Yeah, it's a shame countries like the UK don't have the backbone to tell them to sort it out.
We seem to just accept it as a necessary evil to keep SA on side
Edit: For reference I am calling the UK out because I am British not because I think the UK have more influence than the likes of US or Russia for example
Yes and selling the weapons, possibly subsidizing oil.
You know how the USA turns a blind eye from Israels wrong doings, SA is the UKs Israel.
Edit: as someone down one of the replies has pointed out something that would not have caused the back lash against the point because I'm ignoring magnitude is using Pakistan instead of Israel.
I'd say it is about power but I think it is sort of pedantic in this context. Money/power/respect is the goal achieved through deals.
He makes the best deals. Trust me, I have the best brain. We're going to win bigly.
Yes, they do. They killed 3000 of our people and we give them far more than the U.K every year. The U.K. has like 20% the population and about1/9 our GDP. And we spend about 1/3 to 1/2 your entire GDP on military, and 4X on foreign aid. And a fuck ton of that goes to help Saudi interests. It's fucked yo.
Edit: I know some people think their country is the biggest and baddest but let's be real guys. The US blows every country out of the water when it comes to fucking over other countries and spending massively to get our own interests achieved.
is this conversation happening on the internet? where endless information is a simple click away? literally asking me for a source takes as long as finding it.
Not if there's no proof. And there isn't. Oh wait, do you have any? Because I went and googled it. Nothing except for Breitbart and Infowars. So again, I say, got proof? Burden is on you. If you can't provide an article, you lose his argument.
you're a joke. be honest no matter what i pull up out of the HUNDREDS of sources you will not accept it , i'm no dummy. why would i waste my time with you? retreat to your safe space little boy.
I'd accept anything other than Breitbart and Infowars, hell even Fox if they have some actual reasons to believe that. But you have not even a Fox News article. However I find it even better because even if it were true, you don't seem to care about Putin paying his way into a Trumps White House. And there's way more evidence of that happening. Funny trumpster deplorables. Keep drinking the cool aid, with your bowling green massacre, massive landslide victory, and spending millions every month on golfing. But ignoring that and saying "yeah but Hilldawg emails"
lmao see this is where everybody fucks up. I'm not a trump supporter! he's a piece of shit, i'm not offended by any of your insults about trump.
xthek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:59:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US blows every country out of the water when it comes to fucking over other countries
I'm sure Kuwait, Ukraine, Poland, the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, and Korea agree with this. And I'm sure Haiti, Nepal, and Kenya with the massive amount of aid the US has provided them absolutely resent us. Oh wait, they all have pretty high opinions of US foreign policy.
The Middle East's general hatred of the United States is an outlier. Much of the world likes the US more than Americans do.
Saudi Arabia may have done shady things and it's certain they could have done more to help prevent it, but it's weird to say they caused 9/11.
I'm glad to hear others have good opinions of us. I do. But it doesn't change my opinion about US foreign aid in general. Nothing we do is to help you. It's only to further us. I don't think the US has ever given money to anyone unless it furthers their agendas. Religion and money. I'd say democracy, but the US doesn't give a fuck about democracies either
In a class action lawsuit by 9/11 victims, two Saudi govt ministers' attorneys submitted their argument that YES they did fund al-Q but did so as govt officials implementing govt policy not as individuals finding terror.
Therefore, the case was thrown out on "diplomatic immunity". A person can't be sued for doing govt policy if they have diplomatic relations with the USA.
At least not the Saudis.
Saudi's lawyer? Baker-Botts of Houston, aka James A. Baker III, the old Bush family attorney back to the days of Zapata Petroleum and Zapata Offshore (near Cuba), the same guy who got Bush elected by the Supreme Court, that's who defended Saudis on September 11th vs USA citizens.
Saddam? Sure, np. No immunity. He's a scumbag, also a USA project, back when we would do ANYTHING we could claim anti-communism and "democracy" as the justification.
JFK was also considered a commie pinko if not outright Red, by far right. Funny coincidence, that.
It's not that. It's that people have started to realize that the UN, and the governments of "certain countries" are lying, hypocritical globalist shitbags who actually don't care about human rights at all except insofar as they can use it as a vehicle to transfer more money and power into their own hands.
The problem is that then those same people start trusting the words of state leaders who never really bothered with those lies and instead stuck to the old lies from the 1950s about traditional values.
The "lies" about traditional values still put you in a far better position than the alternative. At least in that case, you haven't been fooled into accepting a poisonous ideology under the lie of "diversity."
Eh, personal preference really. I prefer living among a variety of cultures to living in a society that thinks legalizing domestic abuse in the name of 'traditional family values' is a good thing.
Here's the formula, for both sides: scandal A is brewing...this is it...this is the big one that will sink party X...scandal B introduced as A fades to obscurity..this is it.. It's the big one....loop till
I could have sworn I read somewhere that because of the fall of Gaddafi that Libyans are being sold off into slavery. And then there's the whole creatinf ISIS by toppling Saddam. But sure, let's destabilize SA as well, nothing bad could come of that!
Golem30 ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 14:16:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not advocating invading SA. But you see how the tone changes when one of our politicians in the UK gets asked about the Saudis dire human rights record, it's very much "we don't agree with it" in a sentence or two then they move on. These guys for my money are far worse than Saddam or Gaddafi ever were. Atleast those regimes were secular and Islamism wasn't allowed to flourish.
Heavily invest in renewables so that your country can break the oil addiction. It's pretty much the only reason they are relevant at all other than being in a strategic location. It would fix a lot of the ME problems actually.
td57 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:21:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oil makes the world turn and there will be somethings that run on oil that are not able to be run on renewable sources. Even in a perfect world where all 300 million US citizens stop driving cars, and have some sort of way to travel the massive country, period. A large amount of products in the US travel around via truck and trailer which you can make more efficient, but there is no real solution for the power and endurance of diesel motors. So lets get even more perfect world, all trucks are now electric or some shit. Now we have to talk about the other large distribution network for our goods; trains. Yes there are electric or maglev passenger trains but again when you are talking freight like tons and tons and tons the most efficient method is going to be an oil consuming, fuel drinking diesel motor. Boats, planes, plastic, computer parts, military equipment and vehicles, the list goes on and on.
I'm with you when it comes to power generation, there are much more efficient ways to do that but simply saying we should invest in renewable or stop buying oil from SA or other ME countries is ignorant. The world we live in today, right now, is driven by oil whether its heating homes, driving you to work, or fueling a war machine and for the majority of those things there is no feasible and realistic solution right now.
What do you think will happen in the alternative view where we don't need ME oil anymore, and they don't have anyone to sell to? That will only create more instability in the region when the money dries up.
Yeah. Like, almost everyone, considering so many people's 401ks, bank accounts, and investments tend to be partially in energy sectors like oil. Many unions, pension funds, insurance schemes, banks, etc, all make their additional income from stock market. And oil is a big section of that market.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Shiiit, mate. What's next? You gonna tell me Santa isn't real and Gandhi didn't have nukes?
td57 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:18:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I have to point out that cutting out SA oil and money is not a real world solution then maybe I should have added that Santa isn't real nor is the Easter bunny!
Quick someone run the numbers on oil logistics without the Saudis running OPEC.
I'd love it if that were possible, but people drive to work.
tsaketh ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:53:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fracking has altered the market such that OPEC can no longer price fix. This is a big part of why Venezuela is going down the shitter, and Russia has spent the last 5 years acting like their back's to the wall.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:28:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Canada and Mexico number one and two importers to US. US could do it no prob.
This is true under current production, and thank goodness or we'd be paying European prices on gas. Remember the 70s though? What happens when OPEC closes the pumps and the brits buy from our pools? It's all such a morass, and with everyone having a gun to the head of the others economies. No wonder nothing gets done.
That's what I don't understand. The criticism towards our relationship with SA, I get. But why are the same people who are hostile towards SA also against renewable energy
A lot of the raw materials to make renewables such as solar are not found in large quantities in the US. Most are imported from China which just changes the dependence from a country they can exert power over to a country who would be able to hold them hostage.
Correct but the US has the ability to exert pressure on the Saudis because they can't do much in return. China can though, through a trade war or real war. Politicians want to keep the american lifestyle as is because for most people its pretty decent. If the US were dependent on China for its energy infrastructure the hegemony they had collapses and eventually you will see things such as rising costs and the like since the negotiating power they enjoyed would be gone.
chogall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:10:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or just drill baby drill like what happened under Obama administration. Our oil production doubled~
Don't appoint them to human rights council! This is diminishing any credibility that UN has. Don't encourage them.
Sanctions worked on Iran... Stop doing business with them.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And appoint whom instead? The US with their torture prisons, kidnappings, wars and extrajudicial executions? The many Western nations that support American crimes? Russia? China? Third world countries with oppressive corrupt governments?
Saudi Arabia is worse? Perhaps. My point is that when you go down that path, the West has a lot of dirt too and then you can't incentivise anyone to improve.
I think it's your fault for thinking the UN had credibility to begin with and this isn't an example of the UN losing credibility but why you should have never considered it credible to begin with.
Blonto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But sure, let's destabilize SA as well, nothing bad could come of that!
Considering that SA is a horrible, cruel, theocratic country that's one of the biggest financial supporters of jihadist terrorists, why not? Currently the West is trying really damn hard to crush Syria using "dictatorship" as an excuse. Well that dictator at least insisted he's devoted to secularism and is fighting against religious Muslim extremists. Meanwhile SA is one of the cruellest countries in the world, a country where you can be legally executed for being a witch.
Oh don't worry, I fully stand behind the secular government currently in power even through the unsanctioned attack by my government. The evidence and geopolitics just doesn't fit with the narrative of him using chemical weapons. He's beating back the rebels, defeating ISIS and has won back the hearts and minds of the people, so he drops chemical weapons on them? It makes no sense at all.
We turn a blind eye to their bullshit because they're geopolitical "allies", it avoids open warfare in the Middle East with Israel, and because they stop OPEC from jacking up oil prices on the US. It makes geopolitical sense to turn a blind eye to their bullshit, just not moral sense.
knorben ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:52:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's actually incredibly consistent - we use proxies till they no longer serve our purpose (Saddam, Gaddafi, and Al-Assad, et al) and then we switch gears and paint them as monsters and urge their removal. Doesn't mean it's logical...or morally acceptable.....but still.....
Thank you, too many Redditors shoehorning hate against Israel, Israel puts in a fuckton of effort to not harm civilians against people who actively jeopardize the lives of their own citizens. Nothing nearly comparable to SA.
Like animals? You realize they aren't consistently doing shit to them. Israeli soldiers don't just go poking Palestinians in the back with their gun barrels. They aren't Israeli citizens because the lands were captured from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt during the six day war and they were captured as a buffer zones so that those army's can't easily mobilize an invasion again. It's much more complicated than you may think.
Before I can make a response can you specify what you mean by "glass"?
And also there is quite a bias. There are many more posts trying to delegitimization Israel as some oppressive power than those which praise Israel's efforts to manage their situations in the least harmful way, or the Palestinian's campaign of terror and false charity to fund said terror. People constantly take about defunding Israel when doing that would leave the only shred for democracy and human rights protection vulnerable to another sharia state.
Crespyl ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:40:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"glass" in this context means "drop nuclear weapons until the sand melts"
Oh. I haven't seen any redditors suggest that, even the most aggressive Israel supporters short of the baitar jackasses(Israeli far-right) wouldn't advocate for violent aggressive war against the Palestinians. I personally believe there needs to be a multi-national cooperative effort against Hamas that includes replacing them as a source for infrastructure and governance at the same time that we destroy those assholes.
trying to delegitimization Israel as some oppressive power
Their are many things that Israel does that makes them an oppressive power. There doesn't have to be "good guys" and "bad guys." Israel makes the two-state solution an increasingly distant possibility every year by continuing to expand settlements and terrorize the Gaza strip, all while claiming to really only want peace and stability. Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map, but have no ability to even attempt to do so.
Where is the "good guy" I'm supposed to feel sympathy for? Apparently, you think it is Israel because they are pretty good domestically compared to other Middle Eastern nations. As many philosophers of political scienceโas well as just decent, intelligent, ordinary peopleโhave pointed out, democracy cannot truly exist in a nation with imperial machinations. Just look at the USA. I'm glad Israel protects the rights of its citizens, but their violation of the rights those outside their borders is inexcusable.
All that being said, Saudi Arabia is much worse; they are very bad domestically and are destroying Yemen, funding the spread of Islamist ideology, etc. The US support of both Saudi Arabia and Israel at the same time should tell you that it has nothing to do with democracy and human rights, and everything to do with strategic geopolitical and resource control in the region.
It's not just about Hamas taking over Israel. They constantly commit terror attacks which are a double crime because they kill innocent Israeli's and radicalize Palestinians to carry out these attacks that usually end in their death. They may not give Palestinians full citizenship but that is not reasonable given the safety risks and how politically impossible it is to carry that out.
Now, tell it's WHY they commit terror attacks ;) Then tell us about all the times Israel, especially Nutty-yahoo or however you spell his name, provoked them in to attacking during cease-fires. Israel brings a lot of hate upon themselves via their leadership. Israel is deathly afraid of Palestine becoming a legit state because then Palestine gains many rights and avenues for help.
A country that wants land, is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of their neighbor, is betting on said neighbor to be wiped out, and can easier abuse its citizens rights when it isn't treated like a nation.
I agree, the settlements are bad, but that doesn't mean we can ever tolerate a terrorist group like Hamas. We can be critical of both sides and recognize that illegally settling a land is not a comparable crime to training citizens to murder innocent people which usually leads to the perpetrators deaths.
It's not whataboutism. I'm explaining to you that Israel is not the reason Palestinians suffer. And at that by a lot. The fact is Palestinians are suffering. People deserve to have the full rights of citizenship no matter where they are on the earth. People also happen to be under the governance of a power or regime and in the Palestinians' case it is Hamas/the PLO. These powers do not cooperate in negotiations for statehood or blatantly invite violence and radicalism. A legitimate state cannot be founded in this environment. Israel does not promote hatred of Palestinians and its actions toward the Palestinians are for the purposes of self defense not aggression. If you want to claim there is some sort of whataboutism, or something I'm distracting from, go ahead, show me something Israel has done to the Palestinians that is worse than what the Palestinians have done. Or go ahead and show me an attack that targets Palestinians as Palestinians and not in an effort to combat the violent organizations in these territories. Critiquing my argument is not a support for yours.
Well to be fair, I didn't say "taking over Israel;" I said "Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map," which is much worse than sporadic terrorist attacks. They only do sporadic terrorist attacks because that is what they can achieve.
They constantly commit terror attacks which are a double crime because they kill innocent Israeli's and radicalize Palestinians to carry out these attacks that usually end in their death.
Israel does just as much work radicalizing Palestinians as Hamas. It is not hard to understand the appeal of the Hamas message when the only Israeli's most Palestinians ever meet are armed occupiers. When Palestinians have seen their homes levelled by self-driving Israeli bulldozers. When Israeli responses to terrorist attacks consist of collective punishment of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. When the ten-year blockade of the Gaza Strip locks 1.9 million people in place while depriving them economically, medically, and culturally. Why wouldn't you join the group that defines itself as the opposition to Israeli imperialism?
If Israel actually wanted peace, they would immediately stop further settlements, no questions asked. It would be interesting to see if this had any effect on the number of terrorist attacks against them. Not that they'll ever actually stop.
Israel does just as much work radicalizing Palestinians as Hamas
I cannot take this seriously at all. It's an outright ridiculous statement and if you knew anything about how Hamas operates you wouldn't have written that.
The organization arose with the First Intifadaโas part of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Israelโwhich was occurring due to popular discontent with the Israeli occupation. The anger and the hatred was already there, and justifiably so. Hamas has spent their time fomenting it, channelling it into violence. Which is reprehensible, yet Israel could make their job much harder.
Why would Palestinians join Hamas if Israel ceased making new settlements and lifted the blockades of the Gaza Strip? People are radicalized against Israel because they have legitimate grievances with Israel.
A Palestinian cannot vote to stop being occupied; they cannot vote for freedom of movement, or for food or healthcare. Holding a sign won't do much. What are their options? Civil disobedience, revolt, protest, violence. Maybe some of those aren't good options, but it is easy to see how people can be convinced they are the best options. Hamas does the convincing, Israel (and its allies) maintain the conditions necessary for this to happen.
Hence my statement that Israel does just as much work radicalizing Palestinians as Hamas.
Blaming Israel for Hamas is absurd. You're really gonna say it's Israel's fault innocent civilians were murdered in the streets? That's not right. The settlements aren't right but they don't warrant the kind of atrocities Hamas commits. Nothing does. Either the Palestinians negotiate without the intent of harming innocents, or they will continue to suffer. Unfortunately with Hamas ruling over them it seems to be the latter which is why I don't blame the Palestinians for their leadership and I hope there someday is an international effort to destroy Hamas and restore infrastructure to Palestine without it being held hostage in exchange for participation in terrorism.
They oughta spend more words on the PLO and Hamas who have blatantly abused their own citizens rights, radicalized them, and incentivized violence such as suicide attacks.
This is a fallacious argument that deflects from the issue at hand. When people like you and the Knesset give such fallacies any credence people actually get hurt and die.
People get hurt and die when they are told their neighbors and demons and in the name of god they must blow themselves up or go on stabbing rampages or take hostages or run over people, etc, etc.
Does that bother you? The absence of reason in your discourse? You can't pick and choose who matters and who doesn't. If humans at all matter, than it's not a Palestine-or-Israel-is-guilty situation. They're both guilty as sin.
No, you are very wrong. Israel doesn't go into Palestinian Territories with the goal of killing Palestinians. Palestinians attack Israelis with the goal of killing Israelis. Israel mainly attacks legitimately threatening targets, and often the civilian casualties occurs when Hamas goes and puts target individuals or bombs in a mosque or hospital where there are civilians. That's not the only time it happens, but that shit happens way too often. Palestinians(in Gaza at least) are ruled by Hamas which proselytizes individuals and has them commit atrocities that end in their deaths, and then pays the families off. Israel provides a well rounded public education for all legal citizens with no such radicalization. Israeli's are not taught as children how to stab an Arab. That happens in Hamas controlled villages and the Palestinians are trained to stab Jews. They are trained to believe all Jews are evil. There is a huge fucking difference between the Palestinians and Israel and this false equivalency only hurts both sides. We need to focus on liberating the Palestinians from their tyrants, not enabling those same tyrants.
This post doesn't really reflect that you read or understand what I'm arguing. It doesn't reflect that rather than directly engage with ideas that threaten your worldview, you regurgitate talking points rather than seriously consider whether you are wrong. The more people like you do this thing, and especially if those people serve in the Knesset, the more tyrannical Israel becomes st the expense of, well, everyone really.
There being a worse villain doesn't excuse the lesser villain. Nor does public education programs (wtf man).
Oh, and thought re examine Israels...Habits with regard to respecting territorial boundaries. Really. But do so without me.
All you're saying is essentially because I disagree with you that my viewpoint is invalid. I don't have to accept any part of your argument and you owe me no such favor. I replied to part of your post that particularly struck me and gave a counter. I stand by my view. It's nothing regurgitated, I have studied this subject, read books about it, and follow it on the news as it occurs. Don't belittle my argument with these assumptions of where it comes from or with some assumption that I have to accept anything you say. I disagree. That's something I have a right to do separate from the actual thing being discussed.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Your viewpoint is invalid because you argue it by means of tu quoque, red herrings, and now with straw men. It's unbecoming of an educated adult and also my cue to leave. I may even be wrong, but if I am, it sure isn't for any of the reasons you say.
What red herring? What straw man? The previous comment was purely about your assessment of the argument as an argument not about the actual subject. You're just wining because I'm not conceding to anything you say because I happen to disagree with everything you've said thus far, given that you are defending an entity which commits acts of terror against civilians and ruins the lives of its own citizens, while demonizing a state that tries very hard to be civil in protecting itself against such an enemy.
I would take offense at that blatantly rude and unwarranted insult if I wasn't comforted by the fact that you're more offended by nothing thank I am with your watering down of a terrorist group. I understand many people have your point of view and it's something I will contest but I don't consider you disgusting for it. I love you for your humanity, no matter what your beliefs are.
Please love me differently than you love Palestinians, or logical validity. Your advocacy of Israel isnt virtuous but in this conversation it's the least disgusting about you.
Oh I love Palestinians in that they deserve basic human rights, gender equality, and a regime that doesn't encourage them to be radicalized and commit acts of violence that ruin/end their lives. I wouldn't wish that upon you ever. Please accept my love.
The fist that beats them? You mean the nation that combats terrorist organizations within their territories when those organizations violently attack civilians and jeopardize their own citizens' lives. Hamas is the biggest enemy of the Palestinian people. You can't have any negotiation or concession until Hamas is removed. Negotiating with terrorists on a geopolitical level is a disaster.
And your passive aggressive statements don't do anyone justice. I've been civil through this entire exchange, I'd expect if you want to challenge any of my statements or uses of rhetoric you would do it directly.
Look up red herrngs and whataboutism, and then read your post again
Kozy3 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a holy war no matter how to look at it. They are both wrong. The Jews have no more right to that land than anyone else.
Well that is if you think all religion is a pile of shit.
So one side feels that they have the right to "holy" land. The other feels pissed off they had their "holy" land taken from them and given to a group of people that didn't actually have a country to begin with anyways. Religion isn't bound by country borders. Why give 1 religion its own country?
Not to mention Israel has been breaking terms since its inception. Palestine is no better. They are both dickheads in the situation. Equally. Neither of them are stopping.
When do the Flying Spaghetti Monster believers get their own country? When do atheists get their own country? And why shouldn't they?
I mean imagine if the Flying Spaghetti Monster believers decided they had a right to claim historical significance to Israel/Palestine. People would laugh and think it's fuckin nuts. Why do we view the people of Israel and Palestine any differently?
Israel is a country. Palestine has never been a country. The land in question was taken by Israel from Syria, Jordan and Egypt when those countries started a war. Most countries have had border changes due to armed conflict. Israel has the same right to that land that every other country has to land that it has acquired by force.
Kozy3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:08:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you care to add any context to that link? I do not see where it disputes anything in my post. It confirms that Israel is recognized as a country. It references the region of Palestine, and makes the distinction between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. It does not mention the country of Palestine, because no country has ever existed as an independent nation state. Today when people talk about Palestine and the Palestinians they are almost always talking specifically about the Palestinian Arabs living in the territory Israel captured in the Six Day War.
Edit: I am not down voting you, or trying to be antagonistic. And I have no religious interest in the debate. But the way I see the situation is that Israel is a recognized nation state in control of territory which they acquired by force while fighting a war in which it was one being attacked. They have the same legal right to that land that the U.S. has to Texas or the U.K. has to Northern Ireland.
Kozy3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:14:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They were equal to begin with until outside influence said otherwise.
I understand that now they are a fully recognized country. But Palestinians are pissed because they also feel as though they have a right to the land. Just because it isn't a country does not mean they don't have the right to FEEL like that is where they belong. They have been living there for a long time. They both feel as if they have a right to that land. And there is no correct answer. Obviously Israel has control but why is it so wrong that the Palestinian people want to blow them up for it? You can not separate emotion from this situation.
But I do agree with you if you can take it and hold it it's yours. But that doesn't mean the other side has to just roll over and accept it. You need to beat them into submission.
Israel has the power to end this but they don't. So they just keep slowly creeping over. Think of Texas. And North America. We won. No question. Just decimated and took over. They can't fight back. Israel needs to decimate Palestine if they want to win. Sounds harsh but true.
Idk people can call them terrorists or whatever term they like. It's pissed off people who have been displaced and lost family members/feel aggrieved or whatever. That's what it comes down to. I would probably do the same if someone was constantly infringing on what land I feel is mine and killing my people. And vice versa.
I mean look at the retaliation the USA did for a few buildings dropping. Retaliation will never stop. It's a constant cycle. Neither side is right. Palestine can not fight a war on the same scale as Israel. It's a 1 sided fight and it's just being drawn out over a long period of time.
Despite some political problems, Turkey's pretty stable. Same with Lebanon. Iraqi Kurdistan is becoming more stable, and could possibly stay that way depending on if they attain independence. Iran, despite tensions in foreign relations, is pretty stable, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia.
grubas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:42:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Considering that Israel is basically being taken over by hyper conservative religious forces, it really isn't that much different. Hell, they are the ones who had a big thing on women's reproductive Rights with no women.
There are a ton of articles about the "Ultra Orthodox Problem".
[deleted] ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 16:10:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No I think the Palestine thing plays a big part in judging your morality. Subjugating ans oppressing a whole people is definitely in the same playing field and terrible women's rights and racism.
parchy66 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:54:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I urge you to go visit, to see for yourself the depth of your brainwashing. It really did a number on me...
parchy66 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:33:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israelis try really hard to make peace with Palestinians, and on a cultural level, really don't hate them. I'd say there was more a feeling of desperation and frustration, mostly aimed at the political elite in Palestine, who incidentally are the ones doing most of the subjugating / oppressing (they incite violence in order to trigger conflict, which inevitably results in loss of Palestinian life, which then triggers an influx of international aid money, which mostly goes to those same corrupt leaders). It ends up that Palestinians really are pawns of their own leadership, who uses them for their own means.
Most Israelis I talked to said they would give up huge swaths of land for peace but only if the other side agreed not to kill them. That doesn't sound like oppression or subjugation to me.
Beyond willing - Israel has offered huge swaths of land repeatedly in hopes to get just that in return - but it was rejected in favor of more violence every time. The two most recent instances were 2000 and 2008.
It's so frustrating to see this cynical game played by Arab leaders that endlessly victimizes the Palestinian people in return for anti Israel propaganda. The sad part is that it will continue for as long as it is rewarded but too much of the international media is more than willing to play along and seize on the oppressive Jews narrative they find so irresistible.
And while I'm confidant the vast majority of Israelis are reasonable people I would embrace, I also understand there are neighborhoods tolerated where I could face assault for not conforming to rigid gender rules for women. Should we not be concerned about the power the ultra-orthodox wield in Israel and be cautious and watchful lest they're permitted to to move Israeli society in a more "saudi arabiaish" direction by inches?
This will never happen. And because we live in a world full of problems, you're better off worrying about something that already happened rather than something equally bad which may or may not happen.
Well... they shouldn't have settled there in the first place. Or expanded. Not that I'm having a go at Israeli's in particular, but the state. You're kind of ignoring that it was basically an invasion.
Giving up land for peace is not the same as letting your enemy destroy you. Land gained through wars started by the enemy, for the defensive purposes, is not any sort of justification or sign that you don't want peace.
Yeah. They have offered it (and more) several times throughout history. The problem is that there are several Palestinians factions who will not take anything less than 100% of Israel. Hamas has even said that they will hunt down every Jew in the world. So you have that to negotiate with.
Check out what happened in 2005 with Gaza; Israel unilaterally pulled it's own people out of that territory (with great efforts) as a good will measure and almost immediately Hamas took over and started raining rockets. All of the recent wars has been from Gaza and clearly, it's demonstrated that land for peace is naive.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:30:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You mean the Territory they've decided to steal from Israel government under the guise of some promise made thousands of years ago? Is that not the basis of the conflict? Attempting to secede based on some thousands of years old hearsay?
So then how come those Palestinians aren't afforded any of the rights that any other Israeli citizen is entitled to?
Either they're Palestinians and they have a right to their own self-determination or they are part of Israel and they are entitled to all the rights accorded to Israeli citizens like any other. (Well, I mean, putting aside the fact that Palestinians who are "legitimate" Israeli citizens are still second-class citizens in the eyes of the Knesset, that is.)
Racism against them aside, did the conflict itself not start because they wanted to secede? Is your point that any other Israeli would be permitted to secede?
If "Palestine" is actually all Israeli land, then why are the people living on this land not afforded all of the rights that every other Israeli is afforded?
I'm not talking about some Hamas fighter or even a person who believes in Palestinian independence, just some kid or some dirt farmer who happens to be born on land that the Palestinian state claims as their land. Are these Palestinians born on Israeli land not Israeli citizens?
I'm saying this: either Israel is at war with the state of Palestine or Israel encompasses the historical land of the Palestinian people, in which case Israel is an apartheid state.
From what I've understood, it's a separatist movement within Israel that really started coming into it's own in the 50's. It's been a while since I've looked at the info though, could be mis-remembering.
So then why are the regular people who live in the disputed region not allowed the freedom to travel or to vote or to participate in Israeli society? Why are they not afforded the rights to which every Israeli citizen is entitled to?
If it's due to ethnicity that these people are denied rights as citizens, if their participation in civil society is restricted (or in the this case, entirely denied), if they are bitnot permitted to travel freely, and so on then this is clearly a situation where a group of people are living in a country to which they are subjected to a Middle Eastern form of apartheid.
You're saying that they shouldn't have checkpoints to make sure people aren't carrying fucking bombs? When there's a history of people doing that? Are they being denied the ability to travel through the checkpoints, or do they have to be checked to make sure they're not carrying weapons to commit mass murder?
It's not just a matter of going through the Israeli version of the TSA in order to travel. They are not treated as citizens of Israel. They are not given the rights entitled to Israeli citizens.
Can they vote in Israel? No. Can they drive in Israel? No. Are they issued Israeli passports? No. Do they have any rights to fair process in the judicial system? No. Do they have access to the judicial system at all? No. Can they go to Israeli schools or hospitals? No. Are they permitted to travel in Israel? No. Can they own property in Israel? No. Are they entitled to any rights that an Israeli citizen is? No.
Is this because of where they were born? No - plenty of Israelis have been born beyond the green line.
Is this because of their ethnicity? Why yes. Yes it is.
Gee whiz - that's just like apartheid in South Africa! In fact, in many ways it's actually worse!! Good thing that Israel is a bastion of Human Rights in the Middle East - without Israel existing just imagine how Palestinians would be treated...
No i don't think that was safe, i was there on holiday i'm just telling what i've seen in Jerusalem. I'm sure live in warzones isn't as good as in Jerusalem but you probably knew that.
I went to Israel once and it's not like Palestines are opressed there or anything.
In legislation (n.b. this is only legislation and not how the laws are enacted) there are 35 separate clauses which discriminate against Palestinians which are Israeli citizens. [1]
Israeli citizens that are ethnically Palestinian are literally second-class citizens.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:44:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I saw the numbers but i meant if you maybe know a list of the actual laws?(i'd like to see what those laws exactly are to see if there's a reason that no one i talked to in Jerusalem mentioned it) I'll check the link again might have missed it will edit this later.
What do women you know say about it? Genuinely curious.
xiic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:22:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Middle class Saudi women have chauffeurs to drive them everywhere and maids to cook and clean. Also they just go to Europe any time they want to let off a little steam. It's the poor immigrant workers who get the real shit end of the stick.
From what I understand the enforcement of the dress code isn't too bad due to the weather making it quite a practical option away from the seas. I'm not sure they would be happy long term but for a working holiday dressing for the situation is normal.
Again a lot of things didn't effect them due to being their a short time, being in a city, being there due to a university(money greases the wheels) and not being practicing of any religion.
I'd have to speak to them to get clearer picture as between them they've also visited Egypt, Yemen, Oman and Ethiopia and I would want to feed the wrong information.
Great example. Israel left Gaza in 2005. There was no blockade. Then the strip got turned into a launching pad for rocket attacks - blockade.
The conditions they are claiming as the cause for the rocket attacks weren't present when they began. It's clear that the people in power in Gaza want there to be a conflict no matter what the situation is.
Fair enough; I would, how ever, one could argue that while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a territorial (ok, at least on the Israeli side, and more of a religious conflict on the Pali side), and in a territorial conflict "to each his own" and arguments can be made for both sides, the human right situation is Saudi Arabia cannot be excused and the a western country cannot morally take the Saudi side on it. This isn't a dispute over land, but the atrocious way they treat their own citizens
Personally I'd say it's more a nationalist or survival conflict for the Palestinians.
Edit: I'm not saying Israel is to blame or anything. Both sides have made mistakes and it is an incredibly complex situation. Partly because I believe for the Israeli's the conflict is also one based on survival and nationalism
I disagree, and I am somewhat closer to the subject than you might be (Israeli, 5 years combat deployment in Gaza and West Bank). But I'm biased, of course, and you are entitled to your opinion of course. I would be interested in hearing why you find it a matter of survival for the Palestinians though. Are you suggesting that if Hamas put down their weapons, Israel would proceed to destroy gaza for example?
Maybe I should have phrased it better, I meant more of conflict for the survival of their nation. I wouldn't expect Israel to slaughter anyone without provocation. For Palestinians I can imagine that they see Israel as the biggest opponent to a thriving/prosperous Palestine.
David I think you are pretty much on point there. But the question is WHAT Palestinian leadership you refer to: the PA is perceived as more moderated and secular, at least on the surface, but Hamas is an extreme Shariah-law party, not much different than ISIS if you will, and they see the very existence of a Jewish presence on Waqf (holy lands) as intolerable abomination. It's not about prosperity or wellbeing of their people (which they gladly sacrifice time and time again).
Sadly the Palestinian leadership is fragmented, they would have a lot better time negotiating as unified moderates. I was referring to the average Palestinian in general though rather than a specific leadership. Although I think the PA at least has Palestinians best interests at heart. I agree with your point on Hamas, the people they represent have been radicalized by conflict, and a lot of them our possessed with religious fervor against a Jewish state.
I'm American, and I barely trust my government. I can only imagine the levels of distrust that Hamas/Palestinians have for Israel and their supporters.
Not saying it's exactly warranted in 2017, but their isn't much history to backup Israel's peaceful intentions.
Yep, repeatedly offering upwards of 90% of what the Palestinians require as a basis for negotiation and unilaterally retreating from all of Gaza in 2005 surely show's Israel expansionist and belligerent intentions. Oh, wait...
Hey, I'm not saying Israel isn't being quite rational and forgiving. Just that there is some warrant to apprehension by the Palestinians. I mean this all started by aggression against the Palestineans.
You were literally saying "but their isn't much history to backup Israel's peaceful intentions", to which I replied.
In the interest of clarity, when you say "I mean this all started by aggression against them" who is "them" ?
Historically, I was speaking about actions, not necessarily whatever has been happening with the whole truce/negotiations.
I admit, I am ignorant on the subject and may have commented without much actual backing! But I did want to chime in for discussion and maybe glean more on the situation.
Now there I am talking about substantive action that Israel has taken to cause peace. Maybe there is more than I know of (withdrawing from territory, etc.)
Regarding "them" (The Palestinians), I was talking about the creation of the Jewish state and the taking of land from the Palestinians.
Thanks for your candid response. I'd like to take a second to make some points, which in no way are the totality of the problem but might help evaluate future approaches to it.
before Israel's independence the area was under a British Mandate. Before that, it was the Ottoman Empire. There was never a "Palestinian state" in the area
there have always been Jews in the area of Israel. there have always been non-Jews in the same area. It is a documented fact that Arab workers started migrating in higher numbers to the area due to improved work conditions once European Jews brought the latest technology of the time (1800s) into play
the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded in 1964. That is, before the Six Day War which gave Israel control over Gaza and the West Bank. Prior, Gaza was Egypt and the West Bank was Jordan. During those times, there was never a request for a Palestinian state in either.
Jordan population is 75% Palestinian
In Lebanon, Palestinians cannot hold most of the normal professions, only a small number
Arab countries have never awarded citizenship to Palestinians living there. Jordan took citizenship from those with dual citizenship.
20% of the Israeli population is made up of Israeli Arabs. They serve in the army, are doctors, lawyers, generals and serve in the Israeli Parliament in Israeli parties and Arab-only parties .
Interesting. Your comment sheds light on how, it seems, Palestinians aren't really "cared" for in the middle east. And are really only used as political ammunition, by Middle Eastern countries against Israel.
I think you have your history a bit mixed up. During Israel's creation, it was the neighboring Arab countries that invaded what was then called "the British mandate of Palestine". There was no palestinian state at the time (or now, for that matter), and the name of the area was just a remnant of the roman empire. If you're interested in the subject, look up the 1947-1948 conflict.
See the inception period is what I'm interested in. How Israel accumulated the land initially. I read up how many Isreali's actually owned the land then congregated, but am unsure how this process took place.
Was Britain the governing body over that area, and they ceded most of it to Israel?
I can do a quick historical recap of the situation, but it's going to be pretty shallow and probably a bit biased in favour of Israel - so I advise you to also read from other sources if you're interested.
It's hard to pick a definite starting point for it all, because Jews have been living and moving to Israel since roman times. I'll pick the end of WWI, because that's where most of the action starts.
See, by the point of WWI, nationalism was already a pretty big trend in Europe and many other places around the world. The name for Jewish nationalism is "Zionism", so I'll use that. Like many other people, Zionists also wanted a country for their own people - there were other options considered other than Israel, but it was hard to get a lot of Jewish support for any of those. The person credited for getting the idea off the ground is Theodor Herzl, and you can read about him on wiki:
Before WWI that territory was part of the Ottoman empire, in the southern part of their district of Syria. So Herzl tried to convince both Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman officials to endorse and support the idea of letting Jews move there, in exchange for money. The idea was mostly met with a "meh". At the same time, other Zionist factions slowly immigrated to Israel, bought land, greatly expanded Jerusalem around the Old City, modernized and industrialised what was a pretty backwards place at the time. This created tension with the local Arab population, but also created an influx of Arab immigrants from other parts of the Ottoman empire to the newly developing area where jobs were being created - with a lot of help from rich Jewish donors like the Rothschilds.
In WWI the British tried to get the support of local factions in the middle-east, and did that mostly by promising great rewards for those who will support them against the Ottomans. They promised the Hashemites, a powerful clan that ruled Mecca at the time, a huge united arab country over most of the Middle-East in the McMahonโHussein Correspondence. They promised the French about half of that territory, too, in the SykesโPicot Agreement. They also sort of implied that they support a Jewish homeland in today's Israel with the Balfour Declaration. So you can see it was a bit of a mess.
To focus on our story, what came about by the end of WWI in Israel was British colonial rule over the area. The league of nations was formed, and de-colonization was the new trend. The league granted the UK a mandate to rule Palestine, until the locals (by now a lot of Arabs and some Jews, with a sprinkling of some other ethnicities and religions without much national aspirations) can rule themselves. Thus "the British mandate of Palestine" or "Mandatory Palestine".
Following the war, the Zionist movement gained much more traction. With the Balfour declaration behind them, more and more Jews emigrated to Mandatory Palestine. They bought even more land, created many new settlements, such as Tel-Aviv, expanded Jerusalem even further. But the local (and not so local) arabs were also getting more nationalistic. Hostilities broke out in several places and times, with both sides creating their own para-military groups, such as Haganah. In response, and in an effort to appease the Arabs, the British authorities decided to limit the amount of Jews that may move to Mandatory Palestine. The Jews responded to this by creating their own terrorist groups to fight the Brits, and with a whole lot of illegal immigration, mostly by sea.
This went on for a while, with a lot of tit-for-tat between all three sides, until WWII broke out. Not surprisingly, the Jewish factions in Mandatory Palestine supported the British in their fight against the Nazis - but they also redoubled their efforts to get Jews in there, and away from Nazi occupied lands. Many Jews joined the British army to enter the fight. David Ben Gurion, a leader of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine and Israel's first prime minister, is quoted as saying:
"We must support the [British] army as though there were no White Paper, and fight the White Paper as though there were no war. "
(The "White Paper" being the document that limited Jewish immigration to Israel)
By 1945, at the end of WWII, there was much more public support for the idea of Zionism due mostly to the Holocaust. The United Nations inherited the League of Nations, and decided in 1947 to divide Mandatory Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs there, to create two different states. The Jews rejoiced and accepted the plan - it's remembered as a day of celebration with dancing in the streets. The Arab factions rejected the plan - and so outright civil war broke out between Jews and Arabs, with the British caught in the middle and trying to get out of the way as much as they could. In May 14, 1948, during the war, the Jews declare independence from the British mandate and the formation of the State of Israel - the IDF is quickly formed by combining Haganah and other groups. In response, neighboring Arab countries (Mostly Egypt, Syria, Jordan and some troops from other countries) invade the area - civil war turns into the 1948 war of independence. The Brits decide this is a fantastic time to go back home, and so they do. The British Mandate of Palestine is no more.
By the end of the war, Israel somehow wins. Armistice lines are marked between the new state and it's immediate neighbors) - Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. This is what you may know as "The Green Line", or the "1967 armistice Line". Those are the de-facto borders of the new state, and how Israel was formed.
(This got way, way longer than I initially intended!)
Sure, I'll probably use this sometime again in the future. Seems like a waste to have it lying here so far down the comment chain. There's obviously way more to it.
Summary here only: a lot of the land was bought by Jewish settlers in the 19th century from Palestinians. During the mandate period, the British held Transjordan, which was roughly what is today Israel and Jordan combined. There was a lot of in-fighting between Jewish and Arab citizens then (they weren't considered Palestinians, or Jordanian, just Arabs). And A TON of anti-Semitism from Arab groups towards Jews (for example, the Mufti of Jerusalem was in league with Hitler and encouraged if not given him the idea of the Holocaust).
When the mandate ended and the British decided to split the land, they created a Jewish state and an Arab state. The other Arab states refused and invaded Israel. During the chaos of the conflict, many Palestinians were driven from home. Many many MORE left on their own accord. Also, at that point, many Arab states starting expelling Jews from their own countries. The couple of hundred thousand Arabs in Palestine that left, were granted refugee status and so have their descendants (the only refugee group that has this privilege mind you).
You mean, Israel's willingness to yield to 99% of the PLO's demands in every single peace conference to date in return to a mere acknowledgment in Israel's right to exist isn't quite enough, is it? I think you could benefit from reading a bit more about the conflict, I'm not dissing you, just saying. And of course, that's just the PLO (today's Palestinian authority). With Hamas there's no negotiating as they refuse to negotiate with the infields and their only term is the complete abolition of the Jewish state, which is a problematic demand to begin any negotiation with, I think.
Of course, I see Israel as being the more rational contemporary party. But I really can't begrudge their sentiment. It's radicalism caused by foreign intervention.
This is a point I think you could definitely enlighten me/change my whole point. I'm referring to the Nationalization of Israel. The point in history when they declared all X amount of Land as Israel's?
The little research I've done shows how a lot of Land for Israel was actually owned by Jews before nationalization. But at the end of the day coercion/aggression of some sort had to take place to congregate the rest from the Palestineans and their held land?
I'm not sure on the details of the inception period (when it actually became a country) and how the military was founded and acted in this period. Was it entirely Israeli forces that forged the nation?
Regardless of my personal inquiries though, Israel was ordained by the U.S. and U.N. Middle Eastern countries viewed this as outside intervention. It's what we see with Al Queda and ISIS. Foreign intervention breeds contempt.
Although doing more digging. I do see some substantive actions for peace by Israel (I forgot they took the Sinai peninsula and gave it up).
It's not even the fact lots of the land had already purchased by Jews, it's the fact that UN proposed a partition plan of Mandatory Palestine* (1920) which allocated 82.5% of the land originally designated of the Jewish states, to the arabs (and 17.5% left for the Jewish state to come). On to of that, 60% of the little land the Jews did receive was the Negev, an arid desert then thought useless. Nevertheless, the Jews immediate accepted the plan, the arabs rejected it absolutely. They were offered a state, but were much more hooked on abolishing the Jewish state than having a state of their own.
Here are really cool videos (about 5 minutes each) that break the subject down in a way 5 years olds can easily grasp. Feel free too later do fact checking on google, but do me one favour and watch this vid (and I suggest, others in their links)
*the old name of the region, Palestine, automatically and falsely suggests it originally belonged to the people now referred to as Palestinians. Not in the slightest and the opposite is true - they named themselves that after the fact (after the establishment of Israel, to give that idea. More here ) .
Thanks for the stats. I'll make sure to watch these when I get off work.
It very much seems like there's been a consistently anti-jewish narrative in the Middle East, even though Israel seemed to go about land procurement quite "legally" and were willing to make concessions.
But at the end of the day coercion/aggression of some sort had to take place to congregate the rest from the Palestineans and their held land?
Israel is way smaller than you think, and the Jews who funded the Zionist movements were way richer than you'd imagine. Israel was initially given about half its current territory, not even including WB/Gaza (i.e. half its '67 territory). This area was land that was nearly entirely controlled by the Jews, and very little land was left. Great swaths of land were actually public land, and those naturally changed control from Ottoman, to British, to Israeli.
Once Israel won its War of Independence, it took control of all public British land and changed sovereignity to Israeli, and furthermore nationalized various movements whose purpose was to buy up the Land of Israel. All such land became public land -- and so today, the overwhelming majority of modern Israel is actually public land, unlike say the U.S. which is nearly entirely AFAIK private land. While you in effect purchase 'real estate', it is technically still owned by the state and the 'permission' for owning land in it just changes hands when you sell it off. Legally I believe every agricultural piece of land belongs to the State (and is leased to farmers who during Israel's founding have promised to cultivate it, now belonging to their descendants, but still owned by the state), for example.
Many Palestinians were forcefully driven out of their villages during strategic battles (and there were two cases in the north where it was actually done out of sinister purposes, the only two situations I know, whose perpretrators were held accountable). But many more have left voluntarily, both because of mass panic induced by Arab radio and the idea that they should leave their homes for now until the Arabs won. These people became stuck in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, etc, and to induce pressure on Israel, for closing in one hundred years these countries have refused to grant them citizenship and live like human beings.
I couldn't possibly say my forefathers had a halo over their heads as they attempted to buy up the land. This is true even now -- the settlement enterprise, which is highly infamous in the international arena, despite popular misconception, is not a 'domestically' illegal movement. It is illegal (but treated as disputed locally) in the international arena, but not because of 'land theft' or whatever, but because of a clause stating that the transfer of population by occupying power is illegal.
The settlement enterprise manages to build houses because there are organizations that create shell Arab companies that deceive Palestinians who wish to sell their lands, pretending that the buyers are Arabs and not Jews. Refusing to sell to Jews is hardly any better in my mind though, so I don't personally care too much about this deception.
The IDF was originally the paramilitary organization known as the Haganah, which means 'the Defense'. The Haganah was founded shortly before the creation of Israel by the merging of various smaller paramilitary organizations, some of them indeed considered as terrorists, though with a far greater moral compass -- the infamous bombing of the King David Hotel was meant to be a display, not a massacre, but the hotel staff refused to believe the Irgun men who called them that bombs have been placed inside. A terrible catastrophe.
But entirely Jewish forces created the state that was during the War of Independence named Israel.
Speaking as an Israeli, it is hard for me to state this objectively, but at least from what I grew up learning, Israel has received absolutely no aid by the U.N. that contributed to its founding (especially not the U.S., which was neutral towards netural hostile at the time) -- Israel was settled, fought for, won, and created by Israelis, and the only thing the U.N. was useful for is international recognition, which Israel didn't really need it for. It would be very wrong to say that the U.N. 'created' Israel or especially that without the U.N. there would be no Israel. Israel's existing is hardly foreign intervention -- but Israel's continued existence thanks to U.S. military aid is indeed foreign intervention. But then again, the USSR gave military aid and equipment to Syria and Egypt for them to fight Israel, so what do we care?
In the end, the Israeli-Arab conflict is just as much a Cold War era phenomenon as it is an anti-semitism phenomenon. There would be no '67 or '73 war without the USSR and the U.S., and there would be no Israel without anti-semitism.
Could you shed light on how the Israeli military was able to gain weapons, conscripts, etc. so easily? I've been under the impression this was where most of their foreign aid was (Israeli boots on the ground with U.S. armaments).
Indeed many of the weapons Israel owns are U.S. manufactured, though Israel boasts a very innovated and powerful weapons industry. I'm an Israeli soldier -- a conscript -- and the M16 rifle I was equipped with during Basic Training was a Vietnam-era U.S. military rifle. Additionally, many if not most of the chains holding our ... IDs? Dog tags? have 'U.S.A', amusingly, engraved in them.
Israel only first started getting weapons from the U.S.A in the 1960s IIRC, and the U.S. was still not so sure about us, so only once the Israeli government threatened nuclear bombardment on Syria and Egypt in the 1973 Yom Kippur War did the U.S. government send its first massive military aid package to Israel, though it only arrived after the end of the war.
Israel received its weapons from... I can't actually quite remember, if it was France, Britain, or both of them. Those were the key Israeli allies before the U.S.A became Israel's best friend -- when Egypt closed the Straits of Tehran and blocked the Suez Canal to foreign powers, Israel, Britain, and France together declared war on Egypt in what became known as the Suez Crisis.
Furthermore, Israel not only has a draft for all non-Muslim men and women at the age of 18, but also has a culture very supporting of, and even demanding of, military service. It is considered highly unpopular, cowardice, to draft dodge, though note that most people get drafted into clerks, IT, health, recruitment, PR... anything. Any and every role can be filled with draftees, not just combat troops, so there's really no excuse for draft dodging beyond slacking, and you'd have a real hard time fitting in university at the age of 18 when everyone's 22 and up. Many of those who are exempted from service sign up as volunteers, or choose to do national service.
In the end, it is very difficult to exactly assess what the Israeli military would be like without U.S. aid. Just the aid, not even talking about joint researches conducted and so on. The army keeps the fine details of where the money goes and how critical it is pretty hushed up, probably so as to not induce local feeling that we are vassalized by and are completely dependant on the U.S.A. It is true that, in the end of the day, if the U.S.A would demand something in absolute, Israel will comply. In the end we are supplied by and guarded in the international arena by the U.S.A because we are a strategic extension of its culture, will, and vision in the Middle East.
Regarding aid, note that the aid is actually not just requests by the Israeli lobby in the U.S.A, but also the weapons industry lobby. The U.S. doesn't actually just send whatever we ask of them -- we are given money and told that we must use all of it on the U.S. military industrial complex. Effectively the money never 'leaves' the U.S. and is just channeled into the weapons industry in order to keep it from rusting away. It is very important for the U.S. to be able to manufacture anything its military needs, so as to not be dependant on a country for something in a war. This does require the weapons industry to be very oiled and healthy, though.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:34:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This conflict stretches back to the early 1900's. As outsiders we can rationalize past events away in benefits of a cooperative future, but for the Palestinians that is far more difficult. For all of the last 100 years they've seen Jewish immigration and then Israel as huge threat to first their demographic survival (maintaining majority) and then the Palestinian nation.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Irsael's origin's are admittedly shit. Israel's being created by Britain after WWII fucked over loads of Palestinians. I get it.
That said, I think that Palestine is wrong to ally with Hamas and support rocket strikes on Israel, particularly given Hamas' use of Palestinian noncombatants as meat-shields for their rocket sites. Further, Israel fights defensively as I understand, while Hamas is almost always the aggressor.
My point is that (TL;DR) Israel's origins were bad, but Palestine is bad. In the past Palestine got screwed by Britain for Israel. I don't think that justifies Israel getting screwed by Hamas for Palestine.
If you disagree and/or if I've said something incorrect, please speak up.
mcysr ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:37:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Something that is rarely mentioned is how the Palestinian people were deliberately kept as refugees, and not assimilated, for decades, by adjacent Islamic countries, to intentionally fester and create discord.
Was it on purpose to create discord for sure? I ask because I see the same thing happening in the UK, but due to some kind of inherent fear of other cultures as far as I can tell. My mum is dead certain they all want her to wear a burka.
Quality oil and they tend to be more stable than Africa, if you can belive that. Most of Central/South America has been pacified through banana republics, which didn't work in the Middle East (see Iran and the current fallout from Iraq and Afghanistan). So they are treated different because they are different.
Why shouldn't they have a right to fight to get their lands back? If some people came and took your country away to create a new country would you not fight it?
I find it an infinitely fascinating topic. Because on one hand yes their land was stolen, on the other hand nowadays we have Israeli people born and raised in Israel with a distinct culture, who now have every right to that land too. They shouldn't be punished for things that happened before they were even born.
I think a good first step would be allowing Palestine to be recognised as a fucking country with actual defined borders, so further encroachment into that territory is no longer debatable. And in turn Palestine could officially recognise Israel and perhaps that would be a better place for them both to start building bridges. But then, it's very easy for me to say that as an outsider with no emotional investment in either place.
There were Jews in Israel and the middle East since before 1948 they didn't all just come after WW2. My step mom is a Syrian Jew I know many many Jews from the middle East whose family has always been there.
Yeah I agree, it's not easy to say what's right. I can understand that many chose to join Hamas and fight, Israelis are encroaching on their territory, diplomacy have not achieved much in stopping that. Being born in Gaza pretty much means you have no future, what else is there to do?
But I agree, most Israelis haven't done anything wrong either.
Also I have never been in the ares so I just speculate like most others.
on the other hand nowadays we have Israeli people born and raised in Israel with a distinct culture, who now have every right to that land too. They shouldn't be punished for things that happened before they were even born.
I'm very curious to hear what your opinion of anchor babies is.
I'll speak up. I disagree Israel's origin is shit - unless you are a militant atheist. Meanwhile, Palestinians appear to be some hybrid Arab culture. There are many opinions regarding the 'myth' of Palestine - some are hard-core Zionist, some more temperate historiologically.
It's not just a grudge thing. Israel continues to be bad. They're still stealing land from Palestine right now. They never stopped. Any other country would be well within their rights to shoot back if someone tried that "settlement" bullshit with them.
290077 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:28:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Palestine is deliberately firing rockets at innocent civilians. Is that justified?
If a group of Mexicans crossed in to Texas and started building towns, insisting that they were part of Mexico, and claiming that Texas will once again be Mexican, I wouldn't have much sympathy if the local Americans got pissed about it.
The origins weren't just bad, they were much more than that. Zionist terrorist groups were carrying out attacks against Palestinians and even the British which initially supported them after they put a immigration limit. These same Zionist terrorist groups were merged into the IDF and a leader of the Stern Gang was even elected, instead of being tried and put away for life.
Israel is the aggressor. Illegal settlements are literally acts of aggression.
Exactly, Palestine wasn't bad until their damn land was stolen!
Kinda hard to negotiate when you're coming from a place of 'we've stolen your land, we're not giving a piece back, in fact we're going to keep taking more. P.s. we're going to block your economy and send you back to the stones ages too.'
Then they have the balls to ask 'why are you turning to extremist parties?'
Not giving a piece back? Gaza? West Bank? The fucking multitudes of peace deals we've agreed to that THEY HAVENT?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:56:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let's say I move into your house and kick you and your family out. After a while I agree to give you the backyard back, while at the same time building "my" house further and further into your back yard.
Would you agree to those terms?
A lot of rampant downvotes going on when people are making good points. At the very least Israel's settlement building in Palestinian lands needs to stop.
Hamas expressly targets civilians on the Israeli side while doing everything possible to put Palestinian civilians in harm's way - while the IDF takes unprecedented measures to limit enemy civilian casualties while protecting its own citizens.
Yes, the IDF isn't perfect and there are instances of soldiers acting out of line as is true with any army made of individuals that can't be wholly controlled. These exceptions can be found. I'm not sure exceptions can be found in which Hamas doesn't act in a deplorable manner that places no value on human life. The IDF is better - exponentially so.
Well, those aren't very good reasons, tbh. 3 are incidents from 1948, one isn't even the IDF, one is an accident and one is just a terrorist being shot.
It was over 60 years ago. Most of the people involved are probably long dead. This is like saying the US Army is as bad as ISIS because of the My Lai Massacre, only even less relevant. If that's your standard, you have way bigger fish to fry than the IDF.
They don't have slavery. They have equal rights for women. Palestinians are in all levels of Israeli government. Women can drive. Israel has been rated the number one middle eastern country for gay rights for a long time. They have social systems etc.
It's easier for many people to simply paint things with a broad brush. "This country is bad/evil, full stop." It's a shame, because it only encourages further ignorance.
Emaknz ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:14:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"pinkwashing"?! Every time I think I've heard everything, the universe sees fit to prove me wrong.
That's for their minority group of Hasidic, not the general population. Besides, the comparison was between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It's fairly obvious which one is better unless you're being dense.
FYI, a (jewish) man in Israel can't get a divorce without his wife's consent, either. But yeah, there are some aspects of Israeli law that are pretty fucked up - one of them being "personal law", which means different populations are treated differently in marriage/divorce law. It's a hold-over from the time of the British mandate, and it's really hard to change with a lot of resistance to change coming from religious parties (both Jewish and Muslim, IIRC).
If Israel's trying to kill everyone in Palestine, they're doing a pretty bad job considering the population growth rate in Palestine is almost twice as high as Israel.
Yeah to be honest that was a kneejerk answer. Half my family is from morocco and i despise radical islam but it pains me to see that the escalation in this part of the world can't be stopped, and there is too much propaganda to see the situation clearly.
Israel is literally the only democratic country in the region. Are they perfect? No. Are they incentivizing random attacks on civilians? Is their sole mission to wipe an entire country or group of people off the map? No.
Is their sole mission to wipe an entire country or group of people off the map?
There are a lot of Israelis who are pretty vocal about their desire to drive the Palestinians in Gaza into the sea. The Israeli justice minister for one.
"They [Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."
Erm, she didn't say that, though. She re-posted an old article about total war and what it means. Here's a full quote, in Hebrew (I couldn't find an English version).
They aren't a democracy, they have different laws for different ethnic groups, they are an apartheid state. You also can't be a democracy and a religious state. It's either or.
yoelish ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:05:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
they have different laws for different ethnic groups
For example?
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:20:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joalr0 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:43:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
From the article you just linked...
With regard to the situation within Israel itself, critics of the analogy argue that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa, which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex.[22] However, others believe that even if Israeli law does not make explicit distinction between categories of citizens, in effect it privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state, by creating benefits for IDF service, which is not mandatory for Arabs
So the answer is there are no different laws for different ethnic groups.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 15:00:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joalr0 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:04:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I actually struggle to give see how that is discrimination. Arabs are welcome to join the IDF, and when they do are given all the benefits of joining. They simply have the option, while jewish citizens it is mandatory. I would actually say a stronger argument could be made for discrimination if it was reversed, forcing the Arab citizens into the Army but not anyone else.
I just struggle to see how being able to choose is discrimination.
If anything it discriminates Jewish citizens due to their being forced into the IDF.
yoelish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:19:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry, OP said Israel has different laws for their citizens based on ethnicity - or perhaps religion, you later speculated. I don't see any examples of that in the article to which you linked. Could you please cite a law in Israel that applies only to citizens of a certain ethnicity or religion?
Segregated roads, Israeli only settlements, stolen houses in Jerusalem and Hebron, Palestinian children being tried younger than Israeli kids. Palestinians being under military law while Israelis under secular etc etc.
yoelish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:00:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
None of which has anything to do with ethnicity or religion - the laws that apply only to Israelis apply equally to Israeli Arabs as to Jews. The laws that apply only to Palestinians would apply equally to Palestinian Jews as they do to Palestinian Arabs - although of course Palestine does not allow Jews to be citizens by law.
Is your complaint that Israel has different laws for their citizens and for the citizens of a country with whom they are at war?
โIs your complaint that Israel has different laws for their citizens and for the citizens of a country with whom they are at war?โ
No, they are not at open war with the west bank are they, stop misrepresenting the situation. They have two choices:
Stop illegally and indefinitely occupying the west bank.
If no, than at least give them the same rights as israelis.
In either case, stop harassing them at every turn and gtfo of Hebron, get the illegal settlements the fuck away.
You can't indefinitely militarily occupy an indigenous people, and at the very least you have to give them some rights, even the disgusting British empire did some infrastructure and some small perks of being in the commonwealth, although it was generally a horrible patronising paternalistic care at best.
yoelish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:21:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Arabs started a war against Israel (several, actually).
Israel fought back.
Israel won.
Israel engaged in a military occupation of the belligerent until a peace agreement was reached. As of yet it has not been.
Typically the losers - especially the aggressors - of a war are in a position where the conditions of their surrender are negotiated. It is not clear to me why that has not yet occurred.
Imagine if the nazis would not have surrendered after world war 2. Would the Allied occupation of Germany that presumably would still be going on be illegal as well?
You also can't be a democracy and a religious state.
You know Israel isn't a religious state? Judaism is not a state religion. The founding fathers of zionism were mostly atheists. Netanyahu himself is secular. And you absolutely can be religious and democratic - 99% of Iranians voted for theocracy, how is that undemocratic? Secular democracy is not the only kind of democracy.
different laws for different ethnic groups
It's affirmative action. There are 50 Islamic countries that dream of starting a second holocaust, so Israel is a safe haven for the Jews. 850,000 Jews were exiled from Islamic countries in the past 60 years. Israel is only 0.02% of the land in the middle east, and Jews owned 5 times as much land in the middle east in 1940 as they do today. Arab Israelis have equal rights, except for conscription in the army, but many volunteer. Israel even recognises Sharia courts.
they are an apartheid state
By far the least apartheid-like state in the region. In Palestine they have the death penalty for selling land to a Jew. In Israel Arabs can live anywhere, they serve in the government, they're on the supreme court and they are officers in the army.
No, Randymgreen. Apartheid states discriminate who they let vote.
Arab and "Palestinian" citizens of Israel have equal voting rights. Beyond that, Israel lets a mosque stand on the Jewish Temple Mount, which they provide security for while Muslims refuse to let a Jew on the site.
Muhammed put in the Quran that he rode a flying donkey to the Jewish Temple Mount thousands of years after Jews claimed the area. LoL. Israel has been very kind to Muslims who terrorize Israel in return.
Fuck that, they only allow some of the ones inside Israel proper to vote, while simultaneously claiming the WB as their โjudean sumariaโ yet denying any civil rights to the people within. They don't let people in the bank or Gaza vote despite indefinitely occupying them.
They have separate roads for different ethnic groups, they have sperate laws pertaining to them, the age of criminal responsibility is lower for Palestinian children is lower than Jewish children, and Palestinians are tried under military law while Israelis are tried under civilian. They bulldoze homes, cut off water, steal Hebron and cripple them economically and logistically with closing the main street and their apartheid wall (when there have been no rocket attacks from the bank, just gaza, the PA even thawted an attempt) they allow insane rabid religious extremists to settle Palestinian land and protect them with the military, when they bust in to the Abraham mosque when it's not their day to use it the army protects them.
When they do get caught killing a prisoner who's disarmed on the ground or burning a baby in their crib they get tiny tiny sentences, with a massive disparity vs Palestinian criminals.
That's just shit off the top of my head.
I've been to Israel and Palestine twice and seen it with my own eyes. So don't try that bullshit apologia with me kid.
You'd be right but it's not apartheid. All people have the same opportunity for the same rights and benefits. People who serve in the military get a little extra. Jews must serve, everyone else is optional. But if they choose to serve they are on par with everyone who did. Also, Isreal has Arabs at all levels of government, including their supreme court.
Making this accusation takes away from the horror of actual apartheid states. You shouldn't do it.
As29801 ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 13:55:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jordan isn't democratic. And it's not remotely liberal. The vast majority of Jordan's parliament (who are subservient to the king) called a guy a hero after he opened fire on a bus full of Israeli school girls. Jordan has 3 years in jail for insulting Muhammad. Israel is like any other western country in terms of its liberal values.
As29801 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:29:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They regularly bulldoze peoples houses (with people often in them) in an attempt to aggressively expand their territory. It's an illegal acquisition of land but they give no fucks. Their snipers shoot unarmed civilians and get off scott free. Mossad is legitimately a terrorist organisation as well.
He provided a hunch of sources. Is it your assertion that Israel isn't expanding into Palestinian Territories? That they aren't bulldozing peoples homes and taking land that does not belong to them? Even their allies know that them expanding settlements is illegal.
Time to read more about the situation if you think anything that person said was made up.
He provided literally no sources in his comment. He just made assertions.
So let's go over his assertions shall we?
They regularly bulldoze peoples houses (with people often in them) in an attempt to aggressively expand their territory.
A single statement that somehow manages to have at least 3 fundamental flaws in it.
A. Israel does bulldoze peoples houses, I don't think that is up for debate. However it certainly isn't regularly, unless of course you think to include Israel demolishing settlers homes in that statement, since those are demolished even more frequently.
According to B'Tselem 274 homes were demolished in 2016 and that was the highest by far it had been in years. And yet even they acknowledge that the homes were demolished due to lack of building permits and not building to code.
Virtually no country in the world allows you to build without a permit, so this is nothing out of the ordinary just because Israel does it.
B. I would love a source of Israel often demolishing a home with people inside of them. The only time I can recall offhand of Israel killing someone via demolition was Rachel Corrie, who was
a) not inside of abuilding, rather outside of it,
b) was not involved in a home demolition, rather a routine terrain leveling and debris clearing and
c) in the blindspot of the bulldozer where there driver could not see her. In fact her own father a man who was a combat engineer in Vietnam with experience with these vehicles went on the record saying that it wasn't intentional, rather it was gross negligence that killed her.
C. In an attempt to aggressively expand their territory is laughable. After already establishing that the homes are demolished due to them being built without permits, let's look at Israel's actual "aggressive expansion."
The last time Israel annexed territory was the Golan Heights in 1981.
And that's even ignoring the fact that some of the largest settlements were actually legally purchased by Jews and built up prior to 1948, and where then ethnically cleansed by the Jordanian. After 1967 people were literally returning to land that they owned. Something I think you believe the Palestinians have a right to, so at least be consistent and admit the Jews do as well.
Likewise, the expanding settlements are expanding predominately in density. The primary construction in the settlements is "inwards and upwards" and is all constrained by the Israeli Government to the pre-existing settlement blocks that were in place since at least 1996. So it's be at least 20 years since Israel has "expanded". That's hardly the aggressive expansion portray.
I don't have time to finish the rest of my post since I am busy, but will hopefully be back soon to edit in more showing how he is talking out of his ass.
For the record, the above is what it looks like when a post is sourced. Not the bullshit I responded to.
Looks like the Jewish downvote brigade are out in force again.. Apparently pointing out Israeli crimes is baaad, mmkay.
(edit) lol, it's hilarious how Israelis can't take criticism. It's a national theme as well. Most Israeli people i've ever met are cool unless you criticise the state of Israel, and then they flip their shit. Fucking hypocrites basically. Downvote me all you want without countering my arguments (because you don't have shit to counter your governments' terrorist acts) but I stand by my earlier assertion - Isarel is basically a country that funds terroristic acts based upon it own internal agenda - that being the aggressive expansion of its state into territories not already owned by themselves. They also shoot unarmed civilians. Bunch of cunts.
Israel is by far the least deserving of criticism of all the countries in the middle east, yet receives by far the most. It is obviously because of anti-semitism.
I criticize equally actually. Saudi and any other oppressive theocracy have their fair share of derision from me.
I mean shit, 70% of my posts at the moment are in hatred of the Trump administration. Don't take the easy route. Don't attribute to anti-semitism that which is far more nuanced.
If you criticised equally, you would criticise Islamic countries 100,000 times more than you criticise Israel. Is that the case? Israel is not the world's only superpower like the US, it's an insignificant country of a mere 8 million people. It dominates international news stories simply because of anti-semitism.
Amfly ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:10:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
First, why do you take that number for granted? Why don't you question that number? Why are you so sure that this is not fake?
Secondly, as I said in another post, Israel demolish houses of every terrorist, and the house of his parents.
I don't even need to click it to know you've posted a hugely lying map that is constantly posted by ignorant people. Palestinians never owned the whole land, and Jews were considered the Palestinians until after Israel was created. Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire then Britain was sovereign until Israel was created. The British agreed to create a Jewish state. The privately owned land was something like 10% Jewish and 20% Arab, not the 90:10 split this map (presumably) shows. Israel has given up land to Egypt, Lebanon and Hamas in the past for peace.
Israel is just 0.02% of the land in the middle east. Muslims own all of the rest. In 1940 Jews owned 5 times as much land in the middle east as they own today. The largest land owner in Iraq for example was a Jew, and he was lynched and had his property taken from him. Clearly the Jews are not greedy land grabbers, they just want a state for themselves to be at peace and in control of their own destiny.
Amfly ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 13:48:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What the hell are you talking about?
Israel destroys only houses of palestins who made a terrorist act, which killed innocent civilians.
Their snipers shhot random civilians? What? Please back up your accusations with relevant sources.
sugeon ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:11:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey buddy, you just described a war crime like it was some great defense of Israel... Pretty much sums it up though, didn't it?
About who's point? Making a baseless claim isn't the same as making a point.
safa1375 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:33:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look man, heres what i think: Hamas is a terrorist organization, so of course they're gonna to terroristy shit, no surprise!
But Israel is a legit government, yet their army literally murders Palestinians all the time... and if you're defending them then thats just sad, because both parties here are shitty
their army literally murders Palestinians all the time
It's probably the most talked about conflict of the past 70 years, yet it's only had the 48th most casualties, why do you think that is? Look at Bernie Sanders for example, he inflated the death toll in the 2014 war by a factor of 5 in an interview. The public are clearly ignorant about the middle east and think Israel is fair to criticise because they're privileged Jews, while the other countries that are infinitely more deserving of criticism are poor Arabs so it would be a hate crime to criticise them.
Israel has one of the lowest civilian to militant casualty ratios for this type of warfare. Which is especially commendable when Hamas actively uses Palestinian citizens as human shields.
Amfly ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 13:44:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude get fucked. They are not killing randomers they are fighting a people who wants them wiped from the earth. Its not going to be a pretty war but don't put it all on Israel
They like to deliberately conflate the two. Relying on the fact that most people don't know Hamas aren't in the bank, so they can use Hamas to justify illegal occupying, bulldozing homes, controlling borders and water rationing the west bank.
Why is it, that when someone/something is being criticized some fucking idiot says something along the lines of 'but murder and rape is worse'
You want to discuss Israel? make a decent comparison here and try and discuss it, all you're succeeding in doing is proving you're a useful idiot with some agenda.
Every country has issues. It seemed like you were comparing Israel to SA, which given UK's portrayal of Israel, and BBC's specifically, wouldn't surprise me.
Yes I could have made it clearer that this is about ignoring issues not SA vs Israel, but Israel is both currently and more historically given a wide berth by the US and the UK seems happy to do the same to SA possibly even to a bigger extent.
[deleted] ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 13:27:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh yeah, so edgy and original woth the "Americans only care about themselves" joke. The only thing leftbis to mention guns, McDonalds, and obesity. Are you always so cliche?
dijicaek ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:51:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why did you list obesity twice?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:33:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the history of the kingdom and aramco, The British practically built the country. While the us is a large supporter through weapons deals, in a two-political sense there are closer ties to he U.K.
brits built it, but US has been the bigger booster for decades now. shit, only reason we got involved in the middle east back in the 80's was to safeguard Saudi Arabia and the flow of oil from the region
keep the region stable to protect our oil supply, AND to dissuade the Soviets from making inroads into the greater middle east. there.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:53 on April 29, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Canada is your main oil supplier (US), The Soviets no longer exist, nor does Russia have the the need to steal oil. The Middle East is not stable and sectarian conflict isn't borne out of a need for resources.
not strictly for our oil, but because we have this notion that the more we meddle the more long term stability will be had
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:21:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
America sold so many jets to Saudi Arabia they have according to some estimates the worlds second largest Air Force. Bigger than Russia or China Is pretty amazing.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:48:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ever since they turned their back on BP in favour or selling oil to the US they've been closer to them. The UK has no independent influence.
Israel is the most progressive, morally upright country in the Middle East. Our nation has been far more guilty of "wrong doings". It would be flagrantly hypocritical for us to start pointing accusations at them.
I respectfully disagree.
"Palestinian" and Muslim citizens have equal rights in Israel. The same can't be said for Jews in Saudi Arabia, or women, or LGBTQ+, or Christians, or etc...
Point is that comparing Israel to Saudi Arabia isn't fair. I'm not going to white-wash some of the stuff that the Israeli government has done, but it's a far cry from that's going on in Saudi Arabia.
On a purely freedom of debate cause the right to compare any two objects is fair.
Everything will have similarities and differences, and even similarities in vector if not magnitude.
It's more productive to make clear the angle and reason for the choice of comparison, which is partially my fault but this is a mainly US internet forum and I was looking for a simile to the way the UK government treats a middle eastern country not a full discussion on the pros/cons of the magnitude of military misuse
Well the other good example of Turkey is so clear cut at the moment apart from that they aren't mean countries the US will practically ignore in terms of wrong doing on any scale. Possibly Pakistan?
Yeah, a strong parallel between a place that doesn't let women drive, beheadings and lashings for those practicing free speech and exportation of terrorism to a place that has equal rights for all with women in the army. What planet is this? Israel isn't perfect, but to compare them to a MONARCH (mind you) that is a major regional destabilizer and a major contributor to the current problems is utterly disingenuous given the both the present and historical context. A typical comparison from the left. How do you feel about the fact that Jews (and many Christians, Yazidis, etc) can't travel to Arab countries and have equal rights? How about the fact that if you're Jewish, regardless if you're Israeli or not and you go to Hebron, you might be killed? How none of that registers with any of you people is beyond me. The palestinians name streets after terrorists and pay their families for their great work as martyrs, yet the UN along with the rest of the world says nothing. The EU will take it a step further and give them billions, which goes right into Hamas's and Abbas pockets while their people suffer and use Israel as the scapegoat/distraction. Europe is essentially paying terrorist's salaries.
Despite all of these FACTS, the sewer rats of reddit fall back on their flawed rational of equalizing the literal beheadings of innocents with a democratic country. You want to sell land to a Jew in the middle east? Automatic death penalty. Talk about being allies with Jews and Israel, automatic death threats/possible assassination. Makes complete sense.
once more this is a comparison about a western countries attitude to a middle east country, not a comparison of what they are up to that would warrant ideological displeasure.
Saudi Arabia is more America's problem than the U.K. I think in the last 8 years the U.K. Sold juuust over 5B dollars worth of military hardware. The US sold them over 2 billion just last year. Not to mention the massive amount of other interests we help with. How much money does SA make off Americans vs UK? Well, the US owes them more than 100 billion. The US is a monster. We're in the middle of all conflicts, paying the most to everyone. It's horrific. We have people starving at home yet countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia couldn't even function without our constant support
I am quite sure Saudi Arabia could function without the US's support. I am sure Israel could, albeit with difficulties in the military side. You see, the "money" that flows from the US to Israel is mostly loan guarantees, which Israel has never defaulted on, and arms grants, which mean that the US government transfers money to US companies to pay for materiel sent to Israel. Think of the number of Americans that have a paying job in the factory due to those production lines being kept open. Hint: it is not a small number.
Hmm, sure. But I'd prefer Americans to lose jobs if it doesn't support regimes like Saudi Arabia. Saving jobs means nothing to me. Ever. That logic only halts progression
I'm not defending us (the UK) selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, because that's fucking indefensible. However, I have seen someone give an interesting point of view on them being a part of these councils when they're obviously counter-intuitive.
It's a way of entering that conversation with them, exposing them to better ideals. I hope this is the reasoning and that it works. I also wish countries like the UK would fully commit to renewables that would allow us energy independence so the Saudis lose their influence because of their fucking oil.
How2999 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:17:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You just explained a fundamental principle of diplomacy. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'YOURE WRONG' serves fuck all but give you a hard-on.
I dunno dude, have you seen that on archer episode? What was it Slater said? "If you think the middle east is fucked up now, what do you think will happen when no one needs their oil?"
Amd responsible for the ruling family in the country carrying out such malarkey
drylube ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lmfao, the UK government is basically responsible for the state of Saudi Arabia today because they supplied the rebels with arms so they could take over, now it exports Wahhabism all over the middle east creating groups like isis, the muslim brotherhood and more
Doubt the UK will say much, aren't they responsible for SA being part of the human rights council?.
Let's look at the GP...
In all honesty, since they have been on these UN panels, Saudi Arabia has gotten a lot more attention for the fucked up shit they do
Really makes you think.
Owneh ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:08:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They did help them into the role in order to gain access to intelligence which prevents terrorist attacks.
I'm not saying it's OK, but there's potentially hundreds fo british lives been saved by allowing them onto the council, and in the end, does it really make a different to the Saudi people? It could even be benefitting them as the Saudi's may begin to change in order to keep their role.
I feel like the benefits of this is understated and the direct results misunderstood.
Oh sweet summer child...Providing intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks?! Guess they had to make up for 9/11. SA must be laughing behind closed doors.
These are significant as the UK basically got geo political benefits (overthrowing the Ottomans) and economic benefits (oil) in exchange for protecting these backwards thinking empires.
In a nutshell Saudi / Qatar / Kuwait OWN the UK. They will never say anything to disturb the relationship because the UK is so dependent on that money.
The investments, the property, the arms sales, and the oil are what Britian is absolutely dependent on.
Saudi Arabia could take Union Jack, shit on it, slap the queen mum in the face with it, and tell her to bark like a dog, and the only thing Theresa May or Boris Johnson can say is
"I say Saudi, we hate to be a bother but could we please have a chinwag and a moment of your time to perhaps suggest you take it a little easy on her majesty"
That's the honest truth.
It's not that they don't have a backbone. It's that they can't say anything because they sold the entire country to them and don't know how to (can't) tell the public.
Another little example of this - the Saudis have had 4 state visits to the UK under the current Queen. Only France has had more with 5. The US has only gotten 2. She has made 17 state visits to Muslim majority countries, and 0 visits to Israel or Greece. That's even though Israel/Greece are the spiritual homes of Christianity which is the Queen's religion, and her own husband is Greek.
A monarchy where the ruler is also the head of the church can't exactly claim 100% secularism, as much as we think it should.
His point was that the head of a church has spent more time visiting other countries than one of its religion's origins. Imagine if the Pope had never been to Italy.
Kozy3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:30:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree but you should have said Israel not Italy. Since it all stemmed from there.
The city of Jerusalem is significant in a number of religious traditions, including the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which consider it a holy city. Some of the most sacred places for each of these religions are found in Jerusalem and the one shared between all three is the Temple Mount.
It's still interesting! They're stating a fact, not their opinion. They didn't say she should visit those countries or shouldn't, just that she has/hasn't.
If they UK wanted, they could kill every man, women, and child in Saudi Arabia and take every last cent from them. But that's not as profitable as it used to be, so instead diplomats act diplomatically, and Britain makes a huge profit. Saudi Arabia doesn't own the UK, they bribe the UK.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Zaemz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:16:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just decided to look it up, Saudi Arabia has a larger navy than the UK, numbers wise, but it's all patrol boats and stuff. The UK has some big boats. The Royal Air Force is pretty big too.
However, the UK has seen a century of modern war. It has an old, established, well-trained military (hopefully) based on merit. I will not claim to know a lot, this is just based on what I read briefly.
Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi have enough money invested in the the UK that if it pulled out it (Or if the UK destroyed it) it would destroy the UK economy.
It would cause a run on the banks / financial services that would decimate Britain.
Currently, Britain is operating at a 3.5 billion pound trade deficit. Meaning right now Britain is already hemorrhaging money in trade. They pull their investments and it will look like some David Copperfield shit real quick over there.
"gamey" only on a "domestic front". The truth is internationally they are bought and paid for already.
Once you get into power they learn the truth and what the actual landscape really is.
Most people on the outside, everyday people, have absolutely no idea about how the puzzle pieces are in place locked in on a massive scale, the tent poles holding up monetary systems, and the completely fragile nature their entire world revolves around should one of those tent poles remove itself.
When the financial crisis hit George Bush gave a simple analogy (considering he has a simple mind it makes sense that this was what was told to him) of a "house of cards" resulting in a collapse.
The truth is, Britain's keystone cards are Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar currently. Those cards remove or jiggle in any particular way and the whole system jiggles with it.
They pull, and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:07:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In what fucking world does owning real estate assets in London mean they own the UK? We could pass a tax tomorrow that forces them to sell the assets to UK based companies and no one would care. Get your head out of your ass.
So now the UK's pension fund is worth jack shit because BP is going to get cornered.
And of course they will rip out Sabb from HSBC sending it into default.
They own the UK. You are the one with your head up your ass that you don't see it. But they own the UK.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol. A percentage tax tied levied at the annual appraised rate of foreign owned assets is not a socialist style seizure, it would be a legitimate tax used by hundreds of cities around the world to limit the inflow of foreign liquidity. This tax has been suggested by left wing groups in the UK for years.
So there is no "undercut BP making the UK pensions tied to it worth jack shit.". That makes zero sense and betrays your economic and financial sense.
In the event they undercut BP (whatever the fuck that means) because of a perfectly reasonable tax rise, the UK pension is tied to the performance of the FTSE 100 of which BP is just 5.6% of.
At this point it is because of centrist and leftist traitors that they are even allowed to own property in our capital. It allows them the chance the feel important.
But you are seriously deluded if you think less than 0.5% of the UK's total value of all real estate being owned by Qatar means they own us. Try again dude, I want to rip apart your argument.
And other countries are buying it all up. In fact in 2015 10% of all UK exports was gold (41 billion worth) and you only imported 11 Billion worth meaning the UK lost 30 billion in Gold in 2015.
Now what happens if the pound plummets it was 1.6 to the dollar in 2013 and now it's 1.28.
In just 4 years the pound has lost 20% of its value,
What do you think is going to happen to the housing market if things keep going the way they are going?
The value of UK homes is going to be SHIT. Absolute shit, and the value property in London? Well they own it.
A tax won't be levied on their assets.
The clock is ticking and the UK's currency is losing value and buying power, the gold reserves are being sold off, and you don't own the prime real estate in your own capital.
The UK is in no position to be bribed. It's been bought and sold and the people like yourself have no idea.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:09:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
" the value property in London? Well they own it."
I am sorry but how has the conversation changed from they own the UK to they own London. They still own less than ยฃ40bn of real estate in London. And I understated the previous figure, the total housing market for the UK is around ยฃ7trn. So they own less than 0.10%
"The value of UK homes is going to be SHIT. Absolute shit, and the value property in London? Well they own it."
The value of UK homes is directly tied in with supply and demand. We build less than the total amount of immigrants we get a year and supply is incredibly constrained, especially in the South East.
In fact house prices have RISEN post Brexit and post the 4 years 20% fall of the pound.
So guess what? A fall would be welcome. I would hope Qatar sells their holdings and cause a BIGLY crash in the UK housing market. Brexit happened because people were also fed up with the housing crisis stoked by unchecked immigration.
"A tax won't be levied on their assets."
Totally missing the point. You're suggesting they own the UK. I asserted they do not and a % tax on foreign holdings can be a tool to cause sell side pressure and reduce housing prices.
"The clock is ticking and the UK's currency is losing value and buying power, the gold reserves are being sold off, and you don't own the prime real estate in your own capital."
And how has your argument shifted from they own the UK to they own prime London.
"You see they don't give two shits to own Sheffield or Bristol."
So why the fuck did you say they own the UK. You should have said they own some prime property in central London.
"It's been bought and sold and the people like yourself have no idea."
Again I am an analyst and I own equity in a few property trusts. I am also a right wing economic nationalist. I am acquainted with my country's real estate market.
And link me to some academic papers that show a fall in the value of a national sovereign currency reduces the value of its real estate market. It reduces the foreign purchasing power, in the case of Brexit property funds fell post June 2016 due to the expected hit to the office and retail market post Brexit. Nothing to do with the fall of the pound.
You can pretend that you own your country, but the truth is. You don't.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:47:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The myth about house prices being driven up primarily by foreign investors has been debunked. In prime prime London 68% of houses were bought by UK buyers.
A quote from a research document - you can google the words.
"Savills estimate that 7% of residential purchases in Greater London
in 2013/14 were made by buyers from overseas.2 They add that
overseas buyers are prevalent only in certain parts of the market".
"In case you haven't noticed they fly in their cars just to drive them around their new summer home of Britain that they bought."
And? Rich arabs coming here and actually spending their money is miles better than faceless SWFs buying property and leaving it empty.
Keep in mind I support full scale Britishisation of our housing stock and a discouraging foreign ownership of UK real estate through a punitive annual value tax.
Look to your east coast. I love the American narrative and focus on Europe when your largest cities like Philly, New york, Chicago, Baltimore are literally thrash ridden with more crime that some third world countries.
Look to your east coast. I love the American narrative and focus on Europe when your largest cities like Philly, New york, Chicago, Baltimore are literally thrash ridden with more crime that some third world countries.
I don't disagree with this at all we've spent trillions on wars instead of our own people.
The myth about house prices being driven up primarily by foreign investors has been debunked. In prime prime London 68% of houses were bought by UK buyers.
1/3 of it foreign and they are buying more and more and more.
And? Rich arabs coming here and actually spending their money is miles better than faceless SWFs buying property and leaving it empty.
Yes like I said the UK is dependent on it. Lots of unsold property and what happens? the market starts going down... that's why the market is going up. They are floating it.
It's a great impetus for making massive investments in nuclear+renewable energy, and pushing for a mass conversion to electric cars (among many other measures). End the oil dependence, and we can end the Gulf and every other oil dictatorship.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:19:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol sure would be nice if we used alternative energy and didn't have to depend on them right? Haha too bad there's no easily available resources that we can just start using or anything, that'd be great. Imagine if we could just suck up sunlight or wind or something and use that to keep the lights on, wild idea.
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:24:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly what's happening. It might take a while, but coal is already dead and the rest of the fossil fuels are dying.
"Electing Saudi Arabia to protect womenโs rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief,"
.
I mean, makes perfect sense to me. They are experts in the subject.
Hard to have a backbone when half of our oil comes from them. You can actually see a similar situation going on with Russia and the UK vs. Russia and for example Italy. The UK often slams Russia publicly for various things while Italy always puts on a nice face and says "great relationship with Russia". The difference is that the UK is mostly independent from Russia, while Italy gets more than half of their gas from them (in Italy gas is more used than oil).
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not true at all. The UK benefits from Saudi oil, but we don't use it ourselves.
Since the discovery of North sea oil, the UK has been close to self sufficient in terms of oil and natural gas. Some is imported from Norway or Canada (in the form of liquified natural gas), but we don't need Saudi oil to keep our card running.
The monarchy is actually pretty decadent and secular. The population and religious sects are radicals. Without the kingdom it would probably be similar to Isis.
Edit: Forget about elaboration, we are going LIIIIIVE goddammit (Bill orally Reference)
it seems that you don't understand the division, Muslims divided to Sunni and Shia, both have many schools
From Sunni, the majority come from school of religion to a man named Mohammed bin Wahab, they are millions inside SA and millions outside SA, who follow that school, and they call themselves (sunni), so not everyone follow this school is radical
However, People who got radicals from ISIS, believe that the government = Royal family are corrupt traders who alliance with westerns hence they deserve to die.
As long as the government of SA don't see it as a problem themselves, it will be hard to convince them to change anything. I doubt you can completely embargo their oil so realistically the only country that could really put the pressure on SA would be the US and they don't seem to be in the business of supporting human rights at the moment.
the only country that could really put the pressure on SA would be the US
How can they? If they pressured the Saudis on human rights, the regime would be overthrown by the extremely conservative public. The current regime is much more liberal than a Saudi democracy would be, that is the real reason the UK/US are allies with them. They also co-operate with us heavily in the war on terror, despite what people believe. They even covertly co-operate with Israel.
A restart of colonialism. I know it sounds bad but think, if we did it in a way that didn't tear the country a new one (looking at you Belgium) then we could slowly start to indoctrinate western culture into their society and hopefully modernize them.
Edit:spelling
Isn't right wing and left wing the opposite in England like your roads? I remember hearing that once and would like verification
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:47:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no that isnt right. im not entirely sure but i think its just that our politics in general are less conservative/right-wing than in america. i believe our conservative party line up more with the values of your democratic party than your republican/conservative party for example. left-wing still means "more liberal" and right-wing still means "more conservative" over here.
its either this or the other way around (that being us being more conservative than america) but im about 95% sure it was that we are generally more left-leaning
It would be great! The U.S. would be a bastion of economic prosperity. We'd have money for all sorts of welfare. All this occurring, while only the Middle Eastern Countries are pissing eachother off with their Islamic radicalism.
Well no, oil prices would skyrocket, refugees would spreading across Europe, and it would overall be a humanitarian crisis. Sure we could save a lot of money by not being involved at all, but the long term costs would make that all a moot point anyways.
Not well versed in this subjected in the slightest. But here it goes.
We back Saudi Arabia because they continue to trade their oil using U.S. dollars. That brings a lot of value to our currency and without it, we would experience serious financial issues (albeit some estimate it could work itself out in the long run).
Our alliance with Israel as well their nuclear capabilities is what's preventing numerous Middle Eastern countries from deciding to just outright invade the country. Such a war would be fairly catastrophic and would result in a large amount of Jewish and Muslim refugees (The White Nationalists would lose their absolute shit).
Israel was created in order to give Jewish people a homeland. This was strongly motivated by our desire make amends for allowing the Holocaust to happen. It was a good idea, but the issue was that there wasn't a good plan to deal with the Palestinians that lived there.
ISIS was caused because Americans mounting pressure to withdraw troops from Iraq. ISIS grew in power BECAUSE of our desire to get away from the Middle East. If we had kept troops there, ISIS wouldn't have filled the power vacuum.
Iran-Contra was cold war politics. It has more to do with our actions in South America than in the Middle East.
In essence, it's not that we need to necessarily withdraw from the Middle East, only that we should handle it better. Would also be nice for us to actually identify what our goals are there. Is it human rights? regional stability? Financial gains? Political influence? At the moment it's a big ball of all of these things and they often conflict with one another.
I honestly don't have an answer as to what we should do. It's far beyond my knowledge. But isolationism rarely is a good solution. In fact it's not really much of a solution at all but more akin to just ignoring the problem.
You raise good points. Although I would disagree slightly on ISIS. ISIS is a natural outcome of American intervention. It didn't have much to do with our timing of departure, but the inevitable power vacuum that occurs.
NO MATTER WHAT, almost all of the Middle Eastern countries are groups of various religious/ethnic sects that were lumped together nationalistically. For example, Iraq conflict was born from competing sects (I forget their names and am too lazy too google). Atrocities were occurring under Saddam, but U.S. intervention has not stopped the conflict. Foreign intervention of any sort in the Middle East is costly and conflicting. There is no direct problem-solving.
The problem with your contention, is how much time did the U.S. need to stay in Iraq to keep the peace? Afghanistan has showed that inordinate amounts of intervention is not enough to prevent conflict (and arguably only increases it).
I don't fully condone Isolationism. People seem to fear that word a lot and jump to conclusions. In regards to the Middle East, I think it is in the U.S's best interest to withdraw for a short time (a period 4-10 years) before truly evaluating what our national interest should be there. Currently, the political ends we seek are muddied by the conflict we are currently ingrained in.
You raise some good points as well, but I think the fact of the matter is that we handled Iraq sloppily. Compare our investment in Iraq to the way we invested ourselves with Japan or one of the European countries that were decimated after World War 2.
We needed to be in Iraq for the long-term. Decades at least. But we all entered a war not really appreciating how much of a commitment it was going to be. If we had stayed in Iraq and helped it rebuild and at the same put in place re-education programs to reduce sectarian animosity and Western resentment (basically the same thing we did in Japan), then maybe we could have curtailed the rise of ISIS.
ISIS was a result of American intervention, but it also could have been thwarted if we had more commitment.
The problem lies with Culture. Japan was unified and we merely gave them resources. In the Middle East, we don't know who exactly to help, and everyone has some moral "problems".
Long-term
Again, this isn't a solution. Look at how India and Pakistan turned out after British control. You could argue this was due to Nationalism in the 18th-20th centurie. But the point is, that underlying cultural differences may remain dormant, but need to be reconciled before a country can truly nationalize. Otherwise, regardless of how long a country is "controlled" by an outside force, these components will rise visciously.
mcysr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually you did pretty well. If the world powers had stayed out of it since the 1940's, the issues probably would be much less now. Also rest of world would have developed alternative energy sooner.
Haha. There's waaay more than that. There's conflict in the Middle East almost every day. Just look at the Gaza strip in the last couple years and Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Afghanistan, it's had foreign intervention since the Cold War. The Middle East has been ridden with conflict since biblical times.
bagehis ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 13:29:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UK has the same status (permanent) as the US in the UN, along with the same veto powers. The UK is also the 5th largest economy in the world. They have clout in world politics.
AP246 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:30:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. I was as anti-brexit as anyone, but the fact is, barring some massive natural disaster or something, the UK is not gonna stop being a big player in the field. Sure, we're not the superpower we once were, and we might fall behind new powers like India, but the UK will remain a pretty major power for the foreseeable future.
We have clout in global politics for old times sake and because we're close with America, the big bully on the field. We're buddying up to China and making sure we don't piss of Putin too publicly, believe. My country is a joke. And come back in ten years when Brexit will still be getting blamed for the shit and worsening state of just about everything in the(at that point, once Scotland and Ireland have their way...) former UK.
Northern Ireland will not be leaving the UK. As part of the Good Friday agreement, NI retains the right to leave the UK at any time where both the majority of the peoples of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland wish it. All the polls in NI in the past 10 years clearly show an overwhelming Unionist opinion, due in part to the large amount of Irish Protestants in the North.
The Secretary of State has to call an official poll and if it shows a majority nationalist vote, they must consult UK Parliament to arrange terms. In theory, the parliament could try and draw out negotiations (although this would be likely to spark a new period of 'Troubles')
In short, I don't think there's a fear of NI leaving anytime soon.
Well, sixth now since brexit and the pound plummeting.
bagehis ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 13:53:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
French GDP (6th) was $2.418t in 2015, with an estimated growth of 1.1% for 2016 (so $2.44t). UK GDP (5th) was $2.858t in 2015, with an estimated growth of 1.9% for 2016 (so $2.912t). Thus far, as far as I'm aware, the UK still holds fifth, trailing Germany ( $3.363t + 1.2% = $3.403t). The UK edges out France for per capita PPP as well.
His point is that you tried to imply something even though you later backpedaled by saying you merely stated a figure/fact. So he also merely stated a fact that doesn't imply anything, to show you how your recurse is either not a defendable positon or completly pointless.
JMV290 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:05:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A low currency is a good thing. Only people who don't know anything automatically associate "low" with bad.
It's a good thing if you're a country like China where you export a lot more than you import.
If you're a country like the US or the UK it's not really a good thing as it lowers your purchasing power for imported goods meaning you either need to invest in domestic production or continue having a weaker currency for international trade.
There's only a few cases where a low currency would help and AFAIK none would apply to, or benefit, the UK.
A low currency is good for services, a high currency is only good for counties who use others countries services because their money is worth more.
The primary disadvantage of having a strong currency is foreigner consumers have to pay higher prices to purchase goods and services from your country
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:57:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A low currancy can be an ok thing, for a service based economy that imports a lot of goods and relies heavily on its financial sector which relies heavily on ties to the eu, maybe not so good a thing.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:06:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well sure, it's good for businesses who are net exporters, but it's not necessarily good for individuals who buy foreign goods or travel.
Measuring the size of the UK economy in US dollars is stupid. However IMF still forecast that Britain will be the world's fifth largest economy in 2017 by this measure.
A lot of people want the UK and France off the UNSC. They no longer hold the political clout they did at the end of WW2. Veto power makes this impossible though
It's only a matter of time before the UK and French seats are replaced by an EU one.
Oh.
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:33:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UK and France still have nuclear weapons.
It's a security council too, remember, not an economic one. Only the US and to a much lesser extent Russia and China actually have significant force projection in terms of direct military. Basically every other major country in the world can only really defend itself or influence its neighbours. Germany and Japan, or even India or Brazil, simply do not have any more meaningful military power than the UK or France.
The argument however is amount global influence. In modern society economic power tends to be more meaningful than military. Especially if you consider most peacekeeping forces are provided by smaller countries anyways
bagehis ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:03:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I were British I'd saying negative things about the UK, with suggestions that it is all about to collapse anyway. Brits are some of the most pessimistic people, in general. See /u/GoinMyWay 's comment for an example.
If you think we've been bad historically, wait til more of my peers get older and become the standard model of a "Brit". Mid 30s and living with their mum because wages are shit and everything costs too fucking much. Unfortunately, the other developed economies have wages that are growing, while ours are stagnant and have been for years. So everyone is getting poorer apart from the politicians, accountants and businessmen. So we can't even afford to leave, as countless hordes hear all the lies we tell the world, flock here en masse and then get stuck here like the natives. Country is a toilet.
I'd argue corporate profit regardless of ethical concern is the new religion, in that regard...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:16:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just curious, why is it the UK's fault for the things Saudi Arabia does? I think Saudi Arabia deserves all the blame for the things they do but I must be crazy.
UK? Even the USA turns a blind eye to Saudia Arabia. They go balls deep when it comes to eliminating Islamic Terrorism but the moment it becomes an organised government body, they refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone calling them their allies ...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:09:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well we could justify nuking Syria, however I'm not sure the Russians would like us if we did that, so much so that they might lob a big fuck-off warhead in our direction and level Westminster. Although as I look at the potential prime ministers of the UK, I'm starting to think that might not be such a bad event.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:41:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They would except for all the arms sales. It's literally the last bastion of British exports(well that and money laundering for narco terrorists) and they're going to burn everything else down to keep it.
lasyke3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:48:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Alright then, suppose UK strongly tell them to sort it out. What would happen? nothing, yes. The UN lacks enforcement mechanisms in this regard, so before bashing the member states or the UN in general, remember how the whole structure is built. Flawed in some ways, but best alternative historically speaking.
I am not sure it is so much backbone, more that you can't just tell a country to "sort it out" and expect them to respond. People in Saudi Arabia could equally say it is a shame their leaders don't have the backbone to tell the west to "sort it out".
Well, the UK can't really do anything. The UN's purpose is to prevent WWIII. If the UN over extends itself, then members can choose not to participate. What you're proposing would require a capacity for far more foreign oversight than either the UK or SA are willing to agree to.
US is the same. We tolerate their bullshit because they are a seen as a check on Iran. Meanwhile, wahhabisim spreads through the region and they radicalize young people into becoming the very terrorists that we have been claiming to go after, from Bush to Obama and now Trump. Saudi Arabia bankrolls and radicalizes some not so nice people.
The problem is last time anyone tried to take a hard line against them this happened. Granted it's not the only factor and dependence is lower now, but any hard line stance will see an impact on the market.
Yeah lol the British can talk...You know how many british manspread on the tube, mansplain to women and and the gender pay gap in uk? And the workplaces put aircon on during summer thats nut fair to women that is sexist. UK are in no position to tell Saudi' what to do.
Yeah, it's a shame countries like the UK don't have the oil reserves to tell them to sort it out.
ademnus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:38:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UK, US, it really doesn't matter. I'm not sure anyone can "sort it out" for them.
zakkera ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:42:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you basing your opinion on ur country of origin, media lies, or you had first hand experience women rights. I'm not a fan of SA, but we need to respect other people culture and way of live cause it fit their culture, not yours.
Same thing goes for Canada. In his rush to be politically correct and harvest voters, our glorious leader Pierre Jr. heaps praise on muslim culture, specifically encouraging the wearing of burkas as part of their cultural rights instead of the mysoginy that it is. That and the fact our parliament just passed legislation which essentially makes critsizing islam a crime.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your statement, buy seriously, how would you keep the peace? Can you imagine if we got on the wrong side of Saudi and ended up in a war with them? We bomb the shit out of them, hit Mecca and Medina then have 1.6 billion Muslims pretty pissed off that their sacred grounds have been desecrated. Not saying every person of Islam would start murdering non-muslims in the streets, but that would be a HUGE win for Isis, as they could manipulate people into joining their cause so much easier.
They can't "sort it out" they are a government with 0 separation of church and state when it comes to Islam. By economically supporting them, the west is directly supporting Islamic fundamentalism the world round. People have been coned into the idea that Islam the religion is the problem, when the real problem is economically sustained Islamic governments. So that the western governments around the world can keep buying oil from Islamic governments without too much social pressure against it.
If western governments stopped buying oil from Islamic governments, and put economic sanctions on them, I can guarantee that global Islamic terrorism would stop within the decade. And that's why people are happier believing that islam itself is the problem. Because there is no way they would give up their oil.
Yeah we probably shouldn't be selling them weapons, but Theresa see's dollar signs not human life. Get her the fuck out of office man. She wrecked the home office and her current mission seems to be to wreck healthcare and education. I don't know what's wrong with her.
You do that and you have the issue of them claiming you are opressing their religion. Can't very well force someone to do something if they believe it goes against their religion, which they dedicate their lives to.
It's also their country. They are free to make their own laws. Yes most modern societies believe women are equal to men but we do not have a worldwide government to force those views on others. If Saudi Arabia is stuck in the past that's their prerogative. That culture does some despicable things to girls but we can't just go forcing everyone to do things the same way we do.
Yeah, it's a shame countries like the UK don't have the backbone to tell them to sort it out.
SA has that oil though baby!
If you're buying weed, you may not LIKE your dealer, but you ain't gonna call him out on stuff he does you don't like. Good drugs/weed/oil is hard to find.
Like the UK can stand up to the UN for only doing talk.. Do they dare stand up to Israel? They won't bite the hand that feeds them.
karsh36 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:36:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Major producer of oil and the USA owes them money. Either way, it isn't our place to interfere with another country, and if anything having them on the council could end up helping the country.
What has UK international clout got to do with Brexit?
Usgarden ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 13:18:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What has the UK's international clout got to do with leaving the biggest trade bloc/union in the world? Erm...
Kyoraki ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:29:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The biggest trading bloc mostly because of UK contributions. When the UK leaves, NAFTA will be the biggest. The EU might even slip to third if the UK establishes a commonwealth trading bloc, or might not even survive at all if Le Pen becomes France's next president.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:36:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Mostly" is probably a bit much. The UK isn't even the biggest economy inside the the EU.
Kyoraki ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:56:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, but it was the biggest before the reunification of Germany, and is still the second largest as of this moment.
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:37:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The 5th largest economy in the world with the biggest city in western Europe isn't gonna suddenly turn into a 3rd world country because of brexit. The UK might drop down a couple of notches, but will not suddenly not be a major player.
[deleted] ยท 241 points ยท Posted at 11:07:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 310 points ยท Posted at 12:42:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In fact, I think it empowers them to keep up the old shit. They see the attention it gets, they know they're untouchable, they keep up the same shit.
Case in point: a few weeks ago the Belgian government summoned the head of Saudi Islamic mosques in Belgium to appear before the senate and explain their links to salafism and all that rot.
The guy completely ignored most questions and straight up lied to the point the senate cut the hearing short and kicked him out, claiming he was trying to rile them up by being obstinate.
Nothing came from it. They effectively gave the entire Belgian government the middle finger and exclaimed ร la Cartman "Whadevah! I do what I want!" and no-one feels any repercussions from this, so it's definitely not going to change.
[deleted] ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 14:23:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 14:33:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the kind of bullshit that encourages the rise of nationalist leaders.
This is the key point.
Established politicians keep acting as if anyone supporting the extreme left or right is an idiot - and they may well be right - but those people definitely won't be convinced to vote for them by being insulted or declared marginal.
That is how you lose the elections by a landslide never before seen (Looking at the socialist party in France right now, but they're far from the only ones with this problem).
And yet our illustrious leaders of globalization don't seem to recognize that it's this kind of corruption of these commissions, panels and human rights organizations at the United Nations that is helping fuel ordinary people's disgust and distrust at globalization.
Nah, I doubt that. Ordinary people's disgust and distrust at globalisation is for the largest part economic; "I don't do as well as this shebang promised I would, all dem jobs are off to China/India/South Korea/whatever." And below that is "Keep immigrants out!"
I just don't like the idea of one group of supreme elites telling 7+ billion people how to live. I'd rather the whole world just fuck off and leave me to my peace. But humanity can't seem to grasp the simple fucking concept of mind your own goddamn business.
Except that...the UN doesn't tell you how to live? And do you also realise how "society" works? Y'know, everything that makes it possible that you can post what you say here on Reddit.
I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia hasn't improved in the last few years.
Actually it's made some (relatively) dramatic improvements in recent years. Women are making up an increasing part of the workforce, they are allowed to vote in municipal elections, and some have been appointed to high political office. These are baby steps and there are still huge problems, but we're also talking about a country which was literally medieval 60 years ago. Many women in Saudi Arabia also oppose things like women driving and in politics. Both genders in the Kingdom are conservative, not just the men.
joos1986 ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 14:59:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Women are making up an increasing part of the workforce,
Just got back to the kingdom. Holy shit is it weird seeing women as part of the regular workforce in malls etc.
I think it's great, and no where near the doom, gloom and calamity predicted has occurred. They seem friendly, and hardworking.
I'm glad these women are being given an opportunity to earn their own living.
Are you Saudi? I lived with a couple of Saudi guys once and they were also very positive about more freedoms for women. Then I watched Wadjda which I totally recommend everyone to watch if you havent already. I think a lot of people over here just assume Saudi policies are a direct reflection of the will of the people, but of course that's never true :)
Btw Wadjda is on YouTube I think, it's a movie about a little girl who wants to save up to buy a bike to race her best friend, who is a boy. It is an absolutely amazing movie.
Lots of Saudis are totally like you and me, assuming even that's a thing even. Heck, with their financial security they get access to a lot of the same lifestyle trappings someone would in the west.
Some of these are people I know and am friends with.
It's hard to demarcate this stuff in clear lines, because so much of this is limited personal experience and second hand tellings, but I'd also suggest that by the nature of how you got to staying with these saudi guys, you might be exposed to those of a certain mindset.
There's a lot of nuance to this sort of thing in Saudi Arabia, especially having so many of them so influenced by western and outside media in general, but there is the other side too. I don't mean this as some sort of hush hush conspiracy way. Just that the religious leanings and highly conservative views come from somewhere, and it's not always the older generation.
I definitely need to watch Wadjda, and it was directed by a Saudi, a woman no less. But even something like this, it stands out in my mind that she's a woman, because it's not the norm.
These are all good signs, but often you'll hear about this one woman pilot, this one woman director and while they're steps in the right direction, these people are often from an extremely privileged class who had a family tie to those industries, rather than your everyday person working their way up. In the sense they're not an example of a general change in attitudes, though I like to think they pave the way. Haifa Al Mansour is a really good director in her own right, so at least it's not some sort of Emperor in new clothes sort of deal.
One thing I find interesting is, how even among the progressive Saudis I've met, there's this double standard. Either something they follow blindly that'll make me do a double take because it goes against my mental perception of the person. Quite commonly, these same guys that seem very progressive, have totally different views on the same things when it comes to their sister or mother. It's like the progressive leaning stuff is like a different set of clothes they wear, it can't be easy juggling the expectations of society and family along with wanting to be different.
Thanks for your reply, sorry I'm so slow at mine! Little bump for Wadjda, it's superb.
But mostly I replied to say that it's interesting but I find the double standard you speak of exists in the west too, in various ways. And it is still notable when a film director here is female. We're all just in different stages of social development I guess :)
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:54:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you talk with and interact with the women though or do they only serve other women?
Good question, so the thing that was surprising with this is. It's not just that women are finally working in the Kingdom, because that had already been happening for a while, but the fact that they're working alongside the men.
I've had friends working in areas like the ad industry where women would be working with the men, but these were more the exception and always a matter of flying under the radar.
What made me do a double take now though, is seeing things like women retail assistants in your regular stores. Women cashiers at the big hypermarkets etc. Women in these very visible, high volume places, where they'd be interacting with men directly.
So yeah, part of the surprise is that you can interact directly with the women. Except for some exceptions (usually behind a nice wide counter) all these women are full hijab (full ninja) so face covered too. The exceptions did have their faces uncovered, but still head to toe in black garb.
As for my personal direct interaction, quite limited, but that's mostly me. I've been raised to be very careful in my interactions with Arab women, but then again they've not been part of the public sphere so blatantly before.
I think it's great, and no where near the doom, gloom and calamity predicted has occurred.
I think it's unlikely to IMO. Oil means it's in everybody's interest that Saudi Arabia remain stable, which means the Sauds staying in charge for the time being. But they know that as the petro-dollar declines they'll need to reform the economy, and in turn the political system. The risk IMO comes when this reform really takes off (probably more than a decade from now), and the risk is instability between a liberal revolution and a conservative government, not the other way around. Both the US and China will move Heaven and Earth to prevent SA slipping into a theocratic nightmare.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:56:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't it already theocratic though with forced prayer and religious police?
If anything this will force them to further modernise. As the petro-dollar declines, Saudi Arabia will be forced to diversify its economy. This means greater connections with the outside world, which in turn means greater freedom for women (and the population generally).
It only retrogrades if the economy collapses, and I think the government is at least somewhat aware of the problem. They know their power depends on continued prosperity, so they'll reform the economy to survive.
Its interesting to see that countries that have great mineral riches are almost always dictatorships. It makes sense if you think about it.
The rulers of most other countries get their wealth from their citizens being productive and taxing them. For the population to be productive they need education and personal freedom.
Those mineral rich countries dont need the people so treat them badly.
It's important to remember when talking about the Middle East. The Middle East isn't developed; ignore all the shining towers in Dubai; it's just wealthy, not developed. IIRC just prior to the Iraq War the UN put out a report which found the Middle East was actually behind Sub-Saharan Africa in a key index of Globalisation; Globalisation being the key to development and democracy.
Democracy is not necessarily some amazing cultural advancement for a country. Democracy, when working correctly, reflects the will of the people and there is no guarantee that a newly democratic country will have ideals anywhere close to western liberal democracies. This has been made clear in many cases in the Middle East such as in Gaza where Palestinians put Hamas into power. If a country does not possess a document protecting/enshrining the people with basic rights like in the US Constitution it is possible for a democracy to have outcomes that are as brutal and vicious as any dictatorship.
Hence why liberal democracy is vitally important in the long term and in the short term a good economic foundation is necessary. This was one of the issues with the US approach under the Bush Administration: it pushed democracy when it should have only been pushing Globalisation. You can debate whether or not democracy is the best option for a country at any given point, but more Globalisation is always the best choice in the long term. It then leads to the building of that important economic foundation and liberalisation which leads to good, liberal democracies.
Actually having grown up there I would say dubai is the most developed of them all. Their money is mostly only from tourism and they wouldn't have that without an open culture and development. Qatar would be next. But Saudi is an absolute shit hole. Would never go back there
Actually having grown up there I would say dubai is the most developed of them all.
Again, a 'relative' measure. Dubai is a little unusual because IIRC it's the one emirate without oil, but let's not pretend it's socially developed. It tolerates Westerners for their money, but it's also a major hub of labor and sexual slavery.
Their power rests on the Islamists not deposing them, which gets harder the less profitable their nation is. That might be why they're okay with spending their modernization budget on us arms to Fight Yemen.
Their power rests on the Islamists not deposing them, which gets harder the less profitable their nation is.
Islamist power declines at the same time though; increasingly globalisation, over the long term, will liberalise the Middle East. The Iraq War was actually a big part of this.
Why? In my head at least they become more influential as the regular people look for a reason (scapegoat) as to why their previously prosperous nation has gone to pot.
Why? In my head at least they become more influential as the regular people look for a reason (scapegoat) as to why their previously prosperous nation has gone to pot.
The secular dictatorships are stagnant, economically, socially, politically, culturally, etc, so people only tolerate them as long as their basic needs are looked after and they have hope for the future. Take that away and people will turn real fast (basically the Arab Spring). Islamists have tried to draw on this unhappiness for a long time, somewhat successfully, but at the end of the day they suffer the same problems the autocracies do. The difference is that for a long time they were the only alternative. If you're a Sunni Arab you have literally known nothing else. The Iraq War and the 2005 elections there changed this and scared the shit out of the Islamists. The Arab Spring was the result; people demanded democracy, not Islamic theocracies. Sure, Islamic parties won those elections, but of course they would; they were the most organised and the parties people were most familiar with. But then suddenly they found they had to toe the line. In Tunisia it's an Islamic party but they follow the rules of a secular democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt tried its whole Islamisation thing and was popularly overthrown.
You connect 10 people to the outside world, 2 of them are going to get scared and turn to fundamentalism (of whatever variety), but the rest are going to liberalise and welcome that connection.
[deleted] ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 14:08:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well the women against their own self-interest are analogous to the citizens of the DPRK thinking they are lucky to be part of the greatest and most powerful nation. When you're told you are a second class citizen your entire life you tend to believe it.
Sure, I'm not saying their opinions are right, but they are their opinions. You can't force change on people against their will. IMO a measured, gradual change is needed in the Kingdom, mostly because it probably won't happen otherwise.
omid_ ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 15:18:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their "will"?
Grow up in a conservative Muslim society where other forms of thought aren't allowed & there's no freedom of speech. What "will" are you talking about besides what's forced upon the people by the government?
People still hold these views quite closely. Is Saudi Arabia repressive? Absolutely. But the people who live there are still conservative, (largely) fundamentalist Muslims. Is that because of the society they've grown up in? Yeah....but everyone else's views are shaped the same way.
It doesn't matter if you're 'right'; you can't force major social changes on people.
Agreed. There's a similar problem with female genital mutilation. Many women are in favor of FGM because it's part of their culture and it's what they know. So when white people tell them to just stop doing it, things get tricky.
I read somewhere that one of the most successful strategies was to just get the women talking about it amongst themselves. Providing information and a safe forum. It was important that they decided for themselves, and that was when things began to change.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How do you even get them into a "safe forum" when they can't go anywhere without a male guardian in many cases and have arranged marriages?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly why so many refugees don't want to integrate into Western culture when they arrive. They still want to practice female genital mutilation, wear full-body burqas, disown/kill gay family members, and perform honor killings. Many cases of such in the US and UK.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is that because of the society they've grown up in? Yeah....but everyone else's views are shaped the same way.
There is a difference between teachings, despite them both being instilled and not inherent. You can say one is right and one is wrong, because one may give options and freedom of choice, and the other does not. If you are given the freedom to choose, and pick restriction, then everything is fine. You decided that. If you are restricted from the start, then it is not fine, as you may not be able to, or might face repercussions for trying to change.
I'm not naming names or pointing fingers at anything in particular, because there are nuances and variance from family to family, cultures, religions, regions, etc. But in general, more abstractly, I think the above holds. People should be able to choose without fear or repercussion.
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:28:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Theyre not though. You're making a false essentialization of Arabs in Saudi Arabia. They have radicals, liberals & conservatives too.
It only seems that the society is conservative because literally other forms of thought are banned.
It's the Saudi govt that is forcing these major social policies on people. How about western nations tell them to stop that? There's almost no pushback from western nations on Saudi Arabia. The government has pretty much no incentive to change.
Right now there are ex-Muslims trapped living in Saudi Arabia. At this rate, maybe their grandchildren will be allowed to state their beliefs without being given the death penalty. Maybe the reforms will mean they'll only receive lashes instead!
The majority are conservative Muslims and legitimately hold the associated opinions without being forced to.
And what alternative is there? The West is between a rock and a hard place on this one. Right now the alternative to the Sauds is an Islamist theocracy almost certainly anti-Western. What should the West do? Kick and the door and force democracy and feminism at gunpoint? Sanction them into economic ruin?
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The majority are conservative Muslims and legitimately hold the associated opinions without being forced to.
And you know this, how exactly? Do you have a separate reality where you have test-run a Saudi Arabia which has a liberal democracy where people overwhelmingly vote for conservative parties?
what alternative is there?
How about promoting democracy, universal suffrage, and a republican form of government where the head of state is chosen by the people rather than being from 1 inbred family?
the alternative to the Sauds is an Islamist theocracy almost certainly anti-Western.
But it will be an Islamist theocracy that won't be able to use its petrodollars to build mosques and push Islamism around the globe. That's the entire point. Read up on Petro-Islam. The Saudi government is the driving force behind a lot of international Islamism. If they stopped receiving so much western support and aid, they wouldn't be able to build so many mosques and promote their hardline version of Islam globally.
Why does it make any sense whatsoever to sanction Iran but not Saudi Arabia? This is the ridiculous double standard. Oh and by the way, Iran is going to have a presidential election next month. When's the next presidential election for Saudi Arabia? Oh, but it's the Supreme Leader of Iran who makes all the real decisions, you might respond. But did you know the Supreme Leader is actually an elected position in Iran? He is voted on by the Assembly of Experts, who themselves are elected. Of course, the elections in Iran are not fully free, but it's clearly better than Saudi Arabia where the average person has literally no say in their head of state. Yet Iran has massive international sanctions on it while the Saudi government is the west's darling and not only are there no sanctions, but the west actively supports the government by sending foreign aid to them! You go to Riyadh or any city in the KSA and you see western corporations everywhere, who pay tax to the Saudi govt to do business there. Isn't that ridiculous?
I support BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) towards Saudi Arabia. The west needs to end its love affair with the country asap. It's the best way to end the spread of global Islamism.
And you know this, how exactly? Do you have a separate reality where you have test-run a Saudi Arabia which has a liberal democracy where people overwhelmingly vote for conservative parties?
Getting public opinions out of Saudi Arabia is notoriously difficult, although we do know 36% support sending funds to Islamist fighters overseas. Many do support the new municipal councils and are concerned about corruption as well. We can get an idea of Saudi opinions by looking at the opinions of other Middle Eastern countries. It's fair to say Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative Middle Eastern countries, so that will also be indicative. Polls have found that while Muslims support democracy, they also believe that Islam should play a strong role in politics with at least some implementation of Sharia law. More troubling they hold very conservative views on religion; virtually all believe that belief in God is a requirement to be moral, and huge majorities believe that sex outside of marriage, drinking alcohol, and homosexuality are immoral. Large minorities (if not majorities) believe that women should obey their husbands and that honour killings are justified.
There is no great underground liberal movement in Saudi Arabia. Most are very conservative by Western standards, even if they support democracy, and that's not likely to change soon.
How about promoting democracy, universal suffrage, and a republican form of government where the head of state is chosen by the people rather than being from 1 inbred family?
No, because that society can't yet support democracy. It doesn't have the economic nor social development yet. The Arab Spring and the elections in the Palestinian Territories are good examples of this; in Iraq it took huge force of arms and has only been semi-successful. Let's stick to the real world, not fantasy.
But it will be an Islamist theocracy that won't be able to use its petrodollars to build mosques and push Islamism around the globe.
...Why not? It's not the West which is the major buyer of Middle Eastern oil. They could sell as much oil as they want to Asia and export terrorism and fundamentalism without any limitations.
It's the best way to end the spread of global Islamism.
By leaving the country to collapse into a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship funded by basically unlimited reserves of Asian petro-dollars with no reason to not export extremism and terror at an unlimited scale and get into a potentially nuclear confrontation with Iran?
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:02:08 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Getting public opinions out of Saudi Arabia is notoriously difficult, although we do know 36% support sending funds to Islamist fighters overseas.
So 64% don't? So in an election, 64% > 36%, so what's the problem?
Is Saudi Arabia not allowed to have conservatives or something? Are only western nations allowed to have conservatives that want to bomb/attack others?
We can get an idea of Saudi opinions by looking at the opinions of other Middle Eastern countries.
"We can get an idea of American opinions by looking at the opinions of Canada and Mexico, other North American countries". No.
they also believe that Islam should play a strong role in politics
Wow! Adherents of a religion want their religion to play a role in politics! What a shocker! Christians would never want that, right?
There is no great underground liberal movement in Saudi Arabia.
And yet, there are ex-Muslims that live in Saudi Arabia. Where did they come from?
Maybe there would be a liberal movement in Saudi Arabia if they didn't live under a repressive theocracy that bans political parties. Just a thought.
No, because that society can't yet support democracy. It doesn't have the economic nor social development yet.
"Can't yet support democracy" = "isn't going to vote the way I want them to ๐ญ"
the elections in the Palestinian Territories are good examples of this
Palestine has its own problems. What does their election have to do with Saudi Arabia? They're both Arabs so they are the same? Lol.
It's not the West which is the major buyer of Middle Eastern oil.
But this isn't about middle eastern oil. It's only about Saudi oil.
They could sell as much oil as they want to Asia and export terrorism and fundamentalism without any limitations.
First of all, who in Asia is going to buy their oil? It's a big place. Iraq is in Asia too. Are they going to buy Saudi oil?
And they can't sell as much as they want. There are restrictions. KSA is a member of OPEC. They have to follow that group or could face economic consequences.
collapse into a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship
It's already a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship. How about try democracy instead?
And I still don't see why giving massive amounts of aid to Saudi Arabia helps. They're using the weapons to oppress & kill others. It was Saudi tanks that rolled into Bahrain to quell the uprising there. And now they are killing people in Yemen. How is this a good thing?
So 64% don't? So in an election, 64% > 36%, so what's the problem?
...Because that's not how opinions in a society work? Seriously, this is pretty basic. If a large section of a society (say 36%) support a very extreme policy, then it's a good bet that even if the rest don't support that extreme policy, they at least hold very conservative views on it. 36% support straight up violent jihad, so it's a good bet a majority support Sharia law in their own country and other conservative Islamic positions.
Is Saudi Arabia not allowed to have conservatives or something? Are only western nations allowed to have conservatives that want to bomb/attack others?
No...my point was that Saudi Arabia is a very conservative country, a point I supported with evidence.
"We can get an idea of American opinions by looking at the opinions of Canada and Mexico, other North American countries". No.
Sure, maybe not Mexico, but yes, I would say Canada is a good broad indicator of American (at least Yankee) political opinions.
Wow! Adherents of a religion want their religion to play a role in politics! What a shocker! Christians would never want that, right?
It's an indicator of religious conservatism...and again, my point was that Saudi Arabia is religiously conservative. The fact that religious conservatives exist in other countries is fucking irrelevant.
And yet, there are ex-Muslims that live in Saudi Arabia. Where did they come from?
A handful of closeted Ex-Muslims is not a "great underground liberal movement."
"Can't yet support democracy" = "isn't going to vote the way I want them to ๐ญ"
No I actually mean can't support democracy. If democracy were introduced it would very likely collapse into some form of autocracy. And, honest question; would you consider a country that denied women and non-Muslims the right to vote in government elections or hold political office a democracy?
Palestine has its own problems. What does their election have to do with Saudi Arabia? They're both Arabs so they are the same?
No, it's an example of a democracy collapsing because of a lack of vital social and economic foundations. The fact it's also an Arab country only further supports my point. Learn to read.
But this isn't about middle eastern oil. It's only about Saudi oil.
You do know Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East?
First of all, who in Asia is going to buy their oil?
China, India, Japan, the rest of ASEAN as it develops. This isn't a 'going to' thing either; Asia is already the major destination of Saudi oil; 65% in fact and that share will only increase over time.
Iraq is in Asia too. Are they going to buy Saudi oil?
Don't be obtuse, it just makes you look stupid.
And they can't sell as much as they want. There are restrictions. KSA is a member of OPEC. They have to follow that group or could face economic consequences.
It doesn't matter, Asian demand for oil is going to be so high that prices will remain up. The shift that's going to happen isn't going to be a decline in oil demand, but a shift in oil demand from the West to Asia even more than has happened already.
So as long it keeps the oil flowing, any fundamentalist dictatorship is going to be rolling in cash for awhile, and even if wasn't the result is the same; a Saudi economic collapse right now would collapse the Sauds and lead to the rise of fundamentalist clerics which, poor or not, would threaten Western interests.
It's already a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship. How about try democracy instead?
Fundamentalist, yes, theocracy, no; Saudi Arabia is a secular government (the Sauds) enforcing religious law. Not a religious government.
Democracy won't work because it won't last. Again; look at the Arab Spring and that worked out. Democracies need certain basic economic and societal foundations to work. Saudi Arabia might have the latter but it certainly doesn't have the former.
I'm curious though. I always think about when the world will go through some movement in order for men and women to be looked at as the same. I wonder how many years it will be before human beings (from all cultures) start to look at the problem, acknowledge that all forms of religion and cultures instill conservatism and wonder why "those other countries" are bad. Will it be amovement beging in scientific aspects? A social aspect? The slow decline of religious conservative indoctrination of children? It's fascinating to me to try and discover what the issues are, how to address them, and how all peoples and governments will react to the research on why these global issues still exist.
I understand that we can'y force social changes on people. But i'm still trying to understand why some of us are not trying to get to the real bottom of it. It's hard to force social change when those who want to change something, need change themselves. How did culture change so much from 500, 300, 100, 20 years ago? I don't know where to look besides studying history.
But i'm still trying to understand why some of us are not trying to get to the real bottom of it. It's hard to force social change when those who want to change something, need change themselves.
Here's the thing. We actually know what drives the sort of social change you're talking about, have for a while. The problem is that doing something about it is often not politically popular, and people often go with the 'easier' things which sound much better.
Positive social change (that is greater rights for men and women, economic development and freedom, political liberalisation, better healthcare, more care about environmentalism, etc) is driven by two things; economic development and globalisation, with the latter greatly helping the former.
Naturally, however, both cause huge social change which is frightening to people (men and women). The classic example is urbanistation, which pulls people from villages where they know literally everyone, and know their place in the world (which to them may simply be the valley they and their ancestors have never left), to being one of millions. People lose the identities they've always had and often struggle to find new ones. It's why fundamentalism is strongly associated with this; people try to find new identities in religions and philosophies which hark back to the culture's past (Fundamentalist Islam now, Nazism in the past).
This is most violent in the Middle East right now, but we saw similar things in Europe turn of the century (and, arguably well before that), America with the Civil War, and we will probably see it in the future in Africa. Asia's an interesting one that's yet to play out, but we'll see (we could very easily see this in India, and to some extent already are with Hindu nationalism). To some extent the rise of the alt-right in the US and Europe is a softer second-wave of that reaction to globalisation in the West.
If you look at places like the Middle East and Africa and want to change things for the better, the solution is to help along those drivers by removing obstacles to them. The biggest obstacle is insecurity driven either by oppressive, rogue regimes, or failed states.
People are great, because while many people are scared shitless by globalisation, many more prefer (and even crave) connection with the world. Look at telecoms in Sub-Saharan Africa; huge uptake. This means that for the most part connections will build themselves. But as these connections lead to income growth (continuing the Africa example, a farmer with a cellphone and a 3G connection knows the price of his grains at the port and knows what weather is coming, massively increasing his prosperity), they inevitably lead to freer thinking and more power for the little guy. Not only does this challenge political elites (the dictators), but also the cultural elites (the Imams). Some will simply accept the change. They'll liberalise bit by bit and eventually something will push them over the edge and the country will become a democracy when it hits a certain wealth threshold (about $6,000 to $12,000 USD per capita). This happened in Southern Europe, Latin America, and more recently Asia. The Arab Spring is a symptom of this happening, although they jumped the gun a bit (demanded political change without the appropriate economic foundation, same thing happened in Tienanmen Square).
The problem is that certain dictators will fight it tooth and nail and kill thousands doing it. Not only are they repressive, they're also self-isolating. These are your rogue states. They're not rogue because they object to the US; they're rogue because they object to the liberalising effects of a global economic system the US created and protects. Not only do they prevent liberalisation and development in their own countries, they project insecurity around them, and thus inhibit growth in their neighbours. Failed states are the same, although in that case lack of connection is because of the insecurity. Most other countries (with the exception of some other really under-developed ones, Afghanistan being one, Yemen another) will develop and connect as time goes by, as long as they're allowed to and get a gentle nudge every now and again. The rogue ones and the failed ones need to be dealt with (Arab Spring and wider political liberalisation in the Middle East can be directly linked to the removal of the Saddam regime in Iraq). That's where the political will dries up. People are more than willing to feed a starving nation with food aid, but will do nothing to end the violence that prevents that country from producing its own food in the first place.
Social change isn't driven by dragging people out of the 11th and into the 21st Century, because they'll fight you every step of the way. It's about creating the conditions which allows that social change to occur naturally. And it will happen naturally with no obstacles, and it will happen incredibly quickly. Look at South Korea; feudal autocracy to high tech democracy in less than 50 years. China's doing the same thing on a much larger scale and arguably even faster. The problem is that A; people don't see that, and B; they often don't want to make the hard choices that go along the way. The West (more specifically the US) has a vital role to play, and IMO it's been doing a pretty poor job so far.
You can see that happening right here in the U.S. Women grow up with those views everywhere and frequently hold views that are harmful to their best interest. It's a gradual change in social views and culture.
In SA's case it's slightly more complex. They have a national religion, a royal elite, and a different culture.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:09:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
if anything the population as a whole is more hardline than their government.
Why do you think that is? Do you think Saudis are just biologically attuned to conservatism or something?
The United States violently opposed Arab nationalism, Baathism, and left-wing movements in the middle east, and now are shocked that the only ones remaining in power are conservatives and Islamists.
How do you think people acquire ideas in the first place?
Personally, I'd compare it to Catholics saying that they are against birth control, but then using it anyways. If women in Saudi Arabia lack some basic rights, what makes you think they feel free to publicly complain about it?
No they aren't brainwashed. Most of them are literally loving life. They don't have to work, they don't have to drive. The man has to pay for everything. The man is obligated to drive them wherever they want. And when they go out in public, they don't have to deal with getting oggled and cat called by other men. The women I have talked to love the way things work in Saudi.
Lawrence Krauss gave a talk where he forced the Muslim venue to intergrate the men side and the women side. He said the women were wayyy more upset about it than the men.
Yeah, the women naturally would feel more threatened by the 'aggressive' men. Imagine if you mixed the showers in high school. I imagine the girls would be more upset.
[deleted] ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 17:11:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, and the West should absolutely call out Saudi Arabia for its abuses (and keep it off things like UN rights bodies, although that's not really the West's fault). But at the same time we can't treat the Kingdom like a pariah state, because, right or wrong, it doesn't improve the situation.
Both genders in the Kingdom are conservative, not just the men.
This is the problem with religion - all of them, not just Islam. Brainwashing the children to believe hogwash means people will even support subjugating themselves just because it's "god's will" or whatever. Just disgusting to see that in action.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 15:39:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow. You just had to bring up religion out of nowhere. This is not the problem with religion. In a world with no religion, this shit would still be happening. People would just find another excuse to feel more powerful. Brainwashing can and does happen without religion. Religion is not the problem, people are the problem.
I think that a broader statement can be more appealing to this situation. This is the problem with dogmatic views, it includes religion, sectarization of politics, sects and a bunch of other things that cause the people to avoid the necessary analysys of society, norms, views and a large etcetera. The people is not the problem (in itself, as an innherent condition of being human) but laziness (in developed nations, wealthy people) and lack of tools (empoverished people in gral).
It's a mandatory part of religion. It's not the norm outside of it. Religion is the problem; it turns entire generations of people into sheep, and teaches them to follow their leader without question or face an eternity in hell/damnation/coming back as a cockroach/etc. It does this from the time they can learn to speak. Their entire world view is warped by thousand-year-old fairy tales.
Please don't give me that "religion isn't the problem" bullshit. That entire region of the world is unstable and has been for hundreds of years - because of religion.
Many women in Saudi Arabia also oppose things like women driving and in politics.
Internalized misogyny is a real thing. So is Stockholm syndrome as a coping mechanism. Not saying you were contesting this, just pointing out that it's irrelevant in some ways (imo) if some women want to keep the status quo. When a group has been oppressed and abused for so long, they have a skewed sense of reality.
But it's really hopeful things are improving. Change is going to happen slowly, because as you said the starting point was so extreme. It's the tortoise and the hare...the tortoise will actually finish the race.
When a group has been oppressed and abused for so long, they have a skewed sense of reality.
But that is still their view of reality. My point was that conservatism in Saudi Arabia is a view of that society, not just of the male overlords. You can't force social change on people who are either not ready for it or don't want it.
We'll see whether women in Saudi Arabia are allowed to drive before self-driving cars make that question moot.
bagehis ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 13:42:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There have been pockets of improvement. In 2009, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology opened. This was the first coed campus in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, women are not required to wear veils and are allowed to drive on campus.
Resistance to change is a generational thing. The younger generations in Saudi Arabia are less resistant to women's rights than the older generations. So, it is only a matter of time.
Small progress, and the moment the men don't have jobs from oil revenues, the old bedouin chauvanism will come back in force.
bagehis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:55:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Massive progress. Girls were not given educations until 1961, when the government began opening schools for girls. The literacy rate for women was 2% in 1970 and has now jumped to 91%. The changes have actually been more rapid than in Western cultures, they just started much later. That is with regards to women's rights anyways, there remain a lot of other human rights issues in Saudi Arabia which continue to go unaddressed.
it helps that Saudi Arabia has an alphabetization rate of close to 100% (off by a couple points), both for men and women.
bagehis ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:51:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The literacy rate has only recently become that good. Female literacy was 2% in 1970. It is now 91% overall (nearly 100% for <40 years old). This change began when the government began opening schools for girls, beginning in 1961. It was a dramatic and relatively rapid change.
yup, agreeing with your point that younger generations are more for women's rights than the older one.
It's been an incredible change.
Falsus ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:48:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have taken some small steps. I am for slow improvement (cause fast change would prompt social unrest which would ultimately probably be worse for the country).
I mean if they don't want women to drive they should give them all eunuch chauffeurs. Maybe rapists that have been castrated. That's really how rapists should be dealt with anyway. In a country like that, they could certainly find enough for every woman to have at least one. Or at least one per household.
Because Saudis are walking around raping women in the streets while the women are simultaneously always in the home, or with male relatives. Schrodinger's Saudi.
Not an entire nation, an entire planet. I just think like 95% of humans are scum. Every time I start to think differently, I turn on the news and it all falls apart.
They are improving things. Women are now allowed to drive under some conditions. Young women are allowed to leave the home without relative escourts, or at least it's been decriminalized.
I realize that's not fast enough for NOW types, but it will have to do.
[deleted] ยท 88 points ยท Posted at 12:54:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody gives a fuck what the UN says, as long as SA gives us oil they can stone people to death as punishment for things that aren't crimes in the modern world.
There you are. A Reuters article, which would be an unbiased news source, claiming SA has no reported incideents.
Stems out of lack of knowledge
You have proven no knowledge and your only argument is I am ignorant. An easy stance to take. Why don't you try and enhance the conversation instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:19:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
every fucking week
You pulled up three videos. You're embellishment is not supported by three videos. Yes behadings happen out there, i was talking about stonings not beheadings.
Murder takes place in the US daily, not as barbaric, but more frequently then it occurs in SA.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:59:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It amazes me that the West turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia yet complain about Cuba and China.
Nah, they have just proved that they can get away with everything from honor killings and forced marriage to slavery and the west will do nothing about it.
All this proves, is that the UN cares very little about the victims and very much about virtue signaling and oil.
They won't change anything because they literally can't change it without risking turning the entire country into Syria 2.0.
The reason we have problems in Syria, Iraq and Libya is because they have no national identity or cohesion they're just a group of clans/ethnic groups operating under a sovereign umbrella (this is less true for Iraq, hence why its prospects whilst shitty are still far better than Libya and Syria). The Saudi Monarchy has used this to their advantage, with all the different regions of the country doing there own thing, and competing for favour with the house of Saud for bigger handouts. Most of these groups resent the other groups in Saudi Arabia, but because they're allowed carry out their bat shit insane religious practices, and whilst they're getting big state handouts from the central government they're kept in check.
The oil handouts are the major factor, but they have so many bat shit insane radicals in the country that moderate changes risks bringing on a complete shit storm.
Revinval ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 13:42:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In 50-100 years (if that) when the oil money dries up that shotty desert is going to become a lot worse.
I think it's going to happen sooner, the saudi population has increased by over 100% since 1990. They're producing the same amount of oil they were 40 years ago (around 10 million barrels a day) but now they're consuming over 3 million barrels a day themselves.
On top of that it's looking like $50-70 a barrel is going to be the limit for oil prices since the potential for shale oil has been unlocked. Saudi government budget for 2015 required $105 a barrel to breakeven so they're going to have to make huge cuts, they've started, but it's probably going to cause some social unrest.
Interesting find. According to the synopsis it's good sites and depressed vendor and labor markets that attributed to better margins, but it's a clear signal that shale can and will be a good regulator for traditional plays.
That said, at 29 /bbl USD, I'm rather impressed at such low lift costs!
The petroleum sector accounts for roughly 92.5% of Saudi budget revenues, 97% of export earnings, and 55% of GDP.
As of 2008, roughly two thirds of workers employed in Saudi Arabia were foreigners, and in the private sector approximately 90%
According to Reuters, economists "estimate only 30-40 percent of working-age Saudis hold jobs or actively seek work
Basically, no one in the country has a job, and everyone who does is working for government. A government which gets all it's money from oil. The small private sector that they do have, is entirely run by foreigners.
Well said. Oil is a red herring and by continuing the narrative you have the blood on your own hands of the women who get treated like shit. The real problem is Islamic extremism.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:02:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The real problem is Islamic extremism
I'm surprised you haven't been banned for being a "racist" yet. /s
they get to set the narrative of these bodies and insure their culture persist or is not officially denounced. exposure is not something they are concerned about positive or negative, controlling the narrative is and they get that by being on these groups
Not really. I mean the mother fuckers perpetrated 9/11, yet we invaded Iraq, and gave the billions and they're now the most thriving country in the Middle East.
So nah, I don't think they've gotten enough attention. Hey, now you start to understand the corruption ;) now why did they donate to Hillary...... scratches head
Maybe the UN Panels is the way people are getting them to listen to the issues they usually ignore in some fucked up way
Murgie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:42:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What's really crazy is how almost nobody who raises hell about Saudi Arabia's presence on such panels are actually aware of what these panels actually do.
I mean, for the most part I can hardly blame them for coming to the conclusions that they do, given how many outrage-clicks a headline like "Saudi Arabia chosen to head key UN human rights panel" rakes in. But it really does get to me how few people actually take the time to understand the system at all. At this point I can't even be angry about it anymore, now it just makes me sad.
Most people don't even seem aware that there are a specific number of seats allotted to each of the five regional groups. SA holds one among the thirteen Asian States, it's the entire reason they're not replaced with a nation like Canada, Norway, Sweden, or something, because they can't be.
Anyway, onto that panel I linked to, and what it does.
The reality behind that appointment is that SA was chosen to head a single panel formed under the United Nations Human Rights Council, alongside Greece, Algeria, Chile, and Lithuania. That panel was in charge of exactly one thing; recommending 10 potential appointees from a list of 56 candidates for the following three positions, at which point all 47 member nations of the UNHRC vote on who is elected to each position.
Those positions were:
Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.
Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, member from Latin American and Caribbean States.
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, member from Eastern European States.
Yeah, really, that's all the panel did. They had the supreme and lofty power to issue some totally non-binding recommendations. And look at the sheer amount of outrage it generated in that first link up there, something like 3000+ comments, it's incredible just how much of an impact the way this information is presented has on what people actually take away from it.
Now don't get me wrong, that's fantastic when it's directed toward Saudi Arabia itself, but it's kinda sad to see when it's directed toward the UN itself for reasons that don't hold up to scrutiny. It's certainly a far cry from a flawless organization, no question about that, but I wish people were up in arms over real issues rather than scare-mongering over who gets to head the panel in charge of some minor recommendations.
And as much as I'd like to, I can't even lay the blame for that sensationalization at the foot of The Independent. It was UN Watch that served as the source for those exaggerations, calling that "a key UN Human Rights Council panel, with the power to select top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide". Like, I hate the Saudi government too, but that's just telling an outright lie in my opinion. And it's not as though they didn't know better than to claim the panel can actually choose who gets the positions, they provided the document!
I dunno, you guys feel free to come to your own conclusions on UN Watch, maybe browse their site a bit, but personally I can't help but wish there was a slightly less agenda-driven organization built around serving as a watchdog for the UN.
I would also guess that their presence on this council will stronghold them into agreeing to the majority's stance on women's rights.
We are often quick to be up in arms over someone's presence on a board or council when they are the very entity that need it most. They are only one voting member, and their archaic motives will be outnumbered in any vote. They'll be held to whatever standards the council democratically decides. That's a good thing.
morered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:17:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the idea is that including them in panels and slowly altering their thinking will lead to shifting of ideologies on women's rights as opposed to assaulting their societal regardless of where they lie
I'm not sure what kind of powers or responsibilities being in this council grants a country, but if you want to fix something, you don't reward it first...
Britain helped install a Saudi prince as UN Human Rights Commissioner. Saudi flogs, maims, beheads and crucifies people after unrepresented, non-jury trials. Britain and the US also help the Saudis to maintain the food, water and medicines blockade on Yemen that is starving hundreds of thousands of kids.
kizock ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's gotta be the reason they do it right? Seems silly if it intentional
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:21:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Might have been why they chose to do it in the first place. I mean, how has Saudi Arabia actually used this position to slow human rights development around the world?
It may be hard to believe but Saudi Arabia is changing (although very slowly).
Heck, they just had its very first comic con!
This may not seem like a big deal. But it shows that they are slowly opening up to western ideas and it's become slowly accepted by the new generation.
Politics aren't going to change overnight, but everyday, Saudi Arabia is becoming a little more open minded towards western ideals.
People who oppose this stuff don't understand what the UN does or how and why it's important to have Saudi Arabia at the panel, maybe even in a leadership position.
The UN is a negotiating table. By putting Saudi Arabia into the panel for Women's Rights you out SA in a position where it has to discuss women's rights on a regular basis.
adevland ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 10:47:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly.
You don't fix an issue by leaving a discussion just because the bully has a right to voice his opinion.
You fix it by deconstructing the bully's rhetoric.
By leaving (how Trump did) you're only permitting them to do whatever they want.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 11:56:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What have they changed?
adevland ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 12:10:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eradicating Smallpox: The World Health Organization, a U.N. agency, led the global effort to eradicate the disease.
Protecting the Ozone: In 1987, the U.N. Environment Program sponsored a conference of 24 nations to pledge to take action against the deterioration of the ozone layer at the time. After nearly five years of talks, the group produced the Montreal Protocol โ a treaty to reduce the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, on a broad scale.
Helping Save the Lives of 90 Million Children: UNICEF is a broader example, but merits acknowledgment on any list of U.N. successes. Created in 1946, the United Nations Children's Fund works for the rights of children, and won the Nobel Peace Prize less than two after it was founded. Its efforts have steadily increased since; in its last annual report, the fund says it has helped save over 90 million children since 1990.
Promoting Arms Control: The U.N. was founded with goals of promoting non-violence by means of nuclear weapons.
The UN isn't perfect. Promoting this idea while ignoring all of the good things they've done is not only ignorant, but also dangerous since ignorance on these issues is actually beneficial for entities like Saudi Arabia.
Leaving the UN is exactly what the governments of countries like Saudi Arabia want.
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 12:12:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I mean how has Saudi changed? How does being in the UN hold them accountable for their BS?
Do you expect things to change immediately? Imagine an UN council about fighting racism back in 1960, even 70. Do you think the US should have led such a council back then? Well? It takes time.
[deleted] ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 12:17:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
doesn't Trump have hotels in Saudi or they at least purchased the land before or during the election?
Saudi has no place on the the women's right body. Women in Saudi are fighting for basic rights. These include the rights to see their child if the father divorces them. The right to not ware a big black cap over their head. The right to leave the country without their chaperones consents. These are basic right other women have in other countries. Saudi should be pressured by other governments to make these simple changes.
Most Saudi women have personal drivers so driving isn't that high on the list.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:42:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most Saudi women have personal drivers so driving isn't that high on the list.
Actually most Saudi people aren't super wealthy, the country has lots of poverty and the vast majority of women have no drivers and live in a situation we would consider slavery in the west
I wasn't aware the average redditor was capable of forcing their country to do anything.
Seriously, "You don't get to bitch about something while your own country doesn't do anything about it" is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this website.
I wasn't aware the average redditor was capable of forcing their country to do anything.
Surely bitching about it will change things. /s
Seriously, "You don't get to bitch about something while your own country doesn't do anything about it" is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this website.
Are you telling me that you feel entitled to judge others?
While refusing to provide any solutions and only bitch about the problem which is, in part, due to your actions?
This is the stupidest thing most people do. Judge others while ignoring their own problems.
But guess what? Reddit is at its core just a place for discussion. Part of discussion is venting frustration. You're babbling about nothing and I can't tell but I think trying to pull a red herring while trying to say people don't deserve to talk because of where they live.
Example: Sean is upset Ireland still uses oil and combustion engines. Sean is not a government official. Sean mentions he doesn't like the US' oil consumption on reddit. But oh wait, he can't, because since Ireland still uses oil, he's not allowed to criticize oil by your logic.
Reddit is at its core just a place for discussion. Part of discussion is venting frustration.
Nobody is supposed to tolerate you venting your frustrations.
That's a nonconstructive discussion.
Venting frustrations doesn't fix the problems that lead to those frustrations.
You're babbling about nothing and I can't tell but I think trying to pull a red herring while trying to say people don't deserve to talk because of where they live.
You're claiming to not understand the issue but you still have an opinion on the matter.
That's the core problem I'm talking about here.
You're not entitled to talk about something you don't understand.
You're acting as if you're entitled to vent your frustrations while everybody else is supposed to deal with it.
You're not entitled to anything.
But oh wait, he can't, because since Ireland still uses oil, he's not allowed to criticize oil by your logic.
People here have not criticized the problem. They're criticized those that are trying to fix the problem while praising those that have chosen to ignore it.
And this is a huge problem because it doesn't help those that try to fix the problem. On the contrary.
Of course, the us' feminists are too worried about when men are doing on video games and rioting on college campuses where Milo is going to speak instead fight actual oppression of women.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:05:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Great point!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:26:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Barack Obama completed the largest arms sale in history with guess who, Saudi Arabia. Don't try to flip this on Trump.
Obama banned one small portion of the sale. Not the entire thing.
Then Trump comes along and says "Fuck it.". All weapon sales are go!
It's like he did it just to be against Obama even though Obama did what Trump promised.
So not only did Trump go against one of his promises, he also undid the work of others that went ahead and did what he himself has promised.
That's stupid and hypocritical on so many levels.
GG for trying to defend him, though. It's not an easy job.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:13:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Has nothing to do with my reply.
You casually mentioned Trump lifting Obama's arms ban without disclosing that A. Obama never put a full on ban on anything. He limited one small portion of the sale and B. Obama is responsible for the largest arms deal literally in history. Your comment was disingenuous.
I didn't try to flip that on Trump. I said that Trump did nothing to stop the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
He did the contrary. Trump resumed the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're the one who made this about the UN. I was just pointing out your little drive by comment that completely ignores major context and paints Trump as the monster when in actuality, you're lord and savior obama is responsible for ten times worse. Probably even more than that.
your little drive by comment that completely ignores major context and paints Trump as the monster when in actuality, you're lord and savior obama is responsible for ten times worse
Why are you even mentioning Obama?
This is not about Obama. This is about the UN and Saudi Arabia.
Trump is doing the same things Obama did by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and by bombing other countries.
About how Trump is doing the same things as Obama?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Failing to point out that Obamas ban on the arms deal was miniscule and not entirely combersome. For the uninformed citizen, your comment says that obama banned arms deals with SA. Which obviously is far from the case. Like I said, I took your comment to be disingenuous.
For the uninformed citizen, your comment says that obama banned arms deals with SA.
So fuck Obama for trying. He didn't ban all sales. Let's sell all the weapons because Obama only banned a few of them.
That doesn't make sense, bro.
It's not "all or nothing". Progress is incremental.
Sure, Obama sold a lot of weapons. Nobody is denying that. But he started banning the sales before he left and Trump ruined that.
That's a dick move by Trump which, ironically, goes against his very promise to stop all sales.
Not only did Trump not stop any of the sales, he continued to sale them and undid all progress Obama did towards stopping them.
No mental gymnastics can deny the fact that Trump is a liar and huge hypocrite. :)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:24:29 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When did Trump say he wouldn't sell the arms though? And yea, obama taking away a tiny portion of a deal while still providing air support and refueling to Saudi Jets makes no difference. Plus obama was too little too late as he was the one who completed the largest arms deal in the history of the world with Saudi Arabia.
I'm not accusing obama of anything. Just pointing out that Obama completed the largest arms deal in the history of the world with Saudi Arabia.
Which is entirely besides the point.
The article we're commenting on is about the UN and Saudi Arabia.
Obama is no longer president. Trump is doing the same things as Obama when it comes to Saudi Arabia.
What Obama didn't do is push for the US to exit the UN. That's Trump's idea.
I'm not defending Obama. I'm criticizing Trump for doing the exact things he criticized Obama for. And that makes him a yuge hypocrite.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:32:16 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was just pointing out the disingenuous comment when the guy said that trump reversed obama arms deal ban. His comment was designed to attack trump by way of not providing the complete information. That's it.
It says nowhere that Obama banned all arms deals with Saudi Arabia. You're arguing against something that didn't happen.
I wasn't being disingenuous.
It's you that made wrong assumptions without reading the article I posted.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:46:11 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've read all the fucking articles about it before. Your wording makes it seem like obama halted the entire thing and that it wasn't his to approve in the first place.
Your wording makes it seem like obama halted the entire thing and that it wasn't his to approve in the first place.
No, it doesn't.
It clearly says that "Donald Trump's State Department approves Saudi Arabia weapons sales blocked by Barack Obama".
If you had any doubts, you would have read the article.
A multi-million dollar technology for Riyadh was blocked by the former President during the final months of his administration over human rights concerns.
But you ignored that like you ignored the fact that Trump approved this deal.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:50:52 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't leaving just as much as an attention grabber?
No.
Do you really think that Saudi Arabia will give a shit about the US leaving?
If anything, they'll rejoice.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
Resigning from a position of authority doesn't fix problems. It's a political statement that's meant to say you don't care even though you're part of the problem and even though you're claiming to care.
They do fucked up shit, but let's be clear that their women aren't all tormented. I have a bunch of Saudi friends who are female and they always show pictures of them drinking and partying in Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:56:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are your friends Saudi Arabian?
There are some parts of Saudi Arabia where Western foreigners congregate, which are not held nearly to the same standards as the rest of the country. SA only does that for financial reasons anyways.
lol. as long USA are best bodies of SA nothing and none will even dare piss against them. not even americans themselves.
autotldr ยท 614 points ยท Posted at 08:02:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
A human rights watchdog group has lashed out at the United Nations for appointment of Saudi Arabia as a member of a committee on gender equality, despite Riyadh's massive discrimination against women.
On Wednesday, the UN's Economic and Social Council elected 13 members, including Saudi Arabia, to four-year terms on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.
In January, a UN Special Rapporteur on human rights, Philip Alston, slammed Saudi Arabia's treatment of women, saying, "The driving ban should be lifted, and women should no longer need authorization from male guardians to work or travel."
MianaQ ยท 125 points ยท Posted at 14:53:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder why autotldr's never sticked as top post? Since many of redditors here never bothered to click the article and just post comment based on title.
[deleted] ยท 99 points ยท Posted at 15:25:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:01:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or the gigantic disclaimer anytime the holocaust is mentioned
thapol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:12:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As a mod that has had to do this manually on a few threads to prevent people from being assholes, it does help. The quicker I or another mod can get to a thread that will likely attract a flame war, the better.
They're quite close to top post alot if the title isn't very clear or misleading or something but this title was clear and i think most people know something about the situation of women in SA.
There are cases where the bot leaves out important bits of the articles. Although rare, sometimes a word isn't exactly used in the title that is very important to the story and when the bot can't include that one crucial fact/statement etc. people can get a whole other idea of the story. Well, your comment was probably meant to be facetious and now I spent time explaining an obvious flaw. But in case not, time well spent.
[deleted] ยท 176 points ยท Posted at 14:12:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and it's dumb and wrong anyway. this is copied from my post above:
UN Secretariat staff here...
as usual, headlines getting this wrong. the UN didn't appoint Saudi Arabia. it's the UN member state governments that get together and vote on these sorts of things. it's a rotational thing. there are dozens and dozens of committees and councils. people trade votes i.e. you vote for us to host XYZ conference and we will vote for you to be on ABC council.
it has nothing to do with the UN staff (i.e. the experts who work on this stuff day to day) making recommendations and decisions. people who work for UNOCHR have no power over this matter. people who work for the Secretariat have no power over this. it's a political decision.
this article is really irresponsible for questioning the UN for appointing Saudi Arabia to an ECOSOC commission. not even the UN staff working on ECOSOC (which by the way, i do some work for) have any input on this.
dumb article. criticize the countries who voted for Saudi Arabia, not the UN staff.
How exactly does it refute the entire article? The watchdog didn't say a word about the UN staff. It was pretty clearly a criticism of the UN member states' representatives.
Congress vs. the UN is a very bad analogy. when people say 'the UN did X', most people take it to mean it's the decision of we who work at the UN have a role in making that decision.
kudos to you for knowing that the UN member states make the decisions, but most people don't. i deal with this on a regular basis in real life.
the article also doesn't make it clear. it talks about the UN in a broad way as if it is the entity making the decisions, not the member states that make up the entity making the decisions.
My understanding was that each region (e.g. Middle East) gets a rep, and SA was the only candidate put forward from the region. How that happened is probably exactly like you said.
in this case it would be the Asia group in general. it's not subdivided into the Middle East most of the time. but yes, that's how it works. other countries have other priorities and resources. not every country in Asia has enough personnel to staff every HRC meeting.
Someone fucked up the inner working of this body so badly that in a non-alternate universe, the KSA is head in ANY CAPACITY of ANY HUMAN RIGHTS council.
okay, so we should ban them from every group and then tell them that they still need to be part of the UN and listen to UN decisions. i am sure that will work.
BoojumG ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:51:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What change would you like to make to the processes described here?
Well it's not really my job, but if it somehow was, I guess for any human rights council you'd have to pass some sort of "How are my country's human rights" test to participate.
Killing people for being gay would instantly DQ you from that test, so KSA would not be a problem.
BoojumG ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with that idea but think that it can't be done without delving into the root causes and politics that got Saudi Arabia voted in to the committee in the first place. The same process that nominated and voted on Saudi Arabia being included would be creating and ratifying any such test too.
You've identified an outcome you want, and I agree with it, but any change that'd make it feasible would have to happen at a lower level, where the politics live.
I understand that defining the test parameters would be approved by the current council, for a start, and obviously this is politics so nothing can be so simple.
My hope is that one day leaders man up enough to stand up to it, but as long as $$$ is concerned all I can do is sit on the internet and muse on how ridiculous the whole thing is.
No, because it's Iranian propaganda and they hate Saudi Arabia. Saudi is bad obviously, but Iran is just as bad if not worse, so when will Pars Today call out Iran for human rights violations? I'm putting my money on never.
Edit: apparently people pushing propaganda don't like being called out
Because "guy says something against other guy" doesn't have the same impact as "guy DESTROYS other guy"
gt250 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:17:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Man in private group of people who created an organization whose sole purpose is to complain publicly when the UN does something it doesn't like, complains publicly."
No one knows what it means! It's catchy, gets the people goin'!
popcar2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:00:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a difference between making an appealing title and clickbait. The title pretty much sums up the article, there's nothing misleading or vague to force you into reading it
A human rights watchdog group has lashed out at the United Nations for appointment of Saudi Arabia as a member of a committee on gender equality, despite Riyadhโs massive discrimination against women.
It's because "slam" in politics means "made a slightly mean sounding announcement". It's a hilarious misuse of the word but the media loves to use it because it's so dramatic.
graebot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Slam is a common English press term. Similarly "corny" sounds like poppycock to the British.
joequin ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:58:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand why the article isn't. 'UN Appoints Saudi Arabia to body on Women's Rights'. I don't care if a watchdog criticized them. I care that the UN appointed Saudi Arabia to body on women's rights.
Razasaza ยท 1116 points ยท Posted at 08:39:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With this line of thinking we may as well appoint Saudi Arabia on the UN human rights council... Oh wait, that happened in 2015.
Hillary Clinton and others have addressed this before. Saudi Arabia is appointed to the human rights council to shine light on their harsh practices, not because they are a role model for human rights. People get upset every time they get put there, but it is a strategy to get them to improve. I imagine it's the same situation here
...an utterly failed strategy. A strategy that may have instead helped them to wage a pitiless war on the Yemen, engineering a famine likely to kill millions.
Can you explain how it helped them wage war? If they weren't on a council which has no power to pass any sort of binding resolutions what would have stopped their fighter jets from dropping bombs?
UN condemnation would not help the Saudis, and could only hinder them. At the very least, it would mean the Saudis have to pay a higher price for the support they receive from other countries. It would also hinder other Saudi foreign policy aims, such as promoting Wahhabism as the gold standard of Islam. If everyone knew that they were trying to starve 7 million fellow muslims to death it would obviously make things trickier.
Lirdon ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 14:19:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It wouldn't directly, but if you pay attention, you see that the cast majority of this councils efforts, time and reports are directed towards Israel, so little to no time is there to investigate and discuss anything else.
So if the Human Rights council spent more time generating reports that no one reads on a different subject how do you imagine that would indirectly stop fighter jets from dorpping bombs?
Besides which, it seems like Syria dominated the council's discussions by a far margin:
There's a single report about Israeli settlements, and one about Palestine, but there's also ones for Haiti, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Iceland. Israel accounts for no where near the "vast majority" of their reporting.
That would happen with or without Saudi Arabia. In fact, the two countries have several aligned interests and it's not Saudi that is the prime mover against Israel.
EDIT: Meant to write Saudi Arabia.
Lirdon ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:48:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The aligned interests in the middle east against Irans does not equate cooperation.
I didn't say cooperation. But what point are you trying to make? That it doesn't happen? That it they have some coincidence of wants but they don't cooperate? I think you said one of those things and both are wrong.
[deleted] ยท 251 points ยท Posted at 13:48:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hillary seems to a part of many failed strategies.
fec2245 ยท 129 points ยท Posted at 14:01:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Trump, as it turns out, is an even bigger supporter of the Saudis than the Democrats were. He approved weapon sales to Saudi Arabia to aid in their war in Yemen previously denied by the Obama administration.
[deleted] ยท 70 points ยท Posted at 14:51:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US were already at war with Yemen back when Obama was in office
fec2245 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 15:06:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US supported Saudi Arabia, which is why your link lists the US under "supported by" rather than belligerents. My point was regarding the relative level of support.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:10:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the US isn't a main belligerent because you're with the Saudis, but you're directly involved just like Russia is in Syria or just like Obama was with the rebels. Your Navy is blockading Houthi's ports and you've got your spec ops in there.
fec2245 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:13:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russia is a belligerent in the Syrian civil war as is the US. They don't merely support one side, they directly participate. They both have troops on the ground and carry out large numbers of air strikes. In no sense is Russia not a belligerent in Syria.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:20:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's weird though because the US appears as part of the rebels 'support' in the Wikipedia article but you were heavily involved these past years.
Discussion over labelling such as 'supporter' or 'combatant' is pretty pointless, though. The US was heavily involved in the Syrian civil war, Russia has been and is heavily involved with Assad also. Since 2015 the US (Your navy and Special Operations team) is also involved in the Yemeni Civil War, supporting the Arabs
vanEden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what he is saying.
fec2245 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:23:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If that was his point perhaps he should have found a link listing the US as a belligerent rather than a supporter. His own link failed to prove his point if you're correct.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:26:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying 'well akchually we're not AT war with yemen, we're just giving Saudi Arabia support with our Navy'
Dude, there are american ships in Yemen blockading ports, you've got your special operations team all over, you're in Yemen
fec2245 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not really relevant to my original point so I see no reason to argue this. Supporting a side vs belligerent is a blurry line so there's no reason we need to agree.
TIL anything remotely negative about Hillary must also be something negative about Trump
fec2245 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:35:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just thought it was a weird line of attack for /u/cheetocrusteddick considering he supports Trump who is not only continuing support of the Saudis but actually approving weapon sales to them that were previously denied.
Perhaps so. I just thought it was kind of an immature rebuttal to just go through someone's history and attack their political beliefs instead of politely perhaps asking what they actually know about relations with Saudi Arabia. But I guess that's asking too much of reddit
fec2245 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:42:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What makes you think I went through his history? With a name like that and a post like he made what digging would I have to do? Also, where did I attack him?
Was your TIL post supposed to be a polite question?
So you just straight up assumed he loves and worships Trump because of a fairly accurate comment about Hillary that is obviously for upvotes? And also, are cheetos now permanently intertwined with Trump?
Where did I ask a question? And how was it impolite? I was only pointing out what I learned
fec2245 ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 14:18:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're saying that the Trump administration approved a weapons deal that the Obama administration denied in 2016 because at that time we weren't "at war with Yemen." When I asked you about us being at war with Yemen you give me a link from early 2015.
In what universe does your time line work?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:50:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
but you are at war with Yemen, and you were back with Obama
Why do so many americans (in reddit) base their knowledge in news articles lol it's easier to just go to the point. Is the US at war with Yemen? Learn about the Yemeni Civil War and you will know how involved are you in the war
fec2245 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:08:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US supported Saudi Arabia, which is why your link lists the US under "supported by" rather than belligerents. My point was regarding the relative level of support, specifically Trump being more supportive of the KSA than Obama. I never said Democrats didn't support the KSA.
Also, I find it weird to say someone's at war with Yemen when we're talking about a civil war.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:14:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US is supporting Saudi Arabia, that's present.
I don't know where do you get that Trump is more supporting than Saudi Arabia than Obama, source?. It was weird for you to bring up Trump for no reason also but we're in reddit
What difference does it make saying 'with' or 'in', lol. You're in war with a faction that claims sovereignty over Yemen
fec2245 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:20:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know where do you get that Trump is more supporting than Saudi Arabia than Obama
My original comment was that Trump approved weapon sales to Saudi Arabia that were initially blocked over allegations of human rights violations in Yemen. That's an easily verifiable fact and I would think pretty common knowledge.
It was weird for you to bring up Trump for no reason
Where did I bring him up for no reason? Scroll up my post was a response to a post regarding US policy in Yemen.
What difference does it make saying 'with' or 'in', lol.
A significant difference. The US is fighting in Iraq but they're not fighting with Iraq.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But the US has been selling weapons to the Saudis for decades now. It's not like it started again with Trump. Obama sold weapons for them also. I don't get why is it even a point to make. Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US
Where did I bring him up for no reason?
here
[โ]CheetoCrustedDick 96 points an hour ago
Hillary seems to a part of many failed strategies.
[โ]fec2245 [score hidden] an hour ago
Trump, as it turns out, is an even bigger supporter of the Saudis than the Democrats were. He approved weapon sales to Saudi Arabia to aid in their war in Yemen previously denied by the Obama administration.
and for your last point
A significant difference
Yeah, it is a significant difference if we're talking about a Civil War with a main faction like in Syria or Iraq, but Yemen is pretty much equally divided, so the independents nor the saudi-backed yemenis are 'Yemen', they're both fighting over Yemen.
fec2245 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:31:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I never said Obama didn't sell weapons to the KSA. I simply said Trump approved weapon sales that were previously denied by Democrats, not that he made the first ever weapons deal with them.
I think he means that it's failed to make them improve. You can shine a light on someone all day, but if all they do is wave their dick at you and flip you the bird and you don't do anything then that light accomplishes nothing.
I think that the Yemen war is a vast ongoing atrocity that has escaped the world's attention for a few reasons - but one of the main ones is the fact that the Human Rights Council says nothing on the issue. In turn, I think that Saudi membership of the council helps to explain its silence. Now if the members voted to expel Saudi Arabia on the basis of its ongoing mass murder, that would draw people's attention, and perhaps discourage support by the USA and other enablers.
Who cares about light shining? It's not like we only just found out in 2015 that Saudi Arabia has shit women's rights. Wake me when they quit stoning rape victims.
For the famine part? Yemen has long overwhelmingly relied on food imports. The Saudis destroyed all the food warehouses, ports and bridges early on, and they maintain a blockade on every part of the country (except for one port - although they destroyed the cranes there).
7 million lives are at risk. The UN is ludicrously calling for famine relief donations, as if the obvious solution is unthinkable: stop the goddamn blockade.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-24/yemen-on-brink-of-famine-mass-starvation-un-warns/8299776
it's not the strategy. it's HRC not understanding how it works or someone being misquoted. you can read my other posts to see how it actually works. i work for the UN Secretariat and its very much just a political thing.
Well, a lot more people are aware and care about the situation there now, I'd call that an improvement over ignorance and apathy.
I'm not sure what you would call an success, the problem in Saudi Arabia, just like all other longstanding global issues, is a HARD problem to solve, there are no miracle cures.
I love how people criticizes "failed strategies" without any (realistic) alternative of their own.
I disagree. I think that the Yemen war is a vast ongoing atrocity that has escaped the world's attention for a few reasons - but one of the main ones is the fact that the Human Rights Council says nothing on the issue. In turn, I think that Saudi membership of the council helps to explain its silence. Now if the members voted to expel Saudi Arabia on the basis of its ongoing mass murder, that would draw people's attention, and perhaps discourage support by the USA and other enablers.
Saudi Arabia benefits from the silence of the UN on this issue. In turn, that makes it easier to buy support from the US (weaponry, logistics and intelligence) and other enablers. Expelling the Saudis from the Human Rights Council and condemning the Yemen war would make it much harder for the Saudis to continue the atrocity. As it is, their forces do very badly in direct confrontations, despite all their advantages. Hence they've settled in for a long campaign of starvation, blockading as much food as possible in a country that has long depended on food imports.
By helping the Saudis to forestall condemnation by the Human Rights Council. Being on the council makes it much easier to prevent or dilute any condemnation by that body.
It may have helped the Saudis to prevent condemnation by the Human Rights Council. In turn, this may have encouraged the Saudis to wage their war in a more brutal manner.
UN condemnation would not help them, and could only hinder them. At the very least, it would mean the Saudis have to pay a higher price for the support they receive from other countries. It would also hinder other Saudi foreign policy aims, such as promoting Wahhabism as the gold standard of Islam. If everyone knew that they were trying to starve 7 million fellow muslims to death it would obviously make things trickier.
This is a well-known method for stopping bullying in preschoolers, and it works wonders if it is properly followed up by adults. We just don't call it anti-bullying committees.
abhikavi ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:52:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Where could I read more about this strategy? I've never heard of it. I'm interested in the research on preschoolers, not with the UN.
I have no idea, unfortunately. It has been 20 years since I had my education and the books I did use back than are all in Norwegian, so...
But the basic of it is to make the child who is the most likely perp "responsible" for the functioning of the group (together with an adult, of course). Because the child recognizes bad behaviour in others easier than in him/herself, the child can easier understand why the particular behaviour is bad and then, later with guidance recognize that he or she is exhibiting the same behaviour and need to stop.
It's a way to get around the childs defence-mechanism because children can easier see the mistakes of others.
Interesting. That makes sense, even though it seems counterintuitive at first. I wonder if it ever backfires (child becomes a tyrant).
I speak Swedish and may be able to read some Norwegian if you can find any more information. I haven't been able to find anything in English, perhaps the studies were only done in Norway.
I wonder if it ever backfires (child becomes a tyrant).
Oh it definitely will if the child is given responsibility and then left to himself. The method is dependent on an adult that is present and can guide the child.
I get the irony, but if you want Saudi Arabia to improve human/women's rights, or North Korea / Iran to stop missile or nuclear research, you want them at the table, not sitting in a corner by themself ignoring resolutions
Yes, Hitler wouldve surely stopped gassing the jews if he wouldve been put on the human rights council.
They dont give a shit what other people think, there are 2 options, either they blindly believe in their faith, which case we cant convince them with words because fanatics are immune to logic, or they are doing it out of ulterior motives like wanting to degrade other humans or simply keep themselves in power, in which case we cant convince them because greedy people dont give up on their power willingly.
Its either wait and let them sort it out by themselves or force them to obey, there are no other options, and giving them power is the most stupid thing you could possibly think of.
Zanzu0 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:04:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This doesn't give them power though, there are no binding resolutions from this. Its the best solution we have, since the whole 'forcing them to obey thing' probably can't really pan out. What do you want Europe to forcibly govern every single country in the world committing human rights violations?
But we arent oppressing SA, in fact we are helping them, which should be violating our own laws, but like always, as long as some fat buisnessmen get money off of it the law is irrelevant.
Sorry, I'm not trying to shut down any debate. It's just funny how frequent this happens on Reddit.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Besides the situations not being comparable like at all what you are saying is just not true. If we were to abandoned the Saudis then even bigger hardliners would come into power.
Yeah but a bully is a single person while Saudi Arabia is a country with people who aren't all the same
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:16:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If geopolitics could be reduced to elementary school platitudes like you suggest then even Trump would be capable of it.
[deleted] ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 13:48:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That was her attempt (a poor one) to explain her way out of accepting many many many donations from that backwards country.
[deleted] ยท -13 points ยท Posted at 13:58:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You realize they're our allies right? Of the U.S. in general?
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:01:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
on paper.. on paper.. but you can believe they are "our allies" if you want... a little help for your research. Wahhabism. WE, the world, has been fighting a certain anti west and very radical sect of Islam for quite some time. I ll let you take a second and figure out where this sect is from and who is busy supporting and spreading it.
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 14:04:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, in reality. Like we've sold hundreds of billions in arms to them.
US defense industry profits would only barely be obscene if they only sold to countries that didn't want to kill us. France would basically have NO defense exports if they worried about the weapons being used against their interests or just innocent civilians.
But allies would protect each other, not train a generation of young men with a venemous ideaology that sends thousands of them to kill the soldiers and civilians of the other side of the relationship.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:59:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well our three letter agencies certainly protect the Saudi Arabian regime from political rumblings.
If you believe Clinton actually thought they were appointed to shed light on their practices and not because Saudi has "interests" in the US, and likely Clinton herself, I've got one hell of a bridge to sell you.
Stuff like this is a large part of why she lost the election to the worst president we've ever had.
Saudi now has a title to point to that can help them dismiss claims of horrible treatment. "We're not horrible people, we've been appointed the head of these various UN councils!"
Sounds like a front so Clinton can/could keep getting donations from SA. Although I could see how it might inadvertently work (and I hope it does), Hillary is full of shit and I wouldn't trust a word out of her mouth on Saudi Arabia.
Waynok ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:48:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh come on, that sounds like an excuse, nothing more. We can damn well shine light on their human rights abuses without putting them in a position of power on that very topic!
You are a fool if you believe that. She did this as yet another favor to please her overlords - to help 'normalize' their beliefs, as you Hillary apologists like to say.
morered ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:20:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They aren't forced into these panels.
They LOVE to be on the panels so they can brag about it. It shows that other countries respect them and value their culture.
Abusers have been on these panels for decades and nothing has changed. Time to start the scorn back up.
It's not really working because muslim-majority countries have been using these council positions to redefine human rights as "freedom from questions about how we enforce our religious laws" and any such questions as "Islamaphobia".
Maybe if Saudis gave a shit what other people thought it might have an effect. Really though, by most accounts I've heard of people who've lived in the area, they never really have and it's only become worse with the whole "Fuck you, got oil" thing in the 20th century.
great idea. a bit like that time Obama won the nodel peace prize for inspiring speeches
Comeh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:28:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds to me like Donald Trump and his "Well, who better would there be to curb the influence of billionaires in Washington then me, a billionaire?" argument
CidO807 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:04:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you still need to be diplomatic when there are so many other messes (e.g. Syria)
peon2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How does that make sense? It isn't like only countries on the council are reviewed. If you want to "shine light" (meaning take no action) why not appoint other countries that will actually reprimand or take action against Saudi until they change their practices. You think Saudi will change if we simply shame them? Yeah, sure.
actually, HRC is wrong and that statement is wrong. i work for the UN, have worked for ECOSOC (the council where this commission is) and i continue to work on related work.
this doesn't happen for any intentional reason, nefarious or to raise awareness. it's purely political. Saudi Arabia wanted a seat and negotiated its way on there by trading votes for other things. countries build up political capital to get seats on various committees and councils and to host conferences, etc.
the UN didn't choose this. UN staff had no input. it's 100% on the member state side. criticize the member states who voted for SA, not the UN itself and the experts who work day in and day out on human rights and other issues.
that said, i have a Saudi colleague at the UN who is a big human rights activist here in the Secretariat. he advocates for women's' rights and human rights. no all Saudis think the way the monarchy/government/conservatives do there.
Oil, stability, and the literal center of Islam. The last point cannot be understated, as they aren't just the regime that controls the home of Muhammad, they control the point that EVERY practicing Muslim prays to daily and must make a pilgrimage to in their lives. The tourism money alone is obscene.
Why is anyone allowed to exist? Who is going to go kill them, you? You think Russia or any of the other regional players are going to stand idly by while the USA invades the most oil rich country in the ME and takes it for themselves? You think the Muslim world would stand by while USA invades the holiest site in all of Islam? Invading Saudi Arabia would be the fastest track to World War 3 you've ever seen. It'd be easier to just nuke ourselves to ensure a quick and clean death.
As absurd as that point is, I agree, but really what do you think could the Muslim world do, even if the US were crazy enough to do that? The only real absolute threat comes from the implied fallout with Russia and China. Even if the US straight up embargoed the entire middle east, it wouldn't harm the US.
Like I said it would be a stupid thing to do, but I think the threat in response could only come from everyone but the muslims. And you know if things get really super ugly the US could round them up too.
So no I don't think the US should nuke themselves. You'll notice I haven't even brought them up, do you think the other powers would retaliate even if the US straight up nuked Saudi Arabia? Why would they?
I think you don't want to find out what a completely unified and nuclear armed Muslim world would do if the US attacked Mecca. And don't forget the millions of religious Muslims within the West's borders who would be all for starting guerrilla warfare on the level of "The troubles" in every country there is.
Let me put it this way, how do you think Christians in the United States would react if a Muslim president decided to glass Jerusalem? We'd have to fight the Iraq war in our own country while simultaneously fighting nuclear armed Pakistan, Egypt closing the Suez and attacking Israel in concert with Iran closing the Persian gulf and attacking Israel likely to end up in a nuclear or chemical weapon exchange as a matter of survival for someone.
You'd be touching off a religious war that would never end before you even consider the geopolitical threats from Russia.
In a better world, we would all be sanctioning SA and refusing to purchase their oil or sell them our goods until they join, at the least, the latter half of the 20th century. But outside of that, what actions would you want taken against a sovereign nation?
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:54:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Expose their actions to the world community? You mean like by having them on a Women's Rights council at the UN so that they and the rest of the world discuss SA issues?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:04:28 on May 3, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Occasionally I do try. But when I do, I like the ideas I come up with to be ones that could at least possibly work. Coming up with ideas that sound nice and are either impossible to implement or would just make things worse doesn't seem like a good use of my time.
That may or may not work. There are plenty of Saudi women who don't want change. Remember, there were women who were opposed to suffrage in America and the rest of the western world too.
And if you think a country will look at a globally led, concentrated effort to destroy it culturally (no matter how crazy and fucked up their culture is) and decide to grow up, you have more faith in people than I do. I think we'd see them double-down on the crazy, just like you see with cults.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:06:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, a good chunk of the reason WW2 happened was because of how Germany was treated post WW1. I'd call WW2 an extreme example of the kind of negative side affect that can occur from this kind of intervention.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:01:24 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If these things were simple, do you think they'd go unresolved for so long? It's very easy to come up with a simple solution to a complex problem, and it usually means you're overlooking something.
In this case, no I don't think that Saudi Arabia will try to conquer nearby countries. I do think that provoking a government that's wealthy in resources and short on ethics by essentially trying to destroy it will have unpleasant consequences. Similar to how the strict sanctions placed on a poor country in Western Europe following WW1 had unpleasant consequences.
Would it lead to a world war? Doubtful. Would Saudi Arabia double down on the crazy and increase funding to groups like ISIS? Yes. Would the increased rise in global terrorism lead to more right-wing, conservative, and isolationist politicians in the western world? More than likely. Negative consequences.
And hey, for a bonus round. Do you think with even the current amount of concern people have over Islamic terrorism that there wouldn't be a lot of western backlash to bringing in SA refugees? And would we just be bringing in those women without children? Or would you expect mothers to abandon their sons to seek asylum?
They are a dessert country that is used to importing things with a standard of living many many times better than a great deal of developing countries.
While I have no doubt you would find takers on your offer of asylum to women I also have little doubt they could find suitable and willing replacements elsewhere.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:56 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their standard of living of living for anyone making decisions is definitely higher than the Nordic countries.
They are already importing most of their workforce from less prosperous countries. I have little doubt they would have difficulty finding women in less developed countries in sufficient quantities to offset the number that would take you up on your offer.
To put it simply, there would be nothing stopping them importing women from other, less wealthy countries. Like, Syrian refugees if they wanted Muslims, or anywhere in the world if they wanted to do anything similar to how construction happens in Dubai.
I dunno where you're from that lovesss refugees so much, but over here uk citizens would drown in their own rage froth if that was suggested as a solution. We can't even take small syrian orphans under our wing without a significant percentage of people going nuts about how theyre actually tiny adults disguised as children trying to sneak in to the country to bomb us.
Calibas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not selling billions in arms to a country that is literally the epicenter of radical Islam would be a good start.
I think that goes along with not selling them out goods, as I stated earlier. But it's a far cry from not allowing them to exist, which is what the guy I responded to was asking about.
morered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The comment I was responding to suggested that we shouldn't allow this country to exist. Keeping them off of human rights panels isn't exactly in the same ballpark.
No, that's not true, we don't have Universal basic income
Source: Saudi citizen
Zelllos ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But you pretty much don't pay taxes. Or so I heared. My knowledge is vague and not fact checked. VAT is only a possible concept that might hit in the future (with only 5%) but is absend now? And some products are still heavily subsidised. Which is common but other states use tax for this. Kinda could be viewed as universal basic income, although the concept is very different.
Existence in some other country is expensive. Pension after a live of work can still be tough in some cases. Theres tons of extra taxes additionally to the average 20% vat. Some basic needs like electricity are so heavyly taxed that the tax is actually higher than the actual price (in Germany). More than 100% tax in that case and sadly this one is fact checked :/
Although it is True, There is no official Document that you give to the government showing your income, the reason why for SA, is because 90% of the country income is OIL, OIL is held by a company called ARAMCO, Aramco is a company OWNED by only the government.
So Gov owns the country money, in USA people own the money and pay taxes to gov who mostly own nothing.
VAT is coming hard to Saudis, hitting 200% yes 200% for soft drinks and cigarettes, house prices going up (Now, almost 70% can't afford a house).
Electricity the gov used to pay almost 80% from your electricity, Now, the gov will take their hand off their support on JUNE, and same the gas prices (gas price = .24 per liter), in upcoming years the prices will be as same as the prices on the International Market
The reason why your country do that because you are the only main source of income to the government, you are the one who the gov works for and you are the one who is in control and keeps the gov in checked aka Democracy biatch
But in SA the government own the money and believe me, that there are a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck barely managing their life
morered ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi here, I like your generalization.
No average citizen allowed to be in Israel
and No average citizen afford to travel to Japan, I am above average in SA and I can't afford it
Western website says the Average Monthly Salary in Saudi Arabia: 15,745 SAR = $4200
Mostly it is 9000 SR = $2300 ... no way it is above that
Saudi Arabian in the USA mostly coming for education paid by the government (more than 100,000 SA students in the USA right now) so, you properly met a freshman.
If I made my judgment about US citizen based on freshmen students, Fuck me , have you seen American pie? :)
Zireall ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:21:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The avarage brainwashed males are the douchbags
Most of the young females are nice but too afraid to talk.
In college we had some of the exchange students from there. The men stuck together, had really nice cars, and shitty attitudes. One waved a gun at my friend for (legally) merging in front of him in traffic.
Plus where the clubs are I saw the way they would approach american women dressed for the club. It was really creepy. You would see like three of them like surround her and get really close until she would just like yell at them and back away, then they'd start angrily shouting shit at her.
People still shouldn't judge the character of an entire country's citizens based on their actions with a few college students that almost certainly come from the wealthy upper class of Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:09:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:47:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes/no.
There are two kinds of individuals studying abroad from Saudi Arabia. The first are /u/SonOfSparda304's kind, like /u/FuckReeds said - rich dipshits going on mommy and daddy's dime to vacation in America.
The other kind are the ones trying to get the hell out of Saudi Arabia. If I remember correctly, the king of Saudi Arabia has a bunch of scholarships he gives out, specifically because the bigoted clerics run education in Saudi Arabia, so he sponsors promising individuals as a way to get them away from the clerics, with the supposed intention that they learn and come back with that knowledge to fix the country.
As if a bunch of college graduates will be able to fix what he can't. Which is why the vast majority don't go back.
No one appointed Saudi Arabia. They were voted in. Every region had to be represented, and Saudi Arabia happened to be one of the least worst actors to select from in that region.
Yes. This needs to be higher up. In fact, they only won a seat because Asia only has 4 seats to fill and only 4 candidate countries campaigned for those seats: Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
This happened while I was working for Amnesty International, and our campaign story already had SA as the big violator of human rights. They had sentenced a blogger to public torture for criticizing the government ("blasphemy"), and we were working for his release. Nobody gave a shit. The campaign became unbearable when that same government joined the UN Human Rights Council.
I hate the word "slams" in todays media. Disapproving of a thing is not a slam. If I say I think the Starbucks Unicorn drink is dumb, I did not slam Starbucks.
It works, though. There's a reason clickbait buzzwords are used, and it's not because the authors want to insult the intelligence of their readers. Of the various writing styles that have been tried, this has shown to work best at getting attention. It's a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game." People respond well to sensationalism because it an indication of importance and excitement.
True. I think its just one of those things that I hate I fall for it. I too thought Saudi Arabia getting that appointment was a bad idea so the notion that they were "slammed" for it piqued my interest. I expected a 20 page treatise detailing this store. Naw, like 3 sentences that sure a redditor made a meme of the day it happened.
Whats next Saudi Arabia Russia on the LGBT rights board?
FTFY
[deleted] ยท 242 points ยท Posted at 13:28:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I still think Saudi Arabia would be more ironic. The Russian government imprisons gays which is pretty fucked up, but you do know what countries run by Islamist extremists do to them right? They often execute them. Hell in Iran so many gay guys get transgender surgery because apparently that is allowed but not being gay. So they force themselves to go through that, which I can imagine is not a pleasant thing to do if you are not actually transgender, so that at least they can have sex with the gender they are attracted to.
Which is true. I always find it ironic when people of the LGBT community stand up for them when they're killing gay people. If only people were more informed..
[deleted] ยท 94 points ยท Posted at 13:52:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
haha ikr? it's honestly sad that they're standing up for the people that believe they should be dead. But I think a lot of their(LGBT) protests are for basic human rights in countries that use Sharia Law, which is understandable, but standing up for Sharia Law and wanting it in the US is crazy and some people actually want it here!
The alt-left is real. I honestly think their is something reeeeally rotten happening on campuses that has these people staggering out of the place extremely pro-Islamist.
edit: let me know if you can see shout-cakes reply below mine, if not something is up.
GreedyR ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The 'alt' left is the establishment left, so I don't see the point in calling them alt. They are just the modern regressive left. Semantics, I know.
If there is something I learned over time is that the religious institution is not the same as the person of faith. Sharia law can go get fucked, but there are people in there who might be acccepting but they live in a country that doesn't let them.
Exactly! But I don't think many people know there's a difference between the two, or that many Muslims believe in Sharia law. When people in the LGBT community go out and protest FOR the Muslim community, they could be more specific in what Muslims they're supporting.
Not all Muslims are radical, but ones in Saudi Arabia, which are the ones they are supporting, not the ones in the US, which are probably more acceptant of gays.
IamVasi ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:30:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought you were talking about muslims in general. I didn't even know that people protested in favor of Saudi Arabia. Seems kind of odd.
Yeah, when the LGBT community does protest, they could definitely be more specific in who they're supporting. I understand when people protest for gays rights in Saudi Arabia, but supporting the Sharia law, c'mon.
You have to consider there may be open-minded muslims in Saudi Arabia who struggle with the oppressiveness of the law there, but they still don't have the power to change it.
Of course there are! And they are the ones that need to be trying to make change over there. People in the US protesting for their rights aren't doing much. There's definitely more that can be done to help, instead of protesting in the US, for something overseas, their own people can be protesting.
It's understandable that they don't though, if their country replies with torture and death. Waving some flags wouldn't work as well there as it did in the US.
Yeah thats true. And it sucks that theres not much for them to do besides hide and live their life. If riots here in the US can change lives for the good, it can happen over there.
If it was the majority of them, they would start a revolution. But instead the majority of them are happy with the way things are over there. You don't have to be a radical Islamist to support the radical Islamist
It's hard to start a revolution if you're not the ones with guns. Revolutions only happen when things reach such an extreme that hundreds or thousands of people are willing to die to fight back. The price is very steep.
maonxv ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 13:54:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who in the LGBT community stands up for sharia law?
Maybe you need to explain your position, because now I'm confused by your comment.
alibix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:54:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That the woman wasn't standing up for Sharia. She was stating the obvious. All religions have laws, and most of the followers will at least believe in it even though they think they are progressive.
"America's favorite cable news lesbian in the 9:54 P.M. time slot." It's got a real ring to it.
Lasereye ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:48:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
One of my friends who is in the LGBT community (and quite loud about it, about half of their posts on Facebook are something related to it) posted a few things about supporting Sharia in the past. I asked them how could they support Sharia and they said because it wouldn't affect them since they're not Muslim. I was sort of shocked that they thought that if Sharia law was enacted in a place it wouldn't affect everyone.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:20:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because this allows a religion to hide the things it does and the people with power in the religion can suppress others. It's a big issue in Amish co.munities, there are a lot of abuse/molestation that goes on but they are isolated so it never comes to light.
Lots of them. I even have a trans feminist socialist friend who thinks Islam is the best religion ever and Islam is a feminist religion too. I have no idea how they get brainwashed into thinking things like that.
Isn't Linda Sarsour pro Sharia? The lady who was one of the chief organizers of the Women's March (I could be wrong, but she was one of the speakers at least).
"Stand up for them" you mean stand up for muslims? The people who are discriminated for practicing a religion? Or are you talking about governments practicing sharia law? Cuz I'm pretty sure the LGBT community is not in support of sharia law.
Edit: I seem to have struck a sensitive cord here, so let me make this clear: There's a good reason for the LGBT community to stand in support of muslims in western countries who are being discriminated against for practicing their religion. Your dubious prejudices of a certain people based on questionable statistics does not conform to reality perse. Contrary to what your echo chamber says, not all 1.5 billion muslims on this planet support ISIS or stoning gay people. A large number of them actually are sensible and empathic human beings.
Yeah, it sucks they're being discriminated against, but when a good majority of their people believe in extremist ways, well they're unfortunately going to be discriminated and some people believe they're all like that. So yeah, it's ironic that people in the LGBT community would stand up for a community that believes in killing gays. Not that they all believe in killing gays, but it still happens.
Oh, well i have a handful of Muslim friends and none that i know of are openly against gays, and i don't believe many Muslims in the US are against gays. Its because of our two different societies, we're more accepting of them over here than they are accepted over there.
Because not all muslims are in favor of killing gays. In fact, I'd say most of them who don't live in countries practicing sharia law don't. Yet, they're being discriminated for practicing their religion. There's a reason for the LGBT to support them if you don't generalise 1.5 Billion people to your own prejudices.
What about women's rights? What about muslim's treatment of dogs? What about forcing women to cover up? What about slavery in Arab countries? The thing about Islam is that there's so many human rights violations occurring that even if you say "most don't believe in this 1 tenet", there are still a lot of things that they believe that are fucked up.
And if a Muslim has denounced every single practice that would be considered a human rights violation in western society, then are they really a Muslim?
Yes, they are. The same way I can denounce the poor treatment of gay people and women, the same way I can denounce ignorance of science and still be a Christian.
Remove the state sponsored obligation to be Muslim and there is no Human Rights violation, people can voluntarily subject themselves to whatever circumstances they wish.
So, honest question, if the person i replied to thinks it's wrong to lump all muslims as bad people because many of them dont partake in the human rights violations, but democrats advocate for all Muslims to be allowed to immigrate and practice their religion, doesnt that mean that they are supporting Muslims human rights violators? If you can't say "all muslims are bad people" because its a generalization, then you cant say "all muslims are good people". Just seems very weird that so many democrats accuse republicans of wanting to take away women's rights, all the while defending a religion that actively suppresses women's rights.
Women in America can choose to be Muslim (or not) if they want to never exercise their equal rights they can choose to do so. There are issues to be addressed with people trying to circumvent the justice system to hold others in a religion against their will, but this is far from a Muslim-only issue
That's one of those ideals that sounds good on paper, but doesn't really work well in the real world. Of course muslim American women have the right not to wear a hijab, but pressure from their religion, other muslims, or their immediate family means they aren't truly free.
Just look at the story last month of a hijab wearing teenager caught on video dancing in the UK. The comments on the videos from muslims sending her death threats were disgusting.
It's terrifying how many people like you want to instate thought police for the sake of Islam.
No, freedom has a legal definition and is actively protected. Even a left leaning person like myself will tell you that prohibiting conservative ideology is dumb. If we need to shore up civil liberty with additional protections let's do it, but legally inhibiting a religion or belief is authoritarian at best.
What do you think about the vast majority of high death toll terrorist attacks being attributed to Islamic Extremism? Doesn't seem like "too few people" to me.
Because all I've gotten so far is that โ50 deaths a year is enough for you to take someone else's civil liberties, yet your own are worth over 10,000 a year.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:02:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The people who are discriminated for practicing a religion?
Pretty sure he's referring to the fact that, even in first world countries, the majority of Muslims have overwhelmingly negative iew of the LGBT community, and many feel that discriminatiory measures (putting them in prison camps, etc) should be the law?
They don't, its the Muslims in Saudi Arabia that believe in killing gays. I don't think Christians over there believe in that, but I wouldn't doubt it that some do. Some Muslims believe in the Sharia law, some don't.
You also don't see Christians running around trying to kill gays
I've supported missionary work, in developing Christian nations this is a huge issue. The fact no one seems to know it in spite of the data being publicly available, is telling.
It happens, but no one reports on it, because it is a developing nation. Just like how almost no one has heard of Boko Haram, because they're in a developing country. I'm sure gays get discriminated against in the US, but there isn't a law(Sharia Law) that bans them from being open.
hughole ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:02:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tons of violence against gays, including murders, have been committed by Christians out of religious motivation and with religious justification. Many places that have a decent Christian population will also have groups within it calling for the death and execution of gays in accordance with their religious texts.
Are Christians active, supportive, or LGBT themselves? Yes.
Have Christians attacked, raped, and murdered people who were LGBT? Yes.
So have Muslims. But how often do you hear about Christians killing gays in todays world? And when you have a group of people, that use Sharia law to justify killing gays. And there will be extremists in any large group of people, you just don't think about it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:39:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Going off track a bit here but out of curiosity looking at your post history you seem to ping over to The_Donald quite often.
So why do you seem to care so much about LGBT attacks considering that everyone on that sub not only supports him repealing anti-discrimination laws but also accuses anyone who says that being LGBT is not a sin as "SJW propaganda"?
It just seems that you all only really give a shit about LGBT rights when you can whack one out over how much you hate Muslims but the moment you get a chance to act like a homophobic Saudi yourself you all jump on it.
Yeah i go on there a little bit, but, not everything is black and white. Theres plenty of things the sub says or does that i disagree with. But i still believe LGBT community should have rights here, and in other countries. Its not only Muslims in Saudi Arabia that are against the LGBT, they have the Sharia Law which makes being gay bad, it's just the society they grew up in. And why would I jump on a chance to act like a homophobe, even when I haven't.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:07:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's in their religious texts, the same for the other two major Abrahamic religions.
People will argue and claim it's not part of the religion to hurt gays, but the writings that the entire religion is based off of call for follows to kill gay people.if the religious texts aren't at the center of their religious teachings, then what is?
The radical islamists are the people throwing gays off the buildings. Moderate Islamists are the people on the ground watching, cheering on, not interfereing.
Dude that gay propaganda law doesn't put people in jail, it's not a criminal offence. In grand total, across the whole country it led to like a dozen $100 fines. And it only prohibits to tell minors about homosexuality.
Hell in Iran so many gay guys get transgender surgery because apparently that is allowed but not being gay. So they force themselves to go through that, which I can imagine is not a pleasant thing to do if you are not actually transgender, so that at least they can have sex with the gender they are attracted to.
I still can't get over that. It's so sociopathic and yet well-meaning. It's like having a crazy, abusive uncle trying to provide for your happiness.
Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran certainly are oppressing LGBT rights, but I wouldn't say that gay guys are "forced" to go through transgender surgery. While being black or female is something you can't hide, but being gay is something you can fake. Not that hiding your sexual orientation should be normal, but it's certainly better than the alternative. And it's not like they must have sex with the sex they're attracted to. I'm American and I still can't have sex with the sex I'm attracted to.
ndiezel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russian government doesn't imprison gays because they are gays. Generalisation doesn't help the cause.
well Chechnya is currently rounding up gay men, interrogating them to find other gay men and then beating them to death. It's not formally endorsed by the Russian government but then extermination programs rarely are.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 16:09:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Russians imprison gay people? It's worse than that, they kill anyone that is gay immediately and throw them in a waste in Siberia. They also absolutely adore murdering little children and old people. Didn't you know - it's actually illegal to be old or a child in Russia? If they find you they throw you into a gladiator arena filled with polar bears. Putin himself drives around Russia and personally kills gay people, old people, children and women. Russia is also responsible for around 95% of global warming.
Honestly there is no wonder there is so much hate against Russia - they really are the ultimate enemy of our planet and the greatest enemy of true patriotic freedom loving Americans.
They don't force themselves, the government basically gives them the choice of mutilation, banishment, or execution. The amazing thing is that some conservatives I know here in America use this as an example of progressive policy in Islam (millennial Republicans are weird). As a bisexual man this scenario would be one of my worst nightmares. Just because I am sometimes attracted to men does not mean I don't want to be a man and want to have my genitals mutilated
No, they just put you in horrific prisons if you're not in Chechnya.
Russia is just as messed up in this regard. There's a threshold for terrible and they crossed it.
VCUBNFO ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:02:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, that's the heavily Muslim region of Russia. While the Russian government is bad on lgbtq rights, they are nothing like the Chechnya which they struggle to control.
It's still their domain, but let's set that aside. The fact remains that they passed legislation to criminalize homosexuality, which crosses the rubicon on being terrible for LGBT rights. Everything after that is just increasing degrees of shittiness. We should be decrying any and all such acts, not just the ones in Muslim majority countries or territories.
VCUBNFO ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 16:11:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Banning homsexuality, while a horrible thing, is on a different level than rounding up gays and killing them.
LGBT people are fleeing Chechnya for safety in Moscow ...
I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying there is a gradient of shit, and a threshold for "absolute shit", and that fleeing from a darker shade to a lighter one that's still shitty doesn't automatically absolve that lighter one of their shit.
Moscow is still pretty crappy to be gay in, whether it's better by comparison or not.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:15:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Chechnya is 95% Muslim. So yeah, it is Muslims doing it, nothing to do with Russians.
Lol Russia has no control over it, they fought 2 wars and that only ended when the leader of the rebellion defected to Russia . Russia literally cannot afford another war basically leaving Kadyrov in charge allows them to contain the problem. It's not really like US because it actually has the power to stop shit happening in Puerto Rico .
they just put you in horrific prisons if you're not in Chechnya
No one puts gays in prison in Russia. It's a fact you can check in 5 minutes of googling. There's a threshold for terrible brainwashing and whatever country you are from crossed it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:10:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Need I keep reminding people that Chechnya is 95% Muslim? It's not Russians doing this, its Muslims. Guess what, the average Russian don't like Muslims.
Yeah, in Russia there are vigilantes all over the internet that pretend to be other gay people on personals websites. Someone goes to meet a date, and instead of the person they were expecting it's a group of thugs that brutally abuse (often in unspeakable ways) and sometimes kill the unfortunate gay person that fell into their trap.
One of these guys that does it is well-known nationally, and yet, nothing happens to him. In fact, nothing seems to happen to anyone who beats up or kills gay people.
I just searched and all I could find was an article about the leader of one vigilante group who got arrested, and then another article about how that same guy's sentence was later reduced.
If you have any articles/sources regarding prosecution of anti-gay vigilantes I would be interested to see them. I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to read about it. If they are actually prosecuting these people (and not just one or two individuals since it is much bigger than that) that would be very positive and welcome news. Considering Putin himself has been really active with pushing anti-gay policies recently (like "gay propaganda" law), I'm surprised to hear it. It's okay if the articles are in Russian.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:38:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But Chechnya is not all of Russia, is it ? It is a republic within the Russian Federation and, correct me if im wrong, could have some different laws, and their leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, does not represent all of Russia.
As a Muslim I agree with you,Saudi Arabia is the most stupidest country ever,women can't drive,can't go out without husband or family related,can't do that can't do this,I'm a Muslim from Malaysia FUCK YOU SAUDI ARABIA!!!
We pretty much get segregated from the Muslims starting from school, both socially (we form our own social groups and distrust each other) and academically (guess which group gets special bonuses with grades). And then the corruption from the majority Muslim government doesn't help with support from non-Muslims even further.
The only Muslims I've managed to get close to and be friends with are those who do not take their religion so seriously. Those Muslims are the cool Muslims. Not forced to wear hijab, but still follow some things like not wanting to eat pork.
Depends on the definition of the term though....from what I've read about Malaysia, Chinese and Muslims seem to be two separate entities there(I'm not sure about whether Malay people and Muslim are the same group though). But here in China, I consider the Hui and Uyghur boys in my school as Chinese as I am. Hui people from big cities are not that Muslim-ish though except their choice of diet and occasional trips to mosques(not necessarily for prayers lol one of my friend only goes there to get the free meat-stew they provide in holidays). Uyghur students who go to university are usually pretty secular too. However in recent years there are ineed growing animosity towards Islam in general I observed on our internet, as people reading news about things like IS and thinking/judging on their feet.
The outrage of the population tells me the nation is not behind it. In SA the population is mostly in support of caveman-like savage primitive Muslim laws.
You have to remember like other countries Malaysia has a very religious rural conservative base. It's the reason Islamic law and Sharia law is in practise in the conservative states.
In general, while Islam is a shit religion no matter where you are, the people in SEA are less likely to support Islamic law ruling over everything because they are somehow able to separate what they want Islam to be about from what it is actually about.
The trend is reversing though, more and more people are in support of shariah then before. Mostly due to Wahhabists money and influence in the region.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 15:54:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or we can just not hate on the 3rd biggest religion and all the people that are a part of it, and realize that sharia law doesn't come from the Quran and their prophets teachings. You know, and like not base an opinion on an entire religion from what extremists think? You're sounding awfully racist, and it's quite baffling that so many people on this sub have the same mindset as you.
Sharia not only is mentioned multiple times in the Quran but the the Hadith instructs it clearly.
Muhammad had a hand in dictating it, how is it not wrong?
You're so misinformed that it's funny.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 17:44:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like you don't understand what "sharia law" is. Sharia law, especially those in the Saudi Arabian government, especially the ones concerning woman's rights, does NOT come from the Quran or Their prophets teachings. Which is what I said. The term "sharia" and "sharia law" describes different things.
Make sure you are informed before accusing others of being misinformed. A quick google search will help you with that.
Are these the same people who argue that Jihad was never in the Quran and completely ignore 1.24 and 1.25 of the Sahih Bukhari?
And have you forgotten that Sharia Law is comprised of verses of both the Quran and the Sunnah?
One biased article is not going to damage control your brutal religion.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:09:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure you consider any article that doesn't agree with your political views "biased". Have you forgotten that all these holy books have a lot in them that's left up to interpretation? Do you realize what that means? That's what opens the door to extremism. Do you understand that extremism is literally a bunch of people who interpret a set of views in such a brutal way that most of the world doesn't agree with them? There were Christian extremists, Islamic extremists, and many more forms of extremism to come. And tell me, what exactly are you gonna do about it? You seem like the kind of person who would just sit on their asses and argue about it over Reddit, lumping billions of innocent people into the same category as extremists, and blaming it on the whole religion because you interpreted a few passages the same way that they do, acting like you've accomplished something. The way reddit feels towards muslims feels like complete hate to me.
You're no better than the laws of Saudi Arabia that are oppressive to women, if you think that hate towards an entire religion of people is okay. You sound like the Nazi Party.
EDIT: And don't misunderstand me, I am NOT advocating anything any extremist does, or shitty oppressive laws.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:13:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Criticizing a religion for it's inconsistency with human rights is just as bad as beating women to death for adultery? No. Are you aware of the concept of free speech?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:21:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you're gonna criticize a religion for that, you might as well criticize every religion, since every god damn holy book is interpreted in many different ways.
Reddit doesn't "criticize", it hates.
It hates and most of the time it doesn't bother to do any research at all and just goes off of the title on a post.
I know what free speech is, and I put it to good use instead of spouting off on issues I don't understand.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:33:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are many more references to violence in the Quran than in the Bible (especially targeted against women), and muslims generally accept the Quran as the literal word of God, whereas most Christians believe the Bible was written by disciples and is therefore imperfect. Lots of differences between the two religions. Jesus preached love and forgiveness - the contents of the Quran are not so admirable. Speaking as an atheist who has read both texts.
You cannot use the interpretation argument, the Sahih Bukhari leaves things very clear and the Quran has little to no narrative so there's nothing to interpret but the literal meaning itself.
And the Quran is VERY clear, for example, it is clear that Jihad is a form of war that Muhammed took part in or that sex slaves were allowed even if they had polytheist spouses.
You acting like all of it is relative just means you are oblivious.
And I'm not putting these people in the same category as murderers, I am however holding them accountable for following a religion that asks for you to be a murderer.
Reddit hates Islam and those who act upon it, if you're a moderate muslim it just means you're following it in a selective manner.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My Quran is dog-eared. I use Muhammed Zafrulla Khan's translation. The text reads as a first person proclamation by god without narrative.
It is literally a book of direct orders of behavior and law, with explanations that if you don't follow the laws, you are going to pay.
The Hadith is worse, as it gives context to the Quranic verses: a petulant, child-like warlord receiving divine law ad-hoc to justify his behaviour during his rampage across Arabia.
The actions of the pious mobs in the MENA region, the justifications of the Sharia states, and even the actions of ISIS and the Taliban are all very plausible readings of the texts.
That I can read an Iran Age monster fulfill his warlord fantasy and then not be able to call it poison without being a racist is a serious problem.
You should go ahead an read these before you get too worked up.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:04:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Extremists or not, the Qur'an, like the Bible, has a lot of absolutely ridiculous teachings. Sure, it's great if Christians, Muslims, etc decide to take the cafeteria approach and pick and choose what to believe and follow from their holy books...but it in no way means that their religion and hideous tomes should be attacked any less rigorously.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:09:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if you've read the Quran, but there is a LOT left up for interpretation. All these ridiculous teachings and debates about what is actually said in any holy book is quite literally people just interpreting passages in different ways. Feel free to disagree with any religion but don't lump all it's members and it's teachings with extremist ideology.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:21:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I never said nor lumped everyone into any "extremist" category. My point is that what one person calls an extremist, another person would call a faithful follower to the exact/actual/true word of Allah/God. My other point is that most people take religion and then conform it to what they already believe to be true, which is why almost nobody actually believes or follows everything their holy book says (at least not in modern times). Also, you are correct about things being open to "interpretation"...but that's another point of mine. What kind of God would allow something so (apparently) important such as his Holy Book to be so easily misconstrued? Seems pretty obvious that this is just ridiculous. It's not my fault God is incapable of producing something better.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:27:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, I've always been told as a kid that things are left up to interpretation as a test, that life is a test, and based on your decisions and what you choose to believe the book says is a deciding factor on if you are a good person and deserve to go to heaven. I'm not gonna get into what I currently believe and I won't argue most of what you are saying because you aren't wrong. I'm saying that people shouldn't think that extremist ideas are what Islam is about. I know a lot of people don't agree with me, but as I was taught, it's supposed to be a religion of peace.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:43:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:59:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most Muslims don't follow the hadith or care about it. Many don't even trust the hadith as it's information isnt even that accurate. Muslims aren't required to follow it just the Quran
Can i get a source on your "most" because I'm from a Muslim country and yeah people do follow it. Hell the only muslims i know who don't trust the hadiths(quranists) are from western countries and their view is an extreme minority in the Muslim world.
Many don't even trust the hadith as it's information isnt even that accurate
Also there are levels of authenticity regarding hadiths with Sahih being the highest classification and Sahih Bukhari being the highest. Most of the practises in Islam come from the hadiths including how to pray, when to pray and the wudu before prayer. Anyone who claims they don't follow the hadith don't know what they are talking about.
What is your opinion on forcing women to wear burqas? I'd be very interested in seeing the opinion of a seemingly progressive Muslim who doesn't live US or British suburbia
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:22:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You know in the UK it's legal for me to go topless unless someone gets offended and tells me to put a top on and I refuse... then I can be arrested. For a man, not so. I've had uk people tell me its fair this way for reasons ranging from "men don't have tits though" (I've seen men with bigger tits than mine) to "but if women walked around naked all the time (which no one was suggesting anyway) then tits wouldn't be as sexy because we'd all be bored of them."
All of these people were pretty moderate people. These opinions while perhaps not amazing well thought through, do not make them shit heads.
Let's not shit on each other for cultural or personal differences.
Women's breasts aren't generally considered to be a "sexual organ" - you might mean secondary sex characteristic, of which things like widened hips and men developing deeper voices is the same thing - features that develop after puberty.
How many of these features are covered up per gender is a consequence of culture. Some tribes go around in the nip all day. Some countries have women covered from head to toe in public.
A woman might see a man's chest and think, I wanna fuck that. That doesn't mean a man's chest should be covered because women might get randy, right? And what about gay guys checking out other guys? Why is it only important to cover up that specific secondary sexual attribute on only one gender in relation to straight men and gay women?
It's personal preference, it doesn't hurt anyone, and so why would you allow a specific subset of people to be told to make themselves "modest" just because someone gets morally outraged about it?
To put this another way, I think on most UK beaches you could probably sunbathe topless without bothering anyone. Now imagine if Abu Hamza came along and told me to cover up or he'd call the police - now I have to or I'm breaking the law, even if in local culture terms nobody else around me was bothered. Despite how you personally feel about female public toplessness, do think it's a good idea to allow just boobies to be policed like this?
Yes, but not to the point of boobs, there are very seperate levels of suggestiveness. For example, women may have abs but men cannot have boobs, if men had something of the equivalent of boobs (Like the nutsack) then it makes sense for it to be covered up.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:54:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well there's also the normalization of actions but that's something else entirely.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:39:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thee Quran actually does not require women to wear hijabs (though some hadiths do but this varies between sects). What the Quran requires is modesty and it requires this of both men and women. That means different things in different cultures. For instance hijabs are banned in Turkey and the Hui people of China do not typically wear head coverings. While Western non-Muslims can find it strange that some women cover up so much, consider what you might wear if you visited an Aboriginal tribe that lived in the rainforests of Brazil. What would you wear? You probably wouldn't feel comfortable wearing just a loin cloth and jewelry. Many women simply view it as dressing in a way they feel comfortable. Also, in many countries where women wear hijabs or more, men also cover up more than a typical western man.
On being forced though...the Quran says that one should not be forced to do religious things. Many women just want to be free to wear or not wear what they choose.
Its disgusting to forcing women to wear burqa,We only been told to wear hijab so burqa is a choice especially in Malaysia and Indonesia (Indonesia is the biggest Muslim populations),but in SA you MUST wear them and to me its sound so extreme since u can't wear hijab (the one who we supposed to wear)
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:21:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:29:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why should she? Would you be able to stomach existence if that was your reality? Who am I kidding, you're a redditor. You probably want to end your privileged existence anyways, cause you fucked it up and disappointed your parents.
ridzzv2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:58:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im pretty sure im among the top 5% of happiest people who happen to be using reddit
camaxtly ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:40:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most stupidest?
namapo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:02:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't type like this in any of your other comments.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:58:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That means...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:08:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:12:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Makes sense.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:51:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
eXiled ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:19:31 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your english is pretty good and the joke was funny.
[deleted] ยท -26 points ยท Posted at 13:07:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 13:09:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm willing to bet they're all upper class that can afford drivers. What about the women who('s husbands) can't afford a driver?
From my understanding there aren't really any poor Saudi citizens thanks to oil-subsidized welfare and "job" programs. Poor as in the global definition of poor, obviously there are some Saudis that she better off than others but the majority citizens would be able to afford a driver. It's the millions of female foreign workers that are getting fucked by these policies. And Saudi women support it because it's similar to why poor whites in the Confederacy supported slavery, it always feels good to be inherently better than someone else just for being born
Yeah, most of the women that I've met are upper class since they come to the States to study.
Lower class women don't have those luxuries and are treated like garbage. But those women typically aren't of Saudi decent either, they tend to be from other countries like Indonesia and are literal slaves. It's disgusting.
Zireall ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 13:20:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Uhh.... no, there are in fact a lot of poor saudi people... they're not all rich.
Show me something that proves that please. The wiki page shows that the GDP (PPP) $55,229 which is only $1,991 less than the United States where the average citizen is certainly not considered poor on a global scale even if they look poor compared to the wealthy elites of the country.
Are you sure? I know they're not all rich but I'm pretty sure I've heard all Saudi citizens live to at least the standards of a lower-middle class American (minus having rights and all that) even if they're incompetent fuck-tards because of oil money subsidized welfare and "job" programs
You're right, they may want drivers. Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? That's what we have here. Just because they use the survival technic of learning to live with the limitations imposed on them, it doesn't make it right in any way whatsoever. Seeing as you are a female, I am appalled at your lack of sympathy.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:04:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Xenepa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:19:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Raksso ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:30:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im sure they wanted to get raped too and getting executed for it. They should be happy that they are not indonesian sex slaves. Saudi women are spoiled princesses. /s
According to your reasoning, we should not rescue any victims if they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. I hope you are never kid napped for a number of years, as you may very well develop SS in order to survive, and people take your own opinion that you shouldn't be rescued because you defend your perpetrator.
You are displaying a lack of understanding for basic human psychology. That is very dangerous. Please educate yourself so you don't become an obstacle for people actually advocating for victims.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:18:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The article here says that women have virtually no rights whatsoever. They must have a males permission to work and get education. They need a mans permission to receive healthcare. I will repeat this. THEY NEED A MANS PERMISSION TO SEEK/RECEIVE HEALTHCARE. The penalty for women, if caught driving, can be FLOGGING. They can literally be stripped, and beaten bloody with rods. If that was what I faced, I too would fool myself into thinking I liked being driven around. That's what you to do preserve your sanity. You accept it, and find a way to not hate it.
Do not make the assumption these dudes are treating women like princesses. Probably some do. But do not make the mistake of thinking that's the majority.
I find it unfashionable that you can continue to defend this. Until women are not faced with being stripped by men, and beaten with rods until their skin bursts open, they absolutely will continue to tell themselves they like being driven around.
Eiden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:32:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You made a good point, and I don't know why you're getting down voted. The culture completey controls the way these women think. It's normal for them, but it's not normal for Western civilization. These women would probably want more rights if they understood what having rights meant. They just see not being allowed to drive as being a part of who they are. I don't think it should be that way, and I believe the whole religion is horribly misogynistic, but it takes cultural change to let women think for themselves. Just the fact that they can not drive whatsoever because they have a pussy is disgusting to me, but my my values revolve around the Constitution which got revolves around Judeo Christian values.
No, rape is ALLOWED as women are "a playground for men."
zombitez ยท -28 points ยท Posted at 13:14:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you're going to be aggressive and want to have credibility, substantiate your aggression. Burqas are not worn in Saudi arabia, women can and do work.
That was my point yes but it's just a matter of being factually correct burqas are a typical Afghani piece of clothing Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries prefer the niqab. I seem to have annoyed people by asking for accuracy. Despite stating a fact I am being down voted to shit even without giving an opinion. Oh well.
Ok, but the Niqab is worn and women have to have a male guardian or driver take them to work. It's still so fucked up. It's like 50% of the population is made up of slaves.
Eh, those same women actually have slaves themselves. You should look up Saudi women full-on torturing their foreign slaves and getting away with it. You have to understand while they're being oppressed, it doesn't exempt them from being colossal shitfaces themselves. Plus, a huge amount of them are very conservative and strongly against things changing.
tiftik ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:42:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Slave isn't the word I'd use, considering a lot of these women have insanely high living standards. They live in their gilded cages. Also they have actual non-Saudi slaves working in their country.
That was my point yes. I seem to have annoyed people by asking for accuracy. Despite stating a fact I am being down voted to shit even without giving an opinion. Oh well.
akmaa ยท -31 points ยท Posted at 10:56:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i must be doing something wrong because my wife keep going out without Burqa and not even asking me for permission ! how dare she ! /s
akmaa ยท -16 points ยท Posted at 11:08:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ill just post what the other guy said below.
No, they're saying it's demeaning because they're working on the serious issues that you deem mundane while the rest of the world says "BUT DRIVING". Dude, they just won themselves the right to vote, they just got themselves the right to own a business, and they have financial independence due to education and the mass hiring of women in the past 6 years. Huge changes are taking place in Saudi Arabia, while everyone keeps going back and reducing Saudi women to their lack of a single mode of transportation.
Can you see how demoralizing that is? To work your ass off for 15 years then for someone behind a screen to tell you that you're a poor little helpless thing because you can't drive a car?
This is a dumb argument. You can't excuse a problem within a society because someone else feels it's not the most important problem. If you could do that, you could essentially excuse any problem with "well other progress has been made so you can't reduce all of Saudi women's plight to that issue!!".
Saudis filthy wahabis that that do not allow women to go out without Burqa
The burqa is not required in Saudi Arabia.
women are not allowed to work here
Women can and do work in Saudi Arabia.
Anyway, the point of putting Saudi on these boards is to force them to engage with human rights. It's not a reward.
tkinbk ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:33:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who is the Chairman? Bill Cosby?
croimlin ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:58:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Finally, the UN gets something right for once. I can't think of a better nation to pick. Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam, and wearing the burqa is one of the most liberating and feminist things you can do (I even bought one for my wife to wear, even though we're not Muslim and it does get a little hot here in Berkeley. Her son thinks it's badass). The fact that Saudi Arabia makes the burqa mandatory shows how committed they are to feminism. Sad to see all the islamophobia in this thread. You all need to get off your high horse, look in the mirror and see that you have your own problems with women like the wage gap, manspreading, tampon taxes, slut shaming, mansplaining, and sexist tropes in video games.
The raison d'รชtre of the UN is to keep open channels of communication and dialog so that in times of crisis we don't have to bootstrap such interaction with zero momentum. It seems only natural that you run out of stuff to keep talking about since most of the time, we're not in crisis (not really). This is one of the big problems with the UN: everyone loves it when you need it, but everyone hates it when they're not busy. "What do these people do all day?" They just keep talking, and talking, and talking because they're just trying to 'keep the lines open'. It can start to feel like a filibuster.
But, they keep inviting countries like Saudi Arabia to participate because it's important to keep talking about it and drilling into their heads. It's not like the ECOSOC is going to agree with Saudi Arabia and embrace their ideology toward women. Instead they're going to hen peck and engage them about it, on and on and on.
It might not be sexy. And it may border on some Brazil-like Terry Gilliam movie, but doesn't that just come with the territory? It is absurd to talk for talking's sake. But not when you're try to keep people from jumping off the ledge.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:52:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Forums go both ways. Do you really think, given a forum for discussion, that Islamists will persuade us to convert to extreme Islam via discussion? It's more likely that our ideas will seep into their world than the other way around. haha, given current circumstances: "Or, is it?"
Given the current state of the west, it seems as though Islamists have convinced a large body of the left to target ex-muslims and atheists, and to suppress blasphemy against Islam.
At this point I have come to believe anything is possible.
Ultimately, the UN is for emergencies, and it doesn't do well with these kind of slow-burning societal issues it seems. Famine? UN. War? UN. Aliens invade Earth. UN. Religious values: Not UN.
Donut ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 13:48:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is a federation of governments, not a club of countries. Most governments in the world suck, so how could the UN be better?
I think this is what most people miss about the UN. It's a federation of nations - not an ideology.
It would be like the US Senate excluding Texas because it's more conservative.
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:17:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the UN would be pretty pointless if it was just Western countries with similar views on these issues.
mielove ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:41:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it would be the definition of an echo-chamber. I don't think people realise that discussion and cooperation with problematic states is far more useful.
No, I mean, on a technical level at least, he's right. UN Members are specifically considered "Member States" not "Member Countries" for this reason. A "country" could have several governments, but the UN could choose to recognize only one of those as the country's "State" (I.E. Libya)
Under Saudi law, a woman must have permission from a male family member, normally the father, husband or brother -- in the case of a widow, sometimes her son -- to obtain a passport, marry, travel, exit prison and sometimes work or access health care.
I was aware of some of these things, but not the ones I highlighted. So, if a woman gets arrested alone in public because her brother went to the men's room, she then needs his permission to leave prison after serving her sentence. And accessing health care, I guess I assumed she needed an escort to get TO health care, but I wasn't aware she needed permission to be treated. How is this country on any UN council at all?
The world is not all how our culture wants it to be. Slowly assimilation is happening more and more thanks to the internet/information and more global awareness. It doesn't change in a day. What the UN is doing is inviting them to sit down and welcome them to talk communicate and educate themselves over time. Exiling someone and saying they can't be apart of it will only keep them further in the dark and much less willing to adapt/conform. It won't happen today, or this week. But it is happening slowly, it just appears so much worse because we are shining lights on it and are able to show so many more events to the world than we were once able to. That helps people see, but forcibly changing someone's culture abruptly is always a bad idea, it takes time. I am not a patient person either, but sanctions and punishments for having grown up in another culture is not how you would help a friend. And if you say they are not a friend to us today so we should not treat them so, then you should not expect them to treat us so in the future.
Islam is as closed-minded as any other dogmatic religion. Criticise my religion and I'll discuss with you all day long, I won't crucify, enslave, or blow you up about it. There's the difference between a peaceful idealism and religious zealotry. One of them tells you what to do, the other is a personal belief.
I've been called racist for criticizing Islam around reddit. Not just mindless pop off like your quote, but when using statistics or religious quotes. r/politics comes to mind, I specifically remember being told that criticisms of Islam have a racial base.
If you experience downvotes, it may be because your post is only semi intelligible.
People attack or criticise Islam all the time, it does not trigger mass downvotes as an automatic. If people attack all Muslims in one broad stroke that can be considered "racist" (even though Islam is not itself a race) but in common parlance that doesn't necessarily require a specific, defined race to be the target. Defining "race" is tricky for a start, why are all people of recent African descent described as "black" for example? That is as broad as "Muslim".
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 11:33:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
welp as a child burn of a Muslim dad ( and non Muslim mother Jehovah witness ) i know strange combo.
Every time i bring up criticism about Islam i get down voted to shit or called a racists / Islamophobe.
While i can easily criticize Jehovah witness Christianity or whatever.
Seems like a lot of people think Muslims need protection cus there weaker and less educated ( stupid ) witch in my eye,s is racists to the core
Isis is practicing TRUE Islam ( to the word ) can also not be said
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 12:31:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually they will be a majority in a couple of generations ( based on total world population )
If noting changes that is.
Loads of atheist in the middle east ( although u hardly hear about em ) sins they need to keep it secret for obv reasons
They aren't practicing true Islam. You're pulling shit out of your ass.
Wahhabism goes against teachings on so many levels. They attack christians and Jewish holy grounds even though they are accepted as the previous true religions. They consider Shias and Sunnis non Muslim which is unacceptable - but can only attack Shia because their funders are Sunni.
No, they don't practice true Islam. You aren't one to define true Islam. The scholars who spend their entire lives building on this religion are the ones people listen to not someone like yourself who thinks he understands the religion because he has a Muslim father
Yea yea keep saying that.
The old testament was also not true Christianity right ?
Mohamed was also not a pedophile.
He was also not a murderer warlord.
And Islam was not spread by the sword.
Read about the history of Mohammed.
At the start he was peaceful and preached love and acceptance.
That did not work and he got kicked out / ignored / attacked.
Then over time he went all ape shit and this worked.
And yes its more complicated but ill keep it short cus my written English sucks
Seems like a lot of people think Muslims need protection cus there weaker and less educated ( stupid ) witch in my eye,s is racists to the core
I wouldn't say that is the case, it is probably because in the last 20 years or so Muslims are attacked constantly. So there is an element of wanting to defend a group of people, but not because they are weaker and more stupid.
jelrob ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 12:07:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think there absolutely is a functional difference between racism and Islamophobia. Race is an unchangeable set of physical characteristics that people are born with. Islam is a set of ideals, beliefs, and practices that may be adopted by anyone of any race, and has more in common with Mormonism than being born black. Of course, it is extremely prejudice to judge a group of people solely based on the religion they practice, but I see nothing wrong with judging the religion itself. I, for one, as a gay woman have many problems with some of the widespread teachings of Islam, just as I have a problem with some of the teachings of evangelical Christianity. But for whatever reason, when I criticize Christianity, progressives applaud me, and when I criticize Islam, they call me a racist.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:02:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:22:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:26:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 115 points ยท Posted at 13:13:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People seem to lack an understanding of how the UN works. It's supposed to open a channel for discussion. If you want to improve women's rights in Saudi Arabia you have to get them at the table.
tuketu7 ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:34:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Get them to the table, yes. Have them head up the table, no.
Also, from my limited exposure to international relations, UN committees like this have informal arrangements where a certain number of countries from each continent will be included, and which countries those are rotates. SA might not have wanted to be put on this committee, or sought out appointment to it, but it may have just been part of the rotation of the countries in Asia.
I don't know, the government of their last king actually seemed to care about women's rights and managed to achieve some small things (for example criminalizing domestic violence), but there is only so much their progressive (form a Saudi point of view) politicians can do without angering the powerful conservative forces in the country. The last king wanted to allow women to vote in the municipal elections and outlaw child marriages, but that was stopped by their conservatives.
I have not followed Saudi Arabia recently so I do not know if the progressive forces in Saudi Arabia are in a position right now to push for any reform.
Complete false equivalence. If you'd read the above comment, that's not how to UN works. Getting put on a UN panel isn't a reward for doing something good. It's so that countries get called out on their shit in front of the world.
Again I think you're misunderstanding how the UN works. It's not a regulatory body. An "investigation" wouldn't accomplish anything since no sanctions could be imposed. It's a place to convince other countries why their actions are wrong. And if a country like Saudi Arabia doesn't have a seat at the table they're not even going to be part of the conversation
fec2245 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:07:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What would an investigation accomplish? The US would block any sanctions that could possibly arise and with veto power it doesn't really matter if they deserve sanctions.
wic0101 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:53:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't need to in the CSW for the commission to call you out. By being an elected member of the CSW, Saudi Arabia can now have more power influence the agreed conclusions of the commission, and probably dilute them down to pick out elements they don't like. It's a bad idea, not an opportunity.
You may very well be right, but the point is that's not how it and other UN commissions are designed to work.
Look at the list of member states. It's a mix of developed and developing countries. They're promoting discussion between everyone. I'm not saying that's the best way to structure it or that it accomplishes everything it sets out to, but this isn't anything new
wic0101 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:17:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I mean, I don't mean that a dialogue between member states won't happen. Given Saudi Arabia's notoriety already, being on the CSW will surely bring more light to their grotesque track record. But at the same time, being on the CSW will led them more formal power to taint the outcome of CSW and damage its legitimacy, especially since CSW has always been seen as one of the more legitimate and important institutions within the Economic and Social Council.
Dumb comparison. Positions on committees are not prizes or rewards. They are involvement in a process and guess what, if you want to make changes in places like Saudi Arabia, that will in fact involve them. Were you to freeze them out of the process then there's no chance at all of formulating a way of addressing the problems.
you can't just have a bunch of "corrupt foreigners" running this; they will be rejected out of hand. And rightly so, to be honest. How arrogant do you have to be to go around the world telling everyone how to act without taking into consideration at all the history and existing sentiment? That's both doomed to failure and damn rude.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:46:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you think a committee is some kind of award?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:49:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, put it this way. Would the town arsonist be on the local firefighting squad?
If the commission is not supposed to act as a watchdog for other countries rights but rather to act as a hotseat for countries like Saudi Arabia, then it's name should be changed.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:32:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like making Hitler head of race relations?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:38:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, because without him at the table the only option is violence. And if that is what you want quit hiding behind outrage and go demand boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:08:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the violence ship sailed when they executed people for being gay
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:09:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Awesome, go get'em boy!
Seriously, advocate for war, quit wasting your time here and go lobby for what you want.
The UN also provides a forum for its members to express their views in the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and other bodies and committees. By enabling dialogue between its members, and by hosting negotiations, the Organization has become a mechanism for governments to find areas of agreement and solve problems together.
So then the question is - what is the "watchdog" complaining about?
Another question of mine though - shouldn't every UN nation be at every body and committee?
[deleted] ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 12:24:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not american, but from what I've seen the dems aren't just one ideology. Bernie and Hillary are both dems, but they wanted completely different things. Bernie is a socialist and Hillary is really close to neo-liberalism from what I've seen.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:09:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. They are not leftists. Also most people who hate Trump in US can be considered as having center-right views.
True, as I said they are pushing the neo-liberal globalist agenda and Berine doesn't fit in. I was saying they are trying to pander to his supporters by being against Trump.
CNN isn't biased to the left, they're just lousy. MSNBC is like Fox Lite for the left. CNN isn't biased they're just sensationalist in every possible direction. They're the TV version of clickbait regardless of partisanship.
I agree they are sensationalists, but they are also biased because they are trying to pander to a specific audience (like every news outlet these days). Look at how many time they criticized Hillary and you'll see what I mean. Maybe they're not as bad as Fox or MSNBC, but they aren't neutral.
Well, this outlet is an Iranian government funded news source, so it has a lot of anti-Saudi bias. In this case, they point out a real issue (giving Saudi Arabia this UN position), but the news source itself leaves out the women's rights issues in its own country.
imatsor ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:06:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia is such a fucking tinderbox; state sponsored whabbism, increasing unemployment, decreasing public benefits, outrageous wealth disparity, and let's not forget the religious stryfe of the Shias in the East of the countryโ. I don't see how much longer the status quo can be maintained.
They've been going up due to the Oil Production cuts that were implemented through OPEC. I don't reckon it'll rise significantly though, considering Iran and Iraq will try to ramp up production too in the foregoing future.
They will maintain their status quo as long as their religion is Islam.
DeeMosh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:36:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you think the saudis are the biggest procurers of US made weaponry? It's the elite who are buying these weapons to be used in the event the status quo is no longer accepted by the general population.
[deleted] ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 13:47:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Homosexuality is not a choice. Homophobics who were not alive to know this can be somewhat forgiven, but anyone who knows this has no excuse. This isn't just two cultures doing things differently, this is a human rights issue. If I were born in the medieval era I might have some different thoughts about human rights too, but that fact doesn't and can't excuse medieval ethics in the 21st century.
Hahaha no real Muslim is Saudi Arabia can drink without being prosecuted. I don't know the exact punishment for drinking, but if it's anywhere along the lines of the punishment for being gay, then I think drinking wouldn't be "allowed" under sharia law.
For those curious, the three countries ranked below Saudi Arabia are Syria (142), Pakistan (143), and Yemen (144).
Tranger ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:13:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The whole fucking civilised world hates the UN for that, for the most part, I was okay with the UN unable to act in most cases as they are responsible for upholding human rights without intervening with the sovereignty of a country, but this goes completely against that principle. How can a backwards country where women are on a leash be responsible for their rights, fucking stupid.
21st century "western" culture is far better than a state-sponsored Wahhabi shithole that denies human rights.
Please explain to me how a mostly-accepting culture like the one civilized Europe and North America has is not leagues better than the absolute garbage that goes on in Saudi Arabia.
If maximising human well-being for as many people as possible is the ultimate objective when thinking about what is moral, then you can objectively say that some cultures are better than others. There are certain behaviours/ideals/laws that certain cultures value that clearly are not designed to maximise human well being.
Things like universal human rights, equality for women, equality for gays, freedom of speech, free enquiry, secularism, pluralism, tolerance - the values of western enlightenment - these are obviously better equipped to heighten human well-being than the religious laws and ideals of a country like Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is you're comparing a corrupt group of leaders against an entire population. No, the average Western citizen does not think killing people is okay. However, the average Wahhabi does believe all the fucked up nonsense that that hate-filled sect believes.
Its all about the money. Saudi Arabia is paying so fucking much money they get to be on these panels, like human rights despite their near-genocide in Yemen, or their bigotry against even the right kind of muslims, or any other religious affiliation, and then how they treat women like sex slaves.
Oh wait, women aren't treated like sex slaves in Saudi Arabia, they are sex slaves.
Sorry, my mistake, I was giving them too much credit.
That's not even the worst of it. They can't leave the house alone or travel without their guardians permission. They are imprisoned by the men in their lives. If you are married off to a bad man, your life is shit and you can't do anything about it.
I'm so sick of this pandering to Islam craze we are experiencing. It's a bent religion that has zero tolerance towards homosexuals and women. When I see a rainbow flag hanging off a mosque, I might dress-down my disdain for these assholes. Until then, I'll remain disgusted by their fanaticism.
Maybe this will be a good way to force SA to see and hear how the rest of the developed world wants women treated equally. They can't hide their heads in the sand any more if they're part of the solution.
Remember, a bunch of Saudi and Yemeni nationals slammed two planes into buildings in NY in 2001 ... so we invaded Iraq and left a power vacuum that created ISIS.
[deleted] ยท 193 points ยท Posted at 12:33:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
xthek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:11:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, at least not directly. Maybe the fear, confusion, and anger that such an attack brought made Americans more willing to go through with attacking the scary dictator, but there was never an official, explicit connection made.
edyyk ยท -55 points ยท Posted at 09:30:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You forgot the part where you gunned down Iraqi protesters on the streets, put them in concentration camps and raped and murdered their families. The survivors created ISIS.
Abyxus ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 10:06:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Could you elaborate?
octocure ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 10:19:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some prominent members of ISIS were released from Guantanamo and such. Dunno bout the rapes tho.
wasn't there a high-profile case about a marine patrol that murdered a 10+ family, including toddlers and pregnant women so they could rape their 14 year old daughter?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:41:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Something similar happened in afghanistan where one soldier went on a rampage. Good thing is we do prosecute soldiers for such war crimes. Bad news is we never prosecute generals or presidents for war crimes, just the kids we drop in dangerous places. Don't get me wrong, lock up those murderous thugs forever that you linked, but I want the people who ordered the torture in abu grahb held accountable too.
If a bank was robbed yesterday, and you check my house, and I have the plans to a bank robbery in my house, written 15 years prior, but still concerning said bank, and under my mattress you find a fuckton of money, do you think I'd be suspect enough to start a courtcase?
Zireall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:27:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The rapes do happen
But thats because bad people exist... its not like the US can micro manage every single person.
it's not about micro-managing every single person. it's about preventing systematically conducted mass-rapings and torture of prisoners. if you can't get your shit together, it's better to close that prison
You do realize that had those same people been taken to a prison in America they would have probably had a higher chance of being raped and murdered by people labeling them as terrorists whether they were innocent or guilty. As for the systematic conducted mass rapings, do you have a source for any of that?
Abu Ghraib was an american run military prison in iraq that brutally tortured people. It shouldn't be stretch to understand why Iraqis have some discontent towards america
edyyk ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 10:48:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah whats new? With all the oil SA they have fingers in every pie, just goes to show the UN is as crooked as a politians back, absolute farce to let SA have any say about women when they treat their own like dirt.
koyo4 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:38:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Slam"
Im so tired of hearing that word in every goddamn breaking news article. We have synonyms for a reason.
If your point is that Saudi Arabia needs guidance on womens rights issues, wouldnt they be the first nation you consider as a member to be influenced by membership in a womens rights body?
Dont misunderstand i am not defending them. I am fully aware that they do all kinds of sick shit. I am simply stating i havent heard of this particular thing.
Saudi Arabia should not be on this, or any other committee. They should be on the receiving end of sanctions for funding and promoting extremist religious views and terrorism.
morered ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:23:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Next up, Saudi Arabia on the panel for democracy, free speech, green energy, and Yemeni peace.
I don't see why this is an issue. If we want to have any meaningful discussions regarding SA, they would be a bit pointless unless SA are actually present during the conversation. Having them on the council is probably the best way to get them to change their ways. Granted there are other things we can do, such restricting trade, but they may not take it seriously and just cause tension. It's like having g a friend who's an asshole, then having conversations about how people can stop being assholes, but when the friend asks if they can join you say "no you can't join our conversation about how people shouldn't be an asshole, because you're an asshole".
aazov ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:44:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not just Saudi Arabia. 22 of the bottom 25 countries in the 2016 Global Gender Gap Report are Islamic countries. The highest-ranking Islamic country is Bangladesh, in 72nd position. (Above Japan, China, and Korea, though.)
kgs1977 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:33:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Saudis aren't bound by anything the U.N. Women's Rights body could ever decide, anyway. It's an advisory council.
But if they sit on the council, Saudi representatives have to at least attend the council meetings and briefings, and they look bad if they are at odds with a council they're appointed to. The Saudis want to look good; that's why they accepted the appointment in the first place.
I'd suggest that them being on the council may have a lot more positive effect on them than any pressure the group could put on them from outside.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:17:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia is the head of the Women's Rights for the UN? Really? What timeline is this? Where am I?
2017: The year Iran was put in charge of maintaining the rights of the LGBTQ community.
i work for the UN. the UN didn't make this decision. member states did. read my other post for more details. aim your criticism at the countries who voted for SA.
Ok, so this is going to get buried but just in case... I used to have the same concerns as everyone else about these countries being placed in these groups until a few days ago. I was listening to an interview on NPR (not sure if it was current or a rerun) with someone from the U.N. and they were asked this very question. Why do countries accused of violating rights get put on panels about those very rights? The answer was to force the countries to confront their issues in a public forum.
The idea is if you have a country violating the rights of women and you put them on the panel that is working to improve those rights, they either have to go on the record publicly to deny those rights and defend their denial to their political peers, or approve them and answer the question of if they support them for everyone else, why not for their own people.
Frankly I think it's a pretty good idea and I had never considered that was going on.
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination directed against Jews.[1][2][3] A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.[4][5]
ย
The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs. The compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879[6] as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass "Jew-hatred",[7][8][9][10][11] and that has been its common use since then.[12][13]
Have you ever heard the term anti-semitic used in reference to Arabs? I never have, it is always used in reference to Jews.
CaptZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:03:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can we just say racist rather than anti-whatever? If I am prejudiced against African Americans, French, or Mexicans, I am not anti-whatever, I am a fucking racist. Why the Jews get a special word for what is racism is beyond me but that is what keeps making them feel "special" and the US sucking Jew cock to keep them happy, it's not because they can actually harvest peace in the M.E. Hell, they start trouble too, and they stole, and are still stealing land from another country. They shouldn't even be there. They left and tried to come back to land they gave up. And as I have said before, no more card playing to get special treatment. Holocaust card is used up, as it the slave card for any race that were used as slaves. We can't pay for the sins of the past. Let's concentrate and here and now. The Saudis are racist and sexist and the US should not be an ally of theirs. Oil is not a good enough reason any longer. We have plenty.
Sometimes, I think the UN must be full of jokers. They appointed SA to the human rights council and now this. Okay UN, we get it, it's ironic, jokes over.
as usual, headlines getting this wrong. the UN didn't appoint Saudi Arabia. it's the UN member state governments that get together and vote on these sorts of things. it's a rotational thing. there are dozens and dozens of committees and councils. people trade votes i.e. you vote for us to host XYZ conference and we will vote for you to be on ABC council.
it has nothing to do with the UN staff (i.e. the experts who work on this stuff day to day) making recommendations and decisions. people who work for UNOCHR have no power over this matter. people who work for the Secretariat have no power over this. it's a political decision.
this article is really irresponsible for questioning the UN for appointing Saudi Arabia to an ECOSOC commission. not even the UN staff working on ECOSOC (which by the way, i do some work for) have any input on this.
dumb article. criticize the countries who voted for Saudi Arabia, not the UN staff.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:56:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
nafraf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not disagreeing with what you said in that deleted post, I already stated that the risk of genetic disorders with married cousins is substantially higher than with an unrelated couple, 1 out of 100 for the latter vs 5 out of 100 for the former ( slightly higher in Pakistan due to other factors that compound the issue ).
My point is that the vast majority of that 45% " inbred " population is healthy, not some mutant genetic freaks.
Is there anything worse as a dictatorship regime than getting called out by a watchdog? What's next? Grammy's coming over before supper to give them a hard scolding?
Russia has a permanent spot on the security council... the UN is BS.
AsterJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russia should most definitely have a spot on the security council given how many thousands of nukes it has. Without veto power the UN would be more likely to take actions that Russia would find highly objectionable which would lead to conflict.
The Security Council is not a democracy, it is a reflection of real-world military power.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:45:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it's like when a teacher pairs the a smart student with a struggling student, hoping one will rub off on the other....
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:29:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm really not informed on this issue, but it seems like excluding SA from things like this does more harm than good.
peruytu ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:34:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't believe how much Saudi Arabia has gotten away with. Oil has gotten them just about anything and everything they need to oppress their people, make a few family and friends rich beyond their wildest dreams... and all because of oil.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:38:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sickening that Canada and the US are allies with this country. It upsets me as a Canadian.
khast ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:00:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Follow the oil....if the Saudis did not have it, they would be just another pathetic country that the world ignores.
Ferks_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:48:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
COME ON AND SLAM, AND WELCOME TO *throws acid in your face because you're a woman*
Well, Islam has nothing to do with the oppression of women, or else has been the working worldview of the west and the MENA region, now the situation has deteriorated enough that Islamist hellholes are taking over the international womens rights organizations.
This should be a wake up call, but all of the liberal activists who should care have been utterly co-opted by pro-Islamist narratives and will almost certainly target those who speak out against this like they target everyone who has so far.
I sure hope that the tactic here is to pressure them into fixing their equality-issues, but I've got to be honest.. Decisions like this are probably why people are loosing faith in organizations like this.
Saudi women are completely fine with how they are treated. I met several Saudi ladies at my university who spoke against countries like the US trying to interfere with their culture.
blvsh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:25:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you were raised to believe a certain thing (such as muslim women being less then muslim men) then there is a very likely chance you grow to accept that thing, especially when dissent to said thing is not allowed.
Ex Muslim liberal, you couldn't be more "WRONG" (I think I paraphrased our favorite presidential bully correctly), but hey maybe once we fuckup women's healthcare some more, the guys on the right can finally sleep easier at night. It's like they won't rest till we're as Puritan as Saudis when it comes to women's rights. Oh wait, I forgot only male voting rebs were the only moral authority on a woman's womb. My bad. Shouldn't have spoken out of turn, silly me.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:33:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cannot emphatize. I hate seeing these Republican men talking of shit they have no idea about. And they pride themselves in it, too, like they're fucking saviors of the fetus against all these unreliable fucks who don't want to bear kids.
And all these Republican women smiling or laughing at any sexist comment. What the fuck are you laughing about? Where's your brain?
Am a woman and this pisses me off to no end.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:47:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are your mother and sister also supportive of welfare and other aids for families that are struggling financially?
It's a two way street, and up until a certain term/circumstances abortions should be allowed since women will find a way to abort or will need resources for that child's upbringing. What about cases of rape, medical issues in carrying to term? Underage pregnancy? Obviously it's not a flick of a switch issue, but switching it only to "no" benefits who exactly? The moral sensibilities of good Christians and other religious types? What happened to separation of church and state or is this where we make it up as we go along?
What's your mother and sister's opinion on the fact women will resort to more unsafe abortion practices in this ideal world where abortions are outlawed? Tough noogies? Hope you don't die? Oh no wait, "keep the kid", I figure they'll raise em too after. Right? Or do they not think about anyone else but what makes them feel okay at the end of the day?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:04 on May 1, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're really trying to say someone who is alive, not inside another human being, but has been breathing on soil for decades, can be a comparable argument akin to aborting an unborn human because... What?
And yes, what you're suggesting is murder. Let me guess, I walked right into your line of thinking you wanted? Well it isn't the same. Murdering an old person (assuming they're not asking for death due to terminal illness or pain/other medical circumstances like mental or physical illness), is totally different from abortion.
No one is euthanizing primarily for society's sake in every case. There are strong societal reasons why abortion makes sense, and euthanasia, since we're splitting hairs, but just like the old person who wantsโ to be euthanized, a fetus doesn't have a right to live if its host does not feel it so. This is a personal matter at the end of the day and that person's wishes should be honored.
Look at it this way, the elderly person who wanted to die but whose doctor won't put them down may take matters into their own hands anyhow and die painfully or with great trauma. Someone who is seeking an abortion and is denied one by the state may get one anyways, at great risk to her own life.
For that reason, if we really wanna have a real solution, allow doctor's to state whether they will or will not do a certain practice like euthanasia or abortion. If on a personal level the medical team is against it, then the struggle to find a new physician goes on. Otherwise, it should be up to the medical professional on a Case by case basis, and not unilaterally denied by the government. I'm saying this for both the case of Euthanasia and Abortion.
Giving people options is more humanitarian then dictating how others should live by some false sense of idealisms. But here I am equating humanitarian to individual freedom, not necessarily by the idea of "a right to live".
63852694 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:42:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've become convinced, since looking at the last assembled UN Human Rights panel, that they give these bass-ackwards countries these positions just to keep the peace, because we all know those countries would probably withdraw from the UN if countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, or Canada were empaneled instead.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:27:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Norway and Canada are already members of the Commission on the Status of Women, among plenty of other countries with excellent records on women's rights.
Germany is on the current UN Human Rights Council along with Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United States.
And yet Saudi Arabia has not withdrawn from the UN.
Murgie ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:30:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I do applaud you for at least bothering to look at who's on the council, gods only know that's more than what 99% of the other folks here did, but it's important to understand how the organization actually works before coming to a conclusion like that.
Oh, and Germany is currently a member of the council. Have been for 9 of the 11 years that the organization has been in existence as well, while Canada and Norway both have 3 years.
you don't know how the UN works. it's the best mechanism we have to bring countries together for discussion. it has been responsible for so much progress over the past 50+ years. it has prevented a 3rd world war from happening. despite lots of disagreement and elections like this, we haven't seen another world war. yes, Iraq happened and lots of other terrible things, but it could be much, much worse.
what exactly do you want? will you be happy in SA isn't on any councils or commissions? and that your policy views are always accepted and pushed on other countries? the problem is, there are 190+ other countries who are part of the UN. you can't always get your way. but by and large, liberal democracy (in the ensuring human rights definition of the word) has been institutionalized across the world.
the UN also didn't vote for SA to be on this council. other member states did. they trade votes so everyone gets on different councils and commissions. every country ends up having various roles. it's how the system works. how would you feel if we just didn't give the Senators from Tennessee any Senate committee assignment? or if only NY and California hosted every big research lab, army base, federal institution headquarters, etc? it wouldn't be fair. Tennessee would say 'fuck off, we are leaving the US because we get nothing from it' - and that's what happens here.
SA trades votes with Nigeria and Pakistan or South Korea and Argentina - or whoever - and says we will vote for you to be part of the UNDP Executive Board if you vote for us for this commission on women - or we will vote for you to be part of the UNSC if you vote for us to host the next climate change conference. that's how it works.
it isn't some UN conspiracy to keep women down. it isn't that the UN isn't progressive. even my Saudi colleague who i work with regularly is a very progressive human rights supporter who believes in women's rights - and, by the way, drinks beer with the rest of us, including the women. and he bikes to work because he doesn't want to pollute.
so the joke is that people like you don't spend enough time trying to understand the UN as an institution.
go east? what's that supposed to mean? seriously, if you don't care, don't post comments. and don't expect the world to be a tl;dr. some things are more complex.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:26:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
how about you go back being a worthless punk who expects the world to revolve around him in your mom's basement? sorry the world isn't as simple as you want it to be.
the economy doesn't stop a decision maker from fucking things up. look at Venezuela. that hasn't stopped Maduro. it's easy to say a world war wouldn't happen even without the UN, but the fact is, we have the UN, which has propelled the world forward in so many capacities and made the world a better place in so many areas. it has quelled conflict in many areas. brokered peace deals. advanced human rights. set in place systems and regulations - which while not always obeyed, have made standards higher. without the UN, we could very well have seen a world war in the 70s or 80s. even today. take away the UN and you lose a spot where everyone can come to the table to deal with certain issues.
the economy is not holding the world together. even when the economy has been shit, the UN has been there to keep people talking.
Cudi420 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:09:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is a disease
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:33:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, what? Women need the permission of a male family member to exit prison? How the hell does that work?
Stop your bitching or the UN will beat you with a stick and cut your clit off. If you object, it just means your a islamophobia nazi
Alagorn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:17:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't worry, I'm sure emma watson will tell us all that us western men are the problem. Anything to avoid criticising Muslims.
F4i1336 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:52:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is a joke
PoLS_ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:12:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh my fucking god for the last motherfucking time they are appointed AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THEIR REGION! Who THE FUCK else better than one of the highest population hot button political powers of the area? No shit they suck ass at human rights but they still get representation that's how gradual united change and not global totalitarianism works. Y'all need a fucking reminder how the USA singlehandedly kept racial discrimination protection out of the declaration of human rights of 1948? Innocence trades hands quite fucking frequently.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:19:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We cant bomb SA , QATAR and KUWAIT even though they r sponsoring ISIS. Because we are connected to them heavily economically plus we have same interests. Fuckin up the shias , weapons contracts, OPEC and endless war. All good for our economy!! only downside is the blowback.
no wonder the left feels Islam is liberating to women. Just goes to show you, if you have money, people do not give a fuck about what you do.
this is awesome.
Saudis need to be glassed, not celebrated. If there's one group of people I can say that I hate, it's fucking Saudis man. I watched a video of them offering jobs to white women, fly them in, just to beat the fuck out of them.
Why do you think the left thinks Islam is liberating to women? You shouldn't make blanket statements about groups. Some liberals are crazy, some Republicans are racist, but the majority of both sides are just normal people.
Normal people, "Rational" people should reject Islam and all it's barbaric ways. Unless reformed it isn't compatible with the Western civilization. The fact that some gay men support Islam is mind boggling...
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:50:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is loving religion that allows homosexuality and women's rights. How can you Redditors be so hateful?
If they weren't put on these bodies this conversation wouldn't be happening. The UN is a place for countries to air their differences and discuss them, not a world government. I'd rather have SA in on this conversation so we can actually attempt to change it rather than yell at them from afar while excluding them.
So to be clear, you think that conversation and discussion of differences will persuade Saudi Arabia to abandon their deeply held Islamic beliefs? Someone needs to get Kim Jung Un to the table asap! Who knew, all it took was a little conversation for everyone to come around!
The UN has a purpose and needs to exist. That purpose has nothing to do with being a moral or legal authority on anything, as they consistently disqualify themselves in that regard.
The UN's primary purpose is as a constant forum for nations to air their grievances. To this end, it actually functions fairly well.
When we start to look at it as some kind of authoritative body, this is where it falls flat.
Despotic nightmares like the current Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China sit as permanent members of the security council with veto powers. We elect places like Saudi Arabia onto human rights councils.
The U.N. cannot be a legal or moral authority as long as it continues to treat nations that have no respect for freedom or human rights as peers of everyone else.
Watchdog slams UN for appointing Saudi Arabia to women rights body
And promptly, nothing was done about it and nobody cared.
Don't get me wrong, I love and even support some watchdog orgs like Amnesty International, but I really don't think the UN gives a shit what gets said by them
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:52:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This, more than anything, cemented my opinion that the UN is a bad joke. When they were appointed, I knew beyond any doubt that they were feckless and useless. Might as well appoint Robert Mugabe to the World Bank and Kim Il Sung to the UN Human Rights Council while we're at it.
For those of you that haven't read Linda Fasulo's Insider's Guide to the UN you really should. The book will explain to you why countries like Saudi Arabia gets positions you might expect, and generally clear up why the UN acts the way it does, and how it works. Also why are people so angry I understand the Saudi Arabia has a bad record as far as human rights and women's rights, but by eliminating them from the conversation we are opening the way for an even more detrimental ethnocentrism were only those who match our western views are considered. I'm not saying I agree with the conditions of women's rights in Saudi Arabia (I don't) but that doesn't mean they should have a say, especially if it is a committee which will likely specifically target problems within Saudi Arabia. The UN is a tool for international peace, progress, and cooperation, not a tool for the US and western counties to inflict their ideas on other countries, nor should it be, this type of development needs to happen, but can't be forced otherwise it won't stick.
It's a conservative number, I'm sure Im in the minority opinion group here. Everytime something bad happens, every cries about it until the US take military action and my ass gets sent somewhere.
Commission on the Status of Women: The Council elected by secret ballot 13 members to four-year terms, beginning at the first meeting of the Commissionโs sixty-third session in 2018 and expiring at the close of the sixty-sixth session in 2022: Algeria, Comoros, Congo, Ghana and Kenya (African States); Iraq, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan (Asia-Pacific States); and Ecuador, Haiti and Nicaragua (Latin American and Caribbean States).
so yeah, my bad.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:57:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whenever I see "watchdog slams" in the title I just know it really means "nothing will happen".
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:59:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Come on and..
SLAM
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:56:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let the boys be boys?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:59:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Health and survival โ outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio. In this case parity is not assumed, there are assumed to be less female births than male (944 female for every 1,000 males), and men are assumed to die younger. Provided that women live at least six percent longer than men parity is assumed, if it is less than six percent it counts as a gender gap.
Provided that women live at least six percent longer than men parity is assumed, if it is less than six percent it counts as a gender gap.
I can't understand this, maybe because of being a South American male.
I think it makes sense for the committee to have the constant reminder and source of information inside it of what the channelizes are To feel the immediate push-back on the things the committee wants to promote so that it can be ready to address it in the field, as it were.
You don't want a committee full of modern western ideals that have no idea what the basis of other beliefs even is. It can't be effective if it doesn't understand the issues.
Let battles inside the committee hone the message and ready it for the battles on the bigger stage.
I love how the un keeps looking at numbers without looking into the reason why. Like it put out a report saying some super oppressed country was free then the us. And the stupid 3rd wave feminists carried that country as the success for feminism in the 3rd world. That's the only time 3rd wavers seemed to care about the non western world and they just looked even more stupid.
wtop090 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:12:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds crazy, but is it maybe better to at least get them on board, even if they are fucked up in their own country? As long as they aren't actually advising people or dictating policy. It could help bring them on board eventually.
As someone else said, its a position that really has no power(like the UN itself) and is given to them so that there is something that we can threaten to take away.
They weren't "appointed", they were elected. By other countries. Shit, probably by your country.
This is a common UN tactic. Put a country who is bad at something in a committee about that thing they're bad at. One of two things happens: they are either forced to address it, or they must OPENLY ADMIT they don't care about the issue. And that is a very strong stance to take diplomatically, even for a country like Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying it's always successful. It's been a mixed bag so far. But it has also had moments of brilliance come from it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit...the comments in this threat are ridiculous. Why isn't anyone mentioning the talking dog?!
Oooh you got forced Marriage? Oooh your rights are completely middle age? Your Laws says you will be killed if you drink some alkohol?
Well... take your Tanks, give us Oil, and we didnt see anything.
As more world leaders follow Trump example, decades of progress will be wiped out. They will become strong on the back of the weak. Eventually this will lead to disorder and chaos. Bye, bye Economy and thanks for all the fish.
The world is going to shit. World War II is but a distant memory no matter how many times the History Channel cover the subject, people need an actual refresher.
On the bright side it will run out. But on the other hand the ones to suffer from lack of money will be random children forced to beg. At least maybe when they run out of money other countries may decide it is time to stop the madness
Matt Damon said it best in syriana "Your people were living in tents cutting each other's heads off before the war and you'll be doing it again after." Or something to that effect.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:47:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet they would Anders Brevik to be spokesman for European muslims too.
Tarrock ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:47:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Where's the people in the streets with their pussy hats now? Oh wait, Trumps not involved, so we won't be seeing them.
wicks81 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:52:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This isn't new, Saudi Arabia is constantly on these kinds of boards. It also happened in 2010 and a very similar headline in 2015 when they headed the UN Human Rights Council.
Can't defend SA gender equality record but I do believe the authorities want to improve the situation. This is a political issue for them. This appointment should help them bring some pressure on the conservatives.
We can criticize SA for its human rights abuses, but to think we can change it from the outside is utterly ludicrous. This is something we Westerners still can't seem to fathom: no country is going to change because we abhor its behavior. Real, sustainable change can only be attained from within.
Trust me when I say that SA doesn't give half a shit about their critics. They hold enormous influence over the world's economy and everybody knows that.
This kind of thing has happened so many times that we can't expect it to change unless the rules of the UN change. Simply put, Saudi Arabia is favored in these kind of UN bodies because they have good relations with the countries who actually care about the issue. The UN needs an objective criteria for how it chooses these bodies rather than playing politics as usual
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:54:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We must have different understandings of the word slam.
When we dropped a moab, we slammed isis. This. This is nothing.
The UN should be disbanded in its current form. It is not a body for the international community, it is a political tool for the permanent members of the security council.
I'm pretty sure this is why they appoint certain countries to certain international bodies. It brings attention to problems they would much prefer to ignore.
The UN is just another poorly managed beurocratic nightmare. Anything that doesn't aline with their political agendas is unnacceptable and everything that does is. We need to bring back personal responsibility and get rid of beurocrats who have no incentive to the best job possible.
I heard the xcuse a few weeks ago of why they put countries like Libya or Saudi on these bodies that are counter to their own country's practices.
The UN folks actually think the representatives from these dictatorships will feel free to speak out against these practices and it will not only change the world but create change in their home country.
If women get behind the wheel in the kingdom, they may be arrested, sent to court and even flogged.
Under Saudi law, a woman must have permission from a male family member, normally the father, husband or brother -- in the case of a widow, sometimes her son -- to obtain a passport, marry, travel, exit prison and sometimes work or access health care.
WHAT?!
Mrclap ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:40:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
First world loves sucking that oily Saudi teet when we all know they deserve the same war as their neighbors get.
ajac09 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:31:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Epic fail.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:37:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How can you people criticise Saudi Arabia for violating women's rights when mansplaining happens right here in the USA?
And ex-Muslim subreddit would agree. I post there regularly. Shia based Islam is relatively more benign. It's immigrants tend to be far more secular than Saudi immigrants. Also, notice how you haven't heard much about Shia based terrorism on Western soil?
Iran's danger to the west gets overblown by them being closer to having nukes and they say really stupid shit about Israel. Other than that, Iranians pump out more secularism than Suadi.
[deleted] ยท -11 points ยท Posted at 10:01:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
polargus ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 10:12:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know plenty of people from Iran who don't like what their country has become, but have still told me Saudi is much more fucked up. The attitude towards women in Saudi is super fucked. The dress code is stricter than Iran's, they can't drive, and they have that horrible guardianship law.
[deleted] ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 10:23:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's demeaning because they are conflating criticism of Saudi Arabia with the criticism of their own selves.
Nationalism is not a trivial thing.
LDLover ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:15:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Great so the rich women in KSA are generally doing just fine. Fuck those poor bitches who are oppressed beyond belief. They don't matter, they're poor.
I brought up Iran because the article is from an Iranian source.
I'll paste the same reply I made to someone else.
No, they're saying it's demeaning because they're working on the serious issues that you deem mundane while the rest of the world says "BUT DRIVING". Dude, they just won themselves the right to vote, they just got themselves the right to own a business, and they have financial independence due to education and the mass hiring of women in the past 6 years. Huge changes are taking place in Saudi Arabia, while everyone keeps going back and reducing Saudi women to their lack of a single mode of transportation.
Can you see how demoralizing that is? To work your ass off for 15 years then for someone behind a screen to tell you that you're a poor little helpless thing because you can't drive a car?
The same way other backwards countries modernize without being one of the 13 countries on the commission. The countries on the council should be countries who are fit to lead the rest of the world on women's rights and treatment, not countries like Saudi Arabia.
octocure ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 10:15:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I have a solution. bring them a little bit of that American democracy. Possibly in a form of a nuke. No need to waste time on panels and councils.
Put 15 armed radicals in a room of a hundred people. It's very hard to kill these radicals without also killing innocent people. If in this hypothetical situation above we no longer care about the innocent people hence the use of nukes, then killing those 15 radicals is actually quite easy. So you get the point the world isn't in turmoil it's more like trying to wrestle your girlfriend and not hurt her in the process.
LDLover ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:18:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
okey doke -let them do it in the states. it'll be fun.
octocure ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 10:56:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Have Japanese mobilized on US because of 2 nukes? Nope. Went submissive. Has Iraq, Lybia, Chile, Iran(?), whatever - mobilized on US? Nope. Too busy trying to stay afloat.
Sort of ignoring how that was because Japan's infrastructure waas virtually levelled because of WWII. They literally had no ability to 'strike back'.
Nuking one of the largest muslim nations in the Middle East though? Pretty much every nation will turn their backs on the US. And that's notgetting into what Russia and China may do in response to protect themselves.
Not just nuking a Muslim country. Nuking the country which controls the two holiest sites in Islam. You wanna unite Sunnis and Shia? Because that's going to happen if anyone fires a single bullet in the direction of Mecca.
octocure ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 11:26:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, North Korea is the most concerning one on your list. Russia would not mind perish of SA. China is a wildcard.
My post was a joke, of course, but nothing wrong in exercising certain theories.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:45:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
whole world would be pissing their pants, but noone except SA and maybe their neighbors would even think of trying something
Imaurel ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:21:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why? They'd kick our ass. Weve barely won anything since WW2, and really that was more the Soviets Zap Branniganing it. Our strength is our worldwide economic control, which were all buddy-buddy with SA on, and that can be taken away. We're not self-sufficient enough to take care of ourselves unless you wanna survive on corn and walk everywhere.
D89raj ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:21:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you fucking kidding me?!
Something about this screams OIL! OIL! OIL!
I'd just like to point out that a lot of the leadership and royal family in SA would be happy to liberalize, but the people would not. We all assume it's an oppressive government forcing religious and cultural nonsense on to the people, when it's the other way around.
I don't know about "a lot" but King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud specifically implemented some significant progress extending to women the right to run for municipal council and vote, appointing women to the Shura Council for the first time and appointed SA's first female minister.
Many of the redditors here signaling their condemnation of Saudi Arabia and their disdain for the UN are completely ignorant of these recent incremental but meaningful steps away from the deeply entrenched misogynist aspects of Saudi society and the role of it's membership in the UN in influencing such evolution. Not to say that any single remedy achieved is equivalent to the total cure, but changing core elements of a society and culture isn't like flipping a switch and any progress should not be discouraged simply because it's not enough or too slow.
No one is saying to shut up about the distance that SA still has to go to even catch up with much of the rest of the world on human rights. What's being denounced here is the obtuse denial that SA is evolving at all and that this progress is actually happening in the context of the UN's inclusive attitude and tack toward SA as a kind of citizen of the international community.
imatsor ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:51:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
a lot of the leadership and royal family would be happy to liberalize
those guys are quite busy with raping and touturing their maids.
Not imposing any sort of knowhow or anything on how this may work, it might not even work at all, but wouldn't this be a tactic to make SA do more generally favorable things because of the scrutiny that is entailed from being in that position?
Saudi Arabia is the lesser of two evils, just look at what happens when you destabilize any place in the region: Islamic militants come in trying to impose Sharia, everyone with a brain cell tries to flee to Europe resulting in a fucking refugee crisis, which provides cover for a small number of militants to flock to Europe where they can try and unleash hell on people just trying to provide relief. And this is ignoring the fact that all of this is leading to the rise in popularity of right wings groups. At the end of the day Arabs just love their autocratic rulers and Imams who don't give a flying fuck about anything except enriching themselves, which leaves us with Saudi Arabia who we are forced to prop up because they at least see the advantage of playing nice with the western powers. I think everyone misses the days of Saddam, at least he was a predictable idiot, he would've executed every suspected ISIS leader in the dead of night and people would've respected that... So please quit fucking with Saudi Arabia and how it treats women, it's a pointless battle for everyone because it will just result in something extraordinarily worse for the region. Even if the King decided to give women equal rights and protection under the law tomorrow, he would be signing his death certificate since it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness to the Islamo-nuts nut jobs, some genuinely believing that Allah created women to be their fucking property. The family would break off into factions, there would probably be a civil war because everyone knows ISIS would somehow leverage the entire fucking thing.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
zennim ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:06:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
russia is christian majority, they are not much better
the problems isn't religion per se, is prejudice and authoritarianism justified by religion
I am disgusted by how women are treated by Islam: as chattel. I find it so difficult to relate to anyone who believes a women isn't an equal human being. Interact with any woman and there is no doubt they're just as human as everyone else. We all have the spark behind our eyes, plain to see.
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 12:41:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
damlag ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:32:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There does, but this one has wide spread wealth to put those beliefs into action
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:04:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Haha I'll call them subhuman. That's never been a bad idea, to call someone subhuman.
Look, SA might be run by serious pieces of shit, but they're human. Humans are capable of great evil, like voting to say that two consenting adults can't get married because it might be hard to explain to their kids, or that a man is forced to use the women's room because he used to look like a woman, or that someone could dodge the draft 3 times only to go and say that avoiding STIs was his own personal Vietnam, or saying a country shouldn't help children dying in war zones by bringing them into our country, but should instead bomb them more.
mielove ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:45:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, the UN being a safe space would be only allowing countries that agree with each other to be involved, effectively turning it into an echo-chamber. Having the UN as a forum for dialogue between countries with vastly different cultures is what it's meant to be for.
Iranian news websites are the best unbiased source of information about Saudi Arabia. They have spies all over the country and they are covering every little thing happening there. So if you want to know more about the dirty things Saudi Arabia do check Iranian websites because western news websites are bribed to cover up on lots of bad stories about the Saudis.
EDIT: and please don't link me to western websites talking shit about Iran because they are all fake news and trying to destabilize the country and transform it into Iraq V2.0
Avorius ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:19:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
EDIT: and please don't link me to western websites talking shit about Iran because they are all fake news and trying to destabilize the country and transform it into Iraq V2.0
However, the usher above claims that criticisms of Iran in Western news sources are fake. That's ridiculous. Iran has a lot of problems that should be criticised and discussed.
Oh sure I believe that. I was just curious to see some Iranian websites on Saudi Arabia. Both countries are shit holes in my opinion. Such a pity because they have such a rich history.
ehtanm ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:42:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is crazy.
Unfortunately, the UN is indifferent to violence Saudi Arabia against innocent people and women and it encourages them.
UN Watch is a Zionist Israeli lobby whose primary goal is to shut down any criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic".
Not saying Saudi Arabia isn't bad, but you need to remeber that the Wahabi regime is a puppet of Mossad and CIA, so if these zionist white supremacists want something done about it they should just tell their government to order Saudi Arabia to change.
Honestly is it the worst thing in the world to have people with various viewpoints on this panel?
As a woman living in the US, I have an extremely progressive view on women's rights. The view I have is shaped by the country I grew up in, my gender, and the education I received. That doesn't mean my view is correct though. It just means it's one view on the world. Those who have grown up in Saudi Arabia might have a completely different view. And their view might have some very valid points that need to be heard on this panel. They are ensuring a more conservative view is not lost in discussion.
If you want to get to the root of an issue, why not ask those causing the issue for their motivations? Fight problems with informed, well thought out tactics.
They have a different view, and it's regressive. That's like saying an ex-murderer (not convicted mind you) is an appropriate jury member for a murder trial.
I actually don't think the comparison is quite accurate. A jury is actually making a decision that has an actual bearing on someone's life. It's trying to make a determination of guilt based on facts presented. Different opinions are not reinvent or necessary when analyzing facts. Cultural practices are a little different.
The UN Women's Right Commission is is a group of 45 countries that discuss various women's rights issues around the world. Why not allow a country whose women's rights record is constantly discussed be present to share their side of arguments. It's dangerous to let a group of like-cultured countries choose the priorities for the whole world without giving other view points equal hearing.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:31:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In Saudi Arabia women are property. Women must have permission to do anything. Women are raped and then blamed for being raped. Cultural relativism is bullshit, the culture we have in America is 10000 times better than the culture in Saudi Arabia. You are so privileged you don't even realize.....
What sort of power do you really thing a seat on this commission really gives? It's basically just a place where representatives from countries can discuss various issues facing women around the world. Why not hear Saudi Arabia's point of view on these issues and try to understand the reason they treat women they way they do? Might help with strategy on how to better resolve these issues.
Also, women getting blamed for being raped isn't an issue exclusive to only Saudi Arabia. Take a look at the other 45 countries on this commission.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:39:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You must be trolling.....next you'll say you appreciate Russia's stance on gay rights
And next you're going to say the US and Western Europe should be the only countries allowed to have opinions in the UN.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:22:28 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Name some countries you would rather live in? Europe and the U.S. Have some of the best human rights laws in the world....I think you are being a little naive or idealistic
I think you're missing the point here. This isn't a discussion about what country is the best. It's a discussion about how all countries should have equal right to share their world view/opinion in the UN. That's actually the entire point of the UN. The point isn't for the US and Western Europe to tell everyone what their opinion should be.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:57:19 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you think nazi Germany should have a seat at the table? How about North Korea? Do you honestly think countries like that can teach us anything? We are literally hundreds of years ahead of Saudi in terms of culture and society....they should be taking notes in the corner
Having an overthrown government at the table wouldn't make any sense. But North Korea would. The UN voted to allowed North Korea to join the UN, so I suppose they agree with me? It's amazing how understanding the reasoning and motivation behind why a country behaves the way it does can be invaluable for forming a strategy to change their mind. Or not.
Out of curiosity, do you think Saudi Arabia should be kicked off just this commission, or out of the UN all together?
why not just take over this primitive nation and keep its resources? win, win. then we can be our own middle eastern ally and tell israel to go fuck themselves.
Makes sense, now they can pass resolutions condemning America for oppressing women like they condemn Israel for all terrorism and oppression. U.N. has been in the pocket of the Saudis for decades, this is nothing new.
No more war. It's up to the people to change their country for the better. However there is absolutely no reason the world should tolerate the Saudi's funding of mosques and madrassas that teach wahhabism in western nations.
Saudi Arabia is just there to make sure women aren't awarded too many rights so Saudi Arabia wont get pressured to change their own society too much.
-Samcro ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:23:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I may not agree with how they treat their woman, but that hardly gives me the right on telling them how they have to live. I would be a terrorist too if they came over here and told me I have to abuse females.
in my honest thought, i think saudi arabia is unique and should be what it is, sure it can change tomorrow but either way it's always going to be perfect as that is the rule for every existence that is there at that moment
Remember a week ago when the UN raping kids in Haiti was on the front page? Stop thinking the UN is something good and noble. It is corrupt and a joke. Such is the natural order of things.
Does anyone take the UN seriously anymore? It is an anti-semitic anti-democratic organization.
Waynok ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:46:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I hate talking about shit I don't know, but I'm going to say this anyway. The UN is shit, they are biased, they show favoritism, and they are shit. This is just one more reason why.
How in the holy hell are things like this possible? Why don't we just start staffing addiction specialist facilities with drug dealers or police departments with inmates?
khast ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:01:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, why the hell wouldn't they be? If it's as outrageously stupid as possible, why wouldn't it be going on somewhere in the world?
khast ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:17:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As stupid as it may be, there are cases of science teachers that deny science.
Hell, after watching Forensic Files, there was a case of a string of bank robberies, that one of the trio was the police commissioner in the neighboring town...who had investigated in part on one of the robberies he committed...
Shall I once again trash the UN with a wall of text regarding their NWO Law and ORDER goals? It's their main focus: making sure everyone in every country follows the rule of law, and obeys the government, as they slowly influence the government to be more NWO like.
Real talk. Does anyone believe it yet?
I keep these links around to remind that how Islamic culture treats women is Anathema. We cant really do anything about the having multiple belief systems int he world. But solving these problems should be the first step towards peaceful inter cultural society.
F_P_C ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:45:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're not white so who cares
Zerotan ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:40:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just because they have some of the most regressive practices doesn't mean they don't get a seat. Doesn't mean the other members have to come to regressive conclusions, and doesn't mean the Saudi member won't have progressive practices to take home.
wait, wouldn't it be racist to not be sexist in this case?
(wonderful world we live in...)
bjourne2 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:00:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN Watch is a pro-Israeli lobbying organisation. Their modus operandi is to criticize the UN as much as possible to make the UN:S criticism of Israel seem illegitimate.
Also SA:s track record when it comes to women's rights is less than stellar. But if women's situation in SA is improved thanks to them being part of this committee, isn't that a good thing?
Yeah, I'm not an extremist or anything, but for a society that bses itself on freedom of speech, equality, everyone's entitled to their own opinions and shit, the ''West'' seems to have a hard time with some countries having different ideals..
TaseTea ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:04:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe because those different ideas go against all the positive attributes just mentioned...
It's not hiding, it's been like that for thousands of years, yes, it's culture. You don't see the women murdering their husbands left and right, even when it's 4 women per husband, so it's like they accept it. It would be alright
[deleted] ยท -21 points ยท Posted at 13:18:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't give a Nobel Peace Prize to Hitler in hopes of making him change.
The board is not a class, its membership should be given to ones who promote equality and not ruin it, and should not be treated as a classroom for the latter.
The fact is that the Qu'ran preaches some of the worst things possible. Not saying all Muslims act on these principles, but the Islamic Holy Text is essentially hate speech
This is colonialism just in a different form. We try to change a culture to adopt to our own mortality and reject them an equal standing because we view them as savage. Islam and the world it inhabits is indeed a backwards, and its teachings are aberrant. At least I dont lie like leftists and claim I am tolerant and accepting while being completely hypocritical in my actions. There is no difference between the PC leftists today and the colonial Europeans from centuries ago. They both viewed their way of life as the ONLY way of acceptable life, and view any other with inferiority and a desire to eradicate it. Only difference is colonial Europeans didn't lie to the natives about their motives. Leftists of today do nothing but lie, even to themselves about what they really are.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 15:37:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How many people have supported feminism only to realize the people they were supporting are selfish liars who, in an incredible act of projection, only care about they very things they denounce in others?
All of them. Feminism was a mistake and now the west will slowly secede to the east. Turns out those curves and high pitched voices are natures way of fooling otherwise intelligent people into easily being deceived.
La5eR ยท -15 points ยท Posted at 13:41:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Kinda serves woman right tho...
They hem and haw about not being treated fairly yet use their golden vagina as a weapon to get what they want. They really dont want to be treated with respect and dignity, they want to be treated like animals. Why do you think so many western woman joined ISIS to become ISIS brides? Even when you treat woman with respect theyll resent you for it. Maybe letting muslim migrant men into western society will teach woman the way their carnality wants them to be treated.
Saved comment
helenofcanada ยท 6324 points ยท Posted at 07:39:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In all honesty, since they have been on these UN panels, Saudi Arabia has gotten a lot more attention for the fucked up shit they do
CheloniaMydas ยท 2986 points ยท Posted at 10:37:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it's a shame countries like the UK don't have the backbone to tell them to sort it out.
We seem to just accept it as a necessary evil to keep SA on side
Edit: For reference I am calling the UK out because I am British not because I think the UK have more influence than the likes of US or Russia for example
LycraBanForHams ยท 950 points ยท Posted at 12:34:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doubt the UK will say much, aren't they responsible for SA being part of the human rights council?.
Edit : council not commission
grey_hat_uk ยท 770 points ยท Posted at 13:16:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes and selling the weapons, possibly subsidizing oil.
You know how the USA turns a blind eye from Israels wrong doings, SA is the UKs Israel.
Edit: as someone down one of the replies has pointed out something that would not have caused the back lash against the point because I'm ignoring magnitude is using Pakistan instead of Israel.
pbradley179 ยท 1106 points ยท Posted at 13:26:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, the Saudis are America's Saudis as well, believe it.
UpvoteBecauseIcan ยท 556 points ยท Posted at 13:38:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Believe it" random act of uzumaki.
fearmypoot ยท 316 points ยท Posted at 13:39:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/unexpectednaruto
Edit: Oh shit this is real. Leaving it anyway
Wootery ยท 114 points ยท Posted at 14:09:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to reddit! :-P
IAmA_Risky_Click_AMA ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 14:11:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to /r/filmmaking! :-P
killahgrag ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 15:37:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to /r/Fishing! :-P
JamesTrendall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:02:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jake_Steel423 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:14:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Uh...the good ol' welcome-to-reddit-a-roo?
8oD ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:58:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
8oร
Seeattle_Seehawks ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:16:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
jarious ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:02:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/unexpectedsubreddit
John_Cena_420Blazeit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:17:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
believe it!
Scherazade ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:51:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/ofcoursethatsathing
/r/whyisthatathing
/r/gonewilder
DATolympicskid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just started watching naruto, I'm slightly annoyed by it
Speech500 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:19:32 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Was it a reference to Naruto? I thought he meant this Uzumaki
ReavesIsUnderYourBed ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 14:14:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
r/unexpectedneckbeard
The_Grubby_One ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:05:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did someone say uzumaki?
markercore ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:21:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dattebayo!
RedditRegerts ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:35:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm
athos45678 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:51:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fucking OPEC
jt663 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:51:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
America do more for sa
Anpu_me ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:58 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Make America do again.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:18:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
only trump can say things and not back it up... whatcha got?
Saul_Firehand ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:26:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well how about the m4, m2, m203, Bradleys, Abrams and now MAT-Vs they use to outfit their Army for starters.
Saudi military Hardware
Note the US Artillery and deltoid armor in addition to the more expensive US hardware.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:49:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
its about making money, it always is.
Saul_Firehand ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:10:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That is an oversimplification that isn't far off.
I'd say it is about power but I think it is sort of pedantic in this context. Money/power/respect is the goal achieved through deals.
He makes the best deals. Trust me, I have the best brain. We're going to win bigly.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
believe me, lol.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:17:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you sound like trump.
grey_hat_uk ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 13:53:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But the US doesn't give them quite the leeway the UK does(not yet anyway)
Deceptichum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:33:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You kidding?
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:05:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, they do. They killed 3000 of our people and we give them far more than the U.K every year. The U.K. has like 20% the population and about1/9 our GDP. And we spend about 1/3 to 1/2 your entire GDP on military, and 4X on foreign aid. And a fuck ton of that goes to help Saudi interests. It's fucked yo.
Edit: I know some people think their country is the biggest and baddest but let's be real guys. The US blows every country out of the water when it comes to fucking over other countries and spending massively to get our own interests achieved.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:22:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia donated over 100,000,000 to the clinton campaign fund.
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:23:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have actual evidence of that? Not that I doubt it but that sounds just like something a trump supporter would say without facts
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:50:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i'm not your personal google service, nor a trump supporter.
boyohboy_2017 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:50:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
Edit: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:03:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yea in court, not reddit. yabish
boyohboy_2017 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:20:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you know what a logical fallacy even is?
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:35:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yes, you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. what does that have to do with my comment?
boyohboy_2017 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:22:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"a thunderstorm tonight destroyed the island of Billy, causing incredible damage"
"Really? I didn't hear anything. Source?"
"I am not your personal Google service"
Does this make any sense to you?
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:35:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
is this conversation happening on the internet? where endless information is a simple click away? literally asking me for a source takes as long as finding it.
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:21:53 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not if ITS NOT A FUCKING FACT
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:03:24 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
YES IT IS lmao! get a grip, and hold on tight!
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:28:44 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not if there's no proof. And there isn't. Oh wait, do you have any? Because I went and googled it. Nothing except for Breitbart and Infowars. So again, I say, got proof? Burden is on you. If you can't provide an article, you lose his argument.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:56:44 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
look at you! I've already won, bye felicia!
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:51:07 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what I thought. Nothing. Just like a trumpster to claim ridiculous things and ask me to find the non-existent proof. Good day deplorable
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:03:16 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you're a joke. be honest no matter what i pull up out of the HUNDREDS of sources you will not accept it , i'm no dummy. why would i waste my time with you? retreat to your safe space little boy.
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:47 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd accept anything other than Breitbart and Infowars, hell even Fox if they have some actual reasons to believe that. But you have not even a Fox News article. However I find it even better because even if it were true, you don't seem to care about Putin paying his way into a Trumps White House. And there's way more evidence of that happening. Funny trumpster deplorables. Keep drinking the cool aid, with your bowling green massacre, massive landslide victory, and spending millions every month on golfing. But ignoring that and saying "yeah but Hilldawg emails"
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:25:27 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lmao see this is where everybody fucks up. I'm not a trump supporter! he's a piece of shit, i'm not offended by any of your insults about trump.
xthek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:59:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure Kuwait, Ukraine, Poland, the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, and Korea agree with this. And I'm sure Haiti, Nepal, and Kenya with the massive amount of aid the US has provided them absolutely resent us. Oh wait, they all have pretty high opinions of US foreign policy.
The Middle East's general hatred of the United States is an outlier. Much of the world likes the US more than Americans do.
Saudi Arabia may have done shady things and it's certain they could have done more to help prevent it, but it's weird to say they caused 9/11.
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:24:16 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm glad to hear others have good opinions of us. I do. But it doesn't change my opinion about US foreign aid in general. Nothing we do is to help you. It's only to further us. I don't think the US has ever given money to anyone unless it furthers their agendas. Religion and money. I'd say democracy, but the US doesn't give a fuck about democracies either
Humptys_orthopedic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:37:51 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In a class action lawsuit by 9/11 victims, two Saudi govt ministers' attorneys submitted their argument that YES they did fund al-Q but did so as govt officials implementing govt policy not as individuals finding terror.
Therefore, the case was thrown out on "diplomatic immunity". A person can't be sued for doing govt policy if they have diplomatic relations with the USA.
At least not the Saudis.
Saudi's lawyer? Baker-Botts of Houston, aka James A. Baker III, the old Bush family attorney back to the days of Zapata Petroleum and Zapata Offshore (near Cuba), the same guy who got Bush elected by the Supreme Court, that's who defended Saudis on September 11th vs USA citizens.
Saddam? Sure, np. No immunity. He's a scumbag, also a USA project, back when we would do ANYTHING we could claim anti-communism and "democracy" as the justification.
JFK was also considered a commie pinko if not outright Red, by far right. Funny coincidence, that.
ohhshitwudduppp420 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:35:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aka funded shillarys campaign
Need_nose_ned ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:57:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably more then the uk
Golem30 ยท 107 points ยท Posted at 13:45:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If there was any consistency we'd be speaking out against those incestual murdering psychopaths the way it happened with Saddam and Gaddafi.
[deleted] ยท 100 points ยท Posted at 14:00:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
nick-patides ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:47:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
exactly
DivisionXV ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:00:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Question for you then. Would you vote for someone you like or for someone you know will get the job done?
dood98998 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:41:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wish that were the choice :/
diphiminaids ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 14:07:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think there is just so much fucked up shit going on, that people are picking their battles. Ie- I have completely dropped out of US politics.
jordantask ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 15:25:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not that. It's that people have started to realize that the UN, and the governments of "certain countries" are lying, hypocritical globalist shitbags who actually don't care about human rights at all except insofar as they can use it as a vehicle to transfer more money and power into their own hands.
merryman1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:03:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is that then those same people start trusting the words of state leaders who never really bothered with those lies and instead stuck to the old lies from the 1950s about traditional values.
jordantask ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 19:26:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The "lies" about traditional values still put you in a far better position than the alternative. At least in that case, you haven't been fooled into accepting a poisonous ideology under the lie of "diversity."
merryman1 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:49:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eh, personal preference really. I prefer living among a variety of cultures to living in a society that thinks legalizing domestic abuse in the name of 'traditional family values' is a good thing.
jordantask ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But legalizing domestic abuse, rape, and women as property under a religious and cultural argument is okay with you. Gotcha.
lazyrepublik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:45:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't drop out! That's what the controlling powers want, For us all to get so disillusioned that we just say "fuck it, I quit". Don't!
diphiminaids ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:53:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the formula, for both sides: scandal A is brewing...this is it...this is the big one that will sink party X...scandal B introduced as A fades to obscurity..this is it.. It's the big one....loop till
godwings101 ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 14:07:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I could have sworn I read somewhere that because of the fall of Gaddafi that Libyans are being sold off into slavery. And then there's the whole creatinf ISIS by toppling Saddam. But sure, let's destabilize SA as well, nothing bad could come of that!
Golem30 ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 14:16:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not advocating invading SA. But you see how the tone changes when one of our politicians in the UK gets asked about the Saudis dire human rights record, it's very much "we don't agree with it" in a sentence or two then they move on. These guys for my money are far worse than Saddam or Gaddafi ever were. Atleast those regimes were secular and Islamism wasn't allowed to flourish.
Rafaeliki ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:51:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What is the alternative? You don't like the condemnation and you don't like the invasion. Some sort of sanctions? Or just more than two sentences?
CurraheeAniKawi ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 15:30:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How about stop giving them huge credits to buy weapons from the U.S.?
That money can be spent better almost anywhere else.
lebron181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:43:54 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UK isn't in a position to be picky
MangoMiasma ยท 68 points ยท Posted at 14:54:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At the very least, stop doing business with them.
td57 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 15:38:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Mate that's some Civ 5 shit right there, its just not how the world works.
SploonTheDude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:12:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Civ 6 is better in my opinion.
Bigman61 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:06:26 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Civ 3 is best civ.
Gus_th3_Platypus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:16:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Heavily invest in renewables so that your country can break the oil addiction. It's pretty much the only reason they are relevant at all other than being in a strategic location. It would fix a lot of the ME problems actually.
td57 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:21:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oil makes the world turn and there will be somethings that run on oil that are not able to be run on renewable sources. Even in a perfect world where all 300 million US citizens stop driving cars, and have some sort of way to travel the massive country, period. A large amount of products in the US travel around via truck and trailer which you can make more efficient, but there is no real solution for the power and endurance of diesel motors. So lets get even more perfect world, all trucks are now electric or some shit. Now we have to talk about the other large distribution network for our goods; trains. Yes there are electric or maglev passenger trains but again when you are talking freight like tons and tons and tons the most efficient method is going to be an oil consuming, fuel drinking diesel motor. Boats, planes, plastic, computer parts, military equipment and vehicles, the list goes on and on.
I'm with you when it comes to power generation, there are much more efficient ways to do that but simply saying we should invest in renewable or stop buying oil from SA or other ME countries is ignorant. The world we live in today, right now, is driven by oil whether its heating homes, driving you to work, or fueling a war machine and for the majority of those things there is no feasible and realistic solution right now.
What do you think will happen in the alternative view where we don't need ME oil anymore, and they don't have anyone to sell to? That will only create more instability in the region when the money dries up.
MangoMiasma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:58:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, there are way too many people in the US government with ties to the oil industry for that.
Chewybunny ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:10:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. Like, almost everyone, considering so many people's 401ks, bank accounts, and investments tend to be partially in energy sectors like oil. Many unions, pension funds, insurance schemes, banks, etc, all make their additional income from stock market. And oil is a big section of that market.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Shiiit, mate. What's next? You gonna tell me Santa isn't real and Gandhi didn't have nukes?
td57 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:18:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I have to point out that cutting out SA oil and money is not a real world solution then maybe I should have added that Santa isn't real nor is the Easter bunny!
Liquidhind ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:28:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Quick someone run the numbers on oil logistics without the Saudis running OPEC. I'd love it if that were possible, but people drive to work.
tsaketh ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:53:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fracking has altered the market such that OPEC can no longer price fix. This is a big part of why Venezuela is going down the shitter, and Russia has spent the last 5 years acting like their back's to the wall.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:28:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Canada and Mexico number one and two importers to US. US could do it no prob.
Liquidhind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:14:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is true under current production, and thank goodness or we'd be paying European prices on gas. Remember the 70s though? What happens when OPEC closes the pumps and the brits buy from our pools? It's all such a morass, and with everyone having a gun to the head of the others economies. No wonder nothing gets done.
mdgraller ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:19:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then where are they going to get oil from, Russia?
Golem30 ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 15:22:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Moving to renewables and lowering our dependency on oil would be a good start
deadbeatsummers ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:45:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what I don't understand. The criticism towards our relationship with SA, I get. But why are the same people who are hostile towards SA also against renewable energy
tenpakeron ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of the raw materials to make renewables such as solar are not found in large quantities in the US. Most are imported from China which just changes the dependence from a country they can exert power over to a country who would be able to hold them hostage.
deadbeatsummers ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:30:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well in theory we're always going to be dependent to another country that contains that resource, right?
tenpakeron ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:46:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Correct but the US has the ability to exert pressure on the Saudis because they can't do much in return. China can though, through a trade war or real war. Politicians want to keep the american lifestyle as is because for most people its pretty decent. If the US were dependent on China for its energy infrastructure the hegemony they had collapses and eventually you will see things such as rising costs and the like since the negotiating power they enjoyed would be gone.
chogall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:10:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or just drill baby drill like what happened under Obama administration. Our oil production doubled~
citizen2015 ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 15:26:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't appoint them to human rights council! This is diminishing any credibility that UN has. Don't encourage them. Sanctions worked on Iran... Stop doing business with them.
Lord_Shard ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:13:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait the UN has credibility?
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And appoint whom instead? The US with their torture prisons, kidnappings, wars and extrajudicial executions? The many Western nations that support American crimes? Russia? China? Third world countries with oppressive corrupt governments?
Saudi Arabia is worse? Perhaps. My point is that when you go down that path, the West has a lot of dirt too and then you can't incentivise anyone to improve.
Seetherrr ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 17:43:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's your fault for thinking the UN had credibility to begin with and this isn't an example of the UN losing credibility but why you should have never considered it credible to begin with.
VagueSomething ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:42:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not selling them weapons and not buying their goods certainly works well. Not inviting them to be head of anything works great as well.
PlanningForBullshit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:34:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sanctions? Yeah just increase investment in renewables and they'll fall apart on their own.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's just pointing out the hypocrisy I think.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:48:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:17:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was also murdering Kurds and Sunni too though. It's the fact he murderer everyone that made him fair.
lebron181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:45:06 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But he murdered Islamic scholars do that's a plus
davidhow94 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:08:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eh, a secularist who knew to how to use the sectarian divide.
Kozy3 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:05:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/OynP5pnvWOs
You are saying he isn't as bad as SA?
Blonto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Considering that SA is a horrible, cruel, theocratic country that's one of the biggest financial supporters of jihadist terrorists, why not? Currently the West is trying really damn hard to crush Syria using "dictatorship" as an excuse. Well that dictator at least insisted he's devoted to secularism and is fighting against religious Muslim extremists. Meanwhile SA is one of the cruellest countries in the world, a country where you can be legally executed for being a witch.
godwings101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:25:42 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh don't worry, I fully stand behind the secular government currently in power even through the unsanctioned attack by my government. The evidence and geopolitics just doesn't fit with the narrative of him using chemical weapons. He's beating back the rebels, defeating ISIS and has won back the hearts and minds of the people, so he drops chemical weapons on them? It makes no sense at all.
t-ara-fan ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:38:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hillary had no complaints about Saudis. Millions of reasons not to complain.
Rafaeliki ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:49:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Neither did Obama or Bush and neither does Trump. It's more of a geopolitics thing than anything to do with the Clinton Foundation.
TheManWhoWasNotShort ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:53:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You act like this is a Clinton thing.
We turn a blind eye to their bullshit because they're geopolitical "allies", it avoids open warfare in the Middle East with Israel, and because they stop OPEC from jacking up oil prices on the US. It makes geopolitical sense to turn a blind eye to their bullshit, just not moral sense.
knorben ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:52:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She lost, get over it.
t-ara-fan ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:49:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I am very happy she lost. Worst candidate ever.
CurraheeAniKawi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes but Saddam and Gaddafi didn't play by the U.S. rules.
Play their rules and all is fair and forgiven in the religion of $
castille360 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:23:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And if they were democratic, the clerics would be in charge. The Royals in SA occasionally step in to curb the most egregious abuses.
xthek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:02:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Destabilizing our own allies and the site of Mecca is probably not a good long-term solution
We can influence Saudi Arabia softly.
premeditated_worder ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:03:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's actually incredibly consistent - we use proxies till they no longer serve our purpose (Saddam, Gaddafi, and Al-Assad, et al) and then we switch gears and paint them as monsters and urge their removal. Doesn't mean it's logical...or morally acceptable.....but still.....
SoseloPoet ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:35:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There was no reason to depose Gaddafi other than create insurability
ali5005 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:27:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Both those examples turned out great for the countries we "intervened" in.
reymt ยท 175 points ยท Posted at 13:57:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Mate, you fucking compare the only stable democracy in the middle east with the hellhole that is saudi arabia?
Palestine or not, that is no comparision.
euronforpresident ยท 61 points ยท Posted at 16:04:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you, too many Redditors shoehorning hate against Israel, Israel puts in a fuckton of effort to not harm civilians against people who actively jeopardize the lives of their own citizens. Nothing nearly comparable to SA.
JlZZMonster ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:02:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I guess they do occasionally but they generally tend to treat the Palestinians like animals. Its a blatant occupation..
euronforpresident ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:41:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like animals? You realize they aren't consistently doing shit to them. Israeli soldiers don't just go poking Palestinians in the back with their gun barrels. They aren't Israeli citizens because the lands were captured from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt during the six day war and they were captured as a buffer zones so that those army's can't easily mobilize an invasion again. It's much more complicated than you may think.
smoothcicle ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 19:01:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, they just drop cluster bombs on them...
vodkaandponies ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:40:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really? I understand that opinions vary wildly on such a touchy subject, but you can't really say that reddit has some massive anti Israel bias.
r/worldnews views on the matter can be pretty much boiled down to: "Israel should just glass the strip and be done with it."
euronforpresident ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:24:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Before I can make a response can you specify what you mean by "glass"? And also there is quite a bias. There are many more posts trying to delegitimization Israel as some oppressive power than those which praise Israel's efforts to manage their situations in the least harmful way, or the Palestinian's campaign of terror and false charity to fund said terror. People constantly take about defunding Israel when doing that would leave the only shred for democracy and human rights protection vulnerable to another sharia state.
Crespyl ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:40:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"glass" in this context means "drop nuclear weapons until the sand melts"
It is usually hyperbole.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:45:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh. I haven't seen any redditors suggest that, even the most aggressive Israel supporters short of the baitar jackasses(Israeli far-right) wouldn't advocate for violent aggressive war against the Palestinians. I personally believe there needs to be a multi-national cooperative effort against Hamas that includes replacing them as a source for infrastructure and governance at the same time that we destroy those assholes.
jcarnegi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:07:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't support glassing them over.
But I support the descriptive turn of phrase and use of imagery to describe the sentiment.
igarglecock ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:10:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their are many things that Israel does that makes them an oppressive power. There doesn't have to be "good guys" and "bad guys." Israel makes the two-state solution an increasingly distant possibility every year by continuing to expand settlements and terrorize the Gaza strip, all while claiming to really only want peace and stability. Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map, but have no ability to even attempt to do so.
Where is the "good guy" I'm supposed to feel sympathy for? Apparently, you think it is Israel because they are pretty good domestically compared to other Middle Eastern nations. As many philosophers of political scienceโas well as just decent, intelligent, ordinary peopleโhave pointed out, democracy cannot truly exist in a nation with imperial machinations. Just look at the USA. I'm glad Israel protects the rights of its citizens, but their violation of the rights those outside their borders is inexcusable.
All that being said, Saudi Arabia is much worse; they are very bad domestically and are destroying Yemen, funding the spread of Islamist ideology, etc. The US support of both Saudi Arabia and Israel at the same time should tell you that it has nothing to do with democracy and human rights, and everything to do with strategic geopolitical and resource control in the region.
euronforpresident ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:45:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not just about Hamas taking over Israel. They constantly commit terror attacks which are a double crime because they kill innocent Israeli's and radicalize Palestinians to carry out these attacks that usually end in their death. They may not give Palestinians full citizenship but that is not reasonable given the safety risks and how politically impossible it is to carry that out.
smoothcicle ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:05:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now, tell it's WHY they commit terror attacks ;) Then tell us about all the times Israel, especially Nutty-yahoo or however you spell his name, provoked them in to attacking during cease-fires. Israel brings a lot of hate upon themselves via their leadership. Israel is deathly afraid of Palestine becoming a legit state because then Palestine gains many rights and avenues for help.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:27:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel has offered them statehood deals countless times on very good terms, they have consistently denied.
lebron181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:47:07 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what they think. What kind of country would allow foreign military to roam around their borders without consent?
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:19 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A country that wants land, is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of their neighbor, is betting on said neighbor to be wiped out, and can easier abuse its citizens rights when it isn't treated like a nation.
lebron181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:40 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When Israel refuse to freeze illegal settlements, forget about removing them, then they have no leg to stand on
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:20:44 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, the settlements are bad, but that doesn't mean we can ever tolerate a terrorist group like Hamas. We can be critical of both sides and recognize that illegally settling a land is not a comparable crime to training citizens to murder innocent people which usually leads to the perpetrators deaths.
lebron181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:26:59 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whataboutism. Do i have to point out Syrian terrorist or Isis when i criticize Assad?
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:14:30 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not whataboutism. I'm explaining to you that Israel is not the reason Palestinians suffer. And at that by a lot. The fact is Palestinians are suffering. People deserve to have the full rights of citizenship no matter where they are on the earth. People also happen to be under the governance of a power or regime and in the Palestinians' case it is Hamas/the PLO. These powers do not cooperate in negotiations for statehood or blatantly invite violence and radicalism. A legitimate state cannot be founded in this environment. Israel does not promote hatred of Palestinians and its actions toward the Palestinians are for the purposes of self defense not aggression. If you want to claim there is some sort of whataboutism, or something I'm distracting from, go ahead, show me something Israel has done to the Palestinians that is worse than what the Palestinians have done. Or go ahead and show me an attack that targets Palestinians as Palestinians and not in an effort to combat the violent organizations in these territories. Critiquing my argument is not a support for yours.
lebron181 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:25:49 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is a state which instill an apartheid system where two groups have different rights even though they live in same land.
igarglecock ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:23:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well to be fair, I didn't say "taking over Israel;" I said "Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map," which is much worse than sporadic terrorist attacks. They only do sporadic terrorist attacks because that is what they can achieve.
Israel does just as much work radicalizing Palestinians as Hamas. It is not hard to understand the appeal of the Hamas message when the only Israeli's most Palestinians ever meet are armed occupiers. When Palestinians have seen their homes levelled by self-driving Israeli bulldozers. When Israeli responses to terrorist attacks consist of collective punishment of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. When the ten-year blockade of the Gaza Strip locks 1.9 million people in place while depriving them economically, medically, and culturally. Why wouldn't you join the group that defines itself as the opposition to Israeli imperialism?
If Israel actually wanted peace, they would immediately stop further settlements, no questions asked. It would be interesting to see if this had any effect on the number of terrorist attacks against them. Not that they'll ever actually stop.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I cannot take this seriously at all. It's an outright ridiculous statement and if you knew anything about how Hamas operates you wouldn't have written that.
igarglecock ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:25:43 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hamas would have nothing were it not for Israel.
The organization arose with the First Intifadaโas part of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Israelโwhich was occurring due to popular discontent with the Israeli occupation. The anger and the hatred was already there, and justifiably so. Hamas has spent their time fomenting it, channelling it into violence. Which is reprehensible, yet Israel could make their job much harder.
Why would Palestinians join Hamas if Israel ceased making new settlements and lifted the blockades of the Gaza Strip? People are radicalized against Israel because they have legitimate grievances with Israel.
A Palestinian cannot vote to stop being occupied; they cannot vote for freedom of movement, or for food or healthcare. Holding a sign won't do much. What are their options? Civil disobedience, revolt, protest, violence. Maybe some of those aren't good options, but it is easy to see how people can be convinced they are the best options. Hamas does the convincing, Israel (and its allies) maintain the conditions necessary for this to happen.
Hence my statement that Israel does just as much work radicalizing Palestinians as Hamas.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:48:04 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Blaming Israel for Hamas is absurd. You're really gonna say it's Israel's fault innocent civilians were murdered in the streets? That's not right. The settlements aren't right but they don't warrant the kind of atrocities Hamas commits. Nothing does. Either the Palestinians negotiate without the intent of harming innocents, or they will continue to suffer. Unfortunately with Hamas ruling over them it seems to be the latter which is why I don't blame the Palestinians for their leadership and I hope there someday is an international effort to destroy Hamas and restore infrastructure to Palestine without it being held hostage in exchange for participation in terrorism.
vodkaandponies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:37:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As in either send in the IDF to kill everyone there wholesale, or just drop a nuke on them.
euronforpresident ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:46:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not what the IDF does, and all nukes are pointed at Iran in case those fuckers get ambitious.
vodkaandponies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im not saying thats what they do. Its what this sub wants them to do.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know, was just making it clear
Seanay-B ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:34:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Amnesty International would like a word
euronforpresident ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:38:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They oughta spend more words on the PLO and Hamas who have blatantly abused their own citizens rights, radicalized them, and incentivized violence such as suicide attacks.
Seanay-B ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:59:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a fallacious argument that deflects from the issue at hand. When people like you and the Knesset give such fallacies any credence people actually get hurt and die.
euronforpresident ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:29:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People get hurt and die when they are told their neighbors and demons and in the name of god they must blow themselves up or go on stabbing rampages or take hostages or run over people, etc, etc.
Seanay-B ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:04:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the same goddamn fallacy
Does that bother you? The absence of reason in your discourse? You can't pick and choose who matters and who doesn't. If humans at all matter, than it's not a Palestine-or-Israel-is-guilty situation. They're both guilty as sin.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, you are very wrong. Israel doesn't go into Palestinian Territories with the goal of killing Palestinians. Palestinians attack Israelis with the goal of killing Israelis. Israel mainly attacks legitimately threatening targets, and often the civilian casualties occurs when Hamas goes and puts target individuals or bombs in a mosque or hospital where there are civilians. That's not the only time it happens, but that shit happens way too often. Palestinians(in Gaza at least) are ruled by Hamas which proselytizes individuals and has them commit atrocities that end in their deaths, and then pays the families off. Israel provides a well rounded public education for all legal citizens with no such radicalization. Israeli's are not taught as children how to stab an Arab. That happens in Hamas controlled villages and the Palestinians are trained to stab Jews. They are trained to believe all Jews are evil. There is a huge fucking difference between the Palestinians and Israel and this false equivalency only hurts both sides. We need to focus on liberating the Palestinians from their tyrants, not enabling those same tyrants.
Seanay-B ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:01:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This post doesn't really reflect that you read or understand what I'm arguing. It doesn't reflect that rather than directly engage with ideas that threaten your worldview, you regurgitate talking points rather than seriously consider whether you are wrong. The more people like you do this thing, and especially if those people serve in the Knesset, the more tyrannical Israel becomes st the expense of, well, everyone really.
There being a worse villain doesn't excuse the lesser villain. Nor does public education programs (wtf man).
Oh, and thought re examine Israels...Habits with regard to respecting territorial boundaries. Really. But do so without me.
euronforpresident ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:16:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All you're saying is essentially because I disagree with you that my viewpoint is invalid. I don't have to accept any part of your argument and you owe me no such favor. I replied to part of your post that particularly struck me and gave a counter. I stand by my view. It's nothing regurgitated, I have studied this subject, read books about it, and follow it on the news as it occurs. Don't belittle my argument with these assumptions of where it comes from or with some assumption that I have to accept anything you say. I disagree. That's something I have a right to do separate from the actual thing being discussed.
Seanay-B ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:33:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Your viewpoint is invalid because you argue it by means of tu quoque, red herrings, and now with straw men. It's unbecoming of an educated adult and also my cue to leave. I may even be wrong, but if I am, it sure isn't for any of the reasons you say.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:39:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What red herring? What straw man? The previous comment was purely about your assessment of the argument as an argument not about the actual subject. You're just wining because I'm not conceding to anything you say because I happen to disagree with everything you've said thus far, given that you are defending an entity which commits acts of terror against civilians and ruins the lives of its own citizens, while demonizing a state that tries very hard to be civil in protecting itself against such an enemy.
Seanay-B ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:43:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your whole first reply
You're just disgusting and I'm just done, for real this time
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:46:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would take offense at that blatantly rude and unwarranted insult if I wasn't comforted by the fact that you're more offended by nothing thank I am with your watering down of a terrorist group. I understand many people have your point of view and it's something I will contest but I don't consider you disgusting for it. I love you for your humanity, no matter what your beliefs are.
Seanay-B ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:48:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please love me differently than you love Palestinians, or logical validity. Your advocacy of Israel isnt virtuous but in this conversation it's the least disgusting about you.
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:50:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh I love Palestinians in that they deserve basic human rights, gender equality, and a regime that doesn't encourage them to be radicalized and commit acts of violence that ruin/end their lives. I wouldn't wish that upon you ever. Please accept my love.
Seanay-B ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:52:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You seem to also love the fist that beats them so I don't think I'll take your love very seriously
Hey how'd we depart from that whole logical validity and argumentative sincerity thing? Someone must've distracted us...
euronforpresident ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:18:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The fist that beats them? You mean the nation that combats terrorist organizations within their territories when those organizations violently attack civilians and jeopardize their own citizens' lives. Hamas is the biggest enemy of the Palestinian people. You can't have any negotiation or concession until Hamas is removed. Negotiating with terrorists on a geopolitical level is a disaster.
And your passive aggressive statements don't do anyone justice. I've been civil through this entire exchange, I'd expect if you want to challenge any of my statements or uses of rhetoric you would do it directly.
Seanay-B ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:20:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude
Seanay-B ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:23:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look up red herrngs and whataboutism, and then read your post again
Kozy3 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a holy war no matter how to look at it. They are both wrong. The Jews have no more right to that land than anyone else.
Well that is if you think all religion is a pile of shit.
So one side feels that they have the right to "holy" land. The other feels pissed off they had their "holy" land taken from them and given to a group of people that didn't actually have a country to begin with anyways. Religion isn't bound by country borders. Why give 1 religion its own country?
Not to mention Israel has been breaking terms since its inception. Palestine is no better. They are both dickheads in the situation. Equally. Neither of them are stopping.
When do the Flying Spaghetti Monster believers get their own country? When do atheists get their own country? And why shouldn't they?
I mean imagine if the Flying Spaghetti Monster believers decided they had a right to claim historical significance to Israel/Palestine. People would laugh and think it's fuckin nuts. Why do we view the people of Israel and Palestine any differently?
n0nsinc3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:34:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is a country. Palestine has never been a country. The land in question was taken by Israel from Syria, Jordan and Egypt when those countries started a war. Most countries have had border changes due to armed conflict. Israel has the same right to that land that every other country has to land that it has acquired by force.
Kozy3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:08:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel
n0nsinc3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you care to add any context to that link? I do not see where it disputes anything in my post. It confirms that Israel is recognized as a country. It references the region of Palestine, and makes the distinction between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. It does not mention the country of Palestine, because no country has ever existed as an independent nation state. Today when people talk about Palestine and the Palestinians they are almost always talking specifically about the Palestinian Arabs living in the territory Israel captured in the Six Day War.
Edit: I am not down voting you, or trying to be antagonistic. And I have no religious interest in the debate. But the way I see the situation is that Israel is a recognized nation state in control of territory which they acquired by force while fighting a war in which it was one being attacked. They have the same legal right to that land that the U.S. has to Texas or the U.K. has to Northern Ireland.
Kozy3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:14:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They were equal to begin with until outside influence said otherwise.
I understand that now they are a fully recognized country. But Palestinians are pissed because they also feel as though they have a right to the land. Just because it isn't a country does not mean they don't have the right to FEEL like that is where they belong. They have been living there for a long time. They both feel as if they have a right to that land. And there is no correct answer. Obviously Israel has control but why is it so wrong that the Palestinian people want to blow them up for it? You can not separate emotion from this situation.
But I do agree with you if you can take it and hold it it's yours. But that doesn't mean the other side has to just roll over and accept it. You need to beat them into submission.
Israel has the power to end this but they don't. So they just keep slowly creeping over. Think of Texas. And North America. We won. No question. Just decimated and took over. They can't fight back. Israel needs to decimate Palestine if they want to win. Sounds harsh but true.
Idk people can call them terrorists or whatever term they like. It's pissed off people who have been displaced and lost family members/feel aggrieved or whatever. That's what it comes down to. I would probably do the same if someone was constantly infringing on what land I feel is mine and killing my people. And vice versa.
I mean look at the retaliation the USA did for a few buildings dropping. Retaliation will never stop. It's a constant cycle. Neither side is right. Palestine can not fight a war on the same scale as Israel. It's a 1 sided fight and it's just being drawn out over a long period of time.
mrdude817 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:29:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Despite some political problems, Turkey's pretty stable. Same with Lebanon. Iraqi Kurdistan is becoming more stable, and could possibly stay that way depending on if they attain independence. Iran, despite tensions in foreign relations, is pretty stable, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia.
grubas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:42:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Considering that Israel is basically being taken over by hyper conservative religious forces, it really isn't that much different. Hell, they are the ones who had a big thing on women's reproductive Rights with no women.
There are a ton of articles about the "Ultra Orthodox Problem".
[deleted] ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 16:10:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:23:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, but God help you if you're Palestinian because Israel sure isn't going to.
vodkaandponies ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 16:35:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is no bastion of gay rights either
Ferox745 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 16:46:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some random psycho is not equivalent to an entire government punishing citizens for homosexual activity.
vodkaandponies ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 17:27:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A random phycho who had already done that before, but was let free for some reason.
LoDart210 ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 14:45:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No I think the Palestine thing plays a big part in judging your morality. Subjugating ans oppressing a whole people is definitely in the same playing field and terrible women's rights and racism.
parchy66 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:54:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I urge you to go visit, to see for yourself the depth of your brainwashing. It really did a number on me...
tomburguesa_mang ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:03:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you explain?
parchy66 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:33:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israelis try really hard to make peace with Palestinians, and on a cultural level, really don't hate them. I'd say there was more a feeling of desperation and frustration, mostly aimed at the political elite in Palestine, who incidentally are the ones doing most of the subjugating / oppressing (they incite violence in order to trigger conflict, which inevitably results in loss of Palestinian life, which then triggers an influx of international aid money, which mostly goes to those same corrupt leaders). It ends up that Palestinians really are pawns of their own leadership, who uses them for their own means.
Most Israelis I talked to said they would give up huge swaths of land for peace but only if the other side agreed not to kill them. That doesn't sound like oppression or subjugation to me.
Pera_Espinosa ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:13:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Beyond willing - Israel has offered huge swaths of land repeatedly in hopes to get just that in return - but it was rejected in favor of more violence every time. The two most recent instances were 2000 and 2008.
It's so frustrating to see this cynical game played by Arab leaders that endlessly victimizes the Palestinian people in return for anti Israel propaganda. The sad part is that it will continue for as long as it is rewarded but too much of the international media is more than willing to play along and seize on the oppressive Jews narrative they find so irresistible.
parchy66 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:19:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly.
castille360 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:33:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And while I'm confidant the vast majority of Israelis are reasonable people I would embrace, I also understand there are neighborhoods tolerated where I could face assault for not conforming to rigid gender rules for women. Should we not be concerned about the power the ultra-orthodox wield in Israel and be cautious and watchful lest they're permitted to to move Israeli society in a more "saudi arabiaish" direction by inches?
parchy66 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:21:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This will never happen. And because we live in a world full of problems, you're better off worrying about something that already happened rather than something equally bad which may or may not happen.
pm_me_bellies_789 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 16:39:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well... they shouldn't have settled there in the first place. Or expanded. Not that I'm having a go at Israeli's in particular, but the state. You're kind of ignoring that it was basically an invasion.
parchy66 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:20:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I used to think this too until I researched it. Jews were in israel more than 2000 years ago and never left.
If you read about the decades leading up to 1948 you'll see that the term "invasion" is wildly inaccurate.
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 17:26:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How much land?
parchy66 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Giving up land for peace is not the same as letting your enemy destroy you. Land gained through wars started by the enemy, for the defensive purposes, is not any sort of justification or sign that you don't want peace.
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:52:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How much land are Israelis willing to give to Palestinians exactly? Would they relinquish the occupied territory?
parchy66 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:02:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. They have offered it (and more) several times throughout history. The problem is that there are several Palestinians factions who will not take anything less than 100% of Israel. Hamas has even said that they will hunt down every Jew in the world. So you have that to negotiate with.
Check out what happened in 2005 with Gaza; Israel unilaterally pulled it's own people out of that territory (with great efforts) as a good will measure and almost immediately Hamas took over and started raining rockets. All of the recent wars has been from Gaza and clearly, it's demonstrated that land for peace is naive.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:30:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
schmidttingthebed ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:36:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you didn't visit the Palestinian Territories?
SoundOfDrums ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:42:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You mean the Territory they've decided to steal from Israel government under the guise of some promise made thousands of years ago? Is that not the basis of the conflict? Attempting to secede based on some thousands of years old hearsay?
schmidttingthebed ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:45:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's a no
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:34:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So then how come those Palestinians aren't afforded any of the rights that any other Israeli citizen is entitled to?
Either they're Palestinians and they have a right to their own self-determination or they are part of Israel and they are entitled to all the rights accorded to Israeli citizens like any other. (Well, I mean, putting aside the fact that Palestinians who are "legitimate" Israeli citizens are still second-class citizens in the eyes of the Knesset, that is.)
SoundOfDrums ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:37:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Racism against them aside, did the conflict itself not start because they wanted to secede? Is your point that any other Israeli would be permitted to secede?
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:47:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I'm saying this:
If "Palestine" is actually all Israeli land, then why are the people living on this land not afforded all of the rights that every other Israeli is afforded?
I'm not talking about some Hamas fighter or even a person who believes in Palestinian independence, just some kid or some dirt farmer who happens to be born on land that the Palestinian state claims as their land. Are these Palestinians born on Israeli land not Israeli citizens?
I'm saying this: either Israel is at war with the state of Palestine or Israel encompasses the historical land of the Palestinian people, in which case Israel is an apartheid state.
Which one is it?
SoundOfDrums ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:26:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd love to see how you're drawing the parallels between Israel and apartheid with a little data thrown in.
Not going to bite on the false choice though.
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is Palestine a separate state or is it simply a part of Israel?
SoundOfDrums ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:23:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
From what I've understood, it's a separatist movement within Israel that really started coming into it's own in the 50's. It's been a while since I've looked at the info though, could be mis-remembering.
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:43:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So then why are the regular people who live in the disputed region not allowed the freedom to travel or to vote or to participate in Israeli society? Why are they not afforded the rights to which every Israeli citizen is entitled to?
If it's due to ethnicity that these people are denied rights as citizens, if their participation in civil society is restricted (or in the this case, entirely denied), if they are
bitnot permitted to travel freely, and so on then this is clearly a situation where a group of people are living in a country to which they are subjected to a Middle Eastern form of apartheid.SoundOfDrums ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:38:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you sure it's an ethnicity thing not the whole blowing people up thing?
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not all Palestinians are militants or even supporters of the PLO. I can't believe I have to tell you that...
SoundOfDrums ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're saying that they shouldn't have checkpoints to make sure people aren't carrying fucking bombs? When there's a history of people doing that? Are they being denied the ability to travel through the checkpoints, or do they have to be checked to make sure they're not carrying weapons to commit mass murder?
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:54:56 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not just a matter of going through the Israeli version of the TSA in order to travel. They are not treated as citizens of Israel. They are not given the rights entitled to Israeli citizens.
Can they vote in Israel? No. Can they drive in Israel? No. Are they issued Israeli passports? No. Do they have any rights to fair process in the judicial system? No. Do they have access to the judicial system at all? No. Can they go to Israeli schools or hospitals? No. Are they permitted to travel in Israel? No. Can they own property in Israel? No. Are they entitled to any rights that an Israeli citizen is? No.
Is this because of where they were born? No - plenty of Israelis have been born beyond the green line.
Is this because of their ethnicity? Why yes. Yes it is.
Gee whiz - that's just like apartheid in South Africa! In fact, in many ways it's actually worse!! Good thing that Israel is a bastion of Human Rights in the Middle East - without Israel existing just imagine how Palestinians would be treated...
CreativeName1357 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:47:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No i don't think that was safe, i was there on holiday i'm just telling what i've seen in Jerusalem. I'm sure live in warzones isn't as good as in Jerusalem but you probably knew that.
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In legislation (n.b. this is only legislation and not how the laws are enacted) there are 35 separate clauses which discriminate against Palestinians which are Israeli citizens. [1]
Israeli citizens that are ethnically Palestinian are literally second-class citizens.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:44:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's in the link in my original comment
CreativeName1357 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:50:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I saw the numbers but i meant if you maybe know a list of the actual laws?(i'd like to see what those laws exactly are to see if there's a reason that no one i talked to in Jerusalem mentioned it) I'll check the link again might have missed it will edit this later.
Easy-eyy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:30:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's the difrence between forcibly removing people from their land ( Israel ) and killing someone who opposed being removed from their land (Saudi)
TargusNazg ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:20:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Subjugating and oppressing? I think you're having a stroke.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:27:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Citonpyh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:33:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
there is a difference of power, and the USA has indeed done a lit more fucked up things than libya, because they could.
grey_hat_uk ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 14:38:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most of SA is quite nice according to family members I trust, at least near the south.
DeviantDork ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:45:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do women you know say about it? Genuinely curious.
xiic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:22:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Middle class Saudi women have chauffeurs to drive them everywhere and maids to cook and clean. Also they just go to Europe any time they want to let off a little steam. It's the poor immigrant workers who get the real shit end of the stick.
stRanger2396 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:33:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Slaves
FTFY
Paltenburg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:32:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So what about the woman maids and drivers?
DeviantDork ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:42:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's illegal for women to drive.
grey_hat_uk ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 15:01:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
From what I understand the enforcement of the dress code isn't too bad due to the weather making it quite a practical option away from the seas. I'm not sure they would be happy long term but for a working holiday dressing for the situation is normal.
Again a lot of things didn't effect them due to being their a short time, being in a city, being there due to a university(money greases the wheels) and not being practicing of any religion.
I'd have to speak to them to get clearer picture as between them they've also visited Egypt, Yemen, Oman and Ethiopia and I would want to feed the wrong information.
DeviantDork ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:34:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Visiting is not like living.
I'd be careful in the future to not promote somewhere as "quite nice" when you have no idea what living there is like.
grey_hat_uk ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:50:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, that's what I said. It's also a third party comparative to places like Africa, some of east Asian and eastern Europe.
This is not gospel or even a critic of SA, just that female visitors where not horrified by the trip.
DeviantDork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:12:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Quite nice" and "not horrified" are two phrases that generally don't equate.
Liquidhind ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 15:29:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, the IDF can be just as objectionable as the Saudi religious police for different reasons.
Pera_Espinosa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:14:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Right. Like not allowing Israeli citizens to be murdered. Perfect moral equivalence.
Liquidhind ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:21:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
dont be childish. The blockades and denial of civil services etc. are what I'm talking about, NOT shooting knife wielding maniacs.
Pera_Espinosa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:49:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Great example. Israel left Gaza in 2005. There was no blockade. Then the strip got turned into a launching pad for rocket attacks - blockade.
The conditions they are claiming as the cause for the rocket attacks weren't present when they began. It's clear that the people in power in Gaza want there to be a conflict no matter what the situation is.
JRyefield ยท 88 points ยท Posted at 13:52:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you really compare? Israeli arabs enjoy rights and standard of living blacks in SA can only dream of
lebron181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:51:06 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except sterilisation
grey_hat_uk ยท -18 points ยท Posted at 13:56:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Only treating the attitude of a large west nation to a middle est nation with is highly comparable.
JRyefield ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 14:19:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fair enough; I would, how ever, one could argue that while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a territorial (ok, at least on the Israeli side, and more of a religious conflict on the Pali side), and in a territorial conflict "to each his own" and arguments can be made for both sides, the human right situation is Saudi Arabia cannot be excused and the a western country cannot morally take the Saudi side on it. This isn't a dispute over land, but the atrocious way they treat their own citizens
grey_hat_uk ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:27:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ok so the UK are turning an even blinder eye.
JRyefield ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:37:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, albeit I can totally see why and frankly, even as an Israeli, can't blame or judge them
davidhow94 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:11:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Personally I'd say it's more a nationalist or survival conflict for the Palestinians.
Edit: I'm not saying Israel is to blame or anything. Both sides have made mistakes and it is an incredibly complex situation. Partly because I believe for the Israeli's the conflict is also one based on survival and nationalism
JRyefield ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 15:36:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree, and I am somewhat closer to the subject than you might be (Israeli, 5 years combat deployment in Gaza and West Bank). But I'm biased, of course, and you are entitled to your opinion of course. I would be interested in hearing why you find it a matter of survival for the Palestinians though. Are you suggesting that if Hamas put down their weapons, Israel would proceed to destroy gaza for example?
davidhow94 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:51:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe I should have phrased it better, I meant more of conflict for the survival of their nation. I wouldn't expect Israel to slaughter anyone without provocation. For Palestinians I can imagine that they see Israel as the biggest opponent to a thriving/prosperous Palestine.
JRyefield ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:43:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
David I think you are pretty much on point there. But the question is WHAT Palestinian leadership you refer to: the PA is perceived as more moderated and secular, at least on the surface, but Hamas is an extreme Shariah-law party, not much different than ISIS if you will, and they see the very existence of a Jewish presence on Waqf (holy lands) as intolerable abomination. It's not about prosperity or wellbeing of their people (which they gladly sacrifice time and time again).
davidhow94 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:35:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sadly the Palestinian leadership is fragmented, they would have a lot better time negotiating as unified moderates. I was referring to the average Palestinian in general though rather than a specific leadership. Although I think the PA at least has Palestinians best interests at heart. I agree with your point on Hamas, the people they represent have been radicalized by conflict, and a lot of them our possessed with religious fervor against a Jewish state.
Tempest_1 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:50:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm American, and I barely trust my government. I can only imagine the levels of distrust that Hamas/Palestinians have for Israel and their supporters.
Not saying it's exactly warranted in 2017, but their isn't much history to backup Israel's peaceful intentions.
foopirata ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 16:23:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep, repeatedly offering upwards of 90% of what the Palestinians require as a basis for negotiation and unilaterally retreating from all of Gaza in 2005 surely show's Israel expansionist and belligerent intentions. Oh, wait...
Tempest_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey, I'm not saying Israel isn't being quite rational and forgiving. Just that there is some warrant to apprehension by the Palestinians. I mean this all started by aggression against the Palestineans.
foopirata ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 16:34:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You were literally saying "but their isn't much history to backup Israel's peaceful intentions", to which I replied. In the interest of clarity, when you say "I mean this all started by aggression against them" who is "them" ?
Tempest_1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:42:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Historically, I was speaking about actions, not necessarily whatever has been happening with the whole truce/negotiations.
I admit, I am ignorant on the subject and may have commented without much actual backing! But I did want to chime in for discussion and maybe glean more on the situation.
Now there I am talking about substantive action that Israel has taken to cause peace. Maybe there is more than I know of (withdrawing from territory, etc.)
Regarding "them" (The Palestinians), I was talking about the creation of the Jewish state and the taking of land from the Palestinians.
foopirata ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:28:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for your candid response. I'd like to take a second to make some points, which in no way are the totality of the problem but might help evaluate future approaches to it.
before Israel's independence the area was under a British Mandate. Before that, it was the Ottoman Empire. There was never a "Palestinian state" in the area
there have always been Jews in the area of Israel. there have always been non-Jews in the same area. It is a documented fact that Arab workers started migrating in higher numbers to the area due to improved work conditions once European Jews brought the latest technology of the time (1800s) into play
the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded in 1964. That is, before the Six Day War which gave Israel control over Gaza and the West Bank. Prior, Gaza was Egypt and the West Bank was Jordan. During those times, there was never a request for a Palestinian state in either.
Jordan population is 75% Palestinian
In Lebanon, Palestinians cannot hold most of the normal professions, only a small number
Arab countries have never awarded citizenship to Palestinians living there. Jordan took citizenship from those with dual citizenship.
20% of the Israeli population is made up of Israeli Arabs. They serve in the army, are doctors, lawyers, generals and serve in the Israeli Parliament in Israeli parties and Arab-only parties .
Tempest_1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:13:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting. Your comment sheds light on how, it seems, Palestinians aren't really "cared" for in the middle east. And are really only used as political ammunition, by Middle Eastern countries against Israel.
foopirata ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:19:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://www.meforum.org/3121/jordan-is-palestinian
idan5 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:28:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nicely done by both of you, having a civil discussion on reddit, worldnews.. and in an article about the U.N. and Saudi Arabia.
I commend you.
idan5 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:27:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
One of the best discussions I've seen on reddit lately, good job to both of you.
pm_me_passion ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:53:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you have your history a bit mixed up. During Israel's creation, it was the neighboring Arab countries that invaded what was then called "the British mandate of Palestine". There was no palestinian state at the time (or now, for that matter), and the name of the area was just a remnant of the roman empire. If you're interested in the subject, look up the 1947-1948 conflict.
Tempest_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:02:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
See the inception period is what I'm interested in. How Israel accumulated the land initially. I read up how many Isreali's actually owned the land then congregated, but am unsure how this process took place.
Was Britain the governing body over that area, and they ceded most of it to Israel?
pm_me_passion ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:27:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can do a quick historical recap of the situation, but it's going to be pretty shallow and probably a bit biased in favour of Israel - so I advise you to also read from other sources if you're interested.
It's hard to pick a definite starting point for it all, because Jews have been living and moving to Israel since roman times. I'll pick the end of WWI, because that's where most of the action starts.
See, by the point of WWI, nationalism was already a pretty big trend in Europe and many other places around the world. The name for Jewish nationalism is "Zionism", so I'll use that. Like many other people, Zionists also wanted a country for their own people - there were other options considered other than Israel, but it was hard to get a lot of Jewish support for any of those. The person credited for getting the idea off the ground is Theodor Herzl, and you can read about him on wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl#Diplomatic_liaison_with_the_Ottomans
Before WWI that territory was part of the Ottoman empire, in the southern part of their district of Syria. So Herzl tried to convince both Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman officials to endorse and support the idea of letting Jews move there, in exchange for money. The idea was mostly met with a "meh". At the same time, other Zionist factions slowly immigrated to Israel, bought land, greatly expanded Jerusalem around the Old City, modernized and industrialised what was a pretty backwards place at the time. This created tension with the local Arab population, but also created an influx of Arab immigrants from other parts of the Ottoman empire to the newly developing area where jobs were being created - with a lot of help from rich Jewish donors like the Rothschilds.
In WWI the British tried to get the support of local factions in the middle-east, and did that mostly by promising great rewards for those who will support them against the Ottomans. They promised the Hashemites, a powerful clan that ruled Mecca at the time, a huge united arab country over most of the Middle-East in the McMahonโHussein Correspondence. They promised the French about half of that territory, too, in the SykesโPicot Agreement. They also sort of implied that they support a Jewish homeland in today's Israel with the Balfour Declaration. So you can see it was a bit of a mess.
To focus on our story, what came about by the end of WWI in Israel was British colonial rule over the area. The league of nations was formed, and de-colonization was the new trend. The league granted the UK a mandate to rule Palestine, until the locals (by now a lot of Arabs and some Jews, with a sprinkling of some other ethnicities and religions without much national aspirations) can rule themselves. Thus "the British mandate of Palestine" or "Mandatory Palestine".
Following the war, the Zionist movement gained much more traction. With the Balfour declaration behind them, more and more Jews emigrated to Mandatory Palestine. They bought even more land, created many new settlements, such as Tel-Aviv, expanded Jerusalem even further. But the local (and not so local) arabs were also getting more nationalistic. Hostilities broke out in several places and times, with both sides creating their own para-military groups, such as Haganah. In response, and in an effort to appease the Arabs, the British authorities decided to limit the amount of Jews that may move to Mandatory Palestine. The Jews responded to this by creating their own terrorist groups to fight the Brits, and with a whole lot of illegal immigration, mostly by sea.
This went on for a while, with a lot of tit-for-tat between all three sides, until WWII broke out. Not surprisingly, the Jewish factions in Mandatory Palestine supported the British in their fight against the Nazis - but they also redoubled their efforts to get Jews in there, and away from Nazi occupied lands. Many Jews joined the British army to enter the fight. David Ben Gurion, a leader of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine and Israel's first prime minister, is quoted as saying: "We must support the [British] army as though there were no White Paper, and fight the White Paper as though there were no war. " (The "White Paper" being the document that limited Jewish immigration to Israel)
By 1945, at the end of WWII, there was much more public support for the idea of Zionism due mostly to the Holocaust. The United Nations inherited the League of Nations, and decided in 1947 to divide Mandatory Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs there, to create two different states. The Jews rejoiced and accepted the plan - it's remembered as a day of celebration with dancing in the streets. The Arab factions rejected the plan - and so outright civil war broke out between Jews and Arabs, with the British caught in the middle and trying to get out of the way as much as they could. In May 14, 1948, during the war, the Jews declare independence from the British mandate and the formation of the State of Israel - the IDF is quickly formed by combining Haganah and other groups. In response, neighboring Arab countries (Mostly Egypt, Syria, Jordan and some troops from other countries) invade the area - civil war turns into the 1948 war of independence. The Brits decide this is a fantastic time to go back home, and so they do. The British Mandate of Palestine is no more.
By the end of the war, Israel somehow wins. Armistice lines are marked between the new state and it's immediate neighbors) - Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. This is what you may know as "The Green Line", or the "1967 armistice Line". Those are the de-facto borders of the new state, and how Israel was formed.
(This got way, way longer than I initially intended!)
Tempest_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:29:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for the detailed response. Interesting to hear more of the Zionist movement and events in the area pre-WWII.
pm_me_passion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:00:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, I'll probably use this sometime again in the future. Seems like a waste to have it lying here so far down the comment chain. There's obviously way more to it.
Chewybunny ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:20:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Summary here only: a lot of the land was bought by Jewish settlers in the 19th century from Palestinians. During the mandate period, the British held Transjordan, which was roughly what is today Israel and Jordan combined. There was a lot of in-fighting between Jewish and Arab citizens then (they weren't considered Palestinians, or Jordanian, just Arabs). And A TON of anti-Semitism from Arab groups towards Jews (for example, the Mufti of Jerusalem was in league with Hitler and encouraged if not given him the idea of the Holocaust).
When the mandate ended and the British decided to split the land, they created a Jewish state and an Arab state. The other Arab states refused and invaded Israel. During the chaos of the conflict, many Palestinians were driven from home. Many many MORE left on their own accord. Also, at that point, many Arab states starting expelling Jews from their own countries. The couple of hundred thousand Arabs in Palestine that left, were granted refugee status and so have their descendants (the only refugee group that has this privilege mind you).
Chewybunny ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:13:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you mean Israeli aggression towards Palestinians? Because I think history is a bit different than that.
Tempest_1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:10:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. I edited my comment. Sorry for my lack of clarity.
Chewybunny ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:16:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah okay, thanks.
Although I would tend to disagree with the statement, since it really wasn't the Israelis that started it.
JRyefield ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:29:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You mean, Israel's willingness to yield to 99% of the PLO's demands in every single peace conference to date in return to a mere acknowledgment in Israel's right to exist isn't quite enough, is it? I think you could benefit from reading a bit more about the conflict, I'm not dissing you, just saying. And of course, that's just the PLO (today's Palestinian authority). With Hamas there's no negotiating as they refuse to negotiate with the infields and their only term is the complete abolition of the Jewish state, which is a problematic demand to begin any negotiation with, I think.
Tempest_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:31:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL!
Of course, I see Israel as being the more rational contemporary party. But I really can't begrudge their sentiment. It's radicalism caused by foreign intervention.
JRyefield ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:39:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How do you mean (last part)?
Tempest_1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a point I think you could definitely enlighten me/change my whole point. I'm referring to the Nationalization of Israel. The point in history when they declared all X amount of Land as Israel's?
The little research I've done shows how a lot of Land for Israel was actually owned by Jews before nationalization. But at the end of the day coercion/aggression of some sort had to take place to congregate the rest from the Palestineans and their held land?
I'm not sure on the details of the inception period (when it actually became a country) and how the military was founded and acted in this period. Was it entirely Israeli forces that forged the nation?
Regardless of my personal inquiries though, Israel was ordained by the U.S. and U.N. Middle Eastern countries viewed this as outside intervention. It's what we see with Al Queda and ISIS. Foreign intervention breeds contempt.
Although doing more digging. I do see some substantive actions for peace by Israel (I forgot they took the Sinai peninsula and gave it up).
JRyefield ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:38:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not even the fact lots of the land had already purchased by Jews, it's the fact that UN proposed a partition plan of Mandatory Palestine* (1920) which allocated 82.5% of the land originally designated of the Jewish states, to the arabs (and 17.5% left for the Jewish state to come). On to of that, 60% of the little land the Jews did receive was the Negev, an arid desert then thought useless. Nevertheless, the Jews immediate accepted the plan, the arabs rejected it absolutely. They were offered a state, but were much more hooked on abolishing the Jewish state than having a state of their own.
Here are really cool videos (about 5 minutes each) that break the subject down in a way 5 years olds can easily grasp. Feel free too later do fact checking on google, but do me one favour and watch this vid (and I suggest, others in their links)
vid1 vid2
*the old name of the region, Palestine, automatically and falsely suggests it originally belonged to the people now referred to as Palestinians. Not in the slightest and the opposite is true - they named themselves that after the fact (after the establishment of Israel, to give that idea. More here ) .
Tempest_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:09:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for the stats. I'll make sure to watch these when I get off work.
It very much seems like there's been a consistently anti-jewish narrative in the Middle East, even though Israel seemed to go about land procurement quite "legally" and were willing to make concessions.
frosthowler ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:01:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is way smaller than you think, and the Jews who funded the Zionist movements were way richer than you'd imagine. Israel was initially given about half its current territory, not even including WB/Gaza (i.e. half its '67 territory). This area was land that was nearly entirely controlled by the Jews, and very little land was left. Great swaths of land were actually public land, and those naturally changed control from Ottoman, to British, to Israeli.
Once Israel won its War of Independence, it took control of all public British land and changed sovereignity to Israeli, and furthermore nationalized various movements whose purpose was to buy up the Land of Israel. All such land became public land -- and so today, the overwhelming majority of modern Israel is actually public land, unlike say the U.S. which is nearly entirely AFAIK private land. While you in effect purchase 'real estate', it is technically still owned by the state and the 'permission' for owning land in it just changes hands when you sell it off. Legally I believe every agricultural piece of land belongs to the State (and is leased to farmers who during Israel's founding have promised to cultivate it, now belonging to their descendants, but still owned by the state), for example.
Many Palestinians were forcefully driven out of their villages during strategic battles (and there were two cases in the north where it was actually done out of sinister purposes, the only two situations I know, whose perpretrators were held accountable). But many more have left voluntarily, both because of mass panic induced by Arab radio and the idea that they should leave their homes for now until the Arabs won. These people became stuck in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, etc, and to induce pressure on Israel, for closing in one hundred years these countries have refused to grant them citizenship and live like human beings.
I couldn't possibly say my forefathers had a halo over their heads as they attempted to buy up the land. This is true even now -- the settlement enterprise, which is highly infamous in the international arena, despite popular misconception, is not a 'domestically' illegal movement. It is illegal (but treated as disputed locally) in the international arena, but not because of 'land theft' or whatever, but because of a clause stating that the transfer of population by occupying power is illegal.
The settlement enterprise manages to build houses because there are organizations that create shell Arab companies that deceive Palestinians who wish to sell their lands, pretending that the buyers are Arabs and not Jews. Refusing to sell to Jews is hardly any better in my mind though, so I don't personally care too much about this deception.
The IDF was originally the paramilitary organization known as the Haganah, which means 'the Defense'. The Haganah was founded shortly before the creation of Israel by the merging of various smaller paramilitary organizations, some of them indeed considered as terrorists, though with a far greater moral compass -- the infamous bombing of the King David Hotel was meant to be a display, not a massacre, but the hotel staff refused to believe the Irgun men who called them that bombs have been placed inside. A terrible catastrophe.
But entirely Jewish forces created the state that was during the War of Independence named Israel.
Speaking as an Israeli, it is hard for me to state this objectively, but at least from what I grew up learning, Israel has received absolutely no aid by the U.N. that contributed to its founding (especially not the U.S., which was neutral towards netural hostile at the time) -- Israel was settled, fought for, won, and created by Israelis, and the only thing the U.N. was useful for is international recognition, which Israel didn't really need it for. It would be very wrong to say that the U.N. 'created' Israel or especially that without the U.N. there would be no Israel. Israel's existing is hardly foreign intervention -- but Israel's continued existence thanks to U.S. military aid is indeed foreign intervention. But then again, the USSR gave military aid and equipment to Syria and Egypt for them to fight Israel, so what do we care?
In the end, the Israeli-Arab conflict is just as much a Cold War era phenomenon as it is an anti-semitism phenomenon. There would be no '67 or '73 war without the USSR and the U.S., and there would be no Israel without anti-semitism.
Tempest_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:06:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Awesome. Thanks for such a detailed response.
Could you shed light on how the Israeli military was able to gain weapons, conscripts, etc. so easily? I've been under the impression this was where most of their foreign aid was (Israeli boots on the ground with U.S. armaments).
frosthowler ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:29:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Indeed many of the weapons Israel owns are U.S. manufactured, though Israel boasts a very innovated and powerful weapons industry. I'm an Israeli soldier -- a conscript -- and the M16 rifle I was equipped with during Basic Training was a Vietnam-era U.S. military rifle. Additionally, many if not most of the chains holding our ... IDs? Dog tags? have 'U.S.A', amusingly, engraved in them.
Israel only first started getting weapons from the U.S.A in the 1960s IIRC, and the U.S. was still not so sure about us, so only once the Israeli government threatened nuclear bombardment on Syria and Egypt in the 1973 Yom Kippur War did the U.S. government send its first massive military aid package to Israel, though it only arrived after the end of the war.
Israel received its weapons from... I can't actually quite remember, if it was France, Britain, or both of them. Those were the key Israeli allies before the U.S.A became Israel's best friend -- when Egypt closed the Straits of Tehran and blocked the Suez Canal to foreign powers, Israel, Britain, and France together declared war on Egypt in what became known as the Suez Crisis.
Furthermore, Israel not only has a draft for all non-Muslim men and women at the age of 18, but also has a culture very supporting of, and even demanding of, military service. It is considered highly unpopular, cowardice, to draft dodge, though note that most people get drafted into clerks, IT, health, recruitment, PR... anything. Any and every role can be filled with draftees, not just combat troops, so there's really no excuse for draft dodging beyond slacking, and you'd have a real hard time fitting in university at the age of 18 when everyone's 22 and up. Many of those who are exempted from service sign up as volunteers, or choose to do national service.
In the end, it is very difficult to exactly assess what the Israeli military would be like without U.S. aid. Just the aid, not even talking about joint researches conducted and so on. The army keeps the fine details of where the money goes and how critical it is pretty hushed up, probably so as to not induce local feeling that we are vassalized by and are completely dependant on the U.S.A. It is true that, in the end of the day, if the U.S.A would demand something in absolute, Israel will comply. In the end we are supplied by and guarded in the international arena by the U.S.A because we are a strategic extension of its culture, will, and vision in the Middle East.
Regarding aid, note that the aid is actually not just requests by the Israeli lobby in the U.S.A, but also the weapons industry lobby. The U.S. doesn't actually just send whatever we ask of them -- we are given money and told that we must use all of it on the U.S. military industrial complex. Effectively the money never 'leaves' the U.S. and is just channeled into the weapons industry in order to keep it from rusting away. It is very important for the U.S. to be able to manufacture anything its military needs, so as to not be dependant on a country for something in a war. This does require the weapons industry to be very oiled and healthy, though.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:34:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
davidhow94 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:59:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This conflict stretches back to the early 1900's. As outsiders we can rationalize past events away in benefits of a cooperative future, but for the Palestinians that is far more difficult. For all of the last 100 years they've seen Jewish immigration and then Israel as huge threat to first their demographic survival (maintaining majority) and then the Palestinian nation.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
davidhow94 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:39:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed. I was just arguing for the Palestinians that the conflict isn't based on religion imo.
[deleted] ยท 85 points ยท Posted at 13:21:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, because Hamas is such a peaceful and innocent faction, same with Palestine.
OrginalCanadian ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:54:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one brought them up?
grey_hat_uk ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:51:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So?
probablyhrenrai ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:00:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Irsael's origin's are admittedly shit. Israel's being created by Britain after WWII fucked over loads of Palestinians. I get it.
That said, I think that Palestine is wrong to ally with Hamas and support rocket strikes on Israel, particularly given Hamas' use of Palestinian noncombatants as meat-shields for their rocket sites. Further, Israel fights defensively as I understand, while Hamas is almost always the aggressor.
My point is that (TL;DR) Israel's origins were bad, but Palestine is bad. In the past Palestine got screwed by Britain for Israel. I don't think that justifies Israel getting screwed by Hamas for Palestine.
If you disagree and/or if I've said something incorrect, please speak up.
mcysr ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:37:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Something that is rarely mentioned is how the Palestinian people were deliberately kept as refugees, and not assimilated, for decades, by adjacent Islamic countries, to intentionally fester and create discord.
Fester__Shinetop ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:55:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Was it on purpose to create discord for sure? I ask because I see the same thing happening in the UK, but due to some kind of inherent fear of other cultures as far as I can tell. My mum is dead certain they all want her to wear a burka.
grey_hat_uk ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:33:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
not talking about Palestine, just the way western nations treat some states in the middle east differently from the whole.
Areanndee ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:01:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Quality oil and they tend to be more stable than Africa, if you can belive that. Most of Central/South America has been pacified through banana republics, which didn't work in the Middle East (see Iran and the current fallout from Iraq and Afghanistan). So they are treated different because they are different.
buffalo_sauce ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:12:51 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you segregate the orgins from the present day like they're unrelated events? Many see it as one continuous struggle.
tentimes3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:21:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why shouldn't they have a right to fight to get their lands back? If some people came and took your country away to create a new country would you not fight it?
Fester__Shinetop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:04:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I find it an infinitely fascinating topic. Because on one hand yes their land was stolen, on the other hand nowadays we have Israeli people born and raised in Israel with a distinct culture, who now have every right to that land too. They shouldn't be punished for things that happened before they were even born.
I think a good first step would be allowing Palestine to be recognised as a fucking country with actual defined borders, so further encroachment into that territory is no longer debatable. And in turn Palestine could officially recognise Israel and perhaps that would be a better place for them both to start building bridges. But then, it's very easy for me to say that as an outsider with no emotional investment in either place.
pack0newports ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:41:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There were Jews in Israel and the middle East since before 1948 they didn't all just come after WW2. My step mom is a Syrian Jew I know many many Jews from the middle East whose family has always been there.
tentimes3 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:38:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I agree, it's not easy to say what's right. I can understand that many chose to join Hamas and fight, Israelis are encroaching on their territory, diplomacy have not achieved much in stopping that. Being born in Gaza pretty much means you have no future, what else is there to do?
But I agree, most Israelis haven't done anything wrong either.
Also I have never been in the ares so I just speculate like most others.
vodkaandponies ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:48:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm very curious to hear what your opinion of anchor babies is.
MehNahMehNah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:30:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'll speak up. I disagree Israel's origin is shit - unless you are a militant atheist. Meanwhile, Palestinians appear to be some hybrid Arab culture. There are many opinions regarding the 'myth' of Palestine - some are hard-core Zionist, some more temperate historiologically.
Torgamous ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:32:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not just a grudge thing. Israel continues to be bad. They're still stealing land from Palestine right now. They never stopped. Any other country would be well within their rights to shoot back if someone tried that "settlement" bullshit with them.
290077 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:28:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Palestine is deliberately firing rockets at innocent civilians. Is that justified?
vodkaandponies ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:46:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If a group of Mexicans crossed in to Texas and started building towns, insisting that they were part of Mexico, and claiming that Texas will once again be Mexican, I wouldn't have much sympathy if the local Americans got pissed about it.
probablyhrenrai ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:44:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd actually forgotten about that; thank for reminding me, and yes, that is indeed bullshit.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And when they get bored of Palestine, they just go back to bullying their neighbors (lebanon for example), just because they can.
umadareeb ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:17:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The origins weren't just bad, they were much more than that. Zionist terrorist groups were carrying out attacks against Palestinians and even the British which initially supported them after they put a immigration limit. These same Zionist terrorist groups were merged into the IDF and a leader of the Stern Gang was even elected, instead of being tried and put away for life.
Israel is the aggressor. Illegal settlements are literally acts of aggression.
hasabooga ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:34:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly, Palestine wasn't bad until their damn land was stolen!
Kinda hard to negotiate when you're coming from a place of 'we've stolen your land, we're not giving a piece back, in fact we're going to keep taking more. P.s. we're going to block your economy and send you back to the stones ages too.'
Then they have the balls to ask 'why are you turning to extremist parties?'
TargusNazg ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:30:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not giving a piece back? Gaza? West Bank? The fucking multitudes of peace deals we've agreed to that THEY HAVENT?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:56:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let's say I move into your house and kick you and your family out. After a while I agree to give you the backyard back, while at the same time building "my" house further and further into your back yard.
Would you agree to those terms?
A lot of rampant downvotes going on when people are making good points. At the very least Israel's settlement building in Palestinian lands needs to stop.
TargusNazg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except that isn't even close to what happened.
umadareeb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:06:27 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly what happened.
vodkaandponies ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:44:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As if the IDF are any better.
Pera_Espinosa ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:32:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hamas expressly targets civilians on the Israeli side while doing everything possible to put Palestinian civilians in harm's way - while the IDF takes unprecedented measures to limit enemy civilian casualties while protecting its own citizens.
Yes, the IDF isn't perfect and there are instances of soldiers acting out of line as is true with any army made of individuals that can't be wholly controlled. These exceptions can be found. I'm not sure exceptions can be found in which Hamas doesn't act in a deplorable manner that places no value on human life. The IDF is better - exponentially so.
pm_me_passion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What makes you think otherwise? Seems pretty clear to me that the IDF is much, much better than a terrorist group.
vodkaandponies ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:21:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
reason 1
reason 2
reason 3
reason 4
reason 5
reason 6
pm_me_passion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:33:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, those aren't very good reasons, tbh. 3 are incidents from 1948, one isn't even the IDF, one is an accident and one is just a terrorist being shot.
vodkaandponies ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:58:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was still the IDF. doesnt matter if it was 10 day or 10 years ago.
pm_me_passion ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:13:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It was over 60 years ago. Most of the people involved are probably long dead. This is like saying the US Army is as bad as ISIS because of the My Lai Massacre, only even less relevant. If that's your standard, you have way bigger fish to fry than the IDF.
vodkaandponies ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:15:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the perpetrators of My Lai are still alive and have never faced justice, fyi.
pm_me_passion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:21:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, that makes it even worse. So, is the US Army worse than ISIS, and Hamas, and I guess the IDF as well?
safa1375 ยท -27 points ยท Posted at 13:27:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And Israel is any better how?
throwawaythatbrother ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 13:39:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They don't have slavery. They have equal rights for women. Palestinians are in all levels of Israeli government. Women can drive. Israel has been rated the number one middle eastern country for gay rights for a long time. They have social systems etc.
OccamsRifle ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 13:46:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tel Aviv was rated the world's most gay friendly as well, but if you say that, then you are "pinkwashing Israel" apparently
forca_micah ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:16:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's easier for many people to simply paint things with a broad brush. "This country is bad/evil, full stop." It's a shame, because it only encourages further ignorance.
Emaknz ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:14:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"pinkwashing"?! Every time I think I've heard everything, the universe sees fit to prove me wrong.
vodkaandponies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A woman in Israel can't get a divorce without her husbands permission.
throwawaythatbrother ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:53:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's for their minority group of Hasidic, not the general population. Besides, the comparison was between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It's fairly obvious which one is better unless you're being dense.
vodkaandponies ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:26:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So that makes it any better then?
throwawaythatbrother ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:07:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's better than SA, which is the point.
pm_me_passion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:04:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
FYI, a (jewish) man in Israel can't get a divorce without his wife's consent, either. But yeah, there are some aspects of Israeli law that are pretty fucked up - one of them being "personal law", which means different populations are treated differently in marriage/divorce law. It's a hold-over from the time of the British mandate, and it's really hard to change with a lot of resistance to change coming from religious parties (both Jewish and Muslim, IIRC).
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:38:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't forget the way that Palestinian Israeli citizens are regarded under Israeli legislation!
valleyshrew ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 14:26:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In Gaza unwed women get 5 years in jail for getting pregnant. 60% of Palestinians support the death penalty for apostasy.
Citonpyh ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:31:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, better kill them all then
lichtmlm ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:39:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If Israel's trying to kill everyone in Palestine, they're doing a pretty bad job considering the population growth rate in Palestine is almost twice as high as Israel.
ThaBearJew ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:39:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's US policy, not Israeli, and only if there's some oil to "protect".
Citonpyh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah to be honest that was a kneejerk answer. Half my family is from morocco and i despise radical islam but it pains me to see that the escalation in this part of the world can't be stopped, and there is too much propaganda to see the situation clearly.
ijustreally ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 13:30:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What justification can you possibly have to compare Israel to a terrorist organization?
Edit: The good ole anti-Israel downvote brigade has arrived. Downvote instead of having sound reasoning. Seems legit.
[deleted] ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 13:35:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Areanndee ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:17:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're warned in advance. And these are retaliatory strikes, generally for rocket attacks or hiding Hamas.
valleyshrew ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:45:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Source?
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 13:37:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ijustreally ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 13:39:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is literally the only democratic country in the region. Are they perfect? No. Are they incentivizing random attacks on civilians? Is their sole mission to wipe an entire country or group of people off the map? No.
vodkaandponies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are a lot of Israelis who are pretty vocal about their desire to drive the Palestinians in Gaza into the sea. The Israeli justice minister for one.
pm_me_passion ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:05:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've never heard that before. Can you give a source for that, please?
vodkaandponies ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:14:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"They [Palestinians] are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."
source
pm_me_passion ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:09:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Erm, she didn't say that, though. She re-posted an old article about total war and what it means. Here's a full quote, in Hebrew (I couldn't find an English version).
vodkaandponies ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:16:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
well I dont speak Hebrew.....
pm_me_passion ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:22:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Neither do the reporters you quoted, most likely.
Randymgreen ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 14:03:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They aren't a democracy, they have different laws for different ethnic groups, they are an apartheid state. You also can't be a democracy and a religious state. It's either or.
yoelish ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:05:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For example?
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:20:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joalr0 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:43:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
From the article you just linked...
So the answer is there are no different laws for different ethnic groups.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 15:00:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joalr0 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:04:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I actually struggle to give see how that is discrimination. Arabs are welcome to join the IDF, and when they do are given all the benefits of joining. They simply have the option, while jewish citizens it is mandatory. I would actually say a stronger argument could be made for discrimination if it was reversed, forcing the Arab citizens into the Army but not anyone else.
I just struggle to see how being able to choose is discrimination.
TargusNazg ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:33:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If anything it discriminates Jewish citizens due to their being forced into the IDF.
yoelish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:19:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry, OP said Israel has different laws for their citizens based on ethnicity - or perhaps religion, you later speculated. I don't see any examples of that in the article to which you linked. Could you please cite a law in Israel that applies only to citizens of a certain ethnicity or religion?
Randymgreen ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:55:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Segregated roads, Israeli only settlements, stolen houses in Jerusalem and Hebron, Palestinian children being tried younger than Israeli kids. Palestinians being under military law while Israelis under secular etc etc.
yoelish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:00:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
None of which has anything to do with ethnicity or religion - the laws that apply only to Israelis apply equally to Israeli Arabs as to Jews. The laws that apply only to Palestinians would apply equally to Palestinian Jews as they do to Palestinian Arabs - although of course Palestine does not allow Jews to be citizens by law.
Is your complaint that Israel has different laws for their citizens and for the citizens of a country with whom they are at war?
Randymgreen ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
โIs your complaint that Israel has different laws for their citizens and for the citizens of a country with whom they are at war?โ
No, they are not at open war with the west bank are they, stop misrepresenting the situation. They have two choices:
In either case, stop harassing them at every turn and gtfo of Hebron, get the illegal settlements the fuck away.
You can't indefinitely militarily occupy an indigenous people, and at the very least you have to give them some rights, even the disgusting British empire did some infrastructure and some small perks of being in the commonwealth, although it was generally a horrible patronising paternalistic care at best.
yoelish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:21:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Arabs started a war against Israel (several, actually).
Israel fought back.
Israel won.
Israel engaged in a military occupation of the belligerent until a peace agreement was reached. As of yet it has not been.
Typically the losers - especially the aggressors - of a war are in a position where the conditions of their surrender are negotiated. It is not clear to me why that has not yet occurred.
Imagine if the nazis would not have surrendered after world war 2. Would the Allied occupation of Germany that presumably would still be going on be illegal as well?
valleyshrew ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:32:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You know Israel isn't a religious state? Judaism is not a state religion. The founding fathers of zionism were mostly atheists. Netanyahu himself is secular. And you absolutely can be religious and democratic - 99% of Iranians voted for theocracy, how is that undemocratic? Secular democracy is not the only kind of democracy.
It's affirmative action. There are 50 Islamic countries that dream of starting a second holocaust, so Israel is a safe haven for the Jews. 850,000 Jews were exiled from Islamic countries in the past 60 years. Israel is only 0.02% of the land in the middle east, and Jews owned 5 times as much land in the middle east in 1940 as they do today. Arab Israelis have equal rights, except for conscription in the army, but many volunteer. Israel even recognises Sharia courts.
By far the least apartheid-like state in the region. In Palestine they have the death penalty for selling land to a Jew. In Israel Arabs can live anywhere, they serve in the government, they're on the supreme court and they are officers in the army.
Randymgreen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:54:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Other Arab states, that have fuck all to do with Palestine, being โworse than Israel is some insane low-bar setting whataboutism. Get out of it.
Randymgreen ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:53:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
โGod doesn't exist but he did give us this land thoughโ yeah I saw plenty of that bullshit out there from Israelis.
MrFakeMustache ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:40:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, Randymgreen. Apartheid states discriminate who they let vote.
Arab and "Palestinian" citizens of Israel have equal voting rights. Beyond that, Israel lets a mosque stand on the Jewish Temple Mount, which they provide security for while Muslims refuse to let a Jew on the site.
Muhammed put in the Quran that he rode a flying donkey to the Jewish Temple Mount thousands of years after Jews claimed the area. LoL. Israel has been very kind to Muslims who terrorize Israel in return.
Get a clue, bro.
Randymgreen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:52:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck that, they only allow some of the ones inside Israel proper to vote, while simultaneously claiming the WB as their โjudean sumariaโ yet denying any civil rights to the people within. They don't let people in the bank or Gaza vote despite indefinitely occupying them.
They have separate roads for different ethnic groups, they have sperate laws pertaining to them, the age of criminal responsibility is lower for Palestinian children is lower than Jewish children, and Palestinians are tried under military law while Israelis are tried under civilian. They bulldoze homes, cut off water, steal Hebron and cripple them economically and logistically with closing the main street and their apartheid wall (when there have been no rocket attacks from the bank, just gaza, the PA even thawted an attempt) they allow insane rabid religious extremists to settle Palestinian land and protect them with the military, when they bust in to the Abraham mosque when it's not their day to use it the army protects them.
When they do get caught killing a prisoner who's disarmed on the ground or burning a baby in their crib they get tiny tiny sentences, with a massive disparity vs Palestinian criminals.
That's just shit off the top of my head.
I've been to Israel and Palestine twice and seen it with my own eyes. So don't try that bullshit apologia with me kid.
Citonpyh ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:29:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, they already have mostly wiped palestine off the map, and keep taking land.. At some point some resistance is to be expected
yungPrez ยท -13 points ยท Posted at 13:45:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're the founders of terrorism in the Middle East (ever heard of Irgun and stern gang?), their government is closer to apartheid than democracy
Edit: this was supposed to be a reply to a comment about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East.
Amfly ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:04:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Source it or shut it
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:18:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
yungPrez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:04:07 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you Ovais, and Amfly I hope you're a little less ignorant of the situation now
sugeon ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 14:08:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apartheid does not equal democracy
Areanndee ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:14:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You'd be right but it's not apartheid. All people have the same opportunity for the same rights and benefits. People who serve in the military get a little extra. Jews must serve, everyone else is optional. But if they choose to serve they are on par with everyone who did. Also, Isreal has Arabs at all levels of government, including their supreme court.
Making this accusation takes away from the horror of actual apartheid states. You shouldn't do it.
As29801 ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 13:55:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You misspelled Jordan.
valleyshrew ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:28:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jordan isn't democratic. And it's not remotely liberal. The vast majority of Jordan's parliament (who are subservient to the king) called a guy a hero after he opened fire on a bus full of Israeli school girls. Jordan has 3 years in jail for insulting Muhammad. Israel is like any other western country in terms of its liberal values.
As29801 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:29:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You know nothing valleyshrew
Areanndee ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:06:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's helpful. You really got them there! All those apparent facts they posted can't hold up to the idea that they "know nothing".
Namboman ยท -11 points ยท Posted at 13:52:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Democracy doesn't make you inherently superior, who's brainwashed again?
mcysr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:27:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes! Look how Turkey is blossoming now that they are finally getting Allah back in charge!
SyrianArabArmy ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 13:34:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is the reason that there is a terrorist organisation?
karadan100 ยท -19 points ยท Posted at 13:38:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They regularly bulldoze peoples houses (with people often in them) in an attempt to aggressively expand their territory. It's an illegal acquisition of land but they give no fucks. Their snipers shoot unarmed civilians and get off scott free. Mossad is legitimately a terrorist organisation as well.
gibson_guy77 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 13:45:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
source?
OccamsRifle ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 13:47:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His ass
AnalOgre ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:00:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He provided a hunch of sources. Is it your assertion that Israel isn't expanding into Palestinian Territories? That they aren't bulldozing peoples homes and taking land that does not belong to them? Even their allies know that them expanding settlements is illegal.
Time to read more about the situation if you think anything that person said was made up.
OccamsRifle ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:11:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He provided literally no sources in his comment. He just made assertions.
So let's go over his assertions shall we?
A single statement that somehow manages to have at least 3 fundamental flaws in it.
A. Israel does bulldoze peoples houses, I don't think that is up for debate. However it certainly isn't regularly, unless of course you think to include Israel demolishing settlers homes in that statement, since those are demolished even more frequently.
According to B'Tselem 274 homes were demolished in 2016 and that was the highest by far it had been in years. And yet even they acknowledge that the homes were demolished due to lack of building permits and not building to code.
Virtually no country in the world allows you to build without a permit, so this is nothing out of the ordinary just because Israel does it.
B. I would love a source of Israel often demolishing a home with people inside of them. The only time I can recall offhand of Israel killing someone via demolition was Rachel Corrie, who was
a) not inside of abuilding, rather outside of it,
b) was not involved in a home demolition, rather a routine terrain leveling and debris clearing and
c) in the blindspot of the bulldozer where there driver could not see her. In fact her own father a man who was a combat engineer in Vietnam with experience with these vehicles went on the record saying that it wasn't intentional, rather it was gross negligence that killed her.
C. In an attempt to aggressively expand their territory is laughable. After already establishing that the homes are demolished due to them being built without permits, let's look at Israel's actual "aggressive expansion."
The last time Israel annexed territory was the Golan Heights in 1981.
The last time the Israeli government built a new settlement was in 1996 with the foundation of Modiin Illit.
And that's even ignoring the fact that some of the largest settlements were actually legally purchased by Jews and built up prior to 1948, and where then ethnically cleansed by the Jordanian. After 1967 people were literally returning to land that they owned. Something I think you believe the Palestinians have a right to, so at least be consistent and admit the Jews do as well.
Likewise, the expanding settlements are expanding predominately in density. The primary construction in the settlements is "inwards and upwards" and is all constrained by the Israeli Government to the pre-existing settlement blocks that were in place since at least 1996. So it's be at least 20 years since Israel has "expanded". That's hardly the aggressive expansion portray.
As well, Israeli settlements account for less than 1% of the territory of the West Bank.
Hardly the picture of an aggressive expansion.
I don't have time to finish the rest of my post since I am busy, but will hopefully be back soon to edit in more showing how he is talking out of his ass.
For the record, the above is what it looks like when a post is sourced. Not the bullshit I responded to.
karadan100 ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 13:51:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"It has been estimated by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions that Israel has razed 48,488 Palestinian structures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/02/palestinian-families-homeless-as-israeli-military-demolishes-west-bank-houses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/24/israel-stop-shooting-gaza-civilians
Looks like the Jewish downvote brigade are out in force again.. Apparently pointing out Israeli crimes is baaad, mmkay.
(edit) lol, it's hilarious how Israelis can't take criticism. It's a national theme as well. Most Israeli people i've ever met are cool unless you criticise the state of Israel, and then they flip their shit. Fucking hypocrites basically. Downvote me all you want without countering my arguments (because you don't have shit to counter your governments' terrorist acts) but I stand by my earlier assertion - Isarel is basically a country that funds terroristic acts based upon it own internal agenda - that being the aggressive expansion of its state into territories not already owned by themselves. They also shoot unarmed civilians. Bunch of cunts.
valleyshrew ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:50:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is by far the least deserving of criticism of all the countries in the middle east, yet receives by far the most. It is obviously because of anti-semitism.
lelimaboy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:31:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or maybe its because they stole land of the Palestinians and pushed them out, while carrying out massacres and terrorism to achieve their goal of colonizing palestine and have also since then gone apartheid on the Palestinians.
karadan100 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I criticize equally actually. Saudi and any other oppressive theocracy have their fair share of derision from me.
I mean shit, 70% of my posts at the moment are in hatred of the Trump administration. Don't take the easy route. Don't attribute to anti-semitism that which is far more nuanced.
valleyshrew ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:35:18 on April 29, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you criticised equally, you would criticise Islamic countries 100,000 times more than you criticise Israel. Is that the case? Israel is not the world's only superpower like the US, it's an insignificant country of a mere 8 million people. It dominates international news stories simply because of anti-semitism.
Amfly ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:10:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
First, why do you take that number for granted? Why don't you question that number? Why are you so sure that this is not fake?
Secondly, as I said in another post, Israel demolish houses of every terrorist, and the house of his parents.
valleyshrew ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:49:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They bulldoze houses built without a permit, including many Jewish homes. They destroyed 8000 Jewish peoples homes in 2005.
Israel has given up territory for peace repeatedly since 1967. Hasn't worked out so well.
Buffalo__Buffalo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:39:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Such generosity!
valleyshrew ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:38:34 on April 27, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't even need to click it to know you've posted a hugely lying map that is constantly posted by ignorant people. Palestinians never owned the whole land, and Jews were considered the Palestinians until after Israel was created. Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire then Britain was sovereign until Israel was created. The British agreed to create a Jewish state. The privately owned land was something like 10% Jewish and 20% Arab, not the 90:10 split this map (presumably) shows. Israel has given up land to Egypt, Lebanon and Hamas in the past for peace.
Israel is just 0.02% of the land in the middle east. Muslims own all of the rest. In 1940 Jews owned 5 times as much land in the middle east as they own today. The largest land owner in Iraq for example was a Jew, and he was lynched and had his property taken from him. Clearly the Jews are not greedy land grabbers, they just want a state for themselves to be at peace and in control of their own destiny.
karadan100 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not defending the actions of Hamas here.
Amfly ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 13:48:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What the hell are you talking about? Israel destroys only houses of palestins who made a terrorist act, which killed innocent civilians. Their snipers shhot random civilians? What? Please back up your accusations with relevant sources.
sugeon ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:11:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey buddy, you just described a war crime like it was some great defense of Israel... Pretty much sums it up though, didn't it?
karadan100 ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 13:56:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Already have brah. Check my other post in this thread.
spitfire8125 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 13:28:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good old whataboutism, deflecting criticism since forever
permalurkathrowaway1 ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 13:32:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're using the term whataboutism as deflection too, about his point. You added nothing of value. Don't be hypocritical.
gibson_guy77 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:49:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
About who's point? Making a baseless claim isn't the same as making a point.
safa1375 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:33:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look man, heres what i think: Hamas is a terrorist organization, so of course they're gonna to terroristy shit, no surprise! But Israel is a legit government, yet their army literally murders Palestinians all the time... and if you're defending them then thats just sad, because both parties here are shitty
valleyshrew ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:53:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's probably the most talked about conflict of the past 70 years, yet it's only had the 48th most casualties, why do you think that is? Look at Bernie Sanders for example, he inflated the death toll in the 2014 war by a factor of 5 in an interview. The public are clearly ignorant about the middle east and think Israel is fair to criticise because they're privileged Jews, while the other countries that are infinitely more deserving of criticism are poor Arabs so it would be a hate crime to criticise them.
lichtmlm ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:42:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel has one of the lowest civilian to militant casualty ratios for this type of warfare. Which is especially commendable when Hamas actively uses Palestinian citizens as human shields.
Amfly ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 13:44:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please backup your BS with relevant source.
harsh4correction2 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:46:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lolz
sugeon ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:12:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Source: link
Jumanji0028 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 13:53:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude get fucked. They are not killing randomers they are fighting a people who wants them wiped from the earth. Its not going to be a pretty war but don't put it all on Israel
Bendito_Bandit ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:44:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hamas is a batshit crazy terrorist organisation, the Palestinian Nation Authority is a sane government.
Randymgreen ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:06:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They like to deliberately conflate the two. Relying on the fact that most people don't know Hamas aren't in the bank, so they can use Hamas to justify illegal occupying, bulldozing homes, controlling borders and water rationing the west bank.
achessinsolvent ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:53:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why is it, that when someone/something is being criticized some fucking idiot says something along the lines of 'but murder and rape is worse'
You want to discuss Israel? make a decent comparison here and try and discuss it, all you're succeeding in doing is proving you're a useful idiot with some agenda.
CantFindMyWallet ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 13:50:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US has their dicks in both of those pies, unfortunately.
grey_hat_uk ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:57:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yes, but doesn't give SA quite the free reign the UK does.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:28:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
we would if hillary was elected. they gave her over 100 million in campaign donations.
Tsquare43 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:13:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And conveniently that "charity" shut down after the election...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Will I ever eat pie again? Stay tuned to find out!
Pera_Espinosa ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 13:21:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's a very different situation.
grey_hat_uk ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:55:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
except for the specific point about overlooking the issues the country has for business yes it is.
Pera_Espinosa ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:08:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Every country has issues. It seemed like you were comparing Israel to SA, which given UK's portrayal of Israel, and BBC's specifically, wouldn't surprise me.
grey_hat_uk ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:31:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes I could have made it clearer that this is about ignoring issues not SA vs Israel, but Israel is both currently and more historically given a wide berth by the US and the UK seems happy to do the same to SA possibly even to a bigger extent.
[deleted] ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 13:27:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
SA is way closer to the US than UK.
Lowbacca1977 ยท 67 points ยท Posted at 13:38:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pshaw, look at a map
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 13:45:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
fooddood ยท 59 points ยท Posted at 14:16:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's pretty ignorant. As an American, I'm sorry more of my countrymen don't realize that this is the map of the world.
G_Morgan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:16:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We are coming for you Yankee capitalist!
drumsandpolitics ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 14:25:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lol I'm pretty sure Alaska and Hawaii aren't in Mexico. That map is dumb.
krivdragonborn ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 13:47:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I am also American, and, for most of us, that is worryingly accurate
Georgiafrog ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 13:59:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know, I can never be sure about all those tiny New England States.
Michelanvalo ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:13:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
what's that, you want another revolution
mdgraller ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:17:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
New England is a state, they have their own football team after all, dummy
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:46 on April 29, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not.
godwings101 ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 14:04:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh yeah, so edgy and original woth the "Americans only care about themselves" joke. The only thing leftbis to mention guns, McDonalds, and obesity. Are you always so cliche?
dijicaek ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:51:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why did you list obesity twice?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:33:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why did he list guns twice?
amildlyclevercomment ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 13:58:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You may or may not be surprised at how many people above the high school level don't even have that one down.
lzercat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:07:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think he mean in terms of relationship, not proximity.
SwallowedBuckyBalls ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 13:42:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look up the history of the kingdom and aramco, The British practically built the country. While the us is a large supporter through weapons deals, in a two-political sense there are closer ties to he U.K.
CullenBrohannon ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 13:52:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
brits built it, but US has been the bigger booster for decades now. shit, only reason we got involved in the middle east back in the 80's was to safeguard Saudi Arabia and the flow of oil from the region
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:27:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
in what country is the US not a bigger booster? the american gravy is spilling over onto everybody's dish, even the assholes.
CullenBrohannon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
well... yeah, that goes without saying, dunnit? was speaking to a narrower view of American largesse being discussed here. sheesh!
AnalOgre ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:55:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not the only reason.
CullenBrohannon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:06:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
keep the region stable to protect our oil supply, AND to dissuade the Soviets from making inroads into the greater middle east. there.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:53 on April 29, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Canada is your main oil supplier (US), The Soviets no longer exist, nor does Russia have the the need to steal oil. The Middle East is not stable and sectarian conflict isn't borne out of a need for resources.
CullenBrohannon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:22 on April 29, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
not strictly for our oil, but because we have this notion that the more we meddle the more long term stability will be had
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:21:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
America sold so many jets to Saudi Arabia they have according to some estimates the worlds second largest Air Force. Bigger than Russia or China Is pretty amazing.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:48:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ever since they turned their back on BP in favour or selling oil to the US they've been closer to them. The UK has no independent influence.
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:52:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not way a bit but this is looking at the relation the other way only
monkey_biter798 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:35:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can't honestly compare Israel to Saudi Arabia, regardless of your political agenda.
grey_hat_uk ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:43:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good I'm not, I'm comparing the US to the UK.
No political agenda at all.
monkey_biter798 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:58:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Alright, fair enough ... I should have read more carefully. Carry on.
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:14:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
excuse me? when it comes to human rights, Israel and saudi arabia are not comparable.
grey_hat_uk ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:16:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not comparing what they have done only the reaction afterwards.
ManicMuffin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:19:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's shitty Saudi now, or even worse ISIS if you let that shit fall apart.
Your choice.
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:39:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A definite possibility now, although not so much in the 70s and 80s.
deadbeatsummers ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:43:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah...it's complicated.
jerrrrremy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:16:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A comment equating Israel and Saudi Arabia with 700 points. Well, that's enough reddit for today.
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:42:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
it didn't ffs it was UK vs USA
PandaNinja713 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:15:13 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel does not chop kids hands for stealing, nor do they arrest gay men
MrFakeMustache ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:19:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is the most progressive, morally upright country in the Middle East. Our nation has been far more guilty of "wrong doings". It would be flagrantly hypocritical for us to start pointing accusations at them.
grey_hat_uk ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:27:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But it doesn't stop the US pointing at other targets.
LoDart210 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:46:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except for the whole Palestine thing.
Don't get me wrong I think SA is shitty too, but lets not pretend theyre in their own league. I consider israel just as bad if not worst.
MrFakeMustache ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:53:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I respectfully disagree. "Palestinian" and Muslim citizens have equal rights in Israel. The same can't be said for Jews in Saudi Arabia, or women, or LGBTQ+, or Christians, or etc...
MangoMiasma ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:55:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Too bad about those Palestinians outside Isreal though
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:17:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why don't the arab countries they've all mostly been BORN in give them citizenship then?
MangoMiasma ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:59:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How the hell should I know? And how is that relevant to Isreal's actions?
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:31:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
everybody cries for palastine, they are just as much in the wrong as Israel. have you seen palestinian sesame street? here
MangoMiasma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:57:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah it's fantastic
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:05:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
if by fantastic you mean anti-semitic and evil, sure.
MangoMiasma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:11:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rick Astley is an embarrassment to his nation
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:06:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
canada?
rickRollWarning ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:31:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[The comment above likely has (one or more) prank links]:
"Rick Roll"
#bot
ItsYouNotMe707 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:46:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
party pooper
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 14:54:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel is no better then its neighbors, just because they can polish a turd better doesn't mean its not a turd.
MrFakeMustache ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:55:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Username checks out.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:57:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does not really make sense bud, good attempt though.
Mattbarret2233 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:55:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep because Israel being a free and democratic country defending itself against barbaric ones on every border is just like SA...
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:45:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
uk vs usa nothing more
Fredfredbug4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:22:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Minor territory disputes are a huge difference from the beheading, stoning, and crucifixion of dissidents and deviants.
Saudi Arabia is culturally trapped in the Middle Ages.
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:37:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
More early to mid renaissance, some quite puritanical behaviour while generally adopting the technology of the time quite rapidly.
Fredfredbug4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:58:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Point is that comparing Israel to Saudi Arabia isn't fair. I'm not going to white-wash some of the stuff that the Israeli government has done, but it's a far cry from that's going on in Saudi Arabia.
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:12:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
On a purely freedom of debate cause the right to compare any two objects is fair.
Everything will have similarities and differences, and even similarities in vector if not magnitude.
It's more productive to make clear the angle and reason for the choice of comparison, which is partially my fault but this is a mainly US internet forum and I was looking for a simile to the way the UK government treats a middle eastern country not a full discussion on the pros/cons of the magnitude of military misuse
Fredfredbug4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:19:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well you're doing more than comparing them, but trying to draw an equivalence or parity. I get your point but Israel just isn't a good comparison.
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:25:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well the other good example of Turkey is so clear cut at the moment apart from that they aren't mean countries the US will practically ignore in terms of wrong doing on any scale. Possibly Pakistan?
Fredfredbug4 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:42:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I'd say Pakistan is the best example for this comparison.
Blonto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:37:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Um, the US has sold a billion worth of dollars to SA, including cluster bombs which they used on civilians in Yemen.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol. The US loves Jews
idan5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:04:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia and Israel are incomparable. Try having a gay parade in Saudi Arabia.
daburrs14 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:30 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, a strong parallel between a place that doesn't let women drive, beheadings and lashings for those practicing free speech and exportation of terrorism to a place that has equal rights for all with women in the army. What planet is this? Israel isn't perfect, but to compare them to a MONARCH (mind you) that is a major regional destabilizer and a major contributor to the current problems is utterly disingenuous given the both the present and historical context. A typical comparison from the left. How do you feel about the fact that Jews (and many Christians, Yazidis, etc) can't travel to Arab countries and have equal rights? How about the fact that if you're Jewish, regardless if you're Israeli or not and you go to Hebron, you might be killed? How none of that registers with any of you people is beyond me. The palestinians name streets after terrorists and pay their families for their great work as martyrs, yet the UN along with the rest of the world says nothing. The EU will take it a step further and give them billions, which goes right into Hamas's and Abbas pockets while their people suffer and use Israel as the scapegoat/distraction. Europe is essentially paying terrorist's salaries.
Despite all of these FACTS, the sewer rats of reddit fall back on their flawed rational of equalizing the literal beheadings of innocents with a democratic country. You want to sell land to a Jew in the middle east? Automatic death penalty. Talk about being allies with Jews and Israel, automatic death threats/possible assassination. Makes complete sense.
grey_hat_uk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:30:04 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
once more this is a comparison about a western countries attitude to a middle east country, not a comparison of what they are up to that would warrant ideological displeasure.
Deadpool545 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:22:08 on April 27, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do you mean by Israel wrong doings?
Alexander-The-Irate ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:09:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey! - we also turn a blind eye to Russia:P
Leredditguy12 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:04:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia is more America's problem than the U.K. I think in the last 8 years the U.K. Sold juuust over 5B dollars worth of military hardware. The US sold them over 2 billion just last year. Not to mention the massive amount of other interests we help with. How much money does SA make off Americans vs UK? Well, the US owes them more than 100 billion. The US is a monster. We're in the middle of all conflicts, paying the most to everyone. It's horrific. We have people starving at home yet countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia couldn't even function without our constant support
foopirata ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 16:29:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
See The UN developed nations index - the US is in 10th place, Israel in 18th and Saudi Arabia, 38th.
I am quite sure Saudi Arabia could function without the US's support. I am sure Israel could, albeit with difficulties in the military side. You see, the "money" that flows from the US to Israel is mostly loan guarantees, which Israel has never defaulted on, and arms grants, which mean that the US government transfers money to US companies to pay for materiel sent to Israel. Think of the number of Americans that have a paying job in the factory due to those production lines being kept open. Hint: it is not a small number.
Leredditguy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:26:00 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm, sure. But I'd prefer Americans to lose jobs if it doesn't support regimes like Saudi Arabia. Saving jobs means nothing to me. Ever. That logic only halts progression
foopirata ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:06 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Spoken like a true SJW that never had to worry about paying rent or putting food on the table.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:34:37 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
GabbiKat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:44:32 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your comment has been removed because you are engaging in personal attacks on other users, which is against the rules of the sub.
ย
Please take a moment to review them so that you can avoid a ban in the future, and message the mod team if you have any questions.
ย
Have a nice day.
Airgiraffe ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:48:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not defending us (the UK) selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, because that's fucking indefensible. However, I have seen someone give an interesting point of view on them being a part of these councils when they're obviously counter-intuitive.
It's a way of entering that conversation with them, exposing them to better ideals. I hope this is the reasoning and that it works. I also wish countries like the UK would fully commit to renewables that would allow us energy independence so the Saudis lose their influence because of their fucking oil.
How2999 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:17:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You just explained a fundamental principle of diplomacy. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'YOURE WRONG' serves fuck all but give you a hard-on.
boredextremely ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno dude, have you seen that on archer episode? What was it Slater said? "If you think the middle east is fucked up now, what do you think will happen when no one needs their oil?"
I'm afraid that might be really accurate.
Airgiraffe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately that's true, I just don't see any solutions with the systems with have now.
daoogilymoogily ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:37:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UK is basically responsible for SA being a country.
bubuopapa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:35:44 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And USA. dont forget that one.
Valisk ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:51:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are responsible for the Saudis being a fucking country. So perhaps they should fix the fucking thing.
lelimaboy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:34:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're responsible for all the countries in their current form in the Arab world.
Blackbeard_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They literally created KSA.
Fabiansruse ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:11:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Amd responsible for the ruling family in the country carrying out such malarkey
drylube ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lmfao, the UK government is basically responsible for the state of Saudi Arabia today because they supplied the rebels with arms so they could take over, now it exports Wahhabism all over the middle east creating groups like isis, the muslim brotherhood and more
rasherdk ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:14:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let's look at the GP...
Really makes you think.
Owneh ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:08:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They did help them into the role in order to gain access to intelligence which prevents terrorist attacks.
I'm not saying it's OK, but there's potentially hundreds fo british lives been saved by allowing them onto the council, and in the end, does it really make a different to the Saudi people? It could even be benefitting them as the Saudi's may begin to change in order to keep their role.
I feel like the benefits of this is understated and the direct results misunderstood.
LycraBanForHams ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:25:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh sweet summer child...Providing intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks?! Guess they had to make up for 9/11. SA must be laughing behind closed doors.
sparkreason ยท 133 points ยท Posted at 14:11:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Allow me to explain why the UK "doesn't have the backbone", and honestly this is something most people in the world do not know.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait became "British protectorates" with the treaty of darrin and the treaty of Jeddah.)
These are significant as the UK basically got geo political benefits (overthrowing the Ottomans) and economic benefits (oil) in exchange for protecting these backwards thinking empires.
Over the years the billions upon billions of dollars got put into UK banks and massive investments pile up
This also includes massive properties
In a nutshell Saudi / Qatar / Kuwait OWN the UK. They will never say anything to disturb the relationship because the UK is so dependent on that money.
The investments, the property, the arms sales, and the oil are what Britian is absolutely dependent on.
Saudi Arabia could take Union Jack, shit on it, slap the queen mum in the face with it, and tell her to bark like a dog, and the only thing Theresa May or Boris Johnson can say is
"I say Saudi, we hate to be a bother but could we please have a chinwag and a moment of your time to perhaps suggest you take it a little easy on her majesty"
That's the honest truth.
It's not that they don't have a backbone. It's that they can't say anything because they sold the entire country to them and don't know how to (can't) tell the public.
valleyshrew ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 15:00:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Another little example of this - the Saudis have had 4 state visits to the UK under the current Queen. Only France has had more with 5. The US has only gotten 2. She has made 17 state visits to Muslim majority countries, and 0 visits to Israel or Greece. That's even though Israel/Greece are the spiritual homes of Christianity which is the Queen's religion, and her own husband is Greek.
theGoddamnAlgorath ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 15:27:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Was Greek.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:54:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did he stop being greek?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:05:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wasn't Greek. He was born in England and raised in Greece.
basicincomenow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:01:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
wow.
gzunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:08:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who's father was banished from Greece for life by the military government at the time (1922), so the family left with baby Phil who was 1 at the time.
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:23:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed with you until this. Religion should have 0 bearing on where the state visits are, and that goes both ways.
StatmanIbrahimovic ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:49:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She's the head of the Anglican Church
AP246 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:13:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So?
guto8797 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:33:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A monarchy where the ruler is also the head of the church can't exactly claim 100% secularism, as much as we think it should.
His point was that the head of a church has spent more time visiting other countries than one of its religion's origins. Imagine if the Pope had never been to Italy.
Kozy3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:30:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree but you should have said Israel not Italy. Since it all stemmed from there.
Halvus_I ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:58:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She is considered LITERALLY appointed to be Queen by God. There is no escaping religion with a crown, its part and parcel to it.
droppedthebaby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:03:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's still interesting! They're stating a fact, not their opinion. They didn't say she should visit those countries or shouldn't, just that she has/hasn't.
foobar5678 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 16:23:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If they UK wanted, they could kill every man, women, and child in Saudi Arabia and take every last cent from them. But that's not as profitable as it used to be, so instead diplomats act diplomatically, and Britain makes a huge profit. Saudi Arabia doesn't own the UK, they bribe the UK.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Zaemz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:16:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just decided to look it up, Saudi Arabia has a larger navy than the UK, numbers wise, but it's all patrol boats and stuff. The UK has some big boats. The Royal Air Force is pretty big too.
However, the UK has seen a century of modern war. It has an old, established, well-trained military (hopefully) based on merit. I will not claim to know a lot, this is just based on what I read briefly.
foobar5678 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:49:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-kingdom&country2=saudi-arabia&Submit=COMPARE
Also, the UK has nuclear bombs.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:19:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But then no one would leave their money in the UK.
sparkreason ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:45:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree. They own the UK.
Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi have enough money invested in the the UK that if it pulled out it (Or if the UK destroyed it) it would destroy the UK economy.
It would cause a run on the banks / financial services that would decimate Britain.
Currently, Britain is operating at a 3.5 billion pound trade deficit. Meaning right now Britain is already hemorrhaging money in trade. They pull their investments and it will look like some David Copperfield shit real quick over there.
SteveJEO ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:25:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well...Political relationships aren't quite as direct as you portray.
They can be kinda 'gamey'.
sparkreason ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:37:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"gamey" only on a "domestic front". The truth is internationally they are bought and paid for already.
Once you get into power they learn the truth and what the actual landscape really is.
Most people on the outside, everyday people, have absolutely no idea about how the puzzle pieces are in place locked in on a massive scale, the tent poles holding up monetary systems, and the completely fragile nature their entire world revolves around should one of those tent poles remove itself.
When the financial crisis hit George Bush gave a simple analogy (considering he has a simple mind it makes sense that this was what was told to him) of a "house of cards" resulting in a collapse.
The truth is, Britain's keystone cards are Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar currently. Those cards remove or jiggle in any particular way and the whole system jiggles with it.
They pull, and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
SteveJEO ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:42:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're missing a half deck.
'gamey'.
:)
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:07:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In what fucking world does owning real estate assets in London mean they own the UK? We could pass a tax tomorrow that forces them to sell the assets to UK based companies and no one would care. Get your head out of your ass.
sparkreason ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:26:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And that is money coming out of the UK. Money that is not going in the UK.
Force them to sell it all, and honestly you don't have the money to purchase it.
To give you a perfect example of this here's your national debt.
Now in the event that you "force them to sell" since the Gulf controls opec they can undercut BP making the UK pensions tied to it worth jack shit.
And don't expect American oil to bail you out because they have been buying a lot of that too.
So now the UK's pension fund is worth jack shit because BP is going to get cornered.
And of course they will rip out Sabb from HSBC sending it into default.
They own the UK. You are the one with your head up your ass that you don't see it. But they own the UK.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol. A percentage tax tied levied at the annual appraised rate of foreign owned assets is not a socialist style seizure, it would be a legitimate tax used by hundreds of cities around the world to limit the inflow of foreign liquidity. This tax has been suggested by left wing groups in the UK for years.
So there is no "undercut BP making the UK pensions tied to it worth jack shit.". That makes zero sense and betrays your economic and financial sense.
In the event they undercut BP (whatever the fuck that means) because of a perfectly reasonable tax rise, the UK pension is tied to the performance of the FTSE 100 of which BP is just 5.6% of.
http://www.sharptrader.com/new-to-trading/stock-indices/overview-of-the-ftse-100-stock-market-index/
At this point it is because of centrist and leftist traitors that they are even allowed to own property in our capital. It allows them the chance the feel important.
But you are seriously deluded if you think less than 0.5% of the UK's total value of all real estate being owned by Qatar means they own us. Try again dude, I want to rip apart your argument.
http://www.savills.co.uk/_news/article/72418/198296-0/1/2016/total-value-of-uk-homes-passes-%C2%A36-trillion-mark
sparkreason ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:38:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And the tax has never passed and will never be passed.
You live in a world where you want to pretend that this isn't true.
You see they don't give two shits to own Sheffield or Bristol.
They own London, and I'm going to be honest what is happening right now should scare the living shit out of you.
The UK is selling its gold.
And other countries are buying it all up. In fact in 2015 10% of all UK exports was gold (41 billion worth) and you only imported 11 Billion worth meaning the UK lost 30 billion in Gold in 2015.
Now what happens if the pound plummets it was 1.6 to the dollar in 2013 and now it's 1.28.
In just 4 years the pound has lost 20% of its value,
What do you think is going to happen to the housing market if things keep going the way they are going?
The value of UK homes is going to be SHIT. Absolute shit, and the value property in London? Well they own it.
A tax won't be levied on their assets.
The clock is ticking and the UK's currency is losing value and buying power, the gold reserves are being sold off, and you don't own the prime real estate in your own capital.
The UK is in no position to be bribed. It's been bought and sold and the people like yourself have no idea.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:09:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
" the value property in London? Well they own it."
I am sorry but how has the conversation changed from they own the UK to they own London. They still own less than ยฃ40bn of real estate in London. And I understated the previous figure, the total housing market for the UK is around ยฃ7trn. So they own less than 0.10%
https://www.ft.com/content/4906a246-dcb7-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6
How are you still peddling fake news?
Deflationary pressure on the pound sterling has also boosted UK exports.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/31/sterlings-fall-lifts-uk-exports-figures-show
"The value of UK homes is going to be SHIT. Absolute shit, and the value property in London? Well they own it."
The value of UK homes is directly tied in with supply and demand. We build less than the total amount of immigrants we get a year and supply is incredibly constrained, especially in the South East.
In fact house prices have RISEN post Brexit and post the 4 years 20% fall of the pound.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/24/asking-prices-for-homes-rise-to-record-average-of-313655
England now has the most expensive real estate market in the western world. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/11/10/3526634400000578-3636495-image-a-36_1465638362002.jpg
So guess what? A fall would be welcome. I would hope Qatar sells their holdings and cause a BIGLY crash in the UK housing market. Brexit happened because people were also fed up with the housing crisis stoked by unchecked immigration.
"A tax won't be levied on their assets."
Totally missing the point. You're suggesting they own the UK. I asserted they do not and a % tax on foreign holdings can be a tool to cause sell side pressure and reduce housing prices.
"The clock is ticking and the UK's currency is losing value and buying power, the gold reserves are being sold off, and you don't own the prime real estate in your own capital."
And how has your argument shifted from they own the UK to they own prime London.
"You see they don't give two shits to own Sheffield or Bristol."
So why the fuck did you say they own the UK. You should have said they own some prime property in central London.
"It's been bought and sold and the people like yourself have no idea."
Again I am an analyst and I own equity in a few property trusts. I am also a right wing economic nationalist. I am acquainted with my country's real estate market.
And link me to some academic papers that show a fall in the value of a national sovereign currency reduces the value of its real estate market. It reduces the foreign purchasing power, in the case of Brexit property funds fell post June 2016 due to the expected hit to the office and retail market post Brexit. Nothing to do with the fall of the pound.
https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=LON%3ADLN&ei=mHb-WKiWENS7U43aqIgN
Your original point was that the UK was owned by Qatar. I have shown you empirical data that less than 0.10% of the UK is owned by Qatar.
sparkreason ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:27:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not just real estate, it's not just Qatar.
It's all investments. 15 billion in 2016 for just INVESTMENTS. from the middle east.
Not what they already have. Just investments.
If I own property x,y,z etc. and I add another 15 billion in investments...every year...
And that's why the property value is going up....
BECAUSE THEY ARE BUYING IT ALL UP, driving the price up.
And this isn't just "state" purchases. It's the surrounding business owners buying up as well.
In case you haven't noticed they fly in their cars just to drive them around their new summer home of britain that they bought.
You can pretend that you own your country, but the truth is. You don't.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:47:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The myth about house prices being driven up primarily by foreign investors has been debunked. In prime prime London 68% of houses were bought by UK buyers.
A quote from a research document - you can google the words.
"Savills estimate that 7% of residential purchases in Greater London in 2013/14 were made by buyers from overseas.2 They add that overseas buyers are prevalent only in certain parts of the market".
"In case you haven't noticed they fly in their cars just to drive them around their new summer home of Britain that they bought."
And? Rich arabs coming here and actually spending their money is miles better than faceless SWFs buying property and leaving it empty.
http://www.pricedout.org.uk/why
Keep in mind I support full scale Britishisation of our housing stock and a discouraging foreign ownership of UK real estate through a punitive annual value tax.
http://www.pionline.com/article/20161004/ONLINE/161009966/new-york-replaces-london-as-top-target-for-foreign-real-estate-capital-8212-survey
Look to your east coast. I love the American narrative and focus on Europe when your largest cities like Philly, New york, Chicago, Baltimore are literally thrash ridden with more crime that some third world countries.
sparkreason ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:07:43 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't disagree with this at all we've spent trillions on wars instead of our own people.
1/3 of it foreign and they are buying more and more and more.
Yes like I said the UK is dependent on it. Lots of unsold property and what happens? the market starts going down... that's why the market is going up. They are floating it.
r3loaded2013 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a great impetus for making massive investments in nuclear+renewable energy, and pushing for a mass conversion to electric cars (among many other measures). End the oil dependence, and we can end the Gulf and every other oil dictatorship.
sparkreason ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:41:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely.
karadan100 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 13:33:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OPEC innit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:19:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol sure would be nice if we used alternative energy and didn't have to depend on them right? Haha too bad there's no easily available resources that we can just start using or anything, that'd be great. Imagine if we could just suck up sunlight or wind or something and use that to keep the lights on, wild idea.
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:24:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly what's happening. It might take a while, but coal is already dead and the rest of the fossil fuels are dying.
rayne117 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:44:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Give it 20-30 years when we're nearing the end of easily available oil. If it's not $100 a liter by then.
gibson_guy77 ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 13:41:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They just wait for the US to do something. That way they can all blame someone else if some shit goes wrong.
cerindell ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:54:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Electing Saudi Arabia to protect womenโs rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief," . I mean, makes perfect sense to me. They are experts in the subject.
SupWitChoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:16:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty much sums up all international politics for the past 60 years.
See: North Korea
Fafnir-2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:20:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As a proud American, I wish we would. I'm getting sick of my country being afraid to do shit nowadays. Down with Saudi and down with NK.
-The_Blazer- ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:06:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hard to have a backbone when half of our oil comes from them. You can actually see a similar situation going on with Russia and the UK vs. Russia and for example Italy. The UK often slams Russia publicly for various things while Italy always puts on a nice face and says "great relationship with Russia". The difference is that the UK is mostly independent from Russia, while Italy gets more than half of their gas from them (in Italy gas is more used than oil).
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not true at all. The UK benefits from Saudi oil, but we don't use it ourselves.
Since the discovery of North sea oil, the UK has been close to self sufficient in terms of oil and natural gas. Some is imported from Norway or Canada (in the form of liquified natural gas), but we don't need Saudi oil to keep our card running.
godwings101 ยท 48 points ยท Posted at 13:55:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nevermind the fact Saudi Arabia is essentially ISIS that made it...
Neetoburrito33 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:22:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The monarchy is actually pretty decadent and secular. The population and religious sects are radicals. Without the kingdom it would probably be similar to Isis.
foobar5678 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:25:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's certainly not the worst country in the region. Which just goes to show how screwed up all their neighbours are.
Take a look at this map of murders by country:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Map_of_world_by_intentional_homicide_rate-fixplcz.svg
Tempest_1 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:53:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are they though? As far as I know that's more of a front. While the princes still push radical Islam "under the table".
I'd be curious to see some sources though.
Venom_Snake_KSA ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:05:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Funny you said that since ISIS consider the Saudi royal family "Treaters that alliance with infidels"
Tempest_1 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:18:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ISIS doesn't represent all of radical Islam. For example, SA's big one is Wahhabism.
Venom_Snake_KSA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:33:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Huh? Could you please elaborate?
Edit: Forget about elaboration, we are going LIIIIIVE goddammit (Bill orally Reference)
it seems that you don't understand the division, Muslims divided to Sunni and Shia, both have many schools
From Sunni, the majority come from school of religion to a man named Mohammed bin Wahab, they are millions inside SA and millions outside SA, who follow that school, and they call themselves (sunni), so not everyone follow this school is radical
However, People who got radicals from ISIS, believe that the government = Royal family are corrupt traders who alliance with westerns hence they deserve to die.
One of many incident happen to royal family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Nayef#Assassination_attempts
goh13 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:54:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ISIS that made it with the help of the British Empire. Along with every other gulf country, including my home country. Shady deals sucks, huh?
spanish1nquisition ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:18:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As long as the government of SA don't see it as a problem themselves, it will be hard to convince them to change anything. I doubt you can completely embargo their oil so realistically the only country that could really put the pressure on SA would be the US and they don't seem to be in the business of supporting human rights at the moment.
valleyshrew ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:01:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How can they? If they pressured the Saudis on human rights, the regime would be overthrown by the extremely conservative public. The current regime is much more liberal than a Saudi democracy would be, that is the real reason the UK/US are allies with them. They also co-operate with us heavily in the war on terror, despite what people believe. They even covertly co-operate with Israel.
gcannon12 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:38:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While funding radical madrasas around the world that spread radical Islam?
Fafnir-2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A restart of colonialism. I know it sounds bad but think, if we did it in a way that didn't tear the country a new one (looking at you Belgium) then we could slowly start to indoctrinate western culture into their society and hopefully modernize them. Edit:spelling
Sildayin ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:47:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is unacceptable though
racc8290 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:01:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They should tell them to "Cut it out!"
That usually seems to work
majort94 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:44:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah as a country... But the princes funding terrorism might not be on our side
forevertomorrowagain ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:39:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UK has no clout.
[deleted] ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 13:03:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 14:02:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Macedwarf ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:37:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because as crap as Britain can be, our right wing media is terrifyingly efficient.
berticus23 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't right wing and left wing the opposite in England like your roads? I remember hearing that once and would like verification
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:47:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no that isnt right. im not entirely sure but i think its just that our politics in general are less conservative/right-wing than in america. i believe our conservative party line up more with the values of your democratic party than your republican/conservative party for example. left-wing still means "more liberal" and right-wing still means "more conservative" over here.
its either this or the other way around (that being us being more conservative than america) but im about 95% sure it was that we are generally more left-leaning
Giants92hc ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:54:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's correct. Your conservative party is much more liberal than Republicans.
forevertomorrowagain ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:06:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the Saudis are just being polite.
The US will happily give them anything they ask for. They don't need us, it's just convenient.
grey_hat_uk ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:18:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They do until Israel isn't as close to the US.
SIThereAndThere ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 13:21:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Could you imagine if US had no middle Eastern / Israeli policies? It would be 6 day war every other year all the time.
Tempest_1 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:52:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It would be great! The U.S. would be a bastion of economic prosperity. We'd have money for all sorts of welfare. All this occurring, while only the Middle Eastern Countries are pissing eachother off with their Islamic radicalism.
Calfurious ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 13:58:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well no, oil prices would skyrocket, refugees would spreading across Europe, and it would overall be a humanitarian crisis. Sure we could save a lot of money by not being involved at all, but the long term costs would make that all a moot point anyways.
Tempest_1 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:03:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Could you elaborate? This seems already like the status quo.
Also, you need to consider how many Middle Eastern problems were caused by Western Intervention (Israel, Iran-Contra, ISIS.)
Calfurious ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:18:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not well versed in this subjected in the slightest. But here it goes.
We back Saudi Arabia because they continue to trade their oil using U.S. dollars. That brings a lot of value to our currency and without it, we would experience serious financial issues (albeit some estimate it could work itself out in the long run).
Our alliance with Israel as well their nuclear capabilities is what's preventing numerous Middle Eastern countries from deciding to just outright invade the country. Such a war would be fairly catastrophic and would result in a large amount of Jewish and Muslim refugees (The White Nationalists would lose their absolute shit).
Israel was created in order to give Jewish people a homeland. This was strongly motivated by our desire make amends for allowing the Holocaust to happen. It was a good idea, but the issue was that there wasn't a good plan to deal with the Palestinians that lived there.
ISIS was caused because Americans mounting pressure to withdraw troops from Iraq. ISIS grew in power BECAUSE of our desire to get away from the Middle East. If we had kept troops there, ISIS wouldn't have filled the power vacuum.
Iran-Contra was cold war politics. It has more to do with our actions in South America than in the Middle East.
In essence, it's not that we need to necessarily withdraw from the Middle East, only that we should handle it better. Would also be nice for us to actually identify what our goals are there. Is it human rights? regional stability? Financial gains? Political influence? At the moment it's a big ball of all of these things and they often conflict with one another.
I honestly don't have an answer as to what we should do. It's far beyond my knowledge. But isolationism rarely is a good solution. In fact it's not really much of a solution at all but more akin to just ignoring the problem.
Tempest_1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:36:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You raise good points. Although I would disagree slightly on ISIS. ISIS is a natural outcome of American intervention. It didn't have much to do with our timing of departure, but the inevitable power vacuum that occurs.
NO MATTER WHAT, almost all of the Middle Eastern countries are groups of various religious/ethnic sects that were lumped together nationalistically. For example, Iraq conflict was born from competing sects (I forget their names and am too lazy too google). Atrocities were occurring under Saddam, but U.S. intervention has not stopped the conflict. Foreign intervention of any sort in the Middle East is costly and conflicting. There is no direct problem-solving.
The problem with your contention, is how much time did the U.S. need to stay in Iraq to keep the peace? Afghanistan has showed that inordinate amounts of intervention is not enough to prevent conflict (and arguably only increases it).
I don't fully condone Isolationism. People seem to fear that word a lot and jump to conclusions. In regards to the Middle East, I think it is in the U.S's best interest to withdraw for a short time (a period 4-10 years) before truly evaluating what our national interest should be there. Currently, the political ends we seek are muddied by the conflict we are currently ingrained in.
Calfurious ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:43:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You raise some good points as well, but I think the fact of the matter is that we handled Iraq sloppily. Compare our investment in Iraq to the way we invested ourselves with Japan or one of the European countries that were decimated after World War 2.
We needed to be in Iraq for the long-term. Decades at least. But we all entered a war not really appreciating how much of a commitment it was going to be. If we had stayed in Iraq and helped it rebuild and at the same put in place re-education programs to reduce sectarian animosity and Western resentment (basically the same thing we did in Japan), then maybe we could have curtailed the rise of ISIS.
ISIS was a result of American intervention, but it also could have been thwarted if we had more commitment.
Tempest_1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:46:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The problem lies with Culture. Japan was unified and we merely gave them resources. In the Middle East, we don't know who exactly to help, and everyone has some moral "problems".
Again, this isn't a solution. Look at how India and Pakistan turned out after British control. You could argue this was due to Nationalism in the 18th-20th centurie. But the point is, that underlying cultural differences may remain dormant, but need to be reconciled before a country can truly nationalize. Otherwise, regardless of how long a country is "controlled" by an outside force, these components will rise visciously.
mcysr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually you did pretty well. If the world powers had stayed out of it since the 1940's, the issues probably would be much less now. Also rest of world would have developed alternative energy sooner.
rocketshirts ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:21:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
3 in the 65 year span of events that you listed aren't so bad.
Tempest_1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:27:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Haha. There's waaay more than that. There's conflict in the Middle East almost every day. Just look at the Gaza strip in the last couple years and Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Afghanistan, it's had foreign intervention since the Cold War. The Middle East has been ridden with conflict since biblical times.
rocketshirts ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:30:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The original point I was referring to was that it was all Western intervention that caused the problem.
You have proven that it is intact a human problem, not a West vs. Middle East problem.
Tempest_1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:43:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Haha you could boil any geo-political conflict down to this! But it is a problem of Western Intervention, since the U.S. has made it so.
grey_hat_uk ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:46:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Could be
forevertomorrowagain ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 13:21:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Obama has gone now.
grey_hat_uk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:45:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
?
forevertomorrowagain ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:16:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yeah it happened a couple of months ago...
grey_hat_uk ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:20:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean what does this have to do with anything?
ZeusOnABicycle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:40:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because of oil
bagehis ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 13:29:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UK has the same status (permanent) as the US in the UN, along with the same veto powers. The UK is also the 5th largest economy in the world. They have clout in world politics.
AP246 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:30:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. I was as anti-brexit as anyone, but the fact is, barring some massive natural disaster or something, the UK is not gonna stop being a big player in the field. Sure, we're not the superpower we once were, and we might fall behind new powers like India, but the UK will remain a pretty major power for the foreseeable future.
GoinMyWay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:46:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We have clout in global politics for old times sake and because we're close with America, the big bully on the field. We're buddying up to China and making sure we don't piss of Putin too publicly, believe. My country is a joke. And come back in ten years when Brexit will still be getting blamed for the shit and worsening state of just about everything in the(at that point, once Scotland and Ireland have their way...) former UK.
Tiwsamooka ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:42:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Northern Ireland will not be leaving the UK. As part of the Good Friday agreement, NI retains the right to leave the UK at any time where both the majority of the peoples of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland wish it. All the polls in NI in the past 10 years clearly show an overwhelming Unionist opinion, due in part to the large amount of Irish Protestants in the North.
The Secretary of State has to call an official poll and if it shows a majority nationalist vote, they must consult UK Parliament to arrange terms. In theory, the parliament could try and draw out negotiations (although this would be likely to spark a new period of 'Troubles')
In short, I don't think there's a fear of NI leaving anytime soon.
damienreave ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:37:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All true, but at least you don't have an orange climate change denier sex offender for a leader.
karadan100 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:40:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, sixth now since brexit and the pound plummeting.
bagehis ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 13:53:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
French GDP (6th) was $2.418t in 2015, with an estimated growth of 1.1% for 2016 (so $2.44t). UK GDP (5th) was $2.858t in 2015, with an estimated growth of 1.9% for 2016 (so $2.912t). Thus far, as far as I'm aware, the UK still holds fifth, trailing Germany ( $3.363t + 1.2% = $3.403t). The UK edges out France for per capita PPP as well.
Couldnt_think_of_a ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:45:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A low currency is a good thing. Only people who don't know anything automatically associate "low" with bad.
karadan100 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:47:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I merely stated a figure. I said nothing about how good or bad anything was.
Couldnt_think_of_a ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:48:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The 23rd of April 2017 is not my birthday.
karadan100 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:53:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
wut
CeterumCenseo85 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:06:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His point is that you tried to imply something even though you later backpedaled by saying you merely stated a figure/fact. So he also merely stated a fact that doesn't imply anything, to show you how your recurse is either not a defendable positon or completly pointless.
JMV290 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:05:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a good thing if you're a country like China where you export a lot more than you import.
If you're a country like the US or the UK it's not really a good thing as it lowers your purchasing power for imported goods meaning you either need to invest in domestic production or continue having a weaker currency for international trade.
There's only a few cases where a low currency would help and AFAIK none would apply to, or benefit, the UK.
Captainplankface ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A weaker currency is not a good thing or a bad thing. Strong currencies lower the cost of imports.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:55:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Couldnt_think_of_a ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:04:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A low currency is good for services, a high currency is only good for counties who use others countries services because their money is worth more.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:57:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A low currancy can be an ok thing, for a service based economy that imports a lot of goods and relies heavily on its financial sector which relies heavily on ties to the eu, maybe not so good a thing.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:06:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well sure, it's good for businesses who are net exporters, but it's not necessarily good for individuals who buy foreign goods or travel.
alexanderhamilton3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:50:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Measuring the size of the UK economy in US dollars is stupid. However IMF still forecast that Britain will be the world's fifth largest economy in 2017 by this measure.
karadan100 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:53:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fair enough.. But right now it is not. That's all I was pointing out.
RainbowDoom32 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:54:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of people want the UK and France off the UNSC. They no longer hold the political clout they did at the end of WW2. Veto power makes this impossible though
Parapolikala ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:37:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's only a matter of time before the UK and French seats are replaced by an EU one.
Oh.
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:33:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UK and France still have nuclear weapons.
It's a security council too, remember, not an economic one. Only the US and to a much lesser extent Russia and China actually have significant force projection in terms of direct military. Basically every other major country in the world can only really defend itself or influence its neighbours. Germany and Japan, or even India or Brazil, simply do not have any more meaningful military power than the UK or France.
RainbowDoom32 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The argument however is amount global influence. In modern society economic power tends to be more meaningful than military. Especially if you consider most peacekeeping forces are provided by smaller countries anyways
forevertomorrowagain ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 13:31:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lol
spoken like a true Brit
karadan100 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:40:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're welcome to provide facts and evidence to the contrary.
bagehis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:42:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not British.
forevertomorrowagain ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:44:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yeah you are.
bagehis ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:03:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I were British I'd saying negative things about the UK, with suggestions that it is all about to collapse anyway. Brits are some of the most pessimistic people, in general. See /u/GoinMyWay 's comment for an example.
GoinMyWay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:18:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you think we've been bad historically, wait til more of my peers get older and become the standard model of a "Brit". Mid 30s and living with their mum because wages are shit and everything costs too fucking much. Unfortunately, the other developed economies have wages that are growing, while ours are stagnant and have been for years. So everyone is getting poorer apart from the politicians, accountants and businessmen. So we can't even afford to leave, as countless hordes hear all the lies we tell the world, flock here en masse and then get stuck here like the natives. Country is a toilet.
00cabbage ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:43:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why don't you give a counter argument instead of attempting to dismiss him?
lol
forevertomorrowagain ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:44:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't need to, The Empire is over.
00cabbage ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:09:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're basically admitting that you have nothing. Aight.
forevertomorrowagain ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:15:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What is that?
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:34:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What does that even mean? The Chinese tributary states are gone as well, I mean, what?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:47:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
CullenBrohannon ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:54:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd argue corporate profit regardless of ethical concern is the new religion, in that regard...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:16:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just curious, why is it the UK's fault for the things Saudi Arabia does? I think Saudi Arabia deserves all the blame for the things they do but I must be crazy.
What does Saudi Arabia base their laws on?
CheloniaMydas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:24:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not the UK directly but as a British citizen I am pissed off with my own government for being voluterially blind
cyrutvirus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UK? Even the USA turns a blind eye to Saudia Arabia. They go balls deep when it comes to eliminating Islamic Terrorism but the moment it becomes an organised government body, they refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone calling them their allies ...
The_Radders ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:28:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UK: Sort your shit out Saudi Arabia.
SA: No.
UK: Good day.
dongobongo22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:35:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You cant tell a country to "sort it out" especially one that a huge amount of the world sees as the birthplace of its religion.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:39:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck You we have a back bone!
It's just Saudi Arabia have guns where we don't :(
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:36:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:09:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well we could justify nuking Syria, however I'm not sure the Russians would like us if we did that, so much so that they might lob a big fuck-off warhead in our direction and level Westminster. Although as I look at the potential prime ministers of the UK, I'm starting to think that might not be such a bad event.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:41:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They would except for all the arms sales. It's literally the last bastion of British exports(well that and money laundering for narco terrorists) and they're going to burn everything else down to keep it.
lasyke3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:48:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to realpolitic!
TunisMustBeDestroyed ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:52:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Alright then, suppose UK strongly tell them to sort it out. What would happen? nothing, yes. The UN lacks enforcement mechanisms in this regard, so before bashing the member states or the UN in general, remember how the whole structure is built. Flawed in some ways, but best alternative historically speaking.
candyman_forever ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
say it with me boys and girl, "OIL". Saying that, one should really watch Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis. It is a very good documentary on this subject.
whutif ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:13:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't wait for the day when we no longer rely on oil.
Scarletfapper ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:14:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you mis-spelled "Fuck you , we have money!"
hoffi_coffi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I am not sure it is so much backbone, more that you can't just tell a country to "sort it out" and expect them to respond. People in Saudi Arabia could equally say it is a shame their leaders don't have the backbone to tell the west to "sort it out".
Kakarot_faps ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:27:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can send them angrily written letters all you want it's not changing anything
AfterShave997 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Implying the UK government gives half an ass.
Goofypoops ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:37:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, the UK can't really do anything. The UN's purpose is to prevent WWIII. If the UN over extends itself, then members can choose not to participate. What you're proposing would require a capacity for far more foreign oversight than either the UK or SA are willing to agree to.
zombiemakemelol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
US is the same. We tolerate their bullshit because they are a seen as a check on Iran. Meanwhile, wahhabisim spreads through the region and they radicalize young people into becoming the very terrorists that we have been claiming to go after, from Bush to Obama and now Trump. Saudi Arabia bankrolls and radicalizes some not so nice people.
CheloniaMydas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:44:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the biggest issue of everything.
We are effectively fighting the very terrorism we are helping create from the various sources of finance SA generates from the west.
PostIslam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Business
Slibby8803 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:15:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yup we should be telling them to fuck right off... instead we hold their hands. I am saying this as an American.
alguien1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:16:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The same thing happened before ww2 but with germany
Workacct1484 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:17:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is last time anyone tried to take a hard line against them this happened. Granted it's not the only factor and dependence is lower now, but any hard line stance will see an impact on the market.
DieselFuel1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:23:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah lol the British can talk...You know how many british manspread on the tube, mansplain to women and and the gender pay gap in uk? And the workplaces put aircon on during summer thats nut fair to women that is sexist. UK are in no position to tell Saudi' what to do.
cerindell ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We will find them a suitable planet one day. Cant be going cray cray in on the way there though. Nope
Ha1tham ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:51:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their country their life, why feel the need to change them ?
vladtheimpaler2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Forget telling SA to sort it out. UK better try not to fall under Sharia governance.
throwawayforaday5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:02:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Should get a lot easier to say what they actually think as renewables become more prevalent.
triple_six_clubhouse ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:06:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ademnus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:38:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UK, US, it really doesn't matter. I'm not sure anyone can "sort it out" for them.
zakkera ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:42:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you basing your opinion on ur country of origin, media lies, or you had first hand experience women rights. I'm not a fan of SA, but we need to respect other people culture and way of live cause it fit their culture, not yours.
Bob_Loblaw007 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Same thing goes for Canada. In his rush to be politically correct and harvest voters, our glorious leader Pierre Jr. heaps praise on muslim culture, specifically encouraging the wearing of burkas as part of their cultural rights instead of the mysoginy that it is. That and the fact our parliament just passed legislation which essentially makes critsizing islam a crime.
scott9942 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:45:24 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not that I'm disagreeing with your statement, buy seriously, how would you keep the peace? Can you imagine if we got on the wrong side of Saudi and ended up in a war with them? We bomb the shit out of them, hit Mecca and Medina then have 1.6 billion Muslims pretty pissed off that their sacred grounds have been desecrated. Not saying every person of Islam would start murdering non-muslims in the streets, but that would be a HUGE win for Isis, as they could manipulate people into joining their cause so much easier.
MasterDefibrillator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:11 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They can't "sort it out" they are a government with 0 separation of church and state when it comes to Islam. By economically supporting them, the west is directly supporting Islamic fundamentalism the world round. People have been coned into the idea that Islam the religion is the problem, when the real problem is economically sustained Islamic governments. So that the western governments around the world can keep buying oil from Islamic governments without too much social pressure against it.
If western governments stopped buying oil from Islamic governments, and put economic sanctions on them, I can guarantee that global Islamic terrorism would stop within the decade. And that's why people are happier believing that islam itself is the problem. Because there is no way they would give up their oil.
hopsinduo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:59:24 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah we probably shouldn't be selling them weapons, but Theresa see's dollar signs not human life. Get her the fuck out of office man. She wrecked the home office and her current mission seems to be to wreck healthcare and education. I don't know what's wrong with her.
Nonconformist666 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:42:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because we can't force them to change their customs.
PanamaMoe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:02:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You do that and you have the issue of them claiming you are opressing their religion. Can't very well force someone to do something if they believe it goes against their religion, which they dedicate their lives to.
OathOfFeanor ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:44:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's also their country. They are free to make their own laws. Yes most modern societies believe women are equal to men but we do not have a worldwide government to force those views on others. If Saudi Arabia is stuck in the past that's their prerogative. That culture does some despicable things to girls but we can't just go forcing everyone to do things the same way we do.
AndrewWaldron ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:05:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
SA has that oil though baby!
If you're buying weed, you may not LIKE your dealer, but you ain't gonna call him out on stuff he does you don't like. Good drugs/weed/oil is hard to find.
redman2h2k ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:19:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like the UK can stand up to the UN for only doing talk.. Do they dare stand up to Israel? They won't bite the hand that feeds them.
karsh36 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:36:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Major producer of oil and the USA owes them money. Either way, it isn't our place to interfere with another country, and if anything having them on the council could end up helping the country.
DolphinatelyDan ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 13:11:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Too bad brexit happened and now they don't have any place interfering with them.
Toffington ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:17:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What has UK international clout got to do with Brexit?
Usgarden ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 13:18:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What has the UK's international clout got to do with leaving the biggest trade bloc/union in the world? Erm...
Kyoraki ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:29:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The biggest trading bloc mostly because of UK contributions. When the UK leaves, NAFTA will be the biggest. The EU might even slip to third if the UK establishes a commonwealth trading bloc, or might not even survive at all if Le Pen becomes France's next president.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:36:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Usgarden ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:10:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/s?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:07:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Usgarden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:03:31 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How are they more of a mess than the tories?
BlitzBasic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:53:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Mostly" is probably a bit much. The UK isn't even the biggest economy inside the the EU.
Kyoraki ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:56:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, but it was the biggest before the reunification of Germany, and is still the second largest as of this moment.
AP246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:37:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The 5th largest economy in the world with the biggest city in western Europe isn't gonna suddenly turn into a 3rd world country because of brexit. The UK might drop down a couple of notches, but will not suddenly not be a major player.
[deleted] ยท 241 points ยท Posted at 11:07:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 310 points ยท Posted at 12:42:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In fact, I think it empowers them to keep up the old shit. They see the attention it gets, they know they're untouchable, they keep up the same shit.
Case in point: a few weeks ago the Belgian government summoned the head of Saudi Islamic mosques in Belgium to appear before the senate and explain their links to salafism and all that rot.
The guy completely ignored most questions and straight up lied to the point the senate cut the hearing short and kicked him out, claiming he was trying to rile them up by being obstinate.
Nothing came from it. They effectively gave the entire Belgian government the middle finger and exclaimed ร la Cartman "Whadevah! I do what I want!" and no-one feels any repercussions from this, so it's definitely not going to change.
LycraBanForHams ยท 47 points ยท Posted at 12:48:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Van damme should have been in charge. A spin kick dealt to one lying during questioning and the rest would have folded.
karadan100 ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 13:42:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or eight Jan Michael Vincents.
SaracenDog ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:24:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But he can't be in two quadrants at once!
IamNotDenzel ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:04:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How did I get here!?!?
EstusFiend ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:44:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How did she get there???
IamNotDenzel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:18:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your username is fucking killer.
EstusFiend ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:26:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
\[T]/ Praise it!
but actually praise Kaathe the bringer of Dark
IamNotDenzel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:46 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Glorious! If only I could be so grossly incandescent
mdgraller ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:19:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
HAHA RICK AND MORTY
[deleted] ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 14:23:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 14:33:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the key point.
Established politicians keep acting as if anyone supporting the extreme left or right is an idiot - and they may well be right - but those people definitely won't be convinced to vote for them by being insulted or declared marginal.
That is how you lose the elections by a landslide never before seen (Looking at the socialist party in France right now, but they're far from the only ones with this problem).
C0wabungaaa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, I doubt that. Ordinary people's disgust and distrust at globalisation is for the largest part economic; "I don't do as well as this shebang promised I would, all dem jobs are off to China/India/South Korea/whatever." And below that is "Keep immigrants out!"
Lord_Shard ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just don't like the idea of one group of supreme elites telling 7+ billion people how to live. I'd rather the whole world just fuck off and leave me to my peace. But humanity can't seem to grasp the simple fucking concept of mind your own goddamn business.
C0wabungaaa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:20:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except that...the UN doesn't tell you how to live? And do you also realise how "society" works? Y'know, everything that makes it possible that you can post what you say here on Reddit.
vodkaandponies ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:58:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UNs one and only real job is to facilitate diplomacy and stop WW3. It is not meant to be some exclusive club for countries with great records.
Sometimes that means talking to despicable people who represent despicable things.
Lolomgwowlolol ยท 62 points ยท Posted at 13:20:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then Europeans wonder where the memes come from
venustrapsflies ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 13:42:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the way you phrase this makes it sound like an entire continent goes about their day being upset about memes
othersomethings ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 13:46:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The continent I'm on certainly is.
Soykikko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:41:21 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Antartica?
Seetherrr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The way you phrase this makes it sound like you think memes are only images with text...
parlez-vous ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:13:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"memes are an artform mom! I'm an artist!"
Morten14 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:12:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which memes?
Space_Kn1ght ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 16:11:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think he's talking about the Eurabia memes.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:32:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not completely true though; the head of the mosque appeared to have committed perjury and is under criminal investigation (Dutch news article).
heyitsthtguy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:40:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I am the Senate.
karadan100 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:42:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then it's settled. Nuke mecca from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
TheInkerman ยท 96 points ยท Posted at 13:30:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually it's made some (relatively) dramatic improvements in recent years. Women are making up an increasing part of the workforce, they are allowed to vote in municipal elections, and some have been appointed to high political office. These are baby steps and there are still huge problems, but we're also talking about a country which was literally medieval 60 years ago. Many women in Saudi Arabia also oppose things like women driving and in politics. Both genders in the Kingdom are conservative, not just the men.
joos1986 ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 14:59:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just got back to the kingdom. Holy shit is it weird seeing women as part of the regular workforce in malls etc.
I think it's great, and no where near the doom, gloom and calamity predicted has occurred. They seem friendly, and hardworking.
I'm glad these women are being given an opportunity to earn their own living.
Fester__Shinetop ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:31:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you Saudi? I lived with a couple of Saudi guys once and they were also very positive about more freedoms for women. Then I watched Wadjda which I totally recommend everyone to watch if you havent already. I think a lot of people over here just assume Saudi policies are a direct reflection of the will of the people, but of course that's never true :)
Btw Wadjda is on YouTube I think, it's a movie about a little girl who wants to save up to buy a bike to race her best friend, who is a boy. It is an absolutely amazing movie.
joos1986 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:00:47 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope nope, not Saudi.
Lots of Saudis are totally like you and me, assuming even that's a thing even. Heck, with their financial security they get access to a lot of the same lifestyle trappings someone would in the west.
Some of these are people I know and am friends with.
It's hard to demarcate this stuff in clear lines, because so much of this is limited personal experience and second hand tellings, but I'd also suggest that by the nature of how you got to staying with these saudi guys, you might be exposed to those of a certain mindset.
There's a lot of nuance to this sort of thing in Saudi Arabia, especially having so many of them so influenced by western and outside media in general, but there is the other side too. I don't mean this as some sort of hush hush conspiracy way. Just that the religious leanings and highly conservative views come from somewhere, and it's not always the older generation.
I definitely need to watch Wadjda, and it was directed by a Saudi, a woman no less. But even something like this, it stands out in my mind that she's a woman, because it's not the norm.
These are all good signs, but often you'll hear about this one woman pilot, this one woman director and while they're steps in the right direction, these people are often from an extremely privileged class who had a family tie to those industries, rather than your everyday person working their way up. In the sense they're not an example of a general change in attitudes, though I like to think they pave the way. Haifa Al Mansour is a really good director in her own right, so at least it's not some sort of Emperor in new clothes sort of deal.
One thing I find interesting is, how even among the progressive Saudis I've met, there's this double standard. Either something they follow blindly that'll make me do a double take because it goes against my mental perception of the person. Quite commonly, these same guys that seem very progressive, have totally different views on the same things when it comes to their sister or mother. It's like the progressive leaning stuff is like a different set of clothes they wear, it can't be easy juggling the expectations of society and family along with wanting to be different.
Fester__Shinetop ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:15:42 on May 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for your reply, sorry I'm so slow at mine! Little bump for Wadjda, it's superb.
But mostly I replied to say that it's interesting but I find the double standard you speak of exists in the west too, in various ways. And it is still notable when a film director here is female. We're all just in different stages of social development I guess :)
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:54:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you talk with and interact with the women though or do they only serve other women?
joos1986 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:48:23 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good question, so the thing that was surprising with this is. It's not just that women are finally working in the Kingdom, because that had already been happening for a while, but the fact that they're working alongside the men.
I've had friends working in areas like the ad industry where women would be working with the men, but these were more the exception and always a matter of flying under the radar.
What made me do a double take now though, is seeing things like women retail assistants in your regular stores. Women cashiers at the big hypermarkets etc. Women in these very visible, high volume places, where they'd be interacting with men directly.
So yeah, part of the surprise is that you can interact directly with the women. Except for some exceptions (usually behind a nice wide counter) all these women are full hijab (full ninja) so face covered too. The exceptions did have their faces uncovered, but still head to toe in black garb.
As for my personal direct interaction, quite limited, but that's mostly me. I've been raised to be very careful in my interactions with Arab women, but then again they've not been part of the public sphere so blatantly before.
TheInkerman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:07:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's unlikely to IMO. Oil means it's in everybody's interest that Saudi Arabia remain stable, which means the Sauds staying in charge for the time being. But they know that as the petro-dollar declines they'll need to reform the economy, and in turn the political system. The risk IMO comes when this reform really takes off (probably more than a decade from now), and the risk is instability between a liberal revolution and a conservative government, not the other way around. Both the US and China will move Heaven and Earth to prevent SA slipping into a theocratic nightmare.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:56:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't it already theocratic though with forced prayer and religious police?
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:20:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Secular government enforcing religious laws. Slight but important difference.
Tempest_1 ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 13:55:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But honestly, we'll see if they retrograde with the looming problem of fossil fuel money drying up.
TheInkerman ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 14:05:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If anything this will force them to further modernise. As the petro-dollar declines, Saudi Arabia will be forced to diversify its economy. This means greater connections with the outside world, which in turn means greater freedom for women (and the population generally).
It only retrogrades if the economy collapses, and I think the government is at least somewhat aware of the problem. They know their power depends on continued prosperity, so they'll reform the economy to survive.
Ufcycydyxuxy ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 14:33:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its interesting to see that countries that have great mineral riches are almost always dictatorships. It makes sense if you think about it.
The rulers of most other countries get their wealth from their citizens being productive and taxing them. For the population to be productive they need education and personal freedom.
Those mineral rich countries dont need the people so treat them badly.
TheInkerman ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:43:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep, called the Resource Curse.
It's important to remember when talking about the Middle East. The Middle East isn't developed; ignore all the shining towers in Dubai; it's just wealthy, not developed. IIRC just prior to the Iraq War the UN put out a report which found the Middle East was actually behind Sub-Saharan Africa in a key index of Globalisation; Globalisation being the key to development and democracy.
Seetherrr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:34:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Democracy is not necessarily some amazing cultural advancement for a country. Democracy, when working correctly, reflects the will of the people and there is no guarantee that a newly democratic country will have ideals anywhere close to western liberal democracies. This has been made clear in many cases in the Middle East such as in Gaza where Palestinians put Hamas into power. If a country does not possess a document protecting/enshrining the people with basic rights like in the US Constitution it is possible for a democracy to have outcomes that are as brutal and vicious as any dictatorship.
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:02:23 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hence why liberal democracy is vitally important in the long term and in the short term a good economic foundation is necessary. This was one of the issues with the US approach under the Bush Administration: it pushed democracy when it should have only been pushing Globalisation. You can debate whether or not democracy is the best option for a country at any given point, but more Globalisation is always the best choice in the long term. It then leads to the building of that important economic foundation and liberalisation which leads to good, liberal democracies.
n0mad911 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:36:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually having grown up there I would say dubai is the most developed of them all. Their money is mostly only from tourism and they wouldn't have that without an open culture and development. Qatar would be next. But Saudi is an absolute shit hole. Would never go back there
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:58:11 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Again, a 'relative' measure. Dubai is a little unusual because IIRC it's the one emirate without oil, but let's not pretend it's socially developed. It tolerates Westerners for their money, but it's also a major hub of labor and sexual slavery.
Tempest_1 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:07:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We'll see. I'm, by no means, an expert on their culture. But it does seem to be full of cultural strive between competing religious/ethnic sects.
So while modernization is a hope, the pessimist in me, seems to believe in a more denigration into conflict.
theGoddamnAlgorath ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:30:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wahhabism, the militant form of islam the Kingdom of SA promotes, will curtail any secularism once they get into power.
Shame really, but they made this problem themselves.
Liquidhind ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:39:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their power rests on the Islamists not deposing them, which gets harder the less profitable their nation is. That might be why they're okay with spending their modernization budget on us arms to Fight Yemen.
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:57:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islamist power declines at the same time though; increasingly globalisation, over the long term, will liberalise the Middle East. The Iraq War was actually a big part of this.
Liquidhind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:23:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why? In my head at least they become more influential as the regular people look for a reason (scapegoat) as to why their previously prosperous nation has gone to pot.
TheInkerman ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:11:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The secular dictatorships are stagnant, economically, socially, politically, culturally, etc, so people only tolerate them as long as their basic needs are looked after and they have hope for the future. Take that away and people will turn real fast (basically the Arab Spring). Islamists have tried to draw on this unhappiness for a long time, somewhat successfully, but at the end of the day they suffer the same problems the autocracies do. The difference is that for a long time they were the only alternative. If you're a Sunni Arab you have literally known nothing else. The Iraq War and the 2005 elections there changed this and scared the shit out of the Islamists. The Arab Spring was the result; people demanded democracy, not Islamic theocracies. Sure, Islamic parties won those elections, but of course they would; they were the most organised and the parties people were most familiar with. But then suddenly they found they had to toe the line. In Tunisia it's an Islamic party but they follow the rules of a secular democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt tried its whole Islamisation thing and was popularly overthrown.
You connect 10 people to the outside world, 2 of them are going to get scared and turn to fundamentalism (of whatever variety), but the rest are going to liberalise and welcome that connection.
[deleted] ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 14:08:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well the women against their own self-interest are analogous to the citizens of the DPRK thinking they are lucky to be part of the greatest and most powerful nation. When you're told you are a second class citizen your entire life you tend to believe it.
TheInkerman ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:11:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, I'm not saying their opinions are right, but they are their opinions. You can't force change on people against their will. IMO a measured, gradual change is needed in the Kingdom, mostly because it probably won't happen otherwise.
omid_ ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 15:18:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their "will"?
Grow up in a conservative Muslim society where other forms of thought aren't allowed & there's no freedom of speech. What "will" are you talking about besides what's forced upon the people by the government?
TheInkerman ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 16:05:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People still hold these views quite closely. Is Saudi Arabia repressive? Absolutely. But the people who live there are still conservative, (largely) fundamentalist Muslims. Is that because of the society they've grown up in? Yeah....but everyone else's views are shaped the same way.
It doesn't matter if you're 'right'; you can't force major social changes on people.
postinganxiety ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:32:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed. There's a similar problem with female genital mutilation. Many women are in favor of FGM because it's part of their culture and it's what they know. So when white people tell them to just stop doing it, things get tricky.
I read somewhere that one of the most successful strategies was to just get the women talking about it amongst themselves. Providing information and a safe forum. It was important that they decided for themselves, and that was when things began to change.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How do you even get them into a "safe forum" when they can't go anywhere without a male guardian in many cases and have arranged marriages?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly why so many refugees don't want to integrate into Western culture when they arrive. They still want to practice female genital mutilation, wear full-body burqas, disown/kill gay family members, and perform honor killings. Many cases of such in the US and UK.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a difference between teachings, despite them both being instilled and not inherent. You can say one is right and one is wrong, because one may give options and freedom of choice, and the other does not. If you are given the freedom to choose, and pick restriction, then everything is fine. You decided that. If you are restricted from the start, then it is not fine, as you may not be able to, or might face repercussions for trying to change.
I'm not naming names or pointing fingers at anything in particular, because there are nuances and variance from family to family, cultures, religions, regions, etc. But in general, more abstractly, I think the above holds. People should be able to choose without fear or repercussion.
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:28:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Theyre not though. You're making a false essentialization of Arabs in Saudi Arabia. They have radicals, liberals & conservatives too.
It only seems that the society is conservative because literally other forms of thought are banned.
It's the Saudi govt that is forcing these major social policies on people. How about western nations tell them to stop that? There's almost no pushback from western nations on Saudi Arabia. The government has pretty much no incentive to change.
Right now there are ex-Muslims trapped living in Saudi Arabia. At this rate, maybe their grandchildren will be allowed to state their beliefs without being given the death penalty. Maybe the reforms will mean they'll only receive lashes instead!
Give me a break. ๐ก
TheInkerman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:39:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The majority are conservative Muslims and legitimately hold the associated opinions without being forced to.
And what alternative is there? The West is between a rock and a hard place on this one. Right now the alternative to the Sauds is an Islamist theocracy almost certainly anti-Western. What should the West do? Kick and the door and force democracy and feminism at gunpoint? Sanction them into economic ruin?
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And you know this, how exactly? Do you have a separate reality where you have test-run a Saudi Arabia which has a liberal democracy where people overwhelmingly vote for conservative parties?
How about promoting democracy, universal suffrage, and a republican form of government where the head of state is chosen by the people rather than being from 1 inbred family?
But it will be an Islamist theocracy that won't be able to use its petrodollars to build mosques and push Islamism around the globe. That's the entire point. Read up on Petro-Islam. The Saudi government is the driving force behind a lot of international Islamism. If they stopped receiving so much western support and aid, they wouldn't be able to build so many mosques and promote their hardline version of Islam globally.
Why does it make any sense whatsoever to sanction Iran but not Saudi Arabia? This is the ridiculous double standard. Oh and by the way, Iran is going to have a presidential election next month. When's the next presidential election for Saudi Arabia? Oh, but it's the Supreme Leader of Iran who makes all the real decisions, you might respond. But did you know the Supreme Leader is actually an elected position in Iran? He is voted on by the Assembly of Experts, who themselves are elected. Of course, the elections in Iran are not fully free, but it's clearly better than Saudi Arabia where the average person has literally no say in their head of state. Yet Iran has massive international sanctions on it while the Saudi government is the west's darling and not only are there no sanctions, but the west actively supports the government by sending foreign aid to them! You go to Riyadh or any city in the KSA and you see western corporations everywhere, who pay tax to the Saudi govt to do business there. Isn't that ridiculous?
I support BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) towards Saudi Arabia. The west needs to end its love affair with the country asap. It's the best way to end the spread of global Islamism.
HelperBot_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro-Islam
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 60261
zscvret ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That sounds good, sadly for you your politicians have agreed in 1975 to do the exact opposite.
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:42:29 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Getting public opinions out of Saudi Arabia is notoriously difficult, although we do know 36% support sending funds to Islamist fighters overseas. Many do support the new municipal councils and are concerned about corruption as well. We can get an idea of Saudi opinions by looking at the opinions of other Middle Eastern countries. It's fair to say Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative Middle Eastern countries, so that will also be indicative. Polls have found that while Muslims support democracy, they also believe that Islam should play a strong role in politics with at least some implementation of Sharia law. More troubling they hold very conservative views on religion; virtually all believe that belief in God is a requirement to be moral, and huge majorities believe that sex outside of marriage, drinking alcohol, and homosexuality are immoral. Large minorities (if not majorities) believe that women should obey their husbands and that honour killings are justified.
There is no great underground liberal movement in Saudi Arabia. Most are very conservative by Western standards, even if they support democracy, and that's not likely to change soon.
No, because that society can't yet support democracy. It doesn't have the economic nor social development yet. The Arab Spring and the elections in the Palestinian Territories are good examples of this; in Iraq it took huge force of arms and has only been semi-successful. Let's stick to the real world, not fantasy.
...Why not? It's not the West which is the major buyer of Middle Eastern oil. They could sell as much oil as they want to Asia and export terrorism and fundamentalism without any limitations.
By leaving the country to collapse into a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship funded by basically unlimited reserves of Asian petro-dollars with no reason to not export extremism and terror at an unlimited scale and get into a potentially nuclear confrontation with Iran?
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:02:08 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So 64% don't? So in an election, 64% > 36%, so what's the problem?
Is Saudi Arabia not allowed to have conservatives or something? Are only western nations allowed to have conservatives that want to bomb/attack others?
"We can get an idea of American opinions by looking at the opinions of Canada and Mexico, other North American countries". No.
Wow! Adherents of a religion want their religion to play a role in politics! What a shocker! Christians would never want that, right?
And yet, there are ex-Muslims that live in Saudi Arabia. Where did they come from?
Maybe there would be a liberal movement in Saudi Arabia if they didn't live under a repressive theocracy that bans political parties. Just a thought.
"Can't yet support democracy" = "isn't going to vote the way I want them to ๐ญ"
Palestine has its own problems. What does their election have to do with Saudi Arabia? They're both Arabs so they are the same? Lol.
But this isn't about middle eastern oil. It's only about Saudi oil.
First of all, who in Asia is going to buy their oil? It's a big place. Iraq is in Asia too. Are they going to buy Saudi oil?
And they can't sell as much as they want. There are restrictions. KSA is a member of OPEC. They have to follow that group or could face economic consequences.
It's already a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship. How about try democracy instead?
And I still don't see why giving massive amounts of aid to Saudi Arabia helps. They're using the weapons to oppress & kill others. It was Saudi tanks that rolled into Bahrain to quell the uprising there. And now they are killing people in Yemen. How is this a good thing?
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:14:19 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...Because that's not how opinions in a society work? Seriously, this is pretty basic. If a large section of a society (say 36%) support a very extreme policy, then it's a good bet that even if the rest don't support that extreme policy, they at least hold very conservative views on it. 36% support straight up violent jihad, so it's a good bet a majority support Sharia law in their own country and other conservative Islamic positions.
No...my point was that Saudi Arabia is a very conservative country, a point I supported with evidence.
Sure, maybe not Mexico, but yes, I would say Canada is a good broad indicator of American (at least Yankee) political opinions.
It's an indicator of religious conservatism...and again, my point was that Saudi Arabia is religiously conservative. The fact that religious conservatives exist in other countries is fucking irrelevant.
A handful of closeted Ex-Muslims is not a "great underground liberal movement."
No I actually mean can't support democracy. If democracy were introduced it would very likely collapse into some form of autocracy. And, honest question; would you consider a country that denied women and non-Muslims the right to vote in government elections or hold political office a democracy?
No, it's an example of a democracy collapsing because of a lack of vital social and economic foundations. The fact it's also an Arab country only further supports my point. Learn to read.
You do know Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East?
China, India, Japan, the rest of ASEAN as it develops. This isn't a 'going to' thing either; Asia is already the major destination of Saudi oil; 65% in fact and that share will only increase over time.
Don't be obtuse, it just makes you look stupid.
It doesn't matter, Asian demand for oil is going to be so high that prices will remain up. The shift that's going to happen isn't going to be a decline in oil demand, but a shift in oil demand from the West to Asia even more than has happened already.
So as long it keeps the oil flowing, any fundamentalist dictatorship is going to be rolling in cash for awhile, and even if wasn't the result is the same; a Saudi economic collapse right now would collapse the Sauds and lead to the rise of fundamentalist clerics which, poor or not, would threaten Western interests.
Fundamentalist, yes, theocracy, no; Saudi Arabia is a secular government (the Sauds) enforcing religious law. Not a religious government.
Democracy won't work because it won't last. Again; look at the Arab Spring and that worked out. Democracies need certain basic economic and societal foundations to work. Saudi Arabia might have the latter but it certainly doesn't have the former.
Hallskar ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:29:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm curious though. I always think about when the world will go through some movement in order for men and women to be looked at as the same. I wonder how many years it will be before human beings (from all cultures) start to look at the problem, acknowledge that all forms of religion and cultures instill conservatism and wonder why "those other countries" are bad. Will it be amovement beging in scientific aspects? A social aspect? The slow decline of religious conservative indoctrination of children? It's fascinating to me to try and discover what the issues are, how to address them, and how all peoples and governments will react to the research on why these global issues still exist.
I understand that we can'y force social changes on people. But i'm still trying to understand why some of us are not trying to get to the real bottom of it. It's hard to force social change when those who want to change something, need change themselves. How did culture change so much from 500, 300, 100, 20 years ago? I don't know where to look besides studying history.
TheInkerman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:00:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the thing. We actually know what drives the sort of social change you're talking about, have for a while. The problem is that doing something about it is often not politically popular, and people often go with the 'easier' things which sound much better.
Positive social change (that is greater rights for men and women, economic development and freedom, political liberalisation, better healthcare, more care about environmentalism, etc) is driven by two things; economic development and globalisation, with the latter greatly helping the former.
Naturally, however, both cause huge social change which is frightening to people (men and women). The classic example is urbanistation, which pulls people from villages where they know literally everyone, and know their place in the world (which to them may simply be the valley they and their ancestors have never left), to being one of millions. People lose the identities they've always had and often struggle to find new ones. It's why fundamentalism is strongly associated with this; people try to find new identities in religions and philosophies which hark back to the culture's past (Fundamentalist Islam now, Nazism in the past).
This is most violent in the Middle East right now, but we saw similar things in Europe turn of the century (and, arguably well before that), America with the Civil War, and we will probably see it in the future in Africa. Asia's an interesting one that's yet to play out, but we'll see (we could very easily see this in India, and to some extent already are with Hindu nationalism). To some extent the rise of the alt-right in the US and Europe is a softer second-wave of that reaction to globalisation in the West.
If you look at places like the Middle East and Africa and want to change things for the better, the solution is to help along those drivers by removing obstacles to them. The biggest obstacle is insecurity driven either by oppressive, rogue regimes, or failed states.
People are great, because while many people are scared shitless by globalisation, many more prefer (and even crave) connection with the world. Look at telecoms in Sub-Saharan Africa; huge uptake. This means that for the most part connections will build themselves. But as these connections lead to income growth (continuing the Africa example, a farmer with a cellphone and a 3G connection knows the price of his grains at the port and knows what weather is coming, massively increasing his prosperity), they inevitably lead to freer thinking and more power for the little guy. Not only does this challenge political elites (the dictators), but also the cultural elites (the Imams). Some will simply accept the change. They'll liberalise bit by bit and eventually something will push them over the edge and the country will become a democracy when it hits a certain wealth threshold (about $6,000 to $12,000 USD per capita). This happened in Southern Europe, Latin America, and more recently Asia. The Arab Spring is a symptom of this happening, although they jumped the gun a bit (demanded political change without the appropriate economic foundation, same thing happened in Tienanmen Square).
The problem is that certain dictators will fight it tooth and nail and kill thousands doing it. Not only are they repressive, they're also self-isolating. These are your rogue states. They're not rogue because they object to the US; they're rogue because they object to the liberalising effects of a global economic system the US created and protects. Not only do they prevent liberalisation and development in their own countries, they project insecurity around them, and thus inhibit growth in their neighbours. Failed states are the same, although in that case lack of connection is because of the insecurity. Most other countries (with the exception of some other really under-developed ones, Afghanistan being one, Yemen another) will develop and connect as time goes by, as long as they're allowed to and get a gentle nudge every now and again. The rogue ones and the failed ones need to be dealt with (Arab Spring and wider political liberalisation in the Middle East can be directly linked to the removal of the Saddam regime in Iraq). That's where the political will dries up. People are more than willing to feed a starving nation with food aid, but will do nothing to end the violence that prevents that country from producing its own food in the first place.
Social change isn't driven by dragging people out of the 11th and into the 21st Century, because they'll fight you every step of the way. It's about creating the conditions which allows that social change to occur naturally. And it will happen naturally with no obstacles, and it will happen incredibly quickly. Look at South Korea; feudal autocracy to high tech democracy in less than 50 years. China's doing the same thing on a much larger scale and arguably even faster. The problem is that A; people don't see that, and B; they often don't want to make the hard choices that go along the way. The West (more specifically the US) has a vital role to play, and IMO it's been doing a pretty poor job so far.
deadbeatsummers ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can see that happening right here in the U.S. Women grow up with those views everywhere and frequently hold views that are harmful to their best interest. It's a gradual change in social views and culture.
In SA's case it's slightly more complex. They have a national religion, a royal elite, and a different culture.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
omid_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:09:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you think that is? Do you think Saudis are just biologically attuned to conservatism or something?
The United States violently opposed Arab nationalism, Baathism, and left-wing movements in the middle east, and now are shocked that the only ones remaining in power are conservatives and Islamists.
How do you think people acquire ideas in the first place?
Mechasteel ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:35:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Personally, I'd compare it to Catholics saying that they are against birth control, but then using it anyways. If women in Saudi Arabia lack some basic rights, what makes you think they feel free to publicly complain about it?
Xan_derous ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:09:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No they aren't brainwashed. Most of them are literally loving life. They don't have to work, they don't have to drive. The man has to pay for everything. The man is obligated to drive them wherever they want. And when they go out in public, they don't have to deal with getting oggled and cat called by other men. The women I have talked to love the way things work in Saudi.
purplepilled2 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:25:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lawrence Krauss gave a talk where he forced the Muslim venue to intergrate the men side and the women side. He said the women were wayyy more upset about it than the men.
The3liGator ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 15:19:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the women naturally would feel more threatened by the 'aggressive' men. Imagine if you mixed the showers in high school. I imagine the girls would be more upset.
[deleted] ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 17:11:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are a sexist for saying that.
StargazyPi ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:17:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...In which direction?
PlanningForBullshit ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:35:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It only goes in one direction
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Both directions.
zer0t3ch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That is.... so wrong
PlanningForBullshit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:04:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know I'm just being an asshole
zer0t3ch ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:08:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Poe's Law in effect.
PlanningForBullshit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:09:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a risk you take
_pulsar ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:12:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I recall correctly, women in these positions don't actually have any power whatsoever.
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:10:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To be fair I don't think the men in the same positions don't either, but even if it's a symbolic step it's still an important one.
The3liGator ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:20:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Neither do the men. It's the monarchy that has the power, so it's pretty even.
canttaketheshyfromme ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:30:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They also just performed a kidnapping of a woman in a Phillipine airport, so...
TheInkerman ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:22:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Again, baby steps. If you're looking for perfection right out of the gate you're going to be sorely disappointed.
canttaketheshyfromme ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:00:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look maybe I'm wrong but isn't setting a pitifully low bar a lot more, well, racist than calling them out for being monsters?
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:11 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, and the West should absolutely call out Saudi Arabia for its abuses (and keep it off things like UN rights bodies, although that's not really the West's fault). But at the same time we can't treat the Kingdom like a pariah state, because, right or wrong, it doesn't improve the situation.
AuronFtw ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:10:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the problem with religion - all of them, not just Islam. Brainwashing the children to believe hogwash means people will even support subjugating themselves just because it's "god's will" or whatever. Just disgusting to see that in action.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 15:39:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow. You just had to bring up religion out of nowhere. This is not the problem with religion. In a world with no religion, this shit would still be happening. People would just find another excuse to feel more powerful. Brainwashing can and does happen without religion. Religion is not the problem, people are the problem.
Umangiasd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think that a broader statement can be more appealing to this situation. This is the problem with dogmatic views, it includes religion, sectarization of politics, sects and a bunch of other things that cause the people to avoid the necessary analysys of society, norms, views and a large etcetera. The people is not the problem (in itself, as an innherent condition of being human) but laziness (in developed nations, wealthy people) and lack of tools (empoverished people in gral).
AuronFtw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:47:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a mandatory part of religion. It's not the norm outside of it. Religion is the problem; it turns entire generations of people into sheep, and teaches them to follow their leader without question or face an eternity in hell/damnation/coming back as a cockroach/etc. It does this from the time they can learn to speak. Their entire world view is warped by thousand-year-old fairy tales.
Please don't give me that "religion isn't the problem" bullshit. That entire region of the world is unstable and has been for hundreds of years - because of religion.
postinganxiety ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Internalized misogyny is a real thing. So is Stockholm syndrome as a coping mechanism. Not saying you were contesting this, just pointing out that it's irrelevant in some ways (imo) if some women want to keep the status quo. When a group has been oppressed and abused for so long, they have a skewed sense of reality.
But it's really hopeful things are improving. Change is going to happen slowly, because as you said the starting point was so extreme. It's the tortoise and the hare...the tortoise will actually finish the race.
TheInkerman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But that is still their view of reality. My point was that conservatism in Saudi Arabia is a view of that society, not just of the male overlords. You can't force social change on people who are either not ready for it or don't want it.
Mechasteel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:28:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We'll see whether women in Saudi Arabia are allowed to drive before self-driving cars make that question moot.
bagehis ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 13:42:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There have been pockets of improvement. In 2009, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology opened. This was the first coed campus in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, women are not required to wear veils and are allowed to drive on campus.
Resistance to change is a generational thing. The younger generations in Saudi Arabia are less resistant to women's rights than the older generations. So, it is only a matter of time.
ohnonotbrab ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This honestly gives me hope
canttaketheshyfromme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:35:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Small progress, and the moment the men don't have jobs from oil revenues, the old bedouin chauvanism will come back in force.
bagehis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:55:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Massive progress. Girls were not given educations until 1961, when the government began opening schools for girls. The literacy rate for women was 2% in 1970 and has now jumped to 91%. The changes have actually been more rapid than in Western cultures, they just started much later. That is with regards to women's rights anyways, there remain a lot of other human rights issues in Saudi Arabia which continue to go unaddressed.
EnanoMaldito ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:38:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
it helps that Saudi Arabia has an alphabetization rate of close to 100% (off by a couple points), both for men and women.
bagehis ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:51:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The literacy rate has only recently become that good. Female literacy was 2% in 1970. It is now 91% overall (nearly 100% for <40 years old). This change began when the government began opening schools for girls, beginning in 1961. It was a dramatic and relatively rapid change.
EnanoMaldito ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:05:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yup, agreeing with your point that younger generations are more for women's rights than the older one.
It's been an incredible change.
Falsus ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:48:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have taken some small steps. I am for slow improvement (cause fast change would prompt social unrest which would ultimately probably be worse for the country).
Though I do think they do more even still.
flabibliophile ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:42:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean if they don't want women to drive they should give them all eunuch chauffeurs. Maybe rapists that have been castrated. That's really how rapists should be dealt with anyway. In a country like that, they could certainly find enough for every woman to have at least one. Or at least one per household.
The3liGator ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:36:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because Saudis are walking around raping women in the streets while the women are simultaneously always in the home, or with male relatives. Schrodinger's Saudi.
flabibliophile ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of course, I'm also including spousal rape. Yes, just because you convince a woman to marry you it doesn't mean she can't say no and mean it.
The3liGator ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:11:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Glad to hear to confirmation that an entire nation of people are like animals with no empathy for their fellow humans.
flabibliophile ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:27:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not an entire nation, an entire planet. I just think like 95% of humans are scum. Every time I start to think differently, I turn on the news and it all falls apart.
The3liGator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:09:52 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So, why talk about Saudi's specifically?
flabibliophile ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:37 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. Anyone who doesn't want women to drive.
The3liGator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:39:11 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's Saudi Arabia, and you're back to specifying a certain group of people.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What has improved in the last few years?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:08:41 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have. They're still probably the world's worst offender on the issue of women's rights, but they have technically improved.
Communist_Nobody ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 13:02:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are improving things. Women are now allowed to drive under some conditions. Young women are allowed to leave the home without relative escourts, or at least it's been decriminalized.
I realize that's not fast enough for NOW types, but it will have to do.
theyellowpants ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:52:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not so much
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/saudi-arabia
boxinafox ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:28:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jeez, color me impressed.
[deleted] ยท 88 points ยท Posted at 12:54:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody gives a fuck what the UN says, as long as SA gives us oil they can stone people to death as punishment for things that aren't crimes in the modern world.
Nastyboots ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:38:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You mean continue to stone people to death as punishment for things that aren't crimes in the modern world.
Auctoritate ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 15:07:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Uhh... Yeah. I think that was the point of that comment.
purplepilled2 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thats what happens when you dont have a seperation of church and state.
First-Of-His-Name ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:35:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Church and state are linked in the UK, and our legislation is less religiously focused than the US
sintos-compa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:47:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would hate to see what would happen to the US if changes were made to tie church and state that closely. The fundies would go berserk.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 13:56:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think stonings take place in SA? Government ones anyway. Haven't time to Google it but i could be very very worng.
Edit: for those downvoting me. Here is a Reuters article and infomap on where it is legal. http://news.trust.org//item/20130927160132-qt52c/
There are no reports in SA of stonings.
First-Of-His-Name ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:36:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are
I_Am_Become_Dream ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:05:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's right. In theory it's in the law, but it's never used. It hasn't been done since the 90s.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:59:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good argument
1337Logic ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:36:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is no argument, you're just ignorant.
1337Logic ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:36:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is no argument, you're just ignorant.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:37:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I even said i could be wrong? How is having a different opinion ignorant?
First-Of-His-Name ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:02:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because your opinion stems out of a lack of knowledge on the topic, which is literally the definition of ignorance
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://news.trust.org//item/20130927160132-qt52c/
There you are. A Reuters article, which would be an unbiased news source, claiming SA has no reported incideents.
You have proven no knowledge and your only argument is I am ignorant. An easy stance to take. Why don't you try and enhance the conversation instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Garbagebutt ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:11:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They behead women in the streets every fucking week.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:59:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's such an exaggeration it's insane. The people who live there aren't fucking animals.
Garbagebutt ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:12:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ce2_1311328714
http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-women-beheaded-in-street-corpses-dangling-from-cranes/news-story/e9b9a2a9f158285818106049e922aff1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kfc46-vKpY
That's in about one minute of searching.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:19:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You pulled up three videos. You're embellishment is not supported by three videos. Yes behadings happen out there, i was talking about stonings not beheadings.
Murder takes place in the US daily, not as barbaric, but more frequently then it occurs in SA.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:59:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It amazes me that the West turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia yet complain about Cuba and China.
ElectricOrangeJuice ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 13:45:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, they have just proved that they can get away with everything from honor killings and forced marriage to slavery and the west will do nothing about it.
All this proves, is that the UN cares very little about the victims and very much about virtue signaling and oil.
Thenuclearwalrus ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 10:57:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And they wont change anything about it because oil
science87 ยท 81 points ยท Posted at 13:28:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They won't change anything because they literally can't change it without risking turning the entire country into Syria 2.0.
The reason we have problems in Syria, Iraq and Libya is because they have no national identity or cohesion they're just a group of clans/ethnic groups operating under a sovereign umbrella (this is less true for Iraq, hence why its prospects whilst shitty are still far better than Libya and Syria). The Saudi Monarchy has used this to their advantage, with all the different regions of the country doing there own thing, and competing for favour with the house of Saud for bigger handouts. Most of these groups resent the other groups in Saudi Arabia, but because they're allowed carry out their bat shit insane religious practices, and whilst they're getting big state handouts from the central government they're kept in check.
The oil handouts are the major factor, but they have so many bat shit insane radicals in the country that moderate changes risks bringing on a complete shit storm.
Revinval ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 13:42:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In 50-100 years (if that) when the oil money dries up that shotty desert is going to become a lot worse.
Shoutcake ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 13:48:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
mad max but with burqas
KRlEG ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 14:58:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Insane Achmed
Xenomech ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:03:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Mad Mohammed
Airscrew ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:54:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So like Iraq?
Shoutcake ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:04:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
worse
AmberStar91 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:45:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Underrated comment
science87 ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 14:14:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's going to happen sooner, the saudi population has increased by over 100% since 1990. They're producing the same amount of oil they were 40 years ago (around 10 million barrels a day) but now they're consuming over 3 million barrels a day themselves.
On top of that it's looking like $50-70 a barrel is going to be the limit for oil prices since the potential for shale oil has been unlocked. Saudi government budget for 2015 required $105 a barrel to breakeven so they're going to have to make huge cuts, they've started, but it's probably going to cause some social unrest.
theGoddamnAlgorath ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:34:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I applaud your deduction. What evidence for cheaper shale extraction do you have, because I would like to confirm an argument before espousing it.
Edit: spelling
science87 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:58:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Restad did an analysis of various US shale plays regarding extraction costs, shown below.
https://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/Newsletters/UsArchive/shale-newsletter-october-2016
theGoddamnAlgorath ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:30:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting find. According to the synopsis it's good sites and depressed vendor and labor markets that attributed to better margins, but it's a clear signal that shale can and will be a good regulator for traditional plays.
That said, at 29 /bbl USD, I'm rather impressed at such low lift costs!
Tempest_1 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:56:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I like you.
lasyke3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:50:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It will take a lot less time then that.
foobar5678 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:30:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia
Basically, no one in the country has a job, and everyone who does is working for government. A government which gets all it's money from oil. The small private sector that they do have, is entirely run by foreigners.
CaptainFillets ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:40:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well said. Oil is a red herring and by continuing the narrative you have the blood on your own hands of the women who get treated like shit. The real problem is Islamic extremism.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:02:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm surprised you haven't been banned for being a "racist" yet. /s
Agreed.
FourteenFour ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:32:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
they get to set the narrative of these bodies and insure their culture persist or is not officially denounced. exposure is not something they are concerned about positive or negative, controlling the narrative is and they get that by being on these groups
porntoomuch ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:35:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is the reason they get appointed to these panels. It makes them have to talk about it.
morered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:01:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They aren't forced into the panels
porntoomuch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:07:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are voted in which obliges them to participate. Sure they could turn it down but it makes you look shitty if you do.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 13:15:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think that's the idea
morered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:00:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They force Saudi Arabia onto the panels?
McCourt ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:46:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't that the obvious point of putting such countries on these panels: to force them to confront these issues and criticisms?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:02:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd like to think so. Does anyone have any articles about how this panel actually functions?
MankindRedefined ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:18:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey they're not fucked up for practicing their religion- you're fucked up for criticizing them /s
-TrumpNation- ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:25:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. I mean the mother fuckers perpetrated 9/11, yet we invaded Iraq, and gave the billions and they're now the most thriving country in the Middle East.
So nah, I don't think they've gotten enough attention. Hey, now you start to understand the corruption ;) now why did they donate to Hillary...... scratches head
apple_kicks ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:26:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe the UN Panels is the way people are getting them to listen to the issues they usually ignore in some fucked up way
Murgie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:42:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What's really crazy is how almost nobody who raises hell about Saudi Arabia's presence on such panels are actually aware of what these panels actually do.
I mean, for the most part I can hardly blame them for coming to the conclusions that they do, given how many outrage-clicks a headline like "Saudi Arabia chosen to head key UN human rights panel" rakes in. But it really does get to me how few people actually take the time to understand the system at all. At this point I can't even be angry about it anymore, now it just makes me sad.
Most people don't even seem aware that there are a specific number of seats allotted to each of the five regional groups. SA holds one among the thirteen Asian States, it's the entire reason they're not replaced with a nation like Canada, Norway, Sweden, or something, because they can't be.
Anyway, onto that panel I linked to, and what it does.
The reality behind that appointment is that SA was chosen to head a single panel formed under the United Nations Human Rights Council, alongside Greece, Algeria, Chile, and Lithuania. That panel was in charge of exactly one thing; recommending 10 potential appointees from a list of 56 candidates for the following three positions, at which point all 47 member nations of the UNHRC vote on who is elected to each position.
Those positions were:
Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.
Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, member from Latin American and Caribbean States.
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, member from Eastern European States.
And that's it. Here's the UNHRC document provided by UN Watch when they made a fuss about it.
Yeah, really, that's all the panel did. They had the supreme and lofty power to issue some totally non-binding recommendations. And look at the sheer amount of outrage it generated in that first link up there, something like 3000+ comments, it's incredible just how much of an impact the way this information is presented has on what people actually take away from it.
Now don't get me wrong, that's fantastic when it's directed toward Saudi Arabia itself, but it's kinda sad to see when it's directed toward the UN itself for reasons that don't hold up to scrutiny. It's certainly a far cry from a flawless organization, no question about that, but I wish people were up in arms over real issues rather than scare-mongering over who gets to head the panel in charge of some minor recommendations.
And as much as I'd like to, I can't even lay the blame for that sensationalization at the foot of The Independent. It was UN Watch that served as the source for those exaggerations, calling that "a key UN Human Rights Council panel, with the power to select top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide". Like, I hate the Saudi government too, but that's just telling an outright lie in my opinion. And it's not as though they didn't know better than to claim the panel can actually choose who gets the positions, they provided the document!
I dunno, you guys feel free to come to your own conclusions on UN Watch, maybe browse their site a bit, but personally I can't help but wish there was a slightly less agenda-driven organization built around serving as a watchdog for the UN.
vegetables1292 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:40:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Has it changed anything, though?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:08:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Women have steadily earned more freedoms in the past five years. Maybe organically, maybe from outside pressure.
swr3212 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:52:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If Saudi Arabia ran out of fossil fuels, would we even hesitate to bomb them?
iReddat420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:03:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Prolly not
HotSauceInMyWallet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:02:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is Reddit islamophobe, what kind of "fucked up shit" are you talking about? Better not have anything to do with Islam or non-white people.
gammadeltat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:19:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thats the point
MehNahMehNah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:25:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is made up of mostly Muslim-led countries. Call it a 'victory' for women I guess.
Greyhaven7 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why don't people understand that that's the point of putting them on these panels?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is the entire point, but Reddit can't seem to do do anything but foam at the mouth at the mention of their name.
Fredfredbug4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:20:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I want to hope it's an elaborate political maneuvering to do just that, but that gives a little too much credit to the UN.
humbook ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the real shame here is the missed opportunity to go with 'if you can beat em, join un' as the headline
GaminoBinks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:38:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
they got money
Yakno_what ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:00:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is part of the rational behind letting countries like SA on the UN. They start to get held to a higher (more international) standard.
dragunityag ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:04:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iirc someone pointed this out in a post a year ago. Saying that the UN does this to keep attention on SA'S issues.
BrokeTheInterweb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:10:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would also guess that their presence on this council will stronghold them into agreeing to the majority's stance on women's rights.
We are often quick to be up in arms over someone's presence on a board or council when they are the very entity that need it most. They are only one voting member, and their archaic motives will be outnumbered in any vote. They'll be held to whatever standards the council democratically decides. That's a good thing.
morered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:17:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I haven't noticed that.
WeathersFine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the idea is that including them in panels and slowly altering their thinking will lead to shifting of ideologies on women's rights as opposed to assaulting their societal regardless of where they lie
xcalissaa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Anyone else think they might learn something from being on the committee though?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:16:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. Sort of the point...
allusernamestaken1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:03:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure what kind of powers or responsibilities being in this council grants a country, but if you want to fix something, you don't reward it first...
MisterTruth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:06:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying it's beneficial that the UN puts a country that hates women's rights on a panel revolving around women's rights?
Sheldor888 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:24:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah and nothing has come out of it.
Banned88 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:36:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty sad the heads of governments don't have the balls to call them out. They just do some workaround that makes them look even more gutless
HarryPhilby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Britain helped install a Saudi prince as UN Human Rights Commissioner. Saudi flogs, maims, beheads and crucifies people after unrepresented, non-jury trials. Britain and the US also help the Saudis to maintain the food, water and medicines blockade on Yemen that is starving hundreds of thousands of kids.
kizock ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's gotta be the reason they do it right? Seems silly if it intentional
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:21:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I like that attitude
myles_cassidy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:49:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Might have been why they chose to do it in the first place. I mean, how has Saudi Arabia actually used this position to slow human rights development around the world?
qwaszxedcrfv ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:57:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes!
It may be hard to believe but Saudi Arabia is changing (although very slowly).
Heck, they just had its very first comic con!
This may not seem like a big deal. But it shows that they are slowly opening up to western ideas and it's become slowly accepted by the new generation.
Politics aren't going to change overnight, but everyday, Saudi Arabia is becoming a little more open minded towards western ideals.
borkborkborko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:17:29 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People who oppose this stuff don't understand what the UN does or how and why it's important to have Saudi Arabia at the panel, maybe even in a leadership position.
The UN is a negotiating table. By putting Saudi Arabia into the panel for Women's Rights you out SA in a position where it has to discuss women's rights on a regular basis.
adevland ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 10:47:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly.
You don't fix an issue by leaving a discussion just because the bully has a right to voice his opinion.
You fix it by deconstructing the bully's rhetoric.
By leaving (how Trump did) you're only permitting them to do whatever they want.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 11:56:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What have they changed?
adevland ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 12:10:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
5 United Nations Achievements Worth Celebrating on U.N. Day
The UN isn't perfect. Promoting this idea while ignoring all of the good things they've done is not only ignorant, but also dangerous since ignorance on these issues is actually beneficial for entities like Saudi Arabia.
Leaving the UN is exactly what the governments of countries like Saudi Arabia want.
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 12:12:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I mean how has Saudi changed? How does being in the UN hold them accountable for their BS?
KanadainKanada ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:56:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you expect things to change immediately? Imagine an UN council about fighting racism back in 1960, even 70. Do you think the US should have led such a council back then? Well? It takes time.
[deleted] ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 12:17:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
theskyisblueatnight ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 12:41:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
doesn't Trump have hotels in Saudi or they at least purchased the land before or during the election?
Saudi has no place on the the women's right body. Women in Saudi are fighting for basic rights. These include the rights to see their child if the father divorces them. The right to not ware a big black cap over their head. The right to leave the country without their chaperones consents. These are basic right other women have in other countries. Saudi should be pressured by other governments to make these simple changes.
Most Saudi women have personal drivers so driving isn't that high on the list.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:42:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually most Saudi people aren't super wealthy, the country has lots of poverty and the vast majority of women have no drivers and live in a situation we would consider slavery in the west
adevland ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:50:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, they have a place. All countries do.
You can't force them to do something without their participation in the negotiations.
The point is that they don't have a place to govern the women rights body.
dbcanuck ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 12:41:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Justin Trudeau approved arms sales to Saudi Arabia too.
Politics is complicated.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:47:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
MrSnugglepoo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:30:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wasn't aware the average redditor was capable of forcing their country to do anything.
Seriously, "You don't get to bitch about something while your own country doesn't do anything about it" is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this website.
adevland ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:34:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Surely bitching about it will change things. /s
Are you telling me that you feel entitled to judge others?
While refusing to provide any solutions and only bitch about the problem which is, in part, due to your actions?
This is the stupidest thing most people do. Judge others while ignoring their own problems.
MrSnugglepoo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:45:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No. It won't change things.
But guess what? Reddit is at its core just a place for discussion. Part of discussion is venting frustration. You're babbling about nothing and I can't tell but I think trying to pull a red herring while trying to say people don't deserve to talk because of where they live.
Example: Sean is upset Ireland still uses oil and combustion engines. Sean is not a government official. Sean mentions he doesn't like the US' oil consumption on reddit. But oh wait, he can't, because since Ireland still uses oil, he's not allowed to criticize oil by your logic.
adevland ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:52:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody is supposed to tolerate you venting your frustrations.
That's a nonconstructive discussion.
Venting frustrations doesn't fix the problems that lead to those frustrations.
You're claiming to not understand the issue but you still have an opinion on the matter.
That's the core problem I'm talking about here.
You're not entitled to talk about something you don't understand.
You're acting as if you're entitled to vent your frustrations while everybody else is supposed to deal with it.
You're not entitled to anything.
People here have not criticized the problem. They're criticized those that are trying to fix the problem while praising those that have chosen to ignore it.
And this is a huge problem because it doesn't help those that try to fix the problem. On the contrary.
MrSnugglepoo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:15:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
... Yea I'll stop feeding the obvious troll now, have fun guy.
adevland ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:17:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for proving my point about ignorance. :)
Communist_Nobody ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:05:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We aren't the fucking world police. We aren't the world feminist enforcers either. Let them sort their own problems out.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:10:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then why are you bitching about the UN?
Also, nobody is trying to make you do this job. It's supposed to be a collective decision.
That's why it's called the United Nations.
Ok. Then stop bitching when others try to help.
Treasure_hand ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:28:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of course, the us' feminists are too worried about when men are doing on video games and rioting on college campuses where Milo is going to speak instead fight actual oppression of women.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:05:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Great point!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:26:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Barack Obama completed the largest arms sale in history with guess who, Saudi Arabia. Don't try to flip this on Trump.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He then banned the sales and passed it over to Trump which, guess what, continued to do the exact same thing.
He flipped it himself, bro.
He had the opportunity to stop the sales. Obama started the ban. Trump lifted it and sold more weapons.
Trump didn't change anything. He only proved that Obama was right.
Saudi Arabia has oil. The US needs oil. Weapon sales need to happen.
Leaving the UN doesn't have to happen.
Obama didn't leave the UN. That's Trump's idea.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:51:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I never said anything about leaving the UN. Obama banned one small portion of the sale. Not the entire thing.
adevland ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:55:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Trump has. That's the point.
Then Trump comes along and says "Fuck it.". All weapon sales are go!
It's like he did it just to be against Obama even though Obama did what Trump promised.
So not only did Trump go against one of his promises, he also undid the work of others that went ahead and did what he himself has promised.
That's stupid and hypocritical on so many levels.
GG for trying to defend him, though. It's not an easy job.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:13:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Has nothing to do with my reply.
You casually mentioned Trump lifting Obama's arms ban without disclosing that A. Obama never put a full on ban on anything. He limited one small portion of the sale and B. Obama is responsible for the largest arms deal literally in history. Your comment was disingenuous.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
because you're not the US president.
You didn't say it. The US president did. That's the point.
You're trying to defend Trump by ignoring his policy and decisions. GG. :)
Obama did what Trump promised.
Trump did exactly the opposite.
You can't deny nor defend this.
Why are you trying to shift the discussion?
This is about the UN and how Trump wants to leave it.
It's you who are being disingenuous by trying to shift the discussion to something else.
You said
I didn't try to flip that on Trump. I said that Trump did nothing to stop the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
He did the contrary. Trump resumed the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're the one who made this about the UN. I was just pointing out your little drive by comment that completely ignores major context and paints Trump as the monster when in actuality, you're lord and savior obama is responsible for ten times worse. Probably even more than that.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:13:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bill introduced to remove US from United Nations
Why are you even mentioning Obama?
This is not about Obama. This is about the UN and Saudi Arabia.
Trump is doing the same things Obama did by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and by bombing other countries.
Trump Admin Ups Drone Strikes, Tolerates More Civilian Deaths: U.S. Officials
Trump always criticized Obama for these things and he's now doing them himself.
Obama never wanted to leave the UN.
That's the point.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:19:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:21:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't bring up Obama. You brought him up in an attempt to shift the discussion to something else.
Why are you insulting me?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:24:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just pointing out your hipocracy.
Because you deserve it.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:26:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hypocrisy about what?
About how Trump is doing the same things as Obama?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Failing to point out that Obamas ban on the arms deal was miniscule and not entirely combersome. For the uninformed citizen, your comment says that obama banned arms deals with SA. Which obviously is far from the case. Like I said, I took your comment to be disingenuous.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:23:15 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So fuck Obama for trying. He didn't ban all sales. Let's sell all the weapons because Obama only banned a few of them.
That doesn't make sense, bro.
It's not "all or nothing". Progress is incremental.
Sure, Obama sold a lot of weapons. Nobody is denying that. But he started banning the sales before he left and Trump ruined that.
That's a dick move by Trump which, ironically, goes against his very promise to stop all sales.
Not only did Trump not stop any of the sales, he continued to sale them and undid all progress Obama did towards stopping them.
No mental gymnastics can deny the fact that Trump is a liar and huge hypocrite. :)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:24:29 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When did Trump say he wouldn't sell the arms though? And yea, obama taking away a tiny portion of a deal while still providing air support and refueling to Saudi Jets makes no difference. Plus obama was too little too late as he was the one who completed the largest arms deal in the history of the world with Saudi Arabia.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:40:12 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're accusing Obama of the exact things that Trump is doing.
Just let that sink in.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:14:56 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not accusing obama of anything. Just pointing out that Obama completed the largest arms deal in the history of the world with Saudi Arabia.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:25:33 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is entirely besides the point.
The article we're commenting on is about the UN and Saudi Arabia.
Obama is no longer president. Trump is doing the same things as Obama when it comes to Saudi Arabia.
What Obama didn't do is push for the US to exit the UN. That's Trump's idea.
I'm not defending Obama. I'm criticizing Trump for doing the exact things he criticized Obama for. And that makes him a yuge hypocrite.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:32:16 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was just pointing out the disingenuous comment when the guy said that trump reversed obama arms deal ban. His comment was designed to attack trump by way of not providing the complete information. That's it.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:36:49 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And you think that Trump did better because he reversed a ban on an arms deal with Saudi Arabia?
I never said that Obama banned all arms deals with Saudi Arabia. I linked an article with specifics which you clearly didn't read.
Here's my comment.
Donald Trump's State Department approves Saudi Arabia weapons sales blocked by Barack Obama
It says nowhere that Obama banned all arms deals with Saudi Arabia. You're arguing against something that didn't happen.
I wasn't being disingenuous.
It's you that made wrong assumptions without reading the article I posted.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:46:11 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've read all the fucking articles about it before. Your wording makes it seem like obama halted the entire thing and that it wasn't his to approve in the first place.
adevland ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:59:10 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, it doesn't.
It clearly says that "Donald Trump's State Department approves Saudi Arabia weapons sales blocked by Barack Obama".
If you had any doubts, you would have read the article.
But you ignored that like you ignored the fact that Trump approved this deal.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:50:52 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude I read everything about it when it happened.
PM_ME_OR_PM_ME ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:37:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't leaving just as much as an attention grabber? I don't see your point - at least in context of OP.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No.
Do you really think that Saudi Arabia will give a shit about the US leaving?
If anything, they'll rejoice.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
Resigning from a position of authority doesn't fix problems. It's a political statement that's meant to say you don't care even though you're part of the problem and even though you're claiming to care.
It's all PR BS aka "all talk and no walk".
PM_ME_OR_PM_ME ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:51:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No I mean to the world. The US leaving any group makes a strong statement.
adevland ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:54:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A strong statement about what? That they don't care?
That's the only statement they're sending because everybody already knows that Saudi Arabia has huge women rights abuse problems.
SwissBliss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:41:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They do fucked up shit, but let's be clear that their women aren't all tormented. I have a bunch of Saudi friends who are female and they always show pictures of them drinking and partying in Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:56:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are your friends Saudi Arabian?
There are some parts of Saudi Arabia where Western foreigners congregate, which are not held nearly to the same standards as the rest of the country. SA only does that for financial reasons anyways.
SwissBliss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:57:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are Saudi ya. They always tell me that Jeddah is the party city or something.
InsignificantThing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:24:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is true
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:00:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is ultimately controlled by the US which is influenced by the Saudis.
Just wait for a few days and after some calls are made and some bribes given and it'll ne gone.
Zyzto ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:23:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What stuff enlighten me I have been here in Saudi Arabia for 20 years
Little do u know women have more rights in here than in other country
The shit u hear is parent abuse
greatjustgreat1 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:28:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lol. as long USA are best bodies of SA nothing and none will even dare piss against them. not even americans themselves.
autotldr ยท 614 points ยท Posted at 08:02:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top keywords: women#1 Saudi#2 rights#3 Arabia#4 gender#5
MianaQ ยท 125 points ยท Posted at 14:53:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder why autotldr's never sticked as top post? Since many of redditors here never bothered to click the article and just post comment based on title.
[deleted] ยท 99 points ยท Posted at 15:25:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:01:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
Blackpixels ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:21:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Automod: "You have been banned."
PubliusDeLaMancha ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:55:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or the gigantic disclaimer anytime the holocaust is mentioned
thapol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:12:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As a mod that has had to do this manually on a few threads to prevent people from being assholes, it does help. The quicker I or another mod can get to a thread that will likely attract a flame war, the better.
Apparently it also helps on the political & critical thinking aspects as well.
CreativeName1357 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:12:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're quite close to top post alot if the title isn't very clear or misleading or something but this title was clear and i think most people know something about the situation of women in SA.
ceo_mert ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:45:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are cases where the bot leaves out important bits of the articles. Although rare, sometimes a word isn't exactly used in the title that is very important to the story and when the bot can't include that one crucial fact/statement etc. people can get a whole other idea of the story. Well, your comment was probably meant to be facetious and now I spent time explaining an obvious flaw. But in case not, time well spent.
[deleted] ยท 176 points ยท Posted at 14:12:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
good bot
pats head
BogpilledGoy ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 14:17:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good and quick rundown. Good job
dotdash25 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:22:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yay bot!
MontanaCowboy ยท 1877 points ยท Posted at 09:47:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"slams"
why does that always sound so corny
scotchirish ยท 417 points ยท Posted at 13:37:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Probably because it's trying to make "Watchdog tutted the UN and wrote a stern letter" sound like it actually accomplishes something.
State_of_Iowa ยท 209 points ยท Posted at 15:18:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and it's dumb and wrong anyway. this is copied from my post above:
UN Secretariat staff here...
as usual, headlines getting this wrong. the UN didn't appoint Saudi Arabia. it's the UN member state governments that get together and vote on these sorts of things. it's a rotational thing. there are dozens and dozens of committees and councils. people trade votes i.e. you vote for us to host XYZ conference and we will vote for you to be on ABC council.
it has nothing to do with the UN staff (i.e. the experts who work on this stuff day to day) making recommendations and decisions. people who work for UNOCHR have no power over this matter. people who work for the Secretariat have no power over this. it's a political decision.
this article is really irresponsible for questioning the UN for appointing Saudi Arabia to an ECOSOC commission. not even the UN staff working on ECOSOC (which by the way, i do some work for) have any input on this.
dumb article. criticize the countries who voted for Saudi Arabia, not the UN staff.
eagereyez ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 15:43:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This pretty much refutes the entire article and all this fake manufactured outrage. Wont prevent it from reaching the front page with 1k comments tho.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:43:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Dillatrack ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:46:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't have to trust the person, that's actually how member states are voted in (through the General Assembly).
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:34:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think he's a UN secretary, he got the name of the org wrong. its UNHCR not UNOCHR lol
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:58:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because some rando anonymous commenter says it's fake? Just blindly follow lol
Has_Two_Cents ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:28:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and... I came here from the front page, when there were over 1000 comments... so your theory is confirmed.
RufusTheFirefly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How exactly does it refute the entire article? The watchdog didn't say a word about the UN staff. It was pretty clearly a criticism of the UN member states' representatives.
C0wabungaaa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:31:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Damn, that proces does make the whole affair sound awfully hollow.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All governments are based on bartering. In other words:
The art of the compromise
Hold your nose and close your eyes
We want our leaders to save the day
But we don't get a say in what they trade away
We dream of a brand new start
But we dream in the dark for the most part
State_of_Iowa ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:27:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yeah, but it's a process. and it gets people to the table. it's better to have a forum where SA is forced to listen to what's happening.
RufusTheFirefly ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:05:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Where are you getting that it's a criticism of the staff of the UN? He doesn't say anything about the staff.
I thought it was pretty clear that he was talking about the decisions of the member states' UN representatives.
When someone criticizes congress, they're not criticizing the congressmen's support staff.
State_of_Iowa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Congress vs. the UN is a very bad analogy. when people say 'the UN did X', most people take it to mean it's the decision of we who work at the UN have a role in making that decision.
kudos to you for knowing that the UN member states make the decisions, but most people don't. i deal with this on a regular basis in real life.
the article also doesn't make it clear. it talks about the UN in a broad way as if it is the entity making the decisions, not the member states that make up the entity making the decisions.
monkeybreath ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:11:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My understanding was that each region (e.g. Middle East) gets a rep, and SA was the only candidate put forward from the region. How that happened is probably exactly like you said.
State_of_Iowa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:20:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
in this case it would be the Asia group in general. it's not subdivided into the Middle East most of the time. but yes, that's how it works. other countries have other priorities and resources. not every country in Asia has enough personnel to staff every HRC meeting.
LerrisHarrington ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some of the shit is regional too, Saudi Arabia doesn't compete with European nations for a seat on some councils, just other nations in its area.
And some rules require rotation of members, so basically everybody is guaranteed a turn at everything.
PubliusDeLaMancha ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:56:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the takeaway of the article is that the UN is powerless. Your comment only reinforces this
This_is_so_fun ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 16:17:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, the system is dumb and wrong.
Someone fucked up the inner working of this body so badly that in a non-alternate universe, the KSA is head in ANY CAPACITY of ANY HUMAN RIGHTS council.
State_of_Iowa ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:21:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
okay, so we should ban them from every group and then tell them that they still need to be part of the UN and listen to UN decisions. i am sure that will work.
BoojumG ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:51:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What change would you like to make to the processes described here?
This_is_so_fun ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:55:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well it's not really my job, but if it somehow was, I guess for any human rights council you'd have to pass some sort of "How are my country's human rights" test to participate.
Killing people for being gay would instantly DQ you from that test, so KSA would not be a problem.
BoojumG ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with that idea but think that it can't be done without delving into the root causes and politics that got Saudi Arabia voted in to the committee in the first place. The same process that nominated and voted on Saudi Arabia being included would be creating and ratifying any such test too.
You've identified an outcome you want, and I agree with it, but any change that'd make it feasible would have to happen at a lower level, where the politics live.
This_is_so_fun ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:09:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well the test would be written to be objective.
I understand that defining the test parameters would be approved by the current council, for a start, and obviously this is politics so nothing can be so simple.
My hope is that one day leaders man up enough to stand up to it, but as long as $$$ is concerned all I can do is sit on the internet and muse on how ridiculous the whole thing is.
puheenix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:18:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then we might figure out it's not really news, just lazy clickbait.
yetanotherAZN ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:29:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Chastised
AdmiralAkbar1 ยท 54 points ยท Posted at 14:11:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't forget "Blasts." It always makes it sound like they're having a space battle, but they're just sending angry letters.
B0Boman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:21:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Brain Blast!
Xxviii_28 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:40:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With how much of a joke the media is becoming, I think we should have some ACME-esque cartoon onomatopoeia thrown into the mix.
Corbyn SPROINGS into action and creates a bank holiday KA-BLAMMO.
AdmiralAkbar1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:33:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or sports/WWE terms.
"Sanders HITS RYAN WITH A CHAIR over Healthcare bill."
Xxviii_28 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:34:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OH MY GOD!
OH MY GOD!
AdmiralAkbar1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"WITH GOD AS MY WITNESS, THAT SENATOR'S SUPPORT BASE HAS BEEM BROKEN IN HALF"
[deleted] ยท 850 points ยท Posted at 13:07:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 173 points ยท Posted at 13:15:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 112 points ยท Posted at 13:22:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 13:32:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:49:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 13:52:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 13:59:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:11:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:10:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:02:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:11:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:13:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:21:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:49:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 13:39:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:10:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 13:44:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
MonkeyDJinbeTheClown ยท 140 points ยท Posted at 12:11:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watchdog SLAMS UN for appointing Saudi Arabia to women rights body AND WELCOME TO THE JAM
wossack ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 13:38:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
work your body, work your body, make sure you dont stone no body
Ktopotato ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 13:59:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Drink wine, feel Haram, beat your lady just cause you can
HEY DJ
darthsyphilis ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 14:17:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
CUT IT OFF!
Can't drive a car, just
CUT IT OFF!
extraneouspanthers ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:19 on April 27, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cocked that joint back on em and yammed it
RifleGun2 ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 14:28:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
SLAMMIN
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:36:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
_Decimation ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 15:36:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'METHANBRADBERRY
mdgraller ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:34:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'M ETHAN BRABERRY
Llamada ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 13:43:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON
Yearlaren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:45:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
dislikes
louievettel ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 13:33:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because it's so low effort
17KrisBryant ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 14:05:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, because it's Iranian propaganda and they hate Saudi Arabia. Saudi is bad obviously, but Iran is just as bad if not worse, so when will Pars Today call out Iran for human rights violations? I'm putting my money on never.
Edit: apparently people pushing propaganda don't like being called out
SonOfSparda304 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 13:42:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because "guy says something against other guy" doesn't have the same impact as "guy DESTROYS other guy"
gt250 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:17:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Man in private group of people who created an organization whose sole purpose is to complain publicly when the UN does something it doesn't like, complains publicly."
SonOfSparda304 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:26:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Huffingtonpost: "WATCH as this brave man absolutely DESTROYS the UN with one tweet!"
gt250 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:33:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"UN DEVASTATED by public outcry, continues with meetings but with a newfound respect for public opinion!"
Zerotan ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:44:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"slams" yadda yadda "womens" yadda "body".
This doesn't seem good.
buttononmyback ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:53:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah the "body" in that sentence made me super uncomfortable. I don't think that was the best choice of words.
nlx0n ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:02:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's "catchy". It's clickbait.
mdgraller ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:35:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one knows what it means! It's catchy, gets the people goin'!
popcar2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:00:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a difference between making an appealing title and clickbait. The title pretty much sums up the article, there's nothing misleading or vague to force you into reading it
CosmicPenguin ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:33:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's more fun if you picture it literally happening.
10per ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:10:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It evokes thoughts professional wrestling for me. About the same level of authenticity too.
Conchobair ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:25:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
let the boys be boys
Kotobuki_Tsumugi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:40:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXCcfzYqOH4
youtubefactsbot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:41:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
bot info
ajaaaaaa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:07:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Any article that has slams in the title loses all credibility instantly.
gockcobbles ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:22:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
WATCHDOG literally eviscerates UN and performs interpretive dance with their entrails.
instant_potatoes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:08:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd read that
Enrampage ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:15:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh shit son! No, you didn't! Oh, yes he did! This article just got served!
You better bring it! Oh no, it's already been "broughten"!
No clue, sounds normal to me.
BlueRoad13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:18:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's equivalent to "This stay at home mom opened her fridge. What happened next had her in tears on the floor gasping for air."
Infininja ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:22:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Emphasis mine.
jackwoww ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because it's reminiscent of Macho Man Randy Savage?
Crashmo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:39:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because most of the time it just means someone got a strongly worded tweet that won't actually change anything
Boristhehostile ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:53:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's because "slam" in politics means "made a slightly mean sounding announcement". It's a hilarious misuse of the word but the media loves to use it because it's so dramatic.
graebot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Slam is a common English press term. Similarly "corny" sounds like poppycock to the British.
coletonn0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:05:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"gives stern talking to" I'm sure is a better solution
yoavsnake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:07:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
One of the more obvious red signs of a clickbait article.
koy5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because they are hack writers who only know how to write like wrestling announcers.
BoxOfBlades ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:35:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whenever I read or see slam in this context, I can't help imagining one clothes-lining the other
SonVoltMMA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:52:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"sparked outrage"
BadAim ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:58:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Watchdog wags finger aggressively toward UN, saying 'gawsh guys how could you?!' before quietly resigning to another year of inaction without result"
Sergeant-sergei ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:14:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I always imagine someone slamming dest like in Phoenix wright games.
BRAINSPAM ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:14:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"condemns"
"denounces"
"criticizes"
I wonder if journalists these days don't own thesauruses, or if they're worried their target audiences can't read past 5th grade level.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:30:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Come on and slam!
SisyphusRollsOn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:56:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam
RussiaNeverLies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:18:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe the slam was outa nowhere?!
philphan25 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:50:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Welcome to the jam"
krkirch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:52:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Slams, destroys, and rips, should all be changed to "responds to"
R3ap3r973 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:32:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hillary Clinton.
joequin ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:58:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand why the article isn't. 'UN Appoints Saudi Arabia to body on Women's Rights'. I don't care if a watchdog criticized them. I care that the UN appointed Saudi Arabia to body on women's rights.
Razasaza ยท 1116 points ยท Posted at 08:39:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With this line of thinking we may as well appoint Saudi Arabia on the UN human rights council... Oh wait, that happened in 2015.
travisallen02 ยท 307 points ยท Posted at 13:14:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hillary Clinton and others have addressed this before. Saudi Arabia is appointed to the human rights council to shine light on their harsh practices, not because they are a role model for human rights. People get upset every time they get put there, but it is a strategy to get them to improve. I imagine it's the same situation here
Suibian_ni ยท 613 points ยท Posted at 13:19:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...an utterly failed strategy. A strategy that may have instead helped them to wage a pitiless war on the Yemen, engineering a famine likely to kill millions.
rmslashusr ยท 93 points ยท Posted at 14:04:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you explain how it helped them wage war? If they weren't on a council which has no power to pass any sort of binding resolutions what would have stopped their fighter jets from dropping bombs?
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:01 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN condemnation would not help the Saudis, and could only hinder them. At the very least, it would mean the Saudis have to pay a higher price for the support they receive from other countries. It would also hinder other Saudi foreign policy aims, such as promoting Wahhabism as the gold standard of Islam. If everyone knew that they were trying to starve 7 million fellow muslims to death it would obviously make things trickier.
Lirdon ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 14:19:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It wouldn't directly, but if you pay attention, you see that the cast majority of this councils efforts, time and reports are directed towards Israel, so little to no time is there to investigate and discuss anything else.
rmslashusr ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 14:49:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So if the Human Rights council spent more time generating reports that no one reads on a different subject how do you imagine that would indirectly stop fighter jets from dorpping bombs?
Besides which, it seems like Syria dominated the council's discussions by a far margin:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session34/Pages/ListReports.aspx
There's a single report about Israeli settlements, and one about Palestine, but there's also ones for Haiti, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Iceland. Israel accounts for no where near the "vast majority" of their reporting.
hellcheez ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:39:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That would happen with or without Saudi Arabia. In fact, the two countries have several aligned interests and it's not Saudi that is the prime mover against Israel.
EDIT: Meant to write Saudi Arabia.
Lirdon ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:48:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The aligned interests in the middle east against Irans does not equate cooperation.
hellcheez ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:58:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say cooperation. But what point are you trying to make? That it doesn't happen? That it they have some coincidence of wants but they don't cooperate? I think you said one of those things and both are wrong.
[deleted] ยท 251 points ยท Posted at 13:48:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hillary seems to a part of many failed strategies.
fec2245 ยท 129 points ยท Posted at 14:01:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Trump, as it turns out, is an even bigger supporter of the Saudis than the Democrats were. He approved weapon sales to Saudi Arabia to aid in their war in Yemen previously denied by the Obama administration.
[deleted] ยท 70 points ยท Posted at 14:51:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US were already at war with Yemen back when Obama was in office
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)
fec2245 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 15:06:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US supported Saudi Arabia, which is why your link lists the US under "supported by" rather than belligerents. My point was regarding the relative level of support.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:10:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the US isn't a main belligerent because you're with the Saudis, but you're directly involved just like Russia is in Syria or just like Obama was with the rebels. Your Navy is blockading Houthi's ports and you've got your spec ops in there.
fec2245 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:13:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russia is a belligerent in the Syrian civil war as is the US. They don't merely support one side, they directly participate. They both have troops on the ground and carry out large numbers of air strikes. In no sense is Russia not a belligerent in Syria.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:20:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's weird though because the US appears as part of the rebels 'support' in the Wikipedia article but you were heavily involved these past years.
Discussion over labelling such as 'supporter' or 'combatant' is pretty pointless, though. The US was heavily involved in the Syrian civil war, Russia has been and is heavily involved with Assad also. Since 2015 the US (Your navy and Special Operations team) is also involved in the Yemeni Civil War, supporting the Arabs
vanEden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's what he is saying.
fec2245 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:23:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If that was his point perhaps he should have found a link listing the US as a belligerent rather than a supporter. His own link failed to prove his point if you're correct.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:26:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying 'well akchually we're not AT war with yemen, we're just giving Saudi Arabia support with our Navy'
Dude, there are american ships in Yemen blockading ports, you've got your special operations team all over, you're in Yemen
fec2245 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not really relevant to my original point so I see no reason to argue this. Supporting a side vs belligerent is a blurry line so there's no reason we need to agree.
KickItNext ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:50:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Think he meant that the weapon sales were denied by Obama, not the war.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 15:54:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But that would be wrong, also. The US sold weapons to the Saudis during Obama's administration. They're your military allies, that's what the US does
KickItNext ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:08:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not wrong, it was a specific hold on the sale of certain weapons. Trump undid that hold and resumed sales.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-looks-to-resume-saudi-arms-sale-criticized-as-endangering-civilians-in-yemen/2017/03/08/a259090a-040e-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html
Coolflip ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:21:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's a blatantlyโ false statement. We are not at war with Yemen. Did you even read the article you linked?
SeahawkerLBC ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:57:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I hate these "butwhatabout" arguments.
ademnus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:39:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh my, now they'll suddenly tell you how awesome supporting the Saudis is.
Mrtheliger ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:29:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL anything remotely negative about Hillary must also be something negative about Trump
fec2245 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:35:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just thought it was a weird line of attack for /u/cheetocrusteddick considering he supports Trump who is not only continuing support of the Saudis but actually approving weapon sales to them that were previously denied.
Mrtheliger ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 15:38:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps so. I just thought it was kind of an immature rebuttal to just go through someone's history and attack their political beliefs instead of politely perhaps asking what they actually know about relations with Saudi Arabia. But I guess that's asking too much of reddit
fec2245 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:42:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What makes you think I went through his history? With a name like that and a post like he made what digging would I have to do? Also, where did I attack him?
Was your TIL post supposed to be a polite question?
Mrtheliger ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:00:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you just straight up assumed he loves and worships Trump because of a fairly accurate comment about Hillary that is obviously for upvotes? And also, are cheetos now permanently intertwined with Trump?
Where did I ask a question? And how was it impolite? I was only pointing out what I learned
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:43:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm more surprised he instantly assumed a trump supporter would use the name 'cheeto crusted dick'
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:05:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
was $80 billion worth denied? Previously, we werent at war with Yemen at the time it was denied.
fec2245 ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:08:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We're not at war with Yemen now...
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:12:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/30/make-no-mistake-the-united-states-is-at-war-in-yemen-saudi-arabia-iran/
fec2245 ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 14:18:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're saying that the Trump administration approved a weapons deal that the Obama administration denied in 2016 because at that time we weren't "at war with Yemen." When I asked you about us being at war with Yemen you give me a link from early 2015.
In what universe does your time line work?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:50:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
but you are at war with Yemen, and you were back with Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)
Why do so many americans (in reddit) base their knowledge in news articles lol it's easier to just go to the point. Is the US at war with Yemen? Learn about the Yemeni Civil War and you will know how involved are you in the war
fec2245 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:08:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US supported Saudi Arabia, which is why your link lists the US under "supported by" rather than belligerents. My point was regarding the relative level of support, specifically Trump being more supportive of the KSA than Obama. I never said Democrats didn't support the KSA.
Also, I find it weird to say someone's at war with Yemen when we're talking about a civil war.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:14:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The US is supporting Saudi Arabia, that's present.
I don't know where do you get that Trump is more supporting than Saudi Arabia than Obama, source?. It was weird for you to bring up Trump for no reason also but we're in reddit
What difference does it make saying 'with' or 'in', lol. You're in war with a faction that claims sovereignty over Yemen
fec2245 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:20:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My original comment was that Trump approved weapon sales to Saudi Arabia that were initially blocked over allegations of human rights violations in Yemen. That's an easily verifiable fact and I would think pretty common knowledge.
Where did I bring him up for no reason? Scroll up my post was a response to a post regarding US policy in Yemen.
A significant difference. The US is fighting in Iraq but they're not fighting with Iraq.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But the US has been selling weapons to the Saudis for decades now. It's not like it started again with Trump. Obama sold weapons for them also. I don't get why is it even a point to make. Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US
here
and for your last point
Yeah, it is a significant difference if we're talking about a Civil War with a main faction like in Syria or Iraq, but Yemen is pretty much equally divided, so the independents nor the saudi-backed yemenis are 'Yemen', they're both fighting over Yemen.
fec2245 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:31:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I never said Obama didn't sell weapons to the KSA. I simply said Trump approved weapon sales that were previously denied by Democrats, not that he made the first ever weapons deal with them.
Enrampage ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:25:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for sharing, that's an interesting read.
myles_cassidy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:52:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He has a lot of business in Saudi Arabia. It's no wonder he is such a whore to them, and why he isn't banning Saudis from trying to enter America.
Cadaverlanche ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:49:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, he and Hillary are good friends when they're not playing enemies on TV, so that's not surprising.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 16:28:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh boy! Anything to save Hillary :)
Sargaron ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:01:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fact
disllexiareuls ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:54:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
inaudible liberal autistic screeching
Rodman930 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're going to have failed policies when all available options lead to failure and you have to choose the least bad option.
Darkbyte ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:53:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hillary isn't in charge of the UN
CaptainFillets ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:44:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She's the datacenter coordinator
professor-i-borg ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:56:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Trump seems to part of only failed strategies.
thatguy9921 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:47:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like his presidential campaign?
Zerotan ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:41:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And the fact that you know this means they failed to shine the light... how?
Peakomegaflare ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 13:47:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it was more that it failed to get them to change.
bowyer-betty ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:01:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think he means that it's failed to make them improve. You can shine a light on someone all day, but if all they do is wave their dick at you and flip you the bird and you don't do anything then that light accomplishes nothing.
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now you're starting to sound like my neighbors
cragfar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:06:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They never hid what they were doing. There was always some article coming out showing how fucked up Saudi Arabia is.
Louis_Farizee ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:32:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Light shining is supposed to be step one, my dude, not an ends in itself.
Suibian_ni ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:20:17 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think that the Yemen war is a vast ongoing atrocity that has escaped the world's attention for a few reasons - but one of the main ones is the fact that the Human Rights Council says nothing on the issue. In turn, I think that Saudi membership of the council helps to explain its silence. Now if the members voted to expel Saudi Arabia on the basis of its ongoing mass murder, that would draw people's attention, and perhaps discourage support by the USA and other enablers.
JackPAnderson ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:01:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who cares about light shining? It's not like we only just found out in 2015 that Saudi Arabia has shit women's rights. Wake me when they quit stoning rape victims.
dogbert730 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:46:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My brain read "pitiless war on Yevon" and I was happy and confused at the same moment.
Auctoritate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:09:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Source?
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:20:45 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For the famine part? Yemen has long overwhelmingly relied on food imports. The Saudis destroyed all the food warehouses, ports and bridges early on, and they maintain a blockade on every part of the country (except for one port - although they destroyed the cranes there). 7 million lives are at risk. The UN is ludicrously calling for famine relief donations, as if the obvious solution is unthinkable: stop the goddamn blockade. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-24/yemen-on-brink-of-famine-mass-starvation-un-warns/8299776
State_of_Iowa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:23:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
it's not the strategy. it's HRC not understanding how it works or someone being misquoted. you can read my other posts to see how it actually works. i work for the UN Secretariat and its very much just a political thing.
lobehold ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:45:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, a lot more people are aware and care about the situation there now, I'd call that an improvement over ignorance and apathy.
I'm not sure what you would call an success, the problem in Saudi Arabia, just like all other longstanding global issues, is a HARD problem to solve, there are no miracle cures.
I love how people criticizes "failed strategies" without any (realistic) alternative of their own.
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:12:37 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree. I think that the Yemen war is a vast ongoing atrocity that has escaped the world's attention for a few reasons - but one of the main ones is the fact that the Human Rights Council says nothing on the issue. In turn, I think that Saudi membership of the council helps to explain its silence. Now if the members voted to expel Saudi Arabia on the basis of its ongoing mass murder, that would draw people's attention, and perhaps discourage support by the USA and other enablers.
CurraheeAniKawi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:46:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What? A war with Yemen? I've heard nothing about this on the news?
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:18:37 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well for starters, because the Saudis have been in a perfect position to forestall condemnation on the issue by the Human Rights Council.
ademnus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:41:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which strategy has NOT failed? We've had right wing presidents before, Saudi Arabia still does whatever it wants.
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:16:11 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia benefits from the silence of the UN on this issue. In turn, that makes it easier to buy support from the US (weaponry, logistics and intelligence) and other enablers. Expelling the Saudis from the Human Rights Council and condemning the Yemen war would make it much harder for the Saudis to continue the atrocity. As it is, their forces do very badly in direct confrontations, despite all their advantages. Hence they've settled in for a long campaign of starvation, blockading as much food as possible in a country that has long depended on food imports.
sparperetor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How the hell do you make that connection?
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:09:23 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
By helping the Saudis to forestall condemnation by the Human Rights Council. Being on the council makes it much easier to prevent or dilute any condemnation by that body.
myles_cassidy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:51:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How did it help them? They were going to attack Yemen regardless of that appointment.
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:08:48 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It may have helped the Saudis to prevent condemnation by the Human Rights Council. In turn, this may have encouraged the Saudis to wage their war in a more brutal manner.
myles_cassidy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:13 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In all honesty, I don't think many people really care much about UN Condemnations.
Suibian_ni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:35:52 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN condemnation would not help them, and could only hinder them. At the very least, it would mean the Saudis have to pay a higher price for the support they receive from other countries. It would also hinder other Saudi foreign policy aims, such as promoting Wahhabism as the gold standard of Islam. If everyone knew that they were trying to starve 7 million fellow muslims to death it would obviously make things trickier.
othersomethings ยท 151 points ยท Posted at 13:50:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let's appoint the bully to the anti-bullying committee so he can maybe have a hallmark moment and realize he was the bully all along.
That's playing out brilliantly.
erbie_ancock ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 14:11:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a well-known method for stopping bullying in preschoolers, and it works wonders if it is properly followed up by adults. We just don't call it anti-bullying committees.
abhikavi ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:52:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Where could I read more about this strategy? I've never heard of it. I'm interested in the research on preschoolers, not with the UN.
erbie_ancock ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:03:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I have no idea, unfortunately. It has been 20 years since I had my education and the books I did use back than are all in Norwegian, so...
But the basic of it is to make the child who is the most likely perp "responsible" for the functioning of the group (together with an adult, of course). Because the child recognizes bad behaviour in others easier than in him/herself, the child can easier understand why the particular behaviour is bad and then, later with guidance recognize that he or she is exhibiting the same behaviour and need to stop.
It's a way to get around the childs defence-mechanism because children can easier see the mistakes of others.
Hope this makes some sense.
abhikavi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:17:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting. That makes sense, even though it seems counterintuitive at first. I wonder if it ever backfires (child becomes a tyrant).
I speak Swedish and may be able to read some Norwegian if you can find any more information. I haven't been able to find anything in English, perhaps the studies were only done in Norway.
erbie_ancock ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 16:21:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh it definitely will if the child is given responsibility and then left to himself. The method is dependent on an adult that is present and can guide the child.
travisallen02 ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 13:57:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get the irony, but if you want Saudi Arabia to improve human/women's rights, or North Korea / Iran to stop missile or nuclear research, you want them at the table, not sitting in a corner by themself ignoring resolutions
DeathDevilize ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 14:15:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, Hitler wouldve surely stopped gassing the jews if he wouldve been put on the human rights council.
They dont give a shit what other people think, there are 2 options, either they blindly believe in their faith, which case we cant convince them with words because fanatics are immune to logic, or they are doing it out of ulterior motives like wanting to degrade other humans or simply keep themselves in power, in which case we cant convince them because greedy people dont give up on their power willingly.
Its either wait and let them sort it out by themselves or force them to obey, there are no other options, and giving them power is the most stupid thing you could possibly think of.
Zanzu0 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:04:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This doesn't give them power though, there are no binding resolutions from this. Its the best solution we have, since the whole 'forcing them to obey thing' probably can't really pan out. What do you want Europe to forcibly govern every single country in the world committing human rights violations?
johnnynutman ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:11:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hitler came to power because of how little say Germany was having at the time...
DeathDevilize ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:32:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But we arent oppressing SA, in fact we are helping them, which should be violating our own laws, but like always, as long as some fat buisnessmen get money off of it the law is irrelevant.
butt-guy ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:03:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
GODWIN'S LAW
CaptainFillets ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:46:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
is a way of shutting down debate
butt-guy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:11:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry, I'm not trying to shut down any debate. It's just funny how frequent this happens on Reddit.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Besides the situations not being comparable like at all what you are saying is just not true. If we were to abandoned the Saudis then even bigger hardliners would come into power.
DeathDevilize ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:30:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They execute children for being atheists, they need to disappear anyway, it doesnt go much worse than that anyway, they kill everyone that disobeys.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:37:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When is the last time they did that?
DeathDevilize ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:39:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Last year https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2517413/saudi-arabia-executed-more-than-150-prisoners-last-year-as-hardline-islamic-leaders-use-sharia-law-to-justify-tough-punishments/
https://news.vice.com/article/these-are-the-juvenile-offenders-saudi-arabia-executed-in-january
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/abdullah-al-zaher-saudi-arabia-is-about-to-behead-a-teenage-boy-for-attending-a-protest-aged-15-a6776696.html
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Abdullah was never executed and those kids committed serious crimes if you read the vice links.
Blizzzzz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:13:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but a bully is a single person while Saudi Arabia is a country with people who aren't all the same
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:16:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If geopolitics could be reduced to elementary school platitudes like you suggest then even Trump would be capable of it.
[deleted] ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 13:48:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That was her attempt (a poor one) to explain her way out of accepting many many many donations from that backwards country.
[deleted] ยท -13 points ยท Posted at 13:58:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You realize they're our allies right? Of the U.S. in general?
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:01:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
on paper.. on paper.. but you can believe they are "our allies" if you want... a little help for your research. Wahhabism. WE, the world, has been fighting a certain anti west and very radical sect of Islam for quite some time. I ll let you take a second and figure out where this sect is from and who is busy supporting and spreading it.
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 14:04:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, in reality. Like we've sold hundreds of billions in arms to them.
MC_convil ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:26:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like we haven't sold guns to people who want to kill us in 10 years
canttaketheshyfromme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:43:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
US defense industry profits would only barely be obscene if they only sold to countries that didn't want to kill us. France would basically have NO defense exports if they worried about the weapons being used against their interests or just innocent civilians.
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:47:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Honest question: Is 'we' referring to our government or to private US industry. Because I don't have a problem with the second.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:48:34 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The U.S. Government.
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:53:49 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have a reference for the hundreds of billions in arms sales? And what department sells them exactly, the US Army or some state department?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:44:17 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Post-9.2F11_relationship
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:18:42 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
thanks
canttaketheshyfromme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:41:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Customers. Financiers. Even trading partners.
But allies would protect each other, not train a generation of young men with a venemous ideaology that sends thousands of them to kill the soldiers and civilians of the other side of the relationship.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:59:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well our three letter agencies certainly protect the Saudi Arabian regime from political rumblings.
wineatnine ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 13:43:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's an irony clad strategy!
Faylom ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 13:38:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So why doesn't Iran get put on the councils?
travisallen02 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:59:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't speak to Iran, but Russia, China, and Egypt have been there recently. Not exactly champions of human rights
wlee1987 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:14:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How do you speak to Russia and China and Egypt? I think Iran has ways it can be contacted bro
lockhartias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Boogeyman propaganda inc
WrethZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:42:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It cycles through different countries as far as I know
Lohikaarme27 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:40:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are they part of the UN?
Faylom ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:46:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes
D3RP4L3RT ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:48:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes
Pokarnor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:58:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
zaviex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:05:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah they are
truthindata ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:55:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you believe Clinton actually thought they were appointed to shed light on their practices and not because Saudi has "interests" in the US, and likely Clinton herself, I've got one hell of a bridge to sell you.
Stuff like this is a large part of why she lost the election to the worst president we've ever had.
Saudi now has a title to point to that can help them dismiss claims of horrible treatment. "We're not horrible people, we've been appointed the head of these various UN councils!"
18hockey ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:27:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
After the Saudis donated her $25 million she seemed to shut up pretty quick about it.
lineycakes ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:17:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like a front so Clinton can/could keep getting donations from SA. Although I could see how it might inadvertently work (and I hope it does), Hillary is full of shit and I wouldn't trust a word out of her mouth on Saudi Arabia.
Waynok ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:48:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh come on, that sounds like an excuse, nothing more. We can damn well shine light on their human rights abuses without putting them in a position of power on that very topic!
Summertimeinct ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:14:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are a fool if you believe that. She did this as yet another favor to please her overlords - to help 'normalize' their beliefs, as you Hillary apologists like to say.
morered ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:20:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They aren't forced into these panels.
They LOVE to be on the panels so they can brag about it. It shows that other countries respect them and value their culture.
Abusers have been on these panels for decades and nothing has changed. Time to start the scorn back up.
canttaketheshyfromme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:38:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not really working because muslim-majority countries have been using these council positions to redefine human rights as "freedom from questions about how we enforce our religious laws" and any such questions as "Islamaphobia".
Deranged_Kitsune ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:24:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe if Saudis gave a shit what other people thought it might have an effect. Really though, by most accounts I've heard of people who've lived in the area, they never really have and it's only become worse with the whole "Fuck you, got oil" thing in the 20th century.
patrriick ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:18:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
great idea. a bit like that time Obama won the nodel peace prize for inspiring speeches
Comeh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:28:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds to me like Donald Trump and his "Well, who better would there be to curb the influence of billionaires in Washington then me, a billionaire?" argument
CidO807 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:04:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wanna shine light on them?
Stop trading with them. Let 'em rot.
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you still need to be diplomatic when there are so many other messes (e.g. Syria)
peon2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How does that make sense? It isn't like only countries on the council are reviewed. If you want to "shine light" (meaning take no action) why not appoint other countries that will actually reprimand or take action against Saudi until they change their practices. You think Saudi will change if we simply shame them? Yeah, sure.
State_of_Iowa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:22:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
actually, HRC is wrong and that statement is wrong. i work for the UN, have worked for ECOSOC (the council where this commission is) and i continue to work on related work.
this doesn't happen for any intentional reason, nefarious or to raise awareness. it's purely political. Saudi Arabia wanted a seat and negotiated its way on there by trading votes for other things. countries build up political capital to get seats on various committees and councils and to host conferences, etc.
the UN didn't choose this. UN staff had no input. it's 100% on the member state side. criticize the member states who voted for SA, not the UN itself and the experts who work day in and day out on human rights and other issues.
that said, i have a Saudi colleague at the UN who is a big human rights activist here in the Secretariat. he advocates for women's' rights and human rights. no all Saudis think the way the monarchy/government/conservatives do there.
danweber ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:37:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone should give me a billion dollars to shine a light on my poor money management skills.
That'll show me!
bn_fc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:42:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She is such a brilliant strategist.
I wonder why isn't she 50 points ahead
nahm17 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:11:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's why we elected Donald, to put a spotlight on how terrible he is.
NoCake- ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:47:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, hillary is still relevant?
[deleted] ยท 83 points ยท Posted at 12:40:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Avorius ยท 105 points ยท Posted at 13:16:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
oil
Sabre_Actual ยท 47 points ยท Posted at 14:52:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oil, stability, and the literal center of Islam. The last point cannot be understated, as they aren't just the regime that controls the home of Muhammad, they control the point that EVERY practicing Muslim prays to daily and must make a pilgrimage to in their lives. The tourism money alone is obscene.
rmslashusr ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 14:10:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why is anyone allowed to exist? Who is going to go kill them, you? You think Russia or any of the other regional players are going to stand idly by while the USA invades the most oil rich country in the ME and takes it for themselves? You think the Muslim world would stand by while USA invades the holiest site in all of Islam? Invading Saudi Arabia would be the fastest track to World War 3 you've ever seen. It'd be easier to just nuke ourselves to ensure a quick and clean death.
feared_rear_admiral ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:40:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As absurd as that point is, I agree, but really what do you think could the Muslim world do, even if the US were crazy enough to do that? The only real absolute threat comes from the implied fallout with Russia and China. Even if the US straight up embargoed the entire middle east, it wouldn't harm the US.
Like I said it would be a stupid thing to do, but I think the threat in response could only come from everyone but the muslims. And you know if things get really super ugly the US could round them up too.
So no I don't think the US should nuke themselves. You'll notice I haven't even brought them up, do you think the other powers would retaliate even if the US straight up nuked Saudi Arabia? Why would they?
rmslashusr ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:10:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you don't want to find out what a completely unified and nuclear armed Muslim world would do if the US attacked Mecca. And don't forget the millions of religious Muslims within the West's borders who would be all for starting guerrilla warfare on the level of "The troubles" in every country there is.
Let me put it this way, how do you think Christians in the United States would react if a Muslim president decided to glass Jerusalem? We'd have to fight the Iraq war in our own country while simultaneously fighting nuclear armed Pakistan, Egypt closing the Suez and attacking Israel in concert with Iran closing the Persian gulf and attacking Israel likely to end up in a nuclear or chemical weapon exchange as a matter of survival for someone.
You'd be touching off a religious war that would never end before you even consider the geopolitical threats from Russia.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 13:50:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So, should we invade them?
In a better world, we would all be sanctioning SA and refusing to purchase their oil or sell them our goods until they join, at the least, the latter half of the 20th century. But outside of that, what actions would you want taken against a sovereign nation?
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:54:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
castille360 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:36:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Direct threats by the west on their entire culture would only encourage them to defensively double down, I'm afraid.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:41:43 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:25 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Expose their actions to the world community? You mean like by having them on a Women's Rights council at the UN so that they and the rest of the world discuss SA issues?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:04:28 on May 3, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:49:31 on May 3, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Occasionally I do try. But when I do, I like the ideas I come up with to be ones that could at least possibly work. Coming up with ideas that sound nice and are either impossible to implement or would just make things worse doesn't seem like a good use of my time.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:58:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That may or may not work. There are plenty of Saudi women who don't want change. Remember, there were women who were opposed to suffrage in America and the rest of the western world too.
And if you think a country will look at a globally led, concentrated effort to destroy it culturally (no matter how crazy and fucked up their culture is) and decide to grow up, you have more faith in people than I do. I think we'd see them double-down on the crazy, just like you see with cults.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:06:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kung-fu_hippy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:31:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think actively trying to destabilize a country will come with a lot of negative side effects. No matter how shitty that country is.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:44:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:53:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, a good chunk of the reason WW2 happened was because of how Germany was treated post WW1. I'd call WW2 an extreme example of the kind of negative side affect that can occur from this kind of intervention.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:01:24 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:45:20 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If these things were simple, do you think they'd go unresolved for so long? It's very easy to come up with a simple solution to a complex problem, and it usually means you're overlooking something.
In this case, no I don't think that Saudi Arabia will try to conquer nearby countries. I do think that provoking a government that's wealthy in resources and short on ethics by essentially trying to destroy it will have unpleasant consequences. Similar to how the strict sanctions placed on a poor country in Western Europe following WW1 had unpleasant consequences.
Would it lead to a world war? Doubtful. Would Saudi Arabia double down on the crazy and increase funding to groups like ISIS? Yes. Would the increased rise in global terrorism lead to more right-wing, conservative, and isolationist politicians in the western world? More than likely. Negative consequences.
And hey, for a bonus round. Do you think with even the current amount of concern people have over Islamic terrorism that there wouldn't be a lot of western backlash to bringing in SA refugees? And would we just be bringing in those women without children? Or would you expect mothers to abandon their sons to seek asylum?
dirething ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:06:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are a dessert country that is used to importing things with a standard of living many many times better than a great deal of developing countries.
While I have no doubt you would find takers on your offer of asylum to women I also have little doubt they could find suitable and willing replacements elsewhere.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:56 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
dirething ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:48:44 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their standard of living of living for anyone making decisions is definitely higher than the Nordic countries.
They are already importing most of their workforce from less prosperous countries. I have little doubt they would have difficulty finding women in less developed countries in sufficient quantities to offset the number that would take you up on your offer.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:26 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To put it simply, there would be nothing stopping them importing women from other, less wealthy countries. Like, Syrian refugees if they wanted Muslims, or anywhere in the world if they wanted to do anything similar to how construction happens in Dubai.
Fester__Shinetop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:38:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno where you're from that lovesss refugees so much, but over here uk citizens would drown in their own rage froth if that was suggested as a solution. We can't even take small syrian orphans under our wing without a significant percentage of people going nuts about how theyre actually tiny adults disguised as children trying to sneak in to the country to bomb us.
Calibas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not selling billions in arms to a country that is literally the epicenter of radical Islam would be a good start.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:26:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think that goes along with not selling them out goods, as I stated earlier. But it's a far cry from not allowing them to exist, which is what the guy I responded to was asking about.
morered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We should keep them off human rights panels
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:28:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The comment I was responding to suggested that we shouldn't allow this country to exist. Keeping them off of human rights panels isn't exactly in the same ballpark.
Wild7even ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Invade them with bombs.
kung-fu_hippy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, yes. Free the women by killing their husbands, fathers, and sons with bombs. I can't imagine how they won't be grateful.
[deleted] ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 13:46:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
mdgraller ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:37:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some of them are royal billionaires. And some are slaves
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 15:18:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have Universal basic income. Every citizen of Saudi Arabia, key word citizen, is indeed a millionaire.
ha123456 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:36:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
hahaha
Venom_Snake_KSA ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:00:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, that's not true, we don't have Universal basic income
Source: Saudi citizen
Zelllos ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But you pretty much don't pay taxes. Or so I heared. My knowledge is vague and not fact checked. VAT is only a possible concept that might hit in the future (with only 5%) but is absend now? And some products are still heavily subsidised. Which is common but other states use tax for this. Kinda could be viewed as universal basic income, although the concept is very different.
Existence in some other country is expensive. Pension after a live of work can still be tough in some cases. Theres tons of extra taxes additionally to the average 20% vat. Some basic needs like electricity are so heavyly taxed that the tax is actually higher than the actual price (in Germany). More than 100% tax in that case and sadly this one is fact checked :/
Venom_Snake_KSA ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:20:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Although it is True, There is no official Document that you give to the government showing your income, the reason why for SA, is because 90% of the country income is OIL, OIL is held by a company called ARAMCO, Aramco is a company OWNED by only the government.
So Gov owns the country money, in USA people own the money and pay taxes to gov who mostly own nothing.
VAT is coming hard to Saudis, hitting 200% yes 200% for soft drinks and cigarettes, house prices going up (Now, almost 70% can't afford a house).
Electricity the gov used to pay almost 80% from your electricity, Now, the gov will take their hand off their support on JUNE, and same the gas prices (gas price = .24 per liter), in upcoming years the prices will be as same as the prices on the International Market
The reason why your country do that because you are the only main source of income to the government, you are the one who the gov works for and you are the one who is in control and keeps the gov in checked aka Democracy biatch
But in SA the government own the money and believe me, that there are a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck barely managing their life
morered ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They pretty much do.
Ravenman2423 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 13:18:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
... Where in Israel did you meet any Saudis?
[deleted] ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:41:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What about Japan? What does a saudi need in Japan?
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 13:48:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:44:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does the King himself sponsor a bunch of study abroad scholarships?
kung-fu_hippy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:53:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm wondering how they witnessed them throwing an Indian god' statue into the trash in Japan.
Not meeting a Saudi in Japan. Not being in an Indian restaurant in Japan. Finding a trash can in Japan, now? That's tough.
boyohboy_2017 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:13:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're right and you know it.
Venom_Snake_KSA ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:12:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi here, I like your generalization. No average citizen allowed to be in Israel and No average citizen afford to travel to Japan, I am above average in SA and I can't afford it
Western website says the Average Monthly Salary in Saudi Arabia: 15,745 SAR = $4200
Mostly it is 9000 SR = $2300 ... no way it is above that
Saudi Arabian in the USA mostly coming for education paid by the government (more than 100,000 SA students in the USA right now) so, you properly met a freshman.
If I made my judgment about US citizen based on freshmen students, Fuck me , have you seen American pie? :)
Zireall ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:21:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The avarage brainwashed males are the douchbags
Most of the young females are nice but too afraid to talk.
SonOfSparda304 ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:49:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In college we had some of the exchange students from there. The men stuck together, had really nice cars, and shitty attitudes. One waved a gun at my friend for (legally) merging in front of him in traffic.
Plus where the clubs are I saw the way they would approach american women dressed for the club. It was really creepy. You would see like three of them like surround her and get really close until she would just like yell at them and back away, then they'd start angrily shouting shit at her.
The2ndWheel ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:19:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What is love?
FuckReeds ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:12:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People still shouldn't judge the character of an entire country's citizens based on their actions with a few college students that almost certainly come from the wealthy upper class of Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:09:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:47:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes/no.
There are two kinds of individuals studying abroad from Saudi Arabia. The first are /u/SonOfSparda304's kind, like /u/FuckReeds said - rich dipshits going on mommy and daddy's dime to vacation in America.
The other kind are the ones trying to get the hell out of Saudi Arabia. If I remember correctly, the king of Saudi Arabia has a bunch of scholarships he gives out, specifically because the bigoted clerics run education in Saudi Arabia, so he sponsors promising individuals as a way to get them away from the clerics, with the supposed intention that they learn and come back with that knowledge to fix the country.
As if a bunch of college graduates will be able to fix what he can't. Which is why the vast majority don't go back.
Gott_strafe_England ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:35:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
oil
HierarchofSealand ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:47:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because politics are complicated.
BlessedBySaintLauren ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because the West created it
chillpillmill ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:00:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I hop there was some justice for what happened in Japan but I'm afraid no one is standing up to these pigs.
r1111 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:36:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not surprised. Saudi and Israel are very similar. If anything somehow Israel is more humane and that says a lot.
lockhartias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:46:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You sound highly intelligent
canttaketheshyfromme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because Jordan's not in a position to extend the Hashemite throne's control.
Only remotely sane goddam leaders in the region.
shrekinator ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:51:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That nation has your nation on a leash, though.
overzealous_dentist ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:06:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one appointed Saudi Arabia. They were voted in. Every region had to be represented, and Saudi Arabia happened to be one of the least worst actors to select from in that region.
James75196 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:17:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. This needs to be higher up. In fact, they only won a seat because Asia only has 4 seats to fill and only 4 candidate countries campaigned for those seats: Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
It's a bit absurd to think that the UN believes that Saudi Arabia is the paragon of human rights and therefore should be appointed to the human rights council. Source: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/01/how-saudi-arabia-kept-its-un-human-rights-council-seat
puheenix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This happened while I was working for Amnesty International, and our campaign story already had SA as the big violator of human rights. They had sentenced a blogger to public torture for criticizing the government ("blasphemy"), and we were working for his release. Nobody gave a shit. The campaign became unbearable when that same government joined the UN Human Rights Council.
kaninkanon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:36:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the human rights council members are elected, not appointed.
pottersquash ยท 150 points ยท Posted at 14:15:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I hate the word "slams" in todays media. Disapproving of a thing is not a slam. If I say I think the Starbucks Unicorn drink is dumb, I did not slam Starbucks.
FinDefaulted ยท 111 points ยท Posted at 14:25:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Top NEWS: u/pottersquash slams Starbucks!
DarrenGrey ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 15:06:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
5 new reasons why u/pottersquash slams Starbucks!
G-O-single-D ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:55:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You guys over at Buzzfeed's click bait headquarters are doing the lords work. Can't wait to read this article.
CreepCC ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:27:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to working with Buzzfeed!
prothello ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:36:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Up next: I slam Islam!
jaysunn72 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:19:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or. Did. You.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The stupid unicorn Starbucks drink tastes okay and it's my favorite color (almost). Actually fight me.
Chancoop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:53:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It works, though. There's a reason clickbait buzzwords are used, and it's not because the authors want to insult the intelligence of their readers. Of the various writing styles that have been tried, this has shown to work best at getting attention. It's a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game." People respond well to sensationalism because it an indication of importance and excitement.
pottersquash ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:55:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
True. I think its just one of those things that I hate I fall for it. I too thought Saudi Arabia getting that appointment was a bad idea so the notion that they were "slammed" for it piqued my interest. I expected a 20 page treatise detailing this store. Naw, like 3 sentences that sure a redditor made a meme of the day it happened.
HouseTortilla ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:02:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like the same people who like to use "DESTROYS" to describe a rather mild exchange. Only a matter of time before "ANNIHILATES" becomes a thing.
option-alt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's like when British tabloids use "romped" when talking about a celebrity sex scandal. Who the fuck says romped?
Omaestre ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 13:32:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When did slamming become a thing in media? 1-2 years ago?
gockcobbles ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:23:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At least a decade, if not more.
WhiteRaven42 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:34:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's been a favorite of British journalism for quite a while.
zkroak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:25:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because he slam
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:55:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Around the time I started slamming your mother
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:46:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They were welcomed to the jam long ago
ecto88mph ยท 521 points ยท Posted at 13:04:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, their just trolling us at this point.
Whats next Saudi Arabia on the LGBT rights board?
darkangelx ยท 173 points ยท Posted at 13:19:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whats next
Saudi ArabiaRussia on the LGBT rights board?FTFY
[deleted] ยท 242 points ยท Posted at 13:28:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I still think Saudi Arabia would be more ironic. The Russian government imprisons gays which is pretty fucked up, but you do know what countries run by Islamist extremists do to them right? They often execute them. Hell in Iran so many gay guys get transgender surgery because apparently that is allowed but not being gay. So they force themselves to go through that, which I can imagine is not a pleasant thing to do if you are not actually transgender, so that at least they can have sex with the gender they are attracted to.
darkangelx ยท 135 points ยท Posted at 13:30:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Any muslim country with sharia law tho, its not just saudi arabia.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 135 points ยท Posted at 13:40:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is true. I always find it ironic when people of the LGBT community stand up for them when they're killing gay people. If only people were more informed..
[deleted] ยท 94 points ยท Posted at 13:52:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:33:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
haha ikr? it's honestly sad that they're standing up for the people that believe they should be dead. But I think a lot of their(LGBT) protests are for basic human rights in countries that use Sharia Law, which is understandable, but standing up for Sharia Law and wanting it in the US is crazy and some people actually want it here!
Chixdixflix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:00:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The alt-left is real. I honestly think their is something reeeeally rotten happening on campuses that has these people staggering out of the place extremely pro-Islamist.
edit: let me know if you can see shout-cakes reply below mine, if not something is up.
GreedyR ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The 'alt' left is the establishment left, so I don't see the point in calling them alt. They are just the modern regressive left. Semantics, I know.
Chixdixflix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The alt-left is not the establishment. The establishment is just trying to pander to what is trending to get votes, the exact same as the right.
The left electorate and people is what matter. Even Bernie Sanders is shit talking politcal correctness.
dharmaticate ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 13:53:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can stand up for muslims without defending sharia law.
akai_ferret ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 16:57:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do so many people seem to understand this, but not that you can criticize sharia law and Islam without it being a "racist" attack on all Muslims?
Edit:
And, btw, when you slander someone a "racist" for criticizing sharia law and Islam it sure looks a lot like you're defending sharia law and Islam.
TwilightVulpine ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:40:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If there is something I learned over time is that the religious institution is not the same as the person of faith. Sharia law can go get fucked, but there are people in there who might be acccepting but they live in a country that doesn't let them.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:57:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly! But I don't think many people know there's a difference between the two, or that many Muslims believe in Sharia law. When people in the LGBT community go out and protest FOR the Muslim community, they could be more specific in what Muslims they're supporting.
Cael_of_House_Howell ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:42:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The best part is that they call you a racist for criticizing Islam which is nptba race, but a set of ideals. (Mostly bad ones)
IamVasi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:19:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As if it isn't obvious that they're supporting non-radical muslims.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:24:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not all Muslims are radical, but ones in Saudi Arabia, which are the ones they are supporting, not the ones in the US, which are probably more acceptant of gays.
IamVasi ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:30:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought you were talking about muslims in general. I didn't even know that people protested in favor of Saudi Arabia. Seems kind of odd.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:33:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, when the LGBT community does protest, they could definitely be more specific in who they're supporting. I understand when people protest for gays rights in Saudi Arabia, but supporting the Sharia law, c'mon.
TwilightVulpine ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:40:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You have to consider there may be open-minded muslims in Saudi Arabia who struggle with the oppressiveness of the law there, but they still don't have the power to change it.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:41:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of course there are! And they are the ones that need to be trying to make change over there. People in the US protesting for their rights aren't doing much. There's definitely more that can be done to help, instead of protesting in the US, for something overseas, their own people can be protesting.
TwilightVulpine ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:44:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's understandable that they don't though, if their country replies with torture and death. Waving some flags wouldn't work as well there as it did in the US.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:45:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah thats true. And it sucks that theres not much for them to do besides hide and live their life. If riots here in the US can change lives for the good, it can happen over there.
mcdonaldsjunky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:31:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If it was the majority of them, they would start a revolution. But instead the majority of them are happy with the way things are over there. You don't have to be a radical Islamist to support the radical Islamist
abhikavi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:56:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's hard to start a revolution if you're not the ones with guns. Revolutions only happen when things reach such an extreme that hundreds or thousands of people are willing to die to fight back. The price is very steep.
maonxv ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 13:54:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who in the LGBT community stands up for sharia law?
Coequalizer ยท 49 points ยท Posted at 14:16:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sally Kohn, who appears as a political commentator on CNN.
alibix ยท -18 points ยท Posted at 14:31:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sally Kohn, representative of all LGBT people
Coequalizer ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 14:35:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/u/maonxv asked
I provided an example.
alibix ยท -15 points ยท Posted at 14:38:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She isn't even standing up for Sharia - she's pointing out the obvious
Coequalizer ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:48:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you implying that people who believe in theocracy are "progressive"?
alibix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:49:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When did I call anyone progressive?
Coequalizer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:51:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe you need to explain your position, because now I'm confused by your comment.
alibix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:54:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That the woman wasn't standing up for Sharia. She was stating the obvious. All religions have laws, and most of the followers will at least believe in it even though they think they are progressive.
CurraheeAniKawi ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:05:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've never heard of her, but her tagline:
America's second favorite cable news lesbian.
Makes me never want to listen to her because from that it seems she's using her sexuality as a marketing gimmick.
CreativeName1357 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:21:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She should have atleast added some more things specific to her so she could be number 1 instead of number 2...
Atleast that's what i would do.
FishAndRiceKeks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:41:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"America's favorite cable news lesbian in the 9:54 P.M. time slot." It's got a real ring to it.
Lasereye ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 14:48:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
One of my friends who is in the LGBT community (and quite loud about it, about half of their posts on Facebook are something related to it) posted a few things about supporting Sharia in the past. I asked them how could they support Sharia and they said because it wouldn't affect them since they're not Muslim. I was sort of shocked that they thought that if Sharia law was enacted in a place it wouldn't affect everyone.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:20:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Cael_of_House_Howell ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:44:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because this allows a religion to hide the things it does and the people with power in the religion can suppress others. It's a big issue in Amish co.munities, there are a lot of abuse/molestation that goes on but they are isolated so it never comes to light.
MirthSpindle ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:59:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lots of them. I even have a trans feminist socialist friend who thinks Islam is the best religion ever and Islam is a feminist religion too. I have no idea how they get brainwashed into thinking things like that.
CaptainFillets ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't Linda Sarsour pro Sharia? The lady who was one of the chief organizers of the Women's March (I could be wrong, but she was one of the speakers at least).
BogpilledGoy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:16:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They only hate western countries.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:25:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty much anything Western or has to due with Western society too
shrekinator ยท -17 points ยท Posted at 13:48:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Stand up for them" you mean stand up for muslims? The people who are discriminated for practicing a religion? Or are you talking about governments practicing sharia law? Cuz I'm pretty sure the LGBT community is not in support of sharia law.
Edit: I seem to have struck a sensitive cord here, so let me make this clear: There's a good reason for the LGBT community to stand in support of muslims in western countries who are being discriminated against for practicing their religion. Your dubious prejudices of a certain people based on questionable statistics does not conform to reality perse. Contrary to what your echo chamber says, not all 1.5 billion muslims on this planet support ISIS or stoning gay people. A large number of them actually are sensible and empathic human beings.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 13:53:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it sucks they're being discriminated against, but when a good majority of their people believe in extremist ways, well they're unfortunately going to be discriminated and some people believe they're all like that. So yeah, it's ironic that people in the LGBT community would stand up for a community that believes in killing gays. Not that they all believe in killing gays, but it still happens.
SploonTheDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most of them won't really want to kill them unless they were raised in an extreme country like Iraq, but will actively discriminate against them.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:01:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah thats true, they still aren't accepted in their society as much as they are in ours.
SploonTheDude ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:11:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh I'm talking about the ones IN our society, if you come out as gay in Syria or something you have the possibility of being executed.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:14:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, well i have a handful of Muslim friends and none that i know of are openly against gays, and i don't believe many Muslims in the US are against gays. Its because of our two different societies, we're more accepting of them over here than they are accepted over there.
UpboatOrNoBoat ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:00:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like I can discriminate against someone who thinks killing gay people is a "part of their religion" all I want.
When their religion is rooted in discriminating against everyone who isn't them, then fuck em. Why should they be immune to judgement?
shrekinator ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:15:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because not all muslims are in favor of killing gays. In fact, I'd say most of them who don't live in countries practicing sharia law don't. Yet, they're being discriminated for practicing their religion. There's a reason for the LGBT to support them if you don't generalise 1.5 Billion people to your own prejudices.
YOU_GOT_REKT ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:06:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What about women's rights? What about muslim's treatment of dogs? What about forcing women to cover up? What about slavery in Arab countries? The thing about Islam is that there's so many human rights violations occurring that even if you say "most don't believe in this 1 tenet", there are still a lot of things that they believe that are fucked up.
And if a Muslim has denounced every single practice that would be considered a human rights violation in western society, then are they really a Muslim?
Doctor0000 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:11:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, they are. The same way I can denounce the poor treatment of gay people and women, the same way I can denounce ignorance of science and still be a Christian.
Remove the state sponsored obligation to be Muslim and there is no Human Rights violation, people can voluntarily subject themselves to whatever circumstances they wish.
YOU_GOT_REKT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:31:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So, honest question, if the person i replied to thinks it's wrong to lump all muslims as bad people because many of them dont partake in the human rights violations, but democrats advocate for all Muslims to be allowed to immigrate and practice their religion, doesnt that mean that they are supporting Muslims human rights violators? If you can't say "all muslims are bad people" because its a generalization, then you cant say "all muslims are good people". Just seems very weird that so many democrats accuse republicans of wanting to take away women's rights, all the while defending a religion that actively suppresses women's rights.
Doctor0000 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:47:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a "white feminism" issue.
Women in America can choose to be Muslim (or not) if they want to never exercise their equal rights they can choose to do so. There are issues to be addressed with people trying to circumvent the justice system to hold others in a religion against their will, but this is far from a Muslim-only issue
YOU_GOT_REKT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:49:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's one of those ideals that sounds good on paper, but doesn't really work well in the real world. Of course muslim American women have the right not to wear a hijab, but pressure from their religion, other muslims, or their immediate family means they aren't truly free.
Just look at the story last month of a hijab wearing teenager caught on video dancing in the UK. The comments on the videos from muslims sending her death threats were disgusting.
Doctor0000 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's terrifying how many people like you want to instate thought police for the sake of Islam.
No, freedom has a legal definition and is actively protected. Even a left leaning person like myself will tell you that prohibiting conservative ideology is dumb. If we need to shore up civil liberty with additional protections let's do it, but legally inhibiting a religion or belief is authoritarian at best.
YOU_GOT_REKT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:02:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So the KKK should have freedom of religion too?
Doctor0000 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, we shouldn't outlaw Christianity because of some Klan extremists any more than we should outlaw Islam because of ISIS.
There are simply too few people who actually break the law out of either group.
YOU_GOT_REKT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do you think about the vast majority of high death toll terrorist attacks being attributed to Islamic Extremism? Doesn't seem like "too few people" to me.
like this graph
Doctor0000 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:41:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
High death toll? More Americans fall off their beds and die, get hit by busses,etc... Than die from terrorism.
Terrorists only very recently surpassed the lethality of armed toddlers.
YOU_GOT_REKT ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:56:46 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Funny how that argument doesnt work with liberals when you say you're more likely to die of heart disease than from guns.
Doctor0000 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:41:08 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You have an idea that will cure heart disease?
Because all I've gotten so far is that โ50 deaths a year is enough for you to take someone else's civil liberties, yet your own are worth over 10,000 a year.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:02:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty sure he's referring to the fact that, even in first world countries, the majority of Muslims have overwhelmingly negative iew of the LGBT community, and many feel that discriminatiory measures (putting them in prison camps, etc) should be the law?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 13:53:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SploonTheDude ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 13:58:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately it does, and according to the Hadith and Quran, Jihad is an important part of Islam and that includes the killing of gay people.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:59:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You also don't see Christians running around trying to kill gays. I'm sure most people of the LGBT community are Christians.
GoldenUrns ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:05:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Statistics?
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:21:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude, I don't even think i need statistics to tell you that.
List of countries that being gay is punishable by death
Transgender killed by Saudi police
LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia
HelperBot_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:21:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 60184
GoldenUrns ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:22:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't prove that most lgbt people are Christians lol
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:27:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh you wanted stats on that, my bad. Well I don't think there are stats on that, but you'd think a good majority of the LGBT community are Christians.
Fuzzyjammer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:32:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do they have to be christians or muslim or religious at all in first place?
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:38:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They don't, its the Muslims in Saudi Arabia that believe in killing gays. I don't think Christians over there believe in that, but I wouldn't doubt it that some do. Some Muslims believe in the Sharia law, some don't.
Doctor0000 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:21:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've supported missionary work, in developing Christian nations this is a huge issue. The fact no one seems to know it in spite of the data being publicly available, is telling.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:27:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It happens, but no one reports on it, because it is a developing nation. Just like how almost no one has heard of Boko Haram, because they're in a developing country. I'm sure gays get discriminated against in the US, but there isn't a law(Sharia Law) that bans them from being open.
hughole ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:02:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tons of violence against gays, including murders, have been committed by Christians out of religious motivation and with religious justification. Many places that have a decent Christian population will also have groups within it calling for the death and execution of gays in accordance with their religious texts.
Are Christians active, supportive, or LGBT themselves? Yes.
Have Christians attacked, raped, and murdered people who were LGBT? Yes.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So have Muslims. But how often do you hear about Christians killing gays in todays world? And when you have a group of people, that use Sharia law to justify killing gays. And there will be extremists in any large group of people, you just don't think about it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:39:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Going off track a bit here but out of curiosity looking at your post history you seem to ping over to The_Donald quite often.
So why do you seem to care so much about LGBT attacks considering that everyone on that sub not only supports him repealing anti-discrimination laws but also accuses anyone who says that being LGBT is not a sin as "SJW propaganda"?
It just seems that you all only really give a shit about LGBT rights when you can whack one out over how much you hate Muslims but the moment you get a chance to act like a homophobic Saudi yourself you all jump on it.
LtG_Skittles454 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah i go on there a little bit, but, not everything is black and white. Theres plenty of things the sub says or does that i disagree with. But i still believe LGBT community should have rights here, and in other countries. Its not only Muslims in Saudi Arabia that are against the LGBT, they have the Sharia Law which makes being gay bad, it's just the society they grew up in. And why would I jump on a chance to act like a homophobe, even when I haven't.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:07:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's in their religious texts, the same for the other two major Abrahamic religions.
People will argue and claim it's not part of the religion to hurt gays, but the writings that the entire religion is based off of call for follows to kill gay people.if the religious texts aren't at the center of their religious teachings, then what is?
Doctor0000 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:25:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you cite the passages your referencing? Interpretation is important, this is why religions have denominations.
shrekinator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:13:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My point is, supporting discriminated muslims does not equal supporting the killing of gays. It really doesn't.
Coequalizer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:17:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
CNN political commentator Sally Kohn is pro-Sharia.
shrekinator ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:22:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good thing she doesn't represent any community ad a whole then.
mcdonaldsjunky ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:33:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The radical islamists are the people throwing gays off the buildings. Moderate Islamists are the people on the ground watching, cheering on, not interfereing.
Bendito_Bandit ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 13:47:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
AFAIK most Muslim countries don't enforce those laws, but the don't protect the gay population either.
bonadzz ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:51:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Got a source for that?
SploonTheDude ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:58:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
By not protecting them and allowing the population to carry our Sharia Law they are enforcing it
wtfisthatshit11 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:46:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No it doesn't. But why do you care, you're brainwashed.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:05:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
wtfisthatshit11 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:18:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They do not.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:12:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Only if you are public about it. But yes, they call it spreading gay propaganda or whatever. Better not kiss another man in public.
wtfisthatshit11 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:56:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude that gay propaganda law doesn't put people in jail, it's not a criminal offence. In grand total, across the whole country it led to like a dozen $100 fines. And it only prohibits to tell minors about homosexuality.
buttononmyback ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:54:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow TIL. I can't even imagine.
wonderful_wonton ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:31:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I still can't get over that. It's so sociopathic and yet well-meaning. It's like having a crazy, abusive uncle trying to provide for your happiness.
feared_rear_admiral ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:42:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I would honestly leave if that happened to me. I know it's not easy at all but really fuck laws like that, it's inhuman.
mariofan366 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran certainly are oppressing LGBT rights, but I wouldn't say that gay guys are "forced" to go through transgender surgery. While being black or female is something you can't hide, but being gay is something you can fake. Not that hiding your sexual orientation should be normal, but it's certainly better than the alternative. And it's not like they must have sex with the sex they're attracted to. I'm American and I still can't have sex with the sex I'm attracted to.
ndiezel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russian government doesn't imprison gays because they are gays. Generalisation doesn't help the cause.
Boristhehostile ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:58:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
well Chechnya is currently rounding up gay men, interrogating them to find other gay men and then beating them to death. It's not formally endorsed by the Russian government but then extermination programs rarely are.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 16:09:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Chechnya is 95% Muslim.
Jac0b777 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:34:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Russians imprison gay people? It's worse than that, they kill anyone that is gay immediately and throw them in a waste in Siberia. They also absolutely adore murdering little children and old people. Didn't you know - it's actually illegal to be old or a child in Russia? If they find you they throw you into a gladiator arena filled with polar bears. Putin himself drives around Russia and personally kills gay people, old people, children and women. Russia is also responsible for around 95% of global warming.
Honestly there is no wonder there is so much hate against Russia - they really are the ultimate enemy of our planet and the greatest enemy of true patriotic freedom loving Americans.
greenphilly420 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:59:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They don't force themselves, the government basically gives them the choice of mutilation, banishment, or execution. The amazing thing is that some conservatives I know here in America use this as an example of progressive policy in Islam (millennial Republicans are weird). As a bisexual man this scenario would be one of my worst nightmares. Just because I am sometimes attracted to men does not mean I don't want to be a man and want to have my genitals mutilated
Miedzymorze21 ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 14:30:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russia literally has concentration camps
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 13:40:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At least Russia doesent kill you for being gay.
tyrannosaurus_r ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:56:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, they just put you in horrific prisons if you're not in Chechnya.
Russia is just as messed up in this regard. There's a threshold for terrible and they crossed it.
VCUBNFO ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:02:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, that's the heavily Muslim region of Russia. While the Russian government is bad on lgbtq rights, they are nothing like the Chechnya which they struggle to control.
tyrannosaurus_r ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 16:09:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's still their domain, but let's set that aside. The fact remains that they passed legislation to criminalize homosexuality, which crosses the rubicon on being terrible for LGBT rights. Everything after that is just increasing degrees of shittiness. We should be decrying any and all such acts, not just the ones in Muslim majority countries or territories.
VCUBNFO ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 16:11:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Banning homsexuality, while a horrible thing, is on a different level than rounding up gays and killing them.
LGBT people are fleeing Chechnya for safety in Moscow ...
tyrannosaurus_r ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 16:16:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying there is a gradient of shit, and a threshold for "absolute shit", and that fleeing from a darker shade to a lighter one that's still shitty doesn't automatically absolve that lighter one of their shit.
Moscow is still pretty crappy to be gay in, whether it's better by comparison or not.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:15:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Chechnya is 95% Muslim. So yeah, it is Muslims doing it, nothing to do with Russians.
tyrannosaurus_r ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:18:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a Russian territory. Russia has control over it. It has everything to do with Russians.
If Puerto Rico decided to start killing homosexuals, it'd be the US's responsibility to deal with it, too.
Whatjustwhatman ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:04:16 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol Russia has no control over it, they fought 2 wars and that only ended when the leader of the rebellion defected to Russia . Russia literally cannot afford another war basically leaving Kadyrov in charge allows them to contain the problem. It's not really like US because it actually has the power to stop shit happening in Puerto Rico .
lebron181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:02:43 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Chechnyans are Russians doofus
Whatjustwhatman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:11:30 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
? Yeah i know I'm explaining the geopolitical situation, it's not as simple as Americans seem to think it is .
wtfisthatshit11 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:06:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one puts gays in prison in Russia. It's a fact you can check in 5 minutes of googling. There's a threshold for terrible brainwashing and whatever country you are from crossed it.
tyrannosaurus_r ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:29:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the brand new account made today commenting only on this exact topic is gonna lecture me about propagandizing.
Do you deny that the spirit of criminalizing homosexuality, and backing the coverup of what is the mass murder of homosexuals within the state, are inherently barbaric?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:10:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Need I keep reminding people that Chechnya is 95% Muslim? It's not Russians doing this, its Muslims. Guess what, the average Russian don't like Muslims.
GoldenUrns ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:07:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're also very permissive of vigilantes abducting gay men and torturing them.
frostygrin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:44:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're not. The vigilantes got prosecuted.
markatl84 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:40:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, in Russia there are vigilantes all over the internet that pretend to be other gay people on personals websites. Someone goes to meet a date, and instead of the person they were expecting it's a group of thugs that brutally abuse (often in unspeakable ways) and sometimes kill the unfortunate gay person that fell into their trap.
One of these guys that does it is well-known nationally, and yet, nothing happens to him. In fact, nothing seems to happen to anyone who beats up or kills gay people.
frostygrin ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:44:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The vigilantes got prosecuted actually. Somehow didn't get a peep in the Western media.
markatl84 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:28:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I just searched and all I could find was an article about the leader of one vigilante group who got arrested, and then another article about how that same guy's sentence was later reduced.
If you have any articles/sources regarding prosecution of anti-gay vigilantes I would be interested to see them. I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to read about it. If they are actually prosecuting these people (and not just one or two individuals since it is much bigger than that) that would be very positive and welcome news. Considering Putin himself has been really active with pushing anti-gay policies recently (like "gay propaganda" law), I'm surprised to hear it. It's okay if the articles are in Russian.
frostygrin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:39:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the article I could quickly find in my history. Nine people got prosecuted, and that's the second case, according to the article.
markatl84 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:45:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you, that is very welcome news. I am glad to see there have been some prosecutions, finally.
frostygrin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:54:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The article is dated October 2015 in case if you haven't noticed.
darkangelx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:28:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah cause turning a blind eye to getting the shit kicked out of you is SO much better. Or throwing you in jail?
It's just different levels of harm based on who you love/fuck which is completely retarded.
dwarfgourami ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 17:15:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/amp/kidnapping-torture-murder-refugees-speak-chechnya-s-anti-gay-purge-n749561
chechnya is in russia
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:38:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But Chechnya is not all of Russia, is it ? It is a republic within the Russian Federation and, correct me if im wrong, could have some different laws, and their leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, does not represent all of Russia.
myles_cassidy ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:53:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In Chechnya they do, and that's a part of Russia.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:55:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is there any actual proof of this besides the flurry of articles with no actual evidence ?
myles_cassidy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:25:46 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you telling me there are no anti-gay concentration camps in Chechnya, or that there are but Chechnya isn't a part of Russia?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:04:05 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know, you tell me!
I didn't say that.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:08:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
FTFY: That part of Russia that started rounding up gays (Chechnya), it's 95% Muslim.
tabbytomo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:14:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really? Good grief.
zombiemakemelol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:50:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or Iran
Heav120 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 13:47:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
*they're
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:12:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
yes please
umopapsidn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:14:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're so progressive, they even invite LGBTs to their rooftop parties!
frillytotes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:33:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The point of putting Saudi on these boards is to force them to engage with human rights. It's not a reward.
Mikerk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:57:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's better that Saudi Arabia be a part of the discussion as a way to influence rather than keep them out.
WHY__________ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:17:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
LEARN ENGLISH.... THEY'RE*****
ecto88mph ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:41:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
DON"T BE A DICK!
How was that?
WHY__________ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't *
stabby_joe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're
morered ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
According to this thread, that would be a good thing.
derpado514 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:08:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, that should be Chechnya....
Can't have LGBT equality issues if there is no such thing as gays...points to head
dudeitsitsnotits ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:22:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TacCom ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 13:06:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"slams"
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:33:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"rams"
evilmeow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:06:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"smashes"
prince_Humperdink13 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:06:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Lams"
MinisterforFun ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:55:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Crams"
flojo-mojo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:20:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"jams"
HKBFG ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:56:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
WELCOME TO THE JAM!
[deleted] ยท 462 points ยท Posted at 09:19:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
INopeTheFuckOut ยท 143 points ยท Posted at 13:38:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As a Muslim I agree with you,Saudi Arabia is the most stupidest country ever,women can't drive,can't go out without husband or family related,can't do that can't do this,I'm a Muslim from Malaysia FUCK YOU SAUDI ARABIA!!!
SquanchMyFamily ยท 89 points ยท Posted at 14:17:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Malaysia isn't much better.
http://reut.rs/25rAfwB
[deleted] ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 15:00:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 15:50:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:23:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:19:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 14:32:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
MirthSpindle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:01:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
helps that a lot of people In Malaysia are not Muslim. The Chinese tend not to be particularly fond of the Islamic stuff.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:46:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
MirthSpindle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:07:15 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We pretty much get segregated from the Muslims starting from school, both socially (we form our own social groups and distrust each other) and academically (guess which group gets special bonuses with grades). And then the corruption from the majority Muslim government doesn't help with support from non-Muslims even further.
The only Muslims I've managed to get close to and be friends with are those who do not take their religion so seriously. Those Muslims are the cool Muslims. Not forced to wear hijab, but still follow some things like not wanting to eat pork.
SectorRatioGeneral ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:48:39 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on the definition of the term though....from what I've read about Malaysia, Chinese and Muslims seem to be two separate entities there(I'm not sure about whether Malay people and Muslim are the same group though). But here in China, I consider the Hui and Uyghur boys in my school as Chinese as I am. Hui people from big cities are not that Muslim-ish though except their choice of diet and occasional trips to mosques(not necessarily for prayers lol one of my friend only goes there to get the free meat-stew they provide in holidays). Uyghur students who go to university are usually pretty secular too. However in recent years there are ineed growing animosity towards Islam in general I observed on our internet, as people reading news about things like IS and thinking/judging on their feet.
Whatjustwhatman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:09:34 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You have to remember like other countries Malaysia has a very religious rural conservative base. It's the reason Islamic law and Sharia law is in practise in the conservative states.
The trend is reversing though, more and more people are in support of shariah then before. Mostly due to Wahhabists money and influence in the region.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 15:54:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or we can just not hate on the 3rd biggest religion and all the people that are a part of it, and realize that sharia law doesn't come from the Quran and their prophets teachings. You know, and like not base an opinion on an entire religion from what extremists think? You're sounding awfully racist, and it's quite baffling that so many people on this sub have the same mindset as you.
SploonTheDude ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:31:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bullshit.
Sharia not only is mentioned multiple times in the Quran but the the Hadith instructs it clearly.
Muhammad had a hand in dictating it, how is it not wrong?
You're so misinformed that it's funny.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 17:44:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like you don't understand what "sharia law" is. Sharia law, especially those in the Saudi Arabian government, especially the ones concerning woman's rights, does NOT come from the Quran or Their prophets teachings. Which is what I said. The term "sharia" and "sharia law" describes different things.
Make sure you are informed before accusing others of being misinformed. A quick google search will help you with that.
SploonTheDude ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:47:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sharia Law is a collection of social rules for Muslims, most of them come directly the Quran.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 17:54:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jesus Christ dude, like I said, a quick google search is all you need
SploonTheDude ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:57:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are these the same people who argue that Jihad was never in the Quran and completely ignore 1.24 and 1.25 of the Sahih Bukhari?
And have you forgotten that Sharia Law is comprised of verses of both the Quran and the Sunnah?
One biased article is not going to damage control your brutal religion.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:09:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure you consider any article that doesn't agree with your political views "biased". Have you forgotten that all these holy books have a lot in them that's left up to interpretation? Do you realize what that means? That's what opens the door to extremism. Do you understand that extremism is literally a bunch of people who interpret a set of views in such a brutal way that most of the world doesn't agree with them? There were Christian extremists, Islamic extremists, and many more forms of extremism to come. And tell me, what exactly are you gonna do about it? You seem like the kind of person who would just sit on their asses and argue about it over Reddit, lumping billions of innocent people into the same category as extremists, and blaming it on the whole religion because you interpreted a few passages the same way that they do, acting like you've accomplished something. The way reddit feels towards muslims feels like complete hate to me.
You're no better than the laws of Saudi Arabia that are oppressive to women, if you think that hate towards an entire religion of people is okay. You sound like the Nazi Party.
EDIT: And don't misunderstand me, I am NOT advocating anything any extremist does, or shitty oppressive laws.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:13:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Criticizing a religion for it's inconsistency with human rights is just as bad as beating women to death for adultery? No. Are you aware of the concept of free speech?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:21:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you're gonna criticize a religion for that, you might as well criticize every religion, since every god damn holy book is interpreted in many different ways.
Reddit doesn't "criticize", it hates. It hates and most of the time it doesn't bother to do any research at all and just goes off of the title on a post.
I know what free speech is, and I put it to good use instead of spouting off on issues I don't understand.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:33:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There are many more references to violence in the Quran than in the Bible (especially targeted against women), and muslims generally accept the Quran as the literal word of God, whereas most Christians believe the Bible was written by disciples and is therefore imperfect. Lots of differences between the two religions. Jesus preached love and forgiveness - the contents of the Quran are not so admirable. Speaking as an atheist who has read both texts.
SploonTheDude ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:33:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You cannot use the interpretation argument, the Sahih Bukhari leaves things very clear and the Quran has little to no narrative so there's nothing to interpret but the literal meaning itself.
And the Quran is VERY clear, for example, it is clear that Jihad is a form of war that Muhammed took part in or that sex slaves were allowed even if they had polytheist spouses.
You acting like all of it is relative just means you are oblivious.
And I'm not putting these people in the same category as murderers, I am however holding them accountable for following a religion that asks for you to be a murderer.
Reddit hates Islam and those who act upon it, if you're a moderate muslim it just means you're following it in a selective manner.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It sounds like you've never read the Quran.
SploonTheDude ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:45:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It sounds like you haven't either.
Chixdixflix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:27:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My Quran is dog-eared. I use Muhammed Zafrulla Khan's translation. The text reads as a first person proclamation by god without narrative.
It is literally a book of direct orders of behavior and law, with explanations that if you don't follow the laws, you are going to pay.
The Hadith is worse, as it gives context to the Quranic verses: a petulant, child-like warlord receiving divine law ad-hoc to justify his behaviour during his rampage across Arabia.
The actions of the pious mobs in the MENA region, the justifications of the Sharia states, and even the actions of ISIS and the Taliban are all very plausible readings of the texts.
That I can read an Iran Age monster fulfill his warlord fantasy and then not be able to call it poison without being a racist is a serious problem.
Chixdixflix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:16:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is where you show yourself as an Islamist, and where we can ignore anything else you say.
Chixdixflix ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:15:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
www.sunnah.com
www.quran.com
You should go ahead an read these before you get too worked up.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:04:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Extremists or not, the Qur'an, like the Bible, has a lot of absolutely ridiculous teachings. Sure, it's great if Christians, Muslims, etc decide to take the cafeteria approach and pick and choose what to believe and follow from their holy books...but it in no way means that their religion and hideous tomes should be attacked any less rigorously.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:09:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if you've read the Quran, but there is a LOT left up for interpretation. All these ridiculous teachings and debates about what is actually said in any holy book is quite literally people just interpreting passages in different ways. Feel free to disagree with any religion but don't lump all it's members and it's teachings with extremist ideology.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:21:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I never said nor lumped everyone into any "extremist" category. My point is that what one person calls an extremist, another person would call a faithful follower to the exact/actual/true word of Allah/God. My other point is that most people take religion and then conform it to what they already believe to be true, which is why almost nobody actually believes or follows everything their holy book says (at least not in modern times). Also, you are correct about things being open to "interpretation"...but that's another point of mine. What kind of God would allow something so (apparently) important such as his Holy Book to be so easily misconstrued? Seems pretty obvious that this is just ridiculous. It's not my fault God is incapable of producing something better.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:27:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, I've always been told as a kid that things are left up to interpretation as a test, that life is a test, and based on your decisions and what you choose to believe the book says is a deciding factor on if you are a good person and deserve to go to heaven. I'm not gonna get into what I currently believe and I won't argue most of what you are saying because you aren't wrong. I'm saying that people shouldn't think that extremist ideas are what Islam is about. I know a lot of people don't agree with me, but as I was taught, it's supposed to be a religion of peace.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:43:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:59:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most Muslims don't follow the hadith or care about it. Many don't even trust the hadith as it's information isnt even that accurate. Muslims aren't required to follow it just the Quran
Whatjustwhatman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:25:13 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can i get a source on your "most" because I'm from a Muslim country and yeah people do follow it. Hell the only muslims i know who don't trust the hadiths(quranists) are from western countries and their view is an extreme minority in the Muslim world.
Also there are levels of authenticity regarding hadiths with Sahih being the highest classification and Sahih Bukhari being the highest. Most of the practises in Islam come from the hadiths including how to pray, when to pray and the wudu before prayer. Anyone who claims they don't follow the hadith don't know what they are talking about.
Kousuke-kun ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:33:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We're a lot better. Difference is in Saudi, a majority of the population supports it. Not in Malaysia however.
lineycakes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:19:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's encouraging. Hopefully change will happen soon in Malaysia then.
OSA_001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:35:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You really squanched their argument there
INopeTheFuckOut ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 14:24:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We much better
LightBulbInAss ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:32:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What is your opinion on forcing women to wear burqas? I'd be very interested in seeing the opinion of a seemingly progressive Muslim who doesn't live US or British suburbia
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:22:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Fester__Shinetop ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You know in the UK it's legal for me to go topless unless someone gets offended and tells me to put a top on and I refuse... then I can be arrested. For a man, not so. I've had uk people tell me its fair this way for reasons ranging from "men don't have tits though" (I've seen men with bigger tits than mine) to "but if women walked around naked all the time (which no one was suggesting anyway) then tits wouldn't be as sexy because we'd all be bored of them."
All of these people were pretty moderate people. These opinions while perhaps not amazing well thought through, do not make them shit heads.
Let's not shit on each other for cultural or personal differences.
SploonTheDude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:35:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The difference is that a man's boobs are not considered a sexual organ.
However humans primitively attract to larger boobs because it signifies that the woman is healthy and will bear good children, and thus is attractive.
No woman will see a man's boobs and say "I wanna fuck that".
His abs? Yes, because they show that he is strong and will be a fine person to mate with.
Do not use ABC logic.
Fester__Shinetop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:37:26 on May 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Women's breasts aren't generally considered to be a "sexual organ" - you might mean secondary sex characteristic, of which things like widened hips and men developing deeper voices is the same thing - features that develop after puberty.
How many of these features are covered up per gender is a consequence of culture. Some tribes go around in the nip all day. Some countries have women covered from head to toe in public.
A woman might see a man's chest and think, I wanna fuck that. That doesn't mean a man's chest should be covered because women might get randy, right? And what about gay guys checking out other guys? Why is it only important to cover up that specific secondary sexual attribute on only one gender in relation to straight men and gay women?
It's personal preference, it doesn't hurt anyone, and so why would you allow a specific subset of people to be told to make themselves "modest" just because someone gets morally outraged about it?
To put this another way, I think on most UK beaches you could probably sunbathe topless without bothering anyone. Now imagine if Abu Hamza came along and told me to cover up or he'd call the police - now I have to or I'm breaking the law, even if in local culture terms nobody else around me was bothered. Despite how you personally feel about female public toplessness, do think it's a good idea to allow just boobies to be policed like this?
SploonTheDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:46:49 on May 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You make a good point, but unless we get into a phase of sexual comfortableness similar to the Anomami I don't see it happening yet.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:14:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SploonTheDude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:36:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but not to the point of boobs, there are very seperate levels of suggestiveness. For example, women may have abs but men cannot have boobs, if men had something of the equivalent of boobs (Like the nutsack) then it makes sense for it to be covered up.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:54:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SploonTheDude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:56:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well there's also the normalization of actions but that's something else entirely.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:39:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thee Quran actually does not require women to wear hijabs (though some hadiths do but this varies between sects). What the Quran requires is modesty and it requires this of both men and women. That means different things in different cultures. For instance hijabs are banned in Turkey and the Hui people of China do not typically wear head coverings. While Western non-Muslims can find it strange that some women cover up so much, consider what you might wear if you visited an Aboriginal tribe that lived in the rainforests of Brazil. What would you wear? You probably wouldn't feel comfortable wearing just a loin cloth and jewelry. Many women simply view it as dressing in a way they feel comfortable. Also, in many countries where women wear hijabs or more, men also cover up more than a typical western man.
On being forced though...the Quran says that one should not be forced to do religious things. Many women just want to be free to wear or not wear what they choose.
INopeTheFuckOut ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its disgusting to forcing women to wear burqa,We only been told to wear hijab so burqa is a choice especially in Malaysia and Indonesia (Indonesia is the biggest Muslim populations),but in SA you MUST wear them and to me its sound so extreme since u can't wear hijab (the one who we supposed to wear)
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:21:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:29:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AlexJonesesGayFrogs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Similar to Christian nuns having to cover up to not arouse the slut shaming men and priests for showing ankle
Zanzu0 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:06:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Blade00000009 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:33:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Damn, I guess not everyone's first language is English. Who knew?
/s
Zanzu0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know its petty, but i just found it ironic. More of a joke than and indictment of his point.
pprashantt ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:52:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why? That's what your faith preaches. Hey don't shoot the messenger.
greenphilly420 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:00:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I love this comment chain
RazorStroke ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:44:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not Saudi Arabia, it's Islam and the Koran. Your entire religion needs modernization.
ridzzv2 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 14:10:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Calm down...
Jonny_Segment ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:12:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, don't.
Crazyinferno ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:17:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why should she? Would you be able to stomach existence if that was your reality? Who am I kidding, you're a redditor. You probably want to end your privileged existence anyways, cause you fucked it up and disappointed your parents.
ridzzv2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:58:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im pretty sure im among the top 5% of happiest people who happen to be using reddit
camaxtly ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:40:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most stupidest?
namapo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:02:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't type like this in any of your other comments.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:58:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That means...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:08:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:12:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Makes sense.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:51:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
eXiled ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:19:31 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your english is pretty good and the joke was funny.
[deleted] ยท -26 points ยท Posted at 13:07:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 13:09:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm willing to bet they're all upper class that can afford drivers. What about the women who('s husbands) can't afford a driver?
cybervalidation ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 13:27:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Talk to some of the elite and they'll tell you it's not so bad here"
I'm sure they would.
greenphilly420 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:04:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
From my understanding there aren't really any poor Saudi citizens thanks to oil-subsidized welfare and "job" programs. Poor as in the global definition of poor, obviously there are some Saudis that she better off than others but the majority citizens would be able to afford a driver. It's the millions of female foreign workers that are getting fucked by these policies. And Saudi women support it because it's similar to why poor whites in the Confederacy supported slavery, it always feels good to be inherently better than someone else just for being born
Love_Lilly ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:13:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, most of the women that I've met are upper class since they come to the States to study.
Lower class women don't have those luxuries and are treated like garbage. But those women typically aren't of Saudi decent either, they tend to be from other countries like Indonesia and are literal slaves. It's disgusting.
Zireall ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 13:20:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Uhh.... no, there are in fact a lot of poor saudi people... they're not all rich.
greenphilly420 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:05:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
From my understanding none of the actual citizen are starving thanks to oil subsidized welfare and "job" programs
Zireall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:12:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your understanding is wrong
greenphilly420 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:55:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Show me something that proves that please. The wiki page shows that the GDP (PPP) $55,229 which is only $1,991 less than the United States where the average citizen is certainly not considered poor on a global scale even if they look poor compared to the wealthy elites of the country.
rhinocerosGreg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She said typically
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 13:47:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's actually incorrect, the majority of Saudi women are actually quite poor, it's a misconception that most people there are wealthy.
You are just only exposed to the wealthy Saudi's who can afford to travel and have families which let them leave the country.
greenphilly420 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:07:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you sure? I know they're not all rich but I'm pretty sure I've heard all Saudi citizens live to at least the standards of a lower-middle class American (minus having rights and all that) even if they're incompetent fuck-tards because of oil money subsidized welfare and "job" programs
Ijjergom ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:57:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So only Saudi family are citizens of Saudi Arabia?
--_-_o_-_-- ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 13:17:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whether some Saudi women like having drivers is not really relevant from a human rights perspective.
damlag ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:29:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes exactly. Allow them to drive and the ones who don't want to can continue on.
Arcosim ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 13:29:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When your women rights issue is "solved" with the poor slave from the Philippines.
What a miserable, inhumane hellhole.
RaoulDuke209 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:28:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You talked to a couple women from Saudi not all women.
Freedom is freedom living in a slave world is fine If you choose to
Joshgoozen ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 13:15:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its conditioning, its like them believing they need to cover up because women are so pretty that men cant control themselves.
Captain_Arrrg ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:43:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I too have met women in abusive relationships who tell me everything is fine and that I just don't understand their relationship.
SonOfSparda304 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:53:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure that cycle can break itself.
Aware_State ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:43:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're right, they may want drivers. Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? That's what we have here. Just because they use the survival technic of learning to live with the limitations imposed on them, it doesn't make it right in any way whatsoever. Seeing as you are a female, I am appalled at your lack of sympathy.
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:04:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Xenepa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:19:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
when will they vote for their right to vote?
UESPA_Sputnik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:25:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi-Arabian women are allowed to vote and be elected into office since 2015. (Men can vote since 2005.)
Love_Lilly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have the right to vote as of 2015
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_municipal_elections,_2015
HelperBot_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:04:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_municipal_elections,_2015
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 60200
Raksso ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:30:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Im sure they wanted to get raped too and getting executed for it. They should be happy that they are not indonesian sex slaves. Saudi women are spoiled princesses. /s
Aware_State ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:56:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
According to your reasoning, we should not rescue any victims if they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. I hope you are never kid napped for a number of years, as you may very well develop SS in order to survive, and people take your own opinion that you shouldn't be rescued because you defend your perpetrator. You are displaying a lack of understanding for basic human psychology. That is very dangerous. Please educate yourself so you don't become an obstacle for people actually advocating for victims.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:18:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Aware_State ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:32:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The article here says that women have virtually no rights whatsoever. They must have a males permission to work and get education. They need a mans permission to receive healthcare. I will repeat this. THEY NEED A MANS PERMISSION TO SEEK/RECEIVE HEALTHCARE. The penalty for women, if caught driving, can be FLOGGING. They can literally be stripped, and beaten bloody with rods. If that was what I faced, I too would fool myself into thinking I liked being driven around. That's what you to do preserve your sanity. You accept it, and find a way to not hate it.
Do not make the assumption these dudes are treating women like princesses. Probably some do. But do not make the mistake of thinking that's the majority. I find it unfashionable that you can continue to defend this. Until women are not faced with being stripped by men, and beaten with rods until their skin bursts open, they absolutely will continue to tell themselves they like being driven around.
Eiden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:32:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Should we be wanting what we want?
notwellnoted ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:45:31 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You made a good point, and I don't know why you're getting down voted. The culture completey controls the way these women think. It's normal for them, but it's not normal for Western civilization. These women would probably want more rights if they understood what having rights meant. They just see not being allowed to drive as being a part of who they are. I don't think it should be that way, and I believe the whole religion is horribly misogynistic, but it takes cultural change to let women think for themselves. Just the fact that they can not drive whatsoever because they have a pussy is disgusting to me, but my my values revolve around the Constitution which got revolves around Judeo Christian values.
notwellnoted ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:14:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, rape is ALLOWED as women are "a playground for men."
zombitez ยท -28 points ยท Posted at 13:14:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you're going to be aggressive and want to have credibility, substantiate your aggression. Burqas are not worn in Saudi arabia, women can and do work.
kaezermusik ยท 65 points ยท Posted at 13:23:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are right, they are allowed to work. It just requires a city built specfically for women so they can work.
You are also right about Burqas, they dont wear the full burqas, just 90% of it called Abayas. It is much more progressive.
zombitez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:05:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That was my point yes but it's just a matter of being factually correct burqas are a typical Afghani piece of clothing Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries prefer the niqab. I seem to have annoyed people by asking for accuracy. Despite stating a fact I am being down voted to shit even without giving an opinion. Oh well.
dustybizzle ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 13:27:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here, you dropped this --> /s
kaezermusik ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 13:28:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I still believe in a world where sarcasm can be conveyed without stating the obvious.
floppybeef ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:37:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good god thank you. That fucking /s is infuriating, it defeats the purpose of being sarcastic
kaezermusik ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:41:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree /s
georgetonorge ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 13:26:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, but the Niqab is worn and women have to have a male guardian or driver take them to work. It's still so fucked up. It's like 50% of the population is made up of slaves.
NannyOggsRevenge ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:50:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not to mention the actual slaves...I mean immigrant workers whose employers steal their documentations and then don't pay them.
Shoutcake ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:57:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eh, those same women actually have slaves themselves. You should look up Saudi women full-on torturing their foreign slaves and getting away with it. You have to understand while they're being oppressed, it doesn't exempt them from being colossal shitfaces themselves. Plus, a huge amount of them are very conservative and strongly against things changing.
georgetonorge ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:16:16 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
True
tiftik ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:42:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Slave isn't the word I'd use, considering a lot of these women have insanely high living standards. They live in their gilded cages. Also they have actual non-Saudi slaves working in their country.
zombitez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:04:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That was my point yes. I seem to have annoyed people by asking for accuracy. Despite stating a fact I am being down voted to shit even without giving an opinion. Oh well.
akmaa ยท -31 points ยท Posted at 10:56:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i must be doing something wrong because my wife keep going out without Burqa and not even asking me for permission ! how dare she ! /s
borisdiebestie ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 11:02:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does she even drive a car?
akmaa ยท -16 points ยท Posted at 11:08:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ill just post what the other guy said below.
No, they're saying it's demeaning because they're working on the serious issues that you deem mundane while the rest of the world says "BUT DRIVING". Dude, they just won themselves the right to vote, they just got themselves the right to own a business, and they have financial independence due to education and the mass hiring of women in the past 6 years. Huge changes are taking place in Saudi Arabia, while everyone keeps going back and reducing Saudi women to their lack of a single mode of transportation. Can you see how demoralizing that is? To work your ass off for 15 years then for someone behind a screen to tell you that you're a poor little helpless thing because you can't drive a car?
JohanEmil007 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 12:31:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They may have improved, but they're still despicable
notwellnoted ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:05 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed.
iKill_eu ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:14:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a dumb argument. You can't excuse a problem within a society because someone else feels it's not the most important problem. If you could do that, you could essentially excuse any problem with "well other progress has been made so you can't reduce all of Saudi women's plight to that issue!!".
InfiniteLiveZ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:38:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why aren't they allowed to drive cars?
DHFearnot ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 11:48:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bury the bitch.
frillytotes ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 14:34:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The burqa is not required in Saudi Arabia.
Women can and do work in Saudi Arabia.
Anyway, the point of putting Saudi on these boards is to force them to engage with human rights. It's not a reward.
tkinbk ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:33:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who is the Chairman? Bill Cosby?
croimlin ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:58:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Finally, the UN gets something right for once. I can't think of a better nation to pick. Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam, and wearing the burqa is one of the most liberating and feminist things you can do (I even bought one for my wife to wear, even though we're not Muslim and it does get a little hot here in Berkeley. Her son thinks it's badass). The fact that Saudi Arabia makes the burqa mandatory shows how committed they are to feminism. Sad to see all the islamophobia in this thread. You all need to get off your high horse, look in the mirror and see that you have your own problems with women like the wage gap, manspreading, tampon taxes, slut shaming, mansplaining, and sexist tropes in video games.
Cav3Johnson ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:16:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
satire?
Please
EvagriaTheDamaged ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:06:23 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it was pretty clear satire
Springthespring ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:51:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In related news, the KKK have been appointed to the racial discrimination investigatory team at the metropolitan police
[deleted] ยท 42 points ยท Posted at 08:13:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
skytomorrownow ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:26:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The raison d'รชtre of the UN is to keep open channels of communication and dialog so that in times of crisis we don't have to bootstrap such interaction with zero momentum. It seems only natural that you run out of stuff to keep talking about since most of the time, we're not in crisis (not really). This is one of the big problems with the UN: everyone loves it when you need it, but everyone hates it when they're not busy. "What do these people do all day?" They just keep talking, and talking, and talking because they're just trying to 'keep the lines open'. It can start to feel like a filibuster.
But, they keep inviting countries like Saudi Arabia to participate because it's important to keep talking about it and drilling into their heads. It's not like the ECOSOC is going to agree with Saudi Arabia and embrace their ideology toward women. Instead they're going to hen peck and engage them about it, on and on and on.
It might not be sexy. And it may border on some Brazil-like Terry Gilliam movie, but doesn't that just come with the territory? It is absurd to talk for talking's sake. But not when you're try to keep people from jumping off the ledge.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:52:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
skytomorrownow ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:49:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wish I had a witty rebuttal.
Chixdixflix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:04:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It gives Islamist's an international forum to enforce Muslim values.
skytomorrownow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Forums go both ways. Do you really think, given a forum for discussion, that Islamists will persuade us to convert to extreme Islam via discussion? It's more likely that our ideas will seep into their world than the other way around. haha, given current circumstances: "Or, is it?"
Chixdixflix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Given the current state of the west, it seems as though Islamists have convinced a large body of the left to target ex-muslims and atheists, and to suppress blasphemy against Islam.
At this point I have come to believe anything is possible.
skytomorrownow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ultimately, the UN is for emergencies, and it doesn't do well with these kind of slow-burning societal issues it seems. Famine? UN. War? UN. Aliens invade Earth. UN. Religious values: Not UN.
Donut ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 13:48:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is a federation of governments, not a club of countries. Most governments in the world suck, so how could the UN be better?
deccanprogressive ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:30:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is what most people miss about the UN. It's a federation of nations - not an ideology.
It would be like the US Senate excluding Texas because it's more conservative.
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:17:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the UN would be pretty pointless if it was just Western countries with similar views on these issues.
mielove ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:41:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it would be the definition of an echo-chamber. I don't think people realise that discussion and cooperation with problematic states is far more useful.
eternally-curious ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:27:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.
Overwatcher_Leo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:35:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What it's supposed to be and what it actually is are different things.
DanielLamplugh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:31:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I mean, on a technical level at least, he's right. UN Members are specifically considered "Member States" not "Member Countries" for this reason. A "country" could have several governments, but the UN could choose to recognize only one of those as the country's "State" (I.E. Libya)
CrudelyAnimated ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 14:37:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was aware of some of these things, but not the ones I highlighted. So, if a woman gets arrested alone in public because her brother went to the men's room, she then needs his permission to leave prison after serving her sentence. And accessing health care, I guess I assumed she needed an escort to get TO health care, but I wasn't aware she needed permission to be treated. How is this country on any UN council at all?
LifeInMultipleChoice ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:40:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The world is not all how our culture wants it to be. Slowly assimilation is happening more and more thanks to the internet/information and more global awareness. It doesn't change in a day. What the UN is doing is inviting them to sit down and welcome them to talk communicate and educate themselves over time. Exiling someone and saying they can't be apart of it will only keep them further in the dark and much less willing to adapt/conform. It won't happen today, or this week. But it is happening slowly, it just appears so much worse because we are shining lights on it and are able to show so many more events to the world than we were once able to. That helps people see, but forcibly changing someone's culture abruptly is always a bad idea, it takes time. I am not a patient person either, but sanctions and punishments for having grown up in another culture is not how you would help a friend. And if you say they are not a friend to us today so we should not treat them so, then you should not expect them to treat us so in the future.
Chixdixflix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:09:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If a woman talks back or questions god, just leave her the middle of the road. If she isn't raped and killed by her neighbors, she is in jail forever.
[deleted] ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 08:59:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 10:12:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
Vicious43 ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 11:24:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you criticize Islam you're labeled a racist bigot and discussion stops.
prplhayes ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:18:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is as closed-minded as any other dogmatic religion. Criticise my religion and I'll discuss with you all day long, I won't crucify, enslave, or blow you up about it. There's the difference between a peaceful idealism and religious zealotry. One of them tells you what to do, the other is a personal belief.
Lolomgwowlolol ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:21:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah it's worse. Like objectively worse.
qwertx0815 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:43:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
pretty sure that's more because you're a hardcore racist/white supremacist.
normal people without ulterior agendas can discuss islam and it's shortcomings just fine.
Vicious43 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:45:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm Asian
What have I said that says I'm a white supremacist?
qwertx0815 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:03:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i don't believe you.
apart from that, there is nothing that prevents somebody from being racist and being asian at the same time.
Vicious43 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:06:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
well that's pretty racist to assume I'm white.
It would stop me from being a white supremacist.
You didn't answer my question? "What have I said that says I'm a white supremacist?"
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:54:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
did that nonsense make sense in your head?
think before you post dude.
Vicious43 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:57:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're accusing an asian of being a white supremacist, how does that make sense in your head?
Still haven't answered my question. "What have I said that says I'm a white supremacist?"
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:24:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i still don't believe you.
it's still entirely possible for an asian to be a racist shitbag.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 12:17:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Vicious43 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 12:25:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've been called racist for criticizing Islam around reddit. Not just mindless pop off like your quote, but when using statistics or religious quotes. r/politics comes to mind, I specifically remember being told that criticisms of Islam have a racial base.
lockhartias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:48:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Christians have waged the most wars in history - evil evil evil!
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 11:05:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
All-Shall-Kneel ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 11:34:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
try typing the last sentence again but slower.
Swifty6 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:16:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL redditors = muslims
hoffi_coffi ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:34:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you experience downvotes, it may be because your post is only semi intelligible.
People attack or criticise Islam all the time, it does not trigger mass downvotes as an automatic. If people attack all Muslims in one broad stroke that can be considered "racist" (even though Islam is not itself a race) but in common parlance that doesn't necessarily require a specific, defined race to be the target. Defining "race" is tricky for a start, why are all people of recent African descent described as "black" for example? That is as broad as "Muslim".
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 11:33:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
dragnar1212 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 12:26:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
welp as a child burn of a Muslim dad ( and non Muslim mother Jehovah witness ) i know strange combo.
Every time i bring up criticism about Islam i get down voted to shit or called a racists / Islamophobe.
While i can easily criticize Jehovah witness Christianity or whatever.
Seems like a lot of people think Muslims need protection cus there weaker and less educated ( stupid ) witch in my eye,s is racists to the core
Isis is practicing TRUE Islam ( to the word ) can also not be said
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 12:31:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
dragnar1212 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 12:57:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually they will be a majority in a couple of generations ( based on total world population )
If noting changes that is.
Loads of atheist in the middle east ( although u hardly hear about em ) sins they need to keep it secret for obv reasons
lockhartias ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:52:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They aren't practicing true Islam. You're pulling shit out of your ass.
Wahhabism goes against teachings on so many levels. They attack christians and Jewish holy grounds even though they are accepted as the previous true religions. They consider Shias and Sunnis non Muslim which is unacceptable - but can only attack Shia because their funders are Sunni.
No, they don't practice true Islam. You aren't one to define true Islam. The scholars who spend their entire lives building on this religion are the ones people listen to not someone like yourself who thinks he understands the religion because he has a Muslim father
dragnar1212 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:53:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yea yea keep saying that.
The old testament was also not true Christianity right ?
Mohamed was also not a pedophile.
He was also not a murderer warlord.
And Islam was not spread by the sword.
Read about the history of Mohammed.
At the start he was peaceful and preached love and acceptance.
That did not work and he got kicked out / ignored / attacked.
Then over time he went all ape shit and this worked.
And yes its more complicated but ill keep it short cus my written English sucks
lockhartias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:55:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Haha.
You make it really hard not to use ad hominems here.
dragnar1212 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:46:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ad hominem tu quoque
hoffi_coffi ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 12:36:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldn't say that is the case, it is probably because in the last 20 years or so Muslims are attacked constantly. So there is an element of wanting to defend a group of people, but not because they are weaker and more stupid.
jelrob ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 12:07:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think there absolutely is a functional difference between racism and Islamophobia. Race is an unchangeable set of physical characteristics that people are born with. Islam is a set of ideals, beliefs, and practices that may be adopted by anyone of any race, and has more in common with Mormonism than being born black. Of course, it is extremely prejudice to judge a group of people solely based on the religion they practice, but I see nothing wrong with judging the religion itself. I, for one, as a gay woman have many problems with some of the widespread teachings of Islam, just as I have a problem with some of the teachings of evangelical Christianity. But for whatever reason, when I criticize Christianity, progressives applaud me, and when I criticize Islam, they call me a racist.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:02:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:22:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:26:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 115 points ยท Posted at 13:13:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People seem to lack an understanding of how the UN works. It's supposed to open a channel for discussion. If you want to improve women's rights in Saudi Arabia you have to get them at the table.
tuketu7 ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:34:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Get them to the table, yes. Have them head up the table, no.
ReallyBadAtSpelling ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 13:52:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not in charge of the committee, and the committee isn't some all-powerful global court.
tuketu7 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:59:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, you're right. In which case, yeah, getting them in on the discussions is a good first step. :)
Any idea whether or not they're talking it seriously?
ReallyBadAtSpelling ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:15:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know.
Also, from my limited exposure to international relations, UN committees like this have informal arrangements where a certain number of countries from each continent will be included, and which countries those are rotates. SA might not have wanted to be put on this committee, or sought out appointment to it, but it may have just been part of the rotation of the countries in Asia.
doublehyphen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know, the government of their last king actually seemed to care about women's rights and managed to achieve some small things (for example criminalizing domestic violence), but there is only so much their progressive (form a Saudi point of view) politicians can do without angering the powerful conservative forces in the country. The last king wanted to allow women to vote in the municipal elections and outlaw child marriages, but that was stopped by their conservatives.
I have not followed Saudi Arabia recently so I do not know if the progressive forces in Saudi Arabia are in a position right now to push for any reform.
SploonTheDude ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:15:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It should be tried at the table, not become a member of it.
ReallyBadAtSpelling ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:17:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, but it's not a court.
SploonTheDude ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:18:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then don't use it as a class.
[deleted] ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 13:30:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ChucktheUnicorn ยท 83 points ยท Posted at 13:43:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Complete false equivalence. If you'd read the above comment, that's not how to UN works. Getting put on a UN panel isn't a reward for doing something good. It's so that countries get called out on their shit in front of the world.
weavile22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:13:20 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Even if they get called out on their shit that's not gonna make their oil disappear so nothing will change.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:51:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ChucktheUnicorn ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 14:10:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Again I think you're misunderstanding how the UN works. It's not a regulatory body. An "investigation" wouldn't accomplish anything since no sanctions could be imposed. It's a place to convince other countries why their actions are wrong. And if a country like Saudi Arabia doesn't have a seat at the table they're not even going to be part of the conversation
fec2245 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:07:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What would an investigation accomplish? The US would block any sanctions that could possibly arise and with veto power it doesn't really matter if they deserve sanctions.
wic0101 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:53:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't need to in the CSW for the commission to call you out. By being an elected member of the CSW, Saudi Arabia can now have more power influence the agreed conclusions of the commission, and probably dilute them down to pick out elements they don't like. It's a bad idea, not an opportunity.
ChucktheUnicorn ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:21:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You may very well be right, but the point is that's not how it and other UN commissions are designed to work.
Look at the list of member states. It's a mix of developed and developing countries. They're promoting discussion between everyone. I'm not saying that's the best way to structure it or that it accomplishes everything it sets out to, but this isn't anything new
wic0101 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:17:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I mean, I don't mean that a dialogue between member states won't happen. Given Saudi Arabia's notoriety already, being on the CSW will surely bring more light to their grotesque track record. But at the same time, being on the CSW will led them more formal power to taint the outcome of CSW and damage its legitimacy, especially since CSW has always been seen as one of the more legitimate and important institutions within the Economic and Social Council.
WhiteRaven42 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:38:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dumb comparison. Positions on committees are not prizes or rewards. They are involvement in a process and guess what, if you want to make changes in places like Saudi Arabia, that will in fact involve them. Were you to freeze them out of the process then there's no chance at all of formulating a way of addressing the problems.
you can't just have a bunch of "corrupt foreigners" running this; they will be rejected out of hand. And rightly so, to be honest. How arrogant do you have to be to go around the world telling everyone how to act without taking into consideration at all the history and existing sentiment? That's both doomed to failure and damn rude.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:46:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you think a committee is some kind of award?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:49:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, put it this way. Would the town arsonist be on the local firefighting squad?
If the commission is not supposed to act as a watchdog for other countries rights but rather to act as a hotseat for countries like Saudi Arabia, then it's name should be changed.
Grommmit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:09:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They get them round the table to discuss pyromania, yes.
Lowbacca1977 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:51:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you want them to be peaceful, you give them a nobel peace prize?
TheRobidog ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 14:02:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Didn't seem to work all that well with Obama.
NecroGod ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:08:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well done.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:39:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because politics and international relations is like the education system.
707324783049998 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:56:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone at the table gets a prize?
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:32:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like making Hitler head of race relations?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:38:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, because without him at the table the only option is violence. And if that is what you want quit hiding behind outrage and go demand boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:08:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the violence ship sailed when they executed people for being gay
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:09:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Awesome, go get'em boy!
Seriously, advocate for war, quit wasting your time here and go lobby for what you want.
SploonTheDude ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:15:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As long as they have oil, what's the point?
CaptainFillets ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:59:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait I thought we went into Iraq to take the oil. But we're staying out of SA because they have oil?
SploonTheDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:25:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iran wasn't an ally and they don't have as much power and influence as Saudi Arabia has.
CaptainFillets ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:55:19 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So it's not in fact about oil, it's about how powerful they are?
SonOfSparda304 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:54:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But that'll help him become aware of the issues he has caused! /s
Chixdixflix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:05:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its a way for muslims to destroy feminism and women's rights, with an international platform.
Freezman13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds about right:
https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/overview/index.html
So then the question is - what is the "watchdog" complaining about?
Another question of mine though - shouldn't every UN nation be at every body and committee?
[deleted] ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 12:24:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Have any "Popular" outlets like CNN covered this?
Vicious43 ยท 78 points ยท Posted at 13:43:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no, goes against the agenda
[deleted] ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 14:02:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
BBC is covering it... they just aren't using the word "slams"
avatarblood ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 13:55:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
CNN is so biased I don't believe anything they say anymore. They're the Fox News of the left.
[deleted] ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 15:00:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Mrtheliger ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:30:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is surprisingly accurate
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:00:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is CNN against Wall Street bankers? Do they question wealth inequality?
avatarblood ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:07:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, CNN is trying to pander to the "fuck Trump" left crowd while pushing the neo-liberal agenda.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
avatarblood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:10:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not american, but from what I've seen the dems aren't just one ideology. Bernie and Hillary are both dems, but they wanted completely different things. Bernie is a socialist and Hillary is really close to neo-liberalism from what I've seen.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:09:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. They are not leftists. Also most people who hate Trump in US can be considered as having center-right views.
avatarblood ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:22:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think both center-right people (like Hillary supporters) and left leaning (Bernie supporters) people hate him.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:41:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes but CNN doesn't like Bernie.
avatarblood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
True, as I said they are pushing the neo-liberal globalist agenda and Berine doesn't fit in. I was saying they are trying to pander to his supporters by being against Trump.
canada432 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:18:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
CNN isn't biased to the left, they're just lousy. MSNBC is like Fox Lite for the left. CNN isn't biased they're just sensationalist in every possible direction. They're the TV version of clickbait regardless of partisanship.
avatarblood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:42:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree they are sensationalists, but they are also biased because they are trying to pander to a specific audience (like every news outlet these days). Look at how many time they criticized Hillary and you'll see what I mean. Maybe they're not as bad as Fox or MSNBC, but they aren't neutral.
linggayby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:42:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, this outlet is an Iranian government funded news source, so it has a lot of anti-Saudi bias. In this case, they point out a real issue (giving Saudi Arabia this UN position), but the news source itself leaves out the women's rights issues in its own country.
imatsor ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:06:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Meanwhile :Saudi millionaire who said he 'accidentally tripped and penetrated' teenage girl cleared of rape.
unobtainaballs ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:02:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not defending what happened but that article is from December 2015.
Mineforce ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:43:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm with the millionaire on this one. Accidentally tripping onto someone is not rape.
A_Crappy_Day ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 11:33:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia is such a fucking tinderbox; state sponsored whabbism, increasing unemployment, decreasing public benefits, outrageous wealth disparity, and let's not forget the religious stryfe of the Shias in the East of the countryโ. I don't see how much longer the status quo can be maintained.
wonderful_wonton ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:34:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think they're supposed to run out of sovereign wealth in about 3 years if the price of oil continues to stagnate long enough.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Price of oil is going up though and has been for a few months now.
32622751 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:51:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They've been going up due to the Oil Production cuts that were implemented through OPEC. I don't reckon it'll rise significantly though, considering Iran and Iraq will try to ramp up production too in the foregoing future.
Chixdixflix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:08:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It is important to remember that the dictators and kings of the region are moderates compared to the masses.
notwellnoted ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They will maintain their status quo as long as their religion is Islam.
DeeMosh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:36:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you think the saudis are the biggest procurers of US made weaponry? It's the elite who are buying these weapons to be used in the event the status quo is no longer accepted by the general population.
[deleted] ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 13:47:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
OrderOfMagnitude ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 14:07:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't sound very cool to me
[deleted] ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 14:10:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
gekko88 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 14:19:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A rather questionable definition of "cool".
OrderOfMagnitude ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 14:23:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's no amount of weed, booze, and hookers you can buy that's makes homophobia cool.
Diddlydiddlin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:50:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't forget executing apostates!
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 14:45:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
OrderOfMagnitude ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:06:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Homosexuality is not a choice. Homophobics who were not alive to know this can be somewhat forgiven, but anyone who knows this has no excuse. This isn't just two cultures doing things differently, this is a human rights issue. If I were born in the medieval era I might have some different thoughts about human rights too, but that fact doesn't and can't excuse medieval ethics in the 21st century.
notwellnoted ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:01:13 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. It's about what's right, not what Muslims want.
Sunderbot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:47:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why not? Not judging cultures is just another form of cultural chauvinism
notwellnoted ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:59:42 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hahaha no real Muslim is Saudi Arabia can drink without being prosecuted. I don't know the exact punishment for drinking, but if it's anywhere along the lines of the punishment for being gay, then I think drinking wouldn't be "allowed" under sharia law.
SploonTheDude ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:12:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aggressively is more like it.
igottashare ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:05:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For those curious, the three countries ranked below Saudi Arabia are Syria (142), Pakistan (143), and Yemen (144).
Tranger ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:13:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The whole fucking civilised world hates the UN for that, for the most part, I was okay with the UN unable to act in most cases as they are responsible for upholding human rights without intervening with the sovereignty of a country, but this goes completely against that principle. How can a backwards country where women are on a leash be responsible for their rights, fucking stupid.
ITS_MAJOR_TOM_YO ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 13:42:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some cultures are objectively better than others.
SploonTheDude ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:13:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But Saudi Arabia is not one of them.
[deleted] ยท -28 points ยท Posted at 13:53:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not true at all.
ITS_MAJOR_TOM_YO ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 14:04:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's this kind of bullshit that threatens to undo hundreds of years of human progress.
[deleted] ยท -19 points ยท Posted at 14:04:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Progress in a cultural sense is subjective.
cliffordcat ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 14:16:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck off with your cultural relativism.
CaptainFillets ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:00:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So killing gays is ok because it's all relative?
SoldPartsBrokeHearts ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 13:58:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
21st century "western" culture is far better than a state-sponsored Wahhabi shithole that denies human rights.
Please explain to me how a mostly-accepting culture like the one civilized Europe and North America has is not leagues better than the absolute garbage that goes on in Saudi Arabia.
Jamballls ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 16:02:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If maximising human well-being for as many people as possible is the ultimate objective when thinking about what is moral, then you can objectively say that some cultures are better than others. There are certain behaviours/ideals/laws that certain cultures value that clearly are not designed to maximise human well being.
Things like universal human rights, equality for women, equality for gays, freedom of speech, free enquiry, secularism, pluralism, tolerance - the values of western enlightenment - these are obviously better equipped to heighten human well-being than the religious laws and ideals of a country like Saudi Arabia.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SoldPartsBrokeHearts ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:55:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is you're comparing a corrupt group of leaders against an entire population. No, the average Western citizen does not think killing people is okay. However, the average Wahhabi does believe all the fucked up nonsense that that hate-filled sect believes.
Steelyb2015 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Explain?
Trump4king16 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:50:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit front page tomorrow: Reddit slams watchdog for slamming UN
Willet2000 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:33:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit hates the UN though...
idiotsonfire ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:00:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its all about the money. Saudi Arabia is paying so fucking much money they get to be on these panels, like human rights despite their near-genocide in Yemen, or their bigotry against even the right kind of muslims, or any other religious affiliation, and then how they treat women like sex slaves.
Oh wait, women aren't treated like sex slaves in Saudi Arabia, they are sex slaves.
Sorry, my mistake, I was giving them too much credit.
DeerMan420 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:23:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
fuck saudi arabia.
Whoelsecoulditbe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:10:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And islam
weirwong ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:03:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Middle east for women's right? is this a joke? Talk to me when their women can dress whatever they feel like to.
SailorMooooon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:07:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not even the worst of it. They can't leave the house alone or travel without their guardians permission. They are imprisoned by the men in their lives. If you are married off to a bad man, your life is shit and you can't do anything about it.
Alex01854 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:12:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm so sick of this pandering to Islam craze we are experiencing. It's a bent religion that has zero tolerance towards homosexuals and women. When I see a rainbow flag hanging off a mosque, I might dress-down my disdain for these assholes. Until then, I'll remain disgusted by their fanaticism.
clockworkgirl21 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:23:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://qz.com/824711/a-gay-mosque-in-cape-town-sounds-the-call-to-pray-for-everyone/
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/12/20/meet-america-s-firstopenlygayimam.html
supersugarella ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:10:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe this will be a good way to force SA to see and hear how the rest of the developed world wants women treated equally. They can't hide their heads in the sand any more if they're part of the solution.
_Little_Seizures_ ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 15:57:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Their women sure can
dukeluke2000 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:01:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Loose credibility with shit moves like this
Prophet_Of_Loss ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 08:13:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Remember, a bunch of Saudi and Yemeni nationals slammed two planes into buildings in NY in 2001 ... so we invaded Iraq and left a power vacuum that created ISIS.
[deleted] ยท 193 points ยท Posted at 12:33:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not a single 9/11 hijacker was from Yemen.
RaoulDuke209 ยท -36 points ยท Posted at 13:29:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Correct
They were from the White House, 9/11 was an inside job, the attackers were white.
Quatroking ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 13:32:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
even the airliners involved were american
Lowbacca1977 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 13:45:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently United we stand didn't apply to the WTC
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:40:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
wlee1987 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:19:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/notthisagain
Miedzymorze21 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:31:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No? We invaded Afghanistan, the Iraq invasion didn't happen until 2003.
InfiniteLiveZ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:55:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of something that happened in 1998...
winstonsmithwatson ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:46:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Remember, this is what you believe to be true
xthek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:11:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, at least not directly. Maybe the fear, confusion, and anger that such an attack brought made Americans more willing to go through with attacking the scary dictator, but there was never an official, explicit connection made.
edyyk ยท -55 points ยท Posted at 09:30:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You forgot the part where you gunned down Iraqi protesters on the streets, put them in concentration camps and raped and murdered their families. The survivors created ISIS.
Abyxus ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 10:06:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Could you elaborate?
octocure ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 10:19:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some prominent members of ISIS were released from Guantanamo and such. Dunno bout the rapes tho.
qwertx0815 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 13:40:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
wasn't there a high-profile case about a marine patrol that murdered a 10+ family, including toddlers and pregnant women so they could rape their 14 year old daughter?
edit: found it
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:41:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Something similar happened in afghanistan where one soldier went on a rampage. Good thing is we do prosecute soldiers for such war crimes. Bad news is we never prosecute generals or presidents for war crimes, just the kids we drop in dangerous places. Don't get me wrong, lock up those murderous thugs forever that you linked, but I want the people who ordered the torture in abu grahb held accountable too.
Aoussar123 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:03:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dude, what! Don't you know that only Muslims kill and rape people? /s
octocure ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:48:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
oh wow, never heard of it. Although that is just a sad side effect of any military presence. Armies are full of sick fucks
xthek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most organizations are. I'm inclined to say that militaries aren't some unique exception as much as their people are often standing in the darkness.
winstonsmithwatson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:47:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ISIS didnt even exist yet so thats impossible. They might be prominent members now, tho.
Also the CIA created ISIS and they're not even hiding it: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017R000100770001-5.pdf
octocure ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:06:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
very interesting read for a 1986 document. A lot of omissions though
winstonsmithwatson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:12:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If a bank was robbed yesterday, and you check my house, and I have the plans to a bank robbery in my house, written 15 years prior, but still concerning said bank, and under my mattress you find a fuckton of money, do you think I'd be suspect enough to start a courtcase?
Zireall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:27:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The rapes do happen
But thats because bad people exist... its not like the US can micro manage every single person.
Dr-NguyenVanPhuoc ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:39:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
it's not about micro-managing every single person. it's about preventing systematically conducted mass-rapings and torture of prisoners. if you can't get your shit together, it's better to close that prison
LifeInMultipleChoice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:27:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You do realize that had those same people been taken to a prison in America they would have probably had a higher chance of being raped and murdered by people labeling them as terrorists whether they were innocent or guilty. As for the systematic conducted mass rapings, do you have a source for any of that?
octocure ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I see
Yeah, soldiers are violent by nature.
Code of honour is present only in Dumas books.
There is discipline of course, but thats not it.
Lolomgwowlolol ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:32:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With any luck they won't get an opportunity that nice again. Gitmo is a 7 star hotel compared to what they deserve.
octocure ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
higherups if captured may walk in exchange for intel or any other bargains
xthek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:16:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At some point you have to be the better man. There's no reason to stoop to that level. It doesn't even pragmatically help us.
There's also the issue of the wrong people being interred.
rhinocerosGreg ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:44:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Abu Ghraib was an american run military prison in iraq that brutally tortured people. It shouldn't be stretch to understand why Iraqis have some discontent towards america
edyyk ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 10:48:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0x5ZLbeqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaxrhDyTlDo
Wiki_pedo ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 11:08:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Those ISIS members gunned down Iraqis, raped and murdered their families. The survivors are fighting ISIS.
[deleted] ยท -18 points ยท Posted at 11:13:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
premature_eulogy ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 12:19:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If that's not true, why is the Iraqi army fighting ISIS?
Wiki_pedo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 12:39:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't you remember the Camp Speicher massacre? It's not something CNN or I made up.
georgetonorge ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:40:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No that's just what is happening. ISIS murdering and raping people. That's real.
drugsonwar1917 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 13:21:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty much the same thing as having an obese gym teacher telling you how to be healthy.
TrulyStupidNewb ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:00:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Morbidly healthy.
rocketshirts ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:45:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sort of. If Saudi Arabia was full of scholars on women and women's rights but didn't practice that knowledge, sure. This is even dumber though.
BridgetheDivide ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:46:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"If you cannot do, teach. If you cannot teach, teach gym."
ZeusOnABicycle ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:39:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ah whats new? With all the oil SA they have fingers in every pie, just goes to show the UN is as crooked as a politians back, absolute farce to let SA have any say about women when they treat their own like dirt.
koyo4 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:38:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Slam"
Im so tired of hearing that word in every goddamn breaking news article. We have synonyms for a reason.
Beyond_Birthday ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:17:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Closest synonym to "slam" is "bang". I'm ok with this.
princess_lovelylocks ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:26:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If your point is that Saudi Arabia needs guidance on womens rights issues, wouldnt they be the first nation you consider as a member to be influenced by membership in a womens rights body?
StaplerLivesMatter ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:00:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, right, that country that hacks women's heads off in public for adultery.
Arandomguyoninternet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I havent heard about this.
Dont misunderstand i am not defending them. I am fully aware that they do all kinds of sick shit. I am simply stating i havent heard of this particular thing.
Anla-Shok-Na ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:06:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia should not be on this, or any other committee. They should be on the receiving end of sanctions for funding and promoting extremist religious views and terrorism.
morered ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:23:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Next up, Saudi Arabia on the panel for democracy, free speech, green energy, and Yemeni peace.
Hamplaneteer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:26:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"We belong in that committee. We know all about giving women rights and lefts."
severe_rabies ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:34:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see why this is an issue. If we want to have any meaningful discussions regarding SA, they would be a bit pointless unless SA are actually present during the conversation. Having them on the council is probably the best way to get them to change their ways. Granted there are other things we can do, such restricting trade, but they may not take it seriously and just cause tension. It's like having g a friend who's an asshole, then having conversations about how people can stop being assholes, but when the friend asks if they can join you say "no you can't join our conversation about how people shouldn't be an asshole, because you're an asshole".
aazov ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:44:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not just Saudi Arabia. 22 of the bottom 25 countries in the 2016 Global Gender Gap Report are Islamic countries. The highest-ranking Islamic country is Bangladesh, in 72nd position. (Above Japan, China, and Korea, though.)
kgs1977 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:33:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is a joke
jalfrezi007 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:02:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How idiotic the politically correct are. Their ignorance of evil borders on criminal.
BigAlBerry ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:10:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
With this logic let's appoint Russia to LGBTQ rights..
Smh
TheSpirit27 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:19:44 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At this rate you can appoint turkey for the armenian human rights committee
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:28:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To me this makes the UN seem like a complete joke. This was an unmistakable sign of corruption.
YzenDanek ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:19:46 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or a brilliant move in diplomacy.
The Saudis aren't bound by anything the U.N. Women's Rights body could ever decide, anyway. It's an advisory council.
But if they sit on the council, Saudi representatives have to at least attend the council meetings and briefings, and they look bad if they are at odds with a council they're appointed to. The Saudis want to look good; that's why they accepted the appointment in the first place.
I'd suggest that them being on the council may have a lot more positive effect on them than any pressure the group could put on them from outside.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:17:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia is the head of the Women's Rights for the UN? Really? What timeline is this? Where am I?
2017: The year Iran was put in charge of maintaining the rights of the LGBTQ community.
frillytotes ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:37:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are not the head. They are a member, and this is to force them to engage with women's rights.
looktowindward ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:21:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We name you to judge other nations....or else!
This isn't funny or sensible
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:53:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I stand corrected. Also doubtful, friend. Very doubtful.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:23:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:53:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We also elected Jimmy Carter.
cbow120 ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 07:35:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I take it the UN doesn't know what irony is?
[deleted] ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 07:38:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or they know exactly what irony is.
RifleGun2 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 09:39:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"We know what irony is" should be the unofficial motto of the UN
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 12:10:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Brevity is .... wit."
Thank you The Simpsons!
RifleGun2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:19:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
my penis is large enough to set off military equipment.
State_of_Iowa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:24:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
i work for the UN. the UN didn't make this decision. member states did. read my other post for more details. aim your criticism at the countries who voted for SA.
I-LOVE-LIMES ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:21:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN is a highly dysfunctional organization filled with greed and corruption.
MartialBob ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:08:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And this is why so many people in the US do not take the UN seriously.
Chixdixflix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:10:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ftfy
bcRIPster ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:08:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, so this is going to get buried but just in case... I used to have the same concerns as everyone else about these countries being placed in these groups until a few days ago. I was listening to an interview on NPR (not sure if it was current or a rerun) with someone from the U.N. and they were asked this very question. Why do countries accused of violating rights get put on panels about those very rights? The answer was to force the countries to confront their issues in a public forum.
The idea is if you have a country violating the rights of women and you put them on the panel that is working to improve those rights, they either have to go on the record publicly to deny those rights and defend their denial to their political peers, or approve them and answer the question of if they support them for everyone else, why not for their own people.
Frankly I think it's a pretty good idea and I had never considered that was going on.
stevehokie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:56:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
When you put it like that - it makes sense. Good job, UN.
not_my_prob ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:48:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But is this watchdog a good boy?
BallsMahoganey ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:09:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How can we blame this on white males......
[deleted] ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:42:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
BallsMahoganey ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:45:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, try again.
NorthBlizzard ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 13:19:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit and the left would rather talk about more important issues though, like what Donald Trump's breakfast subconsciously means for America.
winstonsmithwatson ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 13:48:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think its fucking disgraceful that he eats crackers for breakfast
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:44:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Like, really....who the fuck does that?
Fr1dge ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:03:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
starts to raise hand but notices no else is and takes it down quickly
redsavage0 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:49:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cannibalism is no joking matter.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:58:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is he even human?
Who the fuck does that?
Quenji ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:17:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In related news, Americans voted for the oil industry to watch over their environment.
Orapac4142 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 13:52:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is why this is a thread. Idiot.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 14:01:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Nijos ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:03:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
as we all know, upvotes = discourse
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:58:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah that's why td has the most insightful bot posts.
Orapac4142 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:09:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its already at 7k +
emokneegrow ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:12:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The thread is literally on the front page and has hundreds of comments.
LizsLemonsz ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:48:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At some point are you sure you're not just trolling? There should be a bot for that.
[deleted] ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 12:10:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
evilmeow ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 14:08:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, that's why they disproportionately condemn Israel. The UN is a joke, and not a good one at that.
InsignificantThing ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:11:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just letting you know that Arabs are Semites and that Arabic is a Semitic language
AsterJ ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 15:19:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
nagatha--christie ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:44:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic
Mister_Kurtz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:53:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Have you ever heard the term anti-semitic used in reference to Arabs? I never have, it is always used in reference to Jews.
CaptZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:03:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can we just say racist rather than anti-whatever? If I am prejudiced against African Americans, French, or Mexicans, I am not anti-whatever, I am a fucking racist. Why the Jews get a special word for what is racism is beyond me but that is what keeps making them feel "special" and the US sucking Jew cock to keep them happy, it's not because they can actually harvest peace in the M.E. Hell, they start trouble too, and they stole, and are still stealing land from another country. They shouldn't even be there. They left and tried to come back to land they gave up. And as I have said before, no more card playing to get special treatment. Holocaust card is used up, as it the slave card for any race that were used as slaves. We can't pay for the sins of the past. Let's concentrate and here and now. The Saudis are racist and sexist and the US should not be an ally of theirs. Oil is not a good enough reason any longer. We have plenty.
/rantoff
umadareeb ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 14:25:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Anti-semitic how?
jej1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:52:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The whole Israel situation proves that they don't like Jews
umadareeb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:07:09 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you implying that Israel is representative of Jews? Because it's not.
umadareeb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:07:14 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you implying that Israel is representative of Jews? Because it's not.
umadareeb ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:18:06 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you implying that Israel is representative of Jews? Because it's not.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:12:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LDLover ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Israel had more human rights condemnations than all other countries combined in 2016. That's ridiculous.
Throwmesomestuff ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:55:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As my old professor used to say, that's like appointing Dracula as the head of the blood bank.
Electroniclog ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:58:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sometimes, I think the UN must be full of jokers. They appointed SA to the human rights council and now this. Okay UN, we get it, it's ironic, jokes over.
State_of_Iowa ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:17:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN Secretariat staff here...
as usual, headlines getting this wrong. the UN didn't appoint Saudi Arabia. it's the UN member state governments that get together and vote on these sorts of things. it's a rotational thing. there are dozens and dozens of committees and councils. people trade votes i.e. you vote for us to host XYZ conference and we will vote for you to be on ABC council.
it has nothing to do with the UN staff (i.e. the experts who work on this stuff day to day) making recommendations and decisions. people who work for UNOCHR have no power over this matter. people who work for the Secretariat have no power over this. it's a political decision.
this article is really irresponsible for questioning the UN for appointing Saudi Arabia to an ECOSOC commission. not even the UN staff working on ECOSOC (which by the way, i do some work for) have any input on this.
dumb article. criticize the countries who voted for Saudi Arabia, not the UN staff.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:56:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Roughly 45% of Saudi Arabia is inbred.
I'm not even being racist.
It's only going to have gotten worse since 2003.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
nafraf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not disagreeing with what you said in that deleted post, I already stated that the risk of genetic disorders with married cousins is substantially higher than with an unrelated couple, 1 out of 100 for the latter vs 5 out of 100 for the former ( slightly higher in Pakistan due to other factors that compound the issue ).
My point is that the vast majority of that 45% " inbred " population is healthy, not some mutant genetic freaks.
ItRead18544920 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:21:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That'll end well
kddrake ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:34:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are a good example of how not to do women's rights.
homosa_penis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:00:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In the world we are living in, it is only fitting.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:09:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder what Saudi Arabia is going to bring to the table, for women rights.
Byroms ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:17:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN: Comedy that weites itself.
coloradobacklands ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:21:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is there anything worse as a dictatorship regime than getting called out by a watchdog? What's next? Grammy's coming over before supper to give them a hard scolding?
Codename-CCC12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:26:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is the world entering a perpetual opposites day?
aerovado ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:50:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to the UN where rankings are irrelevant and facts don't matter.
Second_Horseman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:50:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Appointing them is news I'd expect from The Onion.
SeraphInfinite ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:54:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have no business on a panel like that.
Crash15 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:55:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN receives stern talking to about Saudi Arabia, nothing changes for the umpteenth time
onlyhalalporkallowed ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:59:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cant wait till that shitplace runs out of oil so they only depend on dates import!
gknewell ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:00:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How/Why is this possible?
milesdizzy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:00:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's like naming Hitler to be an advocate for Jewish rights
ender_wiggum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:00:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russia has a permanent spot on the security council... the UN is BS.
AsterJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russia should most definitely have a spot on the security council given how many thousands of nukes it has. Without veto power the UN would be more likely to take actions that Russia would find highly objectionable which would lead to conflict.
The Security Council is not a democracy, it is a reflection of real-world military power.
ender_wiggum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:06:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Kinda my point, the reality of the character of the members contradicts the stated goals of the council.
SirawesomesauceIII ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:02:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is there no other word reporters know for criticism other than "slam"? It seems like everyone slams each other now. It just feels lazy.
genericname__ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:03:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know anyone who thinks Saudi Arabia is good. The only thing it can do is make oil and provide pilgrimage stuff.
system3601 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:05:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the UN is a joke
Auctoritate ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:05:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think that this might be like putting a really stupid kid in a group with all of the smart ones, and hoping he benefits from it.
iodian ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:06:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is worthless.
AlexGoMAD ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:07:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia as UN women rights body? The UN has officially become a joke now.
Not sure which is more ridiculous, though, this or Barry being awarded the Nobel peace prize. Tough one.
The_Powers ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:09:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In other news, Russia is to chair the next LGBT rights summit in San Francisco.
Jrhoney ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:13:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is just one reason why the UN is a complete joke and failure.
kidsandheroes ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:46:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While we're at it let's assign china to oversee animal rights ๐
Chronic-lesOfGnaRnia ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:47:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"UN clones Hitler and appoints him Chancellor to the board of Jewish rights."
CaptainFillets ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:38:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Might as well appoint 4chan
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:45:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it's like when a teacher pairs the a smart student with a struggling student, hoping one will rub off on the other....
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:29:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm really not informed on this issue, but it seems like excluding SA from things like this does more harm than good.
peruytu ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:34:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can't believe how much Saudi Arabia has gotten away with. Oil has gotten them just about anything and everything they need to oppress their people, make a few family and friends rich beyond their wildest dreams... and all because of oil.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:38:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sickening that Canada and the US are allies with this country. It upsets me as a Canadian.
khast ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:00:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Follow the oil....if the Saudis did not have it, they would be just another pathetic country that the world ignores.
Ferks_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:48:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
COME ON AND SLAM, AND WELCOME TO *throws acid in your face because you're a woman*
cantpissoffmods ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:50:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is fucking joke. Its hilarious how in some sci fi stories they are the ones are in charge.
Cadaverlanche ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:53:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The same guys that are helping us arm ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria.
Chixdixflix ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:57:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, Islam has nothing to do with the oppression of women, or else has been the working worldview of the west and the MENA region, now the situation has deteriorated enough that Islamist hellholes are taking over the international womens rights organizations.
This should be a wake up call, but all of the liberal activists who should care have been utterly co-opted by pro-Islamist narratives and will almost certainly target those who speak out against this like they target everyone who has so far.
saul2015 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:06:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Trump was right!
nick-patides ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Unbelievable
Viking_Mana ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:51:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I sure hope that the tactic here is to pressure them into fixing their equality-issues, but I've got to be honest.. Decisions like this are probably why people are loosing faith in organizations like this.
Ace170780 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:56:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN being taken over from the inside. Starting to look more like the eastern alliance then a western one.
captaincracker45 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:15:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi women are completely fine with how they are treated. I met several Saudi ladies at my university who spoke against countries like the US trying to interfere with their culture.
blvsh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:25:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
probably because they dont know anything else
Cav3Johnson ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:12:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you were raised to believe a certain thing (such as muslim women being less then muslim men) then there is a very likely chance you grow to accept that thing, especially when dissent to said thing is not allowed.
captaincracker45 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:26 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly! So let them be, they are happy. Just because in the west we think that a woman cannot be happy under a man, doesn't make it true.
ignitar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:49:48 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As if we needed more proof of the insanity of the UN.
63852694 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 13:46:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"But Islam isn't sexist"
-liberals
LizsLemonsz ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 15:00:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ex Muslim liberal, you couldn't be more "WRONG" (I think I paraphrased our favorite presidential bully correctly), but hey maybe once we fuckup women's healthcare some more, the guys on the right can finally sleep easier at night. It's like they won't rest till we're as Puritan as Saudis when it comes to women's rights. Oh wait, I forgot only male voting rebs were the only moral authority on a woman's womb. My bad. Shouldn't have spoken out of turn, silly me.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:33:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
boyohboy_2017 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:11:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cannot emphatize. I hate seeing these Republican men talking of shit they have no idea about. And they pride themselves in it, too, like they're fucking saviors of the fetus against all these unreliable fucks who don't want to bear kids.
And all these Republican women smiling or laughing at any sexist comment. What the fuck are you laughing about? Where's your brain?
Am a woman and this pisses me off to no end.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:47:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LizsLemonsz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:03 on May 1, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are your mother and sister also supportive of welfare and other aids for families that are struggling financially?
It's a two way street, and up until a certain term/circumstances abortions should be allowed since women will find a way to abort or will need resources for that child's upbringing. What about cases of rape, medical issues in carrying to term? Underage pregnancy? Obviously it's not a flick of a switch issue, but switching it only to "no" benefits who exactly? The moral sensibilities of good Christians and other religious types? What happened to separation of church and state or is this where we make it up as we go along?
What's your mother and sister's opinion on the fact women will resort to more unsafe abortion practices in this ideal world where abortions are outlawed? Tough noogies? Hope you don't die? Oh no wait, "keep the kid", I figure they'll raise em too after. Right? Or do they not think about anyone else but what makes them feel okay at the end of the day?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:04 on May 1, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LizsLemonsz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:32:47 on May 1, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're really trying to say someone who is alive, not inside another human being, but has been breathing on soil for decades, can be a comparable argument akin to aborting an unborn human because... What?
And yes, what you're suggesting is murder. Let me guess, I walked right into your line of thinking you wanted? Well it isn't the same. Murdering an old person (assuming they're not asking for death due to terminal illness or pain/other medical circumstances like mental or physical illness), is totally different from abortion.
No one is euthanizing primarily for society's sake in every case. There are strong societal reasons why abortion makes sense, and euthanasia, since we're splitting hairs, but just like the old person who wantsโ to be euthanized, a fetus doesn't have a right to live if its host does not feel it so. This is a personal matter at the end of the day and that person's wishes should be honored.
Look at it this way, the elderly person who wanted to die but whose doctor won't put them down may take matters into their own hands anyhow and die painfully or with great trauma. Someone who is seeking an abortion and is denied one by the state may get one anyways, at great risk to her own life.
For that reason, if we really wanna have a real solution, allow doctor's to state whether they will or will not do a certain practice like euthanasia or abortion. If on a personal level the medical team is against it, then the struggle to find a new physician goes on. Otherwise, it should be up to the medical professional on a Case by case basis, and not unilaterally denied by the government. I'm saying this for both the case of Euthanasia and Abortion.
Giving people options is more humanitarian then dictating how others should live by some false sense of idealisms. But here I am equating humanitarian to individual freedom, not necessarily by the idea of "a right to live".
63852694 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:42:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, you're just ignorant. Muslims are the real feminists
LizsLemonsz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:43:35 on May 1, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is no more sexist than conservatives. Which makes both of them bad and WRONG.
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 14:18:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
FireAdamSilver ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:36:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bye
63852694 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:45:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is not sexist, your bigoted colors are showing
The_Fattest_Camel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:47:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The irony of this is comment is that it sounds like something straight off of Facebook.
imatsor ยท -15 points ยท Posted at 13:52:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Generalizing everything they don't understand.
-americans-some peoplenahm17 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 14:07:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did you just make a generalization of Americans while calling out Americans for generalizing?
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 14:56:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, Trump voters.
kaloonzu ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:42:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've become convinced, since looking at the last assembled UN Human Rights panel, that they give these bass-ackwards countries these positions just to keep the peace, because we all know those countries would probably withdraw from the UN if countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, or Canada were empaneled instead.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:27:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Norway and Canada are already members of the Commission on the Status of Women, among plenty of other countries with excellent records on women's rights.
Germany is on the current UN Human Rights Council along with Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United States.
And yet Saudi Arabia has not withdrawn from the UN.
Murgie ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:30:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nations like Norway, Sweden, Germany, or Canada can never hold a position in one of the 13 spots on the council allotted to Asian States, which is what SA holds, because none of them are Asian States.
I do applaud you for at least bothering to look at who's on the council, gods only know that's more than what 99% of the other folks here did, but it's important to understand how the organization actually works before coming to a conclusion like that.
Oh, and Germany is currently a member of the council. Have been for 9 of the 11 years that the organization has been in existence as well, while Canada and Norway both have 3 years.
Misc_Rodriguez ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:43:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is a joke.
State_of_Iowa ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
you don't know how the UN works. it's the best mechanism we have to bring countries together for discussion. it has been responsible for so much progress over the past 50+ years. it has prevented a 3rd world war from happening. despite lots of disagreement and elections like this, we haven't seen another world war. yes, Iraq happened and lots of other terrible things, but it could be much, much worse.
what exactly do you want? will you be happy in SA isn't on any councils or commissions? and that your policy views are always accepted and pushed on other countries? the problem is, there are 190+ other countries who are part of the UN. you can't always get your way. but by and large, liberal democracy (in the ensuring human rights definition of the word) has been institutionalized across the world.
the UN also didn't vote for SA to be on this council. other member states did. they trade votes so everyone gets on different councils and commissions. every country ends up having various roles. it's how the system works. how would you feel if we just didn't give the Senators from Tennessee any Senate committee assignment? or if only NY and California hosted every big research lab, army base, federal institution headquarters, etc? it wouldn't be fair. Tennessee would say 'fuck off, we are leaving the US because we get nothing from it' - and that's what happens here.
SA trades votes with Nigeria and Pakistan or South Korea and Argentina - or whoever - and says we will vote for you to be part of the UNDP Executive Board if you vote for us for this commission on women - or we will vote for you to be part of the UNSC if you vote for us to host the next climate change conference. that's how it works.
it isn't some UN conspiracy to keep women down. it isn't that the UN isn't progressive. even my Saudi colleague who i work with regularly is a very progressive human rights supporter who believes in women's rights - and, by the way, drinks beer with the rest of us, including the women. and he bikes to work because he doesn't want to pollute.
so the joke is that people like you don't spend enough time trying to understand the UN as an institution.
Misc_Rodriguez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:44:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
tl;dr.
You may get paid by the word, but I'm not paid to read it.
Brevity is your friend.
State_of_Iowa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:04:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
not being paid at all. this is my free time before i sleep. don't to read it and just sling ignorance, be my guest.
Misc_Rodriguez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:17:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Go waste someone else's time.
State_of_Iowa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:18:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
go east? what's that supposed to mean? seriously, if you don't care, don't post comments. and don't expect the world to be a tl;dr. some things are more complex.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:26:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
State_of_Iowa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:29:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
how about you go back being a worthless punk who expects the world to revolve around him in your mom's basement? sorry the world isn't as simple as you want it to be.
Misc_Rodriguez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Stay mad.
(Iowa stands for Idiots Out Wandering Around)
State_of_Iowa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:33:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
good one.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:33:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Misc_Rodriguez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:17:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The presumptuous assholishness in you is astounding.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:18:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Misc_Rodriguez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:27:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or you choose to be a sanctimonious asshole.
(Edited for an asshole)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:23:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
State_of_Iowa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:26:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the economy doesn't stop a decision maker from fucking things up. look at Venezuela. that hasn't stopped Maduro. it's easy to say a world war wouldn't happen even without the UN, but the fact is, we have the UN, which has propelled the world forward in so many capacities and made the world a better place in so many areas. it has quelled conflict in many areas. brokered peace deals. advanced human rights. set in place systems and regulations - which while not always obeyed, have made standards higher. without the UN, we could very well have seen a world war in the 70s or 80s. even today. take away the UN and you lose a spot where everyone can come to the table to deal with certain issues.
the economy is not holding the world together. even when the economy has been shit, the UN has been there to keep people talking.
Cudi420 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:09:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is a disease
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:33:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, what? Women need the permission of a male family member to exit prison? How the hell does that work?
damselnoir ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:42:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Stop your bitching or the UN will beat you with a stick and cut your clit off. If you object, it just means your a islamophobia nazi
Alagorn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:17:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't worry, I'm sure emma watson will tell us all that us western men are the problem. Anything to avoid criticising Muslims.
F4i1336 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:52:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is a joke
PoLS_ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:12:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh my fucking god for the last motherfucking time they are appointed AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THEIR REGION! Who THE FUCK else better than one of the highest population hot button political powers of the area? No shit they suck ass at human rights but they still get representation that's how gradual united change and not global totalitarianism works. Y'all need a fucking reminder how the USA singlehandedly kept racial discrimination protection out of the declaration of human rights of 1948? Innocence trades hands quite fucking frequently.
Onelesssloth ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:12:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuuuuck Saudi Arabia, that country has gotten so much love from media and entertainment celebrities it's not even funny. I'm not a fan.
natha105 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:36:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Chair Recognizes the Member from Saudi Arabia: "You guys are pulling my leg right? Women aren't a gender."
Angry murmurs in the room.
"You're SERIOUS? You want them to be equal? Voting, no raping, them saying shit and not giving them the back of your hand? Whoa... Mind, Blown."
Turtledoll ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:41:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck SA...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:19:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We cant bomb SA , QATAR and KUWAIT even though they r sponsoring ISIS. Because we are connected to them heavily economically plus we have same interests. Fuckin up the shias , weapons contracts, OPEC and endless war. All good for our economy!! only downside is the blowback.
123456American ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:29:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure if anyone takes the UN seriously anymore.
What can they do really? Send strongly worded letters?
Dishevel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:46:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The United Nations always has been and always will be a fucking shit show.
If you seriously think anything other than that, you are either completely uninformed or stupid.
milesdizzy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:01:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a tin dog with no teeth
Dishevel ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:10:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Also shits on the rug and piddles in the corner.
Urdnot_wrx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:34:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
HAHAHAHAHA
no wonder the left feels Islam is liberating to women. Just goes to show you, if you have money, people do not give a fuck about what you do.
this is awesome.
Saudis need to be glassed, not celebrated. If there's one group of people I can say that I hate, it's fucking Saudis man. I watched a video of them offering jobs to white women, fly them in, just to beat the fuck out of them.
Fakename11235 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you think the left thinks Islam is liberating to women? You shouldn't make blanket statements about groups. Some liberals are crazy, some Republicans are racist, but the majority of both sides are just normal people.
DawnCrusader4213 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:59:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Normal people, "Rational" people should reject Islam and all it's barbaric ways. Unless reformed it isn't compatible with the Western civilization. The fact that some gay men support Islam is mind boggling...
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:50:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is loving religion that allows homosexuality and women's rights. How can you Redditors be so hateful?
SploonTheDude ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:20:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Username Does Not Check Out
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:27:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was joking in my original comment. I don't like most forms of Islam.
SploonTheDude ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:28:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I got that, I was making the obvious joke that your username did not agree with you.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:29:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
๐
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:47:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's like putting Satan in charge of the pearly gates โฆ
SandDCurves ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:57:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If they weren't put on these bodies this conversation wouldn't be happening. The UN is a place for countries to air their differences and discuss them, not a world government. I'd rather have SA in on this conversation so we can actually attempt to change it rather than yell at them from afar while excluding them.
themagicalpig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes! Exactly! Thank you!
The_Fattest_Camel ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:58:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So to be clear, you think that conversation and discussion of differences will persuade Saudi Arabia to abandon their deeply held Islamic beliefs? Someone needs to get Kim Jung Un to the table asap! Who knew, all it took was a little conversation for everyone to come around!
SandDCurves ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:50:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I don't. It Draws attention and allows for the conversation (political bargaining) that would otherwise be impossible. Patronizing fuck
accidentpronehiker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:01:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a watchdog for the UN? I thought the UN was THE watchdog.
eighty_D ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:18:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone needs accountability.
a_skeleton_07 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:16:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Money talks.
bycroft ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:20:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
F'ing disgraceful.
RavingRationality ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:22:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN has a purpose and needs to exist. That purpose has nothing to do with being a moral or legal authority on anything, as they consistently disqualify themselves in that regard.
The UN's primary purpose is as a constant forum for nations to air their grievances. To this end, it actually functions fairly well.
When we start to look at it as some kind of authoritative body, this is where it falls flat.
Despotic nightmares like the current Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China sit as permanent members of the security council with veto powers. We elect places like Saudi Arabia onto human rights councils.
The U.N. cannot be a legal or moral authority as long as it continues to treat nations that have no respect for freedom or human rights as peers of everyone else.
SolomonGroester ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:35:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Letting Saudi Arabia be involved in something like this is like letting the fat kid watch the goddamn cookie jar.
Rossum81 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:00:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN Watch and Hillel Neuer have done immense and thankless work pointing out the dishonesty and sleaze of the UN.
fwambo42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:07:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's like appointing Donald Trump president... oh wait
Turnbills ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:54:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And promptly, nothing was done about it and nobody cared.
Don't get me wrong, I love and even support some watchdog orgs like Amnesty International, but I really don't think the UN gives a shit what gets said by them
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:52:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This, more than anything, cemented my opinion that the UN is a bad joke. When they were appointed, I knew beyond any doubt that they were feckless and useless. Might as well appoint Robert Mugabe to the World Bank and Kim Il Sung to the UN Human Rights Council while we're at it.
LordYako ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:09:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For those of you that haven't read Linda Fasulo's Insider's Guide to the UN you really should. The book will explain to you why countries like Saudi Arabia gets positions you might expect, and generally clear up why the UN acts the way it does, and how it works. Also why are people so angry I understand the Saudi Arabia has a bad record as far as human rights and women's rights, but by eliminating them from the conversation we are opening the way for an even more detrimental ethnocentrism were only those who match our western views are considered. I'm not saying I agree with the conditions of women's rights in Saudi Arabia (I don't) but that doesn't mean they should have a say, especially if it is a committee which will likely specifically target problems within Saudi Arabia. The UN is a tool for international peace, progress, and cooperation, not a tool for the US and western counties to inflict their ideas on other countries, nor should it be, this type of development needs to happen, but can't be forced otherwise it won't stick.
Treasure_hand ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:25:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As if the UN has been anything but a bad joke the past 10 years.
bigcracker ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:29:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Only 10 years?
Treasure_hand ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:51:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a conservative number, I'm sure Im in the minority opinion group here. Everytime something bad happens, every cries about it until the US take military action and my ass gets sent somewhere.
cruzmissileinbound ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:39:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is why no one takes the UN seriously.
BarryOakTree ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:03:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is why no one takes Reddit seriously.
akmaa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:01:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
good god people learn to check the source first ?
Tarryk ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 12:59:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
so they didn't get voted onto this committee?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:11:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Tarryk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:17:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and now pls post the list of 2018-'22 on which they were elected ;)
chriscpritchard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:21:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I deleted my post because I just found the UN press release... and was going to post that. https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/ecosoc6824.doc.htm
Commission on the Status of Women: The Council elected by secret ballot 13 members to four-year terms, beginning at the first meeting of the Commissionโs sixty-third session in 2018 and expiring at the close of the sixty-sixth session in 2022: Algeria, Comoros, Congo, Ghana and Kenya (African States); Iraq, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan (Asia-Pacific States); and Ecuador, Haiti and Nicaragua (Latin American and Caribbean States).
so yeah, my bad.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:57:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whenever I see "watchdog slams" in the title I just know it really means "nothing will happen".
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:59:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Come on and..
SLAM
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:56:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let the boys be boys?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:59:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to the space jam.
InsignificantThing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:10:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
sorts by controversial
stopthefda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:10:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Appoint to get them on board? Makes sense.
sirajely ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:13:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/islam/2008/07/your-hijab-questions-answered.aspx
EduBA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:17:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
After reading this I saw the Index and Wikipedia article about it:
Provided that women live at least six percent longer than men parity is assumed, if it is less than six percent it counts as a gender gap.
I can't understand this, maybe because of being a South American male.
default_entry ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
assuming there are about 6% fewer females born, they have to live about 6% longer to assume they are equal.
At least thats what I can tell its saying.
ZachMartin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:28:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think the title should read "watchdog GROUP". Otherwise, damn. That's a smart dog.
_Hawker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:31:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
so, a group of smart dogs?
ginkomortus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:27:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oooooooor it's a metaphor.
WhiteRaven42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:34:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it makes sense for the committee to have the constant reminder and source of information inside it of what the channelizes are To feel the immediate push-back on the things the committee wants to promote so that it can be ready to address it in the field, as it were.
You don't want a committee full of modern western ideals that have no idea what the basis of other beliefs even is. It can't be effective if it doesn't understand the issues.
Let battles inside the committee hone the message and ready it for the battles on the bigger stage.
SEX_WITH_OSTRICHES ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:35:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam is a verb now? :thinking:
jsideris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:51:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wounder how much they paid in bribes to get this role. Bit of a conflict of interest...
thatserver ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:54:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe if they're on the women's rights body they might learn something?
Blood_Lacrima ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:56:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'll just post this comment which says it far better than I do. Credits to the original poster.
thisguy181 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:10:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I love how the un keeps looking at numbers without looking into the reason why. Like it put out a report saying some super oppressed country was free then the us. And the stupid 3rd wave feminists carried that country as the success for feminism in the 3rd world. That's the only time 3rd wavers seemed to care about the non western world and they just looked even more stupid.
wtop090 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:12:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's a very different situation.
Dracula101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:14:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia as women rights leader. WHAT????
its like giving Cancer recognition as the world health leader
Hitchhikingtom ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't look good when your women's rights body is slammed for containing people who view slamming women's bodies as a right.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone take the goddamn brandy from the UN before they kill us all.
rolandratajkowski19 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is such a fucking joke its disgusting. I'd rather eat my fingers off my hand than to work at such a corrupt organization.
DrAids5ever ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But honestly the UN is just a giant joke, there corrupt, overly bureaucratic and honestly have little to no real power.
flojo-mojo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:19:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Glad they're on the body... maybe they'll learn something
GentlePenguin89 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
fucking bamboozled again
hoffi_coffi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds crazy, but is it maybe better to at least get them on board, even if they are fucked up in their own country? As long as they aren't actually advising people or dictating policy. It could help bring them on board eventually.
TechnogeistR ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:26:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone finally calls them out for it.
Why_the_hate_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As someone else said, its a position that really has no power(like the UN itself) and is given to them so that there is something that we can threaten to take away.
DanielLamplugh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They weren't "appointed", they were elected. By other countries. Shit, probably by your country.
This is a common UN tactic. Put a country who is bad at something in a committee about that thing they're bad at. One of two things happens: they are either forced to address it, or they must OPENLY ADMIT they don't care about the issue. And that is a very strong stance to take diplomatically, even for a country like Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying it's always successful. It's been a mixed bag so far. But it has also had moments of brilliance come from it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit...the comments in this threat are ridiculous. Why isn't anyone mentioning the talking dog?!
SelfProclaimedBadAss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:30:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is kind of a joke...
Russia has Veto power, North Korea and other terrorist states are members, and now this...
We should start our own United Nations ... With Blackjack and hookers ...
shadyxGKMC ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:30:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN is pointless, useless, BS
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:31:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"We intend to write a very strongly worded letter" they were quoted as saying.
The Saudis won't care until you cut them loose. This is why we need renewables so badly... so we can stop financing the financers of Terrorism Inc.
kilersocke ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oooh you got forced Marriage? Oooh your rights are completely middle age? Your Laws says you will be killed if you drink some alkohol? Well... take your Tanks, give us Oil, and we didnt see anything.
KelVarnsenStudios ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sort comments by "controversial", not "new" or "best". You're welcome.
Archimid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As more world leaders follow Trump example, decades of progress will be wiped out. They will become strong on the back of the weak. Eventually this will lead to disorder and chaos. Bye, bye Economy and thanks for all the fish.
wolfmeister3001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:38:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The world is going to shit. World War II is but a distant memory no matter how many times the History Channel cover the subject, people need an actual refresher.
jaymick93 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:40:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Guess what?! Nothing will happen.
pablopg69 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought we already established that Islam is at the vanguard of women's rights.
continuous-hungry ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:42:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
every country leader's head: it's better to deal with the devil you know then the unknown.
Even here in UAE (Dubai ) people don't see the Saudi gov't in a positive light.
willyreddit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But they had LOTS of money....
Arandomguyoninternet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:32:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
On the bright side it will run out. But on the other hand the ones to suffer from lack of money will be random children forced to beg. At least maybe when they run out of money other countries may decide it is time to stop the madness
Arandomguyoninternet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now that i think about it, their money running out will hurt a lot of people.
willyreddit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Matt Damon said it best in syriana "Your people were living in tents cutting each other's heads off before the war and you'll be doing it again after." Or something to that effect.
PostIslam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:45:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They also sit on the UN Human Rights commission
Gbltrader ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:45:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Shut down the UN
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:47:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet they would Anders Brevik to be spokesman for European muslims too.
Tarrock ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:47:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Where's the people in the streets with their pussy hats now? Oh wait, Trumps not involved, so we won't be seeing them.
wicks81 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:52:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This isn't new, Saudi Arabia is constantly on these kinds of boards. It also happened in 2010 and a very similar headline in 2015 when they headed the UN Human Rights Council.
ShitposterMcshitpost ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:53:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As long as they have oil they can fuck around how much they want.
AceDuhtective ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:56:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In other news, Saudi Arabia has been reappointed to the Humans Right Council yet again.
fleker2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:59:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is watchdog the right term? Do they have any power to change it?
SupremeRedditBot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:08:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Congrats for reaching r/all/top/ (of the day, top 50) with your post! ย
I am a bot, probably quite annoying, I mean no harm though
Message me to add your account or subreddit to my blacklist
HoldMyWater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:16:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh dang, they actually slammed them?
Aquabrah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is the UN full retard
omaca ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:27:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rightly so.
arabscarab ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:27:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Considering that Pars Today is actually a state-owned media outlet of Iran (http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/07/05/473779/Iran-IRIB-Pars-Today-Abdolali-AliAskari-Mohammad-Akhgari and yes, PressTV is also Iranian state owned), the studied outrage in this article is kind of a 'those in glass houses' situation.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:27:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What a joke lol
avantvernacular ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:38:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds pretty islamophobic.
incapablepanda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:41:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As they should. It's even more dumb than putting Carl's Jr guy in charge of the department of labor.
mmckay31 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can't defend SA gender equality record but I do believe the authorities want to improve the situation. This is a political issue for them. This appointment should help them bring some pressure on the conservatives.
dirovame ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:47:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We can criticize SA for its human rights abuses, but to think we can change it from the outside is utterly ludicrous. This is something we Westerners still can't seem to fathom: no country is going to change because we abhor its behavior. Real, sustainable change can only be attained from within.
Trust me when I say that SA doesn't give half a shit about their critics. They hold enormous influence over the world's economy and everybody knows that.
Swesteel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'll have you know that SA paid handsomely for that seat.
TheNarwhaaaaal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This kind of thing has happened so many times that we can't expect it to change unless the rules of the UN change. Simply put, Saudi Arabia is favored in these kind of UN bodies because they have good relations with the countries who actually care about the issue. The UN needs an objective criteria for how it chooses these bodies rather than playing politics as usual
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:54:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We must have different understandings of the word slam.
When we dropped a moab, we slammed isis. This. This is nothing.
becoruthia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:56:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Classic UN.
TheHubbleGuy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wish Saudi Arabia and the US would stop giving each other such sloppy blowjobs.
westerschelle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN should be disbanded in its current form. It is not a body for the international community, it is a political tool for the permanent members of the security council.
AintNoFortunateSon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure this is why they appoint certain countries to certain international bodies. It brings attention to problems they would much prefer to ignore.
videogameboy76 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:04:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently it is news that politics makes mock of sense and sanity.
Exist50 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:04:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone doesn't understand how the UN works.
charger781 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:04:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doubt the UK will say much, aren't they responsible for SA being part of the human rights council?
justsudoit_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:30:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reason #322 why Western feminism should stop focussing on imagined Western discrimination
ravenraven173 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:34:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
is this a joke? Or maybe this is Saudia Arabia's way of taking steps to reverse laws such as women aren't allowed to ride bicycles.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:34:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
youtubefactsbot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:35:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
bot info
AnarchyInAmerikkka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:41:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do people think the UN has power?
Trailmagic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:44:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Is this a rotational post and it was KSA's turn to be on the panel as a UN member, or did they vote for/select KSA over better-suited candidates?
Saved17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:47:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This HAS GOT TO BE a joke right?!
Outbound_KB ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:54:34 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The best way for improvement is to bring them into the fold and not to exclude.
TheBatman2327 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:55:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The middle one looks like Big Chief from Street Outlaws hiding from the police in a Burka lmfao.
ubern00by ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Make money off selling them weapons and but cry and do nothing when they violate rights? That's the dogs called UN for you.
broketsuu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:02:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think Daddy was right when he said the UN is a joke.
Pilebutt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:04:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is dumb.
Sometimes you have to agree to listen before you demand it of others.
Jimmyrustler101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:04:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well that's just hilarious.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:05:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How does a country like SA even get into these positions. Isn't there 50 permanent members in UN and somehow KSA has so much influence in UN?
ughsicles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:38:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah and Cuba and Venezuela are on their human rights council. It's a joke.
ottrocity ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lemme slam, bekkeh
skoncol17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Cheap Oil"
primemas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh thank you universe, I really needed to lol on this shitty Monday. The world is burning and we all have front row seats to the shit show.
Drem1940 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/chief-arson-investigator-chief-firebug-article-1.1864033
Cav3Johnson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:13:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This seems like something that would come from The Onion
rombemukiyam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fat greedy kid gets to guard the pie.
leberama ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Next, the UN will put Chechnya in charge of gay rights.
Wilikersthegreat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:17 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is a joke, how the hell is a country thats stuck in the middle ages in charge of human rights?!? Somethings not right here
MulderD ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:49:29 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It shouldn't take a watchdog group for this to be considered ridiculous.
mikethejew6969 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:29:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's why we need to abolish UN
reggie-hammond ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:40:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN - and a lot of factions in Europe for that matter - were bought by middle east oil money long ago.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:52:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's all about money. You don't hear of poor backwards nations being appointed to these sort of organizations.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:02:30 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone got fucking ppppaid. Bribery and corruption at the top level, pretty obvious imo.
Artificecoyote ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:03 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Saudis thought they were getting the rights to women's bodies.
Sean_619 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:24:15 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is just another poorly managed beurocratic nightmare. Anything that doesn't aline with their political agendas is unnacceptable and everything that does is. We need to bring back personal responsibility and get rid of beurocrats who have no incentive to the best job possible.
Suzookus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:47:43 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I heard the xcuse a few weeks ago of why they put countries like Libya or Saudi on these bodies that are counter to their own country's practices.
The UN folks actually think the representatives from these dictatorships will feel free to speak out against these practices and it will not only change the world but create change in their home country.
not_vailable ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:04:07 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
WHAT?!
Mrclap ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:40:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
First world loves sucking that oily Saudi teet when we all know they deserve the same war as their neighbors get.
ajac09 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:31:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Epic fail.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:37:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How can you people criticise Saudi Arabia for violating women's rights when mansplaining happens right here in the USA?
cryptyknumidium ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:39:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your bait has gone off.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 08:46:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
polargus ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 09:56:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iran is much better for women's rights than Saudi Arabia. Pretty sure Saudi is the only country where women can't even fucking drive.
winstonsmithwatson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:50:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Go to /r/watchpeopledie and /r/exmuslim and come back then tell me Iran is better for womens rights
fchowd0311 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:01:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Relatively.
And ex-Muslim subreddit would agree. I post there regularly. Shia based Islam is relatively more benign. It's immigrants tend to be far more secular than Saudi immigrants. Also, notice how you haven't heard much about Shia based terrorism on Western soil?
Iran's danger to the west gets overblown by them being closer to having nukes and they say really stupid shit about Israel. Other than that, Iranians pump out more secularism than Suadi.
winstonsmithwatson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:04:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm more worried about Irans danger to Iran than its danger to the West.
mcysr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:44:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are brave being public about being ex-muslim.
fchowd0311 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:45:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not in the US. Pretty safe here.
[deleted] ยท -11 points ยท Posted at 10:01:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
polargus ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 10:12:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know plenty of people from Iran who don't like what their country has become, but have still told me Saudi is much more fucked up. The attitude towards women in Saudi is super fucked. The dress code is stricter than Iran's, they can't drive, and they have that horrible guardianship law.
[deleted] ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 10:23:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
inseishabol ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:30:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's demeaning because they are conflating criticism of Saudi Arabia with the criticism of their own selves.
Nationalism is not a trivial thing.
LDLover ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:15:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Great so the rich women in KSA are generally doing just fine. Fuck those poor bitches who are oppressed beyond belief. They don't matter, they're poor.
polargus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:41:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How is it demeaning to the women? I'm talking about the country and the men who make the rules. And you're the one who brought up Iran.
Neosantana ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:49:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I brought up Iran because the article is from an Iranian source.
I'll paste the same reply I made to someone else.
polargus ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 10:52:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Great, I look forward to hearing about the Saudi women participating in this committee on women's rights.
bracciofortebraccio ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 10:49:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you need to drive yourself when you can just hire drivers? Also Iran is not much better than KSA as far as human rights are concerned.
RPDBF ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 11:53:09 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iran doesn't kill you if your Christian
polargus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:53:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
True, I guess you don't mind sending me your driver's license then.
Wiki_pedo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 11:10:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you need to hire drivers when you can just drive yourself?
flipping_birds ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:24:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're rhetorical question is dumb and your Iran comparison is just flat out wrong. Do a little research.
RifleGun2 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 09:38:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The same way other backwards countries modernize without being one of the 13 countries on the commission. The countries on the council should be countries who are fit to lead the rest of the world on women's rights and treatment, not countries like Saudi Arabia.
octocure ยท -14 points ยท Posted at 10:15:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I have a solution. bring them a little bit of that American democracy. Possibly in a form of a nuke. No need to waste time on panels and councils.
Neosantana ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 10:50:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is why you aren't in politics, because that's a great way to have 1.5bil Muslims mobilized on your ass.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:13:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Neosantana ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:55:49 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The world is in turmoil because of a few thousand radicals. Imagine that times 100,000.
NosThrotle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Put 15 armed radicals in a room of a hundred people. It's very hard to kill these radicals without also killing innocent people. If in this hypothetical situation above we no longer care about the innocent people hence the use of nukes, then killing those 15 radicals is actually quite easy. So you get the point the world isn't in turmoil it's more like trying to wrestle your girlfriend and not hurt her in the process.
LDLover ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:18:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
okey doke -let them do it in the states. it'll be fun.
octocure ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 10:56:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Have Japanese mobilized on US because of 2 nukes? Nope. Went submissive. Has Iraq, Lybia, Chile, Iran(?), whatever - mobilized on US? Nope. Too busy trying to stay afloat.
flipdark95 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 11:11:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sort of ignoring how that was because Japan's infrastructure waas virtually levelled because of WWII. They literally had no ability to 'strike back'.
Nuking one of the largest muslim nations in the Middle East though? Pretty much every nation will turn their backs on the US. And that's notgetting into what Russia and China may do in response to protect themselves.
And just imagine what North Korea will do.
Neosantana ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:58:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not just nuking a Muslim country. Nuking the country which controls the two holiest sites in Islam. You wanna unite Sunnis and Shia? Because that's going to happen if anyone fires a single bullet in the direction of Mecca.
octocure ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 11:26:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, North Korea is the most concerning one on your list. Russia would not mind perish of SA. China is a wildcard.
My post was a joke, of course, but nothing wrong in exercising certain theories.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:45:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
octocure ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:06:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
whole world would be pissing their pants, but noone except SA and maybe their neighbors would even think of trying something
Imaurel ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:21:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why? They'd kick our ass. Weve barely won anything since WW2, and really that was more the Soviets Zap Branniganing it. Our strength is our worldwide economic control, which were all buddy-buddy with SA on, and that can be taken away. We're not self-sufficient enough to take care of ourselves unless you wanna survive on corn and walk everywhere.
D89raj ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:21:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you fucking kidding me?! Something about this screams OIL! OIL! OIL!
1leggeddog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:28:05 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So that's the UN's strategy!
Appoint Saudi Arabia at things they suck the MOST out of the rest of the world so as to bring light to their shitty backwards, dark age practices.
particle409 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:47:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd just like to point out that a lot of the leadership and royal family in SA would be happy to liberalize, but the people would not. We all assume it's an oppressive government forcing religious and cultural nonsense on to the people, when it's the other way around.
SploonTheDude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:20:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've heard this claim before, it isn't true.
OnStilts ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:14:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know about "a lot" but King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud specifically implemented some significant progress extending to women the right to run for municipal council and vote, appointing women to the Shura Council for the first time and appointed SA's first female minister.
Many of the redditors here signaling their condemnation of Saudi Arabia and their disdain for the UN are completely ignorant of these recent incremental but meaningful steps away from the deeply entrenched misogynist aspects of Saudi society and the role of it's membership in the UN in influencing such evolution. Not to say that any single remedy achieved is equivalent to the total cure, but changing core elements of a society and culture isn't like flipping a switch and any progress should not be discouraged simply because it's not enough or too slow.
dirty_lyle_grafton ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you think those steps would've happened without the works being vocally disgusted by Saudi attitudes toward women?
They've got a long way to go, and there's no reason to shut up about it yet
OnStilts ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:02:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one is saying to shut up about the distance that SA still has to go to even catch up with much of the rest of the world on human rights. What's being denounced here is the obtuse denial that SA is evolving at all and that this progress is actually happening in the context of the UN's inclusive attitude and tack toward SA as a kind of citizen of the international community.
imatsor ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 13:51:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
those guys are quite busy with raping and touturing their maids.
Sir_Velvet_Banks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:22:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is the biggest criminal organization in the world!
Buckwald ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:24:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN is basically a joke now.
Coltmark4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:42:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN .. that's about right up their speed right there.
tehEPICNESS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:19:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not imposing any sort of knowhow or anything on how this may work, it might not even work at all, but wouldn't this be a tactic to make SA do more generally favorable things because of the scrutiny that is entailed from being in that position?
Orapac4142 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:53:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol no.
Until they run out of oil to sell or the world no lo ger needs fossil fuels as we do now they can do what ever they want.
icallshenannigans ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:39:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yea because it's like Monty Python absurd that something like this should happen.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:56:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The people of SA need to fix all social issues by themselves. Foreign intervention rarely works.
RevRowGrow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:43:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why not appoint a nazi to a judiac religious freedom and equality board next.
FortyYearOldVirgin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:44:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I really do hope Trump says something about this...
billbraskeyjr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:12:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia is the lesser of two evils, just look at what happens when you destabilize any place in the region: Islamic militants come in trying to impose Sharia, everyone with a brain cell tries to flee to Europe resulting in a fucking refugee crisis, which provides cover for a small number of militants to flock to Europe where they can try and unleash hell on people just trying to provide relief. And this is ignoring the fact that all of this is leading to the rise in popularity of right wings groups. At the end of the day Arabs just love their autocratic rulers and Imams who don't give a flying fuck about anything except enriching themselves, which leaves us with Saudi Arabia who we are forced to prop up because they at least see the advantage of playing nice with the western powers. I think everyone misses the days of Saddam, at least he was a predictable idiot, he would've executed every suspected ISIS leader in the dead of night and people would've respected that... So please quit fucking with Saudi Arabia and how it treats women, it's a pointless battle for everyone because it will just result in something extraordinarily worse for the region. Even if the King decided to give women equal rights and protection under the law tomorrow, he would be signing his death certificate since it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness to the Islamo-nuts nut jobs, some genuinely believing that Allah created women to be their fucking property. The family would break off into factions, there would probably be a civil war because everyone knows ISIS would somehow leverage the entire fucking thing.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
zennim ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:06:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
russia is christian majority, they are not much better
the problems isn't religion per se, is prejudice and authoritarianism justified by religion
saudi arabia is a problem, indonesia isn't
MeatSponge93 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:28:45 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just proves what a mockery the UN is
Hephaestus3131 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:06:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Slow clapping one step forward ten steps back
Tolham ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:12:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't that just affirmative action?
PaulN338 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Women's rights groups could save themselves some time and just assume that any country with a Muslim majority population treats women 'gross'.
clockworkgirl21 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:18:57 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Albania seems okay.
rainman_104 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:39:31 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Albania is a shithole.
Bindleflop_ChinCholo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I am disgusted by how women are treated by Islam: as chattel. I find it so difficult to relate to anyone who believes a women isn't an equal human being. Interact with any woman and there is no doubt they're just as human as everyone else. We all have the spark behind our eyes, plain to see.
lockhartias ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:47:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lmao you never realize how retarded everyone on Reddit is until they start talking about something you know
emokneegrow ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:23:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
what u mean?
_LadyBoy ยท -11 points ยท Posted at 13:16:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lol only 810 upvotes, reddit isn't enjoying their narrative being destroyed.
sneer0101 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 16:12:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That went well for you.
evilmeow ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:11:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wait what? Which narrative? Is reddit supposed to be a huge fan of the UN?
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:52:06 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:00:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes it's almost like we're against both the discrimination of Muslims and women.
UndeadPhysco ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:00:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh look a comment that has nothing to do with the post and makes an idiotic claim.
Le sigh
DelusionalDuck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:07:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ironic
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 12:41:10 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
damlag ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:32:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There does, but this one has wide spread wealth to put those beliefs into action
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:04:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Haha I'll call them subhuman. That's never been a bad idea, to call someone subhuman.
Look, SA might be run by serious pieces of shit, but they're human. Humans are capable of great evil, like voting to say that two consenting adults can't get married because it might be hard to explain to their kids, or that a man is forced to use the women's room because he used to look like a woman, or that someone could dodge the draft 3 times only to go and say that avoiding STIs was his own personal Vietnam, or saying a country shouldn't help children dying in war zones by bringing them into our country, but should instead bomb them more.
Evil shit like that.
Bergensis ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 13:32:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Homo Erectus = human
tommyjoe2 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:07:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Homo sapiens are humans. Homo erectus is an extinct species that lived 70,000 years ago, about the same time period Saudi Arabia seems to be stuck in
Bergensis ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 15:58:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All members of the genus Homo are humans, Homo Erectus is an extinct human species.
GetSoft4U ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:36:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the UN is becoming a progressive safe space.
mielove ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:45:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, the UN being a safe space would be only allowing countries that agree with each other to be involved, effectively turning it into an echo-chamber. Having the UN as a forum for dialogue between countries with vastly different cultures is what it's meant to be for.
BlackFallout ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:16:43 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is extremely Islamophobic and Racist. Saudi Arabia is the perfect model on women's rights. We can only learn from them here in the US.
youdumbsick ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 10:23:51 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Iranian news websites are the best unbiased source of information about Saudi Arabia. They have spies all over the country and they are covering every little thing happening there. So if you want to know more about the dirty things Saudi Arabia do check Iranian websites because western news websites are bribed to cover up on lots of bad stories about the Saudis.
EDIT: and please don't link me to western websites talking shit about Iran because they are all fake news and trying to destabilize the country and transform it into Iraq V2.0
Avorius ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:19:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
aaand you lost me at that
MrDaebak ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:54:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
links to those Iranian websites?
linggayby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:44:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OP's source is Iranian. It's funded by IRIB.
However, the usher above claims that criticisms of Iran in Western news sources are fake. That's ridiculous. Iran has a lot of problems that should be criticised and discussed.
MrDaebak ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:22:28 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh sure I believe that. I was just curious to see some Iranian websites on Saudi Arabia. Both countries are shit holes in my opinion. Such a pity because they have such a rich history.
ehtanm ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:42:33 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is crazy. Unfortunately, the UN is indifferent to violence Saudi Arabia against innocent people and women and it encourages them.
BoozeBumAddict ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:27:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN Watch is a Zionist Israeli lobby whose primary goal is to shut down any criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic".
Not saying Saudi Arabia isn't bad, but you need to remeber that the Wahabi regime is a puppet of Mossad and CIA, so if these zionist white supremacists want something done about it they should just tell their government to order Saudi Arabia to change.
themagicalpig ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:14:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly is it the worst thing in the world to have people with various viewpoints on this panel?
As a woman living in the US, I have an extremely progressive view on women's rights. The view I have is shaped by the country I grew up in, my gender, and the education I received. That doesn't mean my view is correct though. It just means it's one view on the world. Those who have grown up in Saudi Arabia might have a completely different view. And their view might have some very valid points that need to be heard on this panel. They are ensuring a more conservative view is not lost in discussion.
Kat_Daddy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:26:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I agree. We also need KKK members to give us their view point on black rights.
We should also have Muslims on a panel for LGBT, and why there are legitimateโ reasons to throw gays off of roofs.
themagicalpig ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:15:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you want to get to the root of an issue, why not ask those causing the issue for their motivations? Fight problems with informed, well thought out tactics.
DeathRebirth ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:24:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They have a different view, and it's regressive. That's like saying an ex-murderer (not convicted mind you) is an appropriate jury member for a murder trial.
themagicalpig ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:34:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I actually don't think the comparison is quite accurate. A jury is actually making a decision that has an actual bearing on someone's life. It's trying to make a determination of guilt based on facts presented. Different opinions are not reinvent or necessary when analyzing facts. Cultural practices are a little different.
The UN Women's Right Commission is is a group of 45 countries that discuss various women's rights issues around the world. Why not allow a country whose women's rights record is constantly discussed be present to share their side of arguments. It's dangerous to let a group of like-cultured countries choose the priorities for the whole world without giving other view points equal hearing.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:31:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In Saudi Arabia women are property. Women must have permission to do anything. Women are raped and then blamed for being raped. Cultural relativism is bullshit, the culture we have in America is 10000 times better than the culture in Saudi Arabia. You are so privileged you don't even realize.....
themagicalpig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:38:23 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What sort of power do you really thing a seat on this commission really gives? It's basically just a place where representatives from countries can discuss various issues facing women around the world. Why not hear Saudi Arabia's point of view on these issues and try to understand the reason they treat women they way they do? Might help with strategy on how to better resolve these issues.
Also, women getting blamed for being raped isn't an issue exclusive to only Saudi Arabia. Take a look at the other 45 countries on this commission.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:39:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You must be trolling.....next you'll say you appreciate Russia's stance on gay rights
themagicalpig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:57:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And next you're going to say the US and Western Europe should be the only countries allowed to have opinions in the UN.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:22:28 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Name some countries you would rather live in? Europe and the U.S. Have some of the best human rights laws in the world....I think you are being a little naive or idealistic
themagicalpig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:32:22 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you're missing the point here. This isn't a discussion about what country is the best. It's a discussion about how all countries should have equal right to share their world view/opinion in the UN. That's actually the entire point of the UN. The point isn't for the US and Western Europe to tell everyone what their opinion should be.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:57:19 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you think nazi Germany should have a seat at the table? How about North Korea? Do you honestly think countries like that can teach us anything? We are literally hundreds of years ahead of Saudi in terms of culture and society....they should be taking notes in the corner
themagicalpig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:08:18 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Having an overthrown government at the table wouldn't make any sense. But North Korea would. The UN voted to allowed North Korea to join the UN, so I suppose they agree with me? It's amazing how understanding the reasoning and motivation behind why a country behaves the way it does can be invaluable for forming a strategy to change their mind. Or not.
Out of curiosity, do you think Saudi Arabia should be kicked off just this commission, or out of the UN all together?
SaintSlumlord ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 17:04:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's ironic, and disgusting. Wasn't Hillary Clinton a big Saudi Arabia fan?
ROLLINGSTAAAAAAAAART ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 18:49:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
bigots, islam is pro-woman
damn_yank ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:56:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
FTFY
Whoelsecoulditbe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:09:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pro-woman dressing like ninja.
randallross420 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:57:56 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
why not just take over this primitive nation and keep its resources? win, win. then we can be our own middle eastern ally and tell israel to go fuck themselves.
ginkomortus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You really think it works like that?
randallross420 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:45:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
wishful thinking.
ginkomortus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:12:15 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Get better wishes.
Madlibsluver ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Welp, watchdog must be islamaphobic fascists!
FireAdamSilver ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:36:03 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islamophobic much?
Beiberhole69x ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:42:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is not islamophibic
atheistalphamale666 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 11:55:00 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What's a dog going to do? Stupid...
Abedeus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:16:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watchdog EVISCERATES UN would've been a much better title.
Bergensis ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:26:08 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe Saudi Arabian authorities can learn something from being part of this.
Orapac4142 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:30:18 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hahahaha no fucking way you are that naive.
ThaBearJew ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:26:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Makes sense, now they can pass resolutions condemning America for oppressing women like they condemn Israel for all terrorism and oppression. U.N. has been in the pocket of the Saudis for decades, this is nothing new.
MaroonLance ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:26:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds like it came from the Onion. What is going on?
Orapac4142 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:29:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The UN making decisions as normal. Google some of the dumbass things they do.
TheStorm117 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:35:21 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
huh.
that's pretty fucking
retardumb.Chewbaccaeightyone ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:42:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Due to their oil, Saudi Arabia is a necessary evil in the world.
And I hate it all the same. The sooner we move away from oil the better.
WardenofSuperjail ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:47:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The oil is necessary. The kingdom?
SploonTheDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:19:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What's the other option?
Attacking them and taking their land?
That would be an extremely bloody and unnecessary war that would only end where we are now...Oil.
WardenofSuperjail ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:28:35 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No more war. It's up to the people to change their country for the better. However there is absolutely no reason the world should tolerate the Saudi's funding of mosques and madrassas that teach wahhabism in western nations.
SploonTheDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:29:48 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Most political actions that can be taken will raise tensions and will eventually lead to war.
Patches67 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:11:16 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saudi Arabia is just there to make sure women aren't awarded too many rights so Saudi Arabia wont get pressured to change their own society too much.
-Samcro ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:23:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I may not agree with how they treat their woman, but that hardly gives me the right on telling them how they have to live. I would be a terrorist too if they came over here and told me I have to abuse females.
therewasguy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:36:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CsU3D59XC4
in my honest thought, i think saudi arabia is unique and should be what it is, sure it can change tomorrow but either way it's always going to be perfect as that is the rule for every existence that is there at that moment
youtubefactsbot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:36:41 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
bot info
Zaggie ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:55:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bill O'Reilly was busy...
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:55:55 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's like putting Donald Trump in charge of the Sex Crimes division.
YoMeganRain_LetsBang ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:58:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Words are like all your mothers.
Cheap and easy.
rossiFan ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:15:52 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But... but... they're with Her!
podestaspassword ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:36:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Remember a week ago when the UN raping kids in Haiti was on the front page? Stop thinking the UN is something good and noble. It is corrupt and a joke. Such is the natural order of things.
Renoirio ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:36:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Does anyone take the UN seriously anymore? It is an anti-semitic anti-democratic organization.
Waynok ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:46:24 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I hate talking about shit I don't know, but I'm going to say this anyway. The UN is shit, they are biased, they show favoritism, and they are shit. This is just one more reason why.
leargonaut ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:01:38 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Anything with "X slams Y for Z.." Is click bait and is generally wrong.
jfouasse ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:10:39 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck the world for all its worth every inch of planet earth. Fuck myself dont leave me out.
tritonx ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:16:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Shut up and pay your taxes.
Jukebaum ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:24:58 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What a wonderful day it will be when we won't need oil anymore.
CaptainCAAAVEMAAAAAN ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:35:02 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In other news, Bill Cosby has been appointed to be a rape crisis counselor. smh UN!
sundrysunday ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:28:59 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just goes to show you how much money means in our world.
Saudi Arabia: Check out this oil!
UN: Cool Bro! Come hang with us!
123CaptainNic ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:29:46 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How in the holy hell are things like this possible? Why don't we just start staffing addiction specialist facilities with drug dealers or police departments with inmates?
khast ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:01:22 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
...are you sure they aren't already?
123CaptainNic ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:08:32 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, why the hell wouldn't they be? If it's as outrageously stupid as possible, why wouldn't it be going on somewhere in the world?
khast ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:17:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As stupid as it may be, there are cases of science teachers that deny science.
Hell, after watching Forensic Files, there was a case of a string of bank robberies, that one of the trio was the police commissioner in the neighboring town...who had investigated in part on one of the robberies he committed...
notacrackheadofficer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:46:47 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Shall I once again trash the UN with a wall of text regarding their NWO Law and ORDER goals? It's their main focus: making sure everyone in every country follows the rule of law, and obeys the government, as they slowly influence the government to be more NWO like.
Real talk. Does anyone believe it yet?
rojo_johnson ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:48:30 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So Trump is in charge of UN appointments now?
aidentity ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:16:39 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I keep these links around to remind that how Islamic culture treats women is Anathema. We cant really do anything about the having multiple belief systems int he world. But solving these problems should be the first step towards peaceful inter cultural society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jirga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baad_(practice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo5xat8WLjU
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 14:07:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
SploonTheDude ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:30:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What a beautiful username.
BallsMahoganey ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:15:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really hope this is /s
F_P_C ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:45:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're not white so who cares
Zerotan ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:40:53 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just because they have some of the most regressive practices doesn't mean they don't get a seat. Doesn't mean the other members have to come to regressive conclusions, and doesn't mean the Saudi member won't have progressive practices to take home.
Pizzacrusher ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 12:58:37 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
wait, wouldn't it be racist to not be sexist in this case?
(wonderful world we live in...)
bjourne2 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:00:27 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
UN Watch is a pro-Israeli lobbying organisation. Their modus operandi is to criticize the UN as much as possible to make the UN:S criticism of Israel seem illegitimate.
Also SA:s track record when it comes to women's rights is less than stellar. But if women's situation in SA is improved thanks to them being part of this committee, isn't that a good thing?
looktowindward ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:18:12 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Less than stellar? Are you kidding?
ServeUCookiesWaSmile ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:45:14 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If y'all want to do something instead of just complain there is a petition
xWalmartCandyx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's cute that you think a petition would make a difference
ServeUCookiesWaSmile ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:13:38 on April 25, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
mathswarrior ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:58:36 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I'm not an extremist or anything, but for a society that bses itself on freedom of speech, equality, everyone's entitled to their own opinions and shit, the ''West'' seems to have a hard time with some countries having different ideals..
TaseTea ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:04:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe because those different ideas go against all the positive attributes just mentioned...
mathswarrior ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:15:11 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ye, my point is for us they're positive, but for them it's not
Whoelsecoulditbe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:08:26 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What if those ideals were something along the lines of paedophilia?
Would it be alright to hide behind "culture" then?
mathswarrior ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:10 on April 26, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not hiding, it's been like that for thousands of years, yes, it's culture. You don't see the women murdering their husbands left and right, even when it's 4 women per husband, so it's like they accept it. It would be alright
[deleted] ยท -21 points ยท Posted at 13:18:42 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
InsignificantThing ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:16:44 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Here you dropped this --> /s
SploonTheDude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:32:07 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh really? Are you just going to ignore the part of Islam that promotes sex slaves and raping women in front of their husbands and sons?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:59:31 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Right, we now have women being freed from their genitalia in the U.S. Let's invite them all in!
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 11:37:11 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SploonTheDude ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:33:20 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't give a Nobel Peace Prize to Hitler in hopes of making him change.
The board is not a class, its membership should be given to ones who promote equality and not ruin it, and should not be treated as a classroom for the latter.
panzerkampfwagen ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 13:56:50 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This stinks of Islamophobia.
InsignificantThing ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:19:04 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The fact is that the Qu'ran preaches some of the worst things possible. Not saying all Muslims act on these principles, but the Islamic Holy Text is essentially hate speech
SploonTheDude ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:31:19 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Islam stinks of sexism and homophobia.
What's your point?
alc0 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:30:13 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of islamaphobia. So sad.
SunfighterG8 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 15:01:40 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is colonialism just in a different form. We try to change a culture to adopt to our own mortality and reject them an equal standing because we view them as savage. Islam and the world it inhabits is indeed a backwards, and its teachings are aberrant. At least I dont lie like leftists and claim I am tolerant and accepting while being completely hypocritical in my actions. There is no difference between the PC leftists today and the colonial Europeans from centuries ago. They both viewed their way of life as the ONLY way of acceptable life, and view any other with inferiority and a desire to eradicate it. Only difference is colonial Europeans didn't lie to the natives about their motives. Leftists of today do nothing but lie, even to themselves about what they really are.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 15:37:01 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Arandomguyoninternet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:38:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No. I am muslim and i dont think this was a very smart move.
hddgfhhfgd ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 16:27:25 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How many people have supported feminism only to realize the people they were supporting are selfish liars who, in an incredible act of projection, only care about they very things they denounce in others?
All of them. Feminism was a mistake and now the west will slowly secede to the east. Turns out those curves and high pitched voices are natures way of fooling otherwise intelligent people into easily being deceived.
La5eR ยท -15 points ยท Posted at 13:41:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Kinda serves woman right tho...
They hem and haw about not being treated fairly yet use their golden vagina as a weapon to get what they want. They really dont want to be treated with respect and dignity, they want to be treated like animals. Why do you think so many western woman joined ISIS to become ISIS brides? Even when you treat woman with respect theyll resent you for it. Maybe letting muslim migrant men into western society will teach woman the way their carnality wants them to be treated.
boston_shua ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:56:54 on April 24, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
wtf dude