Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia Wants To Execute a Female Activist for Protesting the Government

Israa al-Ghomgham would be the first female activist to be executed in Saudi Arabia.

|

Twitter

A Shiite woman and four other activists will be executed if a Saudi prosecutor gets his way.

Israa al-Ghomgham and her husband were taken into custody in December 2015 for protesting anti-Shiite discrimination in Saudia Arabia's Qatif province. Earlier this month, at a hearing before the country's special terrorism tribunal, a prosecutor recommended that the couple and several like-minded activists be executed. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), six activists were charged in total, though only five face the death penalty.

Their alleged crimes were completely nonviolent, according to HRW:

The Public Prosecution, which reports directly to the king, accused the detained activists of several charges that do not resemble recognizable crimes, including "participating in protests in the Qatif region," "incitement to protest," "chanting slogans hostile to the regime," "attempting to inflame public opinion," "filming protests and publishing on social media," and "providing moral support to rioters." It called for their execution based on the Islamic law principle of ta'zir, in which the judge has discretion over the definition of what constitutes a crime and over the sentence.

A judge will hear their case on October 28, then determine whether or not to move forward with the death penalty. Depending on the judge's decision, al-Ghomgham could become the first female activist to be executed in the country.

Saudi Arabia has recently implemented some limited liberal reforms. Most notably, women are now allowed to drive and to work outside the home. But as Reuters notes, there has also been a renewed crackdown on free speech, and particularly on dissent against the government.

The situation is particularly bad for Shiite Muslims, who are vastly outnumbered by Sunnis in Saudi Arabia. Shiite activists say the government doesn't allow them to practice their version of Islam freely. Some of them have been executed for speaking out.

"Any execution is appalling, but seeking the death penalty for activists like Israa al-Ghomgham, who are not even accused of violent behavior, is monstrous," says Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW's Middle East director. "Every day, the Saudi monarchy's unrestrained despotism makes it harder for its public relations teams to spin the fairy tale of 'reform' to allies and international business."

The Saudi government put at least 100 people to death last year, according to Amnesty International. The European Saudi Organization for Human Rights tells Middle East Eye that 58 more are currently on death row.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

116 responses to “Saudi Arabia Wants To Execute a Female Activist for Protesting the Government

  1. No thoughts on South Africa bringing back apartheid?

    1. What do you call what is presently transpiring in South Africa?

      Not one word from the government / media complex about the chocolate Jesus going to South Africa while white farmers are being murdered there more frequently than the Rev. Arthur Kirkland pens the phrase, “carry on, clingers.”

      1. Funny how reason occasionally gets concerned about liberty issues overseas but then ignores what you would think would be big stories like what is going on in South Africa. Hell, they have practically ignored Venezuela except for the odd story about how “bitcoin is going to save the day”.

        1. OT: Is there cause to be concerned for the Red Sox? Last night they dropped their third in a row. They remain the only team not to have a 4 game skid.

          JD Martinez should be, as of now, the AL MVP. He’s surpassed 300 total bases at the same time Williams was in 49 and Rice in 78.

          1. Look at it this way Mike, the Red Sox blowing an 8 game lead to the Yankees in late August and ending up pissing away what should be a historic season would really be a return to normalcy in Boston. There is something to be said for things remaining reliably the same.

            1. Yep.

              In recent memory, 2011, you had the September “chicken and beer” collapse which led to Terry Francona’s firing.

              Of course, there was 72 and 74 and the biggie, 78. In 74, they had a 7 1/2 game lead on the Orioles on August 23rd, and blew it.

              This team has been awesome and I do not throw that word around like everybody did in the 80s. I also like Alex Cora.

              But, I do not think they are as good as the 98 Yankees were.

              1. The 98 Yankees team won 72 out of their first hundred games. They were just unbelievable.

              2. that 2011 team was assholes and now I have to watch Tito coach Cleveland. Go Sox.

                1. God they were. I am a Yankees fan. But anyone who knows anything about baseball has to respect Francona as a manager and baseball mind and a really nice guy. It takes one hell of an epic group of assholes not to be able to play for Francona. And they were just that group of assholes.

                  1. >>>I am a Yankees fan

                    spent all childhood summers in Kansas, so I grew up a co-Royals fan by grandma-osmosis … boy was *she* a Yankee-hater – they ruined half the 70s for us

                    1. I grew up in Kansas during the height of the Yankees Royals rivalry of the 70s. But my mother grew up a Yankees fan to annoy her older brother who was a Dodgers fan and had met Mickey Mantle and the 57 Yankees once. So, I was a lone Yankees fan in Royals territory. Those were some great teams and fantastic series.

                    2. ha small world

        2. Saudi Arabia trying to execute a protestor, female or otherwise, is bad. It’s also, sadly, not out of the ordinary. It also has not happened yet. That it can, undoubtedly, is quite bad.

          But Reason seems unconcerned that a government is seeking to utterly remove property rights from a minority (who, mind you, should utterly destroy their farms immediately and leave).

          1. Imagine if a European country tried to do Muslims half of what South Africa is actually doing to its white farmers. Reason would be having kittens about it every day.

            1. Is it your contention that Reason isn’t reporting on something because the group of victims are white people? I just want to get your story straight.

              1. Yes. I don’t know what another conclusion you could make. Why else have they completely ignored the story? We can debate what that means but I don’t see any reason to believe that is not the case.

                1. Alright, thanks.

                  1. Do you have any other explanation other than reporting on blacks victimizing whites offends the PC sensibilities of the staff?

                    1. I don’t have any explanation and don’t have enough information to fathom a guess. However, if you are right that racism is rampant in Reason, fuck that.

                    2. However, if you are right that racism is rampant in Reason, fuck that.

                      I don’t think it is racism. I think it is just cowardice.

                2. John, your conclusion is not precisely correct.

                  Reason and cosmotarians ignore the incipient genocide in South Africa because it is a taboo topic among the media elite. Of course, virtually all young journalists aspire to join the media elite, and violating such a taboo would pretty much kill their chances.

                  The plight of South African farmers is like a turd in cocktail party’s punchbowl because it completely contradicts the worldview of the media elite. However, there are at least four reasons why discussion is taboo. Numero uno, yes, the RSA farmers are white. But, second and just as significant in African genocide stories, the RSA farmers are also Christian. If they were Muslims, the media elite could muster a little sympathy and signal a little virtue about their concerns about Islamophobia. Third, the dispute is rooted in a dispute over property rights: the media elite does not believe in the sanctity of property rights and are downright Rouseauian when it come to land ownership. Finally, in the progressive calculus two wrongs do make a right, and brutal oppression and expropriation of white farmers is an essential corrective for the wrongs of apartheid: in other words, they have it coming for the sins of their grandfathers.

                  1. You have it about right CATO. The third point, while correct, is more than a bit ironic when applied to the reason staff.

                  2. (1/2)

                    Finally, in the progressive calculus two wrongs do make a right, and brutal oppression and expropriation of white farmers is an essential corrective for the wrongs of apartheid: in other words, they have it coming for the sins of their grandfathers.

                    Is this really “two wrongs make a right”?

                    I’ve been trying to work this out recently, so this isn’t any sort of an attempt at a gotcha, I truly am wondering about the ethics of the situation.

                    Hypothetical situation: Bob and Joe. Joe is his father’s only child, Joe’s father has passed, and in the father’s will, he explicitly left all of his material belongings to Joe, so there’s no question of whether Joe would have inherited or not.

                    30 years ago, Bob’s father stole a Rembrandt (so, a specific, discrete object which isn’t necessarily purely fungible with money) from Joe’s father. Bob’s father has also passed, and Bob has inherited the painting.

                    Is it “two wrongs make a right” for the government to take the painting from Bob and return it to Joe? (Indeed, if you think so, then “return” might strike you as an unreasonably loaded phrasing.) Or is it simply returning stolen property?

                    My instinct is that the stolen property should be returned. But is that fair to Bob? What if Bob isn’t the son, but the great-grandson? (And likewise Joe, of course.) Does distance in time eventually launder stolen property?

                    1. (2/2)

                      Like I say, I dunno. I don’t have a good answer to any of this. Living in Albuquerque, (and therefore in close proximity to several Indian reservations) I recognize that it would be hypocritical of me to live where I do and reject the right of the white South Africans to defend themselves.

                      And yet it also seems hypocritical to tell the Native Americans and the… Native South Africans (???) that it’s somehow more immoral to do to us now, what our ancestors did to their ancestors 300 years ago.

                      Fuck if I know.

                    2. I mean… imagine that Bernie Madoff had died before conviction, and his kids had inherited the money he had stolen.

                      Is it “two wrongs make a right” for the government to confiscate that money from the kids? Even if the kids were clearly not involved in the scheme and were not themselves guilty of anything?

                      If “Steve” breaks into my house to steal my TV, and I shoot him, I don’t think Steve’s kid should inherit my TV.

                    3. If you can practically identify the specific victim or their heir, property should be returned thereto. Well established principle.

          2. There’s no point in destroying the farms – the expropriators will manage that within a year or two on their own.

            1. From what I’ve been reading about it, it’s not about the land as “farms” anyway. The plots that are being eyed for expropriation all have significant subsurface mineral deposits. The scuttlebutt is that the development rights are going to be farmed out to the Chinese.

        3. Nobody cares what Americans think of SA or Venezuela.

      2. Then there is London continuing to bask in the joys of mass migration.

        http://www.express.co.uk/news/…..met-police

        1. That’s impossible. The UK never has mass shootings….

          1. It must be Russian fake news or something.

    2. Whataboutism.

  2. See what starts when you let women drive?
    Told you so.

  3. This is horrible of course, but if she’s an activist, is there not a more recent picture of her?

    Or are they executing a 5 year old female ‘activist’?

    If not, the pic selection seems odd as we don’t do that for any others executed or facing execution.

    Could you imagine all criminal mugshots of executed US prisoners replaced with baby pics in the media? I’m quite certain Ted Bundy took good photos.

    Redundant disclaimer: no one should be executed for speaking their mind and when it happens, it’s egregiously wrong.

    1. Maybe it was the last photograph of her that actually showed her face.

  4. (Sarcasm switch on)
    We should all ignore this story.
    Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil, and protesting these Muslim miscreants will only anger the Saudis.
    After all, where would we all be without the Saudi’s oil, and besides, who are we to argue against the Koran?
    (sarcasm switch off)

    1. Iran has oil.

      These charges have little or nothing to do with the Koran.

      But you’re right they don’t care what we think.

    2. Iran has oil.

      These charges have little or nothing to do with the Koran.

      But you’re right they don’t care what we think.

  5. What’s The Era of Trump, or Trump’s America angle?

  6. If Trump could take three minutes of his twitter time to lambast the Saudis for this, it would be epic to see the media/Dems try to defend them.

    1. You know, I think they actually might. They really are that stupid and depraved.

    2. Instead of tweeting about it, I would have massive respect for Trump if he announced he would just stop sending them weapons and cash.

      1. That would be better, I agree.

    3. He’s complicit. Why the Dems aren’t attacking him for it is most disturbing.

      1. Yes, Trump is complicit: US-KSA Military Sales Agreements to date, $14 billion

        Obama was also complicit and so obedient to Saudi wishes that bowed before King Abdullah and signed off on US-KSA Military Sales Agreements totalling $65 billion.

        Bush the Lesser was also complicit. Strolling hand in hand with King Abdullah, he approved US-KSA Military Sales Agreements totalling $13 billion.

        Clinton was also complicit, approving US-KSA Military Sales Agreements totaling $18 billion.

        Bush the Elder was also complicit, agreeing to US-KSA sales of $ 18 billion.

        Reagan was out the defeat the commies, and to retain KSA support agreed to sales of $15 billion.

        Source:Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales And Other Security Cooperation Historical Facts As of September 30, 2017, http://www.dsca.mil

    4. Who, all those Democrats at Exxon and Halliburton?

  7. We need to import more of this broad minded, free thinking , progressive culture .

    1. Who the fuck is talking about “importing” more Saudis. They are actually already an unofficially preferred class due to entirely reasons that have to do with “bipartisanshitship” (whoops).

      1. Instead of importing Saudis, we just import Somalis and others who share the same brand of batshit crazy Islam.

      2. They are actually already an unofficially preferred class due

        I hear it’s hella easy for them to enroll in Aeronautics schools.

    2. Our cops kill enough innocent people as it is.

      1. People who make furtive movements aren’t innocent.

  8. With “allies” like these, who needs enemies?

    These are the folks who we’ve chosen over Assad, who for the most part has only suppressed the Islamist extremists in his country. Yes, I realize that there is a “democratic opposition” in Syria, but if anyone believes that they will get a better deal from the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabist terrorists behind ISIS who will win if Assad doesn’t get control of the country they are sorely mistaken.

    Also, if anyone believes that that Israel will get a better deal from the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabist terrorists behind ISIS who will win if Assad doesn’t get control of the country they are sorely mistaken.

    1. Assad has done a lot more than that. He more or less created Hammas and destroyed the entire nation of Lebanon in the process.

      1. “He more or less created Hammas ”

        To clarify, what John means to say is that Assad didn’t create Hammas, and that Lebanon exists to this day, undestroyed. Hamas was founded in the 80’s while Assad was a medical student.

        1. Hamas was founded in the 1980s and funded by the Assad regime, Assad’s father. And yes, Lebanon still exists but it is “destroyed’ when you compare it to what it was in the 60s and 70s.

          Are you really going to try and die on this hill?

          1. Assad, the current president of Syria, had no part in the creation of Hamas. In fact, Hamas threw in its lot with the jihadists who were trying to overthrow him.

            The author of the book “Black Swans” (about statistics) waxes poetical about Lebanon of the 60s and 70s. And in the 50s, it was home to master spy Kim Philby, winner of the Lenin Award for excellence in spying. Today Lebanon is home to Hebollah, a religious party that attracts wide ranging support from among her Christian population, as well as striking fear into the hearts of zionists who’ve been chased out of Lebanon more than once due to hezbollah resistance.

      2. John, Israel created Hammas. In the 70s when they saw that Europeans sympathized with the essentially socialist and secular PLO (which had both muslim and christian followers with grievances against the Israelis) they provided backing for extremist islamist in the belief that the Euros would be turned of by a religious struggle.

        These examples of aiding your worst enemies as a pretext to get your allies on board are not unprecedented.

        See also, that the British declared war on Germany for invading Poland but spared the Soviet Union who invaded Poland from the other direction for whatever reason they thought it was OK. At that instant, they made our erstwhile ally Finland into an enemy.

        Seriously, are you an adult who is willing to accept realpolitik necessity for our security or are are you someone who thinks we need to invade Zimbabwe (whose government is, by the way now inviting white farmers to take back their farms since they overthrew Mugabe) or Venezuela to free the suffering masses.

        1. Where did I ever say that we should invade Syria? The fact that we have no obligation to fix it, doesn’t make Assad anything other than the compete tyrant mass murderer that he is.

          Are you an adult Issac or are you someone who feels the need to childishly defend anyone who is an enemy of the US and the evil Jooos!!?

          1. Assad is probably the best protector available for Syria’s Christian population, largest in the middle east and targeted for destruction by the jihadists. I suppose that’s also one of Russia’s motivations for getting involved, protecting Syria’s orthodox Christians.

            1. Oh yes, Putin is definitely known for supporting the rights of minorities. His and Assad’s targeting of hospitals in rebel held areas is for the love of Christians.

              1. Putin and the rest of Russian elite is in it up to the eyeballs with the Orthodox church. The Orthodox church is certainly not a minority in Russia. I figure you know even less about Russia actions in Syria than you do about Russian religion, so I’ll leave it at that.

              2. His and Assad’s targeting of hospitals in rebel held areas is for the love of Christians.

                Perhaps they are “targeting hospitals” for the same reason the US does.

                I see no reason to give them the befit of the doubt, the same way I do for the US, It’s an unfortunate accident. My only condemnation comes when I question their motives in intervening in the first place.

    2. Assas released all of the radicals from his prisons once the uprising began. He has tried to create a situation where the only alternative was his regime or the radicals.

      1. John, I’d be happy to see any substantiation of this rather outlandish assertion of yours. Go right the fucking ahead and give it to me.

        1. Most importantly, the Syrian army ruthlessly targeted and destroyed nascent attempts by the regime’s moderate political opposition?the groups seeking to topple the regime and keep the Syrian nation-state intact, whether as a secular democracy or a state in which Islam plays a greater role in politics?to establish its own viable alternative to the regime’s provision of essential state functions. At the same time, regime forces largely left the radical jihadist Islamic State unmolested as it built and expanded its own systems of public service provision.

          This created an apparent “us or the Islamic State” dichotomy, and in this balance of evils the Assad regime has become, for many, the option they feel compelled to support.

          http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/0…..-pub-60608

        2. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26…..b_contents

          There is nothing outlandish about it at all. It is well documented and known by anyone paying close attention to the conflict in Syria.

        3. The fact is that young Assad might possibly have liberalized except for the fact that the upshot of any overthrow would be the ascendancy of ISIS (just as we have already seen with the Taliban in Afghanistan and ISIS in Libya.

          No guarantees, but I promise you, Assad’s authoritarianism is preferable to anything that any of the opposition would have resulted in for the US, for Israel, well for anyone in Syria (except for the Saudi-backed nutbags, that is).

          1. Assad’s authoritarianism is preferable to anything that any of the opposition would have resulted in for the US, for Israel, well for anyone in Syria (except for the Saudi-backed nutbags, that is).

            Read the citations I just gave you. That is only true because Assad murdered all of the moderates for the specific purpose of creating that situation.

            1. John, for whatever it is worth, and whatever our differences, the plain unvarnished truth is that the world would have been a better place if Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton had not decided on overthrowing Muammar Al Gathafi and Bashar al-Assad.

              1. Beyond that, it would have been much better if we had not don any of those things to appease our Saudi “allies”

                The world is a worse place because successive administrations have found it necessary to placate our Israeli and Saudi “friends”. Such are the the things of madness. Better we should tell them the best of luck but sink or swim together.

              2. I agree with you Isaac, certainly with regard to Gadafi. Assad is an avowed enemy of the US. But that said, he is mostly harmless except to his own people and the Lebanese. Overthrowing him without a plan in place for who would replace him was a very bad idea.

              3. The US actually DIDN’t overthrow Assad. In fact, US support to Syrian rebels was so minuscule that Obama has been attacked on BOTH the left and the right for having been indecisive.

                Do you even remember his red line?

              4. Obama and Clinton wouldn’t have gotten the idiotic notion of overthrowing Qaddafi and Assad were it not for the idiotic decision of Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Feith to overthrow Saddam. The latter group wouldn’t have overthrown Saddam were it not for the idiotic diplomacy of James Baker and April Glaspie, first covertly supporting Saddam’s aggression versus neighboring Iran and then formally expressing “no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”, which was virtually a green light from the US for the Kuwait invasion.

                These seemingly idiotic decisions were made by intelligent, well-informed people, not idiots. Ever consider that the situation in the Middle East may be the intended consequence of US foreign policy? That Hillary was serious when she said that Libya was “smart power at its best”? Certainly her cackling when she pronounced that “we came, we saw, he died” was a sincere expression of self-satisfaction.

            2. I find the ‘apologism’ for Assad among a not-so-insignificant-number of libertarians strange. I think it has to do with the fact the Assad (for the most part) is a ‘secularist’ as if brutality in the name of secularism is somehow better than brutality in the name of religion.

              You can call Assad a brutal dictator without being in favor of US intervention. His (and his family’s for that matter) crimes are well documented going back decades.

              1. “I find the ‘apologism’ for Assad among a not-so-insignificant-number of libertarians strange. ”

                He’s a secularist. His opponents are wahabists and or zionists and or refugees.

                1. Assad has historically been intolerant of political dissent, but tolerant of a wide range of religions and lifestyles, by Middle East standards.

                  His wahhabi opponents programmatically murder infidels and non-conformists of all sorts in addition to political dissidents.

                  Assad runs an unlibertarian government, so libertarians aren’t cool with Assad. However, his wahhabi opponents are far, far worse than Assad. The history of any state from any libertarian perspective is a history of violence and oppression. Libertarian realists understand that states vary in the extent of violence and oppression that they visit upon their subjects and their foreign enemies: some are less evil than others. Libertarian realists also understand that there are often mitigating circumstances for state violence and oppression that makes some incidents less evil than others even if the body count is the same. For example, the North visited much violence and oppression upon Southern civilians during the 1861-1865 conflict and after the defeat of the Confederacy. Most Americans believe that violence and oppression was justified even if directed at civilians. Assad had done nothing more evil than what Lincoln and Sherman did to the Southern civilian population.

  9. Honestly, sounds like a liberal reform for Saudi Arabia if they’re executing women now too. Equality is slowly coming to their monstrous regime.

    1. Sometimes equality hands you the ugly side too, like shorter lifespan and male pattern baldness.

  10. The Saudis have been executing women for years. Wives that didn’t behave and daughters that ran off with the wrong man have both found themselves under the ax..

    1. Supposed to be a response to “BestUsedCarSales|8.22.18 @ 2:50PM|#”.

    2. I believe they use a sword.

      1. Sorry, quite so, under the sword.

        Thank you, “under the sword” has a more mellifluous and dramatic sound as well. I wish I had thought of it.

      2. big, curvy one.

        1. An ‘arm’ under the second amendment.
          I attended VPI in the sixties, when it was a law abiding state university. The village of Blacksburg had a couple of bars just outside of campus, and every Wednesday and Friday some guy parked a pickup truck outside one of them. No surprise. The pickup truck had a shotgun rack in the back window. (remember them?) Still no surprise. Hanging in the rack was a scimitar in a red velvet scabbard with gold trim. Surprise.
          And no one got shot of stabbed. No surprise.

      3. Stoning for adultery.

  11. I despise freedom activists as much as the next guy. But still, execution seems a bit harsh.

  12. I gotta say, I’m surprised that an article about a Saudi woman facing the death penalty for a nonviolent crime turned into a garbage fire of whataboutism and xenophobia.

    1. My sarcasm meter just redlined, and I don’t think it’ll ever work again. *bangs it on counter* Nope. It’s stuck like that for good now.

    2. some baseball snuck in too finally

    3. I gotta say I am not surprised that you have no idea what is going on in this thread. It is what you do.

    4. It is amazing how anytime someone utters the word “whataboutism” without irony, what they are saying is completely stupid. There is a lot of dump posters on here Hugh, but you are like a crafty lefty that comes out of the bull pen. It is easy to forget just how fucking stupid you actually are and how consistently you are.

  13. Thank god all the MSM cares about is Trump paying off hookers so we don’t have to hear about this every night.

    1. Hey! They care about *weather*, too!

    2. It would be really depressing if MSM were to cover the latest atrocities from Yemen. Big boobs and buffoons are much more entertaining.

  14. Most notably, women are now allowed to drive and to work outside the home.

    Makes it easier to get to their court appearances.

  15. I don’t understand why people are criticizing the fine Arab culture.

  16. The difference in the quality of people working for Reason and the quality of people who regularly comment here is absolutely fascinating.

    One usually has to go to an Infowars or antifa discussion board to find such an unmitigated lack of humility, civility, and compassion. Maybe a 6th grade recess would be close, but I think most kids are better than what one finds here.

    I’m just endlessly fascinated by what it is that makes people behave like this.

    1. Looks like you got tired of people ignoring your Reverend sock and decided to make a new one to bitch about people with.

    2. I find people here to be pretty nice folk overall. Especially for a webcomment section.

      1. Just ignore it BUCS, it is likely Hihn sneaking back in with a sock puppet.

        1. Vastly too coherent for that.

      2. I kind of think we’re a bunch of jerks, but maybe that’s just me. (And yes, I meant it that way. 😉 )

    3. The difference in the quality of people working for Reason and the quality of people who regularly comment here is absolutely fascinating.

      You’re right, but not in the direction you think.


    4. One usually has to go to an Infowars or antifa discussion board to find such an unmitigated lack of humility, civility, and compassion. Maybe a 6th grade recess would be close, but I think most kids are better than what one finds here.

      Ah, Les. Including childish insults in your rant about people being childish. Welcome to the fray.

  17. I guess I’m outraged that they’re going to execute a woman, but in fairness I was already enraged from all those other dissidents that have already been murdered.

    1. Those other shia dissidents, you mean. I think that provocatively enraging the shia followers is probably the point to this exercise.

      1. It’s a monarchy, I wouldn’t dig too deep looking for rational reasons. Not that I’m worried that you care about rationality or reasons.

        1. I would say that monarchies work very rationally: Preserve the monarchy at all costs.

  18. We should always be thinking about what a revolution will look like in Saudi Arabia. That government cannot help but be retarded, but Arab culture being what it is… what comes after I’m afraid will be worse.

    Like Iran, it could start with a despot who is trying to bring his nation forward.

  19. But Reason would be okay with importing every member of the world who shares the belief in the “Islamic law principle of ta’zir” and likely would try to impose it on the rest of us.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.