Friday, November 11, 2011

Obama Administration Aiding Saudi Crackdown on Western Values

What's the problem? A little Sharia and Jihad never hurt anyone.

SAUDI ARABIA--The ascent of the latest dictator-in-waiting spells the death of reform for the Saudi Kingdom. Bloggers, dissidents, reformists are all feeling the pressure—and Obama is tacitly abetting the crackdown.

When King Abdullah appointed Prince Naif heir to the Saudi throne, congratulations poured in from leaders around the world. President Obama was no exception. “I congratulate King Abdullah and the Saudi people on the selection of Prince Naif as crown prince. We in the United States know and respect him for his strong commitment to combating terrorism and supporting regional peace and security” he said. “The United States looks forward to continuing our close partnership with Crown Prince Naif in his new capacity as we strengthen the deep and longstanding friendship between the United States and Saudi Arabia.”


Who is Crown Prince Naif? For the past three and a half decades, he has run the Interior Ministry and waged war on Saudi liberals, dissidents and human rights activists. Naif oversees a system of extreme repression. Bloggers have been arrested, hundreds of thousands of websites censored and cinemas banned. Just weeks ago, three Saudi filmmakers were imprisoned for making a movie about poverty in the Kingdom. Men like Abdul Hamid Al Fakki are beheaded for the crime of “sorcery” and Hadi Al Mutif imprisoned for two decades for making a joke about religion.

President Obama’s boilerplate diplomatic platitude may seem harmless, but it is demoralizing Saudi dissidents and liberals who have faced Naif’s wrath for over three decades. “We’re headed toward the medieval ages” a leading Saudi blogger told me on condition of anonymity. “Jihad is coming! The infidels are going to burn!” he exclaimed mocking Naif. “I’m really worried that a decade of our dreams as liberal dissidents is going to be demolished in a single second. What takes years to build can break down in a second.”

In November 1990, forty-seven women drove in the Kingdom and were summarily arrested. Twenty thousand fundamentalists gathered in Riyadh calling the women “whores” and one week later, it was Naif who officially announced that women are forbidden from driving.

In 2002, fifteen Saudi girls were killed when the religious police blocked them from fleeing their burning school because they were not properly covered. Saudi newspapers demanded an investigation, but it was Naif who ordered an end to all editorials on the subject. Two years later, Naif said of Saudi elections “[W]omen’s participation is out of the question.”

In 2009, The Economist asked of Naif “Could a tough interior minister be a reforming king?” This is the oldest game in Washington. No matter how draconian or repressive a particular Saudi King or prince, gullible Western journalists speculate if they are quietly working for “reform.” Not Naif: He personally threatened to “cut off the tongues” of any Saudi reformist.

Should the leader of the free world congratulate an unelected theocratic dictator for appointing his half-brother dictator-in-waiting? Hardly. Rather, he should have used the opportunity to apply greater pressure on the Saudi regime to dismantle the guardianship system that turns women into virtual slaves forbidding them from traveling or working without a man’s permission. Saudi Arabia’s DC embassy openly states on its website “Ladies cannot apply for a transit visa if not accompanied by a male relative.” Imagine the outrage if a South African embassy had stipulated, “Blacks cannot apply for a transit visa if not accompanied by a white owner.”

The President also should have withheld his congratulations until Crown Prince Naif apologizes for his outrageous and offensive remark that Zionists were behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. (Read more.)

13 comments:

L2L said...

did you see this?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/11/detroit-prayer-event-puts-muslim-community-on-edge/

simple_truth said...

Obama has been a very disappointing president in most areas. He has done nothing that I know of to pressure these Islamic ruled or dominated countries and territories to stop persecuting Christians and others who are in the minorities. It would seem to me that he would have been very vocal and adamant about freedom and liberty for all citizens of those lands. All I have seen is him commenting and talking about Islamic governments and their agendas. Why doesn't he have the guts to defend those non-Muslims and have those governments and leaders to treat the non-Muslims fairly? It's so easy for him to appease the Muslims. What a shame!!

My Two Sense said...

David. Since you are merely reposting an article that you didn't write...

I don't agree with the writer on this article when he says "President Obama’s boilerplate diplomatic platitude may seem harmless... but..."

And I respectfully don't agree with "simple truth" when he says, "Obama has been a very disappointing president in most areas."

I decided it's not worth it anymore to try to refute people's opinions about Obama. I'm not going to change anyone's mind and no one's going to change mine. I might agree with some of the posts on here that Obama needs to take a harder line on Islam as simple truth says for instance... but that's probably where our agreement ends.

Instead I will ask if there are any Republican (or as I call them: "Repugnican") candidates that are worth listening to based on their views of Islam? Honestly I don't even know what they are (their views on Islam I mean).

So far I am not seeing any respectable candidate on the conservative side that impresses me or that I agree with on anything except perhaps Ron Paul, who, while I don't agree with all of the tenants of libertarianism, we all know he's not going to win the nomination.

If instead, we find ourselves having to vote for Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney... well... I pretty much guarantee we will be having the exact same conversations in a few years about how they are poor presidents who are soft on issues like Islam. Time will tell I guess.

taomeano said...

It's the oil duh !!! Because of oil we sacrifice our principles of justice and equity. what a shame !!!

concernedforusa said...

To "My Two Sense":

If you have not realized by now that Obama is a Muslim, you do not have any sense. Stop drinking Kool-Aid and apply to common sense.

My Two Sense said...

I take it back. Well... at least about ONE Republican candidate anyway... Newt said something once about the "Ground Zero Mosque / Islamic Cultural Center". He stated that since we can't build a Church at Mecca, then we shouldn't build a Mosque near Ground Zero". While that's a fine premise and I agree with it to a point, America is America (complete with that pesky "Freedom of Religion" and all that) and Saudi Arabia is NOT America (with no "freedom of Religion"). Two completely different sovereign countries. That's just the world we live in.

Well... The Mosque/Cultural Center's been built. I haven't heard much about it in the news recently. Anyone still protesting that now that's it's up and running?

Anyway, I would be interested to hear points of view regarding Islam from the other candidates just for my own edification.

My Two Sense said...

concernedforuse - I already disproved this in another blog topic, so I am not doing it again.

concernedforusa said...

aa

concernedforusa said...

To "My Two Sense":

Only ObamaRobots believe that they can "prove" that Obama is not a Muslim while proof that he is a Muslim is everywhere. Stop drinking Kool-Aid and come to you senses.

My Two Sense said...

concernedforusa - only bad debaters resort to low brow ad homonym attacks. Drink your own Kool aid.

PS: Thanks for proving my point that you just can't reason with a true blue Repugnican.

concernedforusa said...

It is hard to watch out Muslim-in-chief creating the Islamic Caliphate and ObamaRobots calling it the "Arab Spring". It is hard to see our America-hating Muslim-in-chief destroying this country and ObamaRobots calling it "change".

It makes no difference for me that ObamaRobots drink his Kool-Aid and became delusional. Their delusion will lead not only to their own death but also to death of millions and millions of Americans who refuse to drink Kool-Aid. And ObamaRobots' innocent children will die along with our innocent children.

My Two Sense said...

concernedforusa - AGAIN I say you have only ad homonym attacked me (and "liberals") and offered no FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS!! It's one thing to say "Kool-aid" and present nothing to REFUTE what I have said. AGAIN you have only proven my point that it is useless to debate someone who continually proves themselves to be a KNOW-IT-ALL (who is not worth debating because no one wants to debate a bull-headed "know-it-all") and AGAIN you have shown that you have obviously not paid attention to David Wood (or taken any classes in debate) as to how to factually refute someone who doesn't agree with you.

I respond that IT IS HARD to debate responders to David Wood's blog who do not follow David Wood's example and shed ad homonym and straw man and non sequiter type tactics and come up with RESEARCHED RETORTS!

Again I ask the question: who on the Republican side (notice I didn't say "Repugnican" I am willing to listen after all) is worthy of taking them seriously about (among other things) their stances on Islam???

Sarah Palin 2 (Michelle Bachmann) actually said something RELEVANT about foreign policy: "Pakistan has nucleur weapons."

Herman Cain: eventually arrived at some sort of conclusion about his views about whether he agreed with Obama or not on Libya... notice his long uncomfortable pauses and second guesses....and VAGUE ANSWERS
and eventually responded in a different interview about his "lack of foreign policy experience, "999".

I asked a legitimate question about the republican foreign policy (specifically Islam) and got "stop drinking the Kool-aid".

Is it any wonder that there is such a divide in this country between "liberal" and "conservative"?

I have thought many times about quitting this blog and saying "f*ck it" because of the ultra conservative views I have encountered here. I have continued to be here because I have tried to read the Koran and I have tried to listen to David Wood and Nabeel and others like Ayan Hirsi Ali etc...

I am looking for SERIOUS debaters here, which I have seen against bloggers like Kim for example, who offer many mature and well researched counter arguments to her posts. It seems like when I post something all I get is "don't drink the Kool-aid" which I have to say... really disappoints me.

I get it that I usually refute political posts. I actually agree with most of what David Wood posts on here until it becomes political. I just have to point out that it seems like the only "responses" I get to refuting more political posts come from, forgive me, but people who just blather on about stupid conspiracy theories about "Obama is a secret Muslim and not born here" type of drivel.

I challenge someone to actually CONVINCE ME that a republican candidate is actually WORTH VOTING FOR!!! So far only Ron Paul is worth me even listening to and I don't agree with everything he says. Otherwise, the Republican candidates are a joke. I am willing to listen... and willing to have serious debate. but I refuse to engage anyone who says "I should go back to sleep" or "keep drinking the Kool-aid".

David. I may not always agree with everything you say, but I do respect you. As for the rest of the people n this blog... meet my challenge.

My Two Sense said...

concernedforusa - again you have proven that you are unwilling and unable to listen to a counterargument. Thanks ONCE AGAIN for proving my original point!