Saudi police say Barbie dolls are a "Jewish toy" and a threat to morality

Oerdin · September 10, 2003, 16:28

Yet another digusting statement out of the Saudi government's official news media. As if their continuing claims that Jewish terrorists caused 9/11 and that Jewish boys must kill and drink the blood of Arab children wasn't enough. Now they're calling Barbie a Jewish toy to corrupt the Islamic values of the Arab world.

Here is the CNN article on the matter. I truly honestly believe the Saudis are not our friends and western governments should be working towards removing the extremist members of the royal family who support Wahabism. As if it wasn't enough that nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi we also find that nearly all of the madrasahs in Pakistan and Indonesia are funded by Saudi money. Yes, the "religious schools" which indocrinate and train terrorists are funded by none other then our "friends" in the Saudi government.

MRT144 · September 10, 2003, 16:34

who loves saudis? republicans love saudis! YAY!

chequita guevara · September 10, 2003, 16:35

The problem is the people who are prepared to repLace the House of Saud are the people who are the "intellectual" originators of the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Our choices are worse and worser.

MRT144 · September 10, 2003, 16:39

lets just replace them with white republican oil companies. they cant possibly be any worse than the current regime.

Ming · September 10, 2003, 16:41

Hmmm... Clinton liked them as well

chequita guevara · September 10, 2003, 16:42

Couldn't we just split them up? Al Hasa, El Hedjaz, and El Nedj. Let the Wahhabists stew in the desert while the oil and religious territories are run by more sane people.

Oerdin · September 10, 2003, 16:42

I agree our choices are of the devil and a demon but the current situation isn't all that tolerable either. They still haven't clamped down on terror funding. Time wrote an excellent article last month where they said all an Islamic charity has to do is fill out a one page form before sending money abroad and the Saudi government doesn't even have a single full time person hired to check the truthfulness or accuracy of the one page declaration. nstead they only check it if someone (most likely the CIA) calls and tells them so-and-so is a terrorist front.

They're still setting up Wahabist schools every where as well in which the students are taught the basic ideology of hate and jihad.

HershOstropoler · September 10, 2003, 16:42

Everyone loves their money and their oil.

MRT144 · September 10, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... Clinton liked them as well

clinton also liked oral sex in the oval office. blow.

i feel like americans now a day overlook anything a republican does, but has to harp on what a democrat does.

lord of the mark · September 10, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The problem is the people who are prepared to repLace the House of Saud are the people who are the "intellectual" originators of the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Our choices are worse and worser.

well the intellectual originators are the Saudi clergy, who basically have a deal with the house of saud - let us control religion and culture, and you control the state and economy. When the iranian revolution threatened to spread in the islamic world, the Saudi started subsidising the spread of Wahabism as a counter. When wahabites flocked to afghanistan to fight the USSR, this was pleasing to the saudis, as well as the US. They made no connection between the "afghan arabs" and the muslim brothers who killed Sadat (who the Saudis didnt have much love for anyway) When Bib laden emerged, he was still a minor figure, and not anti-Saudi. When the US moved troops into Saudi in 1991, in connection to GW1, he turned against the House of Saud. But interestingly he never attacked on Saudi soil till this spring. And he effectively co-ruled afghanistan with the Taliban, which was recognized by only 3 countries Pakistan, UAE, and Saudi.

Now some folks think that the Saudis had a black mail deal going - dont attack within the kingdom, and we'll look the other way at funding, recruitment and other activities. Others say that the House of Saud is itself divided - rivals of the current Crown Prince may have ties to AQ.

In any case, our continued linkage to Saudi tends to compromise everthing we do and say in the War on Al qaeeda.

Japher · September 10, 2003, 16:47

Lets bash the Republican some more out of stupidity! Ya!

Oh, no, I meteor might hit Earth and a few years - stupid Republicans!

Oh, no, I have explosive diarrhea - must be the Republicans fault!

Wow, a dolphin was born at Marine World - yeah democrats!

Ah, sud-up...

Seattle is messing with your brain MRT

lord of the mark · September 10, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Couldn't we just split them up? Al Hasa, El Hedjaz, and El Nedj. Let the Wahhabists stew in the desert while the oil and religious territories are run by more sane people.

The oil provinces to the Shia, a local majority, and the Hejaz to the Hashemites is an idea thats been floated. Of course the pro-stability folks are afraid the Shia would be pro-Iranian and fundie - a propostion being put to the test in Iraq as we speak.

I tend to think that carving up Saudi is not real feasible.

Ming · September 10, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
I feel like americans now a day overlook anything a republican does, but has to harp on what a democrat does.

I feel like americans now a day overlook anything a democrat did, but has to harp on a republican that is doing the same thing the democrat did

Chemical Ollie · September 10, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... Clinton liked them as well

Clinton was a Republican in practical politics, he just used his wits and charms to disguise it.

MRT144 · September 10, 2003, 16:53

Japher, you know i dont blame republicans for everything. I just see them as everything thats wrong with america, and american politics. Actually i see rightwing values as whats wrong with america.

I tend to think that the fact that the people that contribute to republicans campaigns (oil companies in large part) have vested interest in saudi arabia means something.

It influences foriegn policy, not based on whats good for america, but based on what will help the politician. Democrats are guilty of this too, with unions and whatnot, but unions dont support organizations that crash planes into buildings.

MRT144 · September 10, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

I feel like americans now a day overlook anything a democrat did, but has to harp on a republican that is doing the same thing the democrat did

unfortunately i dont run media, so i dont matter.

Agathon · September 10, 2003, 16:57

This is absurd! No Jewish women are as good looking as Barbie - not even Zylka's one.

Oerdin · September 10, 2003, 16:58

Can we please get back on topic? Would anyone care to defend the Saudis? I'm sure we have to have a bleeding heart type out there some where. Failing that someone could tell us about some other outragious statement or barbaric act commited by the Saudi government.

Arrian · September 10, 2003, 17:01

I doubt anyone here will defend the Saudis, Oerdin. Some may defend the U.S. stance vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia on purely amoral grounds, but I'd be shocked to find someone defending the House of Saud.

-Arrian

Chemical Ollie · September 10, 2003, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
This is absurd! No Jewish women are as good looking as Barbie - not even Zylka's one.

Barbie neither have nipples, nor pubic hair. Is that the style you like?

Shi Huangdi · September 10, 2003, 17:12

This is an interal policy regarding their own people. Disgusting? Yes. A basis for foreign policy? No.

chequita guevara · September 10, 2003, 17:14

Destroy the Saudis!

Oerdin · September 10, 2003, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I doubt anyone here will defend the Saudis, Oerdin. Some may defend the U.S. stance vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia on purely amoral grounds, but I'd be shocked to find someone defending the House of Saud.

-Arrian

Ok, then if nobody wants to defend the Saudis then perhaphs someone can explain why we are always helping the Saudis. They are after all a government who's policies produce more crazed fanatics who want to kill us then any where all. At least if 9/11 is any guide.

Why hasn't our government moved to remove oil from our economy where ever possible? Why haven't they enforced European style fuel economy laws? Why aren't we using subsitutes for oil like coal which can be produced domestically without funding Arab terrorist organizations? Why haven't we invested more in mass transite and raised CAFE standards so that we'll consume less oil? Why aren't we subsidizing and then preferentially buying oil from non-Arab sources?

It seems clear to me that doing these things will lesson the funds which terrorists have and thus save the lives of innocent people around the world.

MRT144 · September 10, 2003, 17:18

Oerdin, republicans in the government is the answer.

Shi Huangdi · September 10, 2003, 17:18

"Ok, then if nobody wants to defend the Saudis then perhaphs someone can explain why we are always helping the Saudis."

AS chegitz says, the people wanting to overthrow the house of Saud are even worse.

Hasn't Saudi Arabia been doing more to combat terrorism, getting in the news about a bunch of Islamists killed in their country? Perhaps this move that they are doing is done to combat criticism that may arise from Islamic circles from doing that.

lord of the mark · September 10, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
This is an interal policy regarding their own people. Disgusting? Yes. A basis for foreign policy? No.

yeah, if all they did was ban barbies, and didnt fund wahabism abroad, and didnt have preachers inciting hatred( now im gonna hear somebody turn this into a discussion of Pat Robertson) , and really faught terrorism on their own soil, it would be ok. Its more troubling as yet one more reminder of what kind of state we are dealing with. Given how much of the important stuff that goes on in Saudi society is hidden, one tends to seize on trivia like this.

Arrian · September 10, 2003, 17:23

disclaimer: I'm not defending.

There are a lot of reasons.

The main ones:

1) Oil
2) What Che said regarding the people who would take over if the House of Saud fell. So our choices are bad and worse. We've chosen bad, and hoped it could keep worse in check. It did - inside Saudi Arabia. So worse left and went international.

Why hasn't the government moved to get off of oil? Because the oil companies have a ton of clout, and "getting off of oil" isn't an easy thing. It requires long-range planning and funding, and governments tend to be pretty bad at that, it seems (by long range, I mean more than an election cycle or two).

I happen to absolutely agree that investing heavily in alternative energy is a good idea. Anything that reduces our dependency on oil is a good thing, and the benifit to the environment (that varies, depending on which alternative energy source we're talking about) is also a plus. I also agree that getting away from support of dictators and other various nasties is a good idea, even if short-term it's problematic. But that's easier said than done, considering how much of the world is not democratic.

-Arrian

Sandman · September 10, 2003, 17:27

The Saudis still occasionally crucify criminals.

But, their demand for American military hardware and training is insatiable.

MRT144 · September 10, 2003, 17:32

F15s baby

chequita guevara · September 10, 2003, 17:36

I would point out that this current government is especially tied to the House of Saud. Right after 9/11, Neil Bush was sent over to reasure them that our administration wasn't mad at them. This current Administration isn't just in bed with the oil companies, it is made up of oil men.

When Bush came to power, all investigation into the Saudi sources of terror money was quashed (to be fair, it's not as if Clinton made this a high priority and it wasn't a top priority). Any agent wishing to persue investigations into the Saudis would quickly find their career over. (Which is why the FBI's top terrorism expert ended up leaving and working as the head of security for the WTC. His 1st day was 9/11/2001.)

In the days following 9/11, over 150 Saudis were whisked out of the country by the government, including two of bin Laen's brothers. See this month's Vanity Fair for details.

Finally we have the Congressional Inquiry which the Bush Administration had classified (and the Saudis made a pretense of wanting it relesased because it would clear them--despite Congressmen saying the opposite).