The problem with Saudia Arabia is that the only serious domestic opponents of the monarchy are ultra-Wahhabists to whom the House of Saud has grown too corrupt, liberal and Westernized. We really cannot afford not to prop up that regime. If it falls . . .
There are liberals in Saudi Arabia; Raif Badawi and his views are not without support there.
Admittedly they are the minority now, but between the bored and restless younger generation, who have access to the internet and therefore the global community, and the frustrated women who make up half the population, it is only a matter of time.
It is unfortunate that the western powers are doing nothing to foster this trend. We know why. 
I can’t quite figure out what your point is Terr. If you are saying that Canadian demonstrations in front of Saudi Arabian embassies are ineffective, then you might direct that remark to Valteron. If you are saying that the Saudi Arabia is a backward regime, better than though on par with North Korea, well then I agree. Cite, not that it’s really needed. Or maybe you’re speculating about the tendency of oppressive regimes to hand out tough sentences for free expression, then backpedal them later in the face of critique. Here’s example 2.
…and if we’re discussion ground operations I’d say Muslims are doing pretty much all of the fighting.
Where are the Canadian atheists? Why don’t they fight ISIL?
It’s a bit tangetial to your stuff - just saw that item and remembered there were posts asking for cites for punishments for apostasy.
First of all, jackass, nobody said that American churches exporting murderous homophobia made Muslim homophobia all right so you can take that strawman, deck it in a gimpsuit and marry it for all I care.
Second of all, it’s not just in Uganda, jackass - the same phenomenon (pushed by and large by the same actors) is also taking place in Russia, in Nigeria, in Belize…
Third of all, jackass, you asked for “an example of American missions giving rise to radicalism”. When offered a rather glaring one, you go “oh, yes, that, I knew that, but it doesn’t count because…”. That is the definition of moving the goalposts. It’s also special pleading, but of course that’s not the first time you’ve resorted to it ITT.
Fourth of all, and to get back to your jackass argument that the “good” Muslims ought to police the “bad”, I’m not seeing much backlash among the Christians of the world, or even just American born-again Christians, against Scott Lively and his ilk. Nor am I seeing Communists around the world (I swear, there’s still some you guys !) rallying to Do Something about North Korea. Nor does anybody expect them to.
The fuck is a Canadian, French, American or even Saudi Muslim supposed to do about Daesh anyway ? Send a strongly worded letter ?
Fair enough. (I do tangents all the time.)
Regardless of the passion with which you hold a position, this is Great Debates, not The BBQ Pit and insults, particularly name-calling, are forbidden.
This is a Warning to avoid such behavior in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
I’ll accept that, but I’ll also point out that **Valteron **was the one who called me “some jackass” earlier. I was repaying him in kind.
The way to respond to a direct insult is to report it, not respond in kind.
That said, I admit to having missed the direct nature of this insult based on the convoluted way it was couched as a “hypothetical” when it was actually a direct response
Valteron, this is a Warning to refrain from this sort of personal attack.
[ /Moderating ]
That would be impolite.
Hm. That is very interesting and important to know, and hopeful too, but, still . . . if at this point in history the Saudi monarchy is destabilized, which faction do you think is more likely to come out on top – the liberals, or the Wahhabists?
True, but that’s not nearly as personally satisfying. Also snitches get stitches, dawg.
(I’m just joking. And it really was a one-time thing. I’m not particularly passionate about this debate, or Valteron. He’s just one more poster spouting the usual islamophobic diarrhoea we get in here once in a while, bullet-point for bullet-point. At this point I’m not even irritated at the triumphant ignorance any more, I’m just bored.)
WAG: The Wahhabists.
Or, perhaps more likely, a nominally Wahhabist insider - a former prince, say, both supported by the old order and acceptable to the anti-monarchist Wahhabists.
I do not believe that the Saudi liberals are very numerous, and I don’t see the Shi’ite minority achieving Yemen-level influence anytime soon. The current Saudi order will survive, I think, in one form or another, quite a bit longer than some of us would like.
And here we have the pellucid cloak of “objectivity” cast aside so we can see the SDMB in all its glory.
Let him have it, boys. Points for whoever can use the words Islamophobe, bigot, and racist the most in a single sentence.
Points for whoever can work in phrases like “political correctness brigade” too!
pellucid ? PELLUCID ?! **ME **?! I’ll pellucid your mother, you damn dirty so-and-so !
You win.
I see where you’ve stated that you’re checking out of this thread, but for the sake of thoroughness…
It really seems like you ought to know the answers to these questions before attacking anonymous Muslims about their relationship with Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, you might lose whatever credibility you had in this matter, no?
And of course points for tired tropes from some woman named Tabatha Something.
I set the bar high for my fellow Dopers, don’t I?
Cue the limbo music.