Saudi Arabia’s most notorious son, Osama bin Laden, and his al-Qaeda have long made known their contempt for the Saudi monarchy and its pro-Western bent. The suicide attacks in Riyadh, therefore, could be the opening shots in another kind of regime change. - Ehsan Ahrari
This battle between the Saudi regime and al-Qaeda is also being conducted for the mantle of Sunni orthodoxy that the Saudi dynasty pledged in 1745 to protect and promote. It did well in fulfilling both promises until the early 1990s, when Riyadh allowed United States troops - which were invited in for the specific purpose of defending the kingdom against a potential invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and were expected to depart soon after defeating his forces - to stay on its soil. That was when the battle lines were drawn between al-Qaeda and the Saudi government. But the chief enemy in the eyes of al-Qaeda was the United States, the “super-Infidel” and the promoter of hedonism and lecherous consumerism through its “soft power”. The Saudi monarchy was perceived as its “errand boy”, which was to be taken care of at a later date
there is little doubt that regime change is coming in Saudi Arabia, and al-Qaeda is responsible for it in a major way.
I think al-qaeda is non-existent. Even if it is, it is created by U.S. to fulfil its zionist dreams in the middle east. Saudi govt. truly has many negative aspects but what will come might be worse!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *
but what will come might be worse!
[/QUOTE]
agreed and that is why it must be ensured that mutawa types never get in power there or anywhere else, we have example of afghanistan's idiotic taleban regime to refer to.
I agree with the theory to some extent but my view is that the major reason that the days of the Saudi regime are numbered is because it failed to use it's vast wealth to build any sort of industry, infrastructure, or even a fundamental education programme. Most of their wealth has been squandered abroad in various dubious ways so they have paved the way for their own downfall. What will come next I have no idea but they can't say they didn't ask for it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *
I think al-qaeda is non-existent. Even if it is, it is created by U.S. to fulfil its zionist dreams in the middle east. Saudi govt. truly has many negative aspects but what will come might be worse!
[/QUOTE]
Its true, if election are held in Saudi we all know who will win :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
Its true, if election are held in Saudi we all know who will win :D
[/QUOTE]
I don't know, who? Who would be the new keepers of the most sacred places of Islam?
So what line will they toe and what kind of leaders will they be? Will they make you proud? Or is just the fact they will give the US the finger make them worthy as leaders of the birthplace of Islam?
Its true, if election are held in Saudi we all know who will win :D
[/QUOTE]
Frankly I doubt it, the hardline fanatic types are still a minority and fort some odd reason if the populace even picks yer favs as a lesser evil than the royal family, they will realize soon enough that this is not the way to go. Because the youth which is looking for change also wants improvements in their life, better opportunities etc etc. Extremisst have never been able to offer "their" citizens this stuff.
That has always been teh case with isiots like these, look at the pakistani religious-right-winger-political parties. At one time they were all against dictatortships and were pro democracy, but when democracy did come..in however twisted of a form under BB or Nawaaz. mullahs realize that people just did not want them in power. Thus the whole nifaz-e-shariah stuff began and how democracy is not right.
Then when they got a chance, they ganged up as MMA and took part in the same democractic system which they were so dead set against just because they knew they can manipulate people's minds by their anti west rhetoric, Them winnign seats into the least developed and educated areas proves who they cater to.
Saudi Arabia is no exception, majority of people anywhere dont want someone governing their every move..even if right wingers get power initially it will be short lived.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
A system where the majority rules and democratically decides to oppress a minority does not make a democracy.
[/QUOTE]
The majority who won in Algeria was not even given the chance to run the show. I suggest you dig out more on algreian election. Other then that a dictor is fine if he toes US line. Would you like to see the pic of Rummy and Saddi being chums..
The Saudi monarch's who had embedded a whole religious school to protect it rule, is losing ground there as well. There was a letter published in a Saudi news paper Al Hayat, yesterday where 45 Islamic scholars condemned the attacks "on innocents" and said the kingdom should not make these attacks as an prelude to call the Americans troops back.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
So what line will they toe and what kind of leaders will they be? Will they make you proud? Or is just the fact they will give the US the finger make them worthy as leaders of the birthplace of Islam?
[/QUOTE]
Now why would that be an itch for you as to whose line will they toe. Let the majority decide whose line they want to toe or do you only recognise a regime if it only toes US line and the rest are terrorist regarless of how they came to power.
Would you also doubt Algerian democraticaly elected religious party few years ago.
[/QUOTE]
no it was on a rebound from one bad thing to another. it was an approach of "anythign but what we currently have" and then realize you were out of the frying pan and into the fire.
There is increased scrutiny in general now so people may think a little bit more, also the monarchy knows it has to change to survive and they will do what they need to survive.
ask an average algerian what they thought of their right winger rulers.
..same goes for saudis, if things dont change they "may" elect anyone who gives them somethign different than teh system that they have, but if it is the mullahs teh saudis will realize that there is no real change instead of being ruled by a royal family theya re being ruled by a clerics cult than they will press for further change.
Although once a mullah is on power talking about freedom and choice and all, they hardly ever give people the option to elect someone else. afghanistan and iran are 2 examples of that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
Now why would that be an itch for you as to whose line will they toe. Let the majority decide whose line they want to toe or do you only recognise a regime if it only toes US line and the rest are terrorist regarless of how they came to power.
[/QUOTE]
You didn't answer the question, would you be proud to have the wahabis in control of SA? No, they aren't necessarily terrorists if they come into power in spite of the US. But it doesn't mean they would be a democracy either. Just as Hitler was 'elected democratically', so can an oppressive totalinarism theocracy. Once they are in power democracy no longer exists, especially for the oppressed non-believers.
no it was on a rebound from one bad thing to another. it was an approach of "anythign but what we currently have" and then realize you were out of the frying pan and into the fire.
There is increased scrutiny in general now so people may think a little bit more, also the monarchy knows it has to change to survive and they will do what they need to survive.
ask an average algerian what they thought of their right winger rulers.
..same goes for saudis, if things dont change they "may" elect anyone who gives them somethign different than teh system that they have, but if it is the mullahs teh saudis will realize that there is no real change instead of being ruled by a royal family theya re being ruled by a clerics cult than they will press for further change.
Although once a mullah is on power talking about freedom and choice and all, they hardly ever give people the option to elect someone else. afghanistan and iran are 2 examples of that.
[/QUOTE]
Are we questioning the will of majority here? In Algeria the winning party was not even given the chance to run the show because of its anti-west stand. Now if it was elected by majority I would ask what was wrong with that. So in other words you are saying there are different version of democracy one that fits the west and serves its interest is perfectly OK even if its a dictator who came to power through back door and others are a reject or terrorist or brutal dictators. I am pretty confident if elections are held today In Saudi the next regime will not be so friendly to US and will be labeled as the axis of evil with lots of wealth.
If majority wants a leader who is not willing to toe US line he is a dictator by default that is a forgone conclusion lets not even go there.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
You didn't answer the question, would you be proud to have the wahabis in control of SA? No, they aren't necessarily terrorists if they come into power in spite of the US. But it doesn't mean they would be a democracy either. Just as Hitler was 'elected democratically', so can an oppressive totalinarism theocracy. Once they are in power democracy no longer exists, especially for the oppressed non-believers.
[/QUOTE]
Are we on a different wave length, I don't care if its whabbis or al-qaeda running the show BUT the fact that majority rules. If majority wants Wahibis then I have no problem with that.
Once they are in power democracy no longer exist, yeah sure!!! democracy no longer exist if they are anti-west. As a matter fact in that case even a dictator is acceptable. Don't try to tell me that US gives two hoots about some camel jokey from a minorty sect.