The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Government orders flags to be lowered to half mast for Saudi despot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11365375/Government-criticised-for-lowering-flags-along-Whitehall-in-honour-of-King-Abdullah.html

Why on earth would you lower the symbol of this United Kingdom upon the death of some minor despot? A man who led one of the most corrupt and vicious regimes on the planet that imprisons people for being homosexual and bans women from driving?

Odd. Just odd.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for n00
n00
14
That is odd.
Original post by young_guns
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11365375/Government-criticised-for-lowering-flags-along-Whitehall-in-honour-of-King-Abdullah.html

Why on earth would you lower the symbol of this United Kingdom upon the death of some minor despot? A man who led one of the most corrupt and vicious regimes on the planet that imprisons people for being homosexual and bans women from driving?

Odd. Just odd.


We were improsoningnpeople for homosexuality not too long ago.

Agreed that saudi isn't upto Western standards, but at some point you'll reakise that the majority of the world don't live in, or share our western values.

As has been said, king Abdullah has moved saudi along over the last fifty odd years. He achieved in 50 odd years what it took the west a few millennia to achieve.
Reply 3
Avatar for young_guns
young_guns
OP
1
Original post by MatureStudent36
We were improsoningnpeople for homosexuality not too long ago.

Agreed that saudi isn't upto Western standards, but at some point you'll reakise that the majority of the world don't live in, or share our western values.


I don't accept that argument. While the vast majority of the world is not up to Western standards, it's fatuous to imply that most of the world resembles Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most regressive countries in the world. It is about on par with the Tudor state in terms of political freedom and modernity. Besides, the argument that because we were doing something revoltingly immoral that therefore pardons others for the same offence is asinine in the extreme

Imprisoning people for their sexuality was deeply unethical, despite what right-wingers clinging to moral relativism might say. It was wrong when we did it, and it's wrong when other people do it.

As has been said, king Abdullah has moved saudi along over the last fifty odd years. He achieved in 50 odd years what it took the west a few millennia to achieve.


They're still in the 16th century in many ways, so I'm not sure I buy the argument that the Saudi monarchy has been a great boon for modernisation. Turkey under the Ottomans 100 years ago was where Saudi is now, so the idea that the Saudi monarchy should be applauded for keeping Arabia at that level of development strikes me as misguided, to say the least

I'm happy to sell them weapons, they'd need them anyway even if they were a democracy. I'm happy to maintain the deals we have. But we don't have to bend the knee and abase our national symbol before such a despotic morass.

They don't maintain the alliance because we doff our cap and tug our forelock, they do it because it's in their best interests. Anything on top on our part is simply unnecessary, especially given the UK fails to render such courtesy to more important figures from countries who are closer to the UK
(edited 9 years ago)
Despicable. The man was a utter scum and I am glad that he is dead. I wish his brother and every other member of the house of Saud an early death.

Vile man, vile regime, and vile of us to even do dealings with this reactionary barbaric ****hole, let alone offer this kind of respect.
Original post by tengentoppa
Despicable. The man was a utter scum and I am glad that he is dead. I wish his brother and every other member of the house of Saud an early death.

Vile man, vile regime, and vile of us to even do dealings with this reactionary barbaric ****hole, let alone offer this kind of respect.


Funny. You share the same outlook as that we'll know progressive Bin Laden.
Reply 6
Avatar for young_guns
young_guns
OP
1
Original post by MatureStudent36
Funny. You share the same outlook as that we'll know progressive Bin Laden.


"If you disagree with me you're with Al Qaeda?" What a puerile strawman. Surely we can try to raise the level of debate?
Original post by young_guns
"If you disagree with me you're with Al Qaeda?" What a puerile strawman. Surely we can try to raise the level of debate?


No. It was the Saudi Arabian royal family are scum ' bit. The toppling of the hiuse of Saud was AQs primary aim.

Saudi Arabian an odd place. On one hand you have people demanding more westernised style freedom (yet when given the vite a lot of Middle Eastern States tend to vote in a lot of hard line nutters) and on the other side you have Whabbist nutters who don't want change. In the middle you have the house of Saud.
Reply 8
Avatar for young_guns
young_guns
OP
1
Original post by MatureStudent36
No. It was the Saudi Arabian royal family are scum ' bit. The toppling of the hiuse of Saud was AQs primary aim.


The fact that the commenter and Bin Laden are both in favour of a particular thing doesn't in and of itself mean anything.

I suspect Bin Laden was in favour of allowing human beings to eat food. I am also in favour of permitting human beings to eat food. I know it's a cartoonish example, but you take my point?

Saudi Arabian an odd place. On one hand you have people demanding more westernised style freedom


You have got the wrong end of the stick entirely, my friend. I am not trying to force our values on them. That is a different proposition from saying we should pretend we respect them.

I am, by the way, wholly in favour of continuing to arm and support the Egyptian regime. In the case of Arabia, we should continue to do business with the Sauds dependent on good behaviour and comprehensive sharing of intelligence on terrorist threats, not "Oops, we forgot to tell you about that one" or "We didn't notice one of our princes was handing tens of millions to ISIS" (oh and contingent on them keeping thousands of Britons employed in the arms trade... if they stop the arms buys, the arguments in favour become much less persuasive)

By the way, what would be your position on our relationship with a regime who made it a capital crime to be Jewish?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
We were improsoningnpeople for homosexuality not too long ago.

Agreed that saudi isn't upto Western standards, but at some point you'll reakise that the majority of the world don't live in, or share our western values.

As has been said, king Abdullah has moved saudi along over the last fifty odd years. He achieved in 50 odd years what it took the west a few millennia to achieve.


Trust you to be an apologist for Saudi Arabia...
Reply 10
Avatar for SHBK
SHBK
2
Well they are best of friends when it comes to corruption and assistance in creating false wars and fake groups.
Original post by Moosferatu
Trust you to be an apologist for Saudi Arabia...


Not an apologist. Just a realist.

Travel the world and you'll realise just how lucky we are in the west
Original post by MatureStudent36
Not an apologist. Just a realist.

Travel the world and you'll realise just how lucky we are in the west


No I get that point but you rail against Saddam, Gadaffi, Assad (who, I clarify, were/are brutal despots) for exactly the same thing you're praising Saudi Arabia for.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Moosferatu
No I get that point but you rail against Saddam, Gadaffi, Assad (who, I clarify, were/are brutal despots) for exactly the same thing you're praising Saudi Arabia for.


Saddam and gaddafi broke the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

Saddam and gaddafi invaded their neighbours.

Gaddafi sponsored terrorism that impacted in the UK.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Saddam and gaddafi broke the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

Saddam and gaddafi invaded their neighbours.

Gaddafi sponsored terrorism that impacted in the UK.


Ok but as far as I understand Gadaffi was in the process of giving up nuclear weapons and begging the West to let him disarm so we could save his own skin as their hired thugs shoved a knife up his derriere. And they didn't really find any nukes in Iraq. That's kind of why all those raging commies are really pissed off. Although saying that it was more that complete lunatic who dismantled the Iraqi army and police force in that one wasn't it, so fair enough on that point.

Gaddaffi did sponsor terrorism yes but we're kind of funding terrorism now by giving our great friends resisting Assad ISIS the weapons and material to make Daily Mail readers stain their trousers an everlasting yellow.

I'm just a little confused.
Original post by Moosferatu
Ok but as far as I understand Gadaffi was in the process of giving up nuclear weapons and begging the West to let him disarm so we could save his own skin as their hired thugs shoved a knife up his derriere. And they didn't really find any nukes in Iraq. That's kind of why all those raging commies are really pissed off. Although saying that it was more that complete lunatic who dismantled the Iraqi army and police force in that one wasn't it, so fair enough on that point.


Gaddaffi did sponsor terrorism yes but we're kind of funding terrorism now by giving our great friends resisting Assad ISIS the weapons and material to make Daily Mail readers stain their trousers an everlasting yellow.

I'm just a little confused.


They still broke the NNPT in the first place. (Both had tried to develop them in 70s and 80s)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Original post by Moosferatu
No I get that point but you rail against Saddam, Gadaffi, Assad (who, I clarify, were/are brutal despots) for exactly the same thing you're praising Saudi Arabia for.


Haha people haven't learned still?
The "moderate rebels" who go around screaming ackbars and chopping off people's heads are doing it for "democracy". So what? Ba'athism movement was the best thing to happen to the Arab people but you've got the Wahhabi/Islamofacist axis that have always been friends with the West. Ba'athism had to go!

They talk about democracy yet look at KSA! Look at it! Their ideology & funding accounts for all the terrorist groups we see today apart from the Azawad/Tuareg Sufi separatists.
Original post by MatureStudent36
They still broke the NNPT in the first place. (Both had tried to develop them in 70s and 80s)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


Well that was quite a late time to deliver punishment to those countries. If you are correct then you bring me to the point that the West is awfully selective in enforcing international law. If they were that keen on being something of a world police force where nuclear weapons are concerned, surely they would also move to disarm and/or punish Israel as well? Definitely not though.
Reply 18
Avatar for young_guns
young_guns
OP
1
Original post by MatureStudent36
Saddam and gaddafi broke the nuclear non proliferation treaty.


I'm sorry but Saudi Arabia has contravened the NPT, and in fact the most fundamental aspects of the treaty.

Article I of the treaty prohibits any state to "assist, encourage or induce" any non-nuclear state to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia paid a huge amount of money to support Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons on the understanding that warheads would be made available to Saudi Arabia if and when they were required. That is one of the basic pillars of the Pak-Saudi special relationship. Surprised you didn't know that

Saudi Arabia also acquired Chinese Dongfeng 3 missiles specifically for that purpose, missiles which can only have one plausible purpose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Strategic_Missile_Force

On the question of Libya suppporting terrorism... really? I mean, really? Do you want to go down that road?

I mean, if you wanted to say, "Sometimes foreign policy makes hypocrites of us all, and expedience is the only law in pursuing our national interest abroad" I could respect it. But to try and make weak and obviously puerile arguments about punishing Libya for decades old NPT infractions, that just looks confused
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 19
Avatar for young_guns
young_guns
OP
1
Original post by Moosferatu
Well that was quite a late time to deliver punishment to those countries


Good point. Also, Saudi Arabia has contravened the NPT, see my comment above

surely they would also move to disarm and/or punish Israel as well?


Israel is not a member of the NPT. Attempting to "punish" them would be a gross violation of international law

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you