It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Saudi Arabia?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
We are all aware that the Tunisian people are in the midst of an historic popular uprising against the autocratic regime that has existed there since 1987. The autocratic dictator, who the western governments supported and considered an ally, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali has now fled to Saudi Arabia.

One of Ben Ali's "claim's to fame" (a major reason why he was considered an ally) was the fact that he successfully eliminated the Islamic fundamentalists from participating in politics, and, in essence, had rid the country of them.

So, of all countries, why would an Islamic absolute monarchy (Saudi Arabia) be the one hosting a leader who was harshly opposed to their ideals?

the Billmeister




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Part of his conditions for being able to stay in the kingdom is that he not involve himself with politics, so clearly the Saudis didn't support Ali's regime. As to why they let him in who knows; the Saudi people definitely don't want him there. They did the same thing when Idi Amin (Uganda) needed a place to hide following his murderous dictatorship. It seems as though Saudi Arabia takes good care of the wealthy Muslim elite, no matter how they've made their money or what they choose to do with it.
edit on 20-1-2011 by toc1013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by toc1013
 


Idi Amin was a self-procalimed Muslim, but have never seen or heard that Ben Ali was. That is why I made this thread, he made it a top priority to rid his country of all radical Islamists, even making the Islamic political party illegal.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Hence the fact that he's not allowed to engage in politics in the country. Ben Ali cracked down on extremist partys because he was a dictator; which means any and all dissent would have been crushed. Just because he ran his country differently from the Saudis doesn't necessarily make them enemies. As I said before, we've learned before that the Kingdom is more than willing to shelter crooked Muslim elites. I also wouldn't be surprise if his stay came with a price.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by toc1013
 


Yes, the Saudi royals claim to be Wahhabists, but that does not necessarily make it so, perhaps the "brotherhood of dictators" is stronger than religion. (Or perhaps the cost of admission as you rightfully point out.)

By the fact that he is not allowed to participate in politics, you do mean in Tunisia correct?
Because it is a moot point for Saudi Arabia, as it is a kingdom, and only members of the royal family or their appointed religious leaders can participate.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Not necessarily politics within the Kingdom, but Ben Ali still feels certain international obligations. This also meant mediating and speaking out about issues in general. For example, he had been a key player in resolving the Lebanon crisis and he wanted to continue with this upon his arrival to Saudi Arabia.
And yeah, the royals maintain their power as absolute so obviously theres no chance of involvement in domestic politics. In terms of having a voice internationally, the Saudis want him to keep quiet for alot of reasons; he represents different values from the kingdom and they are also probably well aware that he is a terrible politician.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by toc1013
 


Thanks for the clarification.

In any event, we can rest assured that his living conditions are certainly well above those of the citizens of both Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. (Heck, most of the civilized world!)

I would add that the protection against potential extradition plays a substantial role in the decision to choose Saudi Arabia as a haven.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Because it has nothing to do with ideals. it has to do with money. Always and forever, money.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Because it has nothing to do with ideals. it has to do with money. Always and forever, money.


Ahh, a person who sees the world the way I do.

From the outset of this thread, the underlying idea was, and remains, the hypocrisy of the Saudi Kingdom, which has once again been brought to light.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


The Saudi's, like any US Televangelist, love their religion only insofar as it will generate a revenue stream for them. In their case, they use it to keep their people under their thumbs. The hypocrisy starts with their sexual, partying lifestyle (while they enforce Sharia law on their citizens).

The worst thing that could happen to them would be for alternative energy to come around cheaper. At that point, the would all lose their heads while the people starved in the streets.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Why do you think religion has anything to do with anything in the middle east?

It's about $ .. they worship $ like the rest of us. They might tell the ignorant unemployed citizens they love some Allah, but the God in the Middle East like the God everywhere is $. Ben has $, Saudi's have $ .. they are friends.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Why do you think religion has anything to do with anything in the middle east?

It's about $ .. they worship $ like the rest of us. They might tell the ignorant unemployed citizens they love some Allah, but the God in the Middle East like the God everywhere is $. Ben has $, Saudi's have $ .. they are friends.


I definitely do not disagree.
It is especially true in an autocracy like Saudi Arabia, because there is no possibility of elections, they don't even have to try to hide their utter hypocrisy.
But you are correct that my OP did insinuate that I believed otherwise.

the Billmeister



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Easiest way to judge the Saudies... watch the "Royal Family".. not the one you see on TV making out with GWB, but the massive extended family across the country that literally number into the thousands.

Secret police guarding whore houses
Teens going to raves, drinking (which only the rich can afford in SA)
Frivolous sex.. drug use, American and Euro pop music

Spoiled brats acting like.. spoiled brats. They all receive royalty payments from Oil sales, the King dishes out a huge portion to the extended family in the form of a monthly allowance.

I'm not judging their lack of religion, I myself am Deist, but their subjects few them as a saintly family. Openly anyways.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Look up the history of Saudi Arabia. It was a protectorate of England since the mid 19th century and later became its own country. Saudi Arabia is probably more of an ally to the west than Israel in the middle east.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Look up the history of Saudi Arabia. It was a protectorate of England since the mid 19th century and later became its own country. Saudi Arabia is probably more of an ally to the west than Israel in the middle east.


Correct, in essence.

Until WWI it was part of the Ottoman Empire, and, as is true with most of the middle east, was split up by the victors and dispatched to the local kings and/or tribal leaders who had been most friendly to them.

So, you are 100% correct, that modern Saudi Arabia has been a puppet state since the beginning, first to the British and, since 1945's meeting on the USS Quincy between Saudi's King Abdul Aziz and Franklin D. Roosevelt, a puppet of the U.S.A.

the Billmeister

Upon having completed this reply, I realize that you probably meant to write 1900's or 20th century, and that we are saying the same thing!




top topics



 
2

log in

join