living in a place where you can't even make a fucking joke. Can you say stone age.

But yes, friends and I never understood why. Well I know why but its still no excuse.

I assume you are speaking of Israel, sorry you would wrong.

so we have an excuse to invade where the monkeys land.

Over the course of the twentieth century, preserving the security not just of Saudi Arabia but of the entire Persian Gulf region and the flow of Middle Eastern oil were among the United States’ chief political-economic concerns.2 The pursuit of American power in the Gulf has been fraught with peril and has proved costly in terms of both blood and treasure. Oil has flowed, although not without difficulty. Since the late 1970s the Gulf has been rocked by revolution and almost permanent war. Security, if measured by the absence of conflict, has been elusive, and safeguarding the Persian Gulf and the region’s oil producers has meant increasingly more direct and dearer forms of U.S. intervention.

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the American military occupation there represented only the latest stage of American militarism in the Middle East. While more considerable in scale, duration, and devastation than previous military misadventures in the region, the Iraq War was the outgrowth of several decades of strategic thinking and policy making about oil. It is true, of course, that terrorism and especially the attacks of September 11, 2001, helped accelerate the drive to war in 2003, but to focus too much on 9/11 is to overlook and discount the ways that oil and oil producers have long been militarized, the role oil has played in regional confrontation for almost four decades, and the connections between the most recent confrontation with Iraq and those of the past.3 Oil and war have become increasingly interconnected in the Middle East. Indeed, that relationship has become a seemingly permanent one. This outcome was not inevitable; the United States has not only been mired in the middle, but its approach to oil has also abetted the outcome.

It is also important to understand the U.S. emphasis on security, and the contradictions of its approach to it, in a broader regional context. While this essay does not dwell on the U.S.-Israeli relationship, U.S. Persian Gulf policy and America’s relationship with the region’s oil producers were often at odds with the alliance between the United States and Israel. The tensions created by American policies in the Gulf have undermined U.S. claims about pursuing regional security more generally. This contradiction played out most spectacularly during the 1973 oil crisis.4

Next Section
The Strategic Logic of Militarism

The United States is not the only Western power with a history of war in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. In a rush to secure and expand their own supplies in the region, the British landed an expeditionary force near Basra in what is now Iraq in 1914. By 1918 the British captured Baghdad and ensconced themselves and their allies there, a perch from which they projected power for several decades.5 American ascendance in the Persian Gulf later in the century created a new pattern of militarism and war. Unlike its predecessors, the United States did not wage war out of old-fashioned imperial calculation or ambition. American oil wars have not been about establishing direct control over oil fields nor about liberation or freedom, at least not political freedom for the peoples of the region. Instead, they have primarily been about protecting friendly oil producers. The objective has not necessarily been to guarantee that Middle Eastern oil made its way to the United States, although meeting basic domestic energy needs remained a vital part of the broader calculation. Keeping prices stable (not low) and keeping pro-American regimes in power were central to U.S. strategic policy.

The pattern of militarism that began in the Persian Gulf in the 1970s has partly been the product of American support for and deliberate militarization of brutal and vulnerable authoritarian regimes. Massive weapons sales to oil autocrats and the decision to build a geopolitical military order in the Gulf that depended on and empowered those rulers resulted in a highly militarized and fragile balance of power. And from the 1970s on, oil-producing states have faced repeated internal and external threats, including domestic unrest, invasion, and regional or civil war, or at least the imminent prospect of turmoil. Such instability and conflict has had much to do, of course, with internal political problems, only some of which were the result of outside intervention. But the militarization that began in earnest under the United States’ watch exacerbated and accelerated those uncertainties and helped further destabilize oil-producing states and the region.

http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full

Even the ones we are not best friends with.

because, well, just because

I don't think you will find many people to disagree with you (maybe except government officials) if you take the view the 'House of Saud' should not be respected.

Najd, Saudi Arabia is the "birthplace of Wahabbism". Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born there in the 18th century, one of his followers was Muhammad bin Saud who started a long and bloody conflict (with beheadings) such as the Egypt & Wahabbi war and eventually Saudi Arabia was created and you get the picture.

The House of Saud and nearbly Peninsula states are state sponsors of Wahhabism. But the people that live there, how many of them are followers of the same sect? Not many. They are literally religious conservatives.

With all that said, why is Islam responsible? US had more to do with helping them than they did.

I don't recognize their laws, especially when its a religious law and not a law of the sovereign country that the murders took place in. Excuse me if I don't make excuses for these losers.

I don't know the definition of the sovereign law to well but wouldn't the religious law also be their sovereign law?

I 100% oppose laws & governments like this it seems you may not realize it is the sovereign country choosing this law.

It appears to be more of a free speech issue in Bangladesh. They usually ban copies, they did arrest someone but judge ordered his release and a fine.

After that it took a cartoon for them to arrest someone

(this reeks of Wahabbi influence)
All over the world, educated and illiterate women alike are being persecuted by religious fundamentalists for expressing their beliefs. Taslima Nasreen, the popular Bangladeshi writer, has been charged with having 'deliberately and maliciously caused hurt to religious sentiment', an offence under Section 295A of the Bangladeshi Penal code, 1860. The charges have been brought as a result of statements which she allegedly made during an interview with a Calcutta newspaper in which she is said to have stated that the Koran should be thoroughly revised. Four journalists were similarly charged even though it is a breach of international law for such a statement to be treated as a criminal offence.(2) Islamic fundamentalists offered rewards for her death

In 1993, the Bangladeshi Government, following increasing pressure from Islamic fundamentalists, banned Taslima Nasreen's book Lajja (Shame). The book raises the issue of Hindu minority rights in Bangladesh at a time when Hindus are regarded as the oppressive majority in India, on the grounds that it created 'misunderstanding between communities'. In 1994, after continued threats, Taslima Nasreen fled from Bangladesh to Sweden in fear of her life. Her lawyers are dealing with her case and she will only return to Bangladesh if the Government provides a clear guarantee for her safety.

If Taslima Nasreen is convicted, she could be sentenced to two years in prison. Her case has provoked clashes between fundamentalists and defenders of secularism. Millions died for the secular tradition inherent in Bangladeshi statehood which was established after the victory against Pakistan in 1971. In 1978, however, signs of creeping anti-secularism began to show when the Constitution of Bangladesh, which had enshrined secularism as one of its main principles, was modified to make Islam the state religion. Taslima Nasreen's case is being used by religious fundamentalists to demand the enactment of a blasphemy law, like the one currently in operation in Pakistan where the penalties are much higher - life imprisonment or death. This brings Bangladesh a step closer to being a repressive Islamic state which will further curb individual and minority rights and result in the demise of women's freedom in Bangladesh.

Intolerance in the name of religion
Britain also has a blasphemy law which was last used successfully in 1979(3). The current law on blasphemy in Britain protects Christianity alone, and its existence, in a modern democracy, provides legitimacy for Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh to demand their own law. Most other European countries (except Belgium and France) also have blasphemy laws.

http://www.isioma.net/sds00103.html

Egypt - Death penalty (Wahabbi influence here too)

In 1992, Nasr Abu Zayd (also Nasr Abu Zeid) submitted academic publications to a committee at Cairo University because he wanted to be promoted to the position of full professor. One member of the committee criticized the orthodoxy of Abu Zayd's devotion to Islam. The member said Abu Zayd's writings contained clear affronts to the Islamic faith. On 18 March 1993, Cairo University denied Abu Zayd a full professorship. Rabble-rousers called Abu Zayd an apostate, and threatened him. A lawyer made application to have Abu Zayd divorced from his wife on the ground that a Muslim woman cannot be married to an apostate. The group Egyptian Islamic Jihad called for the killing of Abu Zayd. The police had to protect Abu Zayd if he wanted to go anywhere. On 23 July 1995, Abu Zayd and his wife left Egypt. They settled in the Netherlands.[1][32][33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Egypt

Indonesia's blasphemy law is significantly different

Article 156(a) of Indonesia's Criminal Code forbids anyone from deliberately, in public, expressing feelings of hostility, hatred, or contempt against religions with the purpose of preventing others from adhering to any religion, and forbids anyone from disgracing a religion. The penalty for violating Article 156(a) is a maximum of five years of imprisonment.

Iran's law is somewhat shocking in comparison: Sunni, Bahai, Sufi, and Christians and to persecute dissidents and journalists. Persecuted individuals are subject to surveillance by the "religious police," harassment, prolonged detention, mistreatment, torture, and execution.[1][2][3] The courts have acquitted vigilantes who killed in the belief that their victims were engaged in un-Islamic activities.[4] [5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran

Obviously Wahabbi doesn't influence over Iranian laws but Shia militias backed by Iran are just as brutal as they are.

Blasphemy is also illegal in Israel and a lot of European countries too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

I think Pakistan is the new leader in worst blasphemy laws
The anti-blasphemy laws in Pakistan are quite complicated. Offenders may be vigorously prosecuted. Chapter XV of Pakistan Penal Code deals with "offences relating to religion":[63]

§295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class.[63]
§295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting Its religion or religious beliefs.[63]
§295-B. Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur'an.[63]
§295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet.[63]
§296. Disturbing religious assembly.[63]
§297. Trespassing on burial places, etc.[63]
§298. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.[63]
§298-A. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages.[63]
§298-B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places.[63]
§298-C. Person of Qadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith:[63]

There is a death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan. Those prosecuted are usually minorities such as Ahmadiyya and Christians but it seems that they are also increasingly Muslims.[64] Persons accused of blasphemy as well as police, lawyers, and judges have been subject to harassment, threats, attacks, and murders when blasphemy is the issue.[65]

In November 2008, Pakistan's government appointed Shahbaz Bhatti as Federal Minister for Minorities and gave him cabinet rank. Bhatti had promised that the Asif Ali Zardari government would review Pakistan's blasphemy laws.[66] Pakistan has been an active supporter of the campaign by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create global laws against blasphemy.[66] Minister Bhatti was shot dead on 2 March 2011 in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. On March 19, 2014, Pakistani English-language newspaper, The Nation, conducted a poll of its readers that showed 68% of Pakistanis believe the blasphemy law should be repealed.[67]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

I could go on but United States is actually an outlier in countries that don't have a blasphemy law

On edit - there may be enough overlap that both Sunnis and Wahabbis favor blasphemy laws

Nothing else to say about it.

it boggles my mind. it just seems so wrong. when do people achieve civilization?

and have stayed right there since the 11th century. Once it's good, you know, why change?

civilization is a work in progress - and progress will not come easy.

he is the one that started all of this

Pact with Muhammad bin Saud
First Saudi State (1744–1818)

Upon his expulsion from 'Uyayna, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab was invited to settle in neighboring Diriyah by its ruler Muhammad bin Saud. After some time in Diriyah, Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab concluded his second and more successful agreement with a ruler.[26] Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud agreed that, together, they would bring the Arabs of the peninsula back to the "true" principles of Islam as they saw it. According to one source, when they first met, bin Saud declared:

"This oasis is yours, do not fear your enemies. By the name of God, if all Nejd was summoned to throw you out, we will never agree to expel you."
—Madawi al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia: 16

Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab replied:

"You are the settlement's chief and wise man. I want you to grant me an oath that you will perform jihad (Struggle to spread Islam) against the unbelievers. In return you will be imam, leader of the Muslim community and I will be leader in religious matters."
—Madawi al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia: 16

The agreement was confirmed with a mutual oath of loyalty (bay'ah) in 1744.[27] Ibn Abd al-Wahhab would be responsible for religious matters and Ibn Saud in charge of political and military issues.[26] This agreement became a "mutual support pact"[citation needed] and power-sharing arrangement between the Al Saud family, and the Al ash-Sheikh and followers of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, which has remained in place for nearly 300 years,[28] providing the ideological impetus to Saudi expansion.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab

Anything to allow males to rape children

We are such hypocrites.

recent history tells us when a brutal dictator is overthrown in a Muslim country, that country doesn't move left, it moves right. So I guess, at least as far as Americans are concerned, leave the brutal dictator in. Lesson learned.

It would seem that life is better under a dictator, as long as you can get along with the government.

If Saudi had a regime change it could only be just as right as he is or left.

Are you referring to Iraq? I'm not sure moving the country to the left was the reason for going to war either there or anywhere, they basically replaced the brutal dictator with a brutal prime minister but it was under the appearance of a "fair government" so it riled up a lot of folks. Right or left, I'm not sure, probably right since liberals aren't interested in performing military raids into the homes of elected political opponents & bringing them up on various charges.

I think the lesson is the US fucked up shit so much in the last 100 years that any idea that "we'll get things right this time is remarkable foolish. Stop digging themselves & everyone else into a deeper hole.

"is as far right as you could possibly be" you seriously need a history lesson. I'm talking about Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria. Once the dictator was gone, democracy did not take his place. The religious freaks did.

I know a little about Iraq. The CIA & United States put in a notable Shia politician from the 70's as prime minister. One of his first actions was growing the Shia militia and I go into a long winded repeat, he went after elected Sunni politicians, killing one in his own home during a house raid, raided others, brought the highest ranking Sunni elected official on terrorism charges who now has Asylum in Turkey it wasn't until the same time period as those other countries they started protesting which were brutally oppressed for demanding things like Sunni participation in the new government, then enter ISIS. The democracy was there, the US just put the wrong person in charge who alienated the Sunnis and Kurds. Syria? Isn't the Ba'th party still in charge?

I would have to look into the others, Syria I never looked deeply into. Libya - I'll have to go back to as nothing jumps out at as me but except for low voter participation. President Morsi appeared to give himself Hitler powers (Enabling Act).

As far as Iraq the democracy was there, just the one guy that wasn't elected just happened to be the person that set democracy back.

However, "my as far to the right as you could be" applied to Saudi Arabia. Anyone else would have to be left since they're so far right.

and found out flogging is a very popular punishment over there. It is estimated up to 200 people a week are sentenced to floggings, but no one knows because the press is often forbidden to report them.

There was the 13 year old school girl who was flogged for fighting with her teacher, the women who were flogged for driving, and the occasional offender flogged on the spot by police floggers for some traffic violation. And who knows how many more...

Apparently, the Koran requires the flogger to hold a copy under his flogging arm so that he can't put too much muscle into it, but there are plenty of videos out there showing no such book being held. However, modern Saudi whippings are apparently not nearly as bad as the old British ones, which are still being done in places like Singapore.

It is, in the end, a primitive and barbaric punishment that has no place in the 21st Century.

(Didn't really have much in the 20th either. Or any other.)

And we'll be looking at something not so different. In Jezuz' name, amen.

is hardly helpful.

I'm returning No cursing, no impugning you and your viewpoint, (insulting as it was. Also, too unfocused. No reasoning to support your view) .

Just, to my logic, if the pukes steal any more inroads, it seems fully likely that an extreme fundamentalist system could be imposed upon the "rabble".

Sure, good chance I'm feeling down and depressed....If you could give me a realistic rebuttal without belittling me, that would be a Good Thing.

by the same constitution I am. Congress can't change it on a whim. Do you really think we're one teabagger away from getting 1000 lashes for blasphemy? All the hyperbole does us minimize what is happening to people right now, every single day, especially to women.

A point I make frequently around here. What's happening in repuke legislatures, and in the culture at large, that threatens women's lives.

And I think I remark regularly on the fact that larger social outcomes evolve, building on these very "small" day to day events.

I dont consider what I said to be hyperbole.

Read "The Rise of the Third Reich", read "The Handmaid's Tale", for examples of how daily, seemingly separate outrages, accepted piece by piece over time eventually aggregate to form a society brainwashed and willing to throw their weakest to the fascist grinder, thinking they can save their own skins.

Originally, he was expected to be sentenced to death for apostasy, for instance, as published by AFP:
“A Saudi court on Monday referred a rights activist to a higher court for alleged apostasy, a charge that could lead to the death penalty in the ultra-conservative kingdom, activists said.
A judge at a lower court referred Raef Badawi to a higher court, declaring that he "could not give a verdict in a case of apostasy," a rights activist told AFP.

Apostasy means renunciation of a religious faith.
Badawi, who was arrested a June in the Red Sea city of Jeddah for unknown reasons, is a co-founder of the Saudi Liberal Network with female rights activist Suad al-Shammari and others.”

nt

has capital punishment for drug possession, adultery, witchcraft, bible possession. If a man sodomizes a woman with her consent they are both put to death.

They do beheadings, stonings, they'll even roll out a crucifiction. Truly bizarre.

Saudi Arabia, the west's closest ally (other than Israel) in the Middle East, is possibly the most extremist Islamic country in the world and so using them as a stick to bash the rest of Islam is not that much different than using the actions of a few terrorists to justify criticism of the religion of 23% of all human beings.

Reza Aslan made the same point very well in this interview with CNN, which really opened my eyes on how easy it is to inadvertently become an Islamophobic:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reza-aslan-slams-maher-for-facile-arguments-about-muslim-violence/

(Edit: this interview with Reza is also worth watching:

Saudi Arabia, shrug.