Talk:Saudi Arabia

	This Asian countries related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Badmouthing Israel for cheap laughs / political points

Thanks to some Aging Hippie, I currently can't edit this page to make my point heard, so here goes: What does the fact that sometimes civilians die in wars with Israeli involvement have to do with the number of people the Wahhabi Kingdom does or does not kill? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia has killed fewer civilians in recent years than Israel. That is a statement of fact and is actually, in context appropriately illustrative of the point.--Umichcynic (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What I fail to see is why Israel can't be criticized along with other countries in the region. If you think comparing the death tolls of countries is just cheap laughs, why not remove the whole sentence? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That was what I tried to do to end the edit war, however by that time the page had already been blocked. And please don't come with the old anti-zionist canard that you somehow "can't" criticize Israel. There are media that do hardly anything else. Heck even in Germany most left wing and center (and even some right wing) media have a anti-Israel slant. If only the implicit bias of holding Israel to higher standards than the Saudis (what would happen if Israel were to bankroll people like ISIS?) or Hamas... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Saudi military could have a very easy time not killing civilians (it still did in Bahrain) as it has never been attacked militarily by any major organization or country since the end of World War II. As opposed to the IDF that has found itself at war quite often. Usually with the other side stating the destruction of the state of Israel as their main goal 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You're not talking about what you should be talking about. Aging Hippie's edit summary says "Source says nothing about Saudi Arabia". If the source indeed is of weak relevance, then maybe you can look for another (I haven't read it yet).-- Forerunner (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My point is what the IDF does or does not do to safeguard civilian live (imho they do a lot, but it is difficult if you are fighting against human shield users like Hamas) is besides the point in an article on Saudi Arabia 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you've gone back to your point (it's practically an internet law where talk mentioning Israel gets sidetracked). Arguably none of the countries are relevant and could be substituted with any other country like the usual "not as bad as" argument. If the sentence is rewritten, I suppose it could be a great comparison to the human rights records of the Middle East in general, since "dictatorship" can easily be reduced to a snarl world when used broadly enough.-- Forerunner (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hence the question whether the paragraph is needed at all 141.30.210.129 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Saudi is broke

The monarchy is now so broke it's selling off less than 5% of Aramco as in IPO in a desperate bid to allocate liquid funding following the crash in oil prices that has devastated its economy as well as a messy military endeavor in Yemen. This is something worth following because if they don't find a way to make money within the next couple of years, the results could be catastrophic with rampant unemployment and massive layoffs (of foreign workers, if they started firing Saudis because they can't afford to pay them, the revolution may have well started already). They burned through $160b in cash reserves out of what is thought to be around $600 wicked-fast, so keep a close eye, y'all. Saudi didn't have anything aside from oil to offer, so I'm not sure what they'll do to get out of this (aside from the Deputy Crown Prince's Saudi Vision 2030, which many have already said it's probably just smoke and mirrors).--Nay1989 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

God, I would love to see a Shia uprising in the northeast and southwest of that country. Not the death, but the utter inability of the Saudi 'Army' to handle a massive Houthi-style uprising. The Shias may feel emboldened by the Houthis and Iraqis, and finally fight the Saudi monarchy. Geopolitics would be forever changed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• following the crash in oil prices ... This is something worth following

uhh, Saudia Arabia caused the crash in oil prices when they opened the oil spigots and flooded the market. And they can up the prices tomorrow by closing the spigot. Don't make yourself look ridiculous like you haven't a clue what is going on in the world or how the world works.

• I would love to see a Shia uprising

Be careful what you ask for, especially since the Shi'as sponsors and allies, a nuclear armed Iran would then lend assistance. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't get why you're being belligerent as if I bullied you in middle school or something. I only said that the Saudi economy is worth paying attention to because if it crashes it'll have massive repercussions. And there's no guarantee oil prices will go up even if it cuts down on its own production because their oil isn't the sole reason why prices fell. There are more complex reasons including people around the world consuming less oil generally by taking public transportation more often, riding bikes, carpooling and buying newer cars that tend to save on oil consumption. This happened to the extent where the U.S., for example, is getting closer to oil dependence due to the changes I mentioned. Furthermore, the Saudis aren't inclined to cut production down because if they do that it means less of their oil being consumed and more of Russia's, Iran's and America's will be, and that means less money for them (what little money they can get, anyway, with the prices being the way they are). And most Saudi and Gulf Shi'ites don't care for Iran or any possible support they might give. That's a very simplistic and inaccurate manner of looking at this. Iran's nuclear ambitions are overinflated, anyway, and are used by Israel, Saudi and Bahrain to pursue aggressive policies.--Nay1989 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(a) Saudia Arabia controls and sets the world oil price, and can do so within 24 hours on any given day. (b) Saudi has 259.2 billion barrels in reserves (that 'b' as in Billion). 259.2b x $38 per barrel = $9,956,000,000,000 or $9.956 trillion. World GDP = $75.59 trillion. Saudi reserves = 13.17% of World Gross Domestic Product (or Gross World Product, same thing) at today's rock-bottom prices. So, no way is Saudi Arabia "broke", and I would seriously suggests you re-evaluate the quality of the sources you get such utter bullshit from.

What you are referring to is Saudi's reserve assets. Now, the United States has ran a government budget deficit for all but 7 years since 1938 to meet its social spending; the United States likewise has run a foreign trade imbalance aka trade deficit since 1967. In the coming six years, Saudi Arabia will simply be in the same position the United States has been in for 50 to 80 years, all things being equal and no increase in world oil prices. Conversely, Saudi Arabia could speed up the timetable by increasing its social spending or if oil prices continue falling. Either way, it is not the end of the world. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The US is a military behemoth that can print the world's most accepted currency. US consumption drives the world economy to such an extent that it drying up would lead to serious problems. None of those things is true for Saudi Arabia. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and Saudi Arania are intregal to maintaining its empire. Having an ally that can set the world's oil prices and undercut your enemies's oil prices is a very powerful tool.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 20:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the above how people usually conduct themselves around here? And if so, how does anything ever get done?--Nay1989 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is more of a Saloon Bar conversation than a talk page conversation. Don't worry. The drama tends to self-segregate from the actual productivity once people start to notice. I've witnessed it myself. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

My only issue is that this is one of the first few times that I post on a Talk page, and I've seen some examples of arguments and bickering on RW. I don't know the dude, and he doesn't know me, and we haven't interacted with each other before, yet the first thing he does is attack me. Is he allowed to do that on this site without any consequences?--Nay1989 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

With regards to Iran gaining influence, I think that's a good thing. The Gulf States need to have their influence be challenged and checked, because they've wrecked Syria with their Islamist rebels and jihadis. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Iran is hardly better. Actually, only Saudi Arabia and DAESH is worse than Iran.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 00:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What he said.--Nay1989 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. I would rather have Iran in charge of Syria and Iraq than the logical other choices: the Wahhabis or Turks. All scumbags the lot of them. I would cheer Iran. What makes Iran so much bad? They're about average in Middle-East terms, better than Saudis, Turks, and Daesh/rebels, but worse than the Kurds and Jordanians. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Worse than Turkey? Well, Erdogan is making Turkey worse and worse by the day and hour, but they're not on Iran level yet, not by a damn long shot.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 01:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dude, read what I wrote a second time. I actually agreed with you for once. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I know they still teach national liberation movements are hip & cool on college campuses, but what you really are arguing for is a Shi'ite jihad. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash}

I loathe both Saudi and Iran on equal footing, but Saudi angers me more because there's always this sanctimonious demeanor moral high ground that they used to justify everything they do, all in the midst of hypocritical mud-slinging between the two. I don't have any love for Iran at all, but they're being used to stoke some unwarranted fears on the Gulf level, especially with the nuke issue. I also give Iran some points over Saudi for being a little bit better on social issues, though I am comparing it to Saudi so that's a very low standard that's set in the area. Saudi is also responsible for a lot of the discourse that's led to terrorism being as rampant as it is today. The unholy alliance between the al-Saud royal family and the Wahhabi establishment needs to be studied and dissected, as well as the American/British/French/German/etc backing, which has backfired on them tremendously.--Nay1989 (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you're talking some sense. Wealth consists not in money, but in the things money can be exchanged for. Anything can be used as money, gold, silver, currency, or toilet paper. Money has no intrinsic value in itself. "Being broke" is meaningless, unless a person or entity has nothing of exchangeable value -- including their own labor. The only person, entity, or country that is "broke" would be a homeless amputee in a wheelchair. nobs^{Bernie bimbos r trailer trash} 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you Rob, about the shia jihad thing. Jihad as a recent concept of holy war against unbelievers is something that is pretty much Sunni in character. Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Daesh, Al-Shabaab, all Sunni, all jihadi. I wouldn't classify Hezbollah or Iran as being 'jihadi'. But that is beside the point. My point is that the Shias of Arabia should rule over themselves. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You may be intrigued to know that I'm a Bahrani person (even though I'm irreligious, all Bahranis are considered Shia so if something were to happen to the lot of us, it wouldn't matter who practices religion or doesn't) so my family, friends and me are all directly affected by the strife in the region. Self-rule has been a contentious issue in the past, and many people in the region have had a range of ideologies from theocratic to communism to Arab nationalism, etc. Sure, there are some who are sympathetic to Iran, but very few actually agree with their system. And Shi'ites don't adopt jihadi discourse because they've been the biggest victims of that more than any other group, especially in Iraq. And I don't know if people in Falluja would fare better under an unfair Shi'ite government like Maliki's past one, and the only way they'll be comfortable is if the central government stops marginalizing them. Abadi isn't bad, but there's widespread corruption and the confessionalist system set up by Paul Bremer has invaded every single aspect of political life there.. There's deep mistrust and bad blood between everyone and it'll take a very clean government to sort things out. ISIS has used this to take the moral high ground, vowing to fight the Shi'ite Rafida scourge persecuting Sunnis. --Nay1989 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I would describe the Mahdi army and Sadr as "jihad in one country". I think you could fit the Houthis in that ideology as well but they aren't as centralized. For the most part, Shias aren't as homogenous as Sunnis and they lack an absolutist sect like the Wahhabis. Iran is a bastardize (hybrid) democracy but they do lack a lot of the abhorrent policies that the Saudis have. Having Iran and the Gulf states rival each other in the region could help check each others power and use of terrorism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:13, 1 June 2016 ::(UTC) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think classifying groups as "jihadi" or not kind of misses the point, tbh. I think we should be talking about global risk. There is a massive threat to the world with groups like al-Qaeda, Daesh, and their subsidiaries. There is not even a close threat when it comes to the Ansar Allah (Houthis), Hezbullah, Jaish al-Mahdi, and Sadrists. Jaish al-Mahdi was a Shia group trying to take back Iraq from the crusaders. Same with Sadrists. Hezbullah is trying to liberate Palestine from the foreigners. Houthis want Yemen to be ruled by Yemen, not anyone else. Shia groups are almost always characterized by a local wish to cast off foreign rule, whereas Sunnis groups tend to have worldwide or regional ambitions (al-Qaeda, Daish). That's why I tend to support Shia groups against Sunni groups. Take Fallujah, which is a battle being fought as we speak. Shia soldiers (Iraqi Army, some militias) are shedding their blood to seize an entirely Sunni city from a Sunni terrorist group. I support the Shias here. Why? Because the Sunni group is goddamn evil Nazi-types, and the Shias don't come close. Fallujah will be better off under Shia Iraqi government than the Sunnis of Daesh. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kugelschreiber:

• ""proves that it is more warlike and cares less about others than Iran does." - Pbfreespace3 Bullshit, but have fun sucking off one of the worst Islamists of the whole Middle East (only the Saudis or DAESH are worse), the Sunnis and Bahai in Iran's gonna thank you. Or gays. Or women. Or political opponents of the Iranian regime and so on.--Arisboch"

• Iran is hardly better. Actually, only Saudi Arabia and DAESH is worse than Iran.--Kugelschreiber

Gotta love the similarity in talking, don'tcha! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Outdated

A BoN added a note to the bottom, "Many of the information in this article is outdated, it's in dire need of updating." as well as making a few changes. —Kazitor, ^pending 08:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you always tell jokes from LEFTISTS' point of view??

"and propped up by the United States government in exchange for gargantuan quantities of oil" -I don't think this overused slogan makes anyone laugh. What about jokes from the other side?? Left doesn't own comedy.^{— Unsigned, by: 213.57.205.41 / talk / contribs}

There are several schools of thought on the subject of who owns comedy. RationalWiki belongs to the "leftist" school of thought in that regard. Glad I could clear it up for you! Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 02:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter books

I don't know if it's ever been banned at any point, but the movies and the books (in Arabic and English) have always been sold there legally without issue and I saw them myself there a couple of years ago. So I wouldn't keep the part that says the books are banned because even if they were, it was likely for an incredibly brief time.--108.51.80.134 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to verify, can you check the laws and reports for your place? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Which place do you mean? And there's this article from 2002, but I can't remember if they were banned or not back then, but I was able to buy the last book in Saudi when it came out in 2007 and when I visited a couple of years ago, I bought the books in Arabic and brought them back to the U.S. Neither HP nor Pokemon is banned. You can check the search results for Harry Potter on Jarir Bookstore's website (the Barnes and Noble of Saudi Arabia) to see the kind of shit they offer (and Pokemon shit!). Whatever ban there was must've been short-lived.--173.79.207.238 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)