Did the Saudis save the world from a major terror attack?

[Ivan Seeking]

This has been in the news for some days now.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Western officials are crediting a Saudi intelligence tip they received in early October, nearly three weeks before terrorists in Yemen managed to smuggle mail bombs onto airplanes, with heading off what could have been a series of catastrophic explosions aboard jetliners...

http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/11/09/115363-saudis-warned-us-package-bomb-plot-weeks-ago.htm

In light of the long-standing accusation that the Saudis are State sponsors of terrorism, I think our friends in the ME deserve recognition for their role in preventing a disaster.

Three cheers for the Saudis!

 

[arildno]

Well, it was probably a shia-plot and anti-wahabbi as well..

 

[talk2glenn]

This has been in the news for some days now.


http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/11/09/115363-saudis-warned-us-package-bomb-plot-weeks-ago.htm

In light of the long-standing accusation that the Saudis are State sponsors of terrorism, I think our friends in the ME deserve recognition for their role in preventing a disaster.

Three cheers for the Saudis!

Err, the accusation by whom, exactly?

 

[arildno]

Three cheers for the Saudis!

Nope.

Although OTHERS doing the same would have deserved three cheers, evil adulteress-stoners do not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Err, the accusation by whom, exactly?

This has long been a position of many on the right and some on the left. I am quite sure one specific example would be Rush Limbaugh.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Saudis+sponsor+terrorism

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nope.

Although OTHERS doing the same would have deserved three cheers, evil adulteress-stoners do not.

They likely saved many lives.

Evil adulteress-stoners? What are you talking about? This isn't a church.

Did God enter your life? You're not going religious on us, are you? [I get it, sarcasm].

 

[arildno]

They likely saved many lives.

Evil adulteress-stoners? What are you talking about? This isn't a church.

No.

But if you didn't know it, the Saudi regime endorses the stoning of adulterous women.

And, for precisely that reason, each and everyone of the regime's lackeys and beneficiaries are evil, vile human beings bereft of the baseline moral worth necessary to deserve moral recognition for anything other than destroying the regime they are part of.

 

[mheslep]

No.

But if you didn't know it, the Saudi regime endorses the stoning of adulterous women.

And, for precisely that reason, each and everyone of the regime's lackeys and beneficiaries are evil, vile human beings bereft of the baseline moral worth necessary to deserve moral recognition for anything other than destroying the regime they are part of.

Works for me.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But if you didn't know it, the Saudi regime endorses the stoning of adulterous women.

And, for precisely that reason, each and everyone of the regime's lackeys and beneficiaries are evil, vile human beings bereft of the baseline moral worth necessary to deserve moral recognition for anything other than destroying the regime they are part of.

I was having fun trying to extend this to a consistent moral principle, but I had to give up after a while. It seems likely that most countries can be found guilty of similar offences that would seemingly place most people on the same footing, no? Or at least arguably so, in many cases.

 

[Evo]

I was having fun trying to extend this to a consistent moral principle, but I had to give up after a while. It seems likely that most countries can be found guilty of similar offences that would seemingly place most people on the same footing, no? Or at least arguably so, in many cases.

You're joking, right? Same footing outside of the Middle East? The same footing as burying a woman 3/4ths of the way up and stoning her to death for adultery?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...h-penalty-given-secret-uk-asylum-1753007.html

How about cutting off people's hands for stealing?

Iran cuts off man's hand for stealingAmputation in front of prison inmates could herald a return to regular use of the punishment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/iran-thief-hand-cut-off

Surely you are not claiming these types of things happen in civilised countries?

 

[WhoWee]

This has long been a position of many on the right and some on the left.

I assume you're talking about all of those Bush/Saudi conspiracy theories? I guess you now accept Bush is innocent - that's nice of you Ivan.

 

[talk2glenn]

This has long been a position of many on the right and some on the left. I am quite sure one specific example would be Rush Limbaugh.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Saudis+sponsor+terrorism

Most of these articles link the state religious ideology (Wahibism) or the ostensibly NGO Muslim charities to terrorist organizaions.

It's pretty obvious to most people, I hope, that the Saudi government certainly does not sponsor terrorism. We like the Saudis, and they like us, more or less.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You're joking, right?

No, just trying to compare things on an even footing. How many deaths? Surely there are other countries that have caused more (or more per capita, to be fair); the Great Leap Forward caused 45 million deaths, or about 1.7% of the population per year.

It's hard to find good numbers on stoning in Iran, but I see that Amnesty International gives a figure of two people stoned to death in Iran in 2006 and one in 2007. This works out to something like 0.000002% of the population per year.

I'm not sure what kind of moral equivalence there may be between the two, but I'm unwilling to give more importance to millions of peasants callously starved to death per woman* stoned. (If you count only the beating deaths in the Great Leap Forward, it falls to 0.094% of the population, 45,000 times larger than the Iran figure.)

But as much as I despise communism, I wouldn't be willing to put the same burden on the citizens of the PRC that you lay on the citizens of Iran. But I'm curious: would you?
Yes: All Chinese in the PRC from 1958-62 are/were "bereft of the baseline moral worth necessary to deserve moral recognition for anything other than destroying the regime they are part of."
No: The moral harm of stoning one adulterer/adulteress is greater than starving 800,000 peasants or beating 45,000 to death.

It should go without saying, but just in case: I condone neither stoning nor the Great Leap Forward.

* Actually, the 2006-07 stoning deaths were 67% women, 33% men, but for the purpose of this statement I'll count them all as women.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Surely you are not claiming these types of things happen in civilised countries?

I certainly made no such claim.

 

[Evo]

CR you realize that stonings are being carried out by the locals as part of the law? You are aware of the recent stonings in the news?

You are aware of the people that are currently sentenced to death by stoning?

 

[CRGreathouse]

** Note ** This post was accidentally destroyed; what follows is a reasonable approximation of the original.

CR you realize that stonings are being carried out by the locals as part of the law?

Er, yes -- that's what my last two posts were about. My comparison was a different policy carried out by the locals as part of the law.

You are aware of the recent stonings in the news?

Yes, though I don't have statistics. If you have good numbers I'd be happy to redo my calculations using those combined with mine.

You are aware of the people that are currently sentenced to death by stoning?

They don't mean much to me. Over the last 10 years many more (5x? 10x?) people have been sentenced to death by stoning in Iran than have been stoned to death; most of their sentences have been commuted.

 

[Evo]

CR, (aside from deleting most of your post), the local magistrates are empowered to hand out sentences.

 

[russ_watters]

This has long been a position of many on the right and some on the left. I am quite sure one specific example would be Rush Limbaugh.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Saudis+sponsor+terrorism

Though I'm sure it is possible to find a random crackpot blogger to support your general claim, adding the word "limbaugh" to the end of that google does not yield in the first 20 hits a link that suggests your specific claim to be accurate.

 

[CRGreathouse]

----- REPOST ------

CR you realize that stonings are being carried out by the locals as part of the law?

Er, yes -- that's what my last two posts were about. My comparison was a different policy carried out by the locals as part of the law.

You are aware of the recent stonings in the news?

Yes, though I don't have statistics. If you have good numbers I'd be happy to redo my calculations using those combined with mine.

You are aware of the people that are currently sentenced to death by stoning?

They don't mean much to me. Over the last 10 years many more (5x? 10x?) people have been sentenced to death by stoning in Iran than have been stoned to death; most of their sentences have been commuted.

----- END REPOST ------

CR, (aside from deleting most of your post), the local magistrates are empowered to hand out sentences.

I agree, but I don't see what relevance that has here. (No one claims otherwise, AFAIK.) See also my repost, above.

 

[rootX]

Nope.

Although OTHERS doing the same would have deserved three cheers, evil adulteress-stoners do not.

...

You're joking, right? Same footing outside of the Middle East? The same footing as burying a woman 3/4ths of the way up and stoning her to death for adultery?

...

Surely you are not claiming these types of things happen in civilised countries?

...

These emotional issues shouldn't be in this thread. Their internal social/cultural flawed practices and external political activities are not related. It is not possible to change the world. Saudi Arab relations to America has nothing to do with their internal activities. This thread is not about what's going in their country but about how good they are to Americans.

OP:
I thought it's always well known that Saudi Arab is good to Americans.

 

[arildno]

These are not "emotional" issues at all, in the sense of "irrational".

It is true that the action of notifying about terrorist suspect is meritorious.

But, it impossible to laud solely the action, you will necessarily applaud the one doing it as well.

And no Saudi affiliated with the regime is morally worthy of such a recognition.

 

[russ_watters]

CRG, my main criticism of your method is that human rights are not typically measured with statistics but are judges based on the content of the laws. And as a practical matter, even if only one woman in a country is directly affected by the law, all women are bound by that law.

 

[arildno]

No: The moral harm of stoning one adulterer/adulteress is greater than starving 800,000 peasants to death

Most definitely, if there was no intention to starve them to death.

It is not the amount of suffering caused that specifies the degree of evil, but the amount of suffering intended that is the primary criterion.

The actual amount caused is a second-order concern.

 

[BobG]

CRG, my main criticism of your method is that human rights are not typically measured with statistics but are judges based on the content of the laws. And as a practical matter, even if only one woman in a country is directly affected by the law, all women are bound by that law.

Most definitely, if there was no intention to starve them to death.

It is not the amount of suffering caused that specifies the degree of evil, but the amount of suffering intended that is the primary criterion.

The actual amount caused is a second-order concern.

I think there's a couple flaws with this. Namely, one could argue that their policy reduces the amount of suffering by preserving family stability. Harsh penalties that are almost never enforced causes suffering for a few while reducing suffering for many, while eliminating their current gender roles would increase suffering for many by creating family instability. I'm not saying their line of logic is correct. I'm just saying that any line of logic depends on its starting assumptions about what is most important.

That said, Saudi Arabia has the worst record of womens rights in the entire Middle East. Most of that is due to cultural values of the people living in the country, not the government which is merely a reflection of Saudi Arabian culture.

In fact, the Saudi Arabian government is far ahead of Saudi Arabian culture when it comes to womens rights. In other words, while one might say all Saudi Arabian women are affected by changes to laws about womens rights, the fact of the matter is that many of those changes have little to no effect because they're not implemented by the courts that deal directly with the public.

And, to be fair, most of the changes to womens rights have only come in the last few years (especially since the new King Abdullah ibn Abd al-Aziz al-Saud in 2005). In other words, it takes time to change an entire culture - not government decrees.

An interesting look at womens rights in the entire Middle East and Northern African region: http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=384&key=270&parent=23&report=86 . A detailed look at womens rights in Saudi Arabia can be accessed by clicking on the link to country reports at the bottom of the regional summary.

 

[arildno]

Why search for a few specks of white gravel in a basin of muck, BobG?

that entire country is..lost. Face up to that.

 

[BobG]

Why search for a few specks of white gravel in a basin of muck, BobG?

that entire country is..lost. Face up to that.

Because of this:

And no Saudi affiliated with the regime is morally worthy of such a recognition.

It encourages a notion that regime change in oppressive countries actually change cultural values - or that the populace of a country would be eager to embrace modern democratic ideals if only the repressive regime were eliminated.

That's not the case. In fact, Iraq (which had an oppressive ruler removed within just the last decade) is one of only 3 Middle East nations where womens rights have gotten worse in the last five years instead of getting better.

Actually, womens rights have decreased steadily for the last 20 years after Hussein's defeated Kuwaiti invasion and subsequent sanctions emboldened conservative Shiites. While Hussein put down insurrections using deplorable means, he also started making more concessions to conservative Shiites and Sunnis as a way to reduce the chances of further insurrections. In other words, the US invasion wasn't the cause of reduced womens rights - in fact the regime change did little to affect cultural trends in Iraq.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Is it me or did the thread veer of the original subject tremendously?

From Saudi intelligence to Saudi women's right.

Do the CIA and women's suffrage have anything in common?

 

[arildno]

Because of this:



It encourages a notion that regime change in oppressive countries actually change cultural values - or that the populace of a country would be eager to embrace modern democratic ideals if only the repressive regime were eliminated.

That's not the case. In fact, Iraq (which had an oppressive ruler removed within just the last decade) is one of only 3 Middle East nations where womens rights have gotten worse in the last five years instead of getting better.

Actually, womens rights have decreased steadily for the last 20 years after Hussein's defeated Kuwaiti invasion and subsequent sanctions emboldened conservative Shiites. While Hussein put down insurrections using deplorable means, he also started making more concessions to conservative Shiites and Sunnis as a way to reduce the chances of further insurrections. In other words, the US invasion wasn't the cause of reduced womens rights - in fact the regime change did little to affect cultural trends in Iraq.

Well, I am not going to oppose the idea that as civilizations, the Arab countries of the ME are totally lost causes, and we shouldn't do anything about it all.

 

[mugaliens]

In light of the long-standing accusation that the Saudis are State sponsors of terrorism, I think our friends in the ME deserve recognition for their role in preventing a disaster.

Ever read a Robert Ludlum or John Gardner novel? The degree of subterfuge is enough to keep the best and brightest readers on their toes, not to mention the edge of their seats, for days. In the real world, things are actually more complex, and even less straightforward. Shell games abound, and counter-operations run several levels deep.

Who's to say this is anywhere near as straightforward as it appears on the surface? Who's to say it's not a Saudi plot to garner international confidence and bolster Saudi economic status? Who's to say it's not a CIA plot to ease tensions between Western governments and the Saudis so the CIA's access to the Middle East is improved? Who's to say each of these levels aren't being appeased to some or more extent so that the seventh and deepest level orchestrating all higher levels is getting what they want?

I can't think of a fourth level, but I'm quite certain there are various factions out there who've probably thought things out to seven levels, if not ten or more.

ETA: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2980645&postcount=1"...

 

[BobG]

Is it me or did the thread veer of the original subject tremendously?

From Saudi intelligence to Saudi women's right.

Do the CIA and women's suffrage have anything in common?

Both have a significant factor in common - a more progressive ruler (progressive by Saudi Arabia standards - in fact, actually he's referred to as a "cautious reformer").

However...

The so called "Sudairy Seven" are much more conservative than the current king. Technically, they're the "Sudairy Six" now since the 87-year-old Abdullah succeeded the oldest of the "Sudairy Seven" as king in 2005. The next in line to succeed the "cautious reformer" Abdullah is another member of the Sudairy Seven, although he's in poor health at 82 and will probably never live long enough to be king. The most likely successor is the 77-year-old Nayef, who may be the most conservative of the Sudairy clan. So the reforms of the current Saudi king aren't guaranteed to last very long.

The wives of the father of all these guys, Ibn Saud had 22 wives. Two of the wives were from the Sudairy family, which is currently the most powerful family in Saudi Arabia. The mother of the current king was from the al-Shuraim family. So, just because their half brothers doesn't mean they're a close family. (Ibn Saud had children for about 50 years, so there's a lot of his sons to go through before the next generation gets a turn at the crown.)

 

[Gokul43201]

Both have a significant factor in common - a more progressive ruler (progressive by Saudi Arabia standards - in fact, actually he's referred to as a "cautious reformer").

Cautious reformer to some; repressive dictator to others. Abdullah has been averaging around #5 for the last decade or so, in Parade Magazine's 10 Worst Dictators list.