4 ms·

Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? How do you move such a medieval religious society into freedom? This sounds so dystopian. Is there a simple exp

by jordigh 11y ago

Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? How do you move such a medieval religious society into freedom? This sounds so dystopian. Is there a simple explanation for why the Christian West moved to relative secularism a couple centuries ago while Saudi Arabia has remained so medieval, despite oil-powered industrialisation?

KaiserPro 11y ago
First you have to separate this view that Muslim == repression. The ruling class is held afloat by oil. The people that would otherwise be itching for "freedom" are either held in check by state oppression or the direct proceeds of oil. All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS) are a direct result of both oil, and the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, promising that the US won't invade, and SA will continue to pump oil. The Saudis ruling are literally the family that give everyone else a bad name. (although Qatar and Kuwait are very close) Turkey is a democracy and is liberal, However they are not Christian, so they have different values. They also have three active wars on 40% of its borders. The solution is stopping giving them money, arms and other interventions.
- _nedR 11y ago
  "All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS)" Ah. People (particularly NY Times readers) see the words "muslim" and "extermist" and they automatically assume it must be Saudi funded, even if the conclusion makes no sense in the given context. ISIS is the biggest challenge to the Saudi's rule of the peninsula in years. If anyone is going to support them it would be anti-saudi religious extremists looking to overthrow them. There are many groups operating in Syria which could be clients of the Saudis. ISIS is not one of them. It makes no sense for them to do so. edit: rephrasing
  - KaiserPro 11y ago
    Its not actually just Saudis, its Qatar, UK, France, and the US. Saudi Arabia spent a long time getting the US to attack syria. Also Al-quaeda is/was a bigger threat, because it came from within, it started out as a jolly adventure for a low ranking Saudi Noble. ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 The main difference is that ISIS show a flair for video editing of their medieval punishments. Something the Saudi state does behind closed doors. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-supply-of-weapons-to-syria-rebels/story-fnb64oi6-1226713580332?nk=cf8b4c62d627b4f81a6143cd41544812-1443341961 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-su... They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/powerful-rebel-groups-with-ties-to-al-qaeda-calling-for-islamic-law-in-syria-after-breaking-with-exiled-opposition http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/p... When they gave up on getting us to attack them they tried a different tact: http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-the-arab-league-into-attacking-syria/5369258 http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-th... In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria.
    - _nedR 11y ago
      >>They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria at the time (at least not openly in such large numbers). Both organisations are quite different in composition, tactics and ambition (ISIS in Syria depends a lot on foreign fighters whereas Al Nusra is more grassroots) >>In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria. Basically my original point. ISIS is an UNINTENDED consequence of western dicking in Iraq and mostly middle-eastern (with strong western support) dicking in Syria. (When will they learn?) I don't think any country actually intentionally supported them. >ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 For the longest time i thought they were a bunch of religious nutjobs too. But lot of their actions didn't make much sense from that perspective (For example from 2013 -2015 why were they more focussed on attacking other anti-assad rebels than assad himself?). After reading this, it started making more sense:- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file... The above article has some holes as well, but it still seems to be the theory that makes the most sense. The whole religious nutjob thing was largely a show put on for the benefit of their followers and enemies. The core of the organisation seems to be made up of Baathists, and their tactics and modus operandi reflect that background. Of course noone would actually support a Baathist resurgence so they adopted a religious cloak to hide their true nature.
kzhahou 11y ago
> Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? Electric cars and alternative fuels?
- mercurial 11y ago
  If the Saudi economy crashes, I'd bet more on a push by al-Qaeda and similar groups which see the al-Sauds as too tame.
chvid 11y ago
You fix it by having a lower price of oil.
hasenj 11y ago
It's because they have oil that they get to do as they please. Saudi Arabic happened to be ruled by religious nuts. Other countries like the UAE seem to be ruled by more pragmatic (although still conservative) tribal leaders.
- nugget 11y ago
  When the oil money runs out it will be a very different story. I hope I live long enough to watch it happen.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Why wait, you can see it live (Syria).
    - apta 11y ago
      Syria is a completely different story than Saudi Arabia. The US and Russian governments continue to pour fuel into the fire, keeping the war going.
      - guard-of-terra 11y ago
        Don't for a second think there would not be several governments pouring fuel into the Saudi Arabia's funeral pyre. Why won't they?
        apta 11y ago
        I suppose that's right. However, my point was that Syria has been the "lone wolf"; it did not give in to Western pressure, unlike a lot of other regimes in the region. As such, it was always a target for destabilization.
  - apta 11y ago
    What about watching what's going on in the Western world? Society is disintegrating as we speak (greed, capitalism, fake freedoms, etc. all to blame). At least in many parts of the Middle East, family and religious values are held in high esteem (they're part of the religion and culture).
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Why fix it? I bet everybody not content how things are can move to UAE or whatever. Their citizens are kind of rich. And for non-citizens, it's their choice. You should better strive to fix USA, UK and Japan, because they actually serve as beacons for the rest of the world.
molecule 11y ago
> Is there a simple explanation for why the Christian West moved to relative secularism a couple centuries ago while Saudi Arabia has remained so medieval, despite oil-powered industrialisation? That's a good question, to which I don't know the answer, but I would guess that it is @ least partially due to do w/ an authoritarian monarchy that came to power by aligning itself w/ religious fundamentalism: > The emergence of what was to become the Saudi royal family, known as the Al Saud, began in Nejd in central Arabia in 1744, when Muhammad bin Saud, founder of the dynasty, joined forces with the religious leader Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of the Wahhabi movement, a strict puritanical form of Sunni Islam. This alliance formed in the 18th century provided the ideological impetus to Saudi expansion and remains the basis of Saudi Arabian dynastic rule today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Before_the_foundation_of_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Before_the_founda...
vinceguidry 11y ago
> Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? How do you move such a medieval religious society into freedom? Not a good idea. The Middle East has had a succession of "enlightened" despots who attempted to rid their countries of Islam. Islam is not just a faith for these people, it's a way of life, so well entrenched in the social fabric that all these rulers managed to do was to inflict even worse human rights violations and galvanize the population against the demon West. You have to let them find their own way. It may take them a few hundred years, but eventually their society will slowly pry open. The external threats to their way of life will have to cease, as long as they feel like they're under attack by the West, they'll just cocoon off and just not allow any influences in. Probably the best thing that could happen in this regard is a permanent collapse in oil prices, though that would likely cause a lot of people to starve. Things would get a lot worse for them before they get better. I read an article recently about how the Saud family is trying their hardest to prepare for a post-oil world. > Is there a simple explanation for why the Christian West moved to relative secularism a couple centuries ago while Saudi Arabia has remained so medieval, despite oil-powered industrialisation? Because colonialism. Europe brought industry to the rest of the world at the point of a gun. An excellent book to read on this topic is Fields of Blood by Karen Armstrong. http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence/dp/0307946967 http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence...
- mahyarm 11y ago
  So how did turkey happen?
  - mercurial 11y ago
    Turkey happened because of Attarturk, at a time where he had the army with him, and where the Ottoman empire was disintegrating. Presumably, this made it very difficult for conservative forces to oppose the radical campaign of modernization and europeanisation he engaged into.
    - aws_ls 11y ago
      Quora has some good answers, which shed light on Ataturk's personality[1]. Wonder, why in that part of the world, there were so few such personalities. Actually, Iran was denied of it's democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, by UK and supported by US (TPAJAX project)[2]. [1] https://www.quora.com/Turkey-country/Was-Mustafa-Kemal-Ataturk-a-good-man https://www.quora.com/Turkey-country/Was-Mustafa-Kemal-Atatu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joesmo 11y ago
It might not be a bad idea to stop trading with them and publicly condemn certain things about their society, especially their treatment of women. I assume this will happen as soon as we're no longer dependent on the region for fuel and not before.
- mercurial 11y ago
  I don't know who the "we" is in this sentence, but if you mean the US, that's not going to happen. Even outside of oil, US bases down there have a strategic importance.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    The 'we' refers to the international community of which the US is the biggest--but not the only--influencer. I don't see what US bases have to do with the US condemning the atrocities in the middle east, especially in a post-oil world. I think the US will want to keep its bases there and probably will, but there won't any strong incentives to keep them there like we have now. There certainly won't be any incentives to trade with countries in the middle east like Saudi Arabia because they have absolutely nothing to trade other than oil. In that situation, I'm quite sure we'll finally call them out (hypocritically, of course) on their human rights abuses and their essential enslavement of women.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mercurial 11y ago
> Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? How do you move such a medieval religious society into freedom? This sounds so dystopian. Time, mostly. Rolling in with tanks in the hope that locals will take up freedom and Coca-Cola hasn't met with resounding success in the area. But there are some tentative moves by the ruling despots to grant a little bit more autonomy to women. And I expect that many in the younger urban generation start chafing under the current system. Eventually, the liberals may manage to get some influence.
apta 11y ago
If your idea of "freedom" is what exists today in the West, then no thanks. The people there are not interested -- and good for them for preserving their culture and morals.

by jordigh 11y ago

KaiserPro 11y ago

First you have to separate this view that Muslim == repression. The ruling class is held afloat by oil. The people that would otherwise be itching for "freedom" are either held in check by state oppression or the direct proceeds of oil. All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS) are a direct result of both oil, and the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, promising that the US won't invade, and SA will continue to pump oil. The Saudis ruling are literally the family that give everyone else a bad name. (although Qatar and Kuwait are very close) Turkey is a democracy and is liberal, However they are not Christian, so they have different values. They also have three active wars on 40% of its borders. The solution is stopping giving them money, arms and other interventions.

_nedR 11y ago
"All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS)" Ah. People (particularly NY Times readers) see the words "muslim" and "extermist" and they automatically assume it must be Saudi funded, even if the conclusion makes no sense in the given context. ISIS is the biggest challenge to the Saudi's rule of the peninsula in years. If anyone is going to support them it would be anti-saudi religious extremists looking to overthrow them. There are many groups operating in Syria which could be clients of the Saudis. ISIS is not one of them. It makes no sense for them to do so. edit: rephrasing
- KaiserPro 11y ago
  Its not actually just Saudis, its Qatar, UK, France, and the US. Saudi Arabia spent a long time getting the US to attack syria. Also Al-quaeda is/was a bigger threat, because it came from within, it started out as a jolly adventure for a low ranking Saudi Noble. ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 The main difference is that ISIS show a flair for video editing of their medieval punishments. Something the Saudi state does behind closed doors. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-supply-of-weapons-to-syria-rebels/story-fnb64oi6-1226713580332?nk=cf8b4c62d627b4f81a6143cd41544812-1443341961 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-su... They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/powerful-rebel-groups-with-ties-to-al-qaeda-calling-for-islamic-law-in-syria-after-breaking-with-exiled-opposition http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/p... When they gave up on getting us to attack them they tried a different tact: http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-the-arab-league-into-attacking-syria/5369258 http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-th... In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria.
  - _nedR 11y ago
    >>They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria at the time (at least not openly in such large numbers). Both organisations are quite different in composition, tactics and ambition (ISIS in Syria depends a lot on foreign fighters whereas Al Nusra is more grassroots) >>In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria. Basically my original point. ISIS is an UNINTENDED consequence of western dicking in Iraq and mostly middle-eastern (with strong western support) dicking in Syria. (When will they learn?) I don't think any country actually intentionally supported them. >ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 For the longest time i thought they were a bunch of religious nutjobs too. But lot of their actions didn't make much sense from that perspective (For example from 2013 -2015 why were they more focussed on attacking other anti-assad rebels than assad himself?). After reading this, it started making more sense:- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file... The above article has some holes as well, but it still seems to be the theory that makes the most sense. The whole religious nutjob thing was largely a show put on for the benefit of their followers and enemies. The core of the organisation seems to be made up of Baathists, and their tactics and modus operandi reflect that background. Of course noone would actually support a Baathist resurgence so they adopted a religious cloak to hide their true nature.

kzhahou 11y ago

> Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? Electric cars and alternative fuels?

mercurial 11y ago
If the Saudi economy crashes, I'd bet more on a push by al-Qaeda and similar groups which see the al-Sauds as too tame.

chvid 11y ago

You fix it by having a lower price of oil.

hasenj 11y ago

It's because they have oil that they get to do as they please. Saudi Arabic happened to be ruled by religious nuts. Other countries like the UAE seem to be ruled by more pragmatic (although still conservative) tribal leaders.

nugget 11y ago
When the oil money runs out it will be a very different story. I hope I live long enough to watch it happen.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Why wait, you can see it live (Syria).
  - apta 11y ago
    Syria is a completely different story than Saudi Arabia. The US and Russian governments continue to pour fuel into the fire, keeping the war going.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      Don't for a second think there would not be several governments pouring fuel into the Saudi Arabia's funeral pyre. Why won't they?
      - apta 11y ago
        I suppose that's right. However, my point was that Syria has been the "lone wolf"; it did not give in to Western pressure, unlike a lot of other regimes in the region. As such, it was always a target for destabilization.
- apta 11y ago
  What about watching what's going on in the Western world? Society is disintegrating as we speak (greed, capitalism, fake freedoms, etc. all to blame). At least in many parts of the Middle East, family and religious values are held in high esteem (they're part of the religion and culture).

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Why fix it? I bet everybody not content how things are can move to UAE or whatever. Their citizens are kind of rich. And for non-citizens, it's their choice. You should better strive to fix USA, UK and Japan, because they actually serve as beacons for the rest of the world.

molecule 11y ago

> Is there a simple explanation for why the Christian West moved to relative secularism a couple centuries ago while Saudi Arabia has remained so medieval, despite oil-powered industrialisation? That's a good question, to which I don't know the answer, but I would guess that it is @ least partially due to do w/ an authoritarian monarchy that came to power by aligning itself w/ religious fundamentalism: > The emergence of what was to become the Saudi royal family, known as the Al Saud, began in Nejd in central Arabia in 1744, when Muhammad bin Saud, founder of the dynasty, joined forces with the religious leader Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of the Wahhabi movement, a strict puritanical form of Sunni Islam. This alliance formed in the 18th century provided the ideological impetus to Saudi expansion and remains the basis of Saudi Arabian dynastic rule today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Before_the_foundation_of_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Before_the_founda...

vinceguidry 11y ago

> Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? How do you move such a medieval religious society into freedom? Not a good idea. The Middle East has had a succession of "enlightened" despots who attempted to rid their countries of Islam. Islam is not just a faith for these people, it's a way of life, so well entrenched in the social fabric that all these rulers managed to do was to inflict even worse human rights violations and galvanize the population against the demon West. You have to let them find their own way. It may take them a few hundred years, but eventually their society will slowly pry open. The external threats to their way of life will have to cease, as long as they feel like they're under attack by the West, they'll just cocoon off and just not allow any influences in. Probably the best thing that could happen in this regard is a permanent collapse in oil prices, though that would likely cause a lot of people to starve. Things would get a lot worse for them before they get better. I read an article recently about how the Saud family is trying their hardest to prepare for a post-oil world. > Is there a simple explanation for why the Christian West moved to relative secularism a couple centuries ago while Saudi Arabia has remained so medieval, despite oil-powered industrialisation? Because colonialism. Europe brought industry to the rest of the world at the point of a gun. An excellent book to read on this topic is Fields of Blood by Karen Armstrong. http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence/dp/0307946967 http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence...

mahyarm 11y ago
So how did turkey happen?
- mercurial 11y ago
  Turkey happened because of Attarturk, at a time where he had the army with him, and where the Ottoman empire was disintegrating. Presumably, this made it very difficult for conservative forces to oppose the radical campaign of modernization and europeanisation he engaged into.
  - aws_ls 11y ago
    Quora has some good answers, which shed light on Ataturk's personality[1]. Wonder, why in that part of the world, there were so few such personalities. Actually, Iran was denied of it's democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, by UK and supported by US (TPAJAX project)[2]. [1] https://www.quora.com/Turkey-country/Was-Mustafa-Kemal-Ataturk-a-good-man https://www.quora.com/Turkey-country/Was-Mustafa-Kemal-Atatu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

joesmo 11y ago

It might not be a bad idea to stop trading with them and publicly condemn certain things about their society, especially their treatment of women. I assume this will happen as soon as we're no longer dependent on the region for fuel and not before.

mercurial 11y ago
I don't know who the "we" is in this sentence, but if you mean the US, that's not going to happen. Even outside of oil, US bases down there have a strategic importance.
- joesmo 11y ago
  The 'we' refers to the international community of which the US is the biggest--but not the only--influencer. I don't see what US bases have to do with the US condemning the atrocities in the middle east, especially in a post-oil world. I think the US will want to keep its bases there and probably will, but there won't any strong incentives to keep them there like we have now. There certainly won't be any incentives to trade with countries in the middle east like Saudi Arabia because they have absolutely nothing to trade other than oil. In that situation, I'm quite sure we'll finally call them out (hypocritically, of course) on their human rights abuses and their essential enslavement of women.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mercurial 11y ago

> Wow... how... how do you fix a place like this? How do you move such a medieval religious society into freedom? This sounds so dystopian. Time, mostly. Rolling in with tanks in the hope that locals will take up freedom and Coca-Cola hasn't met with resounding success in the area. But there are some tentative moves by the ruling despots to grant a little bit more autonomy to women. And I expect that many in the younger urban generation start chafing under the current system. Eventually, the liberals may manage to get some influence.

apta 11y ago

If your idea of "freedom" is what exists today in the West, then no thanks. The people there are not interested -- and good for them for preserving their culture and morals.