The world’s greatest hypocrite can get away with its hypocrisy when the Obama administration is also full of hypocrisy:
Last week’s announcement that Saudi Arabia — easily one of the world’s most brutally repressive regimes — was chosen to head a U.N. Human Rights Council panel provoked indignation around the world. That reaction was triggered for obvious reasons. Not only has Saudi Arabia executed more than 100 people already this year, mostly by beheading (a rate of 1 execution every two days), and not only is it serially flogging dissidents, but it is reaching new levels of tyrannical depravity as it is about to behead and then crucify the 21-year-old son of a prominent regime critic, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted at the age of 17 of engaging in demonstrations against the government.
Most of the world may be horrified at the selection of Saudi Arabia to head a key U.N. human rights panel, but the U.S. State Department most certainly is not. Quite the contrary: its officials seem quite pleased about the news. At a State Department briefing yesterday afternoon, Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner was questioned by the invaluable Matt Lee of AP, and this is the exchange that resulted:
QUESTION: Change topic? Saudi Arabia.
MR. TONER: Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Saudi Arabia was named to head the Human Rights Council, and today I think they announced they are about to behead a 21-year-old Shia activist named Muhammed al-Nimr. Are you aware of that?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware of the trial that you — or the verdict — death sentence.
QUESTION: Well, apparently, he was arrested when was 17 years old and kept in juvenile detention, then moved on. And now, he’s been scheduled to be executed.
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, we’ve talked about our concerns about some of the capital punishment cases in Saudi Arabia in our Human Rights Report, but I don’t have any more to add to it.
QUESTION: So you —
QUESTION: Well, how about a reaction to them heading the council?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t have any comment, don’t have any reaction to it. I mean, frankly, it’s — we would welcome it. We’re close allies. If we —
QUESTION: Do you think that they’re an appropriate choice given — I mean, how many pages is — does Saudi Arabia get in the Human Rights Report annually?
MR. TONER: I can’t give that off the top of my head, Matt.
QUESTION: I can’t either, but let’s just say that there’s a lot to write about Saudi Arabia and human rights in that report. I’m just wondering if you — that it’s appropriate for them to have a leadership position.
MR. TONER: We have a strong dialogue, obviously a partnership with Saudi Arabia that spans, obviously, many issues. We talk about human rights concerns with them. As to this leadership role, we hope that it’s an occasion for them to look at human rights around the world but also within their own borders.
QUESTION: But you said that you welcome them in this position. Is it based on [an] improved record? I mean, can you show or point to anything where there is a sort of stark improvement in their human rights record?
MR. TONER: I mean, we have an ongoing discussion with them about all these human rights issues, like we do with every country. We make our concerns clear when we do have concerns, but that dialogue continues. But I don’t have anything to point to in terms of progress.
QUESTION: Would you welcome as a — would you welcome a decision to commute the sentence of this young man?
MR. TONER: Again, I’m not aware of the case, so it’s hard for me to comment on it other than that we believe that any kind of verdict like that should come at the end of a legal process that is just and in accordance with international legal standards.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
That’s about as clear as it gets. The U.S. government “welcomes” the appointment of Saudi Arabia to a leadership position on this Human Rights panel because it’s a “close ally.” As I documented two weeks ago courtesy of an equally candid admission from an anonymous “senior U.S. official”: “The U.S. loves human-rights-abusing regimes and always has, provided they ‘cooperate.’ … The only time the U.S. government pretends to care in the slightest about human rights abuses is when they’re carried out by ‘countries that don’t cooperate.’”
It’s difficult to know whether Mark Toner is lying when he claims ignorance about the case of al-Nimr, the regime critic about to be beheaded and crucified for dissident activism, which he engaged in as a teen. Indeed, it’s hard to know which would be worse: active lying or actual ignorance, given that much of the world has been talking about this case. The government of France formally requested that the Saudis rescind the death penalty. Is it really possible that the deputy spokesperson of the U.S. State Department is ignorant of this controversy? Either way, the reluctance of the U.S. government to utter a peep about the grotesque abuses of its “close ally” is in itself grotesque… Keep reading and go to source (The Intercept)
Can we say Saudi Arabia is run with Sharia Law? Is this not counter to all Western countries law systems?
This is only possible because it is part of the universal plan that was enacted before your grandparents were born. They have come one step closer to the one world governance, one world religion, one world serfdom. All so you can work for the shadows behind the illusion. This can be called slavery if you understand its definition. Many are quite comfortable living in this illusion until the problem is in their living room. By then it will be entirely moot.
It is good to be able to see the problem in specific areas. The universal problem is not seeing how every area of the life you believe to be free is entirely based on indoctrination that has been inflicted on you since birth.
We are ruled by a tightly knit, incestuous group of psychopaths that honestly believe they are the pinnacle of evolution and it is their job to make sure we, the peasants remain subservient to them.
I frequently wonder if this business of creating this muslim insurgence is gonna bite them in the ass. I’m not seeing the forethought necessary to be able to deal with fanatical adherents in these numbers. I can’t see how the sharia rule of no bank interest works for them but then again there is nothing in Islam that doesn’t have a built in work around.
Yes you have touched upon an important point: Saudi Arabia did not even sign the Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UNDHR), asserting as it did, that freedom of religion is incompatible with Sharia law.
Saudi is though one of the founders of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) (Formerly the Organisation of the Islamic Conference), an organisation with permenant delegations to the UN and the EU, so diplomatic connections at the highest level, drafted a document Cairo summit in 1990, “The Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” which states that Islamic Sharia is the only reference point.
I see plenty of evidence though to indicate that the UN diplomats of non-Muslim countries (and many government officials/representatives of them) are typically totally ignorant of what sharia (through the Koran, hadiths and Sunnah) actually says.
In other words, when the signatory nations (57 world nations with Muslim majorities or significant Muslim minorities) make any mention of “Human Rights”, this is the definition (ie. Sharia) that they are committing themselves to. I always wondered how many of these countries can have laws that openly discriminate against non-Muslim religions and their non-Muslim populations without the UN putting on any reasonable pressure, and this is one major mechanism for that. Kind (deceptive) words, un-inquisitive minds and oil money patronage.
There are admittedly some differences in Sharia interpretation on one point or other, but in large part this is a smokescreen. By referring to the Koran, hadiths (sayings of Mohammed and his companions) and the Sunnah (life story of Mohammed), we can see many elements that contradict such things as ‘freedom of speech’, ‘freedom of religion/conscience’, ‘democracy’ and ‘equal rights’ (ie the foundations of the UNDHR).
If you are more interested, I would recommend that you read the Koran, hadiths, sunnah and several of the accepted commentaries “Reliance of the Traveller” for example. In conjunction, I would look into the websites that seem to attempt an objective analysis, between human rights values and koranic (mohammedan) values. Such as “counterjihadreport.com”, inquiryintoislam, “selfscholar.wordpress.com” and on Youtube “Stephen Coughlin: Red Pill Briefing” or “Political Islam”. Some of them pose the questions as to how
could a religion that people say is obviously peaceful, be so ‘misinterpreted’
so frequently, selfscholar is site with several academic theses on the subject.
You can then look at the original sources to analyse and challenge their
assertions. Check out the definition of “apostasy” and the US State
Department, Religious Freedom Report, on the web for Arab (Islamic) countries.
I’m not sure what you mean by one world serfdom, or ‘one world’ religion. Do you mean illuminati conspiracy theories. I think this is a mistake. The bigger the conspiracy is, the harder it is to keep hidden. I believe that, what instead has been done, is that this conspiracy is hidden in plain view. It is a political programme, disguised as a religion, which works through countries, individual and organisations to promote its supremacy and remove all challenges.
Saudistic Arabia has deep pockets. You know, all the money the USA and the western world pays for Saudistic oil. I think the Saudistics PAY the UN delegation from different countries to elect them to something like the UN HRC. They bribe their way as head of this commission to deflect world criticism away from how the Saudistic’s rule their country with strict Sharia law as followed by the Wahhabi’s cult of Islam.
It appears that Saudi Arabia has bought the entire world now. Saudi Arabia donated 20 million dollars to Harvard University to get Obama a degree there. It donated millions to the Clinton foundation (this foundation supports women’s rights), and is generally buying it’s way wherever it wants to go. Perhaps soon it will be permanent head of the UN. Some people have never asked themselves why Saudi Arabia would support a foundation that supports women’s rights when Saudi Arabia denies women all rights. They just don’t realize that Hillary Clinton sole STATE SECRETS to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was not DONATING to the foundation; it was BUYING state secrets. And Hillary is still on the loose.
Please, if you have one, let us know what is your source. Otherwise throwing around unfounded accusations doesn’t help anything.