Saudi Arabia strip Religious Police's right to arrest

[Aerion Brightflame]

I just don't get the logic. Like say you want to make the argument that there is evidence for western governments being in favour of what the government does, why would praising something legitimately credible be that indication and not say the fact that the UN has SA as a member of the human rights council? Surely that would be the instance people would cite for creating this perception. The UN might only be a figurative power, but that kind of approval means a lot more than this incident would. 

 

I also don't understand why you are arguing about how SA are costing the world innocent lives, and yet are in favour of letting Daesh actively gain foot-holds of power in the country, which your know best case is that you kill even more innocents before they are forced out, worst case you give Daesh a f*** tonne of infrastructure, equipment and soldiers that we then have to dismantle, which would cost even more civilian lives. 

 

Maybe... just maybe you could make a numerical argument that a short term uprising would solve things with less loss of life, but I doubt it given the traditional western values we want SA to adopt don't really exist amongst the populace there, not as a majority anyway. So the reality is a revolution would most likely destabilise the country, cause more splinter groups to form, and not really solve things how we want them to be solved in the long term.And almost certainty lead to greater loss of life/livelyhood. 

 

I think Iran in the like 70's is an example of that kind of thing just going badly for us. 

 

I just don't get this viewpoint that rapid progress is needed in order to save lives, when essentially every possible fast solution is going to either cost lives, or make things worse for us in the long term. And not actually solve the issue we have with the country in terms of democracy, women's rights, and capital punishment.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah, because the Arab Spring had some damn fine results, didnt it?

The Syrian Civil War in particular has been going on for years at this point already, and I dont even wanna think about how many innocents it has claimed already.

 

(And before anyone decides to jump on me about it, no I'm not saying the revolts and civil uprisings were a bad thing. I'm merely saying a "revolution" isnt a be all end all solution with zero cost and time involved)

 

And I seriously do not understand your argument.

 

We're not saying "Ok you're cool now, go back to whatever you were doing".

We're saying "This is a step in the right direction. Please keep going"

Tunisia turned out pretty well didn't it? The US, as much as it pains me to say this, half-assed it. Ghaddafi was tolerated far too long. The proper thing to have done is to removed him early and stopped there or to put down the rebels. But we did neither until late into the game.

 

The number of losses from a short term revolution against a extremist sect of Islam (Whabbism) would be smaller than the travesty of allowing Saudia claiming to be the US's ally and continue as they are.

 

It's not about what we're saying, it's about the perception and our inaction. Praising Saudi Arabia in anyway is gonna tick off Shi'as that we have a much better chance of re-aligning with due to their less extreme take on Islam. Anything short of utter and absolute condemnation of SA isn't far enough.

I just don't get the logic. Like say you want to make the argument that there is evidence for western governments being in favour of what the government does, why would praising something legitimately credible be that indication and not say the fact that the UN has SA as a member of the human rights council? Surely that would be the instance people would cite for creating this perception. The UN might only be a figurative power, but that kind of approval means a lot more than this incident would. 

 

I also don't understand why you are arguing about how SA are costing the world innocent lives, and yet are in favour of letting Daesh actively gain foot-holds of power in the country, which your know best case is that you kill even more innocents before they are forced out, worst case you give Daesh a f*** tonne of infrastructure, equipment and soldiers that we then have to dismantle, which would cost even more civilian lives. 

 

Maybe... just maybe you could make a numerical argument that a short term uprising would solve things with less loss of life, but I doubt it given the traditional western values we want SA to adopt don't really exist amongst the populace there, not as a majority anyway. So the reality is a revolution would most likely destabilise the country, cause more splinter groups to form, and not really solve things how we want them to be solved in the long term.And almost certainty lead to greater loss of life/livelyhood. 

 

I think Iran in the like 70's is an example of that kind of thing just going badly for us. 

 

I just don't get this viewpoint that rapid progress is needed in order to save lives, when essentially every possible fast solution is going to either cost lives, or make things worse for us in the long term. And not actually solve the issue we have with the country in terms of democracy, women's rights, and capital punishment.

SA spends the 4th most on Military spending right? The Army should be able to deal with Daesh for long enough, while allowing the people to view what Whabbism devolves into with minimum casualties. If the SA folds to ISIS, that's reason enough for the US to side with Iran on SA and bolster that relationship. Iran wants Saudi heads on spike and I'm fine giving it to them.

 

We win either way, either Daesh and SA weaken each other enough for increased Shi'a influence to proliferate the area, or we get probable cause to clean the area out. 

 

Shi'a Sunni tensions are at a breaking point now, we can easily utilize this situation to the ME into a three way battle between Shi'a Whabbism, and the Sunnis. The end result would be that we weren't involved and that Israels enemies are less powerful in strength

 

as for Iran, that's blatant stupidity on our part. Iran hates SA as much or more than they do Israel, we should be using SA as the bargaining chip to get Iran back in our books, not trying out oust Assad

[vla1ne]

well. they're still backwards as all hell, but they're slowly turning around at least. it's not really much, and it's not worthy of much praise until they can keep up the change for a sustained period of time, but it's definitely a start, and at the very least, it's worthy of a bit of respect.

[chairman ali]

we can easily utilize this situation to the ME into a three way battle between Shi'a Whabbism, and the Sunnis.

 

Won't happen. A sunni-Shi'a war will not break out because Sunni's see Shi'a as Muslims and Shi'a see Sunnis as Muslims. Muslims don't kill Muslims. However, Wahhabis [iSIS, Al-Qaeda, etc.] are Takfiris [those who say that anyone who's not from their sect is an apostate and deserves to be killed] and so their killing isn't of an issue because they're causing Fitna (the act of turning people of the same religion against each other) and because they're pretty much going against every law set in Islam. 

 

You can already see that Shi'a and Sunnis in Iraq and Syria are uniting against Daesh. So this war actually made the Muslim sects grow stronger. When the suicide bomber in Kuwait detonated himself in a Shi'a masjid, this didn't create tension. It made Sunnis closer to Shi'a.

 

It is also good to mention that Iraq is a nearly a 50-50 country of Sunnis and Shi'a. They marry from both sects so their families are connected, meaning there is a 0% chance of any Sunni-Shi'a war of breaking. And to add to that, people look up to Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani and he ALWAYS keeps Sunnis and Shi'a together.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Won't happen. A sunni-Shi'a war will not break out because Sunni's see Shi'a as Muslims and Shi'a see Sunnis as Muslims. Muslims don't kill Muslims. However, Wahhabis [iSIS, Al-Qaeda, etc.] are Takfiris [those who say that anyone who's not from their sect is an apostate and deserves to be killed] and so their killing isn't of an issue because they're causing Fitna (the act of turning people of the same religion against each other) and because they're pretty much going against every law set in Islam. 

 

You can already see that Shi'a and Sunnis in Iraq and Syria are uniting against Daesh. So this war actually made the Muslim sects grow stronger. When the suicide bomber in Kuwait detonated himself in a Shi'a masjid, this didn't create tension. It made Sunnis closer to Shi'a.

 

It is also good to mention that Iraq is a nearly a 50-50 country of Sunnis and Shi'a. They marry from both sects so their families are connected, meaning there is a 0% chance of any Sunni-Shi'a war of breaking. And to add to that, people look up to Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani and he ALWAYS keeps Sunnis and Shi'a together.

Huhn, so is the Saudi-Iran aggression over exaggerated then? Or is that more politics rather than a Muslim divide (genuinely asking)

[chairman ali]

Huhn, so is the Saudi-Iran aggression over exaggerated then? Or is that more politics rather than a Muslim divide (genuinely asking)

 

As I said before. Saudi is a Wahhabi state but that doesn't mean all of Saudi is Wahhabi. There is a very small portion of Shi'a there but there are also many Sunni people.

 

Iran's main issue isn't with the people. It is with the ruling family. The ruling family are killing each other over the throne anyway, so it won't be long before they all cease to exist. There will come a time where you'll see a new Saudi king every few months. This is how bad it's becoming for them.

[Maeriberii Haan]

It is mainly a political conflict.

 

With some researches, it is clear that the big sectarian conflicts between Shia and Sunni of now is something recent, a byproduct of Saudi and the imperial family's political maneuvers in the ME, Saudi-Iran's aggression is mainly because they're standing on opposite political alignment, that's pretty much it. It just got escalated into a sectarian conflict because it'll get the people involved more easily.

 

Iran's people actually is pretty progressive in general. Especially compared to the common image people have about them. As Ali said, it is mainly the issue of the upper brass. The anti-west stigma they keep is pretty bad for progress.