Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

by The Independent

Reposted from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article3204058.ece

A young woman has been sentenced to 200 lashes after being gang-raped. The Western world has expressed outrage – which has, in turn, provoked anger among the Saudi establishment. Now, for the first time, the woman tells her story. By Daniel Howden

Inside Saudi Arabia she has come to be known simply as the "Qatif girl", a teenager who was gang-raped then humiliated by first the police, then the judicial authorities. Her case has propelled her into the international headlines and made her an acute embarrassment for the House of Saud. To the Saudi Justice Ministry, she is an adulteress whose case is being used by critics of the Kingdom. To much of the rest of the world, she is a symbol of all that's wrong with Saudi Arabia.

Today she lives under effective house arrest. She is forbidden to speak and may be taken into custody at any time. Her family's movements are monitored by the religious police and their telephones are tapped.

Her lawyer, Saudi Arabia's foremost human rights advocate, Abd al-Rahman al-Lahem, has been suspended. He has had his passport confiscated and faces a hearing next week in which he may be disbarred. The crime of "Qatif girl", it seems, has been to refuse to be silent about what has happened to her. The 19-year-old first sought to bring to justice the seven men who raped her, then complained in public when the courts saw fit to sentence her to 90 lashes for "mingling", the crime of being out in public with a male who was not her relative prior to the attack.

Coverage of the case this month in the usually tightly censored Saudi media infuriated the authorities. They increased her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison. Her sentence still hangs over her.

The girl's fate has become an issue in the US presidential election where the candidates have lined up to denounce her treatment as "barbaric", and Prince Saud al-Faisal was forced, much to his annoyance, to answer hostile questions about her case at the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis this week. "What is outraging about this case is that it is being used against the Saudi government and people," he told reporters.

The Saudi Justice Ministry has launched a deliberate "campaign of defamation" against the girl, said Farida Deif, a Middle East expert with Human Rights Watch, who is among the few independent observers to have met the girl. "They are saying she is not really a victim," Ms Deif said. "They are implying she was an adulteress. They are saying she was undressed before the attackers entered her car."

The Independent has obtained testimony in which the girl describes her attack, the struggle to get the police to take action and the harrowing court appearances that followed.

Her ordeal began with a telephone call: "I had a relationship with someone on the phone," she recounted to Human Rights Watch. "We were both 16. I had never seen him before. I just knew his voice. He started to threaten me, and I got afraid. He threatened to tell my family about the relationship. Because of the threats and fear, I agreed to give him a photo of myself."

A few months later, she said, after she had been married to another man, she became concerned that the photograph might be misused and asked the boy to return it. He accepted on the condition that she would meet him and go for a drive with him. She agreed, reluctantly, to meet the boy at a nearby market. They were driving towards her home when a second car stopped in front of them, she said. "I told the individual with me not to open the door, but he did. He let them come in. I screamed."

She and her companion were taken to a secluded spot where they were both raped, many times. "They forced me out of the car," the girl said. "They pushed me really hard. I yelled out, 'Where are you taking me? I'm like your sister.' They took me to a dark place. Then two men came in. The first man with the knife raped me. I was destroyed. If I tried to escape, I don't even know where I would go. I tried to force them off but I couldn't. In my heart, I didn't even feel anything after that. I spent two hours begging them to take me home."

The second man then raped her, then a third. "There was a lot of violence," she said. In the hours that followed her attackers told the girl they knew she was married. She was raped by a fourth man and then a fifth. "The fifth one took a photo of me like this. I tried to cover my face but they didn't let me."

Despite the prosecution's requests for the maximum penalty for the rapists, the Qatif court sentenced four of them to between one and five years in prison and between 80 and 1,000 lashes. They were convicted of kidnapping, apparently because prosecutors could not prove rape. The images recorded on the mobile phone were presented in court, according to her lawyer, but the judges ignored them.

Her ordeal continued after the fifth rape. Two more men, one with his face covered entered the room and raped her. She repeatedly asked what time it was and was told 1am. Afterwards all seven men came back and the girl was raped again.

"Then they took me home. They drove me in their car. They took my mobile and said that if I wanted it back, I would have to call them. They saw my husband's photo in my wallet when they were searching through my things. When I got out of the car, I couldn't even walk. I rang the doorbell and my mother opened the door. She said, 'You look tired'. She thought I was with my husband. I didn't eat for one week after that. Just water. I didn't tell anyone. I can't sleep without pills. I used to see their faces in my sleep."

Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives. Also, women in Saudi Arabia are often sentenced to flogging and even death for adultery and other perceived crimes.

In addition to these intimidating barriers facing the victim in a country with possibly the worst women's rights record in the world, the girl was also a member of the persecuted Shia minority and her attackers were Sunni. This sectarian divide would be crucial to what happened next.

"The criminals started talking about it [the rape] in my neighbourhood. They thought my husband would divorce me. They wanted to ruin my reputation. I was trying to fix something by getting the photo back and something worse happened."

Irfan Al-Alawi, a Saudi academic and expert on religious persecution in the Kingdom, said that the sectarian background was crucial to understanding the crime.

"Qatif is a centre of the large Shia minority in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. The so-called religious police or mutawiyin, who are brutal in any case, were also acting here in support of Sunni domination over the Shia in Qatif."

Against her attackers' expectations, the girl's husband did not divorce her when news of the attack reached him; instead he sought justice through the courts.

Her husband recalls the frustration of seeing his wife's attackers walking free. "Two of the criminals were walking around in our neighbourhood right in front of me. They attended funerals and weddings. They [the police] should have arrested them out of respect for us. I called the police and told them, 'Find me a solution. The criminals are out on the street. What if they try to kidnap her again?' The police officer said, 'You go find them and investigate'."

He did just that and telephoned the police on four occasions before action was eventually taken. But when the case did come to court the girl's ordeal continued.

She said: "They [the judges] said to me, 'What kind of relationship did you have with this individual? Why did you leave the house? Do you know these men?' They used to yell at me. They were insulting. The judge refused to allow my husband in the room with me. One judge told me I was a liar because I didn't remember the dates well. They kept saying, 'Why did you leave the house? Why didn't you tell your husband?'

"At the second session, they called me in from the waiting room. I went in with my husband. They sentenced some of them to five years, others to three. I thought these people shouldn't even live. I thought they would get a minimum of 20 years. I prayed that they wouldn't even live. Then he said, '[name withheld], you get 90 lashes. You should thank God that you're not in prison'. I asked why and he said, 'You know why. Because it's khilwa hair sharan [mingling begets evil]'. Everyone looks at me as if I'm wrong. I couldn't even continue my studies. I wanted to die."

The ordeal is still not over. The Qatif girl and her husband face an intensely uncertain future. She has been attacked by her brother, who reportedly tried to kill her. Her lawyer, Al-Lahem, believes she may now be pursued by Sunni extremists through the sharia courts.

Her appalling treatment was summed up in one exchange between her husband and the judges at the first sentencing. "It was like she was the criminal," he remembered. "When the judges passed down the sentence, I asked them, 'Don't you have any dignity?'"

Comments 1 - 43 of 43 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #91670 by suffolkthinker on November 29, 2007 at 12:13 am

I seem to remember our own (British) Royal Family just entertained the Saudi Royal Family on a state visit without a mutter about how they behave yet our Prime Minister is happy to refuse to attend a meeting is the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe is also attending.

Zimbabwe has an obnoxious government so credit on that, but Saudi has an even more obnoxious government and set of laws. Double standards or what?

Surely it's not oil that makes the difference?

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

2. Comment #91678 by BAEOZ on November 29, 2007 at 12:56 am

 avatarThey say alcohol is a social lubricant. I think oil is an immoral lubricant. (Apart from it's other well known lubricant properties.) It makes everything slide. Especially when used internationally. Otherwise, we'd treat these misogynists like the scum they are. I couldn't say beasts or brutes. Because animals don't do this shit*.

*Unless that animal is a rational thinker like man who believes women are property. Especially Abrahamic man.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

3. Comment #91679 by bucketchemist on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 am

 avatarDoes this say they were both raped? Didn't the other person have something to say about it?

Other Comments by bucketchemist

4. Comment #91684 by toaldingham on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 am

 avatarIs there any way to support the girl and her family? This is horrible.

Other Comments by toaldingham

5. Comment #91686 by gcdavis on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 am

 avatarMy sentiments too toaldingham

There are two E-Petitions that we all should sign:
http://search.petitions.pm.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim?ha=1157&sc=number10&qt=saudi+rape

UK citizens only I'm afraid

Other Comments by gcdavis

6. Comment #91687 by Scott McMeekin on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 am

 avatar*sigh*

There's just no way possible to strike a concilatory note anywhere in this whole sorry debacle. Rape is wrong - full stop. I presume that for all of Saudi Arabia's wealth, they are unequipped with crime scene investigators or rape kits, DNA analysis facilities that would have at least proved that these men were all party to the violation. Regardless of whether or not rape was proved, they would all have been proved (and therefore condemned) guilty under their own laws of having sex with someone they weren't married to. I also presume, that had the male been processed similarly, these same men would have been convicted (and executed) for sodomy under these same laws.

As long as the judicial system is biased against one group or another, and the authorities are ill-equipped or ill-educated to deal methodically with the situation, this kind of thing will continue to happen.

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

7. Comment #91700 by tieInterceptor on November 29, 2007 at 2:10 am

 avatarlost for words, If this is what theocracy and Islam has to offer then...

In my opinion those who says that Saudi Arabia is not "really" proper Islam, I would tell them that by extension then Russia and Cuba are not "really" communist since they do not follow the letter of the manifesto, but IN THE REAL WORLD, what reads on the book is meaningless, what's important is how it turns out when put into practice.

not that what reads in the Quran is not barbaric anyway.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

8. Comment #91705 by Nick Good on November 29, 2007 at 2:28 am

 avatarSomewhat germane; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, interviewed in the Spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/376476/we-are-at-war-with-all-islam.thtml

Other Comments by Nick Good

9. Comment #91714 by RickM on November 29, 2007 at 3:51 am

 avatarThe world in which people are free to express their views on whatever subject they wish is getting smaller. How long will it be before we are threatened for the posts we make here?

Something has to be done about this outrageous barbarism.

Other Comments by RickM

10. Comment #91715 by USA_Limey on November 29, 2007 at 4:08 am

 avatarAbsolutely nothing will change whilst western governments prop up the odious regime running Saudi Arabia.

Apologies for the depressing doom and gloom but I'm calling it as I see it.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

11. Comment #91716 by logical on November 29, 2007 at 4:16 am

 avatarThatīs what religion is about:
Blaming the (female) victim.
All religions.

Nowadays such opinions of bishops rarely make it into the press, but in my youth the catholics were very open - I still own the newspaper clips.
And the laws are being interpreted a little better but let the faithheads get their way...

CETERUM CENSEO VATICANEM ESSE DELENDAM
(If any of you finds a method to catch the Saudi government please show me, Iīm interested in taking the power away from individuals and stuctures who do such things, not in being first)

Other Comments by logical

12. Comment #91717 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 4:25 am

 avatarI AGW doesn't do it for you, this should. Stop funding this odious criminal gang by using less energy.

Turn off and unplug appliances at night.
Heat with renewable wood.
Get a smaller car or use public transport.
Pester your representative to endorse green solutions.
Install small scale solar or wind power (if you can afford it).
Buy locally grown, organically produced goods.

Starve this beast of revenue, so it can't call the shots.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

13. Comment #91719 by BaronOchs on November 29, 2007 at 4:35 am

 avatarTime to shut down that Saudi funded London Academy. Quite clearly all their attempts to export their perverse values should be opposed.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

14. Comment #91745 by USA_Limey on November 29, 2007 at 6:07 am

 avatarComment #91717 by briancoughlanworldcitizen:

Turn off and unplug appliances at night.
Heat with renewable wood.
Get a smaller car or use public transport.
Pester your representative to endorse green solutions.
Install small scale solar or wind power (if you can afford it).
Buy locally grown, organically produced goods


All good stuff Brian, but can we build nuclear power stations. Can we pleeeeese.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

15. Comment #91753 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 6:34 am

 avatarI'd like DC power outlets in my home and extinction of all those power bricks. Surely if we could standardize most electronics to say 12V, 5V, 3V we could standardize DC outlets to this and kill off those bricks.

Seems silly:
wind or solar source --> DC batteries --> AC inverter --> DC transformer --> laptop.

Much better:
wind or solar source --> DC batteries --> laptop.

Latest weekend hobby: modifying LCD Christmas lights for background room lighting. A string is a couple of watts. Out of the box they're rated for only 20,000 hours. But you can get 100,000 hours if you don't overdrive them.

LCDs + battery + solar panel = constant room lighting for 10 years.

I'd also like more telecommuting. Thousands driving for 45-60 min per day one-way to a large building to work at a desk with a computer is daft. Large companies ought to create small work pods scattered around the suburbs and use videoconferencing for meetings.

I'm not sure about nuclear power. We're still paying for Seabrook station. Those plants are crazy expensive to build and run. And they age.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

16. Comment #91760 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 7:10 am

 avatarDouglas Adams once pointed out that we actually do already have a standard DC outlet - the in-car cigar lighter. Admittedly this was in the context of his quest to do away with "little dongly things", but I feel we should let that pass.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

17. Comment #91762 by Floris Meijer on November 29, 2007 at 7:21 am

 avatarGoing from oil to renewable fuels is fine but alas to late. Saudi Arabian companys have already started investing an enormous amount of money in other industries. This means that when their oil runs out they will sadly keep a strong financial base.
In the Netherlands Sabic a few years ago took over part of the Dutch state mines. One of the first actions by the new management was prohibiting pictures of women (pinup girls) in the offices of the Dutch workers. Thus beginneth the sexual repression again :(

Other Comments by Floris Meijer

18. Comment #91765 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 7:33 am

 avatarAll good stuff Brian, but can we build nuclear power stations. Can we pleeeeese.

The Indians can.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

19. Comment #91766 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 7:36 am

 avatar
I'd also like more telecommuting. Thousands driving for 45-60 min per day one-way to a large building to work at a desk with a computer is daft. Large companies ought to create small work pods scattered around the suburbs and use videoconferencing for meetings.


How could I have forgotten this one!!! I've been telecommuting for 6 years. However the 2 hour flights by air into the office every 3 months probably screw my carbon count:-(

Good catch Dr. Benway.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

20. Comment #91770 by Cartomancer on November 29, 2007 at 7:53 am

 avatarWhenever I read a piece like this in a newspaper the little "journalistic sensationalism" alarm bells go off in my head. I keep thinking "yes, but you're obviously spinning it for shock value, what is it that you're not telling us?". They were doing that here too. However, after thinking about it I really cannot see what else could possibly make this sort of thing even remotely acceptable. If there is a theoretical, halfway-credible counterpoint to the story as written then the story as written must have gone beyond journalistic bias and into outright lies. Since it is not an article for the Daily Mail I am thus forced to conclude that what we have here is close enough to the truth of the matter to print.

I really wish it wasn't. It would be so much nicer if things had been blown out of all proportion by the British media.

I am genuinely frightened by this incident. And the teddy bear incident. I find it horrifying that I share a planet, in the 21st century, with people whose mind-set is taken straight out of the 8th. Such importance placed on percieved insults and personal reputation. Such a lack of tolerance or ability to get things in perspective. Such abominable attitudes to women and sexuality. They terrify me, no two ways about it. I can just about understand on a rational level why people can possibly think this way, but on an emotional level I am at a complete loss.

I think I will hide under the covers and hope it all goes away now...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

21. Comment #91771 by AdrianB on November 29, 2007 at 7:57 am

 avatarIn the context of this story, isn't our reliance on Saudi oil a bit irrelevant?

This sort of thing has always happened, and if the oil stopped tomorrow, it would still continue to happen. It would mean of course that our great leaders could afford to criticise them from afar, but these inhumane acts would still happen.

Isn't all that is happening now that in our day of telecommunications, and increasing fear of Islam, we are hearing about more of these kinds of things? I'm not sure if the West being allowed to be critical of The Saudi regime would ever achieve anything.

As I get older and less optimistic, the more I think we should just let them get on with it and reap what they sow in these barbaric countries. Sorry if that sounds awful, but I just see our interventions making things worse. I would just like to see the West leading by example, pushing the enlightenment forward here at home.

I'm sure the penny will drop in these barbaric countries eventually, it might take a long time, but eventually the criticism will come from within. And I think it's only criticism from within, led by the example of the West, that will provide the inertia for change.

Other Comments by AdrianB

22. Comment #91772 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 8:02 am

 avatarAdrianB - Except that to fund their lavish lifestyles, the likes of the House of Saud would have to tax citizens instead of relying on the black stuff coming out of the ground. There's nothing like tax to forment a rebellion. Isn't that right, American cousins?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

23. Comment #91775 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 8:19 am

 avatar 20. Comment #91770 by Cartomancer on November 29, 2007 at 7:53 am
Whenever I read a piece like this in a newspaper the little "journalistic sensationalism" alarm bells go off in my head. I keep thinking "yes, but you're obviously spinning it for shock value, what is it that you're not telling us?". They were doing that here too. However, after thinking about it I really cannot see what else could possibly make this sort of thing even remotely acceptable. If there is a theoretical, halfway-credible counterpoint to the story as written then the story as written must have gone beyond journalistic bias and into outright lies.


I have to agree. There only a very limited interpretation of the events. These mad bastards endorsed the flogging of a healthy 19 year old girl for being gang raped, and having the temerity to question her treatment. They are also trying to have her lawyer disbarred!!!

Even if she had been a multi timing group sexing adultress by choice, it doesn't matter a damn. It's her choice. These "judges" really think they've impressed someone with their adultery claims? I'm absolutely raging about this.

These "men" should be disbarred from the judiciary and serve time for their complicity in the administration of the flogging.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

24. Comment #91777 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 8:21 am

 avatar 21. Comment #91771 by AdrianB on November 29, 2007 at 7:57 am
In the context of this story, isn't our reliance on Saudi oil a bit irrelevant?


No it's pretty pivotal. Zimbabwe gets a fair bit of justified stick for their governments dodgy behaviour. While all we get on Saudia Arabia, is a little intermittent muted mewling.

Whats the difference? Oil.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

25. Comment #91778 by stereoroid on November 29, 2007 at 8:25 am

 avatarI've come to the conclusion that Islam (and other authoritarian religions) are partly premised on the idea that people are animals who need to be strictly controlled. On this evidence, you might ask "do they have a point?", but if so, why is rape not endemic to the UK or USA?

Well, if you treat a man like a beast, unable to control himself in the company of a woman, he will become one. We know why being a boy around girls is not the same as being a young man around young women - puberty! - but hiding the women won't make the hormones go away, will it? Prohibition doesn't work, it just leads to more lawbreaking - whether with alcohol, drugs, or women. But hey, what would I know, I'm only a man...

Other Comments by stereoroid

26. Comment #91779 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 29, 2007 at 8:32 am


I have to agree. There only a very limited interpretation of the events. These mad bastards endorsed the flogging of a healthy 19 year old girl for being gang raped, and having the temerity to question her treatment. They are also trying to have her lawyer disbarred!!!


And these are the people are the ones who say that it is the democratic West that is living in ignorance, in jahiliya.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

27. Comment #91781 by paulifa1 on November 29, 2007 at 8:44 am

The UK establishment isn't just tolerant of the Saudi regime because of oil, they have just completed a sale of state of the art aircraft and arms to the saudi's for several billion pounds sterling, only the latest of many such transactions! To see the queen giving the king of this disgusting regime the full pomp and circumstance treatment recently makes me feel ashamed to be british...

We should also remember todays arab friends can become tomorrows enemy, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we are not up against our own weaponry in 20 years time... (Maybe someone isn't so naive after all and there is a secret kill switch in the aircraft computers that we can activate to disable them if we are ever up against them!! lol)

Other Comments by paulifa1

28. Comment #91782 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 am

 avatarJust to be clear, the lawyer is not threatened with being disbarred for defending the girl. It's for what he's done by trying to use the media to influence the case. That's contempt of court - same as in the UK (Harriet Harman, are you listening?) and the US, though you'll get away with a lot more.

Not saying I blame the gentleman, who sounds like the kind of Saudi I'd enjoy a cup of tea with, but before anyone starts firing off letters, please get this straight.

That is the last word you will ever hear from me in defence of the disgusting Saudi regime, I promise.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

29. Comment #91784 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 9:21 am

 avatar 28. Comment #91782 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 am
Just to be clear, the lawyer is not threatened with being disbarred for defending the girl. It's for what he's done by trying to use the media to influence the case. That's contempt of court - same as in the UK (Harriet Harman, are you listening?) and the US, though you'll get away with a lot more.


Thanks for the heads up. Facts are facts.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

30. Comment #91791 by Steven Mading on November 29, 2007 at 10:08 am

One really sad thing is that the only reason she even got any attention from the courts to try to bring her rapists to justice at all is because her husband stood up for her and helped force the issue, and since he's a MAN, they had to listen. His associates were telling him that the "right" thing to do would be to divorce her, but instead he fought for her. He deserves some credit for bucking the trend and instead believing the radical notion that women are actually people.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

31. Comment #91795 by AdrianB on November 29, 2007 at 10:43 am

 avatar
24. Comment #91777 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 8:21 am

21. Comment #91771 by AdrianB on November 29, 2007 at 7:57 am
In the context of this story, isn't our reliance on Saudi oil a bit irrelevant?


No it's pretty pivotal. Zimbabwe gets a fair bit of justified stick for their governments dodgy behaviour. While all we get on Saudia Arabia, is a little intermittent muted mewling.

Whats the difference? Oil.

But that's my point. Zimbabwe gets a fair bit of justified stick, and they STILL behave like shits.

Take the oil and money away from the Saudi regime, and they too will still continue to behave like shits. In Saudia it's Islam that is at the root of the problem, not oil.

Other Comments by AdrianB

32. Comment #91799 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 29, 2007 at 10:56 am


But that's my point. Zimbabwe gets a fair bit of justified stick, and they STILL behave like shits.


Actually no. There is one country that has - or had, anyway - the ability to settle Zimbabwe's problem, and that's South Africa. Thabo Mbeki could have sent SADAC across the border and that would have been the end of Mugabe. Or he could have put the economic squeeze on the guy. He isn't doing it, because Thabo basically agrees with that Thug, and couldn't give two hoots about what Mandela said about exactly this kind of situation.

The fact is that SA could put a stop to Zimbabwe's fiasco anytime they wanted. The problem with Zimbabwe is that they don't get enough stick.

I agree that Saudi Arabia's problem is Islam, but take away their oil, their money weapon and the Wahabis are back to living in tents and molesting goats. That's one problem solved.

Edit: Sorry, AdrianB if this sounds a little heated. It isn't an attack, I am just furious about Thabo Mbeki running South Africa into the ground.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

33. Comment #91800 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

Comment #91795 by AdrianB

But obviously it is the oil that enables the Saudis to infect the rest of the world with their virulent strain of Islam. It is the oil that allows them to be taken seriously on the world stage instead of just being laughed off as the moribund, chauvinistic stone age idiots that they are.

With all the oil wealth they have not invented a single thing, come up with anything of value in the arts and sciences, created any technology that enhance life. Their whole country is built by foreigners on short term contracts.

The Saudis will either shape up or revert to the 7th century standard of living when the world has figured out some alternative energy sources and no longer have to buy from them. When that happens maybe we should build a wall around the damned country and let it stew in its own pious juice. It may not be that bad an idea for them because when they regress to the 7th century they would finally be living exactly like their "Prophet".

I know this is a horrible thing to say but I am really appalled by this travesty There are all kinds of depravity and cruelties in the world but they are not justified by Divine instructions. Here crimes against decency are mandated by "God" and "morality". This is really beyond the pale. I wish I have a better command of language to put my disgust in even stronger terms.

End of rant.

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #91804 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 29, 2007 at 11:00 am

Bonzai I'm with you on this. We need to quarantine this problem before it gets worse. And you will notice that those Muslim countries that are the least radical are the ones where they have no oil, and hence have needed to depend on commerce - and hence, not acting like barbarians.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

35. Comment #91805 by Stew282 on November 29, 2007 at 11:01 am

 avatarI have always prized diplomacy above warfare for the resolution of international problems.

However, diplomacy clearly cannot work in some cases. As we (NATO, EU, UN etc.) do not have the capability to conduct conventional military actions against all the tin-pot, barn-pot dictatorships and theocracies around the world, I'm afraid I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the most expedient solution would be to drop a sizeable nuclear device on a selection of state capitals around the world and take it from there.

This would, of course, be an act of desparation, but for fuck's sake, the situation is becoming desperate.

Other Comments by Stew282

36. Comment #91814 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 11:17 am

You don't need more warfare. All you need is a bit of honesty.

While we are screaming about their barbaric practices our politicians and business elite are enabling them by having a lot more dealings with them than we necessarily have to. Bush Sr. was having breakfast with one of the bin Ladens when the trade towers were bombed. We are enabling them every time when someone buy a second SUV.

Why sell them state of the art weapons? Why allow them to flood our countries with their hate literature? It is all about money because the Saudis invest more money in the West than Saudi Arabia proper. If we accept their investments in real estates and so on with open arms some of that money will go to build mosques and furnishing reading material in them.

I think it was Lenin who said that the capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with. It is time for us to wake up.

Other Comments by Bonzai

37. Comment #91832 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 12:15 pm

 avatarWhy sell them state of the art weapons? Why allow them to flood our countries with their hate literature? It is all about money because the Saudis invest more money in the West than Saudi Arabia proper. If we accept their investments in real estates and so on with open arms some of that money will go to build mosques and furnishing reading material in them.

I think it was Lenin who said that the capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with. It is time for us to wake up.


Exactly, exactly, exactly!!! It is our own hypocrisy that undermines legitimate efforts to get base line rights for all humans on the planet in place. If the charter of the UN had been fullfilled and enforceable 60 years ago, we wouldn't be grinding our teeth in frustration at this now.

As for nuclear weapons ... suggesting we incinerate millions of innocent people because we are frustrated about the fate of a teacher and a teenager is not helpful. Nothing has changed, we are still not remotely existentially threatened, this insanity has been happening for years.

The only way to stop it (short of mass killing) is to put binding global laws in place as regards human rights, which we accept as binding on us as well as anyone else. Then prosecute those who break them just like we arrest, try and prosecute lawbreakers in our nation states. This is slow, frutrating and not terribly exciting but it works.

That means no renditions, no torture, no unilateral military action and eventually inshalla no sharia law.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

38. Comment #91836 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 29, 2007 at 12:32 pm


The only way to stop it (short of mass killing) is to put binding global laws in place as regards human rights and accept as binding on us as well as anyone else.


There is a wee problem with this. As I have pointed out before, a law is only a law if it can be enforced. Enforcing international law means laying it down - at least through economic sanctions, if we are talking about International law, or, more usually, through boots on the ground.

So unless brian is suggesting that we send the troops over to Saudi Arabia to lay down the law, then our stance will be pretty much what it always has been. Impotence.

And, of course, there is the minor matter that invading Saudi Arabia will immediately plunge us into total war with the entire Ummah.

I am still waiting to hear of some alternative, some version of 'law' which is enforced without force.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

39. Comment #91850 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 pm

There is another matter. The U.S. ,--and to a lesser degree other Western countries as well,--props up governments like the House of Saud to ensure that the oil is in "friendly" hands. The Saudi know that they have bargaining power because they provide a useful service. They are taking full advantage of it.

The bottom line is we actively create a situation which now comes back to bite us.

Now what about the masses in the ME? Are they just as backward in their attitudes as their rulers? No doubt some are, but then may be not.

When Iran was well on its way to become a Western style democracy in 1953 Washington vetoed it with a CIA sponsored coup which installed the Shah. The reason was again to remotely control the oil. The Shah then managed to wipe out all nascent secular oppositions with U.S. help. So in the end only centuries old Islam was the potent enough opposition force left to get rid of the Shah, We are living with the consequence of this short sighted and immoral decision to these days, not to mention the Iranian people who have to suffer it first hand.

If we want to "convert" Muslims to enlightenment value it is not enough to brow beat them and lecture them. We have to show them the benefits of these values. But for some of the poorest and most uneducated, their experience of "Western values" is primarily through American bombs, coups, sham elections, torture chambers and economical devastations under "market reforms" and other "development" scams that benefit Western companies and a small elite at the expense of the majority. What would be the incentive for them to join the modern world if those are the only features of "modernity" that we have to offer?

You cannot hit people with a stick only and expect to win them over, you also need to offer some carrots from time to time. Genuine help in development, rather than scams that enrich Western corporations and a small local elite, would be a good carrot to offer as a reward.

Other Comments by Bonzai

40. Comment #92007 by kaiserkriss on November 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm

 avatarI might be naive, but surely the judges in this case as well as the prosecutors should be charged with by the UN with crimes against humanity and forced to appear before a court in Den Haag to justify their position.

A few successful convictions, together with jail time while waiting in a holding cell should get the message across that such barbarity is not acceptable in today's society, and think twice in future before acting like Eighth Century troglodytes.

Since these guys do like the decadent west, they do travel and should be arrested as soon as they step foot outside their flea besotted country. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

41. Comment #92108 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 10:14 pm

 avatar 40. Comment #92007 by kaiserkriss on November 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I might be naive, but surely the judges in this case as well as the prosecutors should be charged with by the UN with crimes against humanity and forced to appear before a court in Den Haag to justify their position.


Alas no. The only court with jurisdiction tries crimes specifically related to war crimes. This simply doesn't fit. Also not everyone has signed up. Exhibit A: The US.

At least we have precedent and the basic machinery in place. I absolutely agree with you in principle. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on dubious wars, work to get everyone on board the base line and snag law breakers whenever they pass into or through signatory states.

It will take time, perhaps decades, and it lacks the visceral immediacy of blowing stuff up, but it will work eventually.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

42. Comment #92143 by AdrianB on November 30, 2007 at 12:29 am

 avatarSorry, I don't disagree with you guys (far from it), it's just that you've got the "wrong end of the stick" about what I am saying.

I agree that without oil money, "the Wahabis are back to living in tents and molesting goats" and their threat TO US is greatly reduced.

BUT isn't this story is about the nasty effects of religion on it's own society? How is removing oil money going to stop these people behave like shits to each other?

Religion poisons everthing, give them money and they will try and poison us too. Agreed. But isn't that for another thread?



Other Comments by AdrianB

43. Comment #95639 by Dr Benway on December 8, 2007 at 9:57 pm

 avatar
kaiserkriss: I might be naive...
Things will be busy at the Hague. In Saudi Arabia, beheadings, floggings, and amputations happen weekly after Friday prayers. The executioner is appointed by drawing lots among the men.

You can look all this up in the Saudi Arabian constitution.

Other Comments by Dr Benway
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: