Showing posts with label saudi arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saudi arabia. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Iranians charged in U.S. over assassination plot


From: reuters.com


Then Saudi Arabian Foreign Policy Advisor Adel-Al-Jubeir gestures during a press conference in response to U.S. engineer Paul Marshal Johnson's beheading at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, in this June 18, 2004 file photo. U.S. authorities broke up an alleged plot to bomb the Israeli and Saudi Arabian embassies in Washington and assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, court documents and a U.S. official said on October 11, 2011. In July and August, co-plotter Manssor Arbabsiar paid $100,000 to a DEA informant for the murder of Saudi ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir, court documents said.   REUTERS-Shaun Heasley-Files


WASHINGTON/NEW YORK
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. authorities broke up a plot by men linked to the Iranian government to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States would hold Tehran accountable for the plot.

Two men, originally from Iran, were charged in a U.S. court for the plot. One of them, Gholam Shakuri, was described in the criminal complaint as a member of the Quds Force, a branch of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Shakuri is still at large but the officials said U.S. authorities arrested the other man, Manssor Arbabsiar who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on September 29.

U.S. officials said there had also been initial discussions about other alleged plots, including attacking the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, however no charges for that were revealed Tuesday.

Relations were already sour between the Islamic republic and Washington, which accuses Tehran of backing terrorism and pursuing nuclear arms.

Holder declined to say what measures the Obama administration would take, but said they would be coming soon.

"The disruption of this alleged plot marks a significant achievement by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as the close cooperation of our partners in the Mexican government," Holder told a news conference in Washington.

"In addition to holding these individual conspirators accountable for their alleged role in this plot, the United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," he said.

Last month hopes were raised of improved ties when Iran released two U.S. hikers accused of spying when they were arrested on the Iran-Iraq border in 2009. Holder said there was no link between the hikers' case and the alleged plot.

SAUDI AMBASSADOR

Officials said that the Saudi ambassador, Adel Al-Jubeir, was never in danger. President Barack Obama was briefed in June about the alleged plot and through a spokesman expressed gratitude for it being disrupted.

The assassination plot began to unfold in May 2011 when Arbabsiar approached an individual in Mexico to help, but that individual turned out to be an informant for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The confidential source, who was not identified, immediately tipped law enforcement agents, according to the criminal complaint. Arbabsiar paid $100,000 to the informant in July and August for the plot, a down payment on the $1.5 million requested.

Shakuri approved the plan to kill the ambassador during telephone conversations with Arbabsiar, the complaint said.

After Arbabsiar was arrested in New York, he allegedly confessed and provided U.S. authorities with more details about the Iranian government's alleged involvement, Holder said.

The men are charged with one count of conspiracy to murder a foreign official, two counts of foreign travel and use of interstate and foreign commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire and one count each of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

Authorities said no explosives were acquired for the plot and the weapon of mass destruction charge can range from a simple improvised device to a more significant weapon. They face up to life in prison if convicted.

(Reporting by Basil Katz in New York, James Vicini, Mark Hosenball, Tabassum Zakaria and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Writing by Jeremy Pelofsky; Editing by David Storey)

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Violence injures 14; Saudis promise 'iron fist' against 'instigators'

From Mohammed Jamjoom, CNN
(CNN) -- Security forces in eastern Saudi Arabia clashed with armed people provoked by a "foreign country," the Saudi Press Agency said Tuesday, citing an official source at the Interior Ministry.

The incident occurred Monday night in Awamiyya, in the Qatif region of Eastern province, where many Shiites in the predominantly Sunni country live. At least 14 people were wounded.

"A group of instigators" congregated in the town's roundabout and "used motorcycles and Molotov cocktails to undermine security and interfere in national sovereignty," according to the report.

"As security forces managed to disperse them, the group fired with automatic weapons at the security forces from a nearby neighborhood which resulted in the injury of 11 security forces, nine of them from gunshots and two from Molotov cocktails. In addition, a civilian and two women were wounded from gunshots in a nearby building. All were taken to a hospital," the report said.

The ministry said that it "will not tolerate any threat to the security and stability of the homeland and its citizens, and will respond with an iron fist."

The Interior Ministry source was quoted as saying the "group was incited by a foreign country that seeks to extend its influence outside its circle and to undermine the security of the homeland." It didn't name the country.

There have been street disturbances in the predominantly Shiite country of Bahrain nearby, ruled by a Sunni monarchy. And there has been tension between Iran, a predominantly Shiite nation, and the Sunni world.

This year, Shiite protesters in Qatif city and Awamiyya urged the government to release Shiite prisoners and grant more rights. Those protests, which were peaceful, also urged the withdrawal of regional forces from neighboring Bahrain.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Insurers' 9/11 suit against Saudis dropped in Pa.

Associated Press, 09.22.11, 08:39 AM EDT

PHILADELPHIA -- A lawsuit accusing Saudi Arabia of funneling money to al-Qaida has been dropped by insurers that paid out millions following the September 11 terror attacks.

The Tribune-Democrat of Johnstown reports the suit brought by a Lloyd's of London insurance syndicate was withdrawn Monday. The dismissal notice does not indicate why the suit was dropped.


The suit aimed to recoup $215 million paid out on policies covering airlines, security companies and airport authorities. It claimed that Saudi Arabia made charitable donations to Muslim groups that were then funneled to al-Qaida.

An appeals court in New York had said in 2008 that the Saudi royal family and other defendants were immune from such lawsuits.


FROM: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/22/general-us-sept-11-lawsuits_8694329.html

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Saudi Arabia executes man convicted of "sorcery"

Saudi Arabia's government should establish an immediate moratorium on executions in the kingdom, Amnesty International said today after a Sudanese man convicted of "sorcery" was put to death.

Abdul Hamid bin Hussain bin Moustafa al-Fakki was beheaded in Madina on Monday. Saudi Arabia has now executed 44 people this year. Eleven were foreign nationals.

"Abdul Hamid's execution is appalling as is Saudi Arabia's continuing use of this most cruel and extreme penalty," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

"That he should have been executed without having committed anything that would appear to constitute a crime is yet another deeply upsetting example of why the Saudi Arabian government should immediately cease executions and take steps to abolish the death penalty."

The crime of "sorcery" is not defined in Saudi Arabian law but it has been used to punish people for the legitimate exercise of their human rights, including their right to freedom of expression.

Abdul Hamid bin Hussain bin Moustafa al-Fakki was arrested in 2005 after he was entrapped by a man working for the Mutawa'een (religious police) who asked him to produce a spell that would lead to the man's father leaving his second wife.

It was alleged that Abdul Hamid said he would do this in exchange for 6,000 Saudi Arabian riyals (approximately US$1,600).

Reportedly beaten after his arrest, Abdul Hamid is believed to have been coerced to confess to carrying out acts of sorcery.

He was sentenced to death by the General Court in Madina in March 2007. Few details are available about his trial but he is reported to have been tried behind closed doors and without legal representation.

Amnesty International campaigned on Abdul Hamid's behalf following his arrest and had urged Saudi Arabia's King 'Abdullah to prevent his execution.

Since the end of the holy month of Ramadan a few weeks ago, the Saudi Arabian authorities  have resumed executions at an alarming pace.

Seven people are known to have been put to death since executions resumed on 5 September, bringing the total executed so far this year to at least 44. In 2010 a total of 27 people were executed.

Two weeks ago Syrian national, Karim Ruslan Al-Ruslan was executed in the Jouf Region for smuggling drugs into the kingdom.

Around 140 prisoners are believed to be facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia.

Last December, Saudi Arabia was one of a minority of states that voted against a UN general assembly resolution calling for the worldwide moratorium on executions.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Sen. Kirk wants FAA to investigate alleged religious discrimination by Delta

By Keith Laing
 
Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk (R) called Friday for the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate allegations Delta Airlines blocked Jewish passengers from flying as part of an agreement with a Saudi Arabian airline.

USA Today reported Thursday on rumors circulating Internet that as part of Saudi Arabian Airlines's agreement to join Delta's SkyTeam alliance, Delta would enforce a Saudi ban on passengers from Israel and non-Islamic religious artifacts.

Delta denied the accusation, saying it had a nondiscrimination policy, but Kirk still called for an investigation Friday.

"I am deeply concerned by the June 23, 2011, report in USA Today entitled 'U.S. Jews not able to fly on Delta flights to Saudi Arabia,'" Kirk wrote in a letter to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.  "If true, this policy appears to violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause while undermining the purpose of the Federal Aviation Administration – to promote the safety and expansion of U.S. civil aviation.
"I request your investigation into this matter to determine whether Delta Airlines violated U.S. law or regulation and to ensure no U.S. citizen is denied their right to fly solely on the basis of their religion," he continued. "Since a core mission of the FAA is to promote civil aviation, I would expect the FAA to use its full statutory and regulatory power to ensure that America's civil airways are not restricted for persons regardless of faith."

Delta sought to tamp down the controversy before Kirk's letter, taking to its blog on the company's website to respond to the report.

"We’ve gotten questions today from you, our concerned customers, following an article about Saudi Arabian Airlines joining SkyTeam (the global airline alliance that includes Delta as a member)," Delta spokesman Trebor Banstetter wrote on the company's blog.
"After listening to many of your thoughts today, we’d like to take this opportunity to share some information and help to clarify some of the questions we know you have," Banstetter continued. First and foremost, I think one of the most important things to mention here is that Delta does not discriminate nor do we condone discrimination against anyone in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender."

The company added that "requirements to enter any country are dictated by that nation’s government, not the airlines, and they apply to anyone entering the country regardless of whether it’s by plane, bus or train."

"We, like all international airlines, are required to comply with all applicable laws governing entry into every country we serve," Banstetter wrote. "You as passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents, such as visas and certification of required vaccinations, and we’re responsible for making sure that you have the proper documentation before you board."

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabian also moved Friday to try to dispel the rumors, saying in a statement that "rumors being circulated via the Internet regarding passenger flight restrictions on Saudi Arabian Airlines are completely false.
"The Government of Saudi Arabia does not deny visas to U.S. citizens based on their religion," the Saudi statement said.

from: http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/aviation/168339-sen-kirk-wants-faa-to-investigate-delta-religious-discrimination-rumors#.TgZrobUdUnE.twitter

Monday, June 13, 2011

Saudis permit Israeli jets to pass over to Iran

London Times reports Saudis carry out defense missile tests aimed at allowing Israeli warplanes to pass through airspace on way to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran. 'We will let them through and see nothing,' says source

Saudi Arabia has carried out tests of its missile defense systems aimed at allowing Israeli warplanes to pass over its territory on their way to strike nuclear facilities in Iran, defense sources in the Persian Gulf told the London Times Saturday.


Ynet
Published: Israel News

Passing over Saudi Arabia would shorten the flight to the Islamic Republic. According to the report, the missile tests were carried out in order to ensure that Israeli planes will not be shot down while flying over the kingdom's territory.

read more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3903864,00.html

Friday, June 10, 2011

The Dilemma of Saudi Women Drivers: Islamic Sharia Law and Gender Equality

Print This
 Comments (0)
 
Manal Al-Sharif
 
Today, in the twenty first century era, one can assume that the world is more civilized and advanced than ever before. However, such assumption apparently does not apply when living under strict Islamic Sharia Law as in Saudi Arabia. Our dilemma has to do with a Saudi woman, Manal Al-Sharif, who allegedly posted a video of herself, on face book and Youtube, driving a car in Khubar, Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately for her, such boldness caused her to get arrested and was detained in jail by Saudi authorities. Her crime was; driving without a license.
 

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Saudi Arabia calls for sharply lower oil prices.

 
 
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said an oil price of $70 to $80 a barrel is in the best interests of Saudi Arabia because it diminishes the urgency in the U.S. and Europe to develop alternative energy sources.

“We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives,” Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi King Abdullah, said in an interview on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” scheduled for broadcast today. “The higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives.”

The rebellion in Libya, political turmoil in Bahrain and speculative buying are responsible for driving oil prices to more than $100 a barrel, Alwaleed said. Crude for July delivery rose 36 cents to settle at $100.59 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange May 27. Prices have increased 35 percent in the past year.

Alwaleed, who owns Citigroup Inc. (C) shares and ranks 26th on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s richest billionaires with a net worth of $19.6 billion, said he continues to invest in the U.S. and that the nation is “down, for sure, but it is not out.” Standard & Poor’s lowered its U.S. credit-rating outlook on April 18 to negative, citing the widening budget deficit.

Saudi Arabia needs to enact laws that allow for greater public participation in government, Alwaleed said. U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration is seeking to encourage pro-democracy movements inspired by those that ousted longtime leaders in Tunisia and Egypt as part of the so-called Arab Spring to create broader, regional changes.


http://yourjewishnews.com/6904.aspx

Will Islam Destroy Itself?

In his address to congress, Netanyahu said that militant Islam threatens Islam. As if there were any such thing as a non-militant form of Islam. An ideology that was militantly expansionistic from birth. And yet that expansionism does threaten it.

It's not mere militancy that threatens Islam, but its own lack of proportion. Had the Nazis satisfied themselves with a round of domestic purges and only a little territorial expansionism, today they might still be running a bankrupt decaying state. And news stories from the 1970's and 1980's might carry reports of popular protests against the disastrous economics of National Socialism. But Hitler and his cronies lacked a sense of proportion. When they capped off an invasion of Russia, war in Africa and an air campaign against England, with a declaration of war on America-- they were done. And their ideology went down with them.

If an ideology fighting a simultaneous war on nearly every continent sounds familiar, it should. The new Islamic crusade is just as arrogantly overextended. Just as certain that it can win every battle because it's destined to. That its inherent superiority makes it unbeatable. And that its enemies are cowards who are easily tricked and even more easily beaten.

Petrodollars and Jihadis are being rushed to conflicts around the globe. And Muslim countries are racing to acquire nuclear weapons, even though it puts their own populations in the firing line of a nuclear war. Muslim terrorism is turning immigration into a national security issue. And Sharia is raising hackles even among many liberals. The arrogance and hubris of the Islamic crusade for a new caliphate has made too many enemies, too fast. And it relies on Western complicity and money. That remains its weak point.

Had Muslims focused on domestic revolutions, most of the world would have let it go. Western countries have lost their enthusiasm for armed interventions on behalf of tyrants. And if foreign businessmen can learn to live with Dubai and Saudi Arabia, they would have accepted similar transformations in Egypt and Syria. Muslims could have assembled a Caliphate with hardly an objection from abroad. But instead they spent more time focused on conquest, than on revolution.

Like an amateur gambler flush with his winnings, the Imams and Mullahs swelled with pride and decided they couldn't lose. They wouldn't just bring down their own countries, instead they would tie everything together and pull it all down. Use terrorism to blackmail and intimidate the West. And then use that as a lever for regime change. It's working quite well so far. But then again most battle plans work, when the enemy is hardly fighting back.

The Islamists are assembling too many enemies too fast, to consider what would happen if those enemies united against them. They have spent too much time gloating over the Western dependency on their oil and their immigrants to think about what will happen the day the oil pipeline and the immigration pipeline are cut off.  Like the Nazis, they are spending too much time moving pins on a map to note all the places where they are advancing, all the wars they are fighting and all the mosques they are building, to take the time to realize how vulnerable that makes them.

Fortune rewards the aggressor who takes the initiative. But that's only until he overreaches. And then the other side takes the initiative. 

Hitler thought himself quite clever for taking the Rhineland, seizing Austria and carving up the industrial riches of Czechoslovakia with the consent of his old enemies. Then with bombers flying over London and tanks deep in Russia, the Third Reich and its allies seemed unstoppable. But then a few years later, enemy troops were closing in on Berlin. That's the problem with believing you'll win because you're destined to. By the time you realize how badly you screwed up, it's too late.

By the end of 1941, Hitler was actually taking the initiative against America, which last time around had decisively turned the tide. There's hardly a more clear cut case of completely forgetting the lessons of a war that you had actually fought in. But the Nazi drive to power had been built on denying the real political, military and economic lessons of WW1. The assertion that Germany lost because it was betrayed, doomed it to lose a second time.

The Islamists suffer from the same problem. Their denial of history dooms them to repeat it all over again. Their assertion that Islamic states are immune from the social and economic problems of secular states means that their aspirations for a Caliphate will fall apart into bickering and civil war.  And their belief that Islamic warriors are any better than ordinary tribals armed with machine guns and RPG's has been disproven on countless battlefields. The myth of the suicide bomber is the last resort of a delusional ideology trying to deny its own human vulnerabilities.

Racial and religious doctrinal purity does not equal omnipotence. And Islamic expansionism is due to relearn the same lesson that World War II meted out to the aggressors. The Caliphate and Third Reich are the vision of maniacs and demagogues trying to turn back the clock to a mythical past. Building castles in the sand by a bloody shore.

The obsessive petrodollar construction projects of Dubai have something of Albert Speer about them. Huge tasteless buildings constructed to show the grandeur of a regime, even while revealing its lack of taste and creativity. And its underlying insecurity. The Nazi, Communists and now Muslims obsession with constructing gargantuan inhuman structures reveal some of the insecurity behind the violence. Giant concrete and steel security blankets by vicious men terrified of their own mortality.

Insecurities lead to grandiosity. The tilting shots of Leni Riefenstahl depicting the Aryan man as more than human, or the Muslim martyr who willingly kills himself for the Jihad, share a common contempt for humanity. And beneath that contempt a craven fear of being merely human.

The ambition of the Caliphate conceals its own rot. The graffiti portraits of martyrs on walls turn them into museums of fear. The grandiosity of a worldwide Jihad is not the work of strongminded men, but of weak ones.  The Jihad is not on the march because it is strong, but because it is unable to offer any real solutions to domestic problems. All that Islamic groups do is offer subsidized services and bribes in exchange for popular support. The same cheap trick that every Muslim and even non-Muslim government does.

Like Nazism and Communism, the Islamic utopia is unsustainable. A fool's dream overseen by greedy thieves and guarded by vicious butchers. And like them it gains credibility only from extending the conflict. From positioning itself as the force of light standing against the darkness. And like them, Islam destroys the societies it takes over in order to continue a war that has no purpose except to disguise the foolishness of its doctrines and the incompetence of its visionaries.

The inherent social instability of Islam necessitates its expansionism. Just as the economic instability of National Socialism made Kristalnacht and the invasion of Poland necessary for the Nazi elite. Or the economic failures of Soviet Communism made its own expansionism inevitable. A strong warlike country's ideology doesn't fail internally, until it also fails externally.

The Islamic Jihad is a social instability disguised as brute force expansionism. Weakness trying to pretend it's strength. Events in Iran have shown that Islamic regimes are no more stable than secular ones. Eventually the greed of the ruling oligarchy and the fanaticism of its clerics runs into the barrier of public frustration and rage. Exporting the same instability and fanatical violence to Western countries through immigration may topple the free world. But it's more likely to lead a backlash. And that is exactly what's starting to take place now.

Western socialists need immigrants, but even they have their limits. And that limit will be reached when they realize that Islamic immigration and violence makes their dream of a new Europe and a world united under international law null and void. Even without that, their welfare state utopias have a limited lifespan. And when those utopias collapse, they won't have much use for immigrants. Or for the violence they bring with them.

Islam is overreaching badly. Its political successes have inflamed its sense of destiny. But politics turns. And unlike a high tech society or a competent military-- the political advantage and wealth that comes from an addiction to oil are both vulnerable to sudden change. The wheel of history is turning. And while Muslims are confident that it is turning in their direction, they would do well to remember that the glorious days of mastery they are trying to recapture came to an end for a reason. That the ruler of history raps hardest the knuckles of those who refuse to learn its lessons. And that they have now become its worst pupils.
 
 
 
 

Sunday, May 29, 2011

And The New Leader of the Free World Is…Saudi Arabia?

Since the United States is not leading the anti-Islamist forces in the Middle East and protecting the relatively moderate Arab states, the new leader is…Saudi Arabia.

But, you say, isn’t Saudi Arabia also Islamist? Well it’s as Islamic as you can get without being revolutionary Islamist. Isn’t Saudi Arabia profoundly anti-Jewish? Yes, but it mostly just talks about it. Isn’t Saudi Arabia anti-democratic? Yes, we’d prefer the United States but President Barack Obama is busy with other things.
Obama wants Middle East Muslims to love America. There are only two problems:

1. His policy doesn’t work. They don’t love America.

2. The Muslims he keeps appealing to are those who are radical and pro-terrorist. For those who are Muslims but don’t want to overthrow their neighbors, go to war with Israel as soon as possible, throw out U.S. influence, and transform their countries into something like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan, Obama is a problem.

So the Saudis are doing what I’ve been telling the Obama administration to do for 2.5 years: Form an alliance opposing revolutionary Islamism. Of course, the Saudis won’t include Israel (at least publicly) and they won’t get Europe, but at the moment they’re all we’ve got.

This was completely predictable.

Some weeks ago, Nawaf Obaid, who speaks for the Saudi government, in an informal and deniable way, of course, voiced the Saudis’ anger and disappointment with a U.S. government that fails to fight against revolutionary Islamism and protect it from Iran.

I’ve been writing about this split for two years and now it has happened. The thing is that the Saudis are right and Obama is wrong. It helped overthrow the Egyptian regime and was ready to help bring down the government in Bahrain. The Saudis have had enough. The Jordanians would do the same if they could, as would Israel.

And there are plenty of countries in South America, Central Europe, and Asia that also feel this U.S. government has let them down.

Wasn’t this the U.S. government that was going to win over the Muslims, make the Arabs love America, and make the United States popular again?

Saudi Arabia has plenty of shortcomings. It won’t even let women drive! But at least it won’t let Tehran and the Muslim Brotherhood get in the region’s driver’s seat.



http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/05/27/and-the-new-leader-of-the-free-world-is-saudi-arabia/?singlepage=true

Thursday, May 26, 2011

You drive, I whip: Saudi men warn women

New male campaign on Facebook warns women against driving cars

Saudi men threatened to use their head dresses as a whip to prevent women from driving cars as part of a new Facebook male campaign in response to another campaign by women.

A new Facebook page also threatened men against helping women in their campaign to drive cars, saying these the Iqal (headgear) would  be waiting for these men. Women quickly hit back by threatening to use blade weapons to defend themselves.

Saudi newspapers said the men’s campaign launched on Facebook is dubbed “The June 17 Iqal campaign to prevent women from driving,” adding that it is in response to a women’s campaign launched on Facebook and Twitter under the slogan “I will drive starting June 17,” which has gained massive female support.
Male campaigners urged support for their drive and said on the page:”attention is to prevent women from driving with all our strength…….the Iqal will be waiting for any woman or man supporting the campaign for women to drive cars.”

According to the reports, more than 11,500 women and men in Saudi Arabia have joined the female drive while around 1,400 have so far joined the men’s counter-campaign. “We warn women against adopting Western attitudes and concepts and against a large increase in road accidents in case women are allowed to drive cars,” the men’s site said. The warning was met by a similar threat from women, who said on the page that they could use “bladed weapons in case they are intercepted by any one while they are driving.”

The women’s June 17 drive follows growing calls to end a long-standing ban on driving cars by women in the conservative Gulf kingdom.  Many women have already been reported to have defied the ban over the past few months. On Saturday, Saudi police detained one of the leading women in the June 17 campaign for driving a car in the streets of a key city. But they set her free three hours later following a gathering by other women near the police centre in the eastern town of Khobar.

Police said they interrogated Manal Al Sharif after she was spotted by many people driving her car through the streets of Khobar. A Saudi newspaper carried a film showing Manal driving her car in Khobar as she wore black glasses and a black scarf. “Manal drove her car through Khobar streets in defiance of the kingdom’s social traditions which prevent women from driving,” 'Sharq' said.

Last week, another women defined the ban by driving her car for four days without being stopped. Najla Al Hariri, a housewife in her mid-30s, said she drove non-stop for four days in the streets of the Western Red Sea port of Jeddah "to defend her belief that Saudi women should be allowed to drive."

"I don't fear being arrested because I am setting an example that my daughter and her friends are proud of," Hariri said, adding she was offering driving lessons for women.

In addition to being banned from driving, Saudi women cannot travel abroad without authorization from their male guardians, and are also not allowed to vote in the municipal elections, the only public polls in the absolute monarchy. When in public, they are obliged to cover from head to toe.

Hariri ridiculed the social belief that Saudi women are treated "like queens" as they are driven around by their male relatives or drivers, saying "this is a big lie." "We are always under their mercy to give us a lift," she said.


http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/you-drive-i-whip-saudi-men-warn-women-2011-05-23-1.396159

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Bahrain's Voiceless: How al-Jazeera's Coverage of the Arab Spring Is Uneven

 

A couple of weeks ago, the Qatari English language daily the Peninsula ran the provocative headline, “Why Are We So Timid?” in its Saturday special issue. “Freedom eludes the Qatari media even as the country's top leadership is keen to promote free expression and has lifted all kinds of restrictions on the local press,” opined the writer in a front-page story.

The question comes at an interesting point in time for the tiny peninsular nation just of the coast of Saudi Arabia. Qatar, of course, is home to satellite news broadcaster al-Jazeera, hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to attention grabbing reporting from some of the world's hottest hot zones. Already the go-to option for news in a Middle East seeking an alternative to the Western perspectives of the BBC and CNN, the station gained world-wide prestige for its ground breaking coverage of the Egyptian revolution, and even earned a place in the Time 100 rankings of the world's influentials, twice. It wouldn't be out of line to suggest that the station's passionate embrace of the young Egyptian revolutionaries helped, in part, to unseat
President Hosni Mubarak. Within days of his fall, an online petition demanding that US cable operators start distributing the channel made the rounds. Longtime critics, who derisively labeled it “al Qaeda TV” back when it questioned the U.S. role in Iraq, have started reconsidering the value of a station that now appears to be on the side of free speech, democracy and human rights. In an interview with Time's Ishaan Tharoor, al Jazeera's DC Bureau Chief Abderrahim Foukara answered the question of why it was important to have a different perspective:

For Americans, what happens in Egypt is of immense consequence to the U.S. and its interests in that part of the world. And it was really interesting to see all sorts of Americans, including the intelligence community, scratching their heads, trying to understand how this came about, what the ramifications were and how they'd deal with it. Simultaneously, you had this detailed coverage on Al Jazeera. I think our coverage of Egypt has been crucial in demonstrating to people that there are certain stories integral to world peace and stability that require access to a channel like Al Jazeera English. It has made the investment, has the presence, the perspective, the expertise and the knowledge to properly tell a story like Egypt.
Similarly, Al Jazeera leads the way when it comes to coverage of Libya's ongoing rebellion. Within a week of the protests that launched President Muammar Gaddafi's crackdown on his own people, the station started using the rebel tricolor to mark its coverage, instead of the green Libyan flag. I asked Al Anstey, Al Jazeera English's Managing Director, about the station's use of such a loaded symbol. I was trying to make a point about balanced coverage of a complicated uprising. He responded that there was no such thing as balance when it came to a tyrannical regime that threatened to go house to house in search of dissenters to eradicate like rats. “We chose the tricolor because Illustrates the dynamic of the story,” he said. “There are so many people challenging the authority of a dictator who has been in power for 42 years, and using the old flag is a symbol of the challenge to that regime.”

“Giving a voice to the voiceless” is how Anstey described the station's operating logic. And when it comes to victims of earthquakes, floods, and oppressive regimes, al Jazeera largely succeeds. Except, perhaps, in the case of Bahrain, Qatar's tiny island neighbor to the north, where a Sunni minority monarchy has cracked down brutally on a largely Shia pro-democracy uprising. Over the past three months the authorities have embarked upon a devastating campaign of repression, intimidation and torture that wouldn't look out of place in Libya or Mubarak's Egypt. Yet the coverage on Al Jazeera has been largely limited to brief mentions and a backstage examination of why the world's media has been so slow to cover the events there.

As the program well points out, Bahrain's government has adeptly blocked major coverage simply by preventing journalists' entry. But the excuse rings hollow, especially coming from Al Jazeera, which usually takes such blockades as a challenge to a duel, not a reason for retreat. Is there a double standard in effect? Qatari troops are in Bahrain, part of a Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council effort to quash any notions of democracy in a region defined by Sunni monarchies. And Al Jazeera is largely funded by Qatar's Sunni ruling family. Which leads us back to the Peninsula's headline: Why are we so timid? Anstey swears that the station is absolutely independent, and if a story merits news, no matter how controversial, it will be covered.

Compared to coverage of Syria, where not only are journalists banned, but an Al Jazeera correspondent was kidnapped and delivered to Iran, reporting on Bahrain is insipid at best. As the Washington Post reported a few weeks ago, Bahrain simply didn't merit the international importance of a story out of Egypt, Libya or even Yemen, according to the station's news directors. Still, the situation in Bahrain marks a potentially explosive Sunni-Shia conflagration that most certainly will embroil the neighborhood. So is self-censorship to blame? It could be. As one independent Qatari media consultant told me, “no one likes to air out their dirty laundry in public.” And Qatar's role in quashing dissent in Bahrain, even as part of a grudging alliance with Saudi, would certainly go against Al Jazeera's much vaunted support for human rights and self determination.


Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/05/24/bahrains-voiceless-how-al-jazeeras-coverage-of-the-arab-spring-is-uneven/#ixzz1NL9qJnVw

Monday, April 25, 2011

Ellison in Saudi Arabia says we “have common interests and apsirations”

Surely Keith Ellison (Muslim – Ummah) wasn’t referring to women drivers, beheading in Chop Chop Square, Muslim-only cities, or sharia law was he? Last we checked Obama promised to end American dependence on foreign oil in ten years. Not a common interest or aspiration. via Saudi, US businessmen look for synergies – Arab News.


DAMMAM: Businessmen from the Eastern Province and the state of Minnesota met Sunday at the Asharqia Chamber to explore opportunities for collaboration.

Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat and the nation’s first Muslim congressman, accompanied the delegation and said he was upbeat about the potential in Saudi Arabia.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

A Revolting Middle East Policy (sultan knish)

In the last three months we played a role in overthrowing nearly every Middle Eastern government we were allied with-- that wasn't supporting terrorism.

We pushed out Ben Ali in Tunisia, but let the Saudis move tanks into Bahrain. Egypt's Mubarak was a monster who had to go, but Syria's Assad is a reformer. Now Yemen's Saleh who let us hunt terrorists in his country is on our hit list, but the Qatari royal family which is linked to Al-Qaeda and finances Al-Jazeera are our best friends. Gaddafi who cut a deal to give up his nukes got bombed, Iran which is pushing hard for a nuclear bomb has clear skies.

Middle Eastern leaders who support and finance terrorists got a pass, but our own allies in the War on Terror got creamed. Iran, Syria and the Gulf Arab states who are responsible for most of the terrorism against us have nothing to worry about. Saleh and Mubarak who aided the War on Terror got shown the door.

Want good relations with the US? Start funding terrorists and building nukes. That's the only lesson any Middle-Eastern leader can take away from this disaster. The message we have put out there is that the worse they treat us, the better we will treat them. We will tolerate enemies and allies abusing us and plotting to kill us. But allies who actually go out on a limb to support us and act as if they have common interests with us. That we won't put up with. They have to go.

The tally of stupidity in what fanciful pundits called the 'Arab Spring' is almost endless. Not only did we mistake factional protests for democratic change and the will of the people, but we got behind groups and organizations overtly hostile to us and took their side against governments that had actually been friendly to us.

Obama intervened politically in Egypt on behalf of Islamists and Anti-American leftists, bringing down the government of the only major Muslim country in the region that was not actively funding terrorists. A government that not only offered significant help during the War on Terror, but was the only non-Islamist bulwark against Iran. All that is almost certainly gone now.

Bush's bloodless deal with Gaddafi got him out of the nukes and terror business. That too is gone now. The rebels are losing and Gaddafi isn't going to be intimidated by us ever again. The US went in like a lion and out like a lamb. Bush's invasion of Iraq intimidated Gaddafi into giving in. Obama's botched assault on Libya has reassured every thug from Syria to Iran that they have nothing to fear from us.

On any threat level map, North Africa which was reasonably quiet under Bush has just gone dark red. And it won't take much for it to go bright red now. From Tunisia to Libya to Egypt-- the Islamists have gotten a major shot in the arm on the other side of the Mediterranean. Al-Qaeda fighters are swarming within sight of Italy. In a day, Libyan fighters can travel by boat to Italy's Pelagie islands. When Eisenhower wanted to invade Italy from North Africa, he began with the islands as a jumping off point. Muslim 'refugees' have been doing their own version of 'Operation Corkscrew' by using the islands to invade Italy. And once inside Italy they have access to the entire European Union.

The 'revolutions' have targeted North Africa. Half of North Africa has either has either been wholly or partly overthrown. Morocco and Algeria are the sole holdouts. If the Brotherhood takes Egypt then they won't be holding out for long. And then there will be a Caliphate within striking distance of Southern Europe.

But Europe supported all this in the name of democracy and human rights. And European leaders organized a bombing campaign against Gaddafi when he was the only thing keeping half of North Africa from moving to Europe. America, which could have saved Mubarak with a word, instead called for his removal in the name of a protest movement organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and the leftist Kefaya group which had gotten its start protesting against the American overthrow of Saddam.

What country in its right mind backs the overthrow of any ally by an enemy? We do. When Egyptian socialist thug Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, and England and France sent in the troops, we threatened to destroy the British economy unless they withdrew. Our reward for that was that Nasser's Egypt became the chief Soviet spearhead in the region. For the last two decades, our number one foreign policy priority in the Middle East is to force Israel to hand over territory to PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, a graduate of the KGB's Patrice Lumumba University, whose other famous alumnus was Carlos the Jackal.

Carter backed the leftists and Islamists over the Shah of Iran. Then he backed the Islamists over the leftists. That's what turned Iran into the paradise it is today. This time around we backed the leftists and Islamists over Mubarak. Now the leftists are being swallowed up by the Islamists who have been waiting 80 years for this moment.

From the halls of power to the front page, no Egyptian was a bigger enthusiast of the January 25 protests than our own political and cultural leaders. The press was full of posed photographs, glowing descriptions of a people's revolution and denunciations of Mubarak. Activists whose chief political experiencing was retweeting memes got full page interviews. Governments and Soros' pet NGO's got behind Kefaya and Iranian puppet El Baradei. Columnists glowingly portrayed the pathetic El Baradei as the democratic future of Egypt.

Then Mubarak stepped down and the 'heroes' of Tahrir Square got stomped flat by the military and the brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood's successful referendum campaign was an explicit mandate for Islamism over secularism. Protests have been banned, curfews imposed and the army is arresting and humiliating the remaining pro-democracy activists. And El Baradei and Kefaya are playing the only card left in their empty deck. Israel.

El Baradei is vowing war with Israel. Mahmoud Salem, aka Sandmonkey, the favorite Egyptian activist of so many neo-conservative bloggers, is encouraging Egyptians to support El Baradei over Amr Moussa, by tweeting that Amr Moussa is a Yankee-Zionist puppet and El Baradei is the only man Israel is afraid of. There's your liberal Democratic Egypt trotting out xenophobia and warmongering in a futile bid to get ahead of the Muslim Brotherhood. And its campaign slogan sounds a lot like the cries of "Jew, Jew" by the men who beat and raped Lara Logan.

Baradei is the darling of the same pundits and politicians who denounce nationalist Israeli candidates as extremists. Yet no Israeli party runs on a platform of war with Egypt. And there's your fundamental difference, not just between Egypt and Israel, but between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. A clash of civilizations between cultures with radically different moral codes and understanding of the value of human life. Much as Western pundits would like to believe that El Baradei is on their side of this moral equation, he isn't. 

Egypt's problem was never Mubarak. It isn't Israel or America or globalism. It was always Egypt. And the problem will go on being Egypt no matter who is at the wheel six months or six years from now. The fundamental problem of the Muslim world is not a lack of democracy. That is only the symptom. Just as our fundamental problem is not Obama. He too is only the symptom.

Changing governments may improve matters, but without altering the underlying dynamic, the big picture will not change. And that dynamic is rooted in the culture. It cannot be changed by elections. Leaders reflect the culture, and even the occasional ruthless leader who imposes change is a product of historic forces at work. Egypt does not have a political problem, it has a cultural problem. And the US does not have a political problem, it has a cultural problem. Problems are reflected in destructive behavior.

Imagine if the Soviet Union had aided in the overthrow of Cuba, East Germany and the rest of the Warsaw Pact. That might have happened if Reagan had been put in charge of the USSR. And putting Obama in charge of America was like putting Reagan in charge of the USSR. But who put Obama in charge of America? For all the Soros money, fraud and the maneuvering behind the scenes-- it took a major cultural shift for that to be possible. The crisis of America can be found in that shift. And that of our revolting Middle East policy.

Gates to discuss Arab upheaval with Saudi king (thedc)

Bookmark and Share

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived in the Saudi capital Wednesday for talks with King Abdullah on coping with the political upheaval sweeping the Arab world, blunting Iranian efforts to exploit the unrest, and upgrading the kingdom’s defenses against Iranian missiles.


In a sign of the depth of the Obama administration’s concern about the political earthquake that has shaken the region, including the island of Bahrain off Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf coast, this was Gates’ third trip to the area in the past month. He has echoed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cautioning of authoritarian Arab governments on the risks of moving too slowly in response to peaceful protests for political freedom.


U.S. relations with the Saudi ruling family have been strained for months, dating to the uprising in Egypt and President Barack Obama’s call for long-time U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak to give up his presidency. Saudi leaders saw this as the U.S. abandoning a reliable friend with close military and diplomatic ties stretching over decades — not unlike the U.S.-Saudi alliance, which has the added dimension of American dependence on Saudi oil.


Gates has acknowledged tensions in the relationship with the Saudis but insists it remains a strong partnership.


“‘It’s a great exaggeration to say this relationship’s ruptured,” Gates said last month on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We have a very strong military-to-military relationship. As you know, the Saudis just made one of the largest purchases of American weapons in their history.”


He was referring to a $60 billion deal announced last fall to sell the Saudis 84 new F-15 fighter jets and 190 helicopters, as well as upgrade 70 of their existing F-15s. The deal also includes a wide array of missiles, bombs and other equipment — mostly with a perceived Iranian threat in mind. Iran, with its Shiite Muslim theocracy in charge, has long been a bitter rival of the Saudis, whose rulers and majority population are Sunni Muslim.


Limited protests in Saudi Arabia reportedly have been confined mainly to Shiites in the eastern oil-producing provinces.


A senior defense official traveling with Gates from Washington said the kingdom’s internal political situation was unlikely to be broached in Gates’ talks with Abdullah. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss Gates’ thinking in advance of his closed-door meeting with the king.


The official said Gates would assure Abdullah that the $60 billion arms deal is progressing on schedule, while also urging the king to buy an upgraded version of its U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles. Gates also planned to pitch a more sophisticated U.S. defense system called the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system, which is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles of longer range. The United Arab Emirates already has agreed to purchase that system, the official said. It is part of a broader U.S. plan to improve Gulf Arab states’ defenses against Iranian missile threats.


Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters on Gates’ flight to Riyadh that “Iran will be a major focus” of Gates’ talks with Abdullah — not just its missile development, but also its nuclear weapons ambitions and concerns that Iran is seeking to exploit political upheaval in the Arab world.


Strains in the U.S.-Saudi relationship deepened with the crisis in Bahrain, where a Sunni family dynasty rules a Shiite-majority population. The Saudis dread a further empowering of Shiites, following the 2003 U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime and the rise to power there of a Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.


“Saudis believe their concerns in Bahrain — containing Iran, protecting Gulf monarchies and sending a clear message to their own Shiite population — are best addressed by a hardline policy of suppressing the protests,” Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in an analysis Monday.


On March 14 — two days after Gates visited Bahrain’s rulers — the Saudis sent more than 1,000 troops into Bahrain, at that government’s request, for security assistance. Ottaway concluded from Washington’s muted response that it has chosen to implicitly back the Saudis.


“Washington has seemingly accepted that for the time being the Saudis have won the battle for influence in Bahrain and concluded that mending relations with Saudi Arabia should take precedence right now,” she wrote.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/06/gates-to-discuss-arab-upheaval-with-saudi-king/#ixzz1IlHFHU9k