Saudi Arabia Jails Two Wikipedia Staff In 'Bid To Control Content' (theguardian.com) 110
Saudi Arabia has infiltrated Wikipedia and jailed two administrators in a bid to control content on the website, weeks after a former Twitter worker was jailed in the US for spying for the Saudis. The Guardian reports: One administrator was jailed for 32 years, and another was sentenced to eight years, the activists said. An investigation by parent body Wikimedia found the Saudi government had penetrated Wikipedia's senior ranks in the region, with Saudi citizens acting or forced to act as agents, two rights groups said. "Wikimedia's investigation revealed that the Saudi government had infiltrated the highest ranks in Wikipedia's team in the region," Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn) and Beirut-based Smex said in a joint statement.
Dawn, which is based in Washington DC and was founded by slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and Smex, which promotes digital rights in the Arab world, cited "whistleblowers and trusted sources" for the information. There was no immediate comment from the Saudi government or from Wikimedia, which puts free educational content online through initiatives like Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, and Wiktionary. Dawn and Smex's statement comes after Wikimedia last month announced global bans for 16 users "who were engaging in conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia projects in the Mena [Middle East and North Africa] region."
Two high-ranking "admins" -- volunteer administrators with privileged access to Wikipedia, including the ability to edit fully protected pages -- have been imprisoned since they were arrested on the same day in September 2020, the two bodies added. The arrests appeared to be part of a "crackdown on Wikipedia admins in the country," Dawn and Smex said, naming the two people imprisoned as Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani. Abdullah Alaoudh, Dawn's director of research for the Gulf, said Khalid was jailed for 32 years and Sofiani received an eight-year sentence. "The arrests of Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani on one hand, and the infiltration of Wikipedia on the other hand, show a horrifying aspect of how the Saudi government wants to control the narrative and Wikipedia," Alaoudh told AFP.
Dawn, which is based in Washington DC and was founded by slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and Smex, which promotes digital rights in the Arab world, cited "whistleblowers and trusted sources" for the information. There was no immediate comment from the Saudi government or from Wikimedia, which puts free educational content online through initiatives like Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, and Wiktionary. Dawn and Smex's statement comes after Wikimedia last month announced global bans for 16 users "who were engaging in conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia projects in the Mena [Middle East and North Africa] region."
Two high-ranking "admins" -- volunteer administrators with privileged access to Wikipedia, including the ability to edit fully protected pages -- have been imprisoned since they were arrested on the same day in September 2020, the two bodies added. The arrests appeared to be part of a "crackdown on Wikipedia admins in the country," Dawn and Smex said, naming the two people imprisoned as Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani. Abdullah Alaoudh, Dawn's director of research for the Gulf, said Khalid was jailed for 32 years and Sofiani received an eight-year sentence. "The arrests of Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani on one hand, and the infiltration of Wikipedia on the other hand, show a horrifying aspect of how the Saudi government wants to control the narrative and Wikipedia," Alaoudh told AFP.
Wait for the upcoming World Cup anouncement... (Score:5, Funny)
Police State (Score:4, Interesting)
People like to throw around the words police state. The US is not a police state. Saudi Arabia is a police state. Also why were 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers Saudi nationals?
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
Also why were 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers Saudi nationals?
Because they hated their government and attacked America for supporting that government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Saudi Arabia isn't a police state either. It's a monarchy. You're expected to show deference to the king by leaving politics to him. In exchange, you get some of the best social benefits available in the world.
Those who go against this social contract are treated just like criminals who violate foundational social contracts are treated elsewhere. Criminal prosecution.
This doesn't make nations involved a police state. It does make them fundamentally different in value sets. Theocratic monarchies are very far
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
you get some of the best social benefits available in the world.
Unless you’re a woman.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Or don't participate in their favorite form of delusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Could the person who modded this "troll" give me a clinical definition of "delusion" that doesn't require a specific exemption for religions to avoid including them?
And also inform the American Psychiatric Association. Because they couldn't find one for their DSM.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Most Western women dream of getting the kind of social benefits that Saudi women get.
Remember, this is an integral part of social contract there. You get the best kind of services money can buy on masse. And in exchange, you leave the politics to the King and his advisors. Also remember that this isn't about political rights, but indeed about social benefits. Those two do not correlate.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Most Western women dream of getting the kind of social benefits that Saudi women get.
Sounds great...poor and living under authoritarianism.
Have you ever met a "Western woman" Luckyo? Or is your belief based purely on what Putin tells you they're like?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea what is defined as "poverty" in Saudi Arabia? Do you have any idea what kind of services are offered to those people by the government?
Hint: if you have no income, but government provides everything you need for you, you're both poor and well provided for.
Re: (Score:3)
> Do you have any idea what is defined as "poverty" in Saudi Arabia?
https://time.com/3679537/rich-... [time.com]
"With its vast oil wealth, Saudi Arabia has one of the highest concentrations of super rich households in the world. But an estimated 20 percent of the population, if not more, lives in crippling poverty. Beggars panhandle in the shadows of Riyadh’s luxury shopping malls, and just a few kilometers away families struggle to get by in the capital’s southern slums."
Slashdot Conclusion: Time.com i
Re: (Score:2)
From the story:
>The government has pledged to eradicate poverty, but it is a difficult and long-term undertaking made all the more complex by a rapidly growing population and a paucity of jobs.
Do you understand what "services" are? Time.com is in full throated agreement with me.
Re: (Score:2)
>> >The government has pledged to eradicate poverty
Aww shit, my bad champ. I totally missed that clear government pledge. A thousand deep throated pardons good sir.
Re: (Score:3)
No you bloody moron. The pledge is about providing services to the poor, which is already done. Time.com follows up with note that other half is about "providing jobs" which is indeed a Western projection, because Saudi wealth doesn't come from jobs. Saudis view jobs as something that foreigners do for them. Something that is beneath most of the Saudis themselves. Especially true for women, as its an islamic society, where it's the duty of men to provide for women.
Which leads to things like Afghani tea boys
Re: (Score:2)
Commies love getting free stuff from the government. It's a match made in Jannah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Stop spewing bullshit and post something to back up your assertions about government providing everything for everyone in SA.
So you ask me not to do something, and then you engage in doing exactly that.
As at no point did I suggest that "government provides everything for everyone in SA". In fact, I'm on record above noting that it's very selective in what is provided and to whom.
Re: Police State (Score:2)
I have talked to some Saudi Women and they did say they get some social benefits mainly enabled by the wealth of their husband. In exchange they have to allow their husband to take extra wives/mistresses, give up basic freedoms (like being free to travel or even driving etc). They were saying they were happy with the arrangement, but they were looking around when saying that...
I mean congrats to the male Saudis, they are the ones that seem to be living "the dream", killing and locking up everybody they need
Re: (Score:3)
That's because you talked to the educated ones that are allowed to talk to foreigners. Most people in the West really, REALLY don't like to notice things like large groups of women showing their support to Talibs when they took over Afghanistan. Or just how common it was to send male children to whore themselves out during US occupation of Afghanistan, when women were allowed to work, because large amount of women thought it beneath them to engage in something as disgusting as work. That's male role to suff
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile tiktok is choke full of Western women screeching about how they really want to be done with the corporate grind, and just want a wealthy husband to take care of their financial needs.
Yes, western women are free to choose these things. What's wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they're heavily propagandized not to choose one of those two things. And then they realize that this when it's too late, and they're well past the age where a man of the caliber they want would give them anything more than a short term hookup.
Re: (Score:1)
Most women married to wealthy men tend to land them early, before they got wealthy. The "go to college to find a suitable husband" is a meme for a reason. Works all the way to the richest men on the planet.
But just like islamic societies tell women that their roles are hard coded to being home makers, us telling women that they should go make a career before thinking about family has wide reaching and tragic consequences for many of them.
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, how about you get off that high horse of stupidity with claims of me "trying hard to defend Saudi Arabia". The fall from those heights of idiocy tends to hurt.
Second, motivation and social acceptability of long term self-harming behaviors is something that healthy societies have to manage. Just ask China during Opium Wars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Saudi Arabia isn't a police state either. It's a monarchy.
Why do you claim a monarchy can't be a police state?
Re: Police State (Score:1)
Sounds like communism to me.
This is literally what the far left in the EU and US are trying to get established, the state provides all services in exchange you let them control the information and political affairs.
Where is the difference to a socialist utopia?
Re: (Score:2)
Not communism - dictatorship.
Communism is an economic system - much like capitalism. Its not a system of governance.
You could have a democratic communist nation (though such a thing is rather rare) or a capitalist dictatorship. The governing system is separate from the economic system.
Personally, I really, really like capitalism and hope we stay that way, but living under a dictatorship or any other form of authoritarian government is what I REALLY don't want.
Re: (Score:1)
Communism always results in a dictatorship (show me proof to the contrary of any country with a true communist democracy).
Re:Police State (Score:5, Interesting)
Saudi Arabia isn't a police state either. It's a monarchy.
Can't it both at the same time?
After all, didn't most monarchies start out as police states initially?
You're expected to show deference to the king by leaving politics to him. In exchange, you get some of the best social benefits available in the world.
Assuming you're not an immigrant, which are represented by 38.3% of the population. Assuming you're not a woman, which are represented by roughly half of the population. And assuming you're not Shia, which are represented by 10-15% of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it can. But it isn't.
No, monarchies do not start out as police states. Monarchies existed millenia before police were invented.
>Assuming you're not an immigrant, which are represented by 38.3% of the population
Immigrants are not citizens, and do not get citizen rights.
>Assuming you're not a woman, which are represented by roughly half of the population.
Women get massive social benefits. Both universal, and ones specifically catered to them. Gynecology for example.
>And assuming you're not Shia,
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it can. But it isn't.
So why did you lead with the red herring that you did then?
Didn't think anyone would call you on your misdirection?
Why not tell us what "social benefits" means in your reality. It seems to be different to everyone else's
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, you're right. Police State isn't the right term. In my mind at least, "police state" isn't comprehensive enough.
Saudi Arabia is a rich totalitarian religious monarchy. That's a more precise description.
You're expected to show deference to the king by leaving politics to him.
And this part doesn't tell the entire story.
It isn't just politics that you're leaving to the king, but it's also your personal autonomy. After all, what good is a large bank account if your husband has ultimate control over that that account. And what good is gynecology if you can not escape a husband who beats and rapes you, and who makes those gynecological medical decisions for you.
And don't get me started on the topic of immigrants (or Saudi Arabia-born immigrants). I know they do not count for you. But if an employer is allowed to beat, rape, steal the wages, and hold the passport or their immigrant staff, preventing their exit from the country. That's problematic as well.
Re:Police State (Score:4, Interesting)
The technical term is "unitary theocratic absolute monarchy". Monarch has unlimited power, except where limited by the law of religion, and is the head of state bowing to no one, but those that religion dictates he must bow to. And government is centralized with the monarch.
There are plenty of monarchies in Western world. UK for example. But those tend to be variants on the unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchies, where monarch bows to the common ruleset within constitutional text, and actual governing power lies within the parliament of the nation. Relationship between the monarchy and the parliament is typically defined in the constitution, which effectively limits the power of each governing body.
As for the "but the political and personal freedoms", part of that is religious. Islam defines what rights and responsibilities each member of the household has. Woman has a duty to provide husband with sexual relief, just like husband is required to provide economic sustenance to the wife. This is in part why Islamic states did not ratify Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it was a secular institution that attempted to infringe on religious one. They have their own declaration instead, that specifically states that where human declared human rights are in conflict with God given ones, God takes precedence.
And I will once again re-iterate that foreigners obviously do not have the same rights or responsibilities as citizens. If you do not want to follow laws of the land, don't go there. The fact that you chose the word "problematic", which basically means "I don't like this, but I can't really express specifics on how this is wrong" in this context is demonstrative of this issue. I don't like slavery either, and Middle Eastern social model is that foreigners are offered work with minimal rights, often in slave-like conditions in exchange for higher payment than they can get at home. But it's their nation, their land, their laws. I'm not a colonialist, and I don't believe that I have the right to dictate to foreign people how they need to live their lives in their country, as long as they grant me the same courtesy.
You can also be a colonialist, find your way of life superior and something that should be forced upon foreigners who live in their own nations far away from you. It's probably a more popular view on the world than mine, and there are certainly good justifications for it.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's their nation, their land, their laws. I'm not a colonialist, and I don't believe that I have the right to dictate to foreign people how they need to live their lives in their country, as long as they grant me the same courtesy.
On that point, Saudi Arabia is meddling in US politics. It's an investor in many US corporations (including 2 billion dollars which it gave Jared Kushner). It's funding terrorism throughout the world. In addition to that, the US has been training their troops, propping up their monarchy, and sending them weapons so they could attack Yemen.
In other words, we are far from neutral where it comes to Saudi Arabia. And personally, I just wish they would leave us alone. I don't want them interfering in our politic
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone meddles in everyone else's politics. It's called "interaction". They spend much less effort pushing islamic views on secular Westerners however, unlike secular Westerners who spend great amount of effort pushing their views on everyone else.
If you really want to be so insanely xenophobic and colonialist as to pretend that their meager efforts are even in the same ballpark as Western efforts to influence them to become more secular, I have bridge on the Moon to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to be so insanely xenophobic and colonialist as to pretend that their meager efforts are even in the same ballpark as Western efforts to influence them to become more secular, I have bridge on the Moon to sell you.
I'm not part of the elite. I never was. I never will be. Talking to me like I endorsed those decisions is silly. I never did.
Do I wish the US stopped invading and messing up other countries? Yes, I absolutely do. Just like I wish Saudi Arabia stopped messing with Yemen and US politics, I wish the same for the US and the countless countries it has done this to.
But here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
And now you moved the goalposts to the level where it's very clear that you don't understand international politics even a little bit.
There's a reason why I noted that "impact far away from one's borders" as a measuring stick. Because relationships with your immediate neighbours fall in the category of national security more so than mundane cultural and political interactions.
In this regard, US will never be able to treat Mexico like Butan, and Saudi Arabia will never be able to treat Yemen like Argentina.
Re: (Score:2)
...it's very clear that you don't understand international politics even a little bit.
Am I naive about international deals and alliances? Yes, most likely.
But even I can see that there was an attempted insurrection on US soil and that its main leaders still haven't been punished yet. And that these people (and the people who support them like Putin and the Saudi prince) represent an existential threat to democracy in the US.
And if that sounds like I'm moving the goalposts, then so be it. But in my mind at least, this concern was always in the back of my mind when I started this discussion a
Re: (Score:1)
>But even I can see that there was an attempted insurrection on US soil and that its main leaders still haven't been punished yet. And that these people (and the people who support them like Putin and the Saudi prince) represent an existential threat to democracy in the US.
Best of luck with the rest of your delusional existence. Hopefully your country stays strong enough to where you can afford it.
Most of us living in much less strong countries cannot afford this level of fundamental ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing the U.K.'s monarchy to Saudi Arabia's is laughable. The U.K. monarchy has long been sharply limited by the Magna Carta and in practice limits itself much more sharply. Much of the royal family's political power is more of a theoretical nature. For example, you can openly make fun of them on national television and expect no official response.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't compare things that are directly comparable because of your ideological predispositions, you have problems.
To quote Mark Twain, "world owes you nothing. It was here first".
Re: (Score:2)
It's like comparing a can-opener to a baby elephant. Yes they are both physical things, and both might open a can (after a fashion), but it's probably not the most apt comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
I compared a monarchy to a monarchy. The fact that you cannot wrap your head around such a comparison tells us nothing about the comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia isn't a police state either. It's a monarchy.
Can't it both at the same time?
After all, didn't most monarchies start out as police states initially?
Indeed, monarchy simply means there is a monarch involved somewhere. Police State refers to how laws are enforced. Saudi is a totalitarian monarchy, most monarchies these days are constitutional monarchies so they have an elected government that makes policies and laws whilst the monarch plays an almost entirely ceremonial role.
Also most monarchies didn't start out as totalitarianisms. Quite the opposite, they were more like very primitive (and restrictive) democracies. A king needed the support of lords
Re: (Score:2)
You're expected to show deference to the king by leaving politics to him. In exchange, you get some of the best social benefits available in the world.
Buddy, you've stuck your head in the sand if you think it's just politics. It's any criticism of the government or government's stance on social ordinances, which is basically any law that's passed, not just those related to politics. Webster defined "police state" as:
a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, even Pakistan, among with many other countries, are all police states. Don't fool yourself.
Re:Police State (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, you'll have to forgive me if for ignoring the institution that is on the record changing definitions of words in real time to enable political attacks within US politics as any kind of authority on meanings of words.
Second, everything you stated is politics. This is why UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a political document, signed by political entities and ratified by political entities. Which most Islamic states notably did not ratify, because they found it to be secular institution attempting to infringe on that which belongs to God.
If government chooses not to recognize right to discipline a wife by caning her in US, that's a political decision, just as much as government in Saudi Arabia choosing not to recognize right to express dissent toward King's decrees.
Re: (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia isn't a police state either. It's a monarchy. You're expected to show deference to the king by leaving politics to him. In exchange, you get some of the best social benefits available in the world.
Those who go against this social contract are treated just like criminals who violate foundational social contracts are treated elsewhere. Criminal prosecution.
This doesn't make nations involved a police state. It does make them fundamentally different in value sets. Theocratic monarchies are very far away from liberal democracies like US
Citing Wikipedia, a police state [wikipedia.org] "describes a state where its government institutions exercise an extreme level of control over civil society and liberties. There is typically little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive, and the deployment of internal security and police forces play a heightened role in governance. A police state is a characteristic of authoritarian, totalitarian or illiberal regimes (contrary to a liberal democratic regime). Such government
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you get an F for citing wikipedia on a political issue.
I recommend trying again. This time with even half reasonable source, preferably of the kind that actually comprehends something about politics and context outside of "Western far left" lens.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like a monarchy led police state to me.
The UK (clue is in the name) is a monarchy and I can still call Chas a right royal twat if I like. If you throw eggs at him (and miss) you'll get charged with a public order offence because it's illegal to throw eggs at people who have not consented. Maximum sentence of 6 months.
Being a monarchy doesn't preclude either democracy or a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Also why were 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers Saudi nationals?
I don't know. I don't hate where I live badly enough to fly out of the country and crash into another one.
Re: (Score:3)
People like to throw around the words police state. The US is not a police state. Saudi Arabia is a police state.
The police murder hundreds of people per year without repercussions. They are equipped with military equipment. They have immunity from prosecution. They beat their wives like training equipment. It is still explicitly legal to enslave prisoners. The right to a speedy trial is typically trampled.
The US absolutely is a police state. If you haven't noticed, congratulations, that's what privilege looks like.
Only jail? (Score:2)
Will there be no executions? Shocking, really.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound sad.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad they decided not to kill anyone outright. The only thing that saddens me here is that we have reporting on Slashdot about Saudi Arabia but nothing about what's happening to Wikipedia editors in Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds about right.
Wikipedia (Score:2)
I am rather surprised that Wikipedia actually needed any staff in Saudi Arabia.
I thought the whole idea of the internet was to render location irrelevant!
Why were they there?
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't need them. Now that MBS has noticed the operation, he's moving his own people in to take control of the situation. Let the edit wars commence!
Re:Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
These are Wiki admins so still an unpaid volunteer, not like an employee of the foundation.
Re:Wikipedia (Score:4, Informative)
I am rather surprised that Wikipedia actually needed any staff in Saudi Arabia.
I think the article is poorly worded. These are not staff. Who are the staff? The Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit in USA) hires 550 staff https://wikimediafoundation.or... [wikimediafoundation.org] probably in USA only. Wikimedia chapters (registered as non-profits in their countries and recognized by the umbrella WMF) may have some staff, for example Wikimedia France reports 14 employees on payroll https://www.wikimedia.fr/lasso... [wikimedia.fr] The Saudi Arabia Chapter is (was) in "Early Development" https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik... [wikimedia.org] so no formal structure, certainly no staff.
Who are the admins? Wikpedia (website) admins are what many websites call moderators. Just normal users who then offer themselves for access to the moderation ("administration") platform (e.g. can delete articles, set them read-only, block users or IP ranges), and propose themselves through "election" (website poll). Saudi Arabia somehow determined who these two people were, maybe they forgot to use a VPN someday and government access to ISP metadata revealed them.
Access logs (Score:1)
This is why wikipedia logs are a bad idea. They should delete access logs after a period of months -- also make it harder to match article/user history to IP. Heck all internet companies that may be subject to subpoena by governments should delete logs after a certain period. Potential for abuse seems too high.
Uhm, no. (Score:1)
That would make whitewashing editing abuse that much easier.
So no, I don't think it's a good idea to try and protect "wikipedia admins" from governmental stupidity, which is external to the site, by breaking down mechanisms to detect abuse on the platform itself. Even if that could work 100%, which it doesn't, because losing the logs won't free these people or protect people "somehow associated" with the site from future governmental stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
yes its much easier to rewrite history with no backlogs, lets do that
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Absolutely! There has been a tremendous push from the right to arrest all those twitter engineers! The stories of legal ware fare on them are endless!
For example there was that one where uhm... and then uh... well that other one was.. uh...
Oh never mind. Nothing like that ever happened.
Carry on, slashdot echo chamber!
Re:Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Projection is real. "They must think just like me, and want done to their political enemies what my side has already done to them".
This makes me want... (Score:2)
WikiEditors go to Prison, Flame War Criminals (Score:2)
The debate in Reliable Sources is about all you need to know about the culture at Wikipedia. It is very liberal progressive, very clickish, very c
Re: (Score:3)
Ha, "have a point". As if people should be locked up for decades just because you've got an ideological stick up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's certainly not true that there is zero fake news on the Left https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs... [bbc.com] (although your implied claim of such makes me doubt the honesty of your question) but the abundance of it on the Right is because those on the Right have been found to be much more likely to believe falsehoods that support their world view https://news.osu.edu/conservat... [osu.edu] , https://www.economist.com/inte... [economist.com] , https://www.colorado.edu/today... [colorado.edu] . Therefore, those who produce fake news for profit are far mo
I'm surprised anybody's surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Saudi Arabia is a vile, stinking cesspool run by terrorists and religious fanatics. We need to get the Free World off its dependence on fossil fuels, put a fence around the entire Middle East, and sell tickets to the war.
Re: (Score:1)
agree except for the tickets, no one wants to watch a bunch of goat fuckers sissy slap eachother with 50 year old weapons ... seen that already so many time like star wars and god damned marvel moves, come up with a concept that wasnt old in the 70's
BORING
It'll slowly happen (Score:2)
Maybe not for a few decades but eventually the world will wean itself off oil enough that saudi can revert back to a bunch of itinerant camel breeders.
Of course big oil don't want this to happen - can't affect profits can we? But hopefully green tech and nuclear will help. Obviously we'll still need oil as a raw product but that level of supply can be met by other nations.
Re: (Score:2)
You nailed my number one concern. Big Oil has been incredibly effective at kneecapping any significant efforts to wean the world off fossil fuel dependency. This may change if we experience a major, fast-paced environmental catastrophe affecting First World countries.
A few oil company CEOs swinging from lamp posts might alter their perspective a little.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saudi Arabia is a vile, stinking cesspool run by terrorists and religious fanatics.
You mean like The United "Nice Democracy, Shame if Something Happened To It" States? The United "Six Catholics on the Supreme Court Making Obviously Religiously Motivated Decisions" States? The United "Slavery Is Still Legal For Prisoners, And Justice Is Provably Not Blind" States? The United "Passing Laws To Reduce Human Rights" States? The United "Instructing Refugees To Stay Home" States?
I agree with your characterization of Saudi Arabia, but disagree with your obvious lack of perspective.
Re: I'm surprised anybody's surprised (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is odd that some people in the West use our relatively small and insignificant transgressions from the perfect human rights
It is not at all odd but still pathetic that people minimize our adventures around the world, destroying democracies in the name of profit while claiming to have one at home (but not having one at all [represent.us].)
to legitimate extreme human right violators elsewhere.
Nobody was doing that. You're lying to try to diminish my point.
"But it is not their fault, they are just victims of the colonisation."
Nobody said or even implied that except you
Re: (Score:3)
to legitimate extreme human right violators elsewhere.
Nobody was doing that. You're lying to try to diminish my point.
You did it by the very act of sidelining the conversation. Your point (US human rights violations) are an off-topic false equivalence when talking about the much greater magnitude of Saudi human rights violations. China and Russia violate human rights too, should we throw them into the mix to muddy the waters even more?
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance about my perspective is blatant. I wish you good luck trying to find anything I've ever written that would imply the US is a bastion of democracy, judicial excellence and religious tolerance. I'll save you the trouble: you won't. You probably haven't noticed, because just about everything I've ever written in this forum critical of the United States has been modded down to -1 within minutes. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is exactly as I have described it, and a United States that could affo
Re: (Score:2)
Streisand Effect Much? (Score:2)
This definitely won't end in people changing the Wiki page to say they're regressive kidnapping fake-Muslim pigfucker terrorists who got lucky with oil under their back yard and whose country should be made a parking lot.
Definitely not.
Saudi Arabia: just anohter middle-east shithole (Score:2)