Saudi Arabia

[RedfernMag 0]

 

 

ALthough they seem to be very lenient on child rape.

 

Who the BJP? and I thought the support given by some of their MPs to people that were lynching beef eaters was bad enough.

 

 

 

 

[Park Life 71]

Neo-colonialism gone mad!

[Renton 21973]

 

 

Pointing out that the UK, who are major backers of the Saudi state, were also hanging people 50 years ago, would to me indicate an intrinsic fault in the function of the state apparatus itself, and not a simple defence/justification of one particular state over another.

 

 

 

Unlike christianity, Islam has not undergone a reformation and period of enlightenment. Jesus (if he existed) was essentially an asexual pacifist. I'm not going to spell out what Mohammed was in comparison.

 

I think there are specific difficulties and dangers with this religion, particularly the prevalent whabhabism sect. I genuinely don't believe this is compatIble with western secular culture and values. The BBC did a poll post Charlie Hebdo and and 20% of Muslims (around 600,000) actually agree. Along with some frankly terrifying views.

 

Call me racist, call me Leazes, I'm not really arsed about being labelled as such, because I don't think I am. I just find these puerile comparisons ridiculous on otherwise obviously intelligent people. Would love to discuss more but not really possible on a photo with shite connections but there you go.

 

Your image of Christianity reads like some children's story. You've missed out the all the wars, burnings and killings along with the brutal appropriation of land, cultures and traditions it made as it swept across Europe from the Middle East.

 

If Jesus ever met yoeu he would probably spit in your face.

I'd prefer the UK to have as little as possible with the Saudi state personally. Still, to suggest moral equivalence of the UK and Saudi on the basis we had capital punishment (largely for murder) is beyond pathetic in my eyes.

 

Christianity is based on a moral code I can support, and since the reformation and enlightenment religion by and large is separated from the state so it doesn't impact much on my life. Of course, I'd prefer the country to become truly secular which it will in time. But the UK has never really been a theocracy, has it?

Do you think Islam will have its own enlightenment too? Or, as the evidence of recent years suggest, are muslims more happy to submit themselves to theocratic rule? Islam does mean submission after all.

 

Why would Jesus spit in my face? I must have missed this part of the new testament.

[McFaul 35]

Renton is on record as saying he hates me, but I tell you what his posts on this touchy subject have been absolutely magnificent, I couldn't have written them any better myself.

[Rayvin 5292]

I'd prefer the UK to have as little as possible with the Saudi state personally. Still, to suggest moral equivalence of the UK and Saudi on the basis we had capital punishment (largely for murder) is beyond pathetic in my eyes.

 

Christianity is based on a moral code I can support, and since the reformation and enlightenment religion by and large is separated from the state so it doesn't impact much on my life. Of course, I'd prefer the country to become truly secular which it will in time. But the UK has never really been a theocracy, has it?

Do you think Islam will have its own enlightenment too? Or, as the evidence of recent years suggest, are muslims more happy to submit themselves to theocratic rule? Islam does mean submission after all.

 

Why would Jesus spit in my face? I must have missed this part of the new testament.

 

Would you accept that the UK government, through it's continuous arms dealings with Saudi, actually has a hand in supporting this medieval barbaric power? So, granted we point the finger and wring our hands about human rights abuses, but we're basically enabling them at the same time. That makes us utter hypocrites at the very least, and entirely unconcerned, beyond meaningless rhetoric, about human rights abuses at the worst.

 

We like to say we're enlightened and 'not medieval' but we've invested a lot of fucking time in the Middle East and none of it has been about bringing in democracy. We've tried to either maintain the status quo or bring about something worse (ISIS).

[ewerk 31192]

Is ISIS that much worse than Saudi Arabia? It seems to be the same shit, just less organised.

[Rayvin 5292]

Probably not worse, but Saudi is at least theoretically contained within a sovereign state. ISIS are most likely their expeditionary force...

 

For clarity, I meant worse than the status quo in various middle eastern countries, not worse than Saudi - i.e. we go in to a country and either support what's there or replace it with something horrifying.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Rayvin

[RedfernMag 0]

I'd prefer the UK to have as little as possible with the Saudi state personally. Still, to suggest moral equivalence of the UK and Saudi on the basis we had capital punishment (largely for murder) is beyond pathetic in my eyes.

 

And who arms, trains and supports the Saudi state? My point isn't about moral equivalence, it's about the function of the state itself, and the violence it uses to sustain it's position of power, either directly or by proxy.

 

Renton, on 23 Oct 2015 - 4:28 PM, said:

Christianity is based on a moral code I can support, and since the reformation and enlightenment religion by and large is separated from the state so it doesn't impact much on my life. Of course, I'd prefer the country to become truly secular which it will in time. But the UK has never really been a theocracy, has it?

 

Who needs a theocracy when you have a monarchy.

 

Kneel peasants!

 

Renton, on 23 Oct 2015 - 4:28 PM, said:

Do you think Islam will have its own enlightenment too? Or, as the evidence of recent years suggest, are muslims more happy to submit themselves to theocratic rule? Islam does mean submission after all.

 

if only those that follow the teachings of one bloke were as enlightened as those that follow the other bloke.

 

People tend to change and adapt with their social conditions, ideology doesn't offer much help.

 

Renton, on 23 Oct 2015 - 4:28 PM, said:

Why would Jesus spit in my face? I must have missed this part of the new testament.

 

If you were to use todays language, then Jesus would of been a terrorist back in his day, at war with the Roman Empire.

 

The New Testament is a collection of fanciful stories written many years later by an assortment of authors with various agendas.

 

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures are worth reading though

[Renton 21973]

It's fairly obvious we trade with Saudi because they are the most oil rich country in the world. Does that makes us hypocrites? Of course it does. But show me a country or even a person that isn't. Doesn't change the fact that country is utterly disgusting in the way it treats it's citizens though and there is simply no comparison with the west.

 

Arming Saudi is irrelevant to this particular discussion as well. Saudi do not on general militarily oppress their neighbours, they do it through control of oil. Whilst brutally suppressing their own population of course.

 

Jesus would be regarded as a terrorist by the Saudi's certainly. Ironically he'd be crucified in 2015 AD ffs! As a pacifist in the west though? No, he would have free speech. That's enlightenment for you.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Renton

[Rayvin 5292]

The point is though, that by working with Saudi, our governments support what they do to their citizens.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Rayvin

[Happy Face 29]

It was the UK that voted them into the chairmanship of the human rights commission. The choice that prompted the thread

[Renton 21973]

The point is though, that by working with Saudi, our governments support what they do to their citizens.

How? What would happen if the UK unilaterally refused to buy Saudi oil or trade weapons? Would that have any affect? Would it changes anything at all apart from damage our economy?

 

Let's not be naive and pretend we have any sway here, or that trading with them is tacit approval of their values and actions. It's really not.

[Renton 21973]

It was the UK that voted them into the chairmanship of the human rights commission. The choice that prompted the thread

That's not clear from the OP or the link provided. How can the UK be solely responsible for that? They shouldn't even have representation on the commission.

[Happy Face 29]

That's not clear from the OP or the link provided. How can the UK be solely responsible for that? They shouldn't even have representation on the commission.

 

 

https://hacked.com/wikileaks-reveals-secret-handshake-uk-saudi-arabia/

[Happy Face 29]

Not guilty, I think islam and christianity are as moronic as each other. 'Religionophobe' maybe.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/topic/15663-mocking-peoples-beliefs/page-2#entry378571

 

What changed?

[Renton 21973]

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/topic/15663-mocking-peoples-beliefs/page-2#entry378571

 

What changed?

Well, first, genuine belief in any of the Abrahamic religions probably is equally moronic. Secondly, that doesn't mean that one isn't more malevolent than another though. After doing some research, I think this is the case with the fundamental tennets of Christianity vs Islam and why they may result in fundamentally different societies which are not compatible with each other.

 

Lastly, this post was taken from 8 years ago and I'm not sure in what context it should be taken in. A lot has happened since then, the Arab spring has come and been a disaster, Syria, ISIS, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria.... Ffs you could go on forever. Then there's riots over DRAWINGS and Charlie Hebdo. And domestic problems with childcare abuse swept under the carpet by the authorities for fear of upsetting certain communities.

 

Against that back drop, is it wrong to reappraise my opinion?

Edited October 23, 2015 by Renton

[RedfernMag 0]

Well, first, genuine belief in any of the Abrahamic religions probably is equally moronic. Secondly, that doesn't mean that one isn't more malevolent than another though. After doing some research, I think this is the case with the fundamental tennets of Christianity vs Islam and why they may result in fundamentally different societies which are not compatible with each other.

 

Lastly, this post was taken from 8 years ago and I'm not sure in what context it should be taken in. A lot has happened since then, the Arab spring has come and been a disaster, Syria, ISIS, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria.... Ffs you could go on forever. Then there's riots over DRAWINGS and Charlie Hebdo. And domestic problems with childcare abuse swept under the carpet by the authorities for fear of upsetting certain communities.

 

Against that back drop, is it wrong to reappraise my opinion?

 

 

There's nothing like the fear of muslims to turn a man to christ

 

A few points, the initial optimism of the arab spring was brought to an end by it turning into a sectarian war, maybe its worth asking who would benefit from that? certainly not the millions wanting to change the corrupt regimes they live under.

 

The last 8 years has seen more riots over school tuition fees than cartoons in the UK, more riots over austerity than cartoons in Europe and more riots over cops shooting unarmed people in the states than bloody cartoons. Maybe you missed all that?

 

certain communities? spell it out

 

We've learned over the last few years of the appalling abuse of children by people from right across UK society, and this has been covered up not only by the one particular council department you mention, but by key parts of the UK entertainment industry and the British establishment.

[Happy Face 29]

I always encourage re-appraisal of opinions. But you were saying Christianity is better because Jesus was a nicer bloke than Mohammad and I didn't think any new evidence had come to light on that in the last 8 years, 2000 years after the event.

 

Other things have happened in those 8 years as well though, not just Muslim cluster fucks. I don't need to ask what you think of Joseph Kony, the epidemic of child abuse cases in the Catholic church, continued refusal to endorse condoms etc. I know you'll find those things grotesque too. I wonder why your tolerance for that is greater though? Do you see them as less harmful?

[Renton 21973]

I always encourage re-appraisal of opinions. But you were saying Christianity is better because Jesus was a nicer bloke than Mohammad and I didn't think any new evidence had come to light on that in the last 8 years, 2000 years after the event.

 

Other things have happened in those 8 years as well though, not just Muslim cluster fucks. I don't need to ask what you think of Joseph Kony, the epidemic of child abuse cases in the Catholic church, continued refusal to endorse condoms etc. I know you'll find those things grotesque too. I wonder why your tolerance for that is greater though? Do you see them as less harmful?

Actually I reread that thread which was quite interesting, cheers for the link. Nothing I've said recently contradicts what I have said previously, so thankfully I've been rather consistent on my views.

 

Anyhow, this thread is about Saudi and wahhabism, which I think is a fundamentally evil regime and belief system. Which I think you probably agree with. Your and RM's comparisons to western failings and the accompanying self flagellation are ridiculous imo.

 

I guess my fears of the incompatibility of Islam with secular democracy and the lack of integration that results from this are a seperate issue. But to answer your question, yes, I do think the potential damage this could cause our society is worse than any of the other christian scandals you have mentioned. I think. bringing up paedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is missing the point, probably deliberately.

[Park Life 71]

Saudi Arabia is exporting terror planet wide it has a bottomless pit of money and eager suppliers.

 

500 Tow2 anti-tank missiles have arrived in Syria over the last weeks and another 500 promised. SA took delivery from Raytheon 13,000 odd via America only 2 years ago. And it is only the Pentagon holding them back from supplying MANPADS (hi-tech anti aircraft missiles) the worry being they will be used later on civilian aircraft.

 

Qatar and SA opened up their prisons and gave money to the families of all who went to fight in Iraq, Libya and now Syria (as did Turkey but more slyly mainly to old Russian republics).

 

Better get frosty this war is coming to Europe and its foot soldiers are already arriving.

 

 

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia "militancy" is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups." She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa'ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad. This policy may now be changing with the dismissal of Prince Bandar as head of intelligence this year. But the change is very recent, still ambivalent and may be too late: it was only last week that a Saudi prince said he would no longer fund a satellite television station notorious for its anti-Shia bias based in Egypt."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

 

Isis is completely off reservation and unpredictable a far cry from its early cosy relationship with its funders...Even talk now of opening up a front in Saudi itself. Honestly I'd piss my pants the day that happens.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Park Life

[PaddockLad 17639]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-could-be-bankrupt-within-five-years-imf-predicts-a6706821.html

[Park Life 71]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-could-be-bankrupt-within-five-years-imf-predicts-a6706821.html

Cheered me right up.

[ewerk 31192]

Aren't the Saudis partly responsible for the low oil price as they're refusing to cut production in an effort to kill off the alternative energy investments?

[Renton 21973]

Aren't the Saudis partly responsible for the low oil price as they're refusing to cut production in an effort to kill off the alternative energy investments?

Particularly the US market, aye, I think you're right. Reducing dependency on Saudi is at least one thing Obama has got right.

[Happy Face 29]

Actually I reread that thread which was quite interesting, cheers for the link. Nothing I've said recently contradicts what I have said previously, so thankfully I've been rather consistent on my views.

 

Anyhow, this thread is about Saudi and wahhabism, which I think is a fundamentally evil regime and belief system. Which I think you probably agree with. Your and RM's comparisons to western failings and the accompanying self flagellation are ridiculous imo.

 

I guess my fears of the incompatibility of Islam with secular democracy and the lack of integration that results from this are a seperate issue. But to answer your question, yes, I do think the potential damage this could cause our society is worse than any of the other christian scandals you have mentioned. I think. bringing up paedophile priests or Jimmy Savile is missing the point, probably deliberately.

You're jumping around with your criticisms though. Christian v Muslim, wahhabi v western, Jesus v Mohammad.

 

When you're pulled up on special criticism of Muslims you jump back to wahhabis like it's all the same thing.

 

Wahhabism represents 0.5% of Muslims globally. Far less in our own society. I agree its a particularly pernicious strand, something that should be tolerated no more than kiddy raping or aids indifference. Those acts are endorsed by successive leaders of the entire Catholic church either willfully or by turning a blind eye and i think that is evil too. That's before you go into the child armies built and terrorist acts in the name of god by the extremist Christians at the fringes.

 

I think it's ridiculous to say one is MORE evil than the the other on a moral level. Organised religion is something that dies wherever there is education. It's at it's most dangerous wherever in the world education is poor and people are vulnerable.

 

Of course, politically, Vatican city pose less of an immediate threat as the only Christian theocracy than Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen and their religious leadership. But religion isn't actually the cause of political instability in those areas, is it?