Many pundits have predicted the fall of the House of Saud these past few decades. They all have been wrong. The Saudis have displayed tremendous staying power for nearly a century and I don’t think that will change anytime soon. Also how is unemployement even relevant? A typical Saudi can subsist of the handouts given by the state w/o working a day in his/her life. If they were really concerned about unemployement they would get rid of the foriegners (Pakistanis, Indians, westerners, filopinos, etc.) that basically do all the real work in that country.

I’ll answer your other points from your earlier post later. But it is extremely unlikely that the Saudi Royal Family will be in power forever. There is great in-fighting in the House of Saud, there is a large and young population with ever decreasing employment prospects. Education is poor especially amongst males. Oil is reducing and external pressures increasing. Within the next decade a large youth population with no income is going to be tough to control. Saudi Arabia isn’t like Qatar, Kuwait etc. with a small domestic population and large oil reserves. They like Iran have a large population and oil reserves that can’t subsidise the entire population and with grown unemployment. add this to the fact that investment is so difficult for the West and little science output to make economic progress.

These are all causes of discontent.

Hence the need to deflect attention.

“Well the overriding point is most Muslim governments are not elected platforms based on liberal democracies so they don’t *need* to use techniques such as “deflecting issues”.”
With respect this is a very silly statement. All governments of any type need to deflect attention. In the old communist world this was standard tactics even though they were not elected liberal democracies. They deflected attention to the misery their own people were in. In Zimbabwe it is the same, Mugabe is deflecting attention from his own failure by saying the opposition want to bring back imperial rule – that is deflecting attention.

Following the collapse of Pan-Arab Nationalism then young populations in the Muslim world had to have attention diverted to issues abroad to save people bringing up issue at home.

If you study the rise of extremism then this was how it all started. An influx of Egyptian extremism blended with young Arabs who their governemtns wanted to divert away from domestic issues thus taking up arms to defend their brethren. Make them think about foreign issues and not domestic.

I’m frankly suprised you don’t see this.

Well the overriding point is most Muslim governments are not elected platforms based on liberal democracies so they don’t *need* to use techniques such as “deflecting issues”. If you’re like the Saudi royal family, you’ve been in power since the 1930s and will be forever. Why do you need to divert attention from domestic issues? And even if they do, they certainly don’t concentrate on the plight of the Muslims in Kashmir to divert the average citizen away from the pressing task of what 4×4 he will be buying this year.

That is the whole point though namely that such issues because they are not being addressed can be manipulated to basically recruit normal people towards terror and extremism. By addressing these issues then we can remove these excuses and support for terrorism automatically reduces.

You have to remember that the people who are manipulated are often ill educated either interms of basic education or religion or both. Thus the extremists groups are able to manipulate them.

“I think you’ll find not many. In fact there is absolutely no political buy in from governments and if there is any religious-based interest it is probably exclusively from a minute clique of Islamist radicals who are simply looking for a an excuse to validate terrorism.”

Most modern government involves deflecting issues. Muslims Governments need to address key issues such as education, women’s rights, better economic development. But you won’t stop them using causes to divert attention from domestic issues and the best way to stop this is to tackle those issues thus forcing key changes in the Muslim world which are much needed.

India has a right to protect its borders and a large superpwoer is going to bully smaller weaker neighbours. There are apparata to address this politically rather than by terrorism. Would you agree? Individual Hindus emphaising with the plight of Tamils to the point of fighting for their cause does not happen really, does it? If what you say holds true, where are the armies of paramilitary Indian Hindus fighting with Sri Lankan Tamils?

What you say just doesn’t work in reality and thats what I highlighted to you was that it isn’t practical to say peopelk can’t have an affinity to other people. As an example some of the Irish people in the USA had a religious affinity to the nationalistic ideals of the IRA.

Isn’t that because theu were *Irish Americans* rather than simply Catholics who supported the IRA? I can expect diasporic Kashmiris supporting the Kashmir issue but Arabs should necessarily support Kashmir and largely don’t.

With respect you are being awfully selective in denying Muslim affinity which is central to your claim whilst turning a convinient blind eye to numerous other affinities across the world.

Muslims do that naturally. How many Muslim goverments supported the genocide of Bosnians? How many Muslims governments supported the genocide of Bangladeshi Muslims by Pakistani Muslims in 1971? How many Muslim governments support the genocide of Darfuri Muslms by Sudanese Muslims? You accuse me of selectiveness but you don’t even seem to recognise selectivesness implicit in the Muslim world.

Thus I repeat what I said that a just western policy means addressing issues that have been largely ignored as regards Muslims but equally – EQUALLY – importantly also have the courage to raise issues within the Muslims world to create a just forweign policy there as well.

So you’re suggesting that Western governments should accord all Muslim issues as one issue or are you saying that Western governments should increase the priority of Muslim issues? If so, how does either approach reduce terrorism? In fact, why on earth should Western policies divert people from extremism? Your expression on this idea needs far more elaboration than simply stating it to be true.

Perhaps if you stopped grandstanding and libelling people we could actually have an adult discussion eh?

You liberally and without any evidence are happy to tar people with an Islamist label, falsely claim they get invited to Islamist parties and then when they refute your terrible slurs you call that unhinged ranting!

>Do you agree with that?
Yes and No. Yes in that what you say is theoretically correct but in reality people do have an affinity. Thus asking that Muslims have no affinity but allowing others is simply naive at best. As an example Germany was one of the first countries to recognise Croatian Independance due to an affinity with the people.

India itself has an affinity to certain creeds in Sri Lanka and has interferred in the politics of that country so why say that their can’t be an affinity to Kashmir?

Thus I refer you back to my question which you still haven’t answered. Is India as a major democracy and applicant for a Permanent UN Security Role able to deny the just rights of people to cede from India?

What you say just doesn’t work in reality and thats what I highlighted to you was that it isn’t practical to say peopelk can’t have an affinity to other people. As an example some of the Irish people in the USA had a religious affinity to the nationalistic ideals of the IRA.

With respect you are being awfully selective in denying Muslim affinity which is central to your claim whilst turning a convinient blind eye to numerous other affinities across the world.

Thus I repeat what I said that a just western policy means addressing issues that have been largely ignored as regards Muslims but equally – EQUALLY – importantly also have the courage to raise issues within the Muslims world to create a just forweign policy there as well.

In this way extremism can be reduced and western leadership can show fruits in diverting people from extremism.

If you remember the discussion was about a just foreign policy and I asked you if you supported India in Kashmir as most people (majority) do not want to be part of India. It had nooooooooooo religious undertone.

Good, so we are agreed that the Kashmiri issue is nothing more than a secular political struggle concerning the self-determination of the Kashmiri people.
And by that token, Muslims should not be required to have any religion-based affiliation to the Kashmiris any more than, say, a German Christian-Democrat should be concerned with the devolution of Scotland. Or, since you mentioned the Basque, an Indian Catholic should be emotionally and spritually bound with the seperatist struggle of the Basque people in Spain.

Do you agree with that?

If Muslims do feel any loyalty or empathy with the Kashmiri people it should rather be based in terms of how a large superstate like India can use violence to repress pro-Independence politics in Kashmir. But with race and politics being so tightly coupled with religion in South Asian politics – I agree that that trying to keep religion out of the “subtext” is a tall order.

But to suggest that the Kashmiri struggle is a universally Islamic battle that is one of the hot spots of suppression suffered by the “Ummah” is romantic at best. And the proof of that is answered by this question: How many Arab Muslims in Saudi or Jordan or Syria or Algeria etc regard the Kashmiri struggle as *their* struggle? In fact, how many actually know where Kashmir is?

I think you’ll find not many. In fact there is absolutely no political buy in from governments and if there is any religious-based interest it is probably exclusively from a minute clique of Islamist radicals who are simply looking for a an excuse to validate terrorism.

I have addressed your questions in comment 75 but knowing that you’d avoid any meaningful debate left comments about other regions until a seperate thread. Not all comments about other regions are directed at you but form a clear consideration to the thread namely what do European democracies do about just foreign policy issues regarding territory in Europe. So without replying to my answer you jump in do a bit of grandstanding yet again (yawn!) and then pretend as if I never answered your point. Utter nonsense.

You failure to answer your falsehoods highlights you for what you are. I need say no more. I addressed in very clear terms and answered your questions in comment 75.

Your classic running away from addressing your own dodgy writing is systematic of your own bullshit.

Your tamponesque writing destroys all threads you touch and you are nothing but an agitator who simply won’t let people discuss any subject in a way you don’t approve of.

If you bothered to read the points I raised in 75 I’ve answered all your questions. Your whataboutery and singular failure to address points means that it is you who is derailing the thread and further failing to answer questions or even apologise for an ongoing series of falsehoods about people which isn’t suprising from someone who labels entire creeds of people falsely.

“No wonder you’re invited to all the Islamist parties.”
I’ve never been to a single Islamist Party and I’ve never associated with any Islamist or given them time of day.

Your continual smearing is in fact designed to try and dig yourself out of the cess pit your falsehood has placed you in and your constant smears are a sheer disgrace and simply another attempt to divert people from the fact that you have distorted dicussion, used quotes out of context and taken questions and implied they are statements of position. That isn’t a just way to treat anyone.

If you can’t address the points in 75 as you haven’t as you run away again simply shows you never had any interest in meaningful debate and are simply here to fire venom at people. It is a shame but at least you’ve been shown for what you are.

The threads are clear. In the past you’ve deleted my comments and now you are hiding behind a comment made later when in fact I answered your point straight away.

As you have such trouble seeing up a thread let me paste it for you again what I said regarding India and Kashmir:

“If you remember the discussion was about a just foreign policy and I asked you if you supported India in Kashmir as most people (majority) do not want to be part of India. It had nooooooooooo religious undertone.

If you had bothered to step aside from your continual grandstanding which really is bloody irritating and asked then I would have expalined why I asked about India.

The reason was that can a democracy in the world of Sidney decide if a state is to continue to be part of
that state or if the majority in that state can break away. Also relevant was the fact if you bothered to get down from your high horse and listed in the discussion that India is applying for Security Council membership thus if they get it they can derail any future discussion on this.

It was all explained through the thread but you are misrepresenting what I said and presenting your own take on what I say rather than reading what I say and ask.

Now take your bloody tampon out of your mouth, stop spreading your hate and answer the question please without any more of your nonsense, falsehood and grandstanding. It is a simple question for crying out loud and can be simply answered by saying yes I support India’s right to deny self-determination to the people of Kashmir or no I support the UN Resolution to mandate a referendum in Kashmir to allow people to democratically decide if they want to be part of India, part of Pakistan or an independant country.

Just as Croatia, Estonia etc. were accepted as seperate countries as was East Timor, all of whose righst I support to independance before your start your shit again.”

Now Sunny clearly your editorial new boy is struggling with actually reading what writers say and is simply resorting to smearing people by falsely implying Islamists labels. Clearly as owner of PP you need to stop this. Simply for asking one of your editors to label creeds correctly I have been subjected to ongoing smears and falsehood which isn’t contructive critque. Editorial powers have been used to put his point of view whilst deleting my replies. Hardly a correct and fair way to discuss matters.

Now whilst failing to read a reply your newbie is resorting to distasteful and completely false innuedo that I get invited to all Islamist parties which is without foundation.

This after defiling the thread with dubious references to women’s sanitation, random name-calling and what can only be described as complete loss of self-control.

No wonder you’re invited to all the Islamist parties.

Now Spain as a member of the EU, a democracy and a member of Nato – should it allow the Basque people the right to self-determination given that religion can’t be an issue here as both are devoutly Catholic.

You have the issue of Georgia and Russia now playing out on the world stage. Is the Russian Foreign Policy just or should Georgian Terrotorial Integrity be enforced by the UN, Nato, EU?

Hence the overriding question who decides what is and isn’t just. Is it democracies or is it all countries.

Again if you want to answer the question then stop spreading your hate and answer the question please without any more of your nonsense, falsehood and grandstanding.

Well then Sidney either go an correct the State Dept and Scotland Yard regarding their statements that many of the creeds you list are fragmented and have a number of ideologies or shut up and accept it as fact.

Lets get this right – you Sidney a tamponesque writer is claiming you know more than major government departments. So prove it to them and they may employ you or laugh at you. Mostly likely laugh

Implication: Indians are Hindoos. Kashmiris are Muslims.

So, I’ll ask again: What makes you think Kashmir is a religious (Islamic) issue and not a nationalist Kashmiri issue?

And if you deal in any more whataboutery by asking me about some other country to head off your answer, you’ll get more abuse from me.”

You’re the one who actively uses whataboutery to avoid answering when you’ve made a complete and utter ass of yourself.

I can see your tampon writing style is out in force again. So instead of askinmg me what I meant, you decided that as a PP Editor you had a right to implicate what I meant and then abuse me. Brilliant Editorial Responsibility – The Sidney Approach is to forget about asking what people mean, make it up and then use that to abuse people.

If you remember the discussion was about a just foreign policy and I asked you if you supported India in Kashmir as most people (majority) do not want to be part of India. It had nooooooooooo religious undertone.

If you had bothered to step aside from your continual grandstanding which really is bloody irritating and asked then I would have expalined why I asked about India.

The reason was that can a democracy in the world of Sidney decide if a state is to continue to be part of
that state or if the majority in that state can break away. Also relevant was the fact if you bothered to get down from your high horse and listed in the discussion that India is applying for Security Council membership thus if they get it they can derail any future discussion on this.

It was all explained through the thread but you are misrepresenting what I said and presenting your own take on what I say rather than reading what I say and ask.

Now take your bloody tampon out of your mouth, stop spreading your hate and answer the question please without any more of your nonsense, falsehood and grandstanding. It is a simple question for crying out loud and can be simply answered by saying yes I support India’s right to deny self-determination to the people of Kashmir or no I support the UN Resolution to mandate a referendum in Kashmir to allow people to democratically decide if they want to be part of India, part of Pakistan or an independant country.

Just as Croatia, Estonia etc. were accepted as seperate countries as was East Timor, all of whose righst I support to independance before your start your shit again.

“corrects you”?! Oh the self regard!

Implication: Indians are Hindoos. Kashmiris are Muslims.

So, I’ll ask again: What makes you think Kashmir is a religious (Islamic) issue and not a nationalist Kashmiri issue?

And if you deal in any more whataboutery by asking me about some other country to head off your answer, you’ll get more abuse from me.

Again this is more of your fiction. You label entire people you don’t like when even intelligence services say that the groups you list are fagmented and have different opinions. Is it so hard for you to actually grasp the fact that your labelling is so piss poor but you won’t admit it and instead choose to attack me to try and defend your own poor wording.

If you put down your Neocons for Dummies and actually looked at the situation then you’d realise that and as I said even a Scotland Yard Anti-Terrorism Detective and now researcher said this. So if you are so confident in your position then go to the BBC News and say he is wrong as well.

You are simply using the blog world like Melanie Phillips to spread a hatred about groups that you disagree with. But by labelling some of them falsely that is called misleading people and not criticising.

There is a whole world of difference. You see if Group S is defined as Si and Sii with Si allowing terror and Sii abhoring terror for you to say that all of S support terror is simply false.

That is all I pulled you up for but because you were exposed you’ve attacked me ever since by implying falsely that I defend them. That is just plain false.

If asking that poor explanation is defending Islamists then your misleading people again.

I’ve never understood why Sunny had to appoint you as an editor when so many other excellent writers are here on PP. Obviously the power has gone to your head and you attack like a pitbull anyone who corrects you.

Have you ever considered workign for The Daily Mail!!!!!!!!

If you bothered to look at the context then you’d fucking well know what I said that in regards to.

It is plainly obvious that your tactic is to derail any meaningful discussion unless people adhere to your point of view.

I mean for fuck sake why don’t you go and pull out of other threads just to really throw the context.

You aren’t worth debating with because you are so full of yourself.

If you managed to drag yourself up and look at the context:

“Everyone else can thus do what they like to Muslims but not vice versa?”
That was a question to you in response to a fucking statement you made and not a statement of position. Do you grasp the fact that someone can ask a question in the English Language when you make a statement.

“Do you support India in Kashmir then?”
Again see that thing at the end it is called a bloody question mark and that in English is me asking you a question regarding your position. It isn’t me making a statement, do you understand this concept or do you want me to post you an Learning English book?

So you are using my asking two questions, implying they are statements I made to back up your fucking foolish crap of falsehood. Genius!

“So tell me where I said in that statement it is a religious issue or that Kashmir is 100% Muslim?

But thanks for playing.”

Yes it sums you up pretty well. Go back and play with your toys and let the big people discuss the serious issues.

In the meantine, you will continue to pass off self-contradictory statements which you will then deny when brought to your attention. Such as this

Everyone else can thus do what they like to Muslims but not vice versa?
Do you support India in Kashmir then?

and

So tell me where I said in that statement it is a religious issue or that Kashmir is 100% Muslim?

But thanks for playing.

Sid you’re blogging style is much like a used tampon – very bloody and most of it useless for the good of mankind.

You live in a self-delusional world and attribute comments to people that are so far from the truth of what people say.

I’ve never minded your criticism of Saudi Arabia or Islamists despite your stupid attempts to continue to falsely imply this. Where I have exposed your imbercile attempts is in piss poor blanket labelling of groups which you clearly despise.

As an example of your crass insistence is your piss poor labelling of all Salafi’s as terrorists which as have been shown to you via examples just isn’t true. Scotland Yard, the US State Department etc. all rightfully acknowledge that there is a fragmentation of Salafi’s with some groups advocating violence and some who don’t.

You piss poor reporting style reminiscent of the worst excess of the Blair Govt. is to label them all. That isn’t true and is misleading.

That is what you’ve been exposed on and the fact you falsely imply it is to do with criticism of Saudi Arabia etc. is nonsense.

I am getting fairly annoyed with the falsehood you are placing upon me.

“What makes you think Kashmir is a religious (Islamic) issue and not a nationalist Kashmiri issue? Are you suggesting that Jammu-Kashmir is 100% Muslim?”

Did I say that? Freakin Nooooooooooooooo.

Can you actually read what people say? If the majority of Kashmiri’s want to cede from India and Pakistan and create their own country and given the size of the place then they should be allowed to do this.

As you clearly can’t grasp what I said here it is again:

“And Kashmir is a B&W Issue because if in an area that big people don’t want to be part of either country then why can you decide that issue won’t be addressed?”

So tell me where I said in that statement it is a religious issue or that Kashmir is 100% Muslim?

What I said was that given the size of the land area and if – IF – the majority want to cede from either or both India and Pakistan that should be their right.

That is a democratic way of doing things. I did not mention religion or Muslims. Is that soooooooooooooooooooooooooo bloody difficult for you tamponesque comments.

Sunny – This is unacceptable that an editor can distort people’s comments and twist it to make a point.

I never said that and the number of falsehoods being spread is reaching silly proportions.