King of Saud Forces Divorce
Wanderjar
21-01-2008, 23:47
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_forced_divorce
I'm sure it's already been posted, but I wanted to give my own take on it. This is just sad. You know, NATO invaded Afghanistan predominately on the basis of annihilating the Taliban, however we also while there decided to attempt to bring a stable and westernised Government to them. Simeltaneously, we talk about how our Saudi and Kuwati allies are, and yet they're no better than the Afghanis! At least Saddam Hussein in Iraq was secular and didn't demand strict construction on Islamic law...or really utilise Islamic Law at all.
I just find it sad that NATO, the Americans, and all prop up regiemes no better than the ones we're fighting simply because it's expediant and profitible to have them around, while we also claim that they're bastions of liberty and democracy when they just aren't. *sigh*
Rant over, but still, it is pathetic.
Corneliu 2
21-01-2008, 23:49
Ok when you rant, rant about the article please for the rant had nothing to do with the article.
As to the article, I hope the king does the right thing and announce them as man and wife.
Wanderjar
22-01-2008, 00:02
Ok when you rant, rant about the article please for the rant had nothing to do with the article.
As to the article, I hope the king does the right thing and announce them as man and wife.
It has everything to do with the article, as the nation is ruled by Islamic law, and this is not the first time a case such as this has been brought before the King, and mostly he's ruled in favour of the Islamists. This isn't the only way in which Saudi Arabia is similar to the Taliban, they also have frequent public executions and have been known to execute foreigners for violating Islamic Laws. What I'm saying is, while using this article, I believe we're supporting the wrong people.
Gauthier
22-01-2008, 02:05
It has everything to do with the article, as the nation is ruled by Islamic law, and this is not the first time a case such as this has been brought before the King, and mostly he's ruled in favour of the Islamists. This isn't the only way in which Saudi Arabia is similar to the Taliban, they also have frequent public executions and have been known to execute foreigners for violating Islamic Laws. What I'm saying is, while using this article, I believe we're supporting the wrong people.
The only difference between the House of Saud and the Taliban is Mecca and O.I.L. Otherwise there would have been "liberation" and "the bringing of democracy" into Riadh a looong time ago.
Wanderjar
22-01-2008, 02:05
The only difference between the House of Saud and the Taliban is Mecca and O.I.L. Otherwise there would have been "liberation" and "the bringing of democracy" into Riadh a looong time ago.
QFT.
Sel Appa
22-01-2008, 02:08
Welcome to America 1945 - present.
Wanderjar
22-01-2008, 02:24
Welcome to America 1945 - present.
Yeah pretty much. I mean, come on. Putting Nugen (spelling?), a CATHOLIC, in charge of a Buddhist country (South Vietnam)? Who's brilliant idea was that?!
Gauthier
22-01-2008, 02:27
Yeah pretty much. I mean, come on. Putting Nugen (spelling?), a CATHOLIC, in charge of a Buddhist country (South Vietnam)? Who's brilliant idea was that?!
Ngo Dinh Diem.
And let's not forget propping up of NDD was just the first in a series of U.S. greatest hits like Gus Pinochet, the Shah, even Noriega and Saddam early on in their careers.
Wanderjar
22-01-2008, 02:32
Ngo Dinh Diem.
And let's not forget propping up of NDD was just the first in a series of U.S. greatest hits like Gus Pinochet, the Shah, even Noriega and Saddam early on in their careers.
Quite, though the Shah was the only quasi-benevolent among them. While he could be an ass, he did really do good for the infrastructure, industry, and general socio-economic stability of Iran....though one of my iranian mates threatend to kill me if I ever said that again.
Rogue Protoss
22-01-2008, 04:41
The only difference between the House of Saud and the Taliban is Mecca and O.I.L. Otherwise there would have been "liberation" and "the bringing of democracy" into Riadh a looong time ago.
True, if americans entered saudi arabia and got close to the Hijaz, the entire arab world would flip out
Eureka Australis
22-01-2008, 08:20
Quite, though the Shah was the only quasi-benevolent among them. While he could be an ass, he did really do good for the infrastructure, industry, and general socio-economic stability of Iran....though one of my iranian mates threatend to kill me if I ever said that again.
Many Iranians would disagree with that, considering that not many people in Tehran don't know a parent or older person who wasn't arrested and tortured by the Shah's notorious secret-police (CIA-run).
OceanDrive2
22-01-2008, 09:13
Quite, though the Shah was the only quasi-benevolent among them. While he could be an ass, he did really do good for the infrastructure, industry, and general socio-economic stability of Iran....though one of my iranian mates threatend to kill me if I ever said that again.Shah quasi-benevolent, Bush quasi-Intelligent, ;)
War is Peace - Love is hate - north is south - etc etc
Glorious Freedonia
22-01-2008, 21:52
The worst thing about that article was not the annulment which was bad but the fact that there are women incarcerated in Saudi Arabia for WITCHCRAFT!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
Tmutarakhan
22-01-2008, 22:30
Yeah pretty much. I mean, come on. Putting Nugen (spelling?), a CATHOLIC, in charge of a Buddhist country (South Vietnam)? Who's brilliant idea was that?!
Uh, that was the French. It was not brilliant of us to keep trying to prop him up, but he was not our creation in the first place.