Saud’s Arabia?

This has been one of the bravest articles at chowk, in my humble opinion. Very rarely do publications worldwide ever carry anything more than titillating frenzy kind of stuff on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its ``peculiarities``.

One reason was the rather strong hold they had worldwide on the media, which made one, at an early age, re-investigate the whole Jewish Media Conspiracy thing. I mean, for all the anti-Nazi literature and mind bending around in the world, justifiable, we still don`t see much about the Sauds.

And it isn`t as though it isn`t known.

Just putting it briefly - the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay would be having a vacation compared to what their counterparts would in any of a few dozen Saudi jails.

And that`s not all.

No longer is it only about Rub al Khali.

Just read the latest issue of TIME.

There`s a big article about the confessions of Al-Queda No. 3 (Abu Zubaudah).

Apparently he pointed the finger at some 3-4 saudi princes and pakistani military officers...all of whom died (mysteriously) last year at approximately the same time...after this was relayed to Saudi and Pak governmnets.

Interesting.

re urstruly 40

I refer you to the operative part of my comments `colonized by Britain: Syria, Morocco, and Libya. `

Your orig post specifically mentioned `BRITAIN`(not France) as colonizer of the three countries mentioned herein, i.e. Syria, Morocco, and Libya. You generalized, you were inaccurate in that description, and I called you on that. Referring to French colonization of Syria or Italian administration of Libya does not mitigate the inaccuracy of your earlier statement.

re urstruly 40

And my contention is that an elite class was not CREATED per se. It was always there and came in handy when the outsiders moved in. As for Pakistan, funny you mention `a mindset they inherited from their masters`. As if before the British came in, the Talpurs were governing a pluralist liberal democracy in Sindh. Please.

Sigalph

In my #35 another point that I made was the creation of an elite class that supported the interests of colonial occupiers during the course of their occupation and even even after when they left. I think your post admits to that fact when you write that ``colonizers who simply used the tools available on the ground.``. Of course the tools are always availble on the ground. For example, in our very own Hindustan there was a class who provided horses, liquor, and their women to their colonial masters and when British left they left them as their hiers. In Pakistan, at least, this class has brought untold misery upon the people of Pakistan by its downright apathy and disdain for the common man - a mindset that they inherited from their masters.

saigalph235

tsk tsk tsk, I expected something better from you.

Egypt: British captured Egypt in 1882. Prior to that French were desperately trying to wrestle it out of Ottoman control.

Libya: The freedom struggle of Libyans against Italian occupation is a golden chapter in the history of wars against colonial oppression.

Morroco: Won freedom from French Occupation.

Algiers: Won freedom from French; the elite class installed by French colonials has brought untold misery upon the people of this unfortunate country.

Syria/Lebanon: Fell to French occupation when Ottoman Caliphate collapsed.

The point in my last post was not to elaborate on each country and its colonial occupier but it was a general comment. But since British were major agressors seconded closely by probably Satan himself and closely followed by French and now Americans, I only elaborated my point by mentioning British (and French).

re urstruly

`...a member of Saudi, jordanian, Syrian, Emirates, morrocon, libyan, or egyptian ruling class i.e. elite of the society i.e. the class that was created by British colonialism, ...`

Of these seven entities you mention as part of your `logical` argument, three have not been colonized by Britain: Syria, Morocco, and Libya.

Now about the ruling elite. Most of the Middle East, prior to European intervention, was ruled either directly or on behalf of the Ottoman Empire. So the Turks probably created an elite at that time. Then either these elites were co-opted by the Europeans or replaced by European created elites. Of course history is a little less straightforward than that. In the case of the SAudis, Moroccans, Jordanians and the UAE monarchs, all of them came from existing tribal chieftains-hardly a `creation` of the colonizers who simply used the tools available on the ground. In the case of post-monarchial Egyptian, post-monarchial Libyan, and SYrian regimes, they were all created by military coups not exactly favored by the colonizers.

Most Arabs are generally incapable of ruling themselves in a civilized manner. Hence have historically been ruled by either foreigners or native tyrants. So if another set of outsiders come in to drag Arabs into the present, so be it.

Something tells me that long after Iraq, a la Japan, has become a functioning republic with a progressive society, some of you will still be bemoaning the Lost Cause and protesting the war on the streets of San Francisco and Lyallpur. It never fails to astonish me that those who rave and rant about the war and the `occupation` whispered not a word as Saddam and his sons went about killing, looting, raping, and pillaging the same Mesopotamia that you guys shed your tears for. Pity that consciences are so selectively activated.

HisExcellency #36

`` Bush`s approval ratings are not sinking. You are reading too much into the public protests against war in NYC, LA and Washington. The average American has practically given a carte blanche to Bush to sort out rest of the world. Democrats are in no position to challenge him politically.

Although I am not a neo-conservative, I believe some of Bush`s policies may be right. He is the first American president who believes that America must aggressively export democracy to the Muslim world. If he carries out this policy, it might become the turning point of recent history. ``

Bush will not win if the US economy stays south. USA has serious problems - budget deficit, trade deficit. overstretched military and competition from India/China. USA is in no position to export democracy in the Middle East. If Bush succeeds in Iraq it is probably because his opponents are running for the sewers.

`` I would prefer the European approach to the American approach in resolving international disputes. Since the former is not forthcoming, I would settle for the latter. It is atleast better than letting disputes fester. Without American intervention, neither Kashmir nor Palestine will have peace. India, Pakistan, Israel and Palestinians are incapable of making peace with each other... without active American involvement/mediation.``

Israel/Palestine problem will be settled because USA controls both parties. I doubt Kashmir will be settled by the Americans.

yogiraj#30 you write ``If any one is capable of matching hate and hatred that is being propogated on my nation. it is me. I do not oppologize at all on that. That does not mean I spit hatred just for heck of it. ``

Could you refer to some posts on chowk that demonstrate the hatred towards India that you say you are matching?? My own impression from chowk is that there is far more hatred towards pakistan by indians than vice versa. Perhaps this is a result of real world events (i.e. the violence in kashmir) which is seen among indians as being caused by pakistan...perhaps it is caused by simple bloody-mindedness due to ethnic-culture factors (thus, on chowk indian panjabis generally tend to be an easy going lot like the pakistani panjabis, and the hatred comes from people from other parts of india.

I dont know...i dont think i will ever really know...but any thoughts you may on this subject have would be appreciated...

#34 by rsaxena

Bush`s approval ratings are not sinking. You are reading too much into the public protests against war in NYC, LA and Washington. The average American has practically given a carte blanche to Bush to sort out rest of the world. Democrats are in no position to challenge him politically.

Although I am not a neo-conservative, I believe some of Bush`s policies may be right. He is the first American president who believes that America must aggressively export democracy to the Muslim world. If he carries out this policy, it might become the turning point of recent history.

I would prefer the European approach to the American approach in resolving international disputes. Since the former is not forthcoming, I would settle for the latter. It is atleast better than letting disputes fester. Without American intervention, neither Kashmir nor Palestine will have peace. India, Pakistan, Israel and Palestinians are incapable of making peace with each other... without active American involvement/mediation.

If we look at the whole situation, in the middle east, logically, the following picture emerges:

1. Americans have explicitly declared their intention that they intend to change the map of the Middle East. This changing of map means changing of current regimes as well. In other words the shelf life of all such regimes that were installed by British and French colonialism in the early last century, is over. So the new colonialism will install new regimes (a process that is currently underway in Iraq & Afghanistan) - which will demonstarte the semblance of what it proclaims as its ideals i.e. ``democracy`` and ``freedom``. In other words, the people of these countries aka fukkking idiots have become too smart for their own good - so they need another dose of opium - i.e. another kind of opium.

2. Now if I am a member of Saudi, jordanian, Syrian, Emirates, morrocon, libyan, or egyptian ruling class i.e. elite of the society i.e. the class that was created by British colonialism, I would percieve Americas declared intentions as a grim threat to my privileges and well being. These are the previleges that I and my family have enjoyed for decades in return of my favors for British colonialism. Logically, wouldn`t it make sense if I would try all that is in my powers to never let Americans get stable in Iraq?

British imperialism would have handled this situation differently. They would have used these states against each other first. In this regard American policy to use Pakistan against Afghnistan was correct. They are trying to do the same in Iraq by inviting armies of ``friendly Mulsim allies states`` but it is a little too late for that. What went wrong in Iraq, in my personal opinion, is that the Americans have started beleiving their own propaganda a little too much. As long as Fox, CNN, ABC, Hindus and people like Rizwan Mahmud are acting as the first line of attack for Americans, I think the above mentioned ruling elite need not worry a bit.

re: sigalph235

...the sooner rumsfeld and bush leave office, the sooner the world will get safer for americans and everyone else....i do not want to pay taxes to fund wars unnecessary wars nor do i want to piss off more people into launching terror attacks on the US...and if bush`s sinking approval ratings are anything to go by, most americans share my view....

re Air Marshal`s

``Combine that with Iran, and 40% of the world’s oil is under the control of countries, whose citizens hate the USA with a passion.``

``Much like the Irani democracy``

Are u suggesting that Iranians hate the US and that Iran is a democracy? Were that the case, thr Iranian police would not have swooped down on the thousands in Azadi Square who lit candles spontaneously on Sept 12 2001 to mourn the Saudi terror attacks on WTC. Iran has certainly more democratic institutions than any other neighbor (except Bahrain) but it ain`t a democracy by any stretch. As for the people, most observers would consider the Iranians to be the most pro-American in the Middle East. Partly so because their theocratic rulers have oppressed them in the guise of fighting America.

Not to worry. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, all of their time will come. As long as Rumsfeld is in office and Wolfowitz shrugs of those nonsensical critiques from DAWN and Khaleej Times, freedom is not too far off from the Saudis and Iranians and SYrians.

Yogiraj patil:30
You might enjoy this site www.nuradeen.com

1) Shaykh Fadlullah Haeri
2) Son of Ayatullah Haeri--former Spreme Chief Justice of Iran
3) Thoroughly educated at the madressas . Graduates in sciences from same madressas.
4) Abandons religious vocation for higher degrees in science & engineering from UK.
5) Moves to US. Becomes thoroughly dyed-in-applepiey american in 80s.
6) Appears on cover of Businessweek as `` entrepreneur of the year``
7) Makes lots & lots of money.
8) Abandons everything--moves to India
9) Spends 10 years for learning from a pundit.
10) Pundit advises him to go to makkah , if more learning is sought.
11) Meets a Qutub, without prior knowledge about him or any intro, and aquires more learning.
12)Returns to California--establishes a zavia.
13) Now is in South Africa--I think. Has a worldwidde following.


PS: Yours is the only sane voice here. Please visit often and let us see ourselves what we have become. Thank you very much indeed.

Re Manto 20 and 21

Funny you mention that. I for one have been picqued by Karachi`s love affair with this Faisal chap and how singularly his named replaced that of Air Commodore Drigh: Drigh Road became Sharae Faisal, RPAF Drigh became PAF Faisal, and Drigh Barracks became Shah Faisal colony. What did Mr Drigh ever do to Sheikh Faisal :)

Re Rsaxena

Man, you`ll not reform! Bashing those poor, misunderstood, `we only give to charity`, Saudis. They do not kidnap American kids but are only involved in `custody` cases. They have the utmost respect for all forms of human rights and have signed all the covenants too (pity those were not written in the Bedouin dalect of Arabic)! Do you have a yahoo or hotmail e-mail address that you can share here?

#18 by tahmed32 on August 30, 2003 11:22am PT
yogiraj patel: Dont let appearances fool you. ``

No Sirjee.

I think I was not explicit enough. My problem. I do not agree with them at all on what they think. (It seems, may be, both us do not). But I know this. I looked in their eyes, one on one. Ate with their family, in their house. What they promised me was this....: ``We do not go on killing spree``. At least that is not Islam for them, they say.

If any one is capable of matching hate and hatred that is being propogated on my nation. it is me. I do not oppologize at all on that. That does not mean I spit hatred just for heck of it.

Every one who lives in my country, and abides by rules is my countryman/woman. May be they are Deobandis, so what.. they are mine. One wrong move by them against my nation and I will do abcdefg with them.

But why should my Jawahara and my Nasah should get crushed? Simply because they are muslims?


Son of Gupta

Did not get it bhaijan. Did not get it at all.

Do not know what do you want. Why do you want talk with an idiot like me any way?

Yogiraj Patil

re: ayeshap #26



...you are right, it is all CNN`s fault that Saudis still live like uncivilized barbarians...