spite of the ruling dictators but with full consent and often after invitation from these rulers. They invited the USA because they wanted their help and protection from those they consider their enemies and threats to stability - Iran first, Iran and Iraq a few years later.

 

Ziad - You raise some very good points and the echo some of what I am saying. First, Muslims are mostly peaceful and enlightened people, who are not the raving terrorists that they are portrayed as by the mainstream media in the West (but to do so has certain political advantages for some). Second, my point is that terrorism is more about politics than religion, which was my main point. Third, we agree that the Saudis, for all their posturing, care little about the Palestinians, and that they are mostly used as a symbol for anti-western propaganda (not hat their plight is not real, since it is).

As far as the Saudi's use of power, we disagree. The Saudi's have played both sides, and their objective is only to hold on to power. First, they are orthodox and conservative, because this allows for conformity and enforcement by strict autocrats, something that all despots, everywhere embrace within their respective societies. Iran has historically accused the Saudis of being "Americanized," for the reasons you stated. But the Saudi's are also in a game of strategy within the region with Iran as it's chief rival. That leads to this:

Americans have a funny way of believeing that everything that happens in the world is all about "US." Well, obviously that is not always the case.

http://www.meforum.org/528/saudi-arabias-links-to-terrorism

Edit: In the meantiime there is this:

So you wonder who is worse: Our enemies, or our "friends."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...pe-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html

 

Chandos, I agree with the posturing of the Saudis, I just wanted to point out an extra layer in the West/Saudi relationship, specifically that although the Saudi Arabian regime constantly speaks about the Evil Westerners they're then happy to forget everything they've said and invest in Western companies and establish all sorts of economic and political alliance, especially with the USA (of course the USA does the same - both Bush would go on about the Evil Saudis while Cheney was making all sorts of deals with them). It's particularly obvious when you contrast their attitude to that of the United Arab Emirates, especially Dubai, who did the same type of economic alliances but were at least more open about it and talked about Westernising their emirate. That said, we don't seem to disagree about the Saudi's use of power much. I do agree that they're after their own agenda and can play both sides, though their political alliance with the USA has been pretty strong since the 80s, namely since they started seeing Iran as a threat. As for their "madrasas"*, yes, Saudi Arabia has been throwing money around to create Islamist schools that are sympathetic to Wahhabism. I personally wouldn't want my child (if I had one) to be indoctrinated like this (and I sure as hell won't place him/her in a wahhabist school), but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're funding terrorist schools.

*On a slightly unrelated note, I find it quite funny that the US media just loves to use this word left and right to mean "Islamist fundamentalist terrorist school". In Arabic it means "school", period. Any school. I went to a "madrasa"; so did you and just about everyone on these boards I expect.

 

Ziad, I would have to disagree somewhat with your view on the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia. The position you talk of is the most visible one, perhaps, but there are definitely competing views and agendas within the Saudi leadership itself. No organization of this kind is completely unified, and familial groups tend to have their fair share of infighting and different agendas. After all, what monarchy has gone without its coups, depositions, and exiles? Just because it is not seen, or talked about much (at least in the West) doesn't mean it does not happen. I am willing to bet that within the royal family there are more than a few who support, probably with funds, terrorists or other extremists. They may do it out of genuine approval or just to cultivate a power base, but they most likely do. On the other hand, there are probably some who are more reformist than the mold and would like to westernize (however they understand it) the country - but neither they nor the radicals are publicly active. Either of the two groups, especially the radicals, may have their own reasons to incite trouble - for one, it is easier to usurp power when things are not going well .

Oh, and chances are, at least some of the leaders of the country know of those two groups, but would prefer to see it kept in the family. I very much doubt that they would publicly denounce, much less surrender to any Western country, a Saudi prince, no matter what his ties to terrorism may be. It would blow their public image to smithereens, and public image and honor count for a lot. Much better to deal with such things within the family and maintain the facade.

 

Yes, it's true I lumped the leadership all together as one unified entity, which as you've pointed out is a simplification. Of course things get more complicated (and much messier) when you take into account all the sub-groups vying for power within the royal family. I was responding to Chandos's statement about the Saudi Crown, which I took to mean the visible portion of the ruling family. As you've pointed out if "troublemakers" arise within the leadership then things will be taken care from within, without involving other countries (and, considering how closed Saudi Arabia is, without the international media finding out anything). For all we know this could be part of the deal the West has with the current section of the royal family staying in power - they have investments in the West and they want those investments to keep paying, which ensures they have to stay in good political terms with the West, and so the West in turns props them up but doesn't interfere in their internal affairs.