"Death by Kindness" Common Sense from Saudi Arabia

arab news ^ | 10/10/2004 | Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal

[USF]

I guess he sees the Islamofascist Religious Freakdom of Saudi Arabia as role model. A country where the elites import slaves "maids" from places like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philipines and take away their passports, their rights and their dignity.... where their "employers" are able to beat them, molest them, and rape them with impunity, and where the "mistress" of the house is unable/unwilling to act as she is a meare "woman", and her only course of action to seeing her husband screw the "maid" is to take out her frustrations on the innocent slave and give her beatings to go with her husbands rape.

Saudi, a proud nation where if your maid tries to run away becasue of your treatment, you can simply accuse her of "theft" and she convinently ends of at "chop chop square" after Friday prayers...

[trek]

I'll just put you down as in the camp that believes that all Saudis are islamo-fascist wackos. And that these nutballs were just playing possum during the 50 years of successful cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia. And that Osama Bin Laden is in cahoots with the Royal Family to convert the world to Islam.

But don't feel bad. You are in esteemed company. For example, Michael Moore and the kook left are solidly in your court.

[angkor]

Saddam had elections.

My discussion with trek is above, please read it before commenting.

I said "Elections are the prerequisite to good government," not the predictor. This Saudi Prince Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal is quite dismissive of elections on the face of it, which can only mean that he's a fan of dictatorship, theocracy, or monarchy.

[USF]

Put me down as what you want because I don't care what you think, as you demonstrate to everyone that you're willing to make up erroneous conclusions about me to detract from your failure to address the issue at hand.

The fact is, you picked an "islamic nutball" here yourself, and posted an article by him. Why can't you admit that?

[Syncro]

And that these nutballs were just playing possum during the 50 years of successful feined cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

These nutballs as you call them have been supporting terror for decades.

(Quiz: What country did almost all of the 911 Murdering Islamic Terrorist Cowards come from?)

The amazing thing is that the terrorists have attacked them. Biting the hand that feeds, so the Saudis are finally waking up to the fact that if you support terrorists it is not guaranteed they will not attack you.

The French are learning this too.

And the Saudis still help fund terrorists.

Go figure.

Oh and LOL at the Michael Moore comment...He supports the terrorists.

So being as the poster you admonished for being in the court of Moore isn't.

Gee, who does that leave in the kook kourt?

[Syncro]

I concur.

[trek]

Let's do it your way. Let's demonize the Saudi Royal family just like we demonized the government of South Vietnam and the Shah of Iran. Then we can have the real kooks in charge in Saudi. That will be much better than having power in the hands of "nutballs" like Al-Faisal.

Good luck to you.

[USF]

Thanks.

Oh btw... "Gee, who does that leave in the kook kourt?" LOL. Nice one. ;o)

[RAY]

When the bell rings, the Saudis, like zombies, all march to the tune of Islam.

[USF]

Errrrm, real kooks are already in charge of Saudi. Sure, there are greater evils there, but I will never defend the Saudi regime for their role in terror.

Here's a thought. Try reading "Hatreds Kingdom" (How Saudi Arabia supports the new global terrorism) by Dore Gold. It's available at amazon.com, and then get back to me.

And btw, I'm not here to trade personal insults with you, I seek only to enlighten you.

[trek]

"And btw, I'm not here to trade personal insults with you, I seek only to enlighten you."

Nor am I interested in insults. I believe we are on the same side. Where we differ is on the nature of the Saudi regime. There are two views. The neo-con view is that the regime is no different from Al Qaeda. Be advised there are other views. I don't always agree with Buchanan, but he is right on this one. And citing Dore Gold or any of the other neo-cons is not very convincing. But it does explain where you are coming from.

Keep in mind. In 1990 we went to war to preserve the Saudi regime. 41 was not of a mind that they were terrorists. During Reagan's presidency we worked with the Saudis to "fund the terrorists" in Afghanistan. This was a very effective tool in the war with the Soviets. But make no mistake. We were not only funding the "terrorists" in Afghanistan we were arming them! Those who are about demonizing the Saudis love to cite those efforts ... leaving out our role in the matter.

Look, we are not going to agree on this. My only request is that you consider sources other than the neo-cons. You may not want to believe it, but there are two sides to this question. You can start with Buchanan.

EOM

[USF]

The neo-con view is that the regime is no different from Al Qaeda.

The Saudi regime itself spawned the greater evils there that I hinted upon in the earlier post. We used each other to defeat what we saw was a greater evil threat (Communist expansion) at the time, but the nature of the threat to our civilization had changed, and I guess if you want to leave it at that, I'll agree to disagree.