At least I hope he is.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 06/13/2004 11:50:31 AM PDT by MadIvan
Secretary of State Colin Powell says the United States is satisfied that Saudi Arabia is doing all it can to end a string of attacks on foreign workers.
In U.S. television interviews, Secretary Powell said the United States is doing all it can to help the Saudis restore a sense of security so that such attacks do not disrupt the oil sector and normal commerce.
He also confirmed that one American civilian was killed Saturday in Riyadh and another is missing.
An Internet statement attributed to al-Qaida has claimed responsibility and said the captured American will be treated like U.S. troops have treated prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
The U.S. and Britain have advised their citizens to avoid all but essential travel to Saudi Arabia.
At least I hope he is.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
BTTT
Sickening, even though I know that nobody really believes this, including Powell and the Saudis.
VOA - time to send it to the trash heap along with their cohorts in the dept of state.
Can you imagine the VOA playing rap music for the mid-east? and you wonder why they hate us?
The good news is that Saudi is doing all it can to control the terrorists. The bad news is that Saudi is doing all it can to control the terrorists.
They'll put dainty panties on his head. Then they will have their vengeance.
Saudi is the founder and promoter of Wahabaism. It has succeeded in promoting its own destruction. The United States is vulnerable because it needs Saudi oil. We have backed the wrong horse, yet, yet, yet, again. Expect huge attacks on oil facilities and pipelines in the short term. Their security forces are riddled with anti-royal troops. The royals have wasted their resources on high living while they should have been investing their money on industry and infastructure to raise the standard of living for the masses.
Of course. I think Bush knows this. But he's not about to invade Saudi Arabia. Not until the royal house of Saud falls and the election is under his belt. If things are in chaos there he can intervene more plausibly
If Kerry wins the election, you can kiss the War on Terror goodby, and we can all start using bicycles.
The Sauds may fall before they get their house together, IMHO.
We have captured the suspects and subjected them to mass consumption of candy canes and gum drops. They will break any time now, my American friends...
I saw that interview. Powel said he was satisfied but that the Saudis "could do more."
He also said we need to do more to help with intelligence sharing and that we will.
He was being diplomatic. This is a very important but difficult relationship.
If the monarchy falls and the terrorists move in, I expect that the US would move in and take over the oil fields.
We can't let the terrorists get that money and the influence it would buy.
Even if some money goes from SA to the terrorists through charities and front companies, that is much better than having to buy oil from Bin Laden INC.
No administration, not even Kerry would swallow that.
The Saudis have no choice but to cooperate with us. They are trying to make reforms that will give them the support of the middle class without freaking out the fundamentalists. They have been taking a lot of polls to gauge public opinion. They seem to think that giving more rights and opportunities to women will stabilize the situation. Ordinary things like a woman being able to drive are big issues for a middle-class family. Not being able to drive makes the women furious, and they would be thrilled to drive and work so their families have more money.
They need to give carrots to the middle class, but big sticks to the terroists.
The carnage seems to have backfired on the terrorists. That is why they are trying not to kill Muslims any more.
However, many Saudis are friendly with Americans and other Westerners, Asians and Middle Easterners they work with. These people are called "guests."
I know this because my husband is there now. He works with Saudis and they are really shocked by the terrorism. They say that is not Islam. Of course, they are pretty upscale cosmopolitan people, not the rabble. I hope they will take care of my husband if something happens. It is horrifying for me to watch the news. The Saudis are waging a propaganda war against the intolerance of the Wahabbi ideology. They are also allowing articles to appear in the paper about how the kids are being taught bad things in school and how women should have more opportunities and freedom. Periodically, these princes do crack down on fundamentalists when the fundamentalists go too far. Years ago, they publically beheaded about 600+.
HEre is an article from the Saudi media about women's issues. Polling seems to indicate that giving women rights will help middle class families and make them supporters of the government. They seem to think a lot hinges on giving women more. At the same time, this will anger fundamentalists. The articles are stressing that equality for women is consistent with Islam. Islam is being interpreted in ways that are more progressive.
Here is this interesting article:
Madinah Forum on Women Calls for Respecting Tradition
Abdul Wahab Bashir, Arab News
JEDDAH, 14 June 2004 — The third National Dialogue Forum, which focuses on women’s issues, opened on Saturday with a call to respect the equality between the sexes granted by Islam.
Opening the forum in Madinah, Chairman of the Two Holy Mosques Affairs Saleh Al-Hosayn said civic debate must be based on Islamic teachings and embrace plurality.
“Islam guarantees equality and does not differentiate between people based on race, sex or color,” he said. “It is a natural state that is achieved through ensuring people enjoy the same legal rights, dignity and obligations,” said the sheikh, who chairs the King Abdul Aziz Center for National Dialogue which sponsors the conference.
But he warned women working outside the home would not find enough time to raise their children and demanded a balance between women’s rights and their obligations.
The forum is the third of its kind since the center was established in August 2003 at the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah. The center means to offer a platform for dialogue between all sides of the spectrum of opinion.
The second forum in January this year debated issues ranging from extremism, nepotism and violence to politics and economics.
The Madinah forum was widely expected to take up hot issues such as segregation and women driving.
A group of 32 prominent women from Madinah listed seven points they said the conference must tackle. They include protecting religious teachings guaranteeing segregation of the sexes, upholding the ban on women driving, ensuring proper implementation of religious rules on women’s rights and obligations, upholding the system of fatwa (religious edicts) currently being applied in the country and giving priority to issues relating to the family and marriage over other issues “that do not constitute a priority.”
Yet on the first day, one male participant challenged the segregation of the forum, where separate rooms for men and women are linked by closed-circuit TV.
Abdullah Al-Sadran, who works for Coca-Cola, said he saw no justification for separating men and women at a public national forum and asked if the “cultured elite” of society could really be incapable of respecting the boundaries in a mixed gathering.
A senior member of the Council of Ulema, Abdullah Al-Mutlaq, demanded to know whether Al-Sadran had asked the women at the gathering, who Al-Mutlaq believed would be more comfortable in a room of their own.
When the women’s turn came, Dr. Saliha Al-Hulais, of Umm Al-Qura University, promptly dismissed calls for equality between men and women.
Justice did not necessarily mean full equality, she argued.
However, other women participants said women faced genuine problems and these should be addressed. “How come we see all these injustices being committed against women if women are facing no real problems?” asked Dr. Hanan Al-Ahmadi, from the Institute of Public Administration in Riyadh.
In an attempt to counter the emphasis some participants placed on conspiracy theories, Dr. Marqouk Bin Tunbak, a professor of literature at King Saudi University, said people should focus on the real problems facing society instead of putting the blame on others.
Both male and female participants called for a review of the taboo shrouding local customs governing women’s lives. However, defenders said it was such customs that provided a sense of identity to people in the Kingdom.
Calls to end the need for a mahram or male guardian in almost every aspect of women’s lives and allow women to drive elicited particularly lively debate.
“If men find it impossible to reach their destination without a car, the situation facing women is even more difficult,” said Sheikh Mosa Bukhamsain, an Islamic scholar.
King Abdul Aziz Center Vice Chairman Dr. Rashid Al-Rajeh said the forum had no magic wand to solve every problem facing the country and urged a gradual approach to addressing these issues.
This article is interesting.
Equality for women is presented as "Islamic."
Inequality is presented as "local customs."
The government wants a solution to these issues that will make the majority happy.
It is interesting that an Islamic scholar said it was OK for women to drive:
"“If men find it impossible to reach their destination without a car, the situation facing women is even more difficult,” said Sheikh Mosa Bukhamsain, an Islamic scholar."
Husbands have to take their wives shopping, drive the children to school, to the doctor, etc. It takes a lot of time for a young father to do this instead of work. The wife could be taking care of the kids herself if she is not working. A lot of these family-oriented issues are really important to young families. Many women would also like to work. This would help the family finances. A lot of women in Saudi Arabia are well-educated, but they are limited in the types of jobs they can have.
The Soviets did a lot of polling in the 1980s to determine public opinion and meet the public half-way. They wanted to be responsive to public opinion, but they were afraid of destabilizing the society. Women's issues were big. In Russia, women were too burdened by job and family. In Russia, "women's lib" meant staying home with the kids at least for a while. Men weren't sharing the load at home. Women wanted a man who could go out and earn a living and let them stay home with the kids and be homemakers while the kids were young.
The Soviet press was full of articles about how men should share the load and how housing estates should recycle baby equipment so that young families could afford children. People were very inefficient at work because they were always running out to go shopping.
In the article posted above from the Saudi media about family/women's issues. My sense of this is that something similar to what happened in the USSR must be going on: polling is being used to determine what changes would improve the economy without being destabilizing. The media is controlled, so this is coming from the government.
My sense is that the government and many in the society want the men to work harder, so they need to free the woman to take care of things at home. If women could drive, the men could be more efficient at work.Saudi men spend a lot of time tending to family needs.
Polling seems to indicate that giving women rights and responsibilities will help the economy, help middle class families and make them supporters of the government. They seem to think a lot hinges on giving women more rights and responsibilities. At the same time, this will anger fundamentalists.
The articles are stressing that equality for women is consistent with Islam. Islam is being interpreted in ways that are more progressive.
This article is interesting. Equality for women is presented as "Islamic." Inequality is presented as "local customs." The government wants a solution to these issues that will make the majority happy, improve the economy without being destabilizing, and that will allow women balance home and work, if they choose to work.
Saudis seem to have large families so probably many women with young kids would not work. My sense is they want to free the men from household responsibilities so the men will work harder. This means women have to be able to drive the kids to school, the doctor, go to the store, do the errands. As one moderator warned,"women working outside the home would not find enough time to raise their children and demanded a balance between women’s rights and their obligations." This is more about freeing the men from their domestic responsibilities so they can work harder. But this means letting the women drive.
It is interesting that an Islamic scholar said it was OK for women to drive:
"“If men find it impossible to reach their destination without a car, the situation facing women is even more difficult,” said Sheikh Mosa Bukhamsain, an Islamic scholar."
Having a professional man wasting time with family matters is not very economically efficient. Husbands have to take their wives shopping, drive the children to school, to the doctor, etc. It takes a lot of time for a young father to do this instead of work. The young wife could be taking care of the kids herself if she is not working but can drive. A lot of these family-oriented issues are really important to young families--but these issues are also important to the government because they would improve the declining economy.
Some women would also like to work. Working women would help the family finances since the income per person is lower than in past years; however, freeing up professional men to work harder might be even more important for the economy.
A lot of women in Saudi Arabia are well-educated, but they are presently limited in the types of jobs they can have. And young professional men need to be at work; they don't really have time to be carting the family around shopping, to school, to the doctor, etc. That would be a real drag for a middle-class family and inefficient for the man's company. If the Saudis are going to raise their standard of living, they need their families to be more efficient. If they are going to employ their own citizens and phase out the foreign guest-workers, they really need to free the men to work and the woman to take care of the family needs without depending on a husband. If she can work too, fine. That is where I think this article is going.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.