The NYT Editorial starts off congratulating the Saudi king for pardoning the "Qatif girl" a rape victim who was sentenced to 200 lashes for getting into a car with men she was not related to. Wow. This laudable pardon occurred exactly why? Sharia law. This pardon was quickly followed by the "detention" of a Saudi civil liberties blogger. The NYT calls for change and expects BushCo to demand it.
I don't mind throwing cold water in somebody's face, the USA has this little document called the Constitution and it contains a quaint topic like Habeas Corpus and another document called the Bill of Rights, which specifically bars the government from interfering in natural rights. Nowhere is the concept of a government grant of right occur and yet BushCo is supposed to pressure a government based on the granting of the "favor" of rights to do something while it violates the absolute basis of this government? The Saudis have tended to be American educated so it would be little surprise if they've heard of the documents and they've pretty much gotten around in the USA. They do government and religion the way they do in the face of that.
What club or inducement is it that GeorgeII is supposed to bring out with his fellow monarchs? Money? Since BushCo has managed to drive oil prices through the roof with the "violence tariff" chances are money is no object. I think that we've pretty much dispensed with the reason part of the equation. Since the Saudis are familiar with US culture and how no signs of pursuing any more of it than pointless acquisition and conspicuous consumption. It is discouraging enough to reflect on the wealth of the US and the plight of the poor and uninsured, but in contrast to the Saudis we're paragons of virtue.
Saudi Arabia is a religious despotism dedicated to the wealth and power of its rulers. I'm a little leftwing blogger and yet I get some readers from Saudi Arabia, why do you suppose that is? Do you think it has something to do with the freedom of expression I exercise? Maybe it has something to do with my assertion that the natural rights expressed in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence apply to any human anywhere and that governments that violate them are automatically subject to overthrow by their subjects, whether by ballot or force of arms. That means any government, including the Shiite theocracy we've established in Iraq, the BushCo pals the Saudis, or BushCo itself.
3 comments:
The Saudis lack a second amendment, the Right to keep and bear arms, and ballots don't mean anything there. Even so it's a matter of time before we see trouble at the head of our oil pipeline.
I have known a few Islam men that were in Portland State and I knew some that were training in the USAF. Hard drinking, womanizers all of them. When I questioned them on Islamic law they laugh at me and said " we aren't in country now". Some were Iraq's, some were Iran's, and some were Saud's. All had lots of money. They all got good grades and still partied hard. I couldn't do what they did because of lack of money and good grades came by way of studding.
Never did I see a Muslim woman around them and trips to Vegas was the norm at holidays. Hypocrisy, as in most religions, reigned supreme. Most Islamic laws seem to be a control on the masses, much like Clinton and Bush have done to us.
I went to school with Iranians (room-mate in fact), Iraqis, Saudis, and more. Every nationality had its own quirks. These were the children of the elites, probably big dogs in their countries, though the Shah biting it may have got one, and I'm pretty sure the Iraqis were Sunni. Circumstances may have taken out about half a dozen people I knew pretty well.
Post a Comment