Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Monday November 06 2017, @04:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the cleaning-house dept.

Something is definitely going on in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi authorities arrested at least 11 princes, several current ministers and dozens of former ministers in a sweeping move reportedly designed to consolidate power for the son of King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud. According to media reports citing Saudi-owned television network Al Arabiya, an anti-corruption committee ordered the arrests hours after King Salman directed the creation of the committee, headed by his favorite son and adviser, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The committee was established by the royal decree, The Associated Press reports, "due to the propensity of some people for abuse, putting their personal interest above public interest, and stealing public funds." Billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is among those detained, The Wall Street Journal reports. Alwaleed holds stakes in some of the world's major companies, including Apple and Twitter.

Remember Prince Alwaleed? Bitcoin could outlive him.

It's unclear what those arrested are accused of doing, but Al-Arabiya reported that new investigations into the 2009 Jeddah floods and 2012 MERS virus outbreak have been launched.

Separately, the heads of the Saudi National Guard and Saudi Royal Navy have also been replaced.

BBC notes that the reform faction is in control here:

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Prince Mohammed is moving to consolidate his growing power while spearheading a reform programme. [...] Prince Mohammed recently said the return of "moderate Islam" was key to his plans to modernise Saudi Arabia. Addressing an economic conference in Riyadh, he vowed to "eradicate the remnants of extremism very soon". Last year, Prince Mohammed unveiled a wide-ranging plan to bring social and economic change to the oil-dependent kingdom.

Some Soylentils have been skeptical of Saudi Arabia's recent moves towards liberalization (some listed below). Has this apparent purge of internal political opposition changed your mind about the viability of these reforms?

Related Stories

SoftBank May Sell 25% of ARM to Vision Fund; Chairman Meets With Saudi King 9 comments

SoftBank will reportedly sell a 25% stake in ARM ($8 billion) to the ~$100 billion investment fund it has jointly created with Saudi Arabia, Apple, and others. ARM Holdings was bought by SoftBank for around $32 billion last year.

SoftBank Chairman Masayoshi Son met with Saudi King Salman during the King's state visit to Japan. Son gave the King one of his company's humanoid robots. Saudi Arabia is seeking investors as it prepares to launch an initial public offering for Saudi Aramco. Toyota agreed to conduct a feasibility study into the idea of production in Saudi Arabia, the result of one of twenty memorandums of understanding signed by Japanese companies and institutions with Saudi Arabia.

Also at The Telegraph, and Arab News (extra).

Related: Softbank to Invest $50 Billion in the US


Original Submission

Saudi Arabia, UAE to Donate to Women Entrepreneurs Fund 10 comments

The Wall Street Journal reported that the World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund, an idea that the president's elder daughter proposed, will work to help women in the Middle East who want to start their own businesses.

The [$100 million] donation from Saudi Arabia and the UAE was set to be announced at a Sunday event with President Trump's daughter, according to the report.

The first daughter spoke with Saudi women who are civil leaders, businesswomen and elected government officials during the president's first foreign trip.

The Hill

The announcement by World Bank President Jim Young Kim came during a visit to Saudi Arabia by President Trump, who was accompanied by his wife, Melania, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

"We thought it was a fantastic idea," Kim said. "But we had no idea how quickly this would build. This is really a stunning achievement. I've never seen anything come together so quickly, and I really have to say that Ivanka's leadership has been tremendous." The money will help kick off a $1 billion women's empowerment fund that the World Bank will announce in July, he said.

NPR

additional coverage:


Original Submission

Saudi Arabia to Lift Ban on Online VoIP and Video Calling Services 11 comments

Saudia Arabia will lift a 2013 ban on Internet calling services:

Saudi Arabia will lift a ban on internet phone calls, a government spokesman said, part of efforts to attract more business to the country. All online voice and video call services such as Microsoft's Skype and Facebook's WhatsApp that satisfy regulatory requirements will become accessible at midnight (2100 GMT), Adel Abu Hameed, spokesman for the telecoms regulator CITC said on Twitter on Wednesday.

The policy reversal represents part of the Saudi government's broad reforms to diversify the economy partly in response to low oil prices, which have hit the country's finances. "Digital transformation is one of the key kick-starters for the Saudi economy, as it will incentivise the growth of internet-based businesses, especially in the media and entertainment industries," a statement from the information ministry said. "Access to VoIP (voice over internet protocol) will reduce operational costs and spur digital entrepreneurship – that's why it is such an important step in the Kingdom's internet regulation," it said.

Perhaps they found the backdoors.

Also at TechCrunch.


Original Submission

Saudi Arabia Will Lift Ban on Women Drivers Next Year 17 comments

Saudi Arabia will lift its ban on women drivers in June 2018, in a move the interior minister said would "transform traffic safety":

Saudi Arabia's lifting of a much criticized ban on women drivers will reduce the number of car crashes in a country with one of the world's worst traffic-related death rates, its interior minister said on Thursday.

King Salman announced the historic change on Tuesday, ending a conservative tradition which limited women's mobility and was seen by rights activists as an emblem of their suppression in the kingdom where Islam originated.

Saudi Arabia was the only remaining country in the world to bar women from driving, a policy that will officially end in June 2018 after a ministerial committee reports on measures needed for implementation.

Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef, the interior minister who took over from his uncle in June, said security forces were ready to apply traffic laws to men and women, though he did not mention if women would be recruited as traffic police.

"Women driving cars will transform traffic safety into a pedagogical practice which will reduce human and economic losses caused by accidents," he was quoted as saying on the ministry's official Twitter feed. He did not elaborate.

The current King of Saudi Arabia was crowned on January 23, 2015.

Also at the Washington Post. NYT has teaching activities for your students.

Related: Saudi Arabia, UAE to Donate to Women Entrepreneurs Fund
Saudi Arabia to Lift Ban on Online VoIP and Video Calling Services


Original Submission

Saudi Arabia Planning $500 Billion Megacity and Business Zone 27 comments

Saudi Arabia is planning to build a new $500+ billion city on the coast of the Red Sea. The zone will be connected to Jordan by land and Egypt by a bridge across the Red Sea. SoftBank's Vision Fund will buy a stake in the state-owned Saudi Electricity Co., which will power the city using clean energy. The project is called NEOM:

Saudi Arabia has unveiled plans to build a new city and business zone - a project that will be backed up by more than $500bn (£381bn) in investment.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman says the 26,500 sq km (10,232 sq mile) NEOM zone will be developed in the north-west, extending to Egypt and Jordan.

It will focus on nine sectors including food technology and, energy and water.

The crown prince has been leading a drive to move Saudi Arabia away from its dependence on oil revenues.

In August, the Gulf kingdom launched a massive tourism development project to turn 50 islands and other sites on the Red Sea into luxury resorts.

However, the extremely ambitious nature of Mohammed bin Salman's vision is sure to raise questions about how realistic it is, the BBC's economics correspondent Andrew Walker says.

What is "NEOM"? "Neo" (Latin for "new") + "Mostaqbal" (Arabic for "future").

Also at Bloomberg (alternate editorial) and Reuters.

Related: SoftBank's $80-100 Billion "Vision Fund" Takes Shape
SoftBank May Sell 25% of ARM to Vision Fund; Chairman Meets With Saudi King


Original Submission

Saudi Prince Predicts Demise for Bitcoin 46 comments

Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed has joined a growing group of Bitcoin skeptics:

Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed is joining the long line of skeptics saying bitcoin is a bubble as the digital currency continues to set record highs. "I just don't believe in this bitcoin thing. I think it's just going to implode one day. I think this is Enron in the making," Alwaleed told CNBC in an interview. "It just doesn't make sense. This thing is not regulated, it's not under control, it's not under the supervision" of any central bank, he said.

In his interview with CNBC, he said that the high price of Uber made Lyft a more attractive investment:

"We were in discussions with both Uber and Lyft, but when we evaluated both companies, we thought that Lyft is a better entry point for us. Because at that time, Uber's price was at a plateau of its highest height. So we invested in Lyft, and we have a very good relationship with .... the management," Alwaleed said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box. "But Uber still is a great company, obviously, and Uber is the company that began with this whole idea of shared rides. Our choice was to go with Lyft but it doesn't mean that Uber is not good."

Alwaleed, who runs Kingdom Holding, made his comments on the heels of a Wall Street Journal report that another Saudi fund, state-owned Public Investment Fund, was struggling to deal with a disappointing investment in Uber.

Robot Granted "Citizenship" in Saudi Arabia, Sparking Backlash 32 comments

A feminine robot has apparently been granted "citizenship" in Saudi Arabia, sparking a heated discussion over a lack of rights for women and foreign workers:

A robot woman in Saudi Arabia was granted citizenship this week, sparking a backlash that said the robot appeared to have more rights than millions of human women and foreigners living in the Gulf nation. Sophia, a robot with human female features that can make facial expressions and hold conversations, wooed the crowd when it debuted at a economic summit in the country's capital, Riyadh, this week.

As it stood on stage during a panel Wednesday, the robot learned from the moderator, CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin, that Saudi Arabia had granted it what Sorkin called "the first Saudi citizenship for a robot." "I'm very honored and proud for this unique distinction," Sophia said, to applause. "This is historical to be the first robot in the world to be recognized with a citizenship."

[...] Soon after, though, social media users pointed out that Sophia had quickly achieved more rights than millions of women and foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, which has been criticized globally for repressing women's and civil rights.

For one, Sophia appeared on stage alone, without the modest dress required of Saudi women; she donned no hijab, or headscarf, nor abaya, or cloak. She also did not appear to have a male guardian, as required by Saudi law for women in the country. Male guardians, often a male relative, must give permission before women can travel abroad, open bank accounts or carry out a host of other tasks -- and they accompany women in public. Sophia also seems to have leapfrogged foreign workers in the Saudi kingdom, many of whom have fled poor working conditions but are prevented by law from leaving the country.

The robot also trolled Elon Musk:

Saudi Arabia Announced Plans to Extract Uranium for Domestic Nuclear Power Program 43 comments

Saudi Arabia to extract uranium for 'self-sufficient' nuclear program

Saudi Arabia plans to extract uranium domestically as part of its nuclear power program and sees this as a step towards "self-sufficiency" in producing atomic fuel, a senior official said on Monday.

Extracting its own uranium also makes sense from an economic point of view, said Hashim bin Abdullah Yamani, head of the Saudi government agency tasked with the nuclear plans, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KACARE).

In a speech at an international nuclear power conference in Abu Dhabi, he did not specify whether Saudi Arabia seeks to also enrich and reprocess uranium – steps in the fuel cycle which are especially sensitive as they can open up the possibility of military uses of the material.

The world's top oil exporter says it wants to tap atomic power for peaceful purposes only in order to diversify its energy supply and will award a construction contract for its first two nuclear reactors by the end of 2018.

Meanwhile, women will be allowed to attend sporting events at stadiums. And here's a message for the skeptics (editorial).

Also at Newsweek.

Previously: Saudi Arabia Will Lift Ban on Women Drivers Next Year
Saudi Arabia Planning $500 Billion Megacity and Business Zone
Robot Granted "Citizenship" in Saudi Arabia, Sparking Backlash


Original Submission

Google and Aramco in Talks to Build a "Tech Hub" in Saudi Arabia 12 comments

Saudi Aramco and Alphabet/Google may cooperate on a "technology hub" within Saudi Arabia, or at least build some data centers:

Saudi Aramco, the world's largest energy company, and Google parent Alphabet have entered discussions to create a technology hub in Saudi Arabia, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The kingdom is embarking upon an ambitious plan, led by the 32-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, to diversify the nation's oil-dependent economy. The foundation of the effort is a plan to create a huge sovereign wealth fund, underwritten by selling shares in the state-owned Aramco.

The initial public offering, which could happen this year, is expected to be the world's biggest-ever share sale. Aramco President and CEO Amin Nasser recently told CNBC his company is ready for the IPO this year, but is waiting on the government to choose an international list venue.

Alphabet and Aramco have discussed forming a joint venture that would build data centers around the kingdom, sources familiar with the matter tell the Journal. It remains to be seen which customers the data centers would serve and how large the joint venture would be, but it could be listed in the Saudi stock exchange, the sources said.

Data centers are just a "tangible" area of cooperation, not necessarily the entire purpose of the joint venture. Saudi Arabia has talked about building a $500+ billion "megacity" that would be technology-focused.

Meanwhile, slightly-less-of-a-billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has been put back to work:

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @04:27PM (14 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @04:27PM (#593146) Journal

    Some Soylentils have been skeptical of Saudi Arabia's recent moves towards liberalization (some listed below). Has this apparent purge of internal political opposition changed your mind about the viability of these reforms?

    As a whole, it's a positive move. But true liberalization will only happen when the Saud family is replaced by a democracy.

    Let us also keep in mind that the people who are down and out now, may be back in power later (or a revolution may sweep away all the current players). It sounds like we're close to a transition in power (from the death or abdication of King Al Saud), and who ends up on top may be very different from who is on top now.

    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday November 06 2017, @04:36PM (2 children)

      by Sulla (5173) on Monday November 06 2017, @04:36PM (#593153) Journal

      Also in the news is the helicopter that was supposedly shot down by Yemen and being blamed on Iran. One of the princes died in the crash.

      --
      "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 06 2017, @06:28PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 06 2017, @06:28PM (#593222) Homepage

        Given ongoing hostilities between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, that story is at least plausible. Or it's possible that the king sent said prince to a known dangerous location in the hopes that he might get killed off by the enemy, even if he didn't actually arrange for him to be killed.

        --
        A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
        • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:57AM

          by choose another one (515) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:57AM (#593593)

          Also possible said prince was trying to skip the country and was stopped, hard, with Yemen / Iran being an awfully convenient way to point the blame. I doubt we'll ever know.

          What is clear is that being a Saudi royal has suddenly become awfully tricky and probably a lot less fun. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:47PM (#593158)

      They should not try to go too fast or too far.

      For one thing, if they allow women into stadiums now, they should separate the men and women sections, and have separate entrances for both. The women will thank you.

      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:18AM

        by driverless (4770) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:18AM (#593434)

        They should not try to go too fast or too far.

        Exactly. It's one thing to let women ride on the inside of the bus, but not requiring homosexuals to wear blue hats might be a step too far.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Monday November 06 2017, @04:58PM (2 children)

      by looorg (578) on Monday November 06 2017, @04:58PM (#593163)

      Some Soylentils have been skeptical of Saudi Arabia's recent moves towards liberalization (some listed below). Has this apparent purge of internal political opposition changed your mind about the viability of these reforms?

      I'm less certain this is anything positive about this or a move towards liberalism. I think this is the usual or some normal "Game of Thrones" like schemes where all the royalties and pretenders are trying to off or outmaneuver each other to attain, more, power.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:28PM (#593178)

        The crackdown is from the king. And the people he's cracking down on are some of the most egregiously corrupt individuals. And he's privatizing the country's oil resources. I also remain cynical, but only because it's Saudi Arabia. Outside of my own personal biases, all evidence directly supports the stated purpose of these actions.

        And, I don't think many people appreciate the Saudi system of succession. There are currently 15,000 [economist.com] living highnesses and royal highnesses. And those are people with direct lineage from the king. Start adding in cousins and increasingly distant connections and you probably have hundreds of thousands of players. Gotta remember the whole have 30 wives and 100 children trick. It multiplies fast. The Al Saud sequence own the Fibonacci sequence. In spite of regular succession and even an occasional critical event, anything on this scale is completely unprecedented. So again, I think the onus of arguing why this is not what it seems is on the people making such claims - even if they're the one naturally want to believe as it certainly confirms our own biases.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @06:24PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:24PM (#593219) Journal

        I'm less certain this is anything positive about this or a move towards liberalism. I think this is the usual or some normal "Game of Thrones" like schemes where all the royalties and pretenders are trying to off or outmaneuver each other to attain, more, power.

        I guess that depends on whether you think an increase (slight, but still an increase) in personal freedom as part of these games is a move towards liberalism or not. Some people don't, choosing instead an imaginary "communal" freedom [soylentnews.org].

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by bob_super on Monday November 06 2017, @05:44PM (3 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 06 2017, @05:44PM (#593190)

      > But true liberalization will only happen when the Saud family is replaced by a democracy.

      True economic progress will only come to China when the PCC is replaced by a democracy, for sure.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @06:02PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:02PM (#593203) Journal
        Is there a reason you chose to conflate liberalization with economic progress?
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 06 2017, @06:44PM (1 child)

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 06 2017, @06:44PM (#593234)

          Am I conflating those two, or pointing out that undemocratic rulers can deliver benefits for their people in ways our propaganda doesn't predict?

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @07:09PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @07:09PM (#593254) Journal

            Am I conflating those two, or pointing out that undemocratic rulers can deliver benefits for their people in ways our propaganda doesn't predict?

            Conflating. Else you would have written something different in the first place. Economic progress is very different from liberalization. You can have a great deal of economic progress in an authoritarian government - numerous countries have shown how (Japan, China, Taiwan, etc). You can't have a great deal of liberalization, that is freedom, in an authoritarian government by definition. True liberalization requires the political freedom of democracy.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday November 06 2017, @05:58PM (1 child)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @05:58PM (#593201)

      Sorry, but when there's a lot of power concentrated together in one place, the elimination of potential rivals to the top post isn't exactly "liberalism". It's being portrayed as such, and that's a good PR move, and may indicate the potential for an "enlightened monarch", but the politics looks like "get rid of my rivals for power".

      As to what it actually means, I'm going to wait for actual changes before deciding. This isn't exactly either a hopeful or a disastrous sign. To me this is a sign that normal monarchy politics is going on. Read your MacBeth and understand that that was a historical novel. The actual events took place over a span of around 20 years, but it's a page from Scots history. Richard III is a play that Shakespeare wrote to whitewash a particularly nasty piece of political maneuvering that had taken place a generation or so earlier. Etc. (Nobody really knows what Richard III looked like, or whether he was particularly vile. He could have been, or that could just have been propaganda.) Even regicide by the crown prince isn't that uncommon. And it doesn't mean that the new monarch will be either good or bad as far as his actions towards the populace of the country...though if he's blatant it means he'll be needing to put down a bit of extra unrest.

      --
      Put not your faith in princes.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @06:08PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:08PM (#593209) Journal

        Sorry, but when there's a lot of power concentrated together in one place, the elimination of potential rivals to the top post isn't exactly "liberalism".

        Nor did I say it was. My view is that the actual liberalization, things like allowing women to drive, is more likely to stick if it's being done in conjunction with a successful transfer of power to the next generation of rulers.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 06 2017, @05:22PM (13 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 06 2017, @05:22PM (#593173) Homepage

    Monarchs with real authority (unlike, say, Japan's imperial family) are first and foremost concerned with remaining in power, and since they're monarchs they can and will kill off their opponents whenever it suits them.

    And I should point out that the main difference between a dictator and a monarch is the titles they use. There's no real difference in the principles used to organize government in, say, North Korea versus Bahrain.

    --
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 06 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @05:39PM (#593186) Journal

      There's no real difference in the principles used to organize government in, say, North Korea versus Bahrain.

      Not sure that is totally true.

      A huge wealth concentrated and enormous cash inflow in the hands of a leader (be he monarch or dictator) buys a lot of loyalty, where threat of execution via anti-aircraft gun buys fear and loathing.

      A subject of the Monarch may actually lift a finger in his majesty's defense. If for no other reason than to preserve his own revenue stream.
      Not sure that works for the dictator.

      Classic carrot and stick situation.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 06 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 06 2017, @06:16PM (#593212) Homepage

        Both Bahrain and North Korea use both the carrot (wealth and/or power given out by the head of state) and the stick (threats of execution).

        For example, as far as outsiders can tell, North Koreans are pretty eager to join the military. Why? Because soldiers get fed before civilians do. But of course North Koreans also face the constant threat of execution by their government.

        Bahrain of course has oil money coming in that the monarch can dole out as he sees fit. That said, a major reason Bahrain's monarch wasn't overthrown during the "Arab Spring" protests is that he simply had a bunch of the protesters killed (this didn't get a lot of press in the West because Bahrain is generally friendly to Western governments).

        And in both nations, I'm sure you'll find True Believers who genuinely support their nations' leaders. Propaganda is good for that sort of thing.

        --
        A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @08:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @08:09PM (#593278)

          It's a lot more nuanced than this. In North Korea there is only one ethnic group, where as in Bhahrain there are two (yes technically both Arabs). The Sunnis, which are in power, only represent about 40% of the permanent population (just like any other Gulf state there is a huge amount of guest workers that do the actual work). But they tend to immigrate lot of Sunnis from other nearby countries (like Saudi Arabia) to work in their security apparatus. The Shia "majority" has long been oppressed, and is keen to overthrow the Sunni rule with help of Iran, but many of their recent plots have been very expertly disassembled before they could happen.

          The rulers enjoy support from the 40% Sunni population, thus it is not the case of a despot at the top. In such a case a revolution is unlikely to succeed unless there is a direct outside intervention. And any time there is even a hint of unrest, Saudi Arabia sends in armored convoys of troops to help put down the current troubles over the causeway that links the two countries. (See example [wikipedia.org])

          It is a very strange land from what I have read. Think about a less conservative Islamic country that has May 1st as a national holiday and universal healthcare.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @05:46PM

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Monday November 06 2017, @05:46PM (#593193) Journal

      Liberalization (in some but not every aspect) can happen even with the Saudi royals remaining in control of the government. See the rest of this comment. [soylentnews.org]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 06 2017, @06:26PM (4 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:26PM (#593221)

      The difference between a monarch and a dictator is about three generations. If the descendants of a dictator hold power for three generations, then he's a effectively a monarch, no matter how you translate the words. Socially a monarch has a traditional inherited train of power behind him that people accept, so they are more willing to accept one of his descendants as heir to power than some outsider. Don't take this too literally. In Anglo-saxon times the next king would be the heir a certain degree of relationship to the current king selected by, I believe it was called, the council of elders (elderly powerful nobles). So there could be lots of contenders. I believe that the candidates included the sons of the current king and also his nephews. I don't think daughters or neices were ever selected, though if you go further back before the united country they sometimes were...but probably only under unusual circumstances. But some groups preferred leadership to pass to the sons of a sister of the current king...and I believe it's from these groups that we get the word "king".

      So there *is* a difference between a king and a dictator, but it's not a sharp distinction. William of Normandy had a right to the throne of England, it was just a very secondary and watered down right. He would never have been selected by the council, because his power-base was outside of England. So he required massive military force to hold the throne. His son needed a lot less force...and not just because there'd been established a new nobility, in fact that was a cause of much of the on-going unrest. Even so, William of Normandy was a king. He was someone who *could* have been selected by the council. But it would also be fair to call him a dictator. He was an usurper who held power by massive military force.

      --
      Put not your faith in princes.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 06 2017, @08:20PM (3 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 06 2017, @08:20PM (#593284)

        The council of elders in Anglo-Saxon England was known as the Witenagemot, and they selected Harold Godwinson as king when both William and Harald Hardrada of Norway had claims to the throne.

        Harold defeated an invasion by Harald Hardrada but could not also see off William and was killed at Hastings.

        William's claim to the throne was pretty dubious really, Edward the Confessor was his cousin and had been forced into making William his heir, but William was good at the conquering bit.
        Anglo-Saxon kings needed the support of the Witenagemot as they did not rule over the country directly, but through the Theyns and clergy, so William put his own people into those positions (largely).

        End of history lesson for today.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:50PM (#593339)

          Thanks.

          Now back to the regular information-free programming from our familiar right-wing puppets. This place is becoming almost unreadable lately.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:23AM (1 child)

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:23AM (#593466) Journal
          "William's claim to the throne was pretty dubious really, Edward the Confessor was his cousin and had been forced into making William his heir, but William was good at the conquering bit."

          Well in addition to that he had the blessing and support of the Pope - the invasion of England was actually an early crusade. This was a very interesting period of time from that point of view - this was arguably an early and successful crusade. William conquered with the Popes help and then he proceeded to aid the Pope in removing traditionalist clergy and replacing them with men loyal to Rome.
          --
          "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:06PM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:06PM (#593767)

            Quite right. I didn't want to turn my comment into a full on lecture, (unless anyone needs some credits for a paper?) but we forget how politically powerful the Church was during the Middle Ages.

    • (Score: 1) by Arik on Monday November 06 2017, @11:03PM (3 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Monday November 06 2017, @11:03PM (#593347) Journal
      "And I should point out that the main difference between a dictator and a monarch is the titles they use. There's no real difference in the principles used to organize government in, say, North Korea versus Bahrain."

      No, that's not the difference at all.

      The difference is that a dictator (very few if any actually use that title, btw, they're typically called 'President' or something similar) is formally above the law while a monarch is theoretically just as subject to it as anyone else.
      --
      "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by dry on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:15AM (2 children)

        by dry (223) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:15AM (#593534) Journal

        Actually Monarchs have often been above the law. Even today, the Queen of England is above the law. She doesn't bother with things like license plates for her car or even licenses for her dogs because she is above the law. Since she personifies the courts, she can't be hauled into court as she is the court.
        On the other hand, there is Parliament, which today (and since 1688 if not before) is Supreme and can fire her and is in charge of the succession.
        Going back a ways, most Kings were above the law, though they usually had to play nice to keep the support of the people. Nobody likes a despot.

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:51AM (1 child)

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:51AM (#593558) Journal
          I'm sorry, that was a well-written friendly post, but it's not correct.

          The Queen of England is not above the law. She may well have an exemption for license plates, and I imagine if a dog-catcher ever had the opportunity to check her license he would have more important things to do at the moment, but that doesn't make you above the law. The Queen of England, meaning the current human to occupy the throne, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary etc. is not above the law in any sense of the word. Her authority was granted to her by the law; now in her case, we may well remark that the law seems to give her a great deal more authority than she has ever used; and that sober observers have often expressed skepticism that the legal authority is even usable at this point; and yes indeed that those UK Courts claim to operate in her name which could certainly lead one to doubt their ability to bring her to heel should they need to (except that contradicts directly all those learned individuals that claim her legal authority is fictive and unusable - one of those might be true but not both at once surely?) But none of this in any way weakens the conclusion that she owes her office to the law, and her powers are bound by the law, rather than the other way around.

          The office itself might be in some sense placed above the law, yes, but the person occupying the office is not.

          "Going back a ways, most Kings were above the law, though they usually had to play nice to keep the support of the people. Nobody likes a despot."

          Well I'm not really sure how far back you're trying to go, and I'm not sure you are either.

          Certainly there was an earlier time when the King of England had significant personal power, there was a time when people took seriously the 'divine right of kings' to rule.

          The 'divine right of kings,' by the way, was an invention of the roman "christian" church. Well no I can't credit them with inventing it, or anything else, but at any rate they introduced it quite deliberately, and like many of their adaptions there was a very specific way this helped them to spread their religion and thus their authority. This was because the traditional Kings in pagan Europe had nowhere near absolute power. Just like dear Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, they were men appointed by law to serve the law, not dictators or tyrants. The details differed from tribe to tribe but these were most often men elected by an assembly of nobles, to serve specific duties typically concerned with religious ceremonies and war, whose powers were limited and whose office could be retracted as easily as it was given.

          The moment one of these Kings proclaimed his realm Christian, he would apply Christian law, NOW he's nearly an absolute ruler. Now the nobles can no longer depose him. Only the Pope.

          Historically, well in Sweden the next step was to call that noble council back together, get them real drunk, then murder them all in the night.

          No, Virginia, the Pope was not muslim.

          Anyhow, going back a bit further, in tribal organizations, you do have dictators occasionally, and you see that in chimps too. But the funny thing is, most people naïvely expect that to be every case, or at least the norm... nah. It's actually pretty rare. The reason is because it's unstable. Sure you're the biggest baddest chimpanzee, you decide you're in charge, you can do what you want, right?

          Not really. You're number 1 but if it's a healthy tribe or chimpanzee troop you aren't the only badass. You need at the very least 2 more badasses, minimum, or your group is just too vulnerable to other groups to last. And if you're number 1, but number 2 and 3 decide enough's enough and team up, they're probably going to get you. In a chimp troop the dictator literally gets dismembered alive, it's disturbing, and I'm sure our species is no less so in similar situations. And look, even if you manage to beat the odds and take down number 2 and 3 when they team up on you, uh, how are you going to keep the neighbor tribe with 5 up and coming badasses out now, did you think of that?

          So no, typically the leader doesn't even want to take that dictator role. It's just too dangerous. The leader is typically one that pays attention to all the other members and knows what they need, and provides it often enough to keep them in his dept. And that's the very core, the very start, of the leader being subject to the law. He can keep the others in line most effectively precisely because he has a reputation for staying in line himself.

          --
          "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:47AM

            by dry (223) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:47AM (#593961) Journal

            From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Other_immunities [wikipedia.org]

            The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases; members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.[37] No arrest can be made "in the monarch's presence", or within the "verges" of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.[38]

            The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another's land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.[39]

            Amongst other references, there's also http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625 [royalcentral.co.uk] which includes this quote from the official Monarchy website,

            Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

            You seem to be confusing being above the law and acting as you're above the law. And as you say, the Queens position comes from the law as legislated by Parliament and has since the Tudor times and especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

            How the pre-conquest Kings became King seems to be somewhat lost to history as various 19th century historians elevated the rules that were followed to add even more legitimacy to Parliaments supremacy.
            William the Conqueror did rule as a absolute monarch along with his descendants though of course they needed the support of the Barony. By Henry VII Parliament had enough power that Henry had to have them back date his accession to the Crown by a day so he could prosecute his rivals as being treasonous but he did become King by basically defeating the King in battle and claiming the Crown and having the power to bully Parliament in to doing what he wanted. His son Henry the 8th also had a lot of power but still had to get Parliament to agree to the execution of some wives and the succession became a matter of legislation, which was why Lady Jane was executed even though Edward had declared her his successor. Then of course the Stuarts, who really did believe in the divine right of kings and suffered for it.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @05:25PM (9 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @05:25PM (#593176) Journal

    What liberalization? Women allowed to drive? That's an economic thing, not a liberalization of the culture.

    Saudi Arabia, the home of the most extreme Muslims on earth (wabbi) because Saudi Arabia itself is extreme. As the "guardians of Mecca" and all that THAT entails, SA is pretty damned extreme. https://www.mapsofworld.com/saudi-arabia/cities/makkah.html [mapsofworld.com] How many non-Muslims have you seen walking about in Saudi Arabia? Non-conformists are dealt with at Chop Chop Square, with the sanction of the House of Saud.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GsG4y7JoQY [youtube.com]

    This is nothing more, and nothing less, than a consolidation of power. Potential rivals to the throne are being disposed of. They probably will sweep up some corruption and graft, but that isn't the real goal at all.

    --
    #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @05:44PM

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Monday November 06 2017, @05:44PM (#593191) Journal

      Allowed to drive, allowed in sports stadiums, and no Islamic dress code in the $500 billion megacity. There is unease between the House of Saud and Wahhabi Islam, and an apparent trajectory towards marginalizing Wahhabi Islam. Liberalization can happen even with the Saudi royals remaining in control of the government.

      It doesn't matter that it is a Muslim country. Today's generation of young Muslims tend to be more liberal (not in every case, but as a whole). The Internet can probably be thanked for that.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_in_Saudi_Arabia#Suffrage_and_political_engagement [wikipedia.org]

      Saudi youth are wanting a say in governmental policies and procedures because of their increased exposure to the world through social media and the difficulties they are facing (unemployment, living costs and education). In 2012, it was estimated that YouTube use in the country increased 260%, and an estimated one-third of Saudis are active Twitter users. Saudi youth will use Twitter in order to voice their discontent over a lack of political rights, and sixty-three percent of youth said that they would like the government to give them increased participation and access to formulating and implementing policy at the local level in a 2011 survey.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/02/saudi-prince-reforms-society-rigid-youth-restless [theguardian.com]

      An absolute monarchy with a bloated, inefficient public sector, a huge government payroll and a resistance to change was never going to be an easy target. Add to that a mindset of entitlement among many Saudi young people and low productivity, and the challenges seem close to insurmountable. Central to the young prince’s plan is unlocking wealth and giving its citizens a buy-in. As sweeteners, he has also thrown in cultural reforms, such as opening cinemas, promoting concerts and other enhancements to social life that many Saudis crave.

      [...] More than 60% of the Saudi population is aged under 30 and among that demographic are large numbers of disenfranchised youngsters dissatisfied with the current social contract, which is bound up in rigidly conservative rules governing social interactions. Entertainment and fraternisation are mostly outlawed. Jobs are few, and often menial. There are fears that in the absence of credible alternatives, extremist groups may provide a lure.

      [...] “They are hoping for whole shift in values set within a generation. To do this, they will have to take on the clerics at the same time as building a new economy.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid#The_Middle_East_and_North_Africa [wikipedia.org]

      The Middle East and North Africa are currently experiencing a prominent youth bulge. "Across the Middle East, countries have experienced a pronounced increase in the size of their youth populations over recent decades, both in total numbers and as a percentage of the total population. Today, the nearly 111 million individuals aging between 15 to 29 living across the region make up nearly 27 percent of the region’s population." Structural changes in service provision, especially health care, beginning in the 1960s created the conditions for a demographic explosion, which has resulted in a population consisting primarily of younger people. It is estimated that around 65% of the regional population is under the age of 30.

      The Middle East has invested more in education, including religious education, than most other regions such that education is available to most children. However, that education has not led to higher levels of employment, and youth unemployment is currently at 25%, the highest of any single region. Of this 25%, over half are first time entrants into the job market.

      Similar story in Iran:

      http://www.huckmagazine.com/perspectives/activism-2/iran-liberal-youth-grassroots-revolution-activism/ [huckmagazine.com]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @06:05PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:05PM (#593207) Journal

      What liberalization? Women allowed to drive? That's an economic thing, not a liberalization of the culture.

      Why make an artificial distinction when both categories apply? It's not exclusive or, here.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 06 2017, @06:33PM (5 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:33PM (#593224)

      Women allowed to drive *is* a liberalization. It's not what I consider fair or just, but it's a move towards that from a more extreme position. Saying that it's for economic reasons is talking about justification, not about action. You're probably correct about the justification, but that doesn't prevent it from being liberalization.

      That said, there have been historic periods when the muslim countries were more liberal than the christian ones. This pretty much ended with the Mongol invasion that destroyed the eastern muslim areas, but it's existence is proof that the religion doesn't prevent liberal views from coexisting. I could point out various christians of what we thing of as extremist groups as evidence that christianity was even worse...but that doesn't prevent modern Unitarians from existing. And note that if you go back a century or so the Unitarians were one of the more conservative groups.

      --
      Put not your faith in princes.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Monday November 06 2017, @11:00PM (4 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Monday November 06 2017, @11:00PM (#593343) Journal
        "Women allowed to drive *is* a liberalization. It's not what I consider fair or just, but it's a move towards that from a more extreme position. Saying that it's for economic reasons is talking about justification, not about action. You're probably correct about the justification, but that doesn't prevent it from being liberalization."

        Good point. In fact, liberalization has virtually always happened for economic reasons. Slavery was abolished for economic reasons, that doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing to end.

        "That said, there have been historic periods when the muslim countries were more liberal than the christian ones. This pretty much ended with the Mongol invasion that destroyed the eastern muslim areas, but it's existence is proof that the religion doesn't prevent liberal views from coexisting."

        Actually the Mongol invasions were huge setbacks but hardly the end. Back about the turn of last century the west was frightened of an incipient Islamic enlightenment and the evidence seems to suggest they were correct about that. But fearing it, they worked hard to stop it, most infamously by handing Mecca and Medina to the Saudis, and later by overthrowing the liberal regime in Iran and so on to the present shenanigans.

        "I could point out various christians of what we thing of as extremist groups as evidence that christianity was even worse...but that doesn't prevent modern Unitarians from existing. And note that if you go back a century or so the Unitarians were one of the more conservative groups."

        Bingo.

        All three groups have actually gone through a very similar process. Orthodox Judaism, fundamentalist Christianity, and Wahhabbism/Salafism are all strikingly similar in that each is a school which *claims* to be the original, the most conservative and purest form of the religion, yet each is actually of modern, recent origin, representing a reaction, a backlash, against modernists liberals and reformists.

        --
        "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:53AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:53AM (#593512) Journal

          Back about the turn of last century the west was frightened of an incipient Islamic enlightenment and the evidence seems to suggest they were correct about that.

          You mean 1900? No way anyone was caring about Islamic enlightenment back then. They were more worried about how to carve that turkey up into spheres of influence.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:04AM (2 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:04AM (#593540) Journal
            "No way anyone was caring about Islamic enlightenment back then. They were more worried about how to carve that turkey up into spheres of influence."

            Two sides of the same question. The Empire was destroyed and only a couple decades later the Caliphate destroyed entirely. The peoples escaped from it wanted to determine their own destiny, the victors wanted to prevent that. Encouraging the most violent and reactionary muslims, helping them to take and hold power, was simply one means used to that end.

            Ask yourself, who do the takfiri hate the most, in all the world? The US, the Great Satan? Israel, the Little Satan? Nah. They hate the Sufis and the Shia far more, and they've killed them in far greater numbers. Where these people have taken control, whether they held it for long or only for a short time, they've made a point of eliminating sufis. Their stated goal was to turn the young people away from the traditional religion and one of their methods for doing this is torturing their traditional religious leaders to death in front of them, to imprint the image of the traditional religious authorities as weak men dying in humiliation and pain, so then their radical reinterpretation is associated with glory and power. And they regard the shia with the same viscerally brutal yet coldly calculating hatred. Do you understand why?

            It's no coincidence that Syria, not long ago populated by heavily sufi-influenced sunnis, a variety of shia sects, and eastern christians, was their target the moment they had an army. Even if they were really defeated now (and I suspect they'll melt into the desert only to reappear and murder more later) they've already done inconceivable damage to all those communities, and to the notion of peaceful coexistence itself. And THAT was the goal of the operation.
            --
            "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:19PM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:19PM (#593666) Journal

              Two sides of the same question. The Empire was destroyed and only a couple decades later the Caliphate destroyed entirely. The peoples escaped from it wanted to determine their own destiny, the victors wanted to prevent that. Encouraging the most violent and reactionary muslims, helping them to take and hold power, was simply one means used to that end.

              No, around 1900, it would have been a bunch of European powers delicately balanced against one another eyeing the lands of the decaying Ottoman Empire. They weren't thinking about an "Islamic enlightenment" movement because there wasn't a credible one.

              Ask yourself, who do the takfiri hate the most, in all the world?

              The answer is in the name [oxforddictionaries.com].

              A Muslim who declares another Muslim to be apostate (i.e. not believing in the essential tenets of Islam) and therefore no longer a Muslim.

              There are plenty, not just in ISIS, who do that whether of other groups or individuals.

              It's no coincidence that Syria, not long ago populated by heavily sufi-influenced sunnis, a variety of shia sects, and eastern christians, was their target the moment they had an army.

              It was mere opportunity. Syria was destabilized due both to a really bad drought and shifted to open revolt due to the Arab Spring movement. And ISIS happened to be in Syria in the first place. They have been just as brutal to any other religions that they happened upon.

              Even if they were really defeated now (and I suspect they'll melt into the desert only to reappear and murder more later) they've already done inconceivable damage to all those communities, and to the notion of peaceful coexistence itself. And THAT was the goal of the operation.

              Nonsense. The goal was power. If they "melt into the desert" (and let us keep in mind that they need the continued support of the local tribes to do that, which they might not get), then they've lost most of that power. They can cause problems later (and may indeed grow again into a comparable problem), but they would have massively failed. They're not some fairy tale villain that thrives off of human division.

              It's just another totalitarian ideology like some flavors of communism were. There's no point to sexing it (or the usual totalitarian features) up.

              As to the term, "Islamic enlightenment", it seems a vague term referring to Islam's adaptation to modern times. Sounds like something to encourage, right?

              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:18PM

                by Arik (4543) on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:18PM (#593772) Journal
                "There are plenty, not just in ISIS, who do that whether of other groups or individuals."

                Yes, this is the mark of the takfiri, the modern fundamentalist "islamist terrorist" mold.

                It's also a direct contradiction of the sharia they pay so much lip service to. It places them firmly outside of Islam.

                --
                "This font is your font, you can't see my font."
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:43AM

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:43AM (#594563) Journal
      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday November 06 2017, @06:45PM (3 children)

    by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Monday November 06 2017, @06:45PM (#593235)

    Alwaleed tweeted some smack about how Trump should withdraw before he embarrassed himself.

    Then 15/12/11 Trump tweeted "Dopey @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy's money. Can't do it when I get elected."

    Then Trump gets elected, goes to Saudi Arabia and demands they get their act together. Now a few months later Alwaleed is under house arrest. And so are a lot more, and none of em are people I care about and the new monarch seems to be trying to clean the legacy crap out and generally modernize. So sounds like things might get better in that part of the world.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @08:11PM (#593282)

      Alwaleed is a clown. Trying to style himself as a "playboy" (what an ugly mug) and big time tycoon, I'm sure the local population look at him with total disdain. God knows how much money he squandered on Twitter.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:22AM (#593381)

        Wait, are you talking about Alwaleed or Trump?

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:25AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:25AM (#593998) Homepage Journal

      I have great confidence that King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman know exactly what they are doing. You need loyalty. You keep the loyal people. The others have to go. One way or another, you remove them. Believe me, I know. Many, many Obama administration appointees have been "milking" our country. Sally Yates was one of the worst. She's fired, many are fired, but there are many more.

      What they're doing in Saudi Arabia is fabulous. Some of those they are harshly treating have been “milking” their country for years. But this is a very small step that must lead to tougher measures. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy [rs6.net] released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women. Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. 🇺🇸

      --
      #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:09PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:09PM (#593255)

    did they arrest everyone in power including themselves?

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:25PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:25PM (#593264)

    Remember the Podestas? They have done lobbying, sometimes for the Saudis while failing to register as required by law. Tony Podesta just got arrested. John Podesta ran Hillary's campaign with Mook, and was the one to give the failure speech on election night. Here they are, with Saudi connections:

    https://twitter.com/almostjingo/status/926964669121576961 [twitter.com]

    Here is a list of those arrested:

    https://twitter.com/kibbitzlaw/status/927019483641892864 [twitter.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @10:57PM (#593341)

      Russia? What Russia campaign? How about them emails tho, comrade?

(1)