I've lived in Saudi too. And Bahrain. Judging by the number of Saudis that cross the causeway every Thursday night to indulge in drinking, gambling and screwing, they don't seem that naive to me.

Yes, of course, we see that motive of power dynamics. Yet without the oil, that is how that society and culture was structured. They have always held Mecca. Who is actually saying they are not practising Islam, and on what grounds? Who judges Islam?

as you don't seem to bother to read any of my posts, here is the key part for you: " if you're a local and have never been let out how could you possibly not be "naive" or an "idiot"?"

Maybe they were part of the cynic bandwagon of those who know its all rotten but won't rock the boat or speak up because the status quo benefits them.

It was clearly not a well planned escape; incredible how long it has taken to corner them.
I assume they are stuck with stealing cars because they want to keep their weapons with them; catching a bus laden with AK47s might be a bit obvious.

Not if they make it to Switzerland, surely?

Saudi became an American ally for the same reason Israel did - they are who we were left with after the Russians chose their sides in the region. and the only reason Saudi has "held their end of agreements" is because US capital investment and military power has ensured the consistent rule of the totalitarian Saudi regime during a period in which other countries in the region have suffered multiple regimes.

Exactly that. They just hide behind Islam as an excuse. Basically they're bored, wealthy, live in a shite country that's achieved nothing and are jealous of the West. Unfortunately, there are people that believe they're dying for Islam too.

As it looks now they actually might do that....

Well that is partly my point. Who is judging Saudi Arabia, by what measure and value system? Who is judging their practice of Islam, and who is to say it isn't Islam?

The House of Saud comes from the Emir of Mecca. Is there or was there someone more rightfully in that place? If its wrong, where did it go wrong? And again, who is judging?


It is Sunni, no?

There's a massive new pool of potential jihadists waiting to murder, so as long as the attitude toward Islamic terrorism in Europe and the world remains as it is, the West will some day - G-d forbid - be defeated.

I still have a problem with this statement and understanding the causation.

Clearly the Paris killers had no problem killing practising Muslims. They killed two. They even went so far as to finish off an injured Muslim policeman who was no threat to them with a head shot!
So what basis is there to believe they would be concerned about Muslims being killed in far away countries?

I thought The Future had finally arrived when I got a talkie watch for Christmas.


Looks like I was a couple of weeks too early.

To such jihadists, the context is the conflict between Islam vs. everything else. In the course of fighting for Islam, all other principles of morality are secondary. Just about everything is permissible so long as it is for the Jihad.

AFAIK, Mohammed never appointed a succesor or provided directions over who was to lead his religion or clarify points of doubt after his death.

Thus no Muslim has through reasons of location or bloodline any greater claim to posess the "true Islam" than any other.

In Christianity, at least Jesus did appoint Saint Peter as his successor, although what happened after that is more contentious as the Catholic Church claims this authority has continued to pass from one pope to the next to this day, whereas the protestants claim it expired with Peter's death and that pronouncements of later popes are thus of no validity. The Sedecacantists say that many subsequent popes were valid but that the lineage of succesion was lost somewhere along the way and that there is thus presently no true pope.

This is an interesting: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-charlie.html

True, although the moment Mohammed died is the moment it started splintering in various directions. The original splinter is still with us today in the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.

So are we to jump into this fray now, over a thousand years later, to make a case with the House of Saud that they shouldn't be there? What is the point? And how does that translate into anything useful today?

For somebody who admits to having read "the translations" rather than the real thing (and hence probably lacks not only the language but also French societal context to fully understand the jokes), I think he's in a good position to judge the wit and value (or their absence) of these caricatures.

It's a bit like saying South Park is shite if all you've ever watched is the German translation and haven't a clue about American culture, society or politics.

Not to mention the importance of those cartoons to French culture.

"Because if we’re all agreed on that: Charlie Hebdo is also a crap publication and people need to stop celebrating it and making martyrs out of its staff."

The poor French have lost so much of their cultural supremacy; they lost cinema, the music is corny, the food misunderstood, the engineering is wacky, and they argue more than they work. So this cartoon lampooning industry is about high in their pinnacle of cultural achievements. I mean, I myself find those cartoons tasteless and turn away as soon as I glimpse it. But no need to piss in French Cheerios at this moment in time.

Looks like they've caught up with the suspects, but not yet captured them

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-30722098