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.

Computron wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
It may be hard to quantify but I know that if given a choice between:


2. Being of Christian heritage and living in modern day Saudi Arabia

3. Being of Christian heritage and living in Raqqa, Syria during ISIS' take over of the city


And from first hand experience, I know 2 is not preferable but extremely survivable.

Not survivable if you started off muslim and converted, that carries the death penalty there.

The reason that Saudi Arabia can afford to be so "tolerant" is that only visitors are allowed to be non-muslim but they're still forbidden from carrying out religious observances, non-muslim religious items like the bible are banned.
ISIS is still in a transition phase where it doesn't have total control over its territory. Once it gained control you would see non-muslim traders and the like allowed in and they'd be treated like non-muslims are in Saudi Arabia.
I'm being critical of Saudi Arabia here, not supportive of ISIS, I'm also critical at the way the western world ignores what Saudi Arabia is really like in favour of the money got from there.

Extreme Islam is daily life in Saudi Arabia, they're more lenient towards westerners who tend to have technical skills than they are against hindu and christian workers from places like India and the Phillipines. The only difference I see between them and ISIS is that the really nasty stuff happened centuries ago, ISIS is still in the process of beating the locals into servile submission to extreme islam - the locals in Saudi Arabia grow up with it and accept it as normal, it will take a generation or two for the same to happen in the Islamic State that ISIS is trying to create.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I've seen some mention of 300 marines trapped in Ramadi City but can't find a decent source for this, was this some beat up of a minor event or what?

Hmm, you make an interesting and valid point.

Being a Westener in Saudi Arabia, being a migrant laborer and being a local in Saudi Arabia are completely different things.

But, I don't know if ISIS would ever even be as tolerant should they have their Caliphate state.

According to WorldFacts and Wikipedia, being a Muslim is not a legal requirement in Saudi Arabia. It may be a societal norm, however.

On that "taxing non-Muslims" bit, here's the historical on that:

The Jizya is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power, (but with specific exemptions, from the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes." In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the zakat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens.

Current census data posits 1.2 million Christians living in Saudi Arabia, though it notes that actual holding of services, proselytizing and similar practices are illegal, as is the possession of icons and texts of a non-Muslim religion. It also notes that non-Muslims are not granted citizenship.

 Psienesis wrote:
According to WorldFacts and Wikipedia, being a Muslim is not a legal requirement in Saudi Arabia. It may be a societal norm, however.

On that "taxing non-Muslims" bit, here's the historical on that:

The Jizya is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power, (but with specific exemptions, from the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes." In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the zakat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens.

Current census data posits 1.2 million Christians living in Saudi Arabia, though it notes that actual holding of services, proselytizing and similar practices are illegal, as is the possession of icons and texts of a non-Muslim religion. It also notes that non-Muslims are not granted citizenship.

Practically all those christians are foreigners, lots of Philipino catholics. I think it was some of them who were arrested by the religious police recently for holding prayers in a house.
The state officially recognises islam as the religion of 100% of its citizens. At the time of islam's founding jewish and christian groups lived there and as "people of the book" were allowed access to the qabaa even after that had become a pilgrimage site for muslims. Today only muslims are allowed in Mecca (and Medina). No idea when that changed.

As for the jizya, what a convenient way to ensure that non-muslims were kept away from weapons which they might use to defend their culture. Any young man who wished to join the military would have to become a muslim while those that didn't paid a punitive tax or what otherwise might be called "protection money". Something that was certain to make the non-muslim community look weak in the eyes of its own young people and encourage conversion to the stronger culture.

If you live in a country, you pay taxes in some form or another. That is as true in the US as it is in Saudi Arabia. You might not pay a "foreigner tax" (though one might, never looked into that aspect of US Tax Code... and I thought the Eldar's Black Library was esoteric!), but there's plenty of other taxes to pay (depending on state of residence, city, etc. Some states and cities require Income Taxes on their residents, so you might end up being taxed 3 different times on the same income). Here were some people living in a country, enjoying the benefits of its military forces, public works, social programs and (especially at the time) high standard of education...

... and they wanted to do it for free? Please. That's never gone over well. That is, in a nutshell, one of the biggest (albeit erroneous) claims of American anti-immigration proponents.

 Psienesis wrote:
The US is directly responsible for the conditions in the nation of Iraq today.

I would suggest that the people of Iraq are responsible for the state of Iraq today.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of stuff you can legitimately blame the US for, I have a list and it's refreshed daily. But this really isn't one of them.

The only real problem with democracy, as was found in Egypt before the US backed overthrow of the democratically elected government, was that when the only concern of the voters is that their faith, creed, or tribe gets the biggest share of power, and elects a bunch of self righteous demagogues who's only interest is subjugating everyone to their way of doing things (looks meaningfully at current state of US politics) then then things go to hell pretty quickly.

The Saudis are extremists who behead people for heresy and witchcraft in public. The Saudis do not allow freedom of religion or expression.

They are hypocrites who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and fund terrorism and islamic extremism to a huge degree.

15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudis.

And yet, when their tyrannical (reformer my ass) king dies, Obama drops everything to go over there and kiss ass.

Disgusting and incomprehensible. I cannot fathom how US citizens can be comfortable with the staggering hypocrisy involved.

 Da Boss wrote:
I cannot fathom how US citizens can be comfortable with the staggering hypocrisy involved.

Can you please draw me up a list of nations without hypocrisy

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I cannot fathom how US citizens can be comfortable with the staggering hypocrisy involved.

Can you please draw me up a list of nations without hypocrisy

That's presumably why he said "staggering hypocrisy" as opposed to just "hypocrisy".

 Da Boss wrote:
The Saudis are extremists who behead people for heresy and witchcraft in public. The Saudis do not allow freedom of religion or expression.

They are hypocrites who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and fund terrorism and islamic extremism to a huge degree.

15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudis.

And yet, when their tyrannical (reformer my ass) king dies, Obama drops everything to go over there and kiss ass.

Disgusting and incomprehensible. I cannot fathom how US citizens can be comfortable with the staggering hypocrisy involved.

Hey... I'm usually the first in line to criticise Obama, and in this case, I thought it sucks balls that he did that.

But, dude... come down from that high horse a bit...

*Shakes head*
Great counterargument, Dreadclaw. Of course I can't. I could (and sometimes do, though there's not much interest in it) tear into Ireland for example for all the things it is massively hypocritical about. Ireland is a friggin' dump, which is why the flag beside me is German.

That doesn't mean pointing out hypocrisy from others on a topic like this is verboten.

But if you'd like to start a discussion about the hypocrisy of all of our nations so we can get it off our chests, work away- I will be delighted to contribute.

How about answering some of the other points?

Whembly: Nah, I don't think I will. I really think Saudi Arabia is a disgusting country, and a source of many of the problems in the Middle East. My post has nothing to do with attacking Obama, because I can't think of any US president who has really done much to make me think they want to do anything to Saudi Arabia except be best buds.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's presumably why he said "staggering hypocrisy" as opposed to just "hypocrisy".

So what is the recognized threshold for staggering hypocrisy as opposed to just hypocrisy?

 Da Boss wrote:
*Shakes head*
Great counterargument, Dreadclaw. Of course I can't. I could (and sometimes do, though there's not much interest in it) tear into Ireland for example for all the things it is massively hypocritical about. Ireland is a friggin' dump, which is why the flag beside me is German.

That doesn't mean pointing out hypocrisy from others on a topic like this is verboten.

But if you'd like to start a discussion about the hypocrisy of all of our nations so we can get it off our chests, work away- I will be delighted to contribute.

How about answering some of the other points?

So why did you single out the United States and ask if their citizens were "comfortable with . . . the staggering hypocrisy"?


This was a point that needed addressing in this?

 Da Boss wrote:
The Saudis are extremists who behead people for heresy and witchcraft in public. The Saudis do not allow freedom of religion or expression.

They are hypocrites who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and fund terrorism and islamic extremism to a huge degree.

15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudis.

And yet, when their tyrannical (reformer my ass) king dies, Obama drops everything to go over there and kiss ass.

Because the United States deserves to be singled out in this case?

 Da Boss wrote:
Because the United States deserves to be singled out in this case?

Why? Do no other nations engage in similar behaviour? Do no other nations with human rights obligations have comfortable relationships with nations that abuse human rights?

Your style of asking rhetorical questions is really adorable.

Someone in the thread mentioned Saudi Arabia. I was responding based on Saudi Arabia. If we were talking in general about hypocrisy and relationships with nasty countries, I might still have used the US and Saudi Arabia as an example but I would have mentioned some others, no doubt.

I mean is the context of the discussion totally lost on you or what?

 Da Boss wrote:
The Saudis are extremists who behead people for heresy and witchcraft in public. The Saudis do not allow freedom of religion or expression.

They are hypocrites who talk out of both sides of their mouths, and fund terrorism and islamic extremism to a huge degree.

15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudis.

And yet, when their tyrannical (reformer my ass) king dies, Obama drops everything to go over there and kiss ass.

Disgusting and incomprehensible. I cannot fathom how US citizens can be comfortable with the staggering hypocrisy involved.

It is a big world my friend. Let people of the land be ruled and govern as they want to be.

Are they imposing their view on us or other nations, not anymore like the west is doing. In other words, they do not forced their way of life and culture on other people. It is the terrorist and a few very powerful Saudis who are doing this. I do not blame the nation of Saudi Arabia. If they want to behead rapist or forced women to be escorted at all times...that is because it is their culture. Besides... the freaking animals and barbarians and savages MF over there are brutal... the only way to control them is beheading and to keep their women safe is by escort. It might be a telling sign that those guys in the desert are just fething savages.... but it is their culture.... I say let them enjoy it.

What do you want to do to the rest of the world who do not practice the same ideology culture of social treatment like you?

It is one thing like North Korea where people are being forced to obey... in SA.... the people wanted to live that way. Have you ever thought that women over there are freaking scare of the strange men... because of their culture are so violent that to walk alone ... is asking for trouble? The laws are there to protect the people in their unusual culture of super violent. They need the beheading and chopping limbs to control thieves

 Da Boss wrote:
Your style of asking rhetorical questions is really adorable.

Someone in the thread mentioned Saudi Arabia. I was responding based on Saudi Arabia. If we were talking in general about hypocrisy and relationships with nasty countries, I might still have used the US and Saudi Arabia as an example but I would have mentioned some others, no doubt.

I mean is the context of the discussion totally lost on you or what?

Adorable or not I would appreciate an answer

What do you want to do to the rest of the world who do not practice the same ideology culture of social treatment like you?

Refuse to accept and respect it.
Don't allow state visits from Saudi officials and Royals.
Ban the importation of Wahabbism (the fundamentalist version of Islam practiced by Bin Laden). Saudi Arabia loves funding Wahabbist organisations in western nations.
Ban the use of Sharia Law in western nations. By and large it incompatible with western values and notions of tolerance, freedom, justice and human rights.
Travel and financial restrictions on Saudis involved in funding terror and militant groups in places like Syria and Iraq.

I have no interest in military interventionism, interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations like Saudi Arabia and forcing them to "change their culture", but If we westerners are really serious about our own values like human rights, then we should be consistent about it. We should be internationally shunning and ostracizing Saudi Arabia like the pariah nation it is.

We do it with Iran and North Korea, why not Saudi Arabia?

Never mind, don't answer that. It's rhetorical. We want their oil, we want to sell them our weapons and fighter jets, and we want to keep our strategic bases on Saudi soil.

Therefore all our notions of tolerance, freedom and human rights are tossed out the window the moment they become inconvenient.

What I read:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Ban the importation of Wasabism (the fundamentalist version of Islam practiced by Bin Laden). Saudi Arabia loves funding Wasabist organisations in western nations.

This is why I don't have an opinion on political things.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Can you please draw me up a list of nations without hypocrisy

Sticks hand up. Looks around.

Us, but you all pretend we don't exist unless you want to buy things tax free, gamble, or we inconvenience commuters, so...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Therefore all our notions of tolerance, freedom and human rights are tossed out the window the moment they become inconvenient.

It's hardly the first time with the US, or even the west in general. At least this time, you didn't invade, and herd the Saudis into camps in the most inhospitable terrain you could find while proclaiming how they were freeing them from their ignorance and godlessness, in the name of freedom and liberty.

Computron wrote:
. At the time of islam's founding jewish and christian groups lived there and as "people of the book" were allowed access to the qabaa even after that had become a pilgrimage site for muslims. Today only muslims are allowed in Mecca (and Medina). No idea when that changed.

The first caliph of the religion of peace said he heard Mohammed, the prophet of peace, say on his deathbed that he wanted the Hijaz(greater part of the Arabian Peninsula) which he peacefully conquered by that point, as a muslim only area. So the remaining Jew and Christian tribes were given the peacefull ultimatum of being exiled or forced to convert. After that, the religion of peace had a homogenous core area from which they could peacefully attack and occupy Persia and parts of the greater middle east by peaceful force of arms.

Totally peacefully. Like super serious peaceful.

Please, even Indian nations aren't without a little hypocrisy.

You claim your culture was trodden on and robbed blind, and then demand free land to build Casinos on which have nothing to do with your culture. If you wanted to continue a traditional way of life, sure I could consider asking for land reasonable. But wanting it for Casinos is just wrong.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Your style of asking rhetorical questions is really adorable.

Someone in the thread mentioned Saudi Arabia. I was responding based on Saudi Arabia. If we were talking in general about hypocrisy and relationships with nasty countries, I might still have used the US and Saudi Arabia as an example but I would have mentioned some others, no doubt.

I mean is the context of the discussion totally lost on you or what?

Adorable or not I would appreciate an answer

The US deserves more criticism on this regard due to their rhetoric of being crusaders for freedom and protectors of democracy. The argument that the US goes to war to defend freedom and democracy is often thrown around, actions like the continued ass kissing of Saudi Arabia show it to be nothing but empty cynicism.

There's your answer, though I doubt you will find it satisfying.

 Da Boss wrote:
The US deserves more criticism on this regard due to their rhetoric of being crusaders for freedom and protectors of democracy. The argument that the US goes to war to defend freedom and democracy is often thrown around, actions like the continued ass kissing of Saudi Arabia show it to be nothing but empty cynicism.

There's your answer, though I doubt you will find it satisfying.

Your use of "crusaders" in a thread about ISIS is amusing. So, America uses the same excuses to go to war as most other Western Nations. Why single them out?

Because we are in a thread about ISIS, an organisation that exists partially because of US lead wars in the Middle East that were justified with exactly the rhetoric I am talking about, and I was responding specifically to some points raised about Saudi Arabia, who are specifically a US ally?

Maybe go back and read the posts again, I mean I've already explained this but you seem to be having some trouble understanding it.

 Da Boss wrote:
Because we are in a thread about ISIS, an organisation that exists partially because of US lead wars in the Middle East that were justified with exactly the rhetoric I am talking about, and I was responding specifically to some points raised about Saudi Arabia, who are specifically a US ally?

Maybe go back and read the posts again, I mean I've already explained this but you seem to be having some trouble understanding it.

No criticism for the former colonial powers who forced together disparate tribes who hated each other, and started fomenting unrest before the US got involved in the region?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Please, even Indian nations aren't without a little hypocrisy.

You claim your culture was trodden on and robbed blind, and then demand free land to build Casinos on which have nothing to do with your culture. If you wanted to continue a traditional way of life, sure I could consider asking for land reasonable. But wanting it for Casinos is just wrong.

We didn't take any 'free land'. All land occupied by Seneca Casinos was either ours the whole time, or paid for through the nose, and pay we did (and even, unlike the US, paid off all our loans from China), as that's the terms of our deal with the US government, we can buy back our land you stole. On the up side, the general collapse of the real estate market and the blind greed of Americans coming to our casinos has made that easier.

We put up casinos because our 'culture' also does not tax it's people. The casinos are owned by the Seneca government (and by extension, the people) and it's income is part of what pays for the roads, schools, college educations, other businesses, etc etc etc. The rest goes toward buying back our land you stole. Clearly you mistake us for barbarians who lived in the woods, when, in reality, many white American officers bitched when they burned our homes, as we had nicer houses then they did, with real glass windows!

We built towns and cities, which you burned, to house our civilians, many of whom you murdered. There was, after all, a reason you named us among your 'civilized' tribes'. I particularly liked the part of the story where the brave American soldiers took hammers to beat our women and children to death to save bullets.

So, don't complain that we played by your rules, turned your own greed against you, and effectively made you pay for what you stole. That's not hypocrisy, that's karmic justice.

The best part is we've destroyed more of you through your gambling and tobacco addictions than we ever could have through force of arms.

So come on down to Seneca Niagara, and while the night away in style! While you're here, gorge yourselves at our all you can eat buffets and restaurants, and then visit the smoking lounge and light up with our hand rolled native blend cigarettes and cigars! Embrace American consumer culture. Because otherwise, the terrorists win.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Please, even Indian nations aren't without a little hypocrisy.

You claim your culture was trodden on and robbed blind, and then demand free land to build Casinos on which have nothing to do with your culture. If you wanted to continue a traditional way of life, sure I could consider asking for land reasonable. But wanting it for Casinos is just wrong.

It really is not a claim, it is more of a historical fact that Native American culture was "trodden on and robbed blind." I am not sure what kind of history classes you were involved in as a child, but you might want to refresh yourself on all of what happened there.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Please, even Indian nations aren't without a little hypocrisy.

You claim your culture was trodden on and robbed blind, and then demand free land to build Casinos on which have nothing to do with your culture. If you wanted to continue a traditional way of life, sure I could consider asking for land reasonable. But wanting it for Casinos is just wrong.

It really is not a claim, it is more of a historical fact that Native American culture was "trodden on and robbed blind." I am not sure what kind of history classes you were involved in as a child, but you might want to refresh yourself on all of what happened there.

Sorry if I gave the impression that they weren't stolen. I am not denying that they were wronged. They were. I just think that Indian Casinos are a huge abuse of the system, by people who were not personally effected by the transgressions this is to pay for. At this point, you can't claim you have been slighted by events which took place 150 years ago.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Please, even Indian nations aren't without a little hypocrisy.

You claim your culture was trodden on and robbed blind, and then demand free land to build Casinos on which have nothing to do with your culture. If you wanted to continue a traditional way of life, sure I could consider asking for land reasonable. But wanting it for Casinos is just wrong.

It really is not a claim, it is more of a historical fact that Native American culture was "trodden on and robbed blind." I am not sure what kind of history classes you were involved in as a child, but you might want to refresh yourself on all of what happened there.

Sorry if I gave the impression that they weren't stolen. I am not denying that they were wronged. They were. I just think that Indian Casinos are a huge abuse of the system, by people who were not personally effected by the transgressions this is to pay for. At this point, you can't claim you have been slighted by events which took place 150 years ago.

What kind of ignorance statement is that? If the Indians were not "transgressed" by Americans, they might be a nation of their own like the Vikings of Sweden. The Indians of north and south Americas got the short end of the stick. They were the "Jews" of the Americas and the white men were the"Nazi".

They have been gak on for the last 500 years, for the last 30 years, they finally got hope and true progress and JOBS...you want to take that away from them...how shallow can you be?

It is a freaking casino. You don't like it, just say no and don't go. I like this kind of war better than bullets and arrows. Business war, nobody dies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

What do you want to do to the rest of the world who do not practice the same ideology culture of social treatment like you?

Refuse to accept and respect it.
Don't allow state visits from Saudi officials and Royals.
Ban the importation of Wahabbism (the fundamentalist version of Islam practiced by Bin Laden). Saudi Arabia loves funding Wahabbist organisations in western nations.
Ban the use of Sharia Law in western nations. By and large it incompatible with western values and notions of tolerance, freedom, justice and human rights.
Travel and financial restrictions on Saudis involved in funding terror and militant groups in places like Syria and Iraq.

I have no interest in military interventionism, interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations like Saudi Arabia and forcing them to "change their culture", but If we westerners are really serious about our own values like human rights, then we should be consistent about it. We should be internationally shunning and ostracizing Saudi Arabia like the pariah nation it is.

We do it with Iran and North Korea, why not Saudi Arabia?

Never mind, don't answer that. It's rhetorical. We want their oil, we want to sell them our weapons and fighter jets, and we want to keep our strategic bases on Saudi soil.

Therefore all our notions of tolerance, freedom and human rights are tossed out the window the moment they become inconvenient.

Haha..funny ... That is what majority of us are doing.

What you want, and I will come right out and say it, is put sanction on Saudi arabia as if their nation is not our allies or something. This funding of terrorist is in the same pot as Columbia drug lords and the cartels....it is an issue of some individules ( powerful) who are doing wrong things. It is not an act of the nation. This "pot" is different than Iran and North Korea.

The usa govt is doing just that, we freezes terrorist fun and arrest the terrorist like we do to the cartels. We don't go to war with Columbia or put sanction on them. Do that to SA and they win! More propaganda vs the evil empire of usa.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Please, even Indian nations aren't without a little hypocrisy.

You claim your culture was trodden on and robbed blind, and then demand free land to build Casinos on which have nothing to do with your culture. If you wanted to continue a traditional way of life, sure I could consider asking for land reasonable. But wanting it for Casinos is just wrong.

It really is not a claim, it is more of a historical fact that Native American culture was "trodden on and robbed blind." I am not sure what kind of history classes you were involved in as a child, but you might want to refresh yourself on all of what happened there.

Sorry if I gave the impression that they weren't stolen. I am not denying that they were wronged. They were. I just think that Indian Casinos are a huge abuse of the system, by people who were not personally effected by the transgressions this is to pay for. At this point, you can't claim you have been slighted by events which took place 150 years ago.

Especially considering how jacked up life on reservations can be. Turns out creating a mini-welfare state isn't good for anybody.