Saudi Crown Prince: Saudis want "lives where our religion, our traditions translate into tolerance"

[sl8]

From http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/middleeast/saudi-arabia-prince-more-moderate-islam/index.html :

(CNN) As his country experiences the early pangs of a cultural and economic transformation, Saudi Arabia's crown prince vowed Tuesday to destroy "extremist ideologies" in a bid to return to "a more moderate Islam."

Speaking at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said the moves will put the kingdom in lockstep with many other nations as it seeks to transform its economy over the coming decades.

"We want to lead normal lives, lives where our religion and our traditions translate into tolerance, so that we coexist with the world and become part of the development of the world," he said.

It's a move sure to rile the ultraconservative clerics who have held sway in the kingdom, even if that sway appears to be waning. At the same time, the prince's declaration will be heralded by Saudi Arabia's increasingly youthful population and the outside world, on whom the kingdom will rely in its quest to overhaul its finances.
...

[dhol82]

1. Ill be amazed if he can control the Wahabbis

They have controlled the kingdom for the last 150 years. Don’t see them giving up that power willingly.

[marybourg]

2. With our complicity.

[stevenleser]

4. Perhaps. Outside of what we did in Iran in 1953 and Iraq in 2003, its hard to know

what is a good and bad decision in that part of the world.

That relationship with the Saudis probably saved our economy from having 20-30 years worth of stagnation.

Of course, it's possible things would have been fine had we stayed out completely. Although once we overthrew the Democratic government in Iran in 1953, things in the Middle East probably weren't going to be good after that.

[marybourg]

6. The fact that we benefitted from their oil

doesn't negate the fact that we were complicit in their oppression of women. It explains it, however.

[stevenleser]

7. Thats definitely the wrong word there. We were not complicit.

To say we were complicit would be to say we were taking an active part in assisting the Saudi Forces there with oppressing women, like we dropped the 82nd airborne into the country and the 82nd airborne troops were beating women there who weren't wearing veils on the street.

So, complicit, no.

Showing nearly a complete lack of caring that it was going on? Definitely.

[marybourg]

9. More than complete lack of caring;

tacit approval by engaging in acts of friendship such as selling arms, building their airbases, training their warriors, mutual state visits, etc. rather than the kind of sanctions we employ against other human-rights denying states.

[stevenleser]

12. All you have to do is look at Latin America in the 1970s to see your last clause as incorrect

But you can include Pakistan, many African countries to whom we have provided money and arms, many of whom have issues with LGBT AND Women, etc.

[stevenleser]

3. I've always believed that the ruling family would prefer things were more moderate

There is probably an uneasy truce between them and the extremist clerics. Seeing what happened in Iran, even though we are talking Sunni vs Shia, they probably didn't want to rock that boat.

[oberliner]

5. The oil must be running out

Things are going to get very interesting in the kingdom when it does.

[Wounded Bear]

11. They have been doing a lot of investment in nuclear and solar lately...

Gibbs' Rule 39: No such thing as a coincidence.

[Initech]

8. Extremist religion is the worst thing in the world.

Doesn't matter what religion it is. Extremists ruin the party for everyone.

[Purveyor]

10. Lol. Nt