Should Saudi Royals be made to feel uncomfortable in the US?

Regarding the Saudi Royals you have to remember these people act like they are Gods. Its against the law and a crucify able offence to "cause mischief' by criticising these people. That should tell you an awful lot of what you need to know about them. The fact they interfere and dictate policy in other countries is highly dangerous. Add in their desire to spread their extremist type of islam and one has to ask why should they get away with their behaviour especially when its terrorism carried out in other countries?

The terrible thing about 9/11 and the miserable deaths suffered that day is the number of people who have died since and are still dying who were caught up in the blast and spread of toxins. Those who are responsible and as SG1642 pointed out there are other country's that should also be prosecuted for their involvement.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok, I am going to do the same thing you did, selectively respond to what was said by means of certain quotes.

I am also going to ignore anything relevant you said in order to win a point.

Yeah, because I believe in something called "freedom of religion". As long as individuals don't cause harm to others, I don't care if they worship the moon or a dragon statue either. Wahhabism by itself is harmless. It's when people apply its most radical interpretations against others when I have a problem.

When a shark starts to come into the waters that are frequented by swimmers, people are warned to stop swimming. The reason is that we believe that the shark has the right to swim in the water as much as we do. This is correct, although some would just kill the shark and have done with the problem.

Saying that Wahhabism by itself is harmless is like saying a scorpion, by itself, is harmless. Of course it is harmless by itself.

The fact is that the Saudi Arabian royal family is harmless in the same way a scorpion is, as long as they have no influence, they harm no one.

Now then, what influence does the SA royal family have in the modern world? Is it harmless?

I agree that you are being modern in your statement that EVERYBODY should be treated according to non profiling, non discriminatory ways.

You are a muslim, correct? How long will you offer me the same protections, once your faith is the faith of choice in my country?

This isn't a racist statement, it is a question. Will I be afforded the same graces muslims are now afforded in a hypothetical Islamic nation? Will I be able to ignore the church, drink alcohol, have sex when I am horny, will my wife be able to compete with YOU on a level intellectual playing field, all these questions need to be answered by YOU muslim people.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok, I am going to do the same thing you did, selectively respond to what was said by means of certain quotes.

I am also going to ignore anything relevant you said in order to win a point.

I didn't ignore anything in your post. I literally quoted each part of it. But since you asked a bunch of questions, I decided to answer each one individually to avoid any confusion. Make sense now?

When a shark starts to come into the waters that are frequented by swimmers, people are warned to stop swimming. The reason is that we believe that the shark has the right to swim in the water as much as we do. This is correct, although some would just kill the shark and have done with the problem.

I'm talking about people, not sharks. Not sure what this has to do with anything I said.

Saying that Wahhabism by itself is harmless is like saying a scorpion, by itself, is harmless. Of course it is harmless by itself.

So you agree with me?

The fact is that the Saudi Arabian royal family is harmless in the same way a scorpion is, as long as they have no influence, they harm no one.

Now then, what influence does the SA royal family have in the modern world? Is it harmless?

Which members? Because as I said in my initial post in this thread, there are an estimated 15,000 of them. And like I said in my last post, I think it's better to investigate the individuals who are involved in a crime.

And "is it harmless"? Once again, which members? You're the one who's being narrow minded by painting them all with the same brush. After all, are you including Saudi royals like Princess Ameera in your stereotyping? She's a huge women's rights activist, by the way.

I agree that you are being modern in your statement that EVERYBODY should be treated according to non profiling, non discriminatory ways.

Thanks.

You are a muslim, correct? How long will you offer me the same protections, once your faith is the faith of choice in my country?

Correct, I am a Muslim. And I'm not sure what you mean. The US Constitution has the 1st Amendment, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion for all citizens. And it also has the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal rights and protections for all citizens. And one of my favorite Surahs/Revelations in the Qur'an literally commands us to tell non-Muslims "unto you your religion and unto me mine." (Surah 109, Pickthall translation - here's the entire Surah.)

So what exactly are you asking? If Islam somehow became the majority religion in America, it still wouldn't change the protections guaranteed in the Constitution.

This isn't a racist statement, it is a question. Will I be afforded the same graces muslims are now afforded in a hypothetical Islamic nation?

Which Islamic country? Westernized Turkey or the decadent UAE? Muslim majority countries are diverse, just like Christian majority countries. Some places in America still don't like us building mosques, don't want us to have Halal foods, don't want female Muslims to be able to wear the scarves and head accessories they want, etc. And some Muslim majority countries are secular, meaning they literally place the laws of politicians above the laws of Islam. In spite of the stereotypes, there is no single model of Muslim majority countries to go by. So which country are you referring to?

Will I be able to ignore the church, drink alcohol, have sex when I am horny,

LOL Why are you asking me that? Why don't you ask the actual Christians from Iraq and Syria who are allowed to build churches and live their lives like normal people. And btw, I don't want to know about your sex life. Edit to add: And there are still "dry" counties in America right now. And that's because of Christianity-based laws, not Islamic ones. So what's your point there?

will my wife be able to compete with YOU on a level intellectual playing field,

How would I know, I've never met or interacted with her. But you should probably know that roughly 60% of the lawyers in Algeria are Muslim women. And the 3 most populous Muslim majority countries have all selected female Heads of State. And there have been at least 9 female Heads of State in Muslim majority countries just since the 1990s (9 Female Muslim Heads Of State Who Broke Boundaries). Once again, there's a difference between stereotypes and facts.

all these questions need to be answered by YOU muslim people.

Yawn...

When I first heard about this I was not aware that it was the President then, which after reviewing this, before giving it to the congress and the public, redacted 28 pages.
Before we jump to conclusions and speculations, I would urge people to read the pages, if and when they are released. Then give it thought and look to see what evidence is given on the part of the investigators, and if the conclusion is that there were those in Saudi Arabia were implicated, if not the royal family, and who knew what or is it speculation about such. If the evidence is conclusive, then before lawsuits can be brought up there are a few things to remember and consider.

The first point of law, that is a federal law, signed into law in 1976, would be the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In this act, it acts as both a shield for foreign countries and leaders, and at the same time sets up a very specific procedure as to how could be done in the United States of America. This was backed up by the US court case (1812) The Schooner Exchange V. McFadden. In that case, the court held that a private party could not sue the government of France. It was also in that case the court determined that a private individual could not sue a foreign sovereign at all. As a result of that ruling, US courts routinely refuses to hear cases against foreign governments, as the US State department would, in such cases file immunity paperwork thus ending court cases.

The FSIA had three broad objectives: (1) to transfer responsibility for immunity determinations from the Department of State to the judiciary; (2) to define and codify the “restrictive” theory of immunity; and (3) to provide a comprehensive, uniform regime for litigation against foreign states and governmental agencies.
Now it should be of interest that FISA was invoked in 2008, by Saudi Arabia to preclude a lawsuit filled by the families and victims of 9/11.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You sir are a cherry picker and a liar. I will leave it up to those reading the thread to form their own opinions, but mine is made.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You sir are a cherry picker and a liar. I will leave it up to those reading the thread to form their own opinions, but mine is made.

That's funny because out of the 2 of us, I'm the one who actually presented facts. And once again, I responded to every part of your post. So how is that "cherry picking"? But I guess that any facts that don't match your preformed opinions are now considered "lies"?