Bradley on Bradley.

James, please send this to Taranto unless you are Taranto.

There are restrictions on what we can say (although fewer and fewer by the day). However, they are crystal clear. We know where we stand. At least there is no hypocrisy. Better this way than to be hoodwinked by the kind of insidious censorship — always the most dangerous kind — that is now so pervasive in the West.

- John R. Bradley, Arab News

Yep, you heard it, straight from Bradley's own keyboard.

"Freedom is slavery. Slavery is freedom."

To which any American is fully justified in responding, "Not in MY country it ain't."

Thanks for the link James, that was more amusing than the Taranto slam. I especially liked the part where he called our last election a coup d'etat (a military take over of a government) just because we followed our laws defined by our "Constitution". I know that last part must confuse him living in the Kingdom.

From Bradley on Bradley:

Friedman would do well to inform his readers of reforms proposed here by General Director of Prisons Lt. Gen. Ali Hussein Al-Harithi aimed at reducing the number of inmates serving their sentences in overcrowded jails.

It took him long enough to get to bashing Friedman; he had to give us his resume first so we all know what a cultured character he is. Sorry, old boy, but I see another pompous Brit with a Lawrence of Arabia complex. Of course, it's a known fact that working your way through too many Henry James' sentences may cause insanity. His novels should come with warning labels.

John R. Bradley was the author of that "Western Journalists attempt mental terrorism by means of asking stupid questions" column, in case anyone's forgotten.

I've lately started wondering if Arabnews isn't full of subversives that are purposefully attempting to make the Saudi view look foolish as well as linking to other viewpoints when possible...

How ironic it is that if English is one’s native language, the only way to keep oneself decently informed about what’s going on in the world today is to read the best English-language newspapers that appear outside the English-speaking world. A regular reader of Dawn in Pakistan, Arab News in Saudi Arabia, Al-Ahram Weekly in Egypt and the Times of India would merely giggle derisively if they stumbled upon a Friedman column, whatever that reader’s politics may be. This is because he will have been exposed to a variety of dissenting, principled and objective perspectives, and will probably have experienced first-hand the complex, intense reality so painfully absent in the columns of writers who have gotten blind drunk on the idea of being the defenders of “freedom of expression”.

Augh! I'm hyperventilating!

I noticed that Bradley mentions a Daily Fisk writer named Matthew Sweet (not the guy who recorded 100% Fun, I presume), who wrote a book so awful that it convinced him freedom of expression had ceased to exist in the decadent West.

Or something.

Anyway, the Arab News is presently featuring an interview with Peter Ustinov, in which the washed-up British gasbag defends suicide bombing and says the KGB was more ethical than the CIA. Who performed the interview? One "Matthew Sweet".

More proof of Blair's Law: all the world's idiocies are combining into a giant useless force.

Thanks for the link, James.

I am constantly amazed that people have so little dignity, or are so thoroughtly thoughtless, that they would spill so much of their personal psychology in public.

What a waste of an education.

Just to clarify one point: I am indeed the author of the Lonely Planet Guide to Saudi Arabia. I submitted the whole chapter last March and proofs are arriving this week. I have received full payment from Lonely Planet. The chapter will appear next January in the Middle East 4 guide. A simple phone call to LP's office will clairfy that matter.

Let us stick to the facts.

As for me myself being "nonexistent". Well, not only have I duped Arab News and the Lonely Planet; I also duped The Associated Press! See for example:

[Link: story.news.yahoo.com...]

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Mr. Bradley:

How does it feel to be head media whore for the world's most repressive theocracy?

Dear Mr. Bradley:

Please forgive me for doubting your existence. But since the Arab News has published articles by Holocaust denier Michael Collins Piper, Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, and even a person using the name “Thomas Jefferson,” perhaps you can understand why I might be a little suspicious.

To avoid this sort of confusion in the future, may I suggest that you refresh your memory of Strunk & White’s style guide, or at least write in English a bit more, because your attack on James Taranto was laughably inept. In fact, it was so incredibly bad I would have bet a billion dollars it was written in Arabic and translated to English.

But thank you for clearing up the matter. Your IP address shows that you are indeed posting your comment from somewhere in the Saudi entity. I won’t doubt your existence any more.

Just your sanity.

Dearest Mr. Bradley:

I liked you better 24-hours ago, when I believed you were a fictional person. To know that you're a living, breathing propaganda penny whistle -- that's frightening.

I wonder if Bradley has public beheadings listed under "Entertainment" in the Lonely Planet guide? When it comes out, I'll really have to head on over to the local Barnes & Noble for a good laugh. Of course, I won't actually waste a dime buying the thing. I'm sure a tourist guide to Saudi Arabia written by a British bootlicker will be even more amusing than the Saudi's failed PR campaign.

John R. Bradley graces us with this admonition:

Let us stick to the facts.

Pot, kettle left a message...

Could it be that Mr. Bradley is also collecting a check from MI5 as well as the Saudi Royal family?

Just a thought, b/c I'm pretty sure no rational westerner would ever choose to live in a repressive oligarchy that would rather see schoolgirls burned alive than be caught without an abaya.

Hope this doesn't blow your cover, old chap.

Through my sources at MAD Magazine, I was able to get the working titles for other "forthcoming" works from Bradley:

(1) "Lonely Planet Guide to the World's Greatest Hot-Spots: Saudi controlled Arabia and Hell"

(2) In the vain of Barabara Bush's book, written in the third person perspective of her dog: "Bradley's Nose's Guide to the Crack of his Arab Master's Ass"

(3) "John R. Bradley's, The lighter side of Aushwitz";

(4) "English Grammar and other Insignificant Details"

(5) and of course part II of that series: "Facts and Other Insignificant Details"

(6) A pamphlet: "Great Arab Military Victories of the 20th Century."

(7) "White Flag of Courage" (a remake of the Civil War classic: Red Badge of Courage based upon the Iraqi army)

My souces also tell me that he has received a billion dollar advance to write these, thus his ability to cover his bet with James Taranto.

(this post is intended as parody and any similarity to actual titles forthcoming from John. R. Bradley are purely conincidental, yet not unsurprisingly so).

Dear Mr. Bradley:

Does the name Lord Haw-Haw ring a bell, you pathetic twit?

At least the apologists for Stalin and the Soviet Union (Lillian Hellman, etc.) probably were motivated by a misguided but genuine desire to improve the world. The Soviet model seemed to them to be something that would work elsewhere. Bradley can't possibly think the Saudi model works for anyone except the parasitic thieves in the royal family. He's doing it for the money.

Bradley:
Are your gay-killing bosses aware that you once wrote a book titled: "Henry James and Homo-Erotic Desire" (St Martins). Keep an eye on your body parts you self-indulgent animal.

Perhaps the respondent claiming to be Mr. Bradley will turn out to be an imposter, and there will come an announcement plagiarizing Mark Twain:

"Reports of my existence are greatly exaggerated."

Could it be that Mr. Bradley is also collecting a check from MI5 as well as the Saudi Royal family?

Not MI5. The Mossad.

Can you think of a better way to discredit the Saudi royal family? Turn their English-language daily paper into an antisemitic rag that publishes the dregs of the English-speaking world. How else to explain Arab News publishing David Duke and Michael Collins Piper, let alone Pilger?

Don't forget stories like the one about the North Carolina imam berating Muslims in America for not sacrificing like the Palestinians. Can you imagine a better way to discredit Saudi-funded imams than make it look like their goal is to stir up violence in America?

It's an incredibly clever operation, clearly worthy of the Mossad. Heck, the CIA would love to pull off something so subtle and effective. I just hope the Saudis don't figure it out.

Every Lonely Planet Guide I've ever seen has had headings on "nightlife" and information for "Gay and Lesbian Travelers". I wonder how those must read for Saudi Arabia:

"Gay travelers should be aware that, due to strict Saudi customs rules, they might not be allowed to take their private parts with them when they leave the country."

Particularly interesting will be the chapters on "What to See":

"The main sites of cultural and historic interest in Saudi Arabia are the ancient cities of Mecca and Medina. However, since these cities are strictly off-limits to infidels, non-Muslim travelers who prefer to avoid beheading or other similar unpleasantness should consider staying in their hotel in Riyadh, drinking orange juice."

And does the chapter on "Hassles and Annoyances" include "beheading, having your hands chopped off, getting publicly flogged, no driving while female and having to wear a full length burka if you're a woman" ?

Hey, all you guys hinting that Mr. Bradley might be a British, American or Israeli agent, cut it out right now.

How can someone criticize Thomas Friedman for not ever having been to the saudi entity? I know there are valid criticisms of him, but wasn't he there a few months or so ago? Where did he get the "saudi entity peace plan"? I thought it was out of some Trust-Fund-Thug Prince's desk drawyer.

Damian Penny helpfully has provided the email address of the evil wanker, John Bradley: Bradley@arabnews.com. He suggests people drop Mr Bradley a line and tell him Damian sent them. I'm sure as soon as Mr. Bradley extricates his lips from King Fahd's ass he will be able to read all the emails.

Thanks very much for all that insightful commentary!

I find it truly baffling that people can be so naive as to believe all the cliches about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And in the name of God does everyone who is not totally pro-West really have to be working as an agent for someone or other? I thought THIS part of the world was supposed to be ruled by conspiracy theories!

I've never expressed support for any ruling regime in the Gulf in any article I've ever published. Nor have I expressed my opposition.

My main goal as a journalist is to show that most people who write about Saudi Arabia negatively are completely ignorant of what goes on here.

I happen to like the life here. Indeed, I'm off to Sauth East Asia shortly to try to convince my fiancee that she should move out here with me.

If that makes me insane, then so be it . . .

In any case, how about of CONSTRUCTIVE debate? Or is that beyond you all?

And how about some balance? For instance I wrote the following:

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

And the following:

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

Some lackey I turned out to be!

John R. Bradley
News Editor, Arab News
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

In any case, how about of CONSTRUCTIVE debate?

An individual who post a shrill ad-hominem laced screed is in a poor position to demand a constructive debate. And indeed, one must wonder of the value an editor of a newspaper that publishes writings from neo-Nazis and other like extremists to any debate.

Now why on earth wouldn't his fiancee want to move to a place where she can be covered from head to toe, stuck in the house because she can't drive, and be thrown in jail if she tries to have a drink? I also hope she isn't planning on attending midnight mass on Christmas.

Bradley:

Come on: why did you omit your book, titled "Henry James and Homo-Erotic Desire" (St Martins) from your resume?

Why does your Deputy Editor write aesopic commentary in Jordan Times?

Do you identify with the type of self-hater that Paul Hollanders named in his study - "Political Pilgrims" - of those who promoted cartoonish conceptions of the Soviet Union?

Look: you are brain dead if you think that your agenda is objectivity. Your literary studies were a failure. Your journalism is pure "string and hack." Paid liars like you are nothing but whores in search of a pimp. And your sugar daddy is: the House of Saud.

Wow, that Bradley is a brave and crusading journalist. He criticized some private company and made some general observations about poor conditions for foreign workers. Great. One could have gotten away with this type of minor criticism in the old Soviet Union. How about an article suggesting that freedom of the press and religion and the rule of law might be a good idea? How about an article critical of something Fahd did? I don't think so.

"I find it truly baffling that people can be so naive as to believe all the cliches about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

What I find baffling is that an idiot such as yourself considers himself a journalist.

And reporting for The Associated Press does not add to your credibility.

Sorry - try again.

Bradley writes:

"I find it truly baffling that people can be so naive as to believe all the cliches about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

Yes, it's soooo baffling that folks conclude that Saudi society is viciously anti-Semitic, oppresses women and non-Arab minorities, and generally holds civilized mores in contempt. Where do these naive Yanks get such ideas? Well, John, from reading the Arab News, for starters.

I think Bradley has a point. Taranto does pile it on day after day. Anything foolish or criminal done by a Muslim in Afghanistan or Zimbabwe is paraded and held up for ridicule and scored against all Muslims, as it were. What I find objectionable is that there is no balance in Taranto's observations. How would the content of his website be different if it were called The Worst of Islam?

As a Muslim who was raised in Pakistan, I have long admired Western institutions and always attended schools run by Christian missionaries. Muslims everywhere can learn and benefit from Western notions of justice and freedom and even-handedness.

But these days it seems representatives of the the enlightened race cannot disagree with a contrary opinion without resorting to vituperative and spiteful attacks.

Maybe I'm one of those who should have read the warning labels on Henry James novels - because Mr. Bradley and I were once members of a mailing list on the Anglo-American novelist.

Mr. Bradley called me a "fascist" in a dispute over, of all things, the alleged gay subtext of one of Henry James' short novels. He thought the gay subtext existed; I was very doubtful. Mr. Bradley's style tends to ad hominem invective, so the silly attack on James Taranto came as no surprise to me.

I have to wonder if Mr. Bradley's book, Henry James and Homo-Erotic Desire, is a big hit in the desert kingdom. Somehow I don't see the imans enjoying a cozy reading of that volume.

I wonder if Bradley mentioned the fiancee because he was getting a little nervous that his Saudi paymasters might find out about the Henry James/homoeroticism article. Not that there's anything wrong with Henry James/homoeroticism articles....

Bradley, you're a traitor to humanity, a whore, a mercenary, a liar, a suckbutt lapdog to a filthy corrupt decadent inbred collection of soon to be unemployed thugs and goons. Bank your thirty pieces of silver and keep a bag packed, you Quisling.

Other than that. I have absolutely no problems with you. Have a nice life, you useless prick.

"Bank your thirty pieces of silver and keep a bag packed, you Quisling."

Calling that man a Quisling is an insult to Quislings everwhere.

With all due respect, Mr. Bradley, all we have to do is read what the Arabic world is saying in its own words, in places like MEMRI.org and sites like Arab News and Al-Ahram, to confirm that all of those cliches about Saudi Arabia, as you would call them, are facts.

Saudi Arabia is the source of the most extreme version of Islam, Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia funds schools that teach hatred of Jews, America and the rest of the western world. Saudi Arabian oil money funds terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is a cruel, repressive dictatorship, where the slightest infractions are punished mercilessly. Saudi Arabia subjugates women, and supports its citizens when they kidnap their own children and drag them back to Saudi Arabia in violation of custody agreements. Saudi Arabia is without a doubt one of the world's worst violators of human rights. Saudi Arabia is a disgrace.

And anyone who would be an apologist for them and offer up articles by David Duke, Lyndon LaRouche, et. al., on their official web site, is a hack. That would be you, Mr. Bradley.

JB:

I don't think you're insane to ask your betrothed to join you. I think she's insane if she says yes.

I notice neither of your clips covered the fire where schoolgirls were incinerated rather than risk an infraction from the religious police.

Please tell me how this story helps dispel all those nasty myths about Saudi Arabia.

Constructively yours....

More nasty myths published in tomorrow's Observer, I believe by some of Mr. Bradley's former comrades -- not James Taranto. I wish I knew how to post it, but the head and subhead are:

Expat Brits Live in Fear as Saudis Turn on the West -- Saudi Arabia's community of foreigners is trapped between bombings by Islamic terrorists, police torture and palace feuding

Read the article. It isn't a place you would ask a future spouse to visit, let alone live.

"I wonder if Bradley mentioned the fiancee because he was getting a little nervous that his Saudi paymasters might find out about the Henry James/homoeroticism article."

I don't want Mr. Bradley to get into trouble with his employers over his previous writings on Henry James. I don't see how he could have concealed them, anyway. His books have always been on public sale at amazon.com and other sites, and you can find them by merely searching on Mr. Bradley's name.

I'll admit that I didn't like being called ugly names, even on a little-known mailing list. I shrugged off Mr. Bradley's personal attacks with some humor, wondering if Mussolini wrote about that short novel which brought the "fascist" accusation.

I've never met Mr. Bradley and bear him no ill will. Some of the content on Arab News disturbs me, but the site has the right to publish what it wants. I'm certainly not interested in causing Mr. Bradley problems with his employment.

Melissa: URL Needed, quickly!

re: #25 - OK -wine out the nose - gotta clean the screen, keyboard....happy? LOL

Well, Casey, that's quite decent of you considering the man called you a fascist. Perhaps now that Bradley is living in SA and working for a paper which publishes articles by David Duke, he has a better understanding of just what fascism is. Although it doesn't appear to be sinking in.

"cliches about saudi arabia." the man *ACTUALLY* busted on me for believing the "cliches about saudi arabia."

king, the highest ranking female in the USAF spent 7 or 8 years in contentious litigation trying to get shed of some of those cliches.

spectacular. those portly goateed kickback artists are cliche victims. hoo ha!

Back in the Bad Old Days, many Pravda and Izvestia writers used to point to occasional pieces they wrote that were critical of the then-regime, as a way of trying to establish their bona fides, Mr. Bradley.

Didn't work then; won't work now.

It's interesting to see various exposes of Saudi support for terrorism -- including bounty payments to suicide bombers' families, earmarked as such . . . but I don't expect to see such under Mr. Bradley's headline, nor an investigation of the Saudi religious brownshirts having chased Saudi girls back into the burning school, nor of the state-supported kidnapping (and, in some cases, rape) of the children of US citizens who were foolish enough to marry Saudi men.

Never mind, Melissa, I got it.

And blogged it.

[Link: www.yourish.com...]

fgaines:
Geez, wine out the nose today, weren't you choking on vodka or coffee or some damn thing the other day? Some advice: put the glass aside and make sure the booze is down your throat before you start reading LGF posts. Also, keep a bucket handy so you can barf when you come across the idiotarians without doing further damage to your computer. I'm becoming concerned that one of these days you're going to buy the farm while reading LGF and we don't want any casualities among the regulars:)

mobashir salahuddin (#35)

"What I find objectionable is that there is no balance in Taranto's observations."

That is how I feel about the way Israel and the Jews are represented by the media.

"How would the content of his website be different if it were called The Worst of Islam?"

Dude, have you read the articles on Arab News? Talk about piling it on...

I'm so tired of the hypocrisy.

Bradley is a whore, plain and simple. Like most whores I bet deep down he doesn't really enjoy it. So he has my pity rather than contempt.

Bradley dixit:

I've never expressed support for any ruling regime in the Gulf in any article I've ever published. Nor have I expressed my opposition.

You have consistently shown contempt for the West.

How come then that your despicable gibberish always points at the same culprit? Westerners. It looks as if you weren't one of them. Indeed, you use the word as if there was something wrong or dirty in the fact of living this side of Mecca.

Are you a decent man Mr. Bradly?

I would give mr Bradley the benefit of doubt. Maybe our view of Saudi Arabia is actually too biased. Thus, he, mr Bradley, can dispell all these misunderstandings using his newspaper to help with the following campaign: Prove that Saudi Arabia is tolerant in matters of religion and back the building of a church, a synagogue and a Buddhist temple in Mecca -- after all, there is a mosque in Rome, right?. Second campaign: open Mecca and Medinah to all visitors, irrespective of nationality, race and religion.

FYI, Bradley's e-mail address is
bradley@arabnews.com

Mr. Bradley,

Couldn't resist your invitation to constructive debate. Agree it hasn't looked like that so far. Could we start with some questions, and see if that gets us to a better place? Good questions will get us a lot farther than invective, and give you a chance to present your views.

(1) Let's start with this one: what do you see as the core mission of the Arab News?

(2) How does that mission relate to your paper's envisioned style of coverage of the following issues:

A. Political liberalization in Saudi Arabia beyond better treatment of non-Saudis
B. The Arab-Israeli conflict
C. Coverage of political Islam in other areas of the Arab world

(3) You said some interesting things in "Why ‘freedom of expression’ is such a slippery term". For instance:

"These readers were to be pampered, not challenged; dissension was gradually replaced by conformity. As with British and American politics, every mainstream newspaper editor on both sides of the Atlantic sprinted toward the middle ground. The result was a colossal lowering of standards, a wholesale abandoning of principles."

Please explain the ways in which the Arab News challenges, rather than pampers, the conformist majority views of Saudi culture. So far, I can't say I've seen much of that.

(4) Indeed, catering to racist prejudices via articles by David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche (presented as mainstream American opinion, no less!) certainly strikes me as conformity and pandering to the basest human impulses. Do you view those articles in a different light? If so, how do you view them and what was the thought process behind running them?

(5) In your "freedom of expression' article, you also wrote this about the media's post 9/11 reaction: "There has been absolutely no cultural sensitivity. There has been absolutely no respect for Islamic law. There has been absolutely no sympathy for the necessity in this part of the world of employing the honorable tradition of patient diplomacy."

A. What kind of cultural sensitivity did you want them to show? Can you give us an example of an incident or two that was particularly lacking in this regard?

B. What kind if respect do American and British newspapers owe to Islamic law (or Catholic canon law, or any other aside from their host countries')? What would you have accepted as evidence of "respect for Islamic law"?

C. Why is patient diplomacy a necessity in this region? What would "sympathy for this necessity" from the media look like? For that matter, what do you believe the USA should have done post 9/11?

That's certainly enough for now. I look forward to your reply - we can address these all at once, or piece by piece. Up to you.

It will be amusing when his Lonely Planet guide comes out a few months after King Fahd dies, the house of Saud falls, and an Islamofascist group takes over part of the country while other parts fall to warlords of varying degrees of faith and apostasy. (And Osama will have finally got his wish-- a homeland that reminds him of Afghanistan.)

Of course, it will probably only be hypothetically amusing to a western lackey of the regime at that point, since his survival to that point under such a scenario is unlikely.

As in so many things in life, the best advice comes from The Godfather movies. In this case, the upcoming revolution in Saudi Arabia is likely to put them in the forefront of our enemies, or as Vito put it, "Saddam's a pimp. But it wasn't until this day that I knew it was Saudi Arabia all along." The good thing about that is that overthrowing the Sauds will free the Bushies from their fealty to the kingdom, and we can finally treat Saudi Arabia as the enemy it's treated us as all along.

Mr. Bradley, in the past several years Palestinian militants have made several attacks on Israelis where many civilians were killed or injured and where the attack had no military or strategic value other than to "terrorize" the civilian population of Israel. Please explain the lack of condemnation for these attacks from Arab news sources, such as Arab News. Also, at first glance it appears that there is excessive criticism of Israeli attacks against Palestinian military targets by Arab News, including those where no innocent civilians are killed. For example, at ArabNews.com under the "World" section I see no stories about the recent killing of 4 Israelis by Palestinians (nor could I find one in the archives) though I do see a story with the headline "Israeli troops destroy Gaza factories". This appears to be an extreme anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian bias, perhaps it is something else? I would appreciate an explanation.

I have a few additional questions.

What is the official policy of Arab News with regard to the existence of the state of Israel? Does Arab News acknowledge the right of an Israeli state to exist in the region?

Arab News has on several occasions used the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist", please provide the official guidelines, if they exist, with which you apply these terms to individuals and actions. As an example, Arab News has called Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a "terrorist" more than once; it would be useful to gain some insight into the process that Arab News uses to apply these labels.

Arab News has leveled charges of "racism" against Israel on multiple occasions. However, it is well known that "Infidels" in Saudi Arabia are forbidden from visiting "holy sites" in Mecca and Medina. This would appear to be a display of racism and/or religious bigotry by the Saudi government. What is your opinion, and/or the opinion of Arab News, on this policy?

What is your opinion, and/or the opinion of Arab News, on the possibility of a democratic government of Saudi Arabia? Do you believe that Saudi Arabia should or ever will have a democratic government?

Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and in some cases punishable by death. What is your opinion, and/or the opinion of Arab News, on this policy?

Thank you for your participation in this constructive debate.

As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in Saudi, I think I can say with some confidence that it is as bad as people think it is, perhaps even worse.

It all comes down to respect. I can respect a culture and its traditions, but that respect must be reciprocated by the host country. We bend over backwards in an attempt to please our hosts in various parts of the world, and much of the time it works because our hosts in turn respect their guests. They know we are outsiders, unfamiliar with their traditions and cultural mores, but they do tend to appreciate our giving an attempt at following their rules and customs. The respect thing is a two way street.

In Saudi, however, the respect we accord them is not reciprocated in any fashion. We are treated like their servants, not as their guests. We respect their customs not because we want to, but because we must. The respect flows in one direction and is not returned. They are intolerable hosts and an aberration among the world's peoples.

Hey, Sarge (PBR... Paul), welcome to LGF. I too have spent plenty of time in "Saudi" Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Kuwait. SA is easily the most repressive and intolerant part of the Arabian peninsula. There is no respect whatsoever there for non-Muslims and non-Arabs. Blacks in Jim Crow America had it better than non-Arabs in the "Kingdom." What galls is that we are there by invitation, because the House of Saud is too corrupt and inept to provide for their own defense. They can muster a pretty collection of playboys to wear cool shades and sit in F-15s, but the tough work of keeping those planes flying isn't sexy enough for them.

Well, once Saddam is worm chow, the Iranian mullahs are collecting welfare in France, and the Sauds are taking jobs as geeters for Las Vegas casinos, the need for the US presence in the Gulf can return to pre-1979 levels. And maybe, just maybe, the US and European technicians and managers that keep things running over there will be able to attend a church, or have a beer, or take a walk with their wives, or just live like normal human beings outside the western ghettos they're restricted to.

I was referred to this site by Casey Abell. As my notes on a gay subtext in James sparked the somewhat heated exchange between Abell and Bradley (though nowhere as heated as what we see on this site) may I add my tuppenceworth? (1) I was long an enemy of the Taliban, because of their barbaric repression, with the result that I followed with some satisfaction the first days of the US attack on Afghanistan. As the death toll of innocent civilians has mounted, I feel cheated and degraded by the US's action and by the whole mythology of the War on Terror. So I am unwilling to subscribe to any unreflective Islam-bashing, just as I did not like to subscribe to communist-bashing during the Cold War. (2) Repressive Islamic law is found in Nigeria and Pakistan as well as in Saudi Arabia -- but it does not necessarily represent the fundamental thrust of the law in those countries. (3) The Pilgrimage to Mecca is a great international concourse -- there is a Mecca Hilton -- and there is a degree of social and sexual freedom among the pilgrims that contrasts with ordinary life. (It is also of course a great religious event.) (4) Moreover, Saudi Arabia has a big population of immigrant laborers including professionals. They are there for the money no doubt and must bear with segregation and restrictions (I imagine). But the very fact that they are there at all suggests that the country in more international and more livable than the critics here suppose. (5) Most of the anti-Saudi comment on this site is based merely on a gut-level revenge-instinct about September 11. This is potentially as barbaric as the hatred that prompted the original atrocity -- indeed the death toll exacted by American revenge is probably already much higher than that of the September atrocity. (6) Cutting off hands of thieves and stoning gays and women taken in adultery is horrible. But much more horrible is the death of 500,000 kids in Iraq due to US led sanctions. Asked if this was a price the US was willing to pay for controlling Saddam, Madeleine Albright replied in the affirmative. Such heartlessness makes the rage of the Arab world very understandable.

O'Leary: Given the simple fact that all wars will have innocents accidentally killed, what your first point boils down to is: "I was for the War on Terror until I realized it was a war and the world is not perfect."

And your last point can be shown to be ludicrous from this website's own posts on the millions of dollars that Saddam Hussein is spending on paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Add to that the story that diabetes is high amidst Iraqi children - the type of diabetes caused by eating too much - and this whole myth of "zillions-dead-an'-it's-all-Merka's-fault" just goes to bits.

Hello J. S. O'Leary,

Point by point.

(1)"....I followed with some satisfaction the first days of the US attack on Afghanistan. As the death toll of innocent civilians has mounted, I feel cheated and degraded by the US's action...."

So morality is merely a function of the number of deaths, independent of cause or intent?

"....I am unwilling to subscribe to any unreflective Islam-bashing, just as I did not like to subscribe to communist-bashing during the Cold War."

What, then (if you couldn't bring yourself to condemn Soviet Communism) is your criteria for a thing that must be opposed?

(2) "Repressive Islamic law is found in Nigeria and Pakistan as well as in Saudi Arabia -- but it does not necessarily represent the fundamental thrust of the law in those countries."

So? Nigeria and Pakistan, at least, have the benefit of historical experience with British common law. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pure theocracy. What's your point?

(3) "The Pilgrimage to Mecca is a great international concourse -- there is a Mecca Hilton -- and there is a degree of social and sexual freedom among the pilgrims that contrasts with ordinary life."

I'd love to see sources for this.

(4) "Moreover, Saudi Arabia has a big population of immigrant laborers including professionals. They are there for the money no doubt and must bear with segregation and restrictions (I imagine). But the very fact that they are there at all suggests that the country in more international and more livable than the critics here suppose."

I think you seriously underestimate what people will endure for steady wages. People work in terrifying sweatshops and treacherous mines, too -- that doesn't mean those places are somehow more benign than is commonly reported. Professional work in Saudi Arabia is traditionally extremely well-compensated. It has to be, to make up for the bleak and racist atmosphere of the place. I refer you to the article on Brit expat life in SA here:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

(5) "Most of the anti-Saudi comment on this site is based merely on a gut-level revenge-instinct about September 11."

So? This is my first posting on LGF; I've seen some moronic comments here (like in that regrettable thread about the assassination of the Hamas leader in Gaza), but this thread here has mostly had substantive comment that, if you disagree with it, merits response.

"This is potentially as barbaric as the hatred that prompted the original atrocity...."

Key word here is "potentially," inasmuch as we show no signs of spawning a death-cult, suicide bombings, or a concept of jihad. Come now.

"....indeed the death toll exacted by American revenge is probably already much higher than that of the September atrocity."

Ah, "revenge." Such a loaded word, don't you think? Again, I have to ask whether your morality is predicated on simple numbers of dead. Would you be happy if we stopped once we killed c.3,000 of the enemy, civilian and combatant alike? Seems a little facile, doesn't it?

I'll assume you're merely indignant about civilian deaths, so I'll point out -- no one really knows how many civilians have died in this war. It's telling, though, that the likes of the New York Times and various aid agencies can pretty much visit each and every family affected and try to arrive at a tally. I might also point out that your apparent standard of civilian immunity to the ravages of war would have prevented the fighting of our Civil War and World War II. Perhaps you should examine whether your standard is a reasonable one.

"Cutting off hands of thieves and stoning gays and women taken in adultery is horrible. But much more horrible is the death of 500,000 kids in Iraq due to US led sanctions."

Ah, that old saw. I'm guessing you read the Nation from time to time....go look up the article they published a while back on this very subject. The bottom line is that the Iraqi sanctions need not kill anyone, but for the Iraqi regime's diversion of funds to military purposes. It's a zero-sum game -- arms or food -- and they choose arms, leaving their people to suffer and die. Meanwhile their "useful idiots" (if you'll pardon the phrase) in the West are shocked -- shocked! -- at the suffering sanctions wreak.

How much more horrible is the death of 500,000 kids in Iraq? Oh, I'd say it's just as horrible as cutting off hands of thieves and stoning gays and women taken in adultery -- and yet another example of Arab barbarity to Arabs. What it's not is an example of American injustice.

Hope this addresses your points.

Resp.,
Josh
i330.org

JSO'Leary,

You'd have much less to feel bad about if you disabused yourself of the numerous myths you've accepted as truth.

I'm not going to write at such length here when good references are available if you only look. The archives of this very site for instance will show that there are major flaws in every one of your numbered points. I will give some brief coverage of your errors.

1) Turned out the commies were just as bad or worse than most people in the West heard about during the height of the Cold War. The depth of Stalinist horror wasn't widely known until long after the man was dead along with his victims but we're still counting the cost to this day. If you're going to hold up the Communists as an example of misjudged people in a defense of Islamists you've already eliminated yourself as someone to be taken seriously.

The civillian deaths in Afghanistans are dwarfed by the depredations of the Taliban and the Soviets before them. (Those poor misjudged Commies again!) But notice that in between the Afghans were back at their centuries old favorite sport, which is killing other Afghans. Outside of Kabul, and often not even there, that hunk of land known as Afghanistan hasn't known anything resembling peace as a functional nation for most of recorded history.

Do I want to kill Afghan civillians? not especially. Do I get upset if some of them die in the process of detroying both one of the most appalling groups ever to control most of a sort-of nation and a group who places the death of myself and everyone I care about in the Top Ten on their 'Stupid Things I've Gotta Do In the Name of Allah' note pads?

Not at all. I don't buy into the multi-culti bull of all cultures being equal. I hold mine as being vast superior to the great majority that have existed on this planet and if a subset of one of those lesser cultures wishes to do away with us then it is at the peril of one and all in their vicinity.

We will at least try to spare the innocent. The same cannot be said for the opoosition.

2) So Sharia sucks everywhere. Your point being?

There is a world of difference between Saudi Arabia and the other nations you name. SA has enjoyed fantastic wealth from its oil for decades. It has had every opportunity to become a free and modern nation leading the region into the 20th Century, preferably before the 21st is half over. Instead it has chosen to be the world's worst combination of theocracy and spoiled brat in the form of its endless princes.

3)Again, your point being? Social and sexual freedom? On what do you base this that any non-Muslim can corroborate without endangering his life. This is a place that kept slaves and eunuchs into the 1960's. THere's social and sexual freedom for ya, bub.

4) I've known professionals who did time in SA. They weren't in prison but that is how they thought of it, doing time. The sole attraction was immense sums of money compared to what they could make at home. One told that they would have to increase his salary by an order of magnitude before he'd ever go back.

The unskilled foreigners are little more than substitutes for the slave the Saudis gave up in '62. That they are there is a measure of their desperation and not of Saudi appreciation for non-Saudis. It is also a measure of the gross failure of the Saudi rulers toward their own people. Nepotism and corruption has made the creation of a home-grown professional class a difficult task at best. In the late Seventies the Saudis purchased a fleet of jet fighters which would piloted by men who supposedly graduated from US and British universities. It turned out that many of these men were Princes who had more important things to do than study while in the West. As a result the company selling the aircraft had to rewrite the manuals for a fifth grade reading level. Not the signof a country where ability and achievement counts more than family connections.

5) No, I've regarded the people who rule Saudi Arabia as among the most loathsome humans drawing breath on the planet years and years before 9-11-01. I daresay a significant of the other regulars on LGF were equally cognizant of the facts long before that day, too. The difference in interest comes from their bringing their loathsome belief to our nation and killing a substantial number of our citizens to demonstate how they truly regarded us.

Plenty of American knew that the Germans and Japanese had become serious utter assholes before 12-7-41 but the that little incident in Hawaii kinda made it personal for just about everybody.

6) There is a vast difference between cruel and unusual punishment (to say the least) and self-inflicted wounds suffered by the loser of a war.

[Link: www.reason.com...]

I would refer you to the link above for a dose of reality. One point I feel Matt Welch doesn't emphasize enough in that article is that the Iraqis were given considerable discretion in how they spent their money in the first years of the post-Gulf War sanctions. It turned out that the Iraqi ruling class didn't especially care about whether the lower classes starved and concentrated on rebuilding their lifestyles and offensive capability rather than their nation. It was in reaction to this that the sanctions were altered so that only food and medical supplies could be purchased with a major portion of the money from oil sales. It was hoped that they'd rather give the food to the poor than just let it rot.

"Such heartlessness makes the rage of the Arab world very understandable."

No, it makes the hypocrisy of the Arab world plain to see. Islam from its very beginning was spread by the sword. Violent conquest and intense repression of non-Muslims in the aftermath of victories have always been among the chief characteristics of Islam's history. The Koran makes it very plain that when the opportunity arises non-Muslims are fair game. From my perspective as a secular American citizen the fundamentalist Islam is the equivalent of the kid who must be kept under a close eye allowed to have an object sharper than a spoon or crayon.

That was brief, right?

JSO'Leary 61

But much more horrible is the death of 500,000 kids in Iraq due to US led sanctions

You and your ilk are the same vermin who said back in PGW 1 that we should not go to war against Saddam. Rather we should use sanctions to get Saddam out of Kuwait.

Now after Saddam has used the sanctions as a pretext to kill his own people yet again as part of a propoganda campaign, you worms crawl out of your holes to say that the US is commiting genocide by applying sanctions against Iraq.

How can you people be so STUPID?

I'm gonna point by point this Islamoweenie's butt, too:

"I followed with some satisfaction the first days of the US attack on Afghanistan. As the death toll of innocent civilians has mounted, I feel cheated and degraded by the US's action and by the whole mythology of the War on Terror. So I am unwilling to subscribe to any unreflective Islam-bashing, just as I did not like to subscribe to communist-bashing during the Cold War."

The death toll did its mounting from zero to thousands within a couple of hours in New York City and Washington, jack. Its rate of increase leveled off markedly after that. Might be nice to keep that in mind.

I think we know now what the shape of Islamic rhetorical defense looks like: you point out something ghastly that the Islamofascists actually did, citing chapter and verse (so to speak) on the justification in their religion where they say it's not only right but a duty, and... YOU'RE an unreflective Islam basher.

You know, the way acknowledging Stalin's crimes was unreflective communist bashing. I don't think the defenders of Islamofascism are going to look any better than in retrospect than the blind friends of Uncle Joe do now.

"there is a degree of social and sexual freedom among the pilgrims that contrasts with ordinary life. (It is also of course a great religious event.)"

Gee, what a surprise that Arab horndogs go to town once they're out of view of the 18 wives, and the pilgrimage to Mecca is Saudi Arabia's version of Brazil's Carnival. What's your point, beyond unreflective bashing of Islamic sexual hypocrisy?

"But the very fact that [international workers] are there at all suggests that the country in more international and more livable than the critics here suppose."

We used to have a lot of arguments of this sort in this country. In the South. Before 1960. And for that matter, before 1860.

"Most of the anti-Saudi comment on this site is based merely on a gut-level revenge-instinct about September 11."

Well, at least you acknowledge that it's pointed in the right direction. But I'd challenge you to find five posts of any length that represent that sort of Toby Keith mentality. I would say that most of the anti-Saudi comment is based, at long last, on the recognition that the wealth of the Saudis has been put to spreading an evil religious doctrine that has poisoned much of the Islamic world, that is utterly antithetical to our values and the values of any decent people, and that could be left to rot in its own filth except for the fact that it has this nasty habit of killing Americans on a regular basis. It is based on the recognition, in short, that we have an enemy in this world who has declared himself to us in the most violent way possible.

"Cutting off hands of thieves and stoning gays and women taken in adultery is horrible. But much more horrible is the death of 500,000 kids in Iraq due to US led sanctions."

We agree on one thing. This is entirely true-- and a clear argument for strong and decisive military action over the supposedly more humane (but in fact far more cruel and deadly) "diplomatic" solution.

Eric P:

No, that was pithy.

It's pretty clear by combing through this thread that Mr. Bradley isn't interested in any debate, because his two posts can't be construed as anything remotely resembling constructive dialogue or even trying to establish what actually takes place in Saudi Arabia. Just note his responses to the many people willing to take him up on his offer (still zero). I'll be shocked, SHOCKED! if he ever posts here again.

Reading his exhortations about how wonderful it is to live and breathe in Saudi Arabia leaves me with the feeling of eating a grinder from Subway - little content, bland and leaving me hungry in the process, a Pilger Light, if you will.

Are these guys (Bradley, Pilger, Fisk, etc.) doing some sort of rotisserie baseball fantasy, where they each take turns in the starting rotation?

Mr. Bradley, you have just joined my personal ignore list.

(3) The Pilgrimage to Mecca is a great international concourse -- there is a Mecca Hilton -- and there is a degree of social and sexual freedom among the pilgrims that contrasts with ordinary life. (It is also of course a great religious event.)

Any way you slice it and pretty it up the fact remains that non-Muslims are barred from Mecca. That the pilgrims kick out the jams while they're doing the hajj doesn't alter this fact. Also, it's highly unknowable what they do seeing as none of us kafirs could possibly find out for ourselves.

"As my notes on a gay subtext in James sparked the somewhat heated exchange between Abell and Bradley..."

The heat was almost entirely on Mr. Bradley's side. He's the one who called me a fascist. In earlier exchanges on the list he had also attacked me personally in intemperate language more appropriate to alt.flame.idiotic. I'm mostly amused that a disupte about alleged gay subtext in Henry James' work can produce such ridiculous rhetoric. So Mr. Bradley's wild-eyed attack on James Taranto didn't surprise me.

But it made me laugh. And I also laugh at the idea that an apologist for the violently homophobic Saudi royal family would defend the alleged presence of gay subtext in a Henry James short novel.

The valid point Bradley tried to make, that OpinionJournal has become unbalanced and biased was drowned in the torrent of his despicable attack on James Taranto.

His rant revealed what he is and what he represents.

What he is, is another piece of filth from the same mould as Robert Fisk.

What he represents is, the irrelevance of the English and their inbred illusion of superiority.

Like Fisk, he is just another hack, self promoting himself through anti-American rhetoric.

Mr. Bradley,

I think it is particularly egregious of you to engage in a childish tirade of intellectual dishonesty far worse than that of which you
accuses Taranto.

That you would then pretend that no one sees through the propaganda agenda of John Pilger, he who is routinely shown to engage in
half-truths and outright falsehoods to promote his brand of discredited socialism, is particularly galling.

But thanks for clarifying that you are not the author of the non-existent "Lonely Planet Guide to Saudi Arabia." That you authored
a chapter on Saudi Arabia in another guide that has not yet appeared is worth noting in your next byline, don't you think?

It is an interesting idea that a publication with the word 'opinion' most prominent in its name could be accused of being unbalanced and biased. Opinion by definition is that way. Otherwise the name of the site would be 'Wishy-Washy Journal.'

Might as well accuse Taranto of having fingers. What's the prize from extracting such an admission?

Well, I had a lot to say, but it has been well said by others. Thanks for saving me the time and breath.

I will say again, however, that Mr. Bradley tells more about himself than he thinks. Those who cannot make it in a world that demands one to think for oneself often opt for society that merely requires that one parrot the party line. (Are you listening JSO'Leary? Your use of "communist-bashing" to somehow taint any criticism of Saudi Arabia or Islamism tells me that you've never come to grips with the truth about the inherent evils of communism - or any other form of totalitarianism, for that matter.)

Well, the tenor of debate seems higher today. To clarify my position on Afghanistan, I had hoped for an international intervention to put an end to the depradations of that juvenile regime, and like Cardinal Walter Kasper I had some hope that brief "surgical strikes" such as were promised might be effective and might be followed by a reconstruction of Afghan society. Invoking the analogy with WW II, as one poster here does, shows alas that the War Against Terror does not have any such humanistic intentions -- there is not even an apology for appalling massacres of civilians -- and it seems doubtful whether there is any real interest in helping the Afghan people recover peace and security. Of course a disproportionate civilian death toll is an important factor in Just War theory. I am astonished at the callous disregard for human life underlying many of the responses here.

On a minor point, someone said: "it's highly unknowable what they do seeing as none of us kafirs could possibly find out for ourselves. " One can find out a lot about the hajj if one is interested, by consulting newspaper reports, scholarly studies, films, or by speaking with hajis, who can be met in any part of the Islamic world.

Of course I agree that Saudi Arabia is a repressive society. But I would take the criticisms of that society more seriously if those who offer them were also vocal about human rights suspensions in the War Against Terror, about the brutal regime of capital punishment in the USA or about Britain's blasphemy laws. Even if you argue that the racist US prison system is not as barbaric as what you imagine goes on in Saudi Arabia, remember that Saudi Arabia is a small and eccentric place, whereas the USA is the Leader of the Free World! Eurocentric or Americocentric cultural chauvinism is hardly likely to produce the critical analysis and diplomacy that the current dangerous situation requires.

From J S O'Leary.

"human rights suspensions in the War Against Terror"

"the brutal regime of capital punishment in the USA"

"the racist US prison system is not as barbaric as what you imagine goes on in Saudi Arabia"

Interesting points! What is your basis for the above?

Inquiring minds need to know what you are talking about!

And BTW have you ever been in the US?

Ian Forrest

"Even if you argue that the racist US prison system is not as barbaric as what you imagine goes on in Saudi Arabia, remember that Saudi Arabia is a small and eccentric place, whereas the USA is the Leader of the Free World!"

Oh, I see. So they're only wogs – how much can you expect from them? The racism inherent in YOUR statement is astonishing, but I don't expect you'll recognize that.

what perfect little cannon fodder most of you (or your children) will be....for western powers that not only installed the saudi regime, but loooves them and their oil and money more than they will ever love you...poor fools with nasty tongues that you are...
raised on nothing but violence, knowing nothing but violence, in word and deed...

Wow, the Saudi regime must be pretty bad, and that Mr. Bradly must indeed be a whore, kiss-ass, scumbag, etc., etc.

What, exactly, does that make GW Bush, self-avowed friend of the Saudis?

These "monsters" are our ALLIES, remember, people?

Re: Item #52.
To be sure, Bradley is a whore, but not one to be pitied. A prostitute, at least to popular conception, is more often than not induced to her trade by a pimp. Of course, Bradley is pimping for the retrograde thugs in the royal family, but unlike a prostitute he has an option to walk away from his subservient state. Ergo, Bradley willingly prostitutes himself to the repressive, autocratic Saudi regime, and for that alone he should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Dear Mr. Bradley's Fiancee:

I will speak as one who is not ignorant about Saudi Arabia and its customs. I grew up as an "Aramco Brat" in Eastern Saudi Arabia in the late 70's and most of the 80's and I am hereby advising you, Mr. Bradley's fiancee, to first, refuse to move to Saudi Arabia; and second, to dump Mr. Bradley as quickly as humanly and humanely possible.

It is NOT a nice life for a woman, no matter what he tells you. You will have NOTHING in common with Arabian women your age, in fact, you will have very little opportunity to even meet anyone your age. You will not be able to DO anything outside your house, in fact, you will not be allowed to leave your house at all.

But, if you crave oppressive heat, lots of clothing (and by the way, women wear ALL BLACK in 120 degree heat while the men wear white cotton with NO underwear), angry mobs beating you if you accidentally expose your forearm, loads of housework, no rights whatsoever, having as many children as your HUSBAND wants, legal spousal abuse, and all of the other wonders of married life in Saudi Arabia, then it just might be the place for you.

Good Luck to you.

What a sham.

Mr. Bradley tells us, in answer to comments that called into question his journalistic integrity, "Some lackey I turned out to be!" I read his attack on Taranto and his writing was execrable never mind the know-nothing drivel he was spewing. But why not give the man a chance?

So I went to the sites he offered as proof that he was a raging no-holds-barred independent journalist telling it like it is in Saudi Arabia and what do I find? An article about a rotten and corrupt private company that screws its workers. Does Mr. Bradley tell us the name of the employer who absconded? No, he does not. Why not? Is the man related to the royal family?

The second piece is an article which gingerly explores the downtrodden lives of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. Wow, what guts! What is at the bottom of all this? How about the utter corruption of the ruling classes of this reactionary backwater whose only "product" of note is crude oil? Does Mr. Bradley actually believe that these two lightweight pieces of "journalism" make him some kind of beacon of truth, or do they show how much his own man he is? No.

Mr. Bradley, you are a third rate journalist working in a fourth rate country. You are in the same class as gays who love Cuba, ignoring entirely the horrible tratment that a gay Cuban (but not a gay Brit) can expect at the hands of the Castro junta. You are an apologist for one the most repressive and disgusting regimes outside of Africa. God help the Southeast Asians.

Mr. O'Leary has the temerity to say: "...the War Against Terror does not have any such humanistic intentions -- there is not even an apology for appalling massacres of civilians -- and it seems doubtful whether there is any real interest in helping the Afghan people recover peace and security."

Mr. O'Leary, that kind of blatant disregard for facts is what makes people on this website see you for the egregious, far-left anti-American shill you are. No country in history with anything like the power and wealth of the United States has ever acted in the world with one tenth the benignity. You sound like a stalking horse for the Nation. The people on this site will argue fruitfully, but they cannot be expected to take someone with your level of propagandistic contempt seriously. The moment you backed into a defense of Communism you blew your cover. But tell me this one thing (and please, all leftwing lovers of the Arab-Islam axis, feel free to join in): How can any self-respecting leftist condone the reactionary regimes that represent the Arab world? Your pose of independence and even-handedness is shown to be nothing more than anti-Americanism. Otherwise you would decry the far-right extremist governments of Islam.