Saudis protest anti-Islam film in a civilized way
- Thread starter Mosamania
- Start date
W.11
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 15,032
- Reaction score
- -32
- Country
- Location
I said it before to a member who asked me why there weren't similar demonstrations in KSA to those in Libya and Egypt.
I answered that ignorance of Islam led to those bloody events, while KSA people are religiously educated and yet know it's non of Islam to burn buildings and kill innocent people for crimes they have nothing to do with. Unfortunately, Mosais as ignorant as those people, who thinks by adopting liberalism (I am not sure if he understands it), he would look like Westerners. Well, in my humble opinion, I would say, by hard working and education his beloved country will look like this, otherwise it won't happen. People respect the West only for their breakthroughs in all fields and their way of life not because of their liberalism and capitalism which is, BTW, the dark side of Western civilization that people despise.
if saudis were so religiously educated then they would have got that no where in islam says to establish the dictatorship burger king, eating american burgers farting after eating mcdonalds at the same time and then observing women segregation and at the same time celebrating capitalism in the land of the prophet??
Saudi king and his family knows they cannot upset their master "US" if they do there will be no saud family left to be king again
Remember Saddam and gadhafi .master only wants obedient slave not arguing one.
There is no violent protest in saudi Because saudi export violence in iraq,syria,pakistan,dagestan,yemenSudan,somalia,libya and chechniya .these all done from petrodollar and by exporting Saudi base Mullahism .
Please remove some time and read this article
Historically, all dynasties end. The Sauds are no exceptions. Today they look stable, but in the mid 1970s, people thought Iran was stable. The Shah had a firm grip on the kingdom. The Dec. 31, 1977 celebrations to mark the 2500th anniversary of the Persian empire showed off the modern state of Iran and hid the immanent collapse of the regime. Many watchers of the world didn't pay any attention to this event, but the signs were there for all to see. Iranians in the US would protest, sometimes violently, against the Shah's rule. One didn't see protest in Iran as dissent was dealt with by SAVAK, the secret police.
The same signs are around for Saudi Arabia. In September 2001, hijackers flew planes into buildings in the US killing thousands. Fifteen of the nineteen were Saudi Arabians. One wonders why citizens of a friendly nation would attack the US in such a fashion. This fact is one of the harbingers of difficulties ahead in regard to oil supplies, and there are grave implications for the western world. What is behind this is the squandering of the oil wealth which has done the Saudi people no good and provided them with a bad present and an even worse future.
Over the past 30 years, the per capita income of Saudis has plummeted from $28,000 in 1980 to under $10,000 today. Would anyone in the West vote for a government which had this as one of its accomplishments? Neither would the Saudi citizens. Unemployment is rising among young educated Saudi's who have studied at home or in the West, and found no employment. One recent news account claims that nearly every family has two or three members who are not working! This same news account notes that this leaves these young men time to go to the mosques where they absorb a radical view of life. (Friedman, 2002). People with no purpose in life (a job) will find a purpose (revolution).
For other observers, the problem seems to be that the Sauds are financing an anti-modernist religion which is taught in the Universities and which is now coming home to bite the rulers who financed that teaching. Western influences are said to be evil and the rulers are indeed involved in a Western technological world. The fruits of this teaching have been ripening over the years. In 1979, 200 fundamentalists took the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Most of them had studied the Saudi-financed version of Islam at Medina and concluded that the government must go (Leigh and Norton-Taylor, 2001, p. 17). Similarly, the young-men who hijacked the planes in September were university educated men who had no love for their own government. They were followers of Osama bin Laden, who has called for the overthrow of the Saudi government. Last December at an end of Ramadan party, a brawl broke out among some youths. When the police arrived the crowd turned on the police, shouting anti-American and anti-Saudi slogans (Friedman, 2002). Then there was the unknown Saudi cleric who was shown in the video last fall praising bin Laden. The report says:
"One remark, Saudi sources said, will especially alarm the jittery House of Saud. The sheikh appears to thank Bin Laden for providing "the brothers" with arms. "You have given us weapons, you have given us hope and we thank Allah." (Pallister, 2002)
The influence of this Saudi version of Islam is not limited to Saudi Arabia. Last night my wife and I attended a wonderful dinner. It was hosted by an Islamic Singaporean woman and her English husband. Also attending were two more muslims from Turkey. My wife and I were in a minority. Anyway, the well-educated Turkish man complained to me that the Saudi's had financed Turkish mosques which were bringing fundamentalism to his country. Such an anti-modernist view does not bode well for the development of modern technological industries which are required to lift the lives of the individual Saudi citizen.
Part of the problem is that the Saudi universities are turning out liberal arts and Islamic studies majors rather than technocrats who can advance an economy. (Friedman 2002). Without diversification of the Saudi economy from oil, the prospects for economic well being sink even further in the future, as we shall see. It is hard for an economy to grow when large numbers of their people are religion students. This applies no matter what the religion is.
A recent article in the Guardian also showed that Saudi's were ripe for a change. The regime has been politically undermined by the presence of US troops, the clergy has been undermined by their support for the regime and the loyalty of the security forces is now suspect (al-Fagih, 2002). This writer cites a classified document which says that 95% of educated Saudi's, aged 25-41, supported bin Laden's cause.
Currently, there are 22 million people in Saudi Arabia including 5 million non-Saudi's who work in the service sector. 42% of that population is under 14 years of age (Factbook,2001). Thus, with only male workers, the Saudi economy must create 7 million new jobs over the next 10 years. This represents a doubling of present employment or a 7% growth rate. It is difficult to see how this can occur. The population is growing at 3.7% per year. Given this, if the Saudis wish to have a constant production per capita over the next 10 years, they must add 300,000 barrels per day every year. Most authorities do not believe they can or will do that (Alhajji, 2001, p. 33; Bakhtiari, 2001).
What happens in 10 years when 90% of those under 14 today are ready to look for jobs, and there are none? With nothing but time on their hands, young men anywhere and in any culture will cause problems. Once trouble starts, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia will probably be targeted as a way of denying the government the funds with which to support themselves. The military will attempt to crack down, but if 90% of the population is against the government policies, how on earth can the military be immune to that? Eventually the military will fall in with the radicals or divide in civil war. In my opinion, it is unlikely that that the majority of the military will fight to the death for the rights of 7000 rich princes to maintain their money, their numerous wives, their numerous mistresses and their lifestyle. Even if the Saud family wins, the nation will most certainly be different as they will have to give up some of their money and power to their military--and that will only be a temporary thing. Whoever the strongman turns out to be, eventually he won't want to be a puppet to fancy princes.
When this happens, the price of oil will take a huge spike until it is ascertained how bad the interruption of 10% of the world's oil supply will be. And since around 30% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, any civil unrest in Arabia will be felt by tankers passing the area. Shipping insurance rates will make the cargoes even more expensive as insurers worry about the nightmare scenario envisioned during Iran's revolution. A sunken tanker at the Strait of Hormuz would cause immense interruptions to the world's oil supply and quickly deplete Saudi governmental coffers. The question of price depends upon how much damage to the oil facilities will occur and how long will civil unrest last?
The new government, whomever they be and whatever their views, will have to sell oil. That is a given. Without it, the people starve and would foment a counter revolution. The United States would be wise to stay out of this upcoming problem for the simple reason that the new government will have to sell the oil. What difference does it make if this new government were to cut off the US but sell it to the Europeans, who in turn bought less Russian oil, which was then sold to the US? The US and Europe should be thinking of these issues and where replacement oil will come from. Will it be comfortable for the US to depend upon Russian or Kazakhstan for oil? No, but they had best lay the foundation for such a possibility.
As support for the concept that the Sauds can no longer use the oil weapon, an item in The Sunday Times (Scotland Ed.) by Stephen Gray (2002) May 12, 2002 Business Section, page 1, notes that a $100 million payment came due to Barclay's Capital in April. The Saud's missed the payment because of 'cashflow problems'. The article claims that the Saudi's have not been able to re-build their cash reserves which were wiped out by the Gulf war 10 years ago.
The political fallout in the Gulf will also be extensive. The domino theory works, as evidenced by Laos and Cambodia after the Vietnam war. But it only works in part as is evidenced by Thailand after the same. We must, however, ask the question: How can Kuwait, the UAR, Oman etc. not be affected by Saudi Arabia going fundamentalist? The West could quickly find itself with a Gulf region relatively united in their hostility to the west and having large sums of money to use to further their political aims.
Such is not a happy scenario and only some of it will occur, but unless things change dramatically in Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see how a change of government isn't in the cards. Thus, sometime over the next few years, expect a major change in the desert kingdom and expect to pay for it at the gasoline pump.
Please remove some time and read this article
Historically, all dynasties end. The Sauds are no exceptions. Today they look stable, but in the mid 1970s, people thought Iran was stable. The Shah had a firm grip on the kingdom. The Dec. 31, 1977 celebrations to mark the 2500th anniversary of the Persian empire showed off the modern state of Iran and hid the immanent collapse of the regime. Many watchers of the world didn't pay any attention to this event, but the signs were there for all to see. Iranians in the US would protest, sometimes violently, against the Shah's rule. One didn't see protest in Iran as dissent was dealt with by SAVAK, the secret police.
The same signs are around for Saudi Arabia. In September 2001, hijackers flew planes into buildings in the US killing thousands. Fifteen of the nineteen were Saudi Arabians. One wonders why citizens of a friendly nation would attack the US in such a fashion. This fact is one of the harbingers of difficulties ahead in regard to oil supplies, and there are grave implications for the western world. What is behind this is the squandering of the oil wealth which has done the Saudi people no good and provided them with a bad present and an even worse future.
Over the past 30 years, the per capita income of Saudis has plummeted from $28,000 in 1980 to under $10,000 today. Would anyone in the West vote for a government which had this as one of its accomplishments? Neither would the Saudi citizens. Unemployment is rising among young educated Saudi's who have studied at home or in the West, and found no employment. One recent news account claims that nearly every family has two or three members who are not working! This same news account notes that this leaves these young men time to go to the mosques where they absorb a radical view of life. (Friedman, 2002). People with no purpose in life (a job) will find a purpose (revolution).
For other observers, the problem seems to be that the Sauds are financing an anti-modernist religion which is taught in the Universities and which is now coming home to bite the rulers who financed that teaching. Western influences are said to be evil and the rulers are indeed involved in a Western technological world. The fruits of this teaching have been ripening over the years. In 1979, 200 fundamentalists took the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Most of them had studied the Saudi-financed version of Islam at Medina and concluded that the government must go (Leigh and Norton-Taylor, 2001, p. 17). Similarly, the young-men who hijacked the planes in September were university educated men who had no love for their own government. They were followers of Osama bin Laden, who has called for the overthrow of the Saudi government. Last December at an end of Ramadan party, a brawl broke out among some youths. When the police arrived the crowd turned on the police, shouting anti-American and anti-Saudi slogans (Friedman, 2002). Then there was the unknown Saudi cleric who was shown in the video last fall praising bin Laden. The report says:
"One remark, Saudi sources said, will especially alarm the jittery House of Saud. The sheikh appears to thank Bin Laden for providing "the brothers" with arms. "You have given us weapons, you have given us hope and we thank Allah." (Pallister, 2002)
The influence of this Saudi version of Islam is not limited to Saudi Arabia. Last night my wife and I attended a wonderful dinner. It was hosted by an Islamic Singaporean woman and her English husband. Also attending were two more muslims from Turkey. My wife and I were in a minority. Anyway, the well-educated Turkish man complained to me that the Saudi's had financed Turkish mosques which were bringing fundamentalism to his country. Such an anti-modernist view does not bode well for the development of modern technological industries which are required to lift the lives of the individual Saudi citizen.
Part of the problem is that the Saudi universities are turning out liberal arts and Islamic studies majors rather than technocrats who can advance an economy. (Friedman 2002). Without diversification of the Saudi economy from oil, the prospects for economic well being sink even further in the future, as we shall see. It is hard for an economy to grow when large numbers of their people are religion students. This applies no matter what the religion is.
A recent article in the Guardian also showed that Saudi's were ripe for a change. The regime has been politically undermined by the presence of US troops, the clergy has been undermined by their support for the regime and the loyalty of the security forces is now suspect (al-Fagih, 2002). This writer cites a classified document which says that 95% of educated Saudi's, aged 25-41, supported bin Laden's cause.
Currently, there are 22 million people in Saudi Arabia including 5 million non-Saudi's who work in the service sector. 42% of that population is under 14 years of age (Factbook,2001). Thus, with only male workers, the Saudi economy must create 7 million new jobs over the next 10 years. This represents a doubling of present employment or a 7% growth rate. It is difficult to see how this can occur. The population is growing at 3.7% per year. Given this, if the Saudis wish to have a constant production per capita over the next 10 years, they must add 300,000 barrels per day every year. Most authorities do not believe they can or will do that (Alhajji, 2001, p. 33; Bakhtiari, 2001).
What happens in 10 years when 90% of those under 14 today are ready to look for jobs, and there are none? With nothing but time on their hands, young men anywhere and in any culture will cause problems. Once trouble starts, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia will probably be targeted as a way of denying the government the funds with which to support themselves. The military will attempt to crack down, but if 90% of the population is against the government policies, how on earth can the military be immune to that? Eventually the military will fall in with the radicals or divide in civil war. In my opinion, it is unlikely that that the majority of the military will fight to the death for the rights of 7000 rich princes to maintain their money, their numerous wives, their numerous mistresses and their lifestyle. Even if the Saud family wins, the nation will most certainly be different as they will have to give up some of their money and power to their military--and that will only be a temporary thing. Whoever the strongman turns out to be, eventually he won't want to be a puppet to fancy princes.
When this happens, the price of oil will take a huge spike until it is ascertained how bad the interruption of 10% of the world's oil supply will be. And since around 30% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, any civil unrest in Arabia will be felt by tankers passing the area. Shipping insurance rates will make the cargoes even more expensive as insurers worry about the nightmare scenario envisioned during Iran's revolution. A sunken tanker at the Strait of Hormuz would cause immense interruptions to the world's oil supply and quickly deplete Saudi governmental coffers. The question of price depends upon how much damage to the oil facilities will occur and how long will civil unrest last?
The new government, whomever they be and whatever their views, will have to sell oil. That is a given. Without it, the people starve and would foment a counter revolution. The United States would be wise to stay out of this upcoming problem for the simple reason that the new government will have to sell the oil. What difference does it make if this new government were to cut off the US but sell it to the Europeans, who in turn bought less Russian oil, which was then sold to the US? The US and Europe should be thinking of these issues and where replacement oil will come from. Will it be comfortable for the US to depend upon Russian or Kazakhstan for oil? No, but they had best lay the foundation for such a possibility.
As support for the concept that the Sauds can no longer use the oil weapon, an item in The Sunday Times (Scotland Ed.) by Stephen Gray (2002) May 12, 2002 Business Section, page 1, notes that a $100 million payment came due to Barclay's Capital in April. The Saud's missed the payment because of 'cashflow problems'. The article claims that the Saudi's have not been able to re-build their cash reserves which were wiped out by the Gulf war 10 years ago.
The political fallout in the Gulf will also be extensive. The domino theory works, as evidenced by Laos and Cambodia after the Vietnam war. But it only works in part as is evidenced by Thailand after the same. We must, however, ask the question: How can Kuwait, the UAR, Oman etc. not be affected by Saudi Arabia going fundamentalist? The West could quickly find itself with a Gulf region relatively united in their hostility to the west and having large sums of money to use to further their political aims.
Such is not a happy scenario and only some of it will occur, but unless things change dramatically in Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see how a change of government isn't in the cards. Thus, sometime over the next few years, expect a major change in the desert kingdom and expect to pay for it at the gasoline pump.
Anotherangle
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Contrary to what people think, Saudis and their king are wise people whether they are friend to us or not, it is irrelevant to the questions of being wise and sincere to their nation.
There are many reasons for not having violent protests in Saudi Arabia and one of those is that they have more information about basics of Islam than most Muslims around the world.
However, peaceful response has been lesser than adequate: there must be a political struggle from all Muslim countries to make the respect of all prophets a part of UN charter.
There are many reasons for not having violent protests in Saudi Arabia and one of those is that they have more information about basics of Islam than most Muslims around the world.
However, peaceful response has been lesser than adequate: there must be a political struggle from all Muslim countries to make the respect of all prophets a part of UN charter.
Similar threads
