Right, the Russians who prop up a dictator whose almost immediate response to the Arab uprising was to fire on the protesters and who terrifies his people into submission with barrel bombs and chemical weapons - they're the good guys.

See here's the funny thing. You or whatever you're reading is stuck in the Cold War mindset of the US intervening to prop up murderous dictators against the perceived threat of communism. However now that it's Russia intervening on behalf of its favored dictators you're too stuck in your narrative to see the irony of your position.

Russia is only intervening against ISIS to the extent it props up Assad. The US still of course supports dictators when it is in its economic interests (see Saudi Arabia and implicitly supporting its war in Yemen) but the fact that it's largely avoided arming the government or rebel groups in Syria, neither of which have their hands clean should indicate a lesson learned from arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan, not a mistake.

Sad, but not really surprising.
Did she not know they treat the LGBT community as criminals in most of the middle east?
It is important to do at least a little investigation before going to a completely different culture, and be prepared if you find out that simply who you are is a crime.
It could have been worse if she had brought some alcohol with her, that can get you serious prison time. My dad spent lots of time in Saudi Arabia in the 70's, and he used to say he never went somewhere where alcohol was so seriously banned and criminalized, or where more people drank. Apparently even though it's treated like heroin, everyone has a bar at home and drinks like a fish in private. Go figure.

I'm glad she wasn't put in jail over this, but she got lucky. Ignorance of the law, or thinking that the law is immoral and wrong is no excuse and won't keep you out of prison.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'amazing' to 'amazing, sand, sandfall, Al Aflaj, Saudi Arabia' - edited by blackfox42

You shoiuld have read the Wikipedia article:

"Muhammad bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Arabic: محمد بن نايف بن عبد العزيز آل سعود‎‎; born 30 August 1959) is the Crown Prince, First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior of Saudi Arabia."

"Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html

That's an interesting threat, if true. US treasury securities are the safest asset there is, and given the ginormous shortage of AAA assets worldwide, those would be vacuumed up in a split-second. Hell of a threat, really.

I don't have a problem with many of these like Alec Guiness and Anthony Quinn in Lawrence of Arabia and after all they did have Omar Sharif. How many big name arab or more specifically bedouin actors were available at that time. And you can't expect a big blockbuster movie to go after no names

On the other hand some of these were cringe worthy and downright offensive ... Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's being a prime example.

@newtboy
If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries

Right, as if you don't know how well fleeing from Germany to neighbours like Poland or France or Italy would have worked out for them... Seriously?

If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...

Are you suggesting that Jews did all this prior to the outbreak of civil war in Palestine? That doesn't reflect reality in any way shape or form.

it was close to 5% before the invasion.

When do you count Jewish immigration to Palestine as becoming an invasion? Palestine was already 8% Jewish by demographics in 1890. That's enough time for almost a 3rd generation to be born by 1940. Slowest, invasion, ever.

The leap was from 1930-1940, with an additional 450k Jewish Palestinians. In that same time the Arab population grew by 420k, so I guess they were both invading???

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.

Right, Israel's initial standing army was 10k, matching Egypt's 10k. But Egypt wasn't the only one in the alliance of course, Jordan had that many as well. Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the remaining alliance members represented another 10k together too. Sure, in hindsight we know they don't jointly commit their entire forces to the task an outnumber the Jewish military 3 to 1. I'm not quite sure how the Jewish people planning a defense were supposed to anticipate that and 'hold back' accordingly.

Honestly, I just can not comprehend what you expect Jewish people fleeing Europe to have done instead. Fleeing to other parts of Europe still left them in Nazi controlled territory and on a train back to Poland. Standing to fight in other European countries meant getting shot at, defeated, and then on a train to Poland. Crossing the ocean was a far sight harder than going to the middle east. Of all the middle east countries, Palestine was the most promising so I find it hard to fault the folks leaving Europe and setting up shop there. Once arrived there, I again find it hard to condemn them for demanding fair treatment and being willing to fight for it.

I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming).

Mein Kampf was first published in 1925, it had sold nearly a quarter million copies by 1933 when Hitler took power. How could they ever have seen anything bad coming their way I wonder...

Its much simpler actually: The circle of violence. It started when the west thought it could bring their ideology to those countries. But Sunnis didnt want to live together with Shiites (the forming of Iraq and others). They didnt want to have foreign soldiers on their soil and adapt western lifestyle (especially Saudi Arabia). They didnt want Jews to get Israel, they didnt like to get invaded (Iraq and others), they didnt like the western coup detats (Iran and others), they didnt like to be afraid of being struck by a drone or cruise missile strike any minute (pretty much the whole region), and they didnt have the means to defend against their corrupt governments established or supported by the west or the attacks by the west.
Before this they were living at relative peace. Much more peaceful than we did live together in Europe in the last 600 years for sure.
Its pretty much desperation and has turned into normality now. They are also filled with hate due to their way of life, which puts honor very high and which the west doesnt understand. But you would be too if you have seen your culture get destroyed by other completely different cultures and seen your family and friends die by their hands for hundreds of years.
ISIS only struck that nerve better than any before. And thats why so many people are leaving to join them who are even living in Europe. Yet the west created them with their despicable foreign policy. And instead of learning from it, they are only making it worse by using these people for their own goals in Syria (that includes Turkey) and not changing their foreign policy.

A smart man once said: We shouldnt be wondering why they bomb us, we should be wondering why they dont bomb us much more.

No and yes. Its the violent and warmongering western policy in that region. We have always destabilized it, yet have learned nothing from it. We just keep going and then wonder why its getting worse. Its a neocon policy. Easy to stop, many people have already said what the solution would be, yet there are always the powerful neocons who live from fear mongering, suffering and wars. And of course from blind following people like you who support them.

2003 was just another puzzle piece. The support of extremists in Syria too, the support of them in Libya aswell. The support of Saudi Arabia is a very big puzzle piece. The CIA operations in that region just as much.
The support of Saddam Hussein also is another small puzzle piece, just as much as we made him think that he can attack Kuwait and we wont interfere. He thought that because we allowed him and instigated him to attack Iran, then supported both sides, because we wanted to destabilize that region once again. Did I mention the coup detat in Iran yet?
And its not that we werent warned about it. Lots of smart people said that giving the Jews Israel would end in disaster. The signs were easy to spot. Lots of people warned about an Iraq war in 2003. Even the neocons own people warned about the IS in documents, yet they ignored it and kept going, strengthening it even more. People warned about what would happen to Libya after Ghaddafi was gone. Again they did not care. Lots of people warned about what was going on in Syria, that Assad was confronted with an extremists group long before the "revolution" that is now known as Al Nusra, a branch of Al Kaida. What did they do? They weakened Assad. Lots of people warned about the refugee crisis and extremists flooding into Europe among those refugees. What do they do? They open the borders and let everyone in without any checks at all, even inviting the whole world to come, ignoring actual laws.

You see, good knowledge of history is mandatory to understand cause and effect. You dont have that knowledge, as you have proved already, because you try to marginalize it by including things from centuries ago and try to solve those with the same solutions from centuries ago. But I dont blame you, since youre probably American. American history teaching is as messed up as their foreign policy.
You cant see coherences in all that. Lots of people dont. Thats why we are doomed to repeat history.

I mean just look at the policy since 9/11. It was meant to bring us all more security from terrorist attacks like that. Yet it has only become worse. Extremists are stronger than ever before and keep getting stronger with everything we do to "weaken" them. And yet people like you dont ask themselves why, actually attack people like me who have realized whats wrong.
Intelligent species my ass.

I think Ratigan's summary is quite accurate for describing pre-9/11 motivation. Saudi promoted Wahhabi-ism can certainly be blamed for drawing stark divisions between Shia and Sunni Islam and fueling inter-Islamic conflicts in the region. Funds from Saudi benefactors (who have profited handsomely from the US/West's collaboration with Saudi Arabia due to its oil reserves) have certainly fueled terrorist groups.

Today, I would suggest that terrorist attacks are basically publicity, recruitment and funding campaigns for a militia based land battle by ISIS in the Middle East. Take for example the beheading of Americans that arguably escalated the US involvement in the conflict. it would seem that in terms of their survival this would have been counterproductive. I can only assume that a successful terrorist/militia organisation like ISIS is acting quote-unquote rationally in its own interests if it is as successful as it is. That forces me to conclude that the recruitment and funding that it gets from these publicized actions actually outweighs the cost of being attacked militarily by global powers like the US/EU.

While religion is certainly used to motivate the foot soldiers of these insurgents, I would not at all be surprised if the likes of the al-Baghdadi's of the conflict are purely in it for money and power. Kind of reminds me of how insurgents in Africa post-colonialism had to reinvent themselves to remain relevant and became either religiously or otherwise racially sectarian militias / factions.

Your video, Bizarre River of Sand Flowing in Saudi Arabia, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I would even have said North Africa was a different region to the Middle East

I don't really see the need to hold it back. It is close, in the sense of only the entire country of Saudi Arabia between the filming location and Egypt, but it's not as if it was filmed at Sharm El Sheikh.

Actually I would argue against holding it back even if it was filmed there, or in the Sinai.

Since you brought up unusual punishments, let's take stoning people for adultery (which exists in both the Koran and the Bible). When was the last time someone was stoned to death by a group in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or even Malaysia for adultery? Hundreds of millions of Muslims and Christians around the world seem perfectly fine ignoring that part of their holy texts. Just because something that we find distasteful today is written in the holy text doesn't automatically make the religion evil nor does it suddenly force the practioners to behave like savages.

You need to look at the specifics. Take a look at the countries where stoning actually does still occasionally happen and who actually carries it out: Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Invariably when it does occur it happens in rural areas where there are people who still actually live like it is the middle ages, with extreme poverty and little education to speak of (other than religious). Sure, the book gave them the idea but it wasn't the only factor in play and to ignore these other factors or the fact that honor killings are in fact common across a wide number of cultures with varying religious backgrounds (even the Romans did it) is what would be truly intellectually dishonest.

As for extremists--they exist in all religions including Christianity. It wasn't a mob of Muslims who attacked Charlie Hedbo--it was two deranged individuals. And while some Muslims might have applauded the attack others denounced it, such as the hunderds of thousands of Chechen protestors who who were upset with the cartoons but didn't think violence was the right response (see article here).

Again, it's a complex issue that can't be boiled down to "Islam = Good/Bad." Islam as practiced by ISIS or Boko Haram? Yeah, there's some dark shit going on there. Islam as practiced by average citizens in Kuala Lumpur or Boston? Not so much.

But again, moderate statements based on reason and facts are not what sell books, generate online clicks, or fill lecture halls to capacity.

Might be lies but an fyi:

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/20/441457924/gulf-states-fend-off-criticism-about-doing-little-for-syrian-refugees


"The Saudi Foreign Ministry challenged the charges by issuing official numbers that are impossible to verify independently, saying "the Kingdom has received around 2.5 million Syrians since the beginning of the conflict." A Saudi scholar told the BBC that thousands of Syrians receive free health care and education in Saudi Arabia.

An op-ed in the New York Times by Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE's ambassador in Washington, contested the widely reported statistic of "zero" refugees in the Gulf. "Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the U.A.E. has welcomed more than 100,000 Syrians, joining 140,000 already residing in the emirates," he wrote. "The Emirates' per capita commitment to the Syrian crisis exceeds virtually every other country's participation."

Its a matter of chicken vs egg. They don't need huge military expenditures because security is provided by the US. But if they and all their neighbors had to provide sufficient defense, mostly against the people who are most likely to invade them (i.e. their neighbors), you get an arms race like you have with India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia. The indirect savings and the refocusing of capital and human resources away from the military in all of these allies countries makes the world a much safer place, since war no longer becomes the go to solution for states to resolve differences.

US bases do fall into 2 categories. Allies who don't want to get invaded again, and enemies who lost and became allies. As for Kuwait, that didn't work out well for Iraq, and Kuwait is still independent and an ally. Ukraine has no US bases, Russia would go ballistic if there were (surprisingly appropriate use of the word). ISIS is the anomaly, but right now you can put that down to the fact that Obama really, really doesn't want to put US troops on the ground (think he would hesitate if ISIS invaded England or Australia for example?), and that Iraq's military is trying to handle this as much as possible on their own and clearly having trouble.

I don't know if we need all 800 bases currently or if some are just vestigial. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on the necessity of them, though