Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted. But you are wrong to call it a stone age culture. Muslim women studied Greek philosophy in Islamic universities in the 12th century, while enslaved serfs beat their wives senseless for centuries. But things are sure turned. We do seem a whole lot more civil now. Although, perhaps that's just appearances. I don't really see why it has to be considered as more civil to bomb someone from the sky than to chop off someone's head, for example.
I think they would rather access to the latest American weaponry than nukes from Pakistan. The thing about nukes is that they are a great deterrent for outright invasion of the country, but realistically, you can't really use them for Suicide is ultimately an act of self hatred.
Only those who suffered severe developmental trauma exercise this option. The justification is merely a defense against admitting the latent reality inside the victim's own mind.
Actually most of the world does not view human life the way KSA does. Slavery was only abolished some 50 years ago there. The rest of the world had moved on much earlier. Most of the population live in countries that will not give a woman as a wife to a random stranger. And that btw includes the largest muslim country like Indonesia.
KSA seems to be a laggard here too. Once you understand that not all views deserve the same consideration, you can come to the big boy table and I wont have a desire to talk to you like a child. The generals over there are out of power. Think that there may be a coup in Pakistan, very soon? People do forget this angle. They, ISI, have not done anything to the Sunnis It is also important to remember that the Saudi Government has never taken to it's Shia minority And moreover, the red carpet treatment that they give yo ISI 'prisoners' is not in line with their normal standards.
You say that Saddam was a madman. He was very far from mad in order to survive in such a Byzantine environment. He was a dictator. A word out of fashion, but a dictator is what these cultures require in order to avoid chaos. I suggest you go study some maps of Yemen and Saudi Arabia overlayed with Shia, Sunni dispositions combined with how Saudi's treat refegees in general in the country. After that, hopefully I wont have to read this stupid comment for a fourth or fifth time, i actually lost count, since you post it very often.
To be honest the best thing for long term stability is an Arab Persian conflict to help the Arabs especially the gulf arabs form a solid single identity instead of their backwards tribal societies and culture. It's not just the Arab part of the Islamic world that is a disaster zone - look at Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, all of which have been thrown into turmoil by Islamic extremism. In many other countries Islamic terrorism is only being held in check by an enormous continual intelligence operation.
For e. UK security forces are now making almost daily counter-terror arrests. It's not true that there was less violence in Iraq under Saddam. He killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds in a genocidal campaign which included bombing towns and villages with poison gas, massacring thousands of women and children in a day. Up to a million people were killed in the war that followed his invasion of Iran. Hundreds of thousands died following his invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent First Gulf War, and hundreds of thousands more died in the aftermath as he crushed an uprising.
The decisions he took led directly to millions of deaths. Bombing is less personal, so of course the distance between victim and perpetrator makes it feel more civil. It bemuses me when people blame the issues of the Middle East on Islam, completely ignoring the fact that Arabs represent a small part of the worldwide Muslim community. It is as if the doctor misdiagnosed a patient. Our focus on Islam is a distraction from the real problems. I guess it makes a convenient way to avoid explaining historical colonial abuse and current geopolitical competition fueling most violent conflict.
It may actually be a plus for Tunisia, if their local fanatics go somewhere else to kill and be killed. Of course, if they live to come back, that may be another story. You are correct. Very few iron fisted dictators would be viewed as "sane" using our cosy western playbook. It took people like that to manage the post colonial mess we left behind. We colonized these people, exploited them for their resources and labour to enrich ourselves in the west, and now we look upon this chaos as if it somehow happened without our complicity.
The borders will be redrawn with bloodshed it appears and it may take many years before it settles down. And we in the west carry much of the blame based on our historical and contemporary actions.
It's Saudi Arabia man, the woman is just an object like the cash. That is how they view the world. And that is why they are about to crash into reality. Even with trillions from oil you can only fend off reality for so long Not just weaponry. For the reader non familiar with the roles of the different units, a popularly held belief is that that the role of the Army is to protect KSA from foreign threats and the role of the National Guard is to protect the system from the Army.
This person jokingly added that the role of the intelligence unit was to protect royal family from the National Guard. If in a broad sense we are meaning representative government, well both Ukraine and Russia had elections and one is currently invading the other.
Terrorism in Saudi Arabia Bloodshed in the kingdom. See article. Readers' comments Reader comments are listed below. Sort: Newest first Oldest first Readers' most recommended. Wahabbism is recent 18thth century and was long particular to the Saudi sort of area.
Actually it's the curse of Iraq. Sunnis killing Shias with bombs is the hallmark of Iraqi curse. By far the Turks were the greatest colonizers in the region The thing is to become a democracy. Democracies hardly ever go to war with one another. That depends quite a bit on your definition of democracy.
And certainly democracies have no problem starting the wars