Saudi Arabia elected to UN's Women's rights agency

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

Not really. The point that I'm making is that these rules, laws, and regulations are all specifically aimed at oppressing women. And that part certainly doesn't change that fact.

**whatwhat**

Melissia wrote:Not really. The point that I'm making is that these rules, laws, and regulations are all specifically aimed at oppressing women. And that part certainly doesn't change that fact.

No, this was your point in particular:

Melissia wrote:you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives

And that part certainly does change that.

**Melissia**

Are you trying to tell me that I don't know my own point? That somehow I, the poster behind these posts, do not know what I am trying to say?

Dude, just stop.

No, that was never my argument. I merely listed that as an example of the Saudi laws oppressing women because I had read it off of two separate travel sites when researching for this discussion.

**Ahtman**

I think the real point was that you actually listed several things, the possible weakest one was picked and has been pounded on until it seems like it was the only one.

**whatwhat**

Melissia wrote:Are you trying to tell me that I don't know my own point? That somehow I, the poster behind these posts, do not know what I am trying to say?

Dude, just stop.

No, that was never my argument. I merely listed that as an example of the Saudi laws oppressing women because I had read it off of two separate travel sites when researching for this discussion.

What? Lets see...

You said...

Melissia wrote:No matter how much you want to defend the country, it still oppresses women, and heck, female travelers are warned not to go there. And even if you do go there you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives.

You were rebuted with...

TheSecretSquig wrote:As I live here, you're Airport scenario is untrue. Its all about what which type of visa you have. Nieither women or men come here as tourists, as tourist visa's don't exist. I arrive at the airport, and am free to leave / go where ever. When my Wife came for a visit, no one checked if I was waiting for her, same when my parents came.

The scenario your descibing is for a sponsored workers visa, which is not the majority of visas. You think thats bad, I go to the US, alll my personal details MUST be forwarded to US border customs before the plane lands, I'm photographed and fingerprinted, and I've not done anything other than arrive!!!

To which you responded...

Melissia wrote:No it's not, it's for just traveling to the country, no workers visa involved.

...

TheSecretSquig wrote:I live here. I've made multiple visits back home to the UK. I've NEVER had to wait for a 'sponsor' to come and escort me from the airport. This was the same for my Wife when she'd visited, and my parents, and the same for guys I work with from the US, Aus, Ger and Spain.

I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but seeing as I've done it / live here, I think I'd know. I have a standard visa. Then there is a business visa, no escort required. Then there is a Pilgrim visa for Muslims peforming Hajj, no escort required. A worker visa (the minority of visa applications) do require an ecort.

Then you posted your source...

Melissia wrote:You're not a female traveler.

Regardless, this is off of the U.S. Department of State's travel guide for Saudi Arabia:

Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. [...]

Leaving out the key line...

"Women traveling alone, who are not met by sponsors, have experienced delays before being allowed to enter the country or to continue on other flights."

Which contradicts what you first said: "And even if you do go there you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives."

Now you're saying you were "I merely listed that as an example of the Saudi laws oppressing women because I had read it off of two separate travel sites when researching for this discussion." Funny how you refuted the dismissal of your comment for several posts if that was "merely listed that as an example"

It's a big statement you made. It's basically saying women can't travel in Saudi Arabia unless they have a contact in the country to meet with. Fact is it's wrong. Lets clear that up without whining about how i'm trying to say what your point is.

Ahtman wrote:I think the real point was that you actually listed several things, the possible weakest one was picked and has been pounded on until it seems like it was the only one.

Stating women can't travel to Saudi arabia without someone in the country to meet them is a weak statement?

Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.

**Ahtman**

whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I think the real point was that you actually listed several things, the possible weakest one was picked and has been pounded on until it seems like it was the only one.

Stating women can't travel to Saudi arabia without someone in the country to meet them is a weak statement?

No, I'm saying stating the same thing four or five times is unnecessary. The two of you kept saying the same thing to each other repeatedly. You made your point, move on.

whatwhat wrote:Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.

I believe what we have here is an fallacist's fallacy.

**TheSecretSquig**

All I can say is that the US page you are getting your info from is very out of date. People I work with including myself have their wives (some their daughters) come and visit on a regular basis. There is no requirement whatsoever for them to be met at the airport. My friend who is a AUS national could not pick his wife up from the airport due to work. Having travelled to KSA several times before, she simply got in a taxi to the compound, no issues whatsoever.

Having been to the US for a holiday, I'd take arriving in KSA anytime over being stuck in a queue for an hour, photographed, fingerprinted and having all my details stored in a Government Database as what happens when a non US citizen arrives in the US. Every country has their own Visa requirements / restrictions, but your information is well out of date / incorrect.

As for unescorted women being arrested, again your information is incorrect / out of date. The Muttawa (religous Police) do not have any powers (unless escorted by a Policeman which is rare) to arrest anyone anymore as their power was stripped by the King. They are also banned from many shopping Malls, restaraunts and entertainment (if there is such a thing in KSA) establishments. There are less and less on the street now, due to the King trying to reform the country. Unfortunatly, the die hard traditionalists are protesting about this. The days of Muttawa walking around with their canes to whack peoples ankles is long gone.

My Wife has and many other peoples wives go round town using Taxi's and buses, totally unescorted. On a few occassions, there have been confrontations with the Muttawa, but nothing more than them asking people to cover their hair.

As for women being refused in restaraunts, the only one I've seen asking women to be escorted was a Burger King (now closed). Most of the users of such establishments are women, not men so it would be stupid for them to be refused entry.

As for not being able to leave the country without the permission of the 'Head of the Family', in some US states it is ilegal for an -16yr old to 'run away' (can't quote which ones, just saw it on some programe that swapped kids for a week). In the UK unless you are 17 or over, a letter of consent is required from your parents to book any service through a recognised Travel Agent. Every country has its way of control.

You have to understand the culture here. Family is everything and any activity outside of marriage is frowned upon. By not allowing unmarried couples or single women to book hotel suites, puts another barrier to prevent adultery or something happening outside a marriage. I'm not saying I agree with this, but unless you understand the culture, you can't appreciate the laws.

**Frazzled**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
Having been to the US for a holiday, I'd take arriving in KSA anytime over being stuck in a queue for an hour, photographed, fingerprinted and having all my details stored in a Government Database as what happens when a non US citizen arrives in the US.

Your comrades in Saudi Arabia had something to do with that.

Are women allowed to work there?

**whatwhat**

Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.

I believe what we have here is an fallacist's fallacy.

No it isn't. I said therefore you "can't easily trust everything else" not therefore everything is is false too.

**Ahtman**

whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.

I believe what we have here is an fallacist's fallacy.

No it isn't. I said therefore you "can't easily trust everything else" not therefore everything is is false too.

That isn't what a fallacist's fallacy means.

**whatwhat**

Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.

I believe what we have here is an fallacist's fallacy.

No it isn't. I said therefore you "can't easily trust everything else" not therefore everything is is false too.

That isn't what a fallacist's fallacy means.

A Fallacist's Fallacy means an argument is dismissed on the basis that one point is flawed, when in fact there could be many other good points in said argument. That's not what I did.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.

I believe what we have here is an fallacist's fallacy.

No it isn't. I said therefore you "can't easily trust everything else" not therefore everything is is false too.

That isn't what a fallacist's fallacy means.

I'd ask but I'm afraid the whole conversation would be fallacious.

**TheSecretSquig**

Frazzled wrote:
Your comrades in Saudi Arabia had something to do with that.

Are women allowed to work there?

Women can work here, as said in previous posts. But it is a new trend, the King is battling with the traditionalists to reform the country. Most Ex Pat wives who wish to work get a job in teaching or nursing. The major Supermarkets are actively trying to recuit women cashiers and workers. The King has built universities exclusively for women. He wouldn't be doing this if there was no intent to give them jobs. All the people getting an eduction (that isn't influenced by Islam - read previous post pg 5 I think) will want job regardless of their sex.

As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.

**Frazzled**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.

Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.

American Airlines Flight 11
Main article: American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).[7]

Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B."[8] Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport in Boston and described them as Middle Eastern.[8] She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card information of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta.[9]

Mohamed Atta was heard speaking over the air traffic control system, broadcasting messages he intended for the passengers.[10]

“ We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.
Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
”

[edit] United Airlines Flight 175
Main article: United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirati), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirati), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi).[7]

A United Airlines mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[11]

[edit] American Airlines Flight 77
Main article: American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).[7]

Two hijackers, Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed were identified by clerks as having bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, New Jersey with $1,842.25 in cash.[8] Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, used a cell phone to call her mother in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. Unlike the other flights, there was no report of stabbings or bomb threats. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, it is possible that pilots were not killed and were sent to the rear of the plane.[12] Passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, Theodore Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, stating the flight had been hijacked and the hijackers had knives and box cutters.[13] Two of the passengers had been on the FBI's terrorist-alert list: Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

Forensic remains of the five hijackers were found at the Pentagon, along with remains of the victims.[14]

[edit] United Airlines Flight 93
Main article: United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).[7]

Passenger Jeremy Glick stated that the hijackers were Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, and carrying knives.[15][16]

Hijacker Ziad Jarrah also mistakenly broadcast messages intended for passengers over the air traffic control system:

**TheSecretSquig**

Frazzled wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.

Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.

Different topic completely, watch the 'Loose Change' video. Lets not de-rail the topic, start a new one or go onto 'abovetopsecret.com' or some simlar site.

And Saudi / US relationships can't be that bad, you've only just sold them $30b worth of F-15's!

**Frazzled**

No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.

**Ahtman**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.

Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.

Different topic completely, watch the 'Loose Change' video. Lets not de-rail the topic, start a new one or go onto 'abovetopsecret.com' or some simlar site.

And Saudi / US relationships can't be that bad, you've only just sold them $30b worth of F-15's!

>>>Endorses Loose Change

>>>Accuses others of being conspiracy theorists

Oh, and a Fallicist's Fallacy is the assumption that if part of a premise is false that the conclusion must be false. It is possible to be wrong in a premise and still have a correct conclusion.

**whatwhat**

Even if it isn't conspiracy there was no need for you to bring that up anyway Frazzled. The actions of a minority group of Saudi Arabians do not mean anything. I know you struggle to comprehend how someone can be independant of the nation they were born in but please, that's dumb.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:[color=green]>>>Endorses Loose Change

No he didn't. What he meant was. "feth of and watch loose change or something" as in, that discussion is not relevant here.

Ahtman wrote:Oh, and a Fallicist's Fallacy is the assumption that if part of a premise is false that the conclusion must be false. It is possible to be wrong in a premise and still have a correct conclusion.

Pretty much the same thing as what I just said. Either way it's not what I did.

**Frazzled**

whatwhat wrote:Even if it isn't conspiracy there was no need for you to bring that up anyway Frazzled. The actions of a minority group of Saudi Arabians do not mean anything. I know you struggle to comprehend how someone can be independant of the nation they were born in but please, that's dumb.

It means he's

ing wrong and a crackpot if he believes optherwise. Therefor his stories are just that. Er kommt mit unrein Hände.

**whatwhat**

Frazzled wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Even if it isn't conspiracy there was no need for you to bring that up anyway Frazzled. The actions of a minority group of Saudi Arabians do not mean anything. I know you struggle to comprehend how someone can be independant of the nation they were born in but please, that's dumb.

It means he's ing wrong and a crackpot if he believes optherwise. Therefor his stories are just that. Er kommt mit unrein Hände.

Now theres a better example of a Fallicist's Fallacy

**TheSecretSquig**

Frazzled wrote:No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.

Different Topic, Sorry.

And my answer is 'undecided'. This is based on reading other theories about the tragdey other than the 'official' US Government version.

For a country (KSA) that 'aledgely' breed terrorists who target the US, the US sure does like to sell them weapons and do business with them..................

Off to bed now, its 1.15am and I've work in 6 hours. Its been 'fun'.

**Ahtman**

whatwhat wrote:poor use of code prevents showing

It is what you did, actually. you treated the conclusion as false because one part of the premise (women have to be escorted) was weak. That is practically the definition.

I don't believe that was what he was saying at all by bringing Loose Change up. It seemed to me he was saying to watch Loose Change to prove Saudis weren't involved.

**whatwhat**

Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:poor use of code prevents showing

It is what you did, actually. you treated the conclusion as false because one part of the premise (women have to be escorted) was weak. That is practically the definition.

I don't believe that was what he was saying at all by bringing Loose Change up. It seemed to me he was saying to watch Loose Change to prove Saudis weren't involved.

Well while are putting words in other mouths here...

Ahtman wrote:I blatently can't read.

I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.

**Ahtman**

whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I blatently can't read.

I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.

Maybe you didn't come across like you meant to, that is possible, you are a bit of an drama queen.

**Frazzled**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
Frazzled wrote:No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.

Different Topic, Sorry.

And my answer is 'undecided'. This is based on reading other theories about the tragdey other than the 'official' US Government version.

For a country (KSA) that 'aledgely' breed terrorists who target the US, the US sure does like to sell them weapons and do business with them..................

Off to bed now, its 1.15am and I've work in 6 hours. Its been 'fun'.

Allrighty then. I guess that whole Passport/visa thing can't be trusted.
So yea, why should we believe anything else you just put up?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.

You should stop doing the yes or no thing, it makes you look simplistic and unable to handle nuanced positions.

**whatwhat**

Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I blatently can't read.

I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.

Maybe you didn't come across like you meant to, that is possible, you are a bit of an drama queen.

As I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is in your mind Ahtman. You need to remember that the mood you believe a poster to be in is quite often more indicative of your own mood than theirs. Ya big drama queen.

**ShumaGorath**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.

Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.

Different topic completely, watch the 'Loose Change' video. Lets not de-rail the topic, start a new one or go onto 'abovetopsecret.com' or some simlar site.

And Saudi / US relationships can't be that bad, you've only just sold them $30b worth of F-15's!

Saudi Arabia is the biggest bankroller of anti western islamic terrorism in the world, it has been for decades, it will be until it runs out of money. To hide the fact that the Saudis play a double game with both sides is silly, it's pretty well known to every intelligence community on the planet.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I blatently can't read.

I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.

Maybe you didn't come across like you meant to, that is possible, you are a bit of an drama queen.

As I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is in your mind Ahtman. You need to remember that the mood you believe a poster to be in is quite often more indicative of your own mood than theirs. Ya big drama queen.

In fairness

you do come off as a drama queen in quite a few of your posts.

**whatwhat**

And you come across as an absaloute witch. Just saying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The line "I have no more issue telling people when they're flat out wrong in reality then I do here. I enjoy it. " comes to mind.

**ShumaGorath**

whatwhat wrote:And you come across as an absaloute witch. Just saying.

Well, being part of an ex nazi brain trust using genetic manipulation to create the first true Übermensch I do kind of come off as slightly full of myself sometimes. I promise though, it's really just because I'm the smartest man on the planet.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:And you come across as an absaloute witch. Just saying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The line "I have no more issue telling people when they're flat out wrong in reality then I do here. I enjoy it. " comes to mind.

It's not my fault the wargaming community has almost no knowledge concerning economics, politics, foreign relations, or philosophy. I just do what I can to set 'em straight! I'm doing a community service!