ForumGarden

OK---- it's been 10 years and the anti semetic, anti Christian, anti female, anti non believer, bull--it is still incorporated in the Saudi textbooks. This kind of pre conditioning and indoctrination does not bode well for future relationships with Muslims. It is certainly their right to publish what ever they wish in their texts, but it is also our right to discontinue the millions in aid that we have been furnishing them each year for many years, and in some years billions. Are we just stupid or what?



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/saudi-a ... jews-gays/

If you follow that logic you should also take the same attitude to a great deal of christian texts as well. Come to that the pope should be up on charges for calling for action against non-believers, undermining the rights of women throughout the world and rewriting of history by denying the holocaust was caused by Christianity amnd not non-believers.

What "Muslims" do you give aid to ?

Thought aid was given to "people" in distress.

I suggest, Lon, that you clean up the ideological and religious bias of the Texas Board of Education before you worry too much about the House of Saud and its manifold sociological deficiencies as seen from a Western perspective. The Texas Board of Education is a lot closer to home and far more likely to cause harm to those you care about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educ ... texas.html

Lon;1379396 wrote: OK---- it's been 10 years and the anti semetic, anti Christian, anti female, anti non believer, bull--it is still incorporated in the Saudi textbooks. This kind of pre conditioning and indoctrination does not bode well for future relationships with Muslims. It is certainly their right to publish what ever they wish in their texts, but it is also our right to discontinue the millions in aid that we have been furnishing them each year for many years, and in some years billions. Are we just stupid or what?I think it only proves Saudi Arabia is a Muslim Nation. I agree with you on the bribe money we send them, but I'd think that's wrong regardless of their religious beliefs. Most religions are divisive, including Christianity.

spot;1379418 wrote: I suggest, Lon, that you clean up the ideological and religious bias of the Texas Board of Education before you worry too much about the House of Saud and its manifold sociological deficiencies as seen from a Western perspective. The Texas Board of Education is a lot closer to home and far more likely to cause harm to those you care about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educ ... htmlSurely this is a fair subject to explore?

Ahso!;1379426 wrote: Surely this is a fair subject to explore?


Only if you do it with facts instead of prejudice. For example, does "I agree with you on the bribe money we send them" relate to aid payments, from the earlier context? In that case I'll lay a bet with you that Saudi Arabia gives more money in aid to recipients in the USA than the US gives to recipients in Saudi Arabia. Shall we go looking and try to find out? When I say "recipients" I'm trying to include private as well as governmental donors and beneficiaries, that's all. I'd consider donations to art galleries, for example, to come under the same heading as other forms of aid. Or would you like to define "aid" before we go looking?

I don't consider what we send to other countries aid, to me it's more like money to support American corporate interests. We pay other countries to let us do business with them. I think in the past it's bought us some preferential treatment, but I doubt that's as true anymore.

Ahso!;1379446 wrote: I don't consider what we send to other countries aid, to me it's more like money to support American corporate interests. We pay other countries to let us do business with them. I think in the past it's bought us some preferential treatment, but I doubt that's as true anymore.


And yet Lon says "it is also our right to discontinue the millions in aid that we have been furnishing them each year for many years, and in some years billions", and you wrote in response "I agree with you on the bribe money we send them". I suggest, in contrast to Lon's view, that the balance of gifted money is the other way. I still think we ought to find out.

spot;1379447 wrote: And yet Lon says "it is also our right to discontinue the millions in aid that we have been furnishing them each year for many years, and in some years billions", and you wrote in response "I agree with you on the bribe money we send them". I suggest, in contrast to Lon's view, that the balance of gifted money is the other way. I still think we ought to find out.Fine with me.

I can't speak for Lon. My response to him was not an agreement with his language as much as what I saw as his reluctance to continue spending American tax dollars in whatever foreign term you'd like to use.

Ahso!;1379452 wrote: Fine with me.

I can't speak for Lon. My response to him was not an agreement with his language as much as what I saw as his reluctance to continue spending American tax dollars in whatever foreign term you'd like to use.
Payment for oil isn't aid, mind. It's not gifted, it's payment at market rates for goods received. Neither is the subsidy on military hardware - that's pure self-interest, not a gift. Were it a gift the House of Saud could use it to buy Russian jets instead, and nobody thinks that's true. Were the subsidy not proffered, they quite likely would because they'd get better value.

So, where's the aid from the USA to Saudi Arabia? I can see none.

You'll have to wait for Lon to address the "aid" part, I called it bribe money.

Ahso!;1379455 wrote: You'll have to wait for Lon to address the "aid" part, I called it bribe money.


We agree, then, that it's purely self-interest on the part of the US government for US industry to buy Saudi oil at that price and for the US government to subsidize the US weapons industry to that extent? That the bribes are volunteered by the US and pressed on the Saudis, that they're not bribery in any illegal sense? It seems an odd word, but then so did aid.

I can't say whether or not the payoffs are pressed. I can't imagine the Saudis need the money, so it's difficult to say why the payoffs seem to have worked up to now unless accepting the money was a guarantee that the U.S. would not invade Saudi Arabia and also protect the Kingdom. That is probably more accurate as I think about it. That would mean America has been paying another country to avoid attacking it. That'll make anyone's head spin.

OK------Aid was a poor choice of words on my part. Let's say "Any reciprocal financial dealings". It just strikes me as absurd to continue diplomatic, trade, or commerce of any kind with a country that supports through it's textbooks, barbaric practices.

I know why it is done, I just don't approve.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Our different time zones make speedy response difficult.

I have the impression the Saudi Kingdom is run by Muslim fundamentalists.

Ahso!;1379479 wrote: I have the impression the Saudi Kingdom is run by Muslim fundamentalists.


And Texas, by contrast, is run by...?

Lon;1379477 wrote: It just strikes me as absurd to continue diplomatic, trade, or commerce of any kind with a country that supports through it's textbooks, barbaric practices.
That's the Israelis buggered then.

spot;1379480 wrote: And Texas, by contrast, is run by...?Christian fundamentalists. That doesn't change the subject though. Shouldn't Texas be a separate thread?

spot;1379481 wrote: That's the Israelis buggered then.Do the Israelis do the same thing?

Ahso!;1379483 wrote: Christian fundamentalists. That doesn't change the subject though. Shouldn't Texas be a separate thread?Correction! It's worse actually, Texas is run by Christian fundamentalist football enthusiasts.

spot;1379480 wrote: And Texas, by contrast, is run by...?


Texas is a poor comparison. Where is the barbarity?

Lon;1379488 wrote: Texas is a poor comparison. Where is the barbarity?The football, Lon, the football!

spot;1379418 wrote: I suggest, Lon, that you clean up the ideological and religious bias of the Texas Board of Education before you worry too much about the House of Saud and its manifold sociological deficiencies as seen from a Western perspective. The Texas Board of Education is a lot closer to home and far more likely to cause harm to those you care about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educ ... texas.html


I can't get that link to work.

Spot: "I suggest, Lon, that you clean up the ideological and religious bias of the Texas Board of Education before you worry too much about the House of Saud and its manifold sociological deficiencies as seen from a Western perspective. The Texas Board of Education is a lot closer to home and far more likely to cause harm to those you care about.



https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/e...n/13texas.html"

I went to the link & it didn't work, BUT, I remembered this recent news: Victory for evolution in Texas "The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In a 14-0* vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers — and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements ...... "

Victory for evolution in Texas | NCSE

Even Texas can't be seriously compared to Saudi Arabia. Really spot.

I just clicked the link, it came up fine for me. It startsAUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light. Their view on creationism wasn't in my mind when I posted.

AnneBoleyn;1379499 wrote: Even Texas can't be seriously compared to Saudi Arabia. Really spot.


It depends on what you see. Either we have sovereign nation states within which each culture is free to develop its own laws, its own taboos and its own practices or we don't. What I find annoying is a part-way pretence of "that's how it is" so long as the culture kow-tows to a Western interpretation of human rights at the expense of the local cultural heritage.

A local population either changes that culture from the inside, or it forms squares to fend off attack from outside. The trick to allowing a culture to evolve is not to attack it.

The view of the local culture from a conservative within Saudi Arabia would point out the emphasis on protecting women, the far lower crime rates compared to any Western setting and the undeniable cultural depth compared to the vapidity and lack of serious artistic expression in - go on, pick a part of the world they might mock. Texas, why not.

Women may end up driving cars in Riyadh but it's a lot more likely if there's no international pressure to enforce such a change. Let them get on with it and they'll choose what to amend.

Well! You said so many things I disagree with, I don't know where to begin! I'm not suggesting invading Saudi Arabia, but I won't agree with you on any of it. Paternalistic bull-doo, & you wouldn't be so complacent if the roles were reversed. As it is, Saudi women need protection from Saudi men & THEIR laws. A Saudi woman is not "free to develop". The fact you can't see that is very troubling.

BTW, I don't understand something about the massive amounts of different forums here. For example, why isn't this thread on some type of political or cultural forum? Why is it here? Why isn't it on "current events" or any other of the many forums you have where it would fit? How does a poster decide where to post a new thread since it seems to fit in many places?

I've not suggested invading Saudi Arabia either. My word "attack" isn't militarist, it's a step up from "criticize". No country's going to invade North Korea either but it's continually attacked in the Western press.

I'd rather the world had a large range of cultural environments, even though not all would suit all observers. The notion of reducing all nations to Starbucks and Happy Eater nations with cheerleaders, pom-pom parades and New Orleans style carnival excess is unattractive.

AnneBoleyn;1379508 wrote: BTW, I don't understand something about the massive amounts of different forums here. For example, why isn't this thread on some type of political or cultural forum? Why is it here? Why isn't it on "current events" or any other of the many forums you have where it would fit? How does a poster decide where to post a new thread since it seems to fit in many places?The placement is at the discretion of the original poster, no moderation intervenes once the thread appears. The different forums allow members a choice but none are obligatory.

"No country's going to invade North Korea either but it's continually attacked in the Western press."

And Rightfully So!

"I'd rather the world had a large range of cultural environments, even though not all would suit all observers. The notion of reducing all nations to Starbucks and Happy Eater nations with cheerleaders, pom-pom parades and New Orleans style carnival excess is unattractive."

Not if some of these cultural environments enslave a segment of their population. Not if a cultural environment contains genital mutilations, or other torturous "customs". I've never been inside a Starbucks, but I'd rather have silly customs and benign coercions than forced inflictions by Men in Power.

spot;1379507 wrote: It depends on what you see. Either we have sovereign nation states within which each culture is free to develop its own laws, its own taboos and its own practices or we don't. What I find annoying is a part-way pretence of "that's how it is" so long as the culture kow-tows to a Western interpretation of human rights at the expense of the local cultural heritage.

A local population either changes that culture from the inside, or it forms squares to fend off attack from outside. The trick to allowing a culture to evolve is not to attack it.

The view of the local culture from a conservative within Saudi Arabia would point out the emphasis on protecting women, the far lower crime rates compared to any Western setting and the undeniable cultural depth compared to the vapidity and lack of serious artistic expression in - go on, pick a part of the world they might mock. Texas, why not.

Women may end up driving cars in Riyadh but it's a lot more likely if there's no international pressure to enforce such a change. Let them get on with it and they'll choose what to amend.


Following that line of thinking then Spot, I guess we never should have interfered with the Nazi Agenda.

spot:

The placement is at the discretion of the original poster, no moderation intervenes once the thread appears. The different forums allow members a choice but none are obligatory.


Not obligatory. I like the sound of that.:-6

Lon: "Following that line of thinking then Spot, I guess we never should have interfered with the Nazi Agenda"

Yes. Men don't see "enslavement" of THEIR women in the same light. But it is.

Lon;1379513 wrote: Following that line of thinking then Spot, I guess we never should have interfered with the Nazi Agenda.


Why on earth do people jump straight to extremes instead of exploring a question?

We have rules on armed intervention. What the Third Reich did warranted armed intervention on a number of counts. Waging aggressive war warranted it, according to the verdict delivered at Nuremberg. Genocide warranted it, according to UN treaty obligations, as would the systematic institutional imposition of torture had the Third Reich behaved that way which, in their handling of resistance fighters, they did.

Nothing the Saudis have done comes close to warranting external interference or deserves comparison with events in history which warranted it. Neither, if it comes to that, has Iran or Syria. Neither had Iraq or Afghanistan. The only country continually waging aggressive war these days is the USA, which goes to show how difficult it is for the international community to restrain a powerful country that turns rogue.

AnneBoleyn;1379512 wrote: Not if some of these cultural environments enslave a segment of their population. Not if a cultural environment contains genital mutilations, or other torturous "customs". I've never been inside a Starbucks, but I'd rather have silly customs and benign coercions than forced inflictions by Men in Power.
You have a simple solution. Allow women in such countries the right to asylum in your own if they choose to claim it. That way, they have a choice as to whether they want to live within the culture they grew up or adopt one you regard as free. You might be surprised how few choose to take up your offer.

Of course they won't take the offer! It has nothing to do with Western society being more free. But it is. You want to deny that? That you in Britain or me in US is more free than a Saudi, male or female, but especially female? Your offer would prove nothing at all. Oh yes, introduce free will on people who never experienced it & expect them to jump at the chance? Give up their language, their loved ones? Become suddenly courageous as well as free? Duh, no.

For the record no, I don't think your use of the word "free" is meaningful in that post.

spot:

I don't think your use of the word "free" is meaningful in that post.


Explain, please.

AnneBoleyn;1379526 wrote: spot:



Explain, please.


Umm. Where should we start.

CDC survey finds widespread intimate partner violence in US - - ModernMedicine, a report I selected solely because it came out this week.

"The NISVS 2010 Summary Report reveals that almost 1 in 5 women has been raped at some time in her life". That's nationally, it's a US statistic, it relates to all adult women in the USA divided by five, including nuns and cripples. And, in case you feel like suggesting it's an exaggeration, my own suspicion is that it under-reports by at least a factor of two. I reckon you're odds-on to have been unwillingly sexually molested before the age of 16 if you're an American female. If you want to pursue that we can go get some figures.

You have the gall to try to discuss womens' rights in terms of "freedom" in a setting with that sort of background?

Of course I have the gall! Why wouldn't I? & I agree with the statistics, & know sex crimes against women & children here in the U.S. & elsewhere are greatly UNDERreported. Obviously, men are beasts. Oh men, can't live with them, can't live without them! But my background, as you put it, at least we have recourse to the "law", & in arab-muslim countries women who are raped are killed or forced to marry the perpetrator. Actually, the perpetrator becomes the female in THOSE backgrounds! Do you have the gall to suggest that there is no difference? All you are doing is proving my points for me. For which I say, thank you.

And, as for US wars of aggression, please don't forget the worst case of all - Vietnam (I know it's become old-fashioned to remember that, but I will never forget). Invading Afghanistan was fine by me, but it could have been over & done with years ago if Bush had the balls of Obama. Iraq was just little George begging for his daddy's approval at the expense of the world. Did you expect us to just say "Fine" after the twin towers?

spot;1379518 wrote: Why on earth do people jump straight to extremes instead of exploring a question?

We have rules on armed intervention. What the Third Reich did warranted armed intervention on a number of counts. Waging aggressive war warranted it, according to the verdict delivered at Nuremberg. Genocide warranted it, according to UN treaty obligations, as would the systematic institutional imposition of torture had the Third Reich behaved that way which, in their handling of resistance fighters, they did.

Nothing the Saudis have done comes close to warranting external interference or deserves comparison with events in history which warranted it. Neither, if it comes to that, has Iran or Syria. Neither had Iraq or Afghanistan. The only country continually waging aggressive war these days is the USA, which goes to show how difficult it is for the international community to restrain a powerful country that turns rogue.


If the Nazi's had just quietly exterminated Jews,Gypsies, mentally deficient etc. within their own borders would that have been OK and not demanded armed intervention?

AnneBoleyn;1379533 wrote: Did you expect us to just say "Fine" after the twin towers?Treating it as a crime scene, prosecuting those responsible and above all holding a public investigation into how on earth so many US security provisions had failed would have made sense. Once you fail in the last bit you can't do the middle bit so you don't bother doing the first bit. It does leave you looking like some level of the political elite wanted it to happen. The position isn't helped when you find PNAC pre-published the strategic need for a "Pearl Harbor event", absent which US policy would be stymied by domestic resistance to massive military intervention in the Middle East.

To be honest, "fine" would have been more successful in the long term.

Lon;1379534 wrote: If the Nazi's had just quietly exterminated Jews,Gypsies, mentally deficient etc. within their own borders would that have been OK and not demanded armed intervention?


At the time? Possibly so, there were no such treaties in place for genocide to trigger international intervention. That's why nobody kicked the Turks when they killed over a million Armenians. That's why we've now put treaty provisions in place to oblige the world to intervene, not that it did any good to the Rwandans because us white folk are too valuable to deploy to sub-Saharan Africa when we can't tell one black from another in the first place. Maybe the treaties should have said "regardless of color", eh?

spot;1379538 wrote: At the time? Possibly so, there were no such treaties in place for genocide to trigger international intervention. That's why nobody kicked the Turks when they killed over a million Armenians. That's why we've put treaty obligations in place to oblige the world to intervene now, not that it did any good to the Rwandans because us white folk are too valuable to deploy to sub-Saharan Africa when we can't tell one black from another in the first place. Maybe the treaties should have said "regardless of color", eh?


Getting back to the Saudi texts. I was not in any way suggesting armed intervention as I am sure that you aware, but there has to be a way other than to just verbalize displeasure about their texts that spout such hatred and instill violence. Not engaging in commerce or any meaningful financial sanctions comes readily to mind.

AnneBoleyn;1379533 wrote: in arab-muslim countries women who are raped are killed or forced to marry the perpetrator.
Saudi Arabia Two Soldiers Executed for Rape

Saudi Arabia executes two policemen for rape: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

http://english.nessunotocchicaino.it/ne ... o=13314985

Death Penalty News: Saudi Arabia: Two Chadians, Saudi beheaded for rape

In a different thread we'd doubtless be deploring capital punishment, but you can't have it both ways.

Lon;1379540 wrote: Getting back to the Saudi texts. I was not in any way suggesting armed intervention as I am sure that you aware, but there has to be a way other than to just verbalize displeasure about their texts that spout such hatred and instill violence. Not engaging in commerce or any meaningful financial sanctions comes readily to mind.


Perhaps asking your representative in Congress to stop sucking up to the Saudi regime would be a good start. If you're after a boycott, don't expect it to be official. On the other hand, grass-roots boycotting brought down apartheid in South Africa so it's a step in the right direction. I suspect it would be a criminal offence in all our jurisdictions if any of us advocated an internal revolution against the Saudi monarchy so let's not go anywhere near that hot potato.

spot;1379542 wrote: Perhaps asking your representative in Congress to stop sucking up to the Saudi regime would be a good start. If you're after a boycott, don't expect it to be official. On the other hand, grass-roots boycotting brought down apartheid in South Africa to it's a step in the right direction. I suspect it would be a criminal offence in all our jurisdictions if any of us advocated an internal revolution against the Saudi monarchy so let's not go anywhere near that hot potato.


Maybe cutting off the monarchy's supply of Scotch Whiskey might work.

Whatever became of the Arab-Spring movement that began to take hold in Saudi Arabia? I think I recall something like the rulers sending families enough money to buy an extra loaf of bread weekly to get them to give it up.