Which doubtless is why we pander to the Saudis this way.
There are no churches in Saudi Arabia. Public displays of Christian worship are unlawful and draw the attention of the Muttawa, government-paid agents who monitor religious deviationism. Customs officials confiscate materials considered offensive, such as Bibles.
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, recalls the restrictions on Christmas services imposed on the hundreds of thousands of American troops deployed in Saudi Arabia in preparation for Desert Storm in December 1990.
In an article in the current issue of The National Interest, Pipes says the Saudis decreed that Christmas services could be held, but only in places “where they would be invisible to the outside world, such as tents and mess halls.”
Not that the Saudis single out foreigners this way.
All citizens of Saudi Arabia must be Muslim. Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy and can be punishable by death. Christian missionaries are unwelcome.
Of course, the US doesn’t just single out Christianity in its make-nice to the House of Saud.
Christians lack religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, but Jews for the most part are denied entry. Timothy Hunter, a former U.S. diplomatic official assigned to Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, says State Department policy was to avoid sending Jewish employees to the kingdom under an agreement with the Saudis.
In a letter this past June, Hunter told Pipes that it was “the duty of the foreign service director of personnel to screen all Foreign Service officers applying for service in the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and to `tick’ Jewish officers’ names using the letter `J’ next to their names, so that selection panels would not select Jewish diplomats for service in Saudi Arabia.”
Imagine, if you will, if the Saudis were so adamant against blacks entering the country. Would we sit by and simply put a little “B” tick next to African-American diplomats?
Of course, if we’re doing thought exercises, one has to wonder what world (not to mention Saudi) reaction would be if the US banned mosques, confiscated all copies of the Koran, forbade Moslem missionaries, arrested and flogged citizens who were overtly Moslem, jailed or executed citizens who converted to Islam, and asked other nations to vet their diplomatic rolls so that Moslems were not sent here by their foreign ministries.
Gosh, we’d probably be accused of oppression, provocation, hate crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Fortunately, the Saudis are our friends, so we don’t have to say such mean thigns about them.
Oil, the lifeblood of our civilization, makes the Saudi butt kissably sweet to all the world. Not sure if there’s anything they could do that would make our or anyone else’s politicos change their tune, aside from refusing to sell to us.
I hope that Den Beste is right and they’re on our list.
I’m so glad our foriegn policy is run by people who think our nation isn’t compromised by its dependence on foriegn oil.
Actually, I rather doubt that the people who run the country are under any illusion that we are compromised where oil is concerned. The fact of the compromise is real — this is not a perfect world, and we can’t just cut off the taps. For one thing, most of the oil that the Saudis sell goes to countries other than the US — Europe is a much bigger market. And considering how the bulk of the voters tends to pitch a fit every time gas prices go up even a smidgen, I don’t foresee us telling the Saudis we are no longer doing any business with them. In any case, even if the improbable happened and everyone stopped buying Saudi oil, who do you think will suffer the consequences? It won’t be the princes and the equally rich terrorists that they are both paying off and trying to divert elsewhere; it will be the people who have nowhere to go in a country where nothing much else is produced except oil.
Oil it still so much more versatile than the alternatives, and still so cheap, that it will continue to dominate for quite a while unless there’s some big breakthrough in superduper batteries or something.
Yes, there are reasons other than oil, but the predominant reason we continue to allow Saudi arrogance is oil. Even with repeated outrages — 15/19 hijackers were Saudi; telethons for families of suicide bombers; the Prince’s wife’s money trail to AQ — we still cozy up to them.
Yes, I understand politics, and am not looking at this through innocent eyes; the fact of the matter is, our government is going to be surprised when their supposed friends turn on them and the entire Middle East becomes a pyre.
I think it’s a fantasy that the US would use Iraq as a stepping stone to Saudi.
But it’s a nice fantasy.
Taking control of the oilfields from an occupied Iraq would be one hell of a lot easier.
I do find it hard, really hard, to think of George W. Bush as someone who can get it right. But. If one were to seriously wage a systematic “war on terrorism” — actually a campaign to drive the islamicists into the dirt or into graves — then one would start with Afgnanistan while keeping the Pakis with their islamicist-dominated security services temporarily at bay, then move on Iraq before (hopefully) they have nukes to deploy or enough other WMDs to spread around. Use Iraq as a base of operations while (hopefully) bringing the country to at least the level of prosperity that the Kurds have managed with their share of the national oil money. Lie, cheat and jerk off the Turks to keep them cooperative for a while; there probably will be a Kurdish state carved out of Iraq. Then assist, if necessary, the fall of the Iranian theocrats. Pressure the Saudis to make real changes, then secure the oil fields when the country breaks. Fortunately, Mecca and Medina are on the opposite side of the country from the oil fields; leave the holy sites strictly alone. Many oilfield jobs for Iraqis then. Back the Turks with oil money to restore order in Mecca etc. Spend the next ten years, or twenty, grinding the islamicists down.
So, thus far, Dubbya could be on track. Yeah it’s a nice dream.
What worries me is that the US keeps holding up Afghanistan as the model of our operations, both during and post-war.
Umm, that doesn’t make me feel very comfortable, considering we’ve let Afghanistan slide back into warlords battling it out, with the Taliban making a return.
It’s difficult to say how much we’ve let Afghanistan “slide,” how much of some of the worst areas were never fully under Taliban control, and how much is simply newpaper folks looking for a story (or NGOs with axes to grind).
The military campaign against Afghanistan was clearly a success; the post-war “nation-building” was never at the top of our agenda, and it’s not clear that it’s (a) not an ongoing thing that will take years, even decades, or (b) really necessary, so long as we can continue to operate militarily within the country.
My name is Adrian,and I live in north-west London,and for the past 4 to 5 years,I had real problems with this religion of islam.
I just feel as if none of them can be trusted,they tend to say one thing while thinking another.I don`t have any problems with those who simply want to go about and live a normal decent life ,but how do we separate the law-abiding from the pro-bin laden ones.
There is a group over here based in a place called Luton,and their aim is for sharia law to be introduced into this country, it simply beggers belief, the way this country panders to the muslims in some ways I gald I won`t be around in 100 years time as europe [in my opinion] is heading for one hell of a war with these people,
they are stamping thier presence all over europe;germany, holland,
france all feeling the sting of islam.
Finally check out this brilliant web-site,
ahmed-mohammed.mindswap.net
it is anti-islamic but not in a vicious way ,more tongue-in cheek.
All the best Adrian,[keep up the good work]
The question of how to deal with an increasingly unassimilated, militant and sizeable subpopulation, while still maintaining traditions of tolerance and freedom, is a huge challenge, most imminently for Western Europe. I don’t think being “anti-islamic” is the answer, but rolling over for it isn’t the answer, either.
Dave ,thanks,for that last reply
Dave can I have your views on this,I recently joined this”interactive internet discussion forum group”,much like yours,
it`s website was the following http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2 to cut
a long story short,my first post was to enquire if anyone had thoughts on the story taken from the book “Hadith”,about their prophet Muhammed,marring a girl of 6 and consummating the marriage
when she was 9,the prophet was by all accounts 53!!!
No sooner had the post been put on site,then everyone
was posting their views,the amount of abuse I got back,just for asking if anyone else had a view on this,they were concerned I was just stirring up trouble,anything knocking Islam in any way and they come down on you like a ton of bricks,everyone uses a username,but you have no real idea of what the others are really like.
Dave,do you know of this story,muslims of today aren`t
resonsible for what went on 1500 years ago,I just wanted to know what others thought!!It`s not a direct attack on them,[would God have chosen this man as his new prophet].I have still to go thru your
site fully.Feel free to check out the bbc site,my username is goldsilversurfer,it`s all free,keep in touch, Adrian[north London]
I can see where criticism, explicit or implied, of the Prophet would be taken amiss.
I’m not an expert on (or even familiar with) the Hadith, so I can’t comment too much upon it. The historicity of hadith info, or its moral teachings, seems to be a matter of some debate amongst Moslems.
The hadith item (Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha) you refer to can be found here, and further documented and described (disapprovingly) here, whereas the hadith is declared “lies” here. Your Mileage May Vary.