Sweden condemned by the Arab-world

[cosmicalstorm]

Sweden is in a lot of trouble after calling out Saudi-Arabia on it being a medieval state. Saudi-Arabia has stopped issuing business visas, 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have jointly condemned Sweden (if I get this right, they do so for Sweden having the audacity to demand that human rights should be considered to be a part of Islamic law.)

Several countries have called their ambassadors back home. Is this basically a confession that cruel punishments are part of Islamic tradition? I've seen many debates where people try to argue that the two are not related.

Saudi Arabia will no longer issue business visas to Swedes or renew the current visas of Swedish nationals living in the country, a senior Saudi official told the Associated Press on Thursday.

The official said the decision is in response to Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallstrom’s recent criticism of Saudi Arabia’s record on human and women’s rights. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to release the information.

The move appears aimed at pressuring Stockholm to distance itself from Wallstrom’s comments. She spoke out during a speech in the Swedish parliament against the flogging of a Saudi blogger who was convicted of insulting Islam on a liberal blog he founded. She said the royal family had absolute power, making Saudi Arabia a “dictatorship” where “women’s rights are violated.”

Swedish companies are concerned that the escalation in tensions and the visa ban will hinder their ability to do business in Saudi Arabia, said Andreas Astrom, the communications director at Stockholm’s Chamber of Commerce.

“This is going to have a vast negative impact for the companies with interest in the region,” he said. “This is not good for Swedish business society and, in the long run, jobs in Sweden.”

Sweden’s new left-wing government recently declined to renew a defence cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, which has since recalled its ambassador to Sweden.

Sweden last year exported nearly $1.3bn worth of goods to Saudi Arabia, making it the 18th most important exporting country for Sweden, according to the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. Multinational companies like Volvo, H&M and IKEA operate in Saudi Arabia, as do a range of medium-sized businesses.

The United Arab Emirates on Wednesday also recalled its ambassador to Sweden to protest criticism of its neighbour Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are close allies and members of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, an energy-rich coalition of Arab monarchies. The GCC’s Secretary-General Abdullatif al-Zayani on Thursday met with Sweden’s Ambassador in Riyadh to formally criticize Wallstrom’s remarks as “unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... rights-row

[NoXion]

Good on Sweden. Pity that more countries won't stand up to the Saudis after Sweden has been made an example of.

[FTeik]

How dare they to put those pesky human rights above the development of the economy. One has to wonder how long the attack of a moral backbone will last. I guess no business for Sweden will mean more business for everybody else.

[K. A. Pital]

Sweden has made the right step. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst things the modern age has given us, a blight. I wish the EU just summarily banned Saudis in return.

[ray245]

It doesn't help if richer countries like China does not care about human rights abuse in Saudi Arabia.

[K. A. Pital]

It will help, it will still make Saudis pariahs and a laughing stock, just like DPRK which, despite years of Chinese support, is more of an embarrasment.

[cosmicalstorm]

Wonder what will happen to Saud-Arabia in the future. The oil will lose value. Those expensive weapons won't save them from internal strife.

[Sidewinder]

Wonder what will happen to Saud-Arabia in the future. The oil will lose value. Those expensive weapons won't save them from internal strife.

Problem: At this point, the "internal strife" Saudi Arabia is most likely to suffer, is NOT between royalists and pro-democracy liberals, but between royalists and Islamists- al-Qaida, the Islamic State, the religious fanatics who think it's a Muslim man's divine right to rape and enslave female infidels, who destroy museums and archeological sites in addition to mass murder, in an attempt to eradicate all non-Islamic influences...

That's 100x WORSE than the moderately corrupt and repressive regime the Saudis have now.

[FTeik]

Wonder what will happen to Saud-Arabia in the future. The oil will lose value. Those expensive weapons won't save them from internal strife.

Problem: At this point, the "internal strife" Saudi Arabia is most likely to suffer, is NOT between royalists and pro-democracy liberals, but between royalists and Islamists- al-Qaida, the Islamic State, the religious fanatics who think it's a Muslim man's divine right to rape and enslave female infidels, who destroy museums and archeological sites in addition to mass murder, in an attempt to eradicate all non-Islamic influences...

That's 100x WORSE than the moderately corrupt and repressive regime the Saudis have now.

Well, from that point of view it would be better to have the religiously moderate dictators stay in power. Like Assad, Gaddhafi and Saddam Hussein ... . Uhmm.

[stormthebeaches]

Wonder what will happen to Saud-Arabia in the future. The oil will lose value. Those expensive weapons won't save them from internal strife.

Problem: At this point, the "internal strife" Saudi Arabia is most likely to suffer, is NOT between royalists and pro-democracy liberals, but between royalists and Islamists- al-Qaida, the Islamic State, the religious fanatics who think it's a Muslim man's divine right to rape and enslave female infidels, who destroy museums and archeological sites in addition to mass murder, in an attempt to eradicate all non-Islamic influences...

That's 100x WORSE than the moderately corrupt and repressive regime the Saudis have now.

Well, from that point of view it would be better to have the religiously moderate dictators stay in power. Like Assad, Gaddhafi and Saddam Hussein ... . Uhmm.

Don't forget about Hosni Mubarak, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Shah of Iran.

[The Romulan Republic]

A vicious tyrannical regime is a vicious tyrannical regime, religious or not. The details might differ and the degree of oppression and violence might vary, but the basic problem is the same.

[FTeik]

A vicious tyrannical regime is a vicious tyrannical regime, religious or not. The details might differ and the degree of oppression and violence might vary, but the basic problem is the same.

If I have to have a vicious tyrannical regime I prefer the one without religious fervor.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps, but at the end of the day its still guys with guns keeping power and telling you how to live your life, or else.

[Welf]

Perhaps, but at the end of the day its still guys with guns keeping power and telling you how to live your life, or else.

There is a difference. An authoritarian regime wants you to shut up and comply, a totalitarian regime wants you to actively embrace it. In an authoritarian regime you have at least one choice, namely to shut up and life (unless you have something the dictator wants). That is not enough, but a big step up from getting murdered and raped.

Well, from that point of view it would be better to have the religiously moderate dictators stay in power. Like Assad, Gaddhafi and Saddam Hussein ... . Uhmm.

Saddam and Assad were socialists, not moderately religious. They built schools and infrastructure, embraced women's rights and sometimes enjoyed watching their enemies getting mauled alive by dogs. Gaddhafi was a weirdo.

[K. A. Pital]

Saudi Arabia staying intact with all the riches means just that it will endlessly sponsor radical islamists like IS, Al Quaeda, and the like to make successful coups in formerly secular Middle Eastern nations, until Maghreb, Middle East and parts of Central Asia turn into islamist hellholes.

They have been very successful at this game. Libya, Syria, Iraq, what next?

So no, Sidewinder, Saudi Arabia collapsing does not mean things will get worse, especially if they collapse due to no oil money being left. Without oil money they cannot sponsor islamist nutjobs with, well, money. No money - no weapons - no jihad. Very easy.

Saudi Arabia should fall, and the sooner the better.

[ray245]

Saudi Arabia staying intact with all the riches means just that it will endlessly sponsor radical islamists like IS, Al Quaeda, and the like to make successful coups in formerly secular Middle Eastern nations, until Maghreb, Middle East and parts of Central Asia turn into islamist hellholes.

They have been very successful at this game. Libya, Syria, Iraq, what next?

So no, Sidewinder, Saudi Arabia collapsing does not mean things will get worse, especially if they collapse due to no oil money being left. Without oil money they cannot sponsor islamist nutjobs with, well, money. No money - no weapons - no jihad. Very easy.

Saudi Arabia should fall, and the sooner the better.

Even then, wishing Saudi Arabia to become a failed state isn't necessarily going to stop the cycle of violence that occurs in the middle east. Given the importance of Arabia to most muslims around the world, there would be significant amount of people in other Islamic countries who would want to throw money to see their favourite faction takes over.

[cosmicalstorm]

Solar, fusion and whatever else can not come soon enough.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed they fail before Pakistan delivers nuclear weapons to them and Iran builds their own nukes.
It would be interesting to see what will become of this part of the world. They seem to have a nasty equation.

Sweden is in a weird position now, enemies of both Israel and the Islamic world despite generous contributions to the latter in form of aid and absorbing ~100.000 ME immigrants/year.

[K. A. Pital]

Like I said, if the House of Saud falls due to lack of money, it means less money to sponsor jihad. That is very simple. Sure, other nations can take over Saudi Arabia. But if Saudi Arabia is not a source of untold riches (due to warring factions, a very low oil price or even an actual end to oil reliance in the developed world), then why does it even matter?

[Purple]

Like I said, if the House of Saud falls due to lack of money, it means less money to sponsor jihad. That is very simple. Sure, other nations can take over Saudi Arabia. But if Saudi Arabia is not a source of untold riches (due to warring factions, a very low oil price or even an actual end to oil reliance in the developed world), then why does it even matter?

Because of the potential suffering of it's people?

[K. A. Pital]

Like I said, if the House of Saud falls due to lack of money, it means less money to sponsor jihad. That is very simple. Sure, other nations can take over Saudi Arabia. But if Saudi Arabia is not a source of untold riches (due to warring factions, a very low oil price or even an actual end to oil reliance in the developed world), then why does it even matter?

Because of the potential suffering of it's people?

Saudi Arabia has 18 million people. It has, through its islamist clients, caused civil wars that have already led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It has caused this to happen to Syria, a nation with the population of 23 million people.


Think again.

[Purple]

Think again.

1 corpse = bad
2 corpses ≠ better

[Eleas]

I love how now suddenly Saudi Arabia + closest friends has become synonymous with "the Arab World." Also, tell me again why Saudi Arabia should feel grateful that Sweden admits immigrants?

[K. A. Pital]

Think again.

1 corpse = bad
2 corpses ≠ better

So you still refuse to recognize that your pet ally in the 'Middle East' is in the process of making a colossal bloodbath out of the place, and will not stop funneling money to crazies until the place is a crazy 'nough Sunni monolith raving in their very own way for the glory of Allah?

Very well. I expected nothing less. And while we are at it, I would assume that your solution to any sort of crazy actions from a rich nation-state is a non-solution, because, well, you can't touch them! Their people might suffer!

[Purple]

So you still refuse to recognize that your pet ally in the 'Middle East' is in the process of making a colossal bloodbath out of the place, and will not stop funneling money to crazies until the place is a crazy 'nough Sunni monolith raving in their very own way for the glory of Allah?

Where did this come from? They are neither my ally nor do I think them just or innocent. Next thing you'll call me an american!

Very well. I expected nothing less. And while we are at it, I would assume that your solution to any sort of crazy actions from a rich nation-state is a non-solution, because, well, you can't touch them! Their people might suffer!

Yours meanwhile seems to be to punish people, often generations down the line for the sins of a government they did not even elect. How is that any more just?

[K. A. Pital]

Where did this come from? They are neither my ally nor do I think them just or innocent. Next thing you'll call me an american!

Saudi Arabia is the pet of the Western world. Look at the condolences after king Abdullah kicked the bucket. Do I need to remind you of their laws?

Yours meanwhile seems to be to punish people, often generations down the line for the sins of a government they did not even elect. How is that any more just?

How do you propose to end what the House of Saud is doing? Oh right. You propose to do nothing. See, the poor arabs in other countries, their lives aren't worth one tenth of a Saudi life. Guess what? That is also the way many Saudis think.