Saudi "reform" update. From the BBC, with thanks to J.J. Johnson:
Saudi police have arrested nine people who tried to attend the trial of three reform campaigners, witnesses say.The nine include two journalists and relatives of the trio. Diplomats were among others wanting to attend who were barred from the court.
The trial went ahead behind closed doors at the Riyadh courthouse, despite earlier reports suggesting it would be open to the public.
Judges decided to send the case which began in August to a lower court.
Ali al-Demaini, Matruq al-Faleh and Abdullah al-Hamed are accused of campaigning for political change and a constitutional monarchy.
They are also charged with collecting signatures for a petition demanding change.
The trio were among about a dozen activists arrested in March. Most were freed after pledging to stop pro-reform activities. Overt public dissent is rare in conservative Saudi Arabia.
That's another example of the witless journalistic tendency to label anything they don't like "conservative," and anything they do like "liberal." So in their view, both the opponents of the global jihad in the West and the backers of the global jihad in Saudi Arabia are "conservatives." Go figure.
Jihadis are conservative, plain and simple. They want to put "God's Law" in the courts, they want "God's Teaching" in school, they want women and minorities to "know their place", they hate homosexuals, they want to maintain "scriptural moral values" based on religimous fairy tales, they harken back to an immaginary "Golden Age" where everything was perfect, they don't give a whit about environmental ethics, they think that their way is not on the BEST way but the ONLY way, they think God is "on their side", they hate and stifle dissent, they think everybody except themselves are headed for the Lake O' Fire, they are insanely accuasatory, they think they are superior in every way....
Gee, that kind of sounds familiar, doesn't it? Like a certain type of American?
No, I'm not "still upset about the election." I'm just telling you that conservatives in America and conservative Muslims have a LOT in common.
For you to try to pretend that liberals love jihadis is insulting enough, but to try to claim that Muslim fanatics aren't conservative is just plain blather. I guess you may contend that the KKK and Militias are liberal too, eh? Haha... that reminds me of the time I heard some con-rep trying to make the case that while the liberals were in charge of South Africa, the black people were miserable, but once the conservatives took over, they ended Apartheid. That's hilarious.
No, Mr. Spencer, the media doesn't label things "liberal" or "conservative" on a good-bad whim. Please stop trying to misinform your adoring fans.
Jihadis are conservative, plain and simple. They want to put "God's Law" in the courts
Posted by: kj at December 2, 2004 10:35 AM
SO LET ME GET THIS STREIGHT YOU THINK THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST ARE RIGHT AND ??
Part of the American Teribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to stay the course to Victory[FREEDOM] to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
PS
Isn't it funny how the lib Keith comes to defend the Islamic people??
Must really hate who he is??
So in their view, both the opponents of the global jihad in the West and the backers of the global jihad in Saudi Arabia are "conservatives." Go figure.
WTF?? Two opposing sides can definitely have a commonality. Consider the biggest event of the 20th century, World War Two. The United States was STAUNCHLY anti-Communist, as was Adolph Hitler. But I guess that some witless revisionist could try to make a case like this:
...So in their view, both the opponents of fascist tyranny in the West and the backers of fascist tyranny in Europe were "Anti-Communist." Go figure.
Go figure indeed. What's your angle? Are you trying to make us hate liberals even more?
Catherine, you hateful woman. When did I come to defend the Islamic People? What did I say that makes you SCREAM that I think the Islamic terrorists are right?
They aren't right, but they are definitely right-wing.
Instead of spewing insults, can I please have someone find fault with what I actually said?
That's easy, kj- all we have to do is look at what the liberals are teaching at Berkeley, (David) Duke, Bucknell, scores of other colleges across the country. You claim you are trying to convince people like this, but you don't have the guts to critizice them yourself. Instead you need to LIE about supposed parallels between the jihadists and anyone further to the right of you than Dan Rather.
btw, people, I am guessing that Bridges TV will be rquired watching on kj campuses across the US and Canada.
I placed this on the wrong thread, apologies:
And you will all notice, it is only when there is half a chance of bashing conservatives, that kj chimes in anymore. I'd be curious to see his reaction to the last talk-show thread Mr. Spencer has up.
Recommended reading:
http://frontpagemag.com/
Almost Every single day this site has an article about some jihad-happy teacher, somewhere in the US. I would like to see kj show us ONE article about a conservative teacher supporting them. The link please, not false assumptions.
KKK and Islam:
http://www.haroonsaadiq.com/islam/kkk.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page207.htm
Keith,
I see your posting continues in its recent despicable vein.
"For you to try to pretend that liberals love jihadis is insulting enough..."
Have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky? Edward Said? Rashid Khalidi? A thousand others of a similar type?
Love
RS
Recent?
No matter. I believe he has gone to hit-and-run tactics. This way he can later claim no one ever answered his 'questions.' I only wish I knew what name he posted under on DU and other sites.
Every country is 'conservative' when it comes to their own interests. Otherwise they end up becoming something like... Holland. And soon to be France. Almost any country kerry appreciates.
Actually, I agree in small part with the journalist.
"Conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. If you are conserving the heritage of Aristotle, the Gospels, the Magna Carta, John Locke, and the Constitution you will not have much in common with those who are conserving tribalism and jihadi triumphalism.
Conservely, if you are rebelling against your society's foundations you are a leftist. I do not approve of the term "liberal" for crackpots like Chomsky, Said, and Al Gore, because they bear almost NO RESEMBLENCE to pioneering liberals like Spinoza, Montesquieu and Tocqueville. In effect, many of the self-styled liberals of the West have not only betrayed the West, they have betrayed liberalism.
What went wrong?
Well, well... I can't help but notice that NO ONE even tries to dispute this:
They want to put "God's Law" in the courts, they want "God's Teaching" in school, they want women and minorities to "know their place", they hate homosexuals, they want to maintain "scriptural moral values" based on religimous fairy tales, they harken back to an immaginary "Golden Age" where everything was perfect, they don't give a whit about environmental ethics, they think that their way is not on the BEST way but the ONLY way, they think God is "on their side", they hate and stifle dissent, they think everybody except themselves are headed for the Lake O' Fire, they are insanely accuasatory, they think they are superior in every way....
*****************************
Gary:
You claim you are trying to convince people like this, but you don't have the guts to critizice them yourself. Instead you need to LIE about supposed parallels between the jihadists and anyone further to the right of you than Dan Rather.
Wrong. I have convinced people like this, and will continue to try. I certainly do criticize them. I didn't lie about the "supposed" parallels. Tell me which parallel ins't shared with America con-reps and Saudi jihadis. Please, point one out.
I think if you stop trying to pretend to not notice, you will see that the "supposed" parallels reprinted above are taught at Bob Jones University, Liberty University, and at schools of colleges all across the country. (And at madrassas all over the world.)
I'd be curious to see his reaction to the last talk-show thread Mr. Spencer has up.
Go check for yourself, Gary. Not one word.
**********************************
Spencer:
Noam Chomsky is a liberal, you are correct there. He is pretty much right in everything he says (that I know of) except his whining for the "palestinians." But his background is in linguistics, not history.
Edward Said IS a jihadi, a fool, a phony intellectual propped up by Saudi petrodollars funneled though Columbia. He was a muslim pretending to be a christian. I think he sucked, period, a sad joke. Good riddance.
Rashid Khalidi... sounds like a jihadi to me.
Now, maybe you will tell me: have you ever heard of Grover Norquist? How about George H. W. Bush? How about James Baker? How about Henry Kissinger?
Mr. Spencer, the simple fact is that some academics/liberals get all in a huff over the Crusades, the "palestinians", etc. They are wrong, and I have never agreed with them, not now, not when I was in college, and not one day when I return to college.
Likewise, some conservatives are head-over-heels in love with the smell of Saudi money... I don't see what you hope to gain by bringing up politics, unless you are trying to make us hate liberals more.
***************************************
Friends, I agree that there is a serious problem on some campuses when it comes to Muslim apologists, Israel bashers, etc. I guess the difference between me and all of you is what to do about it. You all seem to think the way to win them over is to bash them, call them Un-american, say they hate Christianity, love Jihadis, etc. etc.
I say the way is to calmly and rationally explain the facts about Islam, especially Dhimmitude and Jihad. I draw from the websites
http://www.campus-watch.org/
http://www.theisraelproject.org/
If you go to the first one, you will see that I am painfully aware of the extent to which Anti-Israel and Pro-Islam crap has crept into academia, not just the lib'rul professors.
Go now, before it's updated, and read about the latest implicated teacher. People, he works at the graduate version of the US Naval Academy, in Monterry! The skeptic in me seriously questions that this place is a "hotbed of liberal sentiment".
I know that I can't find the truth about Islam at a liberal site. I am constantly amazed, especialily since liberals have a lot of reasons to disagree with Islam. I just don't see what anyone here hopes to accomplish by trying to make this into a liberal-conservative arguement.
When I hear a liberal whine about the Crusades, I usually ask them about the Muslim Crusades, including TWO in the "Holy Land": one before the bible thumpers, and one after. I tell them about the Muslim invasions of Persia, Egypt, and hundreds of Buddhist and Hindu kingdoms in Asia.
I DON'T accuse them of hating America, hating our military, loving Jihadis, or being Commies.
I think a lot of people throw out words like liberal and conservative without really understanding what they mean. It's definatley not the same thing as saying Democrat or Republican.
Here are some definitons I got from dictionary.com
2 definitions of conservatism:The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
Wow, that sure sounds like Saudi Arabia to me.
Here's the definition of liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Saudi Arabia is not being called conservative because the reporter doesn't like them; its becuase that's what's going on.
Obviously, if 2 countries have different traditional institutions and hierarchies, then the conservatives from one country will have completely different values than the conservatives of another country.
Also, why is it assumed that all of the opponents of global jihad in the west are conservatives? Can't one be against terrorism, but still for civil rights, free speech, and equal protection under law?
I don't think it is useful to append western political labels to medieval theocrats. Saudi Arabia is a Salafi or Wahhabi totalitarian, theorcratic, monarchy.
Christians in the U.S. just want to keep the Declaration of Independence in the schools, despite the several mentions of God or Creator. The comparison falls flat if you peel the crispy outer layer of the onion back. A dogmatic secularism has taken hold in the United States. In Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi is the state religion. Jews are not permitted inside the Kingdom. Christians are persecuted and tortured. In America, fundamentalist Christians sometimes annoy people with their prosthlytizing. Nobody is compelled to convert or obey any particular relgious belief.
It's a stupid comparison. Matters of degree are everything in the real world.
somebody lend KJ a copy of Paul Berman's Terrorism and Liberalism in a hurry, and see that he reads it, please.
JihadWatchers/DhimmiWatchers are about opposing totalitarianism wherever it rears its very ugly head. We just happen to be living in times where most of the totalitarians are Islamists and too many of the so-called liberal/centre left are so hampered by their animosity for the (rather democratically minded) progressive right that they will oppose the removal of the Taliban or Saddam and accept the BS that Chomsky, Moore and their ilk spew about America the terrorist state.
Keith,
Have I ever heard of Grover Norquist?
You persistently overlook the fact that I posted Frank Gaffney's expose of him here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000376.php
Your repeated accusations that this site is politically biased are, again, despicable.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
'Here's the definition of liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. ' ~ AV
Funny, that sure as Hell sounds like a description of ME.
Arbitrary authority - Activist judges:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/feb04/04-02-04.html
Civil and political liberties under assault:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/1004/101304-sinclair.htm
government by law with the consent of the governed:
http://tpp.effwa.org/opeds/19.php
Mind you, these are just three of thousands of links I could have chosen. I already know they will be denigrated just on the basis of who wrote them and/or who published them.
I do not in truth consider myself a conservative, tho I do have conservative views. I have been a donator to the SPLC and St. Joseph's Indian School, as well as 7 years working at a wildlife rehabilitation center. But I will take my views of the US and the goodness and autonmy of people over massive governmental control and what liberals like kerry and chomsky want to believe, any day of the century.
I think the American writer, and cynic, Ambrose Bierce, in his "The Devil's Dictionary," best defined the difference between conservatives and liberals: Conservative, noun. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Well, you can call it despicable as much as you want. I hope you aren’t setting me up for a ban. If so, please give me fair warning, and I promise that I will tone down the rhetoric. I appreciate your allowing my dissent but I don't want to push you.
Do you really think that you don't exhibit a right-wing bias?
I know that you posted Gaffney's article about Grover Norquist.... once. I don't persistently overlook it. I read the whole thing, including the whiny prologue by David Horowitz; you may recall how he went on and on about how great Norquist is, before the article on what a dhimmi he is. (I like Horowitz' articles on Zionism and Islam... he claims that he used to be a liberal, until a liberal killed a friend of his. I wonder what he'd do if a conservative killed two friends of his. I would bet money he like Babs Olsen; I wonder if he had any friends killed on 9-11? Oh wait; that was "all the lib'ruls' fault!" too.)
It seems to me that you do a lot of criticizing of liberals here. Recall the dhimmi lawyer that was alleged to have smuggled messages for that WTC'93 jihadi. You've mentioned her several times in your articles, and the accompanying comments are always heaped tall with vitriol against liberals, lawyers, the ACLU, etc. etc.
How about a profile of another attorney-turned-dhimmi extraordinaire, James Baker? His firm is representing Saudi Arabia in the lawsuit brought victims of 9-11 and their survivors.
What could be more un-American than that, for God's sake?
Henry Kissinger works for them too: recall that he had to turn down a chance to head the 9-11 Commission because of a "potential" conflict of interest.
I have no problem with laying blame squarely at the feet of those involved; for instance, I hear tell that Madeleine Albright is also in bed with the Saudis. I don't like that either and will make no attempt to rationalize it or defend her. If she wants to shill for them she can g-d well move there, and stay there with her head up the robe of some dirty sheik.
Sorry, Gary. I don't post at DU and have never even seen their message board. I do post at a liberal site dedicated to exposing fascism, (www.dneiwert.blogspot.com) and have even directed JW readers there to read the proof that I do in fact tell the namby-pamby liberals the truth about Islam and don't ignore their attempts to sugarcoat it. (Who was it that went that time, two or three months ago? They came back and verified this for the rest of you... wasn't it "Colt Walker"? Colt? Are you there? Can you back me up here?)
I complained to the producers of Democracy Now! about their anti-Israeli bias so many times that they took down their archives that proved my point. I protested a live appearance of Amy Goodman, and had many arguments with my pro-"palestine", anti-Israeli fellow lib'ruls.
But you guys are very partisan. Recall the big brouhaha over Arafat's endorsement of "Fahrenheit 9-11"... when I pointed out the fact that he also supported "The Passion of (Mel's) Christ", no one got back with me.
Then there was the "endorsement" of John Kerry for president by Hamas. Oh my, what important news! But not a word of Iran's endorsement of Bush.
And the Al-qeada mole outted by the Homeland Security department for the "big security alarm" in NYC, right after the DNC convention.... no mention at DW; no mention at JW. Like, how many Al-qaeda insiders does our side have? Enough to afford to lose one? I suspect that they are in short supply.
Gary, I don't cut and run. But I don't always have time to keep checking back and keep checking back. I think I do a decent job of answering charges and positing countercharges, but I don't get very many answers back on MANY of my points. Like the many, many similarities in mentioned above, between fundamental christians (a.k.a. "conservatives") and fundamental muslims (a.k.a. "jihadis.)
(Please spare me the charge of equivocation... I know, and have said many times, that Christians aren't as fanatically and violently crazy as Muslims. But facts are facts: they both hate homosexuals, they both hate minorities, they both want God's Law to rule the courts and schools, they both oppose abortion, they both hate liberals and liberalism, they both hate drugs and drug addicts, etc. etc. And please, please spare me the "I love the sinner, but hate the sin" propaganda.)
Hey, I don't come here to be a gadfly. I come here to learn about Jihad and Dhimmitude, and Islam in general. But I notice a partisan bias and point it out.
Muslim fanatics have a lot more in common with the KKK than the ACLU, but how often do we see here any complaints about the KKK? Saudi is helped waaaaay more by Baker-Botts than by Mike Moore, but why all the complaints about Fatty and nary a peep on Jimbo?
'when I pointed out the fact that he also supported "The Passion of (Mel's) Christ", no one got back with me.' ~ kj
No, kj, you never came back to look at all the answers you got. I should know because I was one of those who answered.
as for Iran~ prove it was sincere, and not an act of absolute cynicism designed to influence the election.
'I think I do a decent job of answering charges and positing countercharges, but I don't get very many answers back on MANY of my points' ~ kj
Sorry, kj. Much as I hate going back and back and back to check, I do go back. Our answers to what you say are the last thing I see in those threads.
'Christians aren't as fanatically and violently crazy as Muslims. But facts are facts: they both hate homosexuals, they both hate minorities, they both want God's Law to rule the courts and schools, they both oppose abortion, they both hate liberals and liberalism, they both hate drugs and drug addicts, etc. etc. And please, please spare me the "I love the sinner, but hate the sin" propaganda.)' kj
Excuse my language, Mr. Spencer, but you, kj, are so Totally full of shit. I am a Christian and some of my friends are gay, some are polyamourus, some (most), including myself and my wife, belong to a group I won't even mention here, if only because I expect denigration of it by people of your mindset. Democrats will ignore us until they see there is a large enough group that they might consider going after our vote.
Don't give me this 'hate homosexuals' bullshit. You LIE.
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
We all know KJ is a lib and notice the similarities of the lib and mussis when they hit and are hit back they are the ones who cry foul??
Funny KJ can’t tell the difference between Type and Voice he typed I was screaming but I never said a word! I just typed.
KJ says I’m mean again is this not the tactics of the mussis? Use a bus to blow up people then cry that they are the victims?
Yes once again one does not have to go far to find an example that the libs& mussis have a lot in common? We have KJ and for those of you who like video there is always
www.brainterminal.com
Pasta al gorgonzola for dinner tonight!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to stay the course to Victory[FREEDOM] to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat Amen
The Left is Dead:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200412020818.asp
And Hey! Catherine raises a point- why do we not see Catholics blowing up busloads of gays, eh?
KJ:
I don't live in the US and don't watch or read the US MSM so forgive me for asking, but is the KKK a force to be reckoned with anymore?
The ACLU, as I recall, defended the right of Nazis to march in Skoki, Illinois, which was, at the time largely populated by Jews, some of whom were Holocaust survivors, in what they considered to be in the name of freedom of speech. Since then, I believe laws have been developed in the US as well as Canada to control hate speech and that is why the US deported the notorious Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But the ACLU still applies the same old black-and-white assessments of the causes it takes up, and that's why the contempt. That, and the fact that we are living in much more dangerous times and the ACLU appears to be either coming to the defense of jihadists or otherwise impeding the state's ability to protect its citiens from terrorits.
Some of the bloggers here could probably be fairly described as small "c" religous conservatives, but they are all democratic anti-totalitarian. But I find no bias in the items Spencer posts or in the critiques he offers.
And boo-hoo-hoo if nobody responded to whatever you wrote about Mel's Passion.
Muslim fanatics have a lot more in common with the KKK than the ACLU, but how often do we see here any complaints about the KKK? Saudi is helped waaaaay more by Baker-Botts than by Mike Moore, but why all the complaints about Fatty and nary a peep on Jimbo?
Posted by: kj at December 2, 2004 02:26 PM
Again the Truth hurts??
The ACLU defends the Mulsums in Getmo?? and all the ACLU suits against the goverment to get Islamic Terrorist out of jail?? and their defence of hamas in this country??
And we have your point about the KKK would that be the W.Va. senator who is a Democrat Bird??
OR the group KKK who has taken the side of the mulsums and are working with them ? If you looked at who they vote for you will Find the Vote for th Democrats!!
And lets talk about the new Clinton Libary and the Saudi Money for it??
KJ again you prove my point!!
The crying don't ban me I wont cut off the hand anymore but the next line again there you go??
If you say you want to read about what we are up against you can if Mr. Spencer cuts you off it would only mean you can not post you rants?? Like you slaming DCWatson you have a problem and need to look in the mirror!!
You love abortion yet you tell every body you had a new baby why didn't you have it aborted if you love those laws so much ?
this is not a sight to talk about those things it is to help bring things to help fight against the MONSTERS WHO WANT TO CONTROL THE WORLD BY SHRIA LAW!!
I have yet to read any of your post that help in that Fight??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom, and Courage to stay the course to Victory [FREEDOM] to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat Amen
PS
2Mulsums converts who had joined the army killed 12 mussi styl and video it all in TX over the Thanksgiving week-end? They have pleaded guilty already??
And boo-hoo-hoo if nobody responded to whatever you wrote about Mel's Passion.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 2, 2004 03:26 PM
Gold star for you!!
And look at the ACLU defends the MLBA but sues the Boy Scouts and the Military??
The ACLU is paid now in large part by the mussis! KJ??
You are living in the past when the ACLU did good now they Hurt the Saftey of the People of the USA!!!
LOVE the BOO-HOO-HOO
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom, and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Defeat ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat Amen
Add this case to the Saudi "reform" update - from Amnesty International's Urgent Action Network:
SAUDI ARABIA
Nigerian nationals, aged 20-30:
Abbas Majood Akanni (m)
Murtala Amao Oladele (m)
Abbas Azeez Oladuni (m)
Nurudeen Owoalade (m)
Nurudeen Sani (m)
Mohammed Abdulahi Yussuf (m)
Wahid Elebyte (m)
Ahmed Abbas Alabi (m)
Suliamon Olyfemi (m)
Mafiu Obadina (m)
Samiu Hamud Zuberu (m)
Kasim Afolabi Afolabi (m)
Abdullamim Shobayo (m)
The 13 Nigerian men named above risk being sentenced to death after an unfair trial.
They were among hundreds detained in Jeddah on 29 September 2002 after a policeman was killed in a fight between local men an African nationals who were working as car washers. All the others have been deported: 21 had served sentences of six months to two years' imprisonment, and flogging.
On 22 November 2004 the 13 Nigerians were brought before three judges in a closed session, without the assistance of a lawyer, a consular representative or adequate translation facilities. They could not fully understand the proceedings, which were conducted in Arabic, and were not sure whether a trial was taking place or whether their detention order was being renewed. However, one of the judges reportedly asked the men, in English, why they had killed the policeman, which indicated to the 13 that a trial was in fact taking place. They denied that they had killed him.
It is not known whether the policeman had children. If he did, and the 13 Nigerians are sentenced to death, they will remain in prison until these children reach the age of 18, when they can accept or reject the payment of diya (blood money) in place of the death penalty. If the policeman had no children, the 13 would be at risk of imminent execution.
Since their arrest over two years ago, the men have not had access to a lawyer or consular assistance. Translators were present at only two of the four occasions they have been brought to court. They were unable to communicate with the 13 as they could not speak Yoruba, the men's native language. The men are able to speak some English, but all trial proceedings and court documents are in Arabic.
The men were reportedly tortured and ill-treated when they were arrested. This reportedly included being hung upside down and beaten. One of the 13 has alleged that he received electric shocks to his genitals. During interrogation, their fingerprints were reportedly taken. It is unclear if the fingerprints, which can act as substitute for a signature, were used to sign confessions or paperwork relating to their detention.
On 8 July AI wrote to the Saudi Arabian Minister of the Interior seeking clarification of whether the 13 men had actually been charged and put on trial, and calling for an investigation into allegations that they were tortured. The organization has not yet received a response.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Saudi Arabia applies the death penalty for a wide range of offences, including murder. Court proceedings fall far short of international standards for fair trial, and take place behind closed doors.
Defendants do not have the right to formal representation by a lawyer, and in many cases are not informed of the progress of legal proceedings against them. Defendants may also be convicted solely on the basis of confessions obtained under duress, torture or deception.
At least 19 people are known to have been executed in Saudi Arabia so far this year. The true figure may be much higher.
A classic case of Islamic jurisprudence.
Cat woman,
do you have any links on the two mohammehan
converts in Texas?
thanks, the poetess
Mr. Spencer, I do enjoy your websites and I am strongly against terrorism and I agree that there is something fundamentally different and wrong with the worldview of Muslims all over the world compared to other "persecuted" peoples.
This does not mean I agree with all of your politics.
It is plainly clear that you have your own political bias.
Here is the last paragraph of your post:
That's another example of the witless journalistic tendency to label anything they don't like "conservative," and anything they do like "liberal." So in their view, both the opponents of the global jihad in the West and the backers of the global jihad in Saudi Arabia are "conservatives." Go figure.
That is nothing more than your own bias towards the terms liberal and conservative. I have already stated above what those words really mean, and that is pretty much how the reporter used them, but you are pulling the old "bait and switch". You are basically saying that anything you don't like is liberal. I don't see how you can make that accusation against someone who is correctly labelling the Saudi establishment as conservative, when you love throwing the word liberal out anytime you can use it with negative connotations.
Just like you, I am totally against closed, private trials. I am totally against restricting free speech. I am totally against the head of a nation trying to enforce his own religious moralities on the nation.
So yes, I am against the nation of Saudi Arabia. I am also not in favor of G Dubs. The same G Dubs who holds people indefinately without access to a lawyer, without due process, who allows search warrants without judicial approval, and then makes it forbidden to talk about that. The same guy who supports a ban on gay marriage becuase "his religion says so". Also wants to ban flag burning.
No I don't support flag burning or abortion. I respect the rights and freedoms of people to do these things if the CHOOSE to.
Of course, this isn't as bad as Sharia, but it is on the same wavelegnth.
We can fight terrorism and keep our 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
I love America, I love freedom and democracy. I love Israel. I love civil rights and personal choice. I hate terrorism, jihad, and unreasonable authoritative measures.
Mr. Spencer, I will continue reading your blogs, but I would prefer you don't make biased statements and then try to act like you are unbiased.
Not all liberals are for the terrorists. In fact most are against it. Not everyone who disagrees with our current administartion is supporting terrorism. Furthermore, the terrorists have absolutely nothing to do with the true meaning of liberalism, so please don't try to compare liberals to terrorists and vice-versa.
Av~ I don't think Mr. Spencer, or most of us here, are really against liberals (small 'l'). It is the Liberals (note: big 'L') on the campuses, in the news media, and in politics, who are doing their best to make this a 'conservative' issue- not to mention impugn, demean, demonize and denigrate anyone who disagrees with them- and until the likes of keithjoy openly and Logically criticize them as We criticize people on both sides, Including President Bush, we have to keep on pushing the issue. When we see Democratic Underground, TalkLeft, Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand working to convince their listeners what needs to be done to Defeat islamofascism worldwide, I will begin to believe we are getting somewhere.
It's Dr. Rice, Not Dr. Dre
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16194
The Liberal Renaissance (has some very good examples of Leftist Racism):
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/2249_0_6_0_C/
Av-
There are merits to Mr. Spencer's remarks regarding the propensity of journalists to apply the term "conservative" or "right-wing" to those opposing jihadism. How else to explain someone like Pim Fortuyn being labeled "right-wing"? How many conservatives have the portraits of Marxists adorning their kitchen walls? How many conservatives are openly homosexual and promote gay rights? Fortuyn was labeled "right-wing" because journalists applied that term to him on account of his defense of civil liberties in Holland, which they viewed as something resembling fascism.
This happens all the time - you don't need my BfA in Media Arts to figure it out either. Mr. Spencer isn't making this stuff up to assuage his personal views on politics, it's just the way things are these days.
Well, Jeeeeesus Christ! Where do I start. Sigh... at the begining I guess. Let's count the responses.
Gary: No, kj, you never came back to look at all the answers you got. I should know because I was one of those who answered.
1.Gary, I do sometimes but don't always have time. Just see this comment; I say something, two responses. I repsond to the responses, four responses... I respond to the repsonses to my responses and get SIX responses. And so it goes. I fully expect to get many, many responses to this response, so ... somewhere in the day I have to work, eat, sleep, play with my kids, etc. See the problem? I can't answer every single post.
as for Iran~ prove it was sincere, and not an act of absolute cynicism designed to influence the election.
2.Sure, just as soon as you do the same for the Hamas-supports-Kerry-let's-vote-against-Hamas claims were sincere...talk about "influencing the election." Sheesh.
Sorry, kj. Much as I hate going back and back and back to check, I do go back. Our answers to what you say are the last thing I see in those threads.
3.See above.
Excuse my language, Mr. Spencer, but you, kj, are so Totally full of shit. I am a Christian and some of my friends are gay, some are polyamourus, some (most), including myself and my wife, belong to a group I won't even mention here, if only because I expect denigration of it by people of your mindset.
4.I didn't say YOU hate homosexuals, but Christians in general certainly do, just like they hate abortion doctors, the gratuituous cinematic sex and violence of (most) Hollywood "elitists", and "tree-hugging dirt worshippers". I should know, because that's why I LEFT.
Democrats will ignore us until they see there is a large enough group that they might consider going after our vote.
5.You should already be voting for the party that really does want to limit abortion by making contraception more available. The "Plan B" emergency contraception pill would prevent 300,000 abortions a year if it was available over the counter, including 32,000 a year from rape. But your side is the one blocking it's approval because you think life starts when a woman's bra is unhooked.
Don't give me this 'hate homosexuals' bullshit. You LIE.
6.Oh, I know... Christians like Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston, Bob Dornan, and Fred Phelps don't hate homosexuals... the LOVE them! They just "hate the sin" nice try. Again, I don't mean YOU, Gary; I mean christianity as a whole... I know that some Christians don't hate homosexuals, just like some Arabs don't hate Jews and some Klansmen don't hate black people. Anytime one generalizes, they are going to at least a little bit wrong. Kind of like when someone says, "look at what the liberals are teaching at...colleges across the country...". I know some Christians don't hate homosexuals; hell, some homosexuals ARE Christians. That doesn't change the facts, for example the fact that Pat Robertson blamed the ACLU, the feminists, the homosexuals, and the abortionists for the terror attacks of 9-11. Now say it didn't happen, Gary. Too bad it did; in fact, it was so damn outrageous that even RUSH LIMBAUGH said--on air!--that Robertson was wrong.
Now, you explain what "he really meant," or make the case he isn't an influential Christian leader.
7.No, YOU LIE.
Catharine:
We all know KJ is a lib and notice the similarities of the lib and mussis when they hit and are hit back they are the ones who cry foul??
8.You're damn right I'm a lib. And you are a con. I'll keep Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and MLK; and you can keep Nixon, Thurmond, Bob Jones, and Fred Phelps.
9.I didn't "cry foul". I admit that some liberals "don't get it" but try to convince them instead of trying to insult them away.
Funny KJ can’t tell the difference between Type and Voice he typed I was screaming but I never said a word! I just typed.
10.I guess I should expect this from someone that doesn't understand anything about the internet or computers. I thought it was common knowledge that typing in all caps is considered SCREAMING. By the way, I noticed you didn't do that for your last post. I am glad that you are trainable.
KJ says I’m mean again is this not the tactics of the mussis? Use a bus to blow up people then cry that they are the victims?
11.Yeah, like that arch-liberal, Timothy McVeigh? Are the liberal Eric Rudolph? Don't libs also mail anthrax too? And blow up abortion clinics? And stockpile guns? And make nerve gas in Texas? Maybe you should quit while you're not too far behind, my dear.
Gary pipes in again:
The Left is Dead: www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200412020818.asp
12.Ooooh. Guess I should just lay down and die; after all, the "Fair And Balanced", "objective", "Accurate and Honest" National Review says that the Left is Dead. I guess 51% to 49% means it's all over, eh?
And Hey! Catherine raises a point- why do we not see Catholics blowing up busloads of gays, eh?
13.No; they just blow up abortion clinics, blow up federal buildings, deny the Holocaust ever happened (after helping it happen) and make movies designed to make people hate Jews.
And rape little boys.
And--Faith and Begorra!--mostly vote democratic! NOW what do we do?
waterdragon52:
I don't live in the US and don't watch or read the US MSM so forgive me for asking, but is the KKK a force to be reckoned with anymore?
14.No, but apparently the Black Panthers, Jane Fonda, and the Veterans Against the Vietnam War still are.
The ACLU, as I recall, defended... Nazis...largely populated by Jews...in the name of freedom of speech.
15.And they are feverishly trying to save Rush Limbaugh from a prison sentence for doctor shopping, a felony. And the routinely fight for the NRA. With "lib'ruls" like these, who needs conservatives?
Since then, I believe laws have been developed in the US as well as Canada to control hate speech and that is why the US deported the notorious Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.
16.If you think hate speech is "controlled" you are crazy. Check out www.kkk.com or www.freerepublic.com to see for your self. I'm sure Gary can supply some left-wing hate speech sites, right Gar'?
But the ACLU still applies the same old black-and-white assessments of the causes it takes up, and that's why the contempt.
17.Again, considering the Limbaugh case... I heard a journalist ask someone at the ACLU why they were defended the drug addicted felon's right to medical privacy, even unto "doctor shopping." This despite the fact that Limbaugh et al. routinely show contempt. The response was, and I quote: "We only have one client, and that's the United States Constitution."
One day when there are only a few Christians left in America, the ACLU will be protecting them when nobody else will.
Some of the bloggers here could probably be fairly described as small "c" religous conservatives, but they are all democratic anti-totalitarian. But I find no bias in the items Spencer posts or in the critiques he offers.
18.Well, I beg to differ. I do find bias and until Mr. Spencer tells me directly to refrain, I'm going to point it out. And if you find bias in what I say, feel free to point it out.
And boo-hoo-hoo if nobody responded to whatever you wrote about Mel's Passion.
19.Don't cry for me; I can handle the rejection. I was just pointing out what I consider to be partisan bias.
Catharine's back for more:
20.Yes, Catharine, he WAS in the KKK. You see, when the democrats became the party of civil rights, the real KKK-ers switched parties. (Including Reagan, Helms, Lott, Thurmond, etc.) That's why the "Party Of Lincoln" became the "Party of David Duke" and the "Party of Huey P. Long" (you don't know who that is; use your search engine) became the party of Lyndon Johnson, MLK, and Bobby Kennedy.
That's why black republicans are so scarce. They know who supports them. Don't give me that "We have Clarence Thomas, Colon Powell, Condi Rice, etc. etc. I know that conservatives can APPPOINT black people; let's see them ELECT some.
OR the group KKK who has taken the side of the mulsums and are working with them ?
21.Sure, they'll take the side of the Muslims when it comes to killing Jews or destroying Israel; or promoting "family values" like killing sissies, keeping the women home, etc. Common enemies can become common allies... just like America and the USSR became bestest buds when it came to destroying Hitler.
If you looked at who they vote for you will Find the Vote for th Democrats!!
22.No, they (the Muslims) voted Democrat THIS time. The last time, they voted overwhelmingly W, especially here in Florida. Remember, Al-Arian campaigned FOR Bush and even posed for a picture with him. Why? Becuase Joe Loserman is a Jew, and the Muslims hate Jews more than they love life (for proof, see "palestine.)
Now, of course, they voted for Kerry, because they stupidly believe that W has declared "War Against Islam" (which I say he hasn't.)
And lets talk about the new Clinton Libary and the Saudi Money for it??
23.Yes, let's talk about that... it seems to me I read that they have financed some other presidential libraries as well. And they are employeeing some recent Secretaries of State as well...and let's talk about that little 100-billion-dollar "Operation Desert Storm" and the 10,000 troops that have died of "Mystery Disease." Who sent them to save the Saudis from Saddam? And more importantly, why did he send them? Want to talk about that? I didn't think so.
KJ again you prove my point!!
24.I know, Catharine... every time you lose, you pretend to win, just like Al-Sadr "beating" the US Army.
The crying don't ban me I wont cut off the hand anymore but the next line again there you go?? If you say you want to read about what we are up against you can if Mr. Spencer cuts you off it would only mean you can not post you rants?? Like you slaming DCWatson you have a problem and need to look in the mirror!!
25.I just don't want to be banned; is that so bad? You're a FINE one to complain about someone ranting, my dear.
26.DCWatson... I thought the article was good but the accompanying photo was a little goofy. And the one posted by d_artist didn't help. I already said I'd send my photo. Let's have the okay from Mr.Spencer and I'll send it.
You love abortion yet you tell every body you had a new baby why didn't you have it aborted if you love those laws so much ?
27.Witch, no one "loves" abortion. We all hate it. But some of us admit that it is necessary. My baby was PLANNED and loved before she was even conceived. She was born with a college education already paid for, and stands to inherit $500K if I die. She's going to learn about logic, read Ayn Rand, and do algebra before she starts school. We are a responsible, married, college-educated couple. Abortion has nothing to do with it so just shut your dirty piehole.
You pretend to be soooo concerned about abortion; how about doing something about tobacco smoke? It kills 100,000 babies a year... do you care? How about making the Emergency Contraception pill over-the-counter? That would prevent 300,000 abortions a year.
If you get raped by Willie Horton, Bill Clinton, or a Kennedy, you'd better hope that the liberals and the feminazis are there to help you, you hateful Gorgon. (No; not "gorgonzola.")
this is not a sight to talk about those things it is to help bring things to help fight against the MONSTERS WHO WANT TO CONTROL THE WORLD BY SHRIA LAW!!
28.(You're screaming again.) You have brought up abortion on many occasions, so don't pretend to be offended by off-topic remarks.
I have yet to read any of your post that help in that Fight??
29.Well, I write about that kind of fight all the time, including several "near-the-scene" updates on Al-Arian. UN-fortunately, I have to keep trying to stop the liberal bashing, which curtails my time to write about the evils of Islam, Jihad, and Dhimmitude.
Quoting her buddy:
And boo-hoo-hoo if nobody responded to whatever you wrote about Mel's Passion.
Gold star for you!!
30.No, boo-hoo for the unwanted embryos and stemcells that need a Christian burial and can't be used for scientific research. And the 1-out-of-4 babies that miscarry. And the unborn--and born--children killed in Soddom and Gamorrah.
And look at the ACLU defends the MLBA but sues the Boy Scouts and the Military??
31.Because the Boy Scouts discriminate against homosexuals and atheists. That's not the American way, just like we don't discriminate against "uppity" women, immigrants that can barely speak (type) our official language, and the near-illiterate. AREN'T?? YUO GLADD??
The ACLU is paid now in large part by the mussis! KJ??
32.I don't suppose you can supply some proof? (No, not from newsmax.com, freerepublic.com, killtheliberals.com, or davidduke.com.)
You are living in the past when the ACLU did good now they Hurt the Saftey of the People of the USA!!!
33.Please tell me when they did good. Tell me what they did. How did they hurt our safety? Buy not letting Bush guard the border? Buy making Bush only search 1/20th of the cargo containers in our ports? By making Bush have on guard for every five miles of border with Canada? By making Bush divert 200 billion taxpayer dollars to make sure kids (actually only boys) can go to school in Iraq?
LOVE the BOO-HOO-HOO
34.Of course you do! It's called "Schadenfreude."
************************************
So there you have it folks. I answered every charge, I think. Now there will be about fifty more charges made, and if I don't have time to answer them, Gary and Catharine can claim Victory and say that I ran like a coward.
Keith:
"I know that you posted Gaffney's article about Grover Norquist.... once."
I post every article once, sir. No repeats. Once I repeated one, but it was inadvertent.
I am not intending to ban you, but I found deeply offensive, among other things, your insinuation that I would abandon Israel if the Republican party did. This site and the growing organization are about defending against jihad, not the Republican party agenda. If you can't see that, you ain't reading.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Mr. Spencer~ that is Exactly one of the things I keep thinking, whenever keith lays it out- that he seems to Absolutely believe that there is not one Shred of Integrity in people he disagrees with.
Not to mention smearing the Entirety of Christians in the US (and probably Everywhere) for the non-christian actions of an extreme and extremely tiny minority of the faith (unklike islam, where a significant portion, as can be seen even on the MSM, hold to extremist views). And while he did qualify it in his last post, watch for the generalizations to be back next opportunity.
And I am off for the weekend. Everyone, have a good one!
Gary: No, kj, you never came back to look at all the answers you got. I should know because I was one of those who answered.
1.Gary, I do sometimes but don't always have time. Just see this comment; I say something, two responses. I repsond to the responses, four responses... I respond to the repsonses to my responses and get SIX responses. And so it goes. I fully expect to get many, many responses to this response, so ... somewhere in the day I have to work, eat, sleep, play with my kids, etc. See the problem? I can't answer every single post. ~ kj
And again, Wrong. You never came back to respond to those answers, period. And then claim we never answered you. Read what I write.
*hits the road for the weekend* Nice, snow-covered roads...
It seems to me that Robert makes a good point. It also seems to me that KJ makes good points. On Robert's point, the left/right liberal/conservative continuum is easily manipulated by writers with a partisan agenda -- which it has become conventional wisdom, many journalists are guilty of. KJ takes umbrage to certain associations of terms. Other bloggers have pointed out definitions.
It would seem that if politics were considered more on a 2-dimensional framework (rather than 1-dimension) we could plot various systems of thought more accurately. While a conservative is resistant to change, indeed George Bush is invoking much change. If a right-winger is associated with non-multi-cultiness, this conflicts with the Bush administration's composition. If liberals are suspect of overbearing government, indeed, this conflicts with the totalitarian tendencies of the Far Left. Therefore, I see room for KJ's and Robert's criticisms to be accommodated if we but think outside the box.
I post every article once, sir. No repeats. Once I repeated one, but it was inadvertent.
I didn't intend to say you posted that particular article once, what I meant to say is that you published an article critical of Al-Norquist only once. Compare this to the number of snide remarks about "Dhimmi" Carter and John Kerry, I drew my conclusion. AND I cannont recall seeing any mention of James Baker helping the Saudi Jihadis (hmmmm... perhaps we should call that place "Jihadi Arabia"?) screw over the widows of firemen and others involved with the terror attacks of 9-11. Nor Kissinger's reluctance to lead the commission, nor the release of the name of an Al-qaeda spy in Pakistan by the Bush administration.
For these reasons I conclude that you have a rigth-wing bias.
I am not intending to ban you, but I found deeply offensive, among other things, your insinuation that I would abandon Israel if the Republican party did.
Dam, that was like... months(?) ago. It seems to me that I was merely asking for your assurance that you WOULDN'T abandon Israel, should a seachange come around. I don't think I said you WOULD do so.
This site and the growing organization are about defending against jihad, not the Republican party agenda. If you can't see that, you ain't reading.
I saw and read what I saw and read. I saw (not just in the "comments" section" but in the articles themselves, the portions written by you) daily gossip about John Kerry, attempted links between Mike Moore and Jihadis, etc. etc. And nary a mention of the republican/conservative-jihadi links. I didn't say "no mention," I said "nary a mention" i.e. practically none at all.
Your archives are there to validate my claims.
Thank you for not banning me, and keeping it cordial.
Respectfully yours,
KJ
Mr. Spencer~ that is Exactly one of the things I keep thinking, whenever keith lays it out- that he seems to Absolutely believe that there is not one Shred of Integrity in people he disagrees with.
The key phrase here is "... he seems to ...". Since Gary can't imagine it not being so, he thinks it HAS to be so. Sorry Gary; I could say the same thing about you, and it would still be hinged on "it seems to me...".
Not to mention smearing the Entirety of Christians in the US (and probably Everywhere) for the non-christian actions of an extreme and extremely tiny minority of the faith
No, just the phony hypocrites that, for example, whine on and on about abortion while making it harder for women to have birth control.
Nice cry, Gary...."Oh, woe is us poooor, mistreated, oppressed Christian folk." LOL.
(unklike islam, where a significant portion, as can be seen even on the MSM, hold to extremist views).
Dude, if you think I love Muslims, you are crazy.
And while he did qualify it in his last post, watch for the generalizations to be back next opportunity.
Yeah, I guess I'm the only one here that generalizes. So sorry.
And again, Wrong. You never came back to respond to those answers, period. And then claim we never answered you. Read what I write.
Well, I'm coming back now, aren't I? Now you are off for a long weekend. I guess you expect me to come back here on Monday night and check again? I don't think so.
**********************************
Ted, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
**********************************
Gary: ...and until the likes of keithjoy openly and Logically criticize them as We criticize people on both sides, Including President Bush, we have to keep on pushing the issue.
I DO criticize people on both sides.
When we see Democratic Underground, TalkLeft, Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand working to convince their listeners what needs to be done to Defeat islamofascism worldwide, I will begin to believe we are getting somewhere.
...and when I see FreeRepublic.com, The Federalist Society, Mel Gibson and Ted Nuggent working to convince their listeners what needs to be done to Defeat islamofascism worldwide, I will begin to believe we are getting somewhere.
Keith,
Obviously you overlooked this article and others like it:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5408
You say: "I didn't intend to say you posted that particular article once, what I meant to say is that you published an article critical of Al-Norquist only once. Compare this to the number of snide remarks about "Dhimmi" Carter and John Kerry, I drew my conclusion. AND I cannont recall seeing any mention of James Baker helping the Saudi Jihadis (hmmmm... perhaps we should call that place "Jihadi Arabia"?) screw over the widows of firemen and others involved with the terror attacks of 9-11. Nor Kissinger's reluctance to lead the commission, nor the release of the name of an Al-qaeda spy in Pakistan by the Bush administration.
For these reasons I conclude that you have a rigth-wing bias."
You are putting the cart before the horse. I am interested in defeating the global jihadists. I think George W. Bush, for all his many faults, is doing and will do a better job of this than Dhimmi Carter and John Kerry. Is that right-wing bias? Hardly: If I thought that Dhimmi Carter and John Kerry would do a better job fighting the jihad than Bush, I would support them. But the evidence points to the fact that theirs is the side of cringing dhimmitude. If you are comfortable there, more power to you. But I, as I said, want to defeat the jihadists.
Cordially
Robert Spencer