Christians arrested and persecuted in Saudi Arabia

This is nothing new. Saudi has always been backward, esp. when it comes to foreigners visiting religous sites like mecca. For instance, there is a highway sign on the road leading to mecca that reads printed in big white bolded english "Moslems Only". They still prosecute their criminals like its the dark ages(ie Burying an adultress up to her neck and stoning her to death) Ed, this isn't new its very very old news been that way for as long it exsited. My opinion on the matter is that Iraq was a major blunder and that the true target was overlooked. Saudi needs to be confronted. Iraq didn't. I know you guys are probably going to flame me but think of this. Iraq was a secular dictatorship that kept the fundamentalists in that country in check(much like the south korean dictatorship kept the Communists in the south in check just after the korean war) Afghanistan is a Fundamentalist Dictatorship as is Saudi(well actually saudi is a Fundamentalist Monarchy but there is virtually no differance the Saudis want us to think there is but there isn't) I thought the War on Terror was really the war on extremist fundamentalism? Why did the US administration widen the definition to dictatorships in general then immediate threat seems plain to me. Even though I offered a healthly dose of critizism that has been said over and over by alot of people, I am hopfull that you are now reconizing the threat that Saudi poses to world peace.

Christians have been arrested and persecuted all over the planet ever since there were Christians. That's what makes the United States different then other countries we allow for all religions.

Sort of why were supposed to have a seperation of church & state. Otherwise one religion would try to run the others out.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Englishman_in_SpainRemember on 9/11 when all flights across the entire USA were grounded? Two planes were given special permission to leave the country, one supposedly containing members of the Saudi Royal Family, the other allegedly members of the Bin Laden family, urged to get out as quickly as possible to prevent George Dubya from having to answer any awkward questions.

And this has been proven false , as in the 911 report no planes were allowed to leave until flights resumed and the FBI had conducted interviews.

Edsinger your wrong about that here's a link to the hearings.

Here's one specific mention to the flight. The person being questioned was Mr. Richard A. Clarke Former National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, National Security Council. The questions were made by both Timothy J. Roemer and Slade Gorton .

MR. ROEMER: We will certainly be looking to people in future
hearings for their recommendations in a host of different areas.
So I hope that you might think through this area a little bit
more and be available to us.
Mr. Clarke, let me ask you some difficult questions for you
to get at the complexity of our relationship with the Saudis. On
the one hand, I think it's fairly -- there's a great deal of
unanimity that the Saudis were not doing everything they could
before 9/11 to help us in a host of different areas. Fifteen of
the 19 hijackers came from there. We had trouble tracking some of
the financing for terrorist operations, that we still have too
many of the madrassas and the teachings of hatred of Christians
and Jews and others coming out of some of these madrassas. We
need to broaden and deepen this relationship. I will ask you a
part A and a part B. Part A is where do we go in this difficult
relationship? And part B is, to further look at that difficulty
here, you made a decision after 9/11. And I'd like to ask you
more about this -- to allow a plane of Saudis to fly out of the
country. And when most other planes were grounded, this plane
flew from the United States back to Saudi Arabia. I'd like to
know why you made that decision, who was on this plane, and if
the FBI ever had the opportunity to interview those people.

MR. CLARKE: You're absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian
government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight
against terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, it didn't really
cooperate until after bombs blew up in Riyadh.
Now, as to this controversy about the Saudi evacuation
aircraft, let me -- let me tell you everything I know, which is
that some -- in the days following 9/11, whether it was on 9/12
or 9/15 I can't tell you, we were in a constant crisis management
meeting that had started the morning of 9/11 and ran for days on
end. We were making lots of decisions, but we were coordinating
them with all the agencies through the video teleconference
procedure. Someone -- and I wish I could tell you who, but I
don't know who -- someone brought to that group a proposal that
we authorize a request from the Saudi embassy. The Saudi embassy
had apparently said that they feared for the lives of Saudi
citizens, because they thought there would be retribution against
Saudis in the United States as it became obvious to Americans
that this attack was essentially done by Saudis, and that there
were even Saudi citizens in the United States who were part of
the bin Ladin family, which is a very large family -- very large
family.
The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be
evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in
similar crises, evacuating Americans.
The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I
suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at
the names of the individuals who were going to be on the
passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with
the at that time the number-two person in the FBI, Dale Watson,
and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved --
after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long --
approved the flight.
Now, what degree of review the FBI did of those names, I
cannot tell you. How many people there are on the plane, I cannot
tell you. But I have asked since, were there any individuals on
that flight that in retrospect the FBI wishes they could have
interviewed in this country, and the answer I've been given is
no, that there was no one who left on that flight who the FBI now
wants to interview.

MR. ROEMER: Despite the fact that we don't know if Dale
Watson interviewed them in the first place.

MR. CLARKE: I don't think they were ever interviewed in this
country.

MR. ROEMER: So they were not interviewed here. We have all
their names. We don't know if there has been any follow-up to
interview those people that were here and flown out of the
country.

MR. CLARKE: The last time I asked that question, I was
informed the FBI still had no desire to interview any of these
people.

MR. ROEMER: Would you have a desire to interview some of
these people that --

MR. CLARKE: I don't know who they are.

MR. ROEMER: We don't know who they are.

MR. CLARKE: I don't know who they are. The FBI knew who they
were, because they --

MR. ROEMER: Given your confidence and your statements on the
FBI, what's your level of comfort with this?

MR. CLARKE: Well, I will tell you in particular about the
ones that get the most attention here in the press, and they are
members of the bin Ladin family. I was aware for some time that
there were members of the bin Ladin family living in the United
States. And, let's see, in open session I can say that I was very
well aware of the members of the bin Ladin family and what they
were doing in the United States, and the FBI was extraordinarily
well aware of what they were doing in the United States. And I
was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the bin Ladin
family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that
was illegal or that raised their suspicions. And I believe the
FBI had very good information and good sources of information
about what the members of the bin Ladin family were doing.

MR. ROEMER: I've been very impressed with your memory,
sitting through all these interviews that the 9/11 Commission has
conducted with you. I press you again to try to recall how this
request originated, who might have passed this on to you at the
White House Situation Room, or who might have originated that
request for the United States government to fly out -- how many
people on this plane?

MR. CLARKE: I don't know.

MR. ROEMER: We don't know how many people were on a plane
that flew out of this country. Who gave the final approval, then,
to say "Yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United
States government to go to Saudi Arabia"?

MR. CLARKE: I believe after the FBI came back and said it was
all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for
all of these decisions that we were making in those hours, which
was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video
conference.
I was making -- or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 in
the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell
you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't
know. The two -- since you press me, the two possibilities that
are most likely are either the Department of State of the White
House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.

MR. ROEMER: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEAN: Senator Gorton?

MR. GORTON: One more question on that subject. When the
approvals were finally made, and when the flight left, was the
flight embargo still in effect or were we flying -- or was that
over? We were flying once again?

MR. CLARKE: No, sir. No, Senator. The reason that a decision
was needed was because the flight embargo -- the grounding was
still in effect.






[edit on 28-11-2004 by outsider]

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spainedsinger therefore, if you have an issue with anyone and insist on telling them to 'get their facts straight' I suggest you approach Mr Murdoch's organisation.Peace be with you.

And the 911 report researched this and could find no proof of it. Micheal Moore used this in his film also, but the actual events showed the palne to leave after flights had been resumed and the FBI had interviewed all people of interest. It is in the 911 report.

Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi
nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:
(1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace
reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention
to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI
screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?


First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals,
domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national
airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary,
every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace
reopened.


Second, we found no evidence of political intervention.We found
no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard
Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals.
The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the
interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how
the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency
discussion at his level. Clarke told us,�I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . .
to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if
they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me.And
if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.� Clarke added,�I
have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White
House.�26
Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered
someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said
he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything
about it.The President and Vice President told us they were not aware
of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the
officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this
matter from any political appointee.27


Third,we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of
Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.


The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI�s requirementsthat passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed.29The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the


FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.


The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to
their departures.They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change
that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals
involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed
on these flights.31

You can get your copy here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-11-2004 by edsinger]

Thanks for the reply edsinger. I have not had time to read the report yet, but I was wondering is that the final report? If it is that's kind of funny that they would leave out that part out or lie about it.

The quote I made was direct from the hearings transcript. My link above is for both video & transcripts. I don't know if they edited out some parts, but it's clear from the hearings that it did happen.

Originally posted by outsiderThe quote I made was direct from the hearings transcript. My link above is for both video & transcripts. I don't know if they edited out some parts, but it's clear from the hearings that it did happen.

Let me go back and highlight for you the conclusions of the committee. there was a preponderance of the credible evidence as Durden would say..

Well edsinger, I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I watched the hearings live & because of what I heard I waited for the transcripts.

I think the difference here is the report is a summary opinion of information that was presented at the hearings. You have the opportunity to watch them yourself - I really suggest you do and make your own judgement instead of the one you were intended to read. It is crystal clear to me that the flights occured, though I was not there. The media reported it immediately thereafter and Richard A. Clarke of the National Security Council said it happened at the 911 hearings.

I don't think it's some big conspiracy or anything it's just the nature of our relationship with the Saudis. I really have no problem with it, what I have a problem with is they wouldn't let the rest of us fly.

Sorry, I didn't intend to take your thread off on a tangent - I do agree with most of your opinion on this thread. Although your highlight suggest they were allowed to leave on a charter - I'm not sure where the disagreement is.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by outsider]

Originally posted by edsinger
This is just plain sad but it does show how intolerant that Islam is toward other religions doesn't it?

What? No, it doesn't. It shows that the Saudi Regime is intolerant. How did you jump to include all islam in that? Did the intolerance of the inquisition mean that all western countries are murderous ravenous hypocrits?

englishman in spain
Two planes were given special permission to leave the country, one supposedly containing members of the Saudi Royal Family

This however is a falsehood that people repeat. Probably because they figure that this sort of thing goes on. In fact, the saudis that left had been either interviewed by the FBI or found to be of not interest, and no one was in the air when all planes were grounded. Those people left after the airflight ban was lifted.

intrepid
I mean, it's not like Muslims are just detained here because their religion, right?

Correct. Muslims are not detained, at least in the US, merely for being muslims. Christianity however, is illegal to practice in Saudi Arabia. If the state is saying thats why they were arrested, then its probably true.

e in s
TV documentary series broadcast in August of this year on Rupert Murdoch's own Sky One channel.

And what documentary is this?

Hey ed, if you hate Muslims so much, then raise some cash, hire a mercenary force, and conquer Saudi Arabia!!!

It's hilarious how the U.S. preaches about human rights when it supported two of the worst human rights violators in history: Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Hey ed, if you hate Muslims so much, then raise some cash, hire a mercenary force, and conquer Saudi Arabia!!!

It's hilarious how the U.S. preaches about human rights when it supported two of the worst human rights violators in history: Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Well quit putting word in my mouth. I don't hate them but I sure hate there tolerance of other religions. You can leave Christianity and not have a sentence of death await you. Read osama'a declaration of war would you?

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Hey ed, if you hate Muslims so much, then raise some cash, hire a mercenary force, and conquer Saudi Arabia!!!

It's hilarious how the U.S. preaches about human rights when it supported two of the worst human rights violators in history: Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Well quit putting word in my mouth. I don't hate them but I sure hate there tolerance of other religions.

By continually grouping all muslims together you certainly give the impression that you do hate them. Saudi Arabia is not in charge of islam. And as you noticed, they even outlaw the shia sect. Also, members of other religions are tolerated in muslim societies, mot notably the zoroasterians in iran, and historically Islam has gotten along well with other religions within its domain. Jews, christians, and others lived in jerusalem peacefully and especially back when Islam was new. it adopted the paganistic texts of the ancient greeks and romans, not burned them into oblivion like in europe, and generally was pretty tolerant, certainly for its time, and certainly more so that europe at the same time. Today, the situation is reversed generally, and the middle east is in the middle ages. HEck, its in the dark ages. A few hundred years from now, arabs and muslims are going to wonder at what was going on in these barbarous times. Even still, Saudi Arabia's intolerance is not something that characterises all muslims or all muslim countries.

You can leave Christianity and not have a sentence of death await you. Read osama'a declaration of war would you?

Read any number of christian texts calling for the death of apostates. If its a peaceful religion you want, become a buddhist. Otherwise, would it not be best to recognize that men in general act poorly to each other? To recognize that if evil men can take jesus's pacifism and pervert it to kill people and fight wars that people could easily take Islam, which, like judaism, forbids killing and the like, and pervert it to their own means? Or is christianity just a weak and corrupt message in the first place?

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Hey ed, if you hate Muslims so much...

Well quit putting word in my mouth. I don't hate them but I sure hate there tolerance of other religions.

I have to agree with you there ed, intolerance of other beliefs and political ideologies is pathetic and ignorant.

BG

Originally posted by beergoggles
I have to agree with you there ed, intolerance of other beliefs and political ideologies is pathetic and ignorant.BG

You bit, hook line and sinker....

But Christianity does not teach to kill the unbeliever as does Islam and here lies the problem.

What are the consequences of being a Christian and then falling away (besides the afterlife's accommodations)?

Now what are the same for Islam?

Yes DEATH.

Originally posted by edsinger
But Christianity does not teach to kill the unbeliever as does Islam and here lies the problem.

Again, as many posters have informed you, Islam does not require faithful muslims to kill non beleivers.

I beleive that you are in borderline violation of the Terms of Service for the board. Honestly, you have been repeatedly corrected on this issue. The Koran nor Islamic religion in general does not require that non beleivers be killed, and islamic culture and history certainly demonstrates that non beleivers can be tolerated in islamic society. Are you ever going to bother defending your incorrect claim, or are you just going to keep repeating a lie??

What are the consequences of being a Christian and then falling away (besides the afterlife's accommodations)?

Apostates are certainly not treated well in the history of christianity.

Now what are the same for Islam?

Its entirely possible that islam does demand death for apostates, however that is not your original claim. Indeed, how would it be a problem, it'd be a muslim on muslim problem, not a problem for the rest of the world. And now what are the islamic theological supports for this idea?

Well lets see just what it says......

IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

IV.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.


Now in case you skimmed over it lets look a bit more closely..

but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them

as for violating the terms of the board, I think not.........try again...