Should Saudi Royals be made to feel uncomfortable in the US?

In light of recent events with the revealing of the Saudis involvement in 911 and the human rights violations and their effort to strong arm our politics should we as Americans put forth effort to make the Royals uncomfortable while they are here in the US?

I personally believe that if they truly did have involvement in 911 they need to be held accountable.

They own a lot of property in Santa Barbara and Orange County and hotels in Vegas. They love to come here and party and do drugs and gamble and move freely around the US with impunity even after discovering they had a hand in 911.

Now I'm not advocating violence clearly that's unnecessary as authorities should handle any aggressive action taken against them but what I'm talking about is denial of services... Refusing to sell them homes and property, rejecting them in public places and avoiding any and all contact with them as a public show of protest against what they choose to do in international politics?

What do you think guys?

They hang out with their own crowd and could probably care less what any of us think, we'll likely never see them anyway, and if I did I doubt I would recognize them. Money talks, so I don't think their going to have any problem buying whatever they want.

I about anybody can come up with anything that would make them feel "uncomfortable" that was legal and not an open and direct confrontation.

Americans can't even agree on the color of some dress on Twitter, I doubt Americans would present some sort of united front to the Saudis.

a reply to: onequestion

So the Saudi's are treating America how America treats the rest of the world.

hahahahahahahahaha

Irony tastes delicious.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Haha so true.

Once upon a time.

Only if Israelis and Pakistanis and Americans are too. Can't pick one out and miss out the others now can we.

I have come know a number a Saudi Royals in my time. The thing to remember is the Royal family has over 10,000 members. They are a widely diverse group of people. Some conservative, some liberal, some pro western, some not etc. etc. With a group that large you are going have bad apples. Holding them all responsible is a foolish exercise.

a reply to: MrSpad

Good point I've known some as well as they are big fans of my sport and all over the area.

Which members? There are an estimated 15,000 members of the House of Saud royal family. Most people in America can't even recognize the most "popular" members, like the current king, Prince Alwaleed, and Prince Bandar. So how can you expect people to recognize the obscure or powerless members? Or should we just profile all people who look like they're from Saudi Arabia, just to be safe? Because many of them went to school in the West and can fit in quite easily in our society.

Also, this is America. Our whole society is built on acquiring and spending money. Do you really think most people here would reject lucrative business deals from obscenely wealthy people? LOL Yeah right. People openly work with drug dealers, cartels, organized crime, and much worse. Saudi money would be like a lottery ticket for most people.

I think you've said in a previous thread that you were in construction, right? Well if a Saudi firm was willing to hire you for $50/hour with up to 30 hours of overtime weekly for a 2 month contract, would you reject it on principle? Even if you had no proof that the specific Saudi businessmen in question had anything to do with 9/11?

And that doesn't even touch the fact that powerful people typically have staff members who handle all of their light work, like filing legal documents, handling reservations, etc. Chances are that most people will never even get to interact with them, even if they're in the same building as them. And of course, that's also assuming those specific clan members had anything to do with 9/11.

Well, the report probably won't mention many if any names but the royals should know who was involved.

Someone HAD to talk in the last 15 yrs.

Like everyone says, it would be hard to affect their comfortability.

How about making Dick Cheney feel uncomfortable in the US. He was the one in charge at the pentagon that day and very much responsible for how it all went down that day.

a reply to: onequestion

No more than Hitler should if he were still around
in my opinion..

Saudi's are really bad eggs!

originally posted by: MrSpad
I have come know a number a Saudi Royals in my time. The thing to remember is the Royal family has over 10,000 members. They are a widely diverse group of people. Some conservative, some liberal, some pro western, some not etc. etc. With a group that large you are going have bad apples. Holding them all responsible is a foolish exercise.

I have to disagree. There is no reason to believe that Saudi Arabian royals are a "diverse group". They are in fact a very clearly defined group: They are Saudi Arabian, and they are from the royal family and their opinions are clearly documented.

Whether or not some of them feel more affinity with western mores or not, the point is that the ruling faction does not.

If you use the simplistic, not all of them are bad apples argument, you miss the whole point. Almost all of them have an agenda that is what it is.

a reply to: onequestion

Considering that Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 attacks, supports ISIS, Boko Harem, The Taliban, and Al Queda and supported Osama Bin Laden and has the worst human rights record in the world and Women have no rights there? Considering all that?

Why don't we treat them like North Korea?

a reply to: onequestion

I would probably be more pissed at the elements within my country that have been covering for the Saudi's so long as they pumped the amount of oil they were to told to pump.

Saudi's didnt enable this, they just spend the money their obedience afforded them.

Dont hate the player, hate the game.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

So how can you expect people to recognize the obscure or powerless members? Or should we just profile all people who look like they're from Saudi Arabia, just to be safe?

Why not? I mean they are an elitist group that have been suspected of harbouring, promoting and aiding terrorism. Why should they not be "profiled"?

Do you think it is better to let an enemy prosper than to investigate? What are you saying?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: onequestion

I would probably be more pissed at the elements within my country that have been covering for the Saudi's so long as they pumped the amount of oil they were to told to pump.

Saudi's didnt enable this, they just spend the money their obedience afforded them.

Dont hate the player, hate the game.

At some point you have to recognise the player in order to even be in the game.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So how can you expect people to recognize the obscure or powerless members? Or should we just profile all people who look like they're from Saudi Arabia, just to be safe?

Why not? I mean they are an elitist group that have been suspected of harbouring, promoting and aiding terrorism. Why should they not be "profiled"?

Do you think it is better to let an enemy prosper than to investigate? What are you saying?

LOL What kind of question is that? I believe in the process of law, which means "innocence until proven guilty". I'll never support profiling an entire demographic because of unproven claims against specific members of that demographic. And I'll never support profiling an entire bloodline of literal thousands because of the actions of some of its members. Instead, I'd prefer to do the civilized thing and gather evidence against the specific people who may have been involved in the crime, including the people not in that family.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So how can you expect people to recognize the obscure or powerless members? Or should we just profile all people who look like they're from Saudi Arabia, just to be safe?

Why not? I mean they are an elitist group that have been suspected of harbouring, promoting and aiding terrorism. Why should they not be "profiled"?

Do you think it is better to let an enemy prosper than to investigate? What are you saying?

LOL What kind of question is that? I believe in the process of law, which means "innocence until proven guilty". I'll never support profiling an entire demographic because of unproven claims against specific members of that demographic. And I'll never support profiling an entire bloodline of literal thousands because of the actions of some of its members. Instead, I'd prefer to do the civilized thing and gather evidence against the specific people who may have been involved in the crime, including the people not in that family.

The process of law? Has there not been an issue with law and Saudi Arabia recently? You say that you would never profile an entire demographic or bloodline. Is that a fact?

So for you, the Wahabi branch of Islam should be left to continue, is that right? There is a case being built here, a fascinating one.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So how can you expect people to recognize the obscure or powerless members? Or should we just profile all people who look like they're from Saudi Arabia, just to be safe?

Why not? I mean they are an elitist group that have been suspected of harbouring, promoting and aiding terrorism. Why should they not be "profiled"?

Do you think it is better to let an enemy prosper than to investigate? What are you saying?

LOL What kind of question is that? I believe in the process of law, which means "innocence until proven guilty". I'll never support profiling an entire demographic because of unproven claims against specific members of that demographic. And I'll never support profiling an entire bloodline of literal thousands because of the actions of some of its members. Instead, I'd prefer to do the civilized thing and gather evidence against the specific people who may have been involved in the crime, including the people not in that family.

The process of law?

Yes, the process of law.

Has there not been an issue with law and Saudi Arabia recently?

What does that mean? Be more specific because every country has issues with laws.

You say that you would never profile an entire demographic or bloodline. Is that a fact?

Yes, that's a fact. Collective punishment and collective guilt are stupid.

So for you, the Wahabi branch of Islam should be left to continue, is that right?

Yeah, because I believe in something called "freedom of religion". As long as individuals don't cause harm to others, I don't care if they worship the moon or a dragon statue either. Wahhabism by itself is harmless. It's when people apply its most radical interpretations against others when I have a problem.

But I feel exactly the same with every other religion and ideology. The overwhelming majority of criminals in America are self described Christians, just as with every other Christian majority nation. So should I also profile all self described Christians every time one robs someone, abuses a child, kills his/her spouse, etc? And should I also profile the entire gun owning demographic every time a gun owner shoots someone else?

There is a case being built here, a fascinating one.

You're correct. You're definitely making me question your perspective on law, order, stereotyping, and much more. That's what you were alluding too, right?