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?

Also at NYT and Recode, which notes that the arrest of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a potential setback for Saudi Arabia's tech ambitions (Alwaleed has had stakes in Apple, Twitter, and Lyft).

Previously: SoftBank May Sell 25% of ARM to Vision Fund; Chairman Meets With Saudi King
Saudi Arabia, UAE to Donate to Women Entrepreneurs Fund
Saudi Arabia to Lift Ban on Online VoIP and Video Calling Services
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
Saudi Arabia Announced Plans to Extract Uranium for Domestic Nuclear Power Program


Original Submission

 
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.
  • (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) 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.

    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.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (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.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (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.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?