[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Religion Title: Saudi Diplomat Seeking Asylum: 'My life Is In Danger' Saudi Diplomat Seeking Asylum: 'My life Is In Danger' Envoy says he fears persecution if he leaves the U.S. and returns home A ranking Saudi diplomat told NBC News that he has asked for political asylum in the United States, saying he fears for his life if he is forced to return to his native country. The diplomat, Ali Ahmad Asseri, the first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, has informed U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials that Saudi officials have refused to renew his diplomatic passport and effectively terminated his job after discovering he was gay and was close friends with a Jewish woman. In a recent letter that he posted on a Saudi website, Asseri angrily criticized his country’s “backwardness” as well as the role of “militant imams” in Saudi society who have “defaced the tolerance of Islam.” Perhaps most provocatively of all, he has threatened to expose what he describes as politically embarrassing information about members of the Saudi royal family living in luxury in the U.S. If he is forced to go back to Saudi Arabia — as Saudi officials are demanding — Asseri says he could face political persecution and even death. “My life is in a great danger here and if I go back to Saudi Arabia, they will kill me openly in broad daylight,” Asseri said Saturday in an email to NBC. In a recent interview, Asseri and his lawyer said that the Saudi diplomat was questioned by a Department of Homeland Security official in Los Angeles on Aug. 30 after formally applying for asylum on the grounds that he is a member of a “particular social group” — gays — that would subject him to persecution if he returns to his home country. Officials at DHS in Washington as well as the Saudi Embassy in Washington and the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles did not respond to requests for comment. Poster Comment: It has to be al-Qaida after him, Islamic muzlims wouldn't make threats, or harm him, they are not the enemy... obama said so~ "The overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world are peace-loving people. They include millions of our fellow citizens in this country who are our friends, neighbors and co-workers and attend school with our children. What would it say if we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive." It's important to be clear on who the enemy is — al-Qaida and extremists, not Islam or the majority of Muslims." ~ Obama; 9/11/2010 Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 42. If he comes here, you or Stone may kill him for being gay.
#2. To: Skip Intro (#1) If he comes here, you or Stone may kill him for being gay. Is that really where you want to go? Accusing me of wanting to murder fags.
#7. To: A K A Stone, Skip Intro (#2) If he comes here, you or Stone may kill him for being gay. I would never harm a gay person just because they are gay, the only thing that would ever cause me to get physical, is if the fool put their hands on me, but that would go for just about anyone. I'll leave his punishment up to God, I do well trying to keep track of my own sins...but if a gay dude, or dudette comes here and wishes to be a member, cool with me, as long as they're not militant or radical about it....door swings both ways on tolerance. If you don't like my stand on gay issues skip, too bad, I wasn't put on this earth to coddle or appease you in anyway....walk it off!
#8. To: Murron (#7) I don't think anyone denies Muslims hate gays. They're not exactly unique in that regard. I also don't think many deny that radical Muslims are violent. The problem the US has is not to create more radicals. That's no easy task when you're an occupying force, and it becomes even harder if the locals think you're there to covert them from Islam. That's why distributing bibles in a country we occupy is a really bad idea.
#9. To: Skip Intro (#8) That's no easy task when you're an occupying force, and it becomes even harder if the locals think you're there to covert them from Islam. That's why distributing bibles in a country we occupy is a really bad idea. It was a constitutional violation. Zero did nothing when he found out. The military is subject to the constitution too.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9) (Edited) It has nothing to do with the constitution. If a group of religious people want and hand out bibles after were gone, I could care less. I do care that what this group was trying to do would have gotten more of our military killed. The military knew this and acted exactly correct in this case.
#11. To: Skip Intro (#10) No. They prohibited the free exercise of religion. In a place where we are supposedly trying to give them like free speech and freedom of religion. Are you saying there are no christians in Afghanistan? Don't they have a choice to choose if they want to accept Bibles? You have strange uncorrect beliefs.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11) (Edited) No. They prohibited the free exercise of religion. In a place where we are supposedly trying to give them like free speech and freedom of religion. Oh, is that what we're doing there? So how many hundreds of thousands of Americans are you willing to sacrifice to spread your religious beliefs there? You do understand that Afghanistan is a different country than the US, don't you? That our constitution doesn't apply to the Afghanis? That were in the middle of a war there? If we ever leave that hellhole, you and your fellow fundies are free to go there and evangelize to your heart's content. That way you're only risking your lives for your beliefs, not that of our military.
#13. To: Skip Intro (#12) I never supported the war. Do soldiers lose their constitutional rights when deployed in the name of "protecting our freedom"?
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13) I never supported the war. Neither did I. We're not talking about the constitutional rights of the soldiers. You do understand what this whole controversy was about, don't you? It had nothing to do with the troops having bibles. "MOAA’s Directer of or Public Relations, Colonel Marv Harris, USAF (Ret), contacted the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and reported back the following: OASD/PA says that an individual’s church sent Bibles translated into local languages to him for distribution. He went to his Chaplain asking what to do. The Chaplain, rightly so, counseled him about the rules against trying to convert people to another religion. Trying to convert Muslims to another faith is a crime in Afghanistan. Rather than ship the Bibles back to the donating Church and risking that they might get into civilian hands in that area, leadership elected to put them into a dumpster. Dumpster contents are burned in Afghanistan. The individual involved is not being punished. He did not ask for the Bibles and followed the chain of command in telling about them." By the way, this is an old story. All of this actually happened under the Bush Administration, not Obama.
#15. To: Skip Intro (#14) So the military doesn't have to follow the constitution when overseas?
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15) Did you even read what I just posted?
#17. To: Skip Intro (#16) Yeah I read what you said. It violated the constitution though. So does the constitution apply to the military when they are overseas in your view? The constitution isn't only supposed to be followed when they want to or it is convenient.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#17) It violated the constitution though. What did? Not allowing a soldier to go out trying to convert Afghans?
#19. To: Skip Intro (#18) Prohibiting his free exercise of his religion. His fifth amend rights. Taking private property without due process. Now answer the question. Do soldiers lose their constitutional rights when deployed "defending freedom"? Does the military have to follow the constitution when deployed overseas?
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19) Ok Stone. So he breaks the law in Afghanistan, the Afghanis arrest him, try him and execute him. There. Happy now?
#24. To: Skip Intro (#20) Ok Stone. So he breaks the law in Afghanistan, the Afghanis arrest him, try him and execute him. He didn't try to convert anyone. Do you support finding someone guilty before they do anything as a precaution? It sounds like you do.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#24) He didn't try to convert anyone. That's right, because he was stopped. I'm done. If this is beyond you, please go yourself. Good luck.
#30. To: Skip Intro (#28) Losers always run when they lost the debate. You are such a pussy that you can't answer a simple question.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#30) I WILL DELETE EVERY COMMENT YOU MAKE UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY. EVERY THREAD. STONE!!!
#35. To: Skip Intro (#32) I will delete them because I answered all your questions in good faith and you didn't give me the same respect.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#35) I get weary of repeating the same thing over and over, doing research and posting facts, when all most of these clowns want is a pissing contest...nothing of what you or I post sinks in, if they even read it all. If skip had just looked at the date on the bible burning, he'd have seen it was 2009, under Obama...but he's like some infantile idiot, repeating himself.
#42. To: Murron (#39) If skip had just looked at the date on the bible burning, he'd have seen it was 2009, under Obama...but he's like some infantile idiot, repeating himself. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54189 Officials Reject Allegations of Proselytizing in Afghanistan By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, May 4, 2009 – A report broadcast by the Arab news network Al Jazeera about U.S. servicemembers proselytizing in Afghanistan is just plain wrong, Pentagon officials said today. The Al Jazeera story showed an evangelical religious service on Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan and a discussion about distributing Bibles that had been translated into Dari and Pashtu – the two major languages of Afghanistan. “American servicemembers are allowed to hold religious services,” a Defense Department official speaking on background said. “The clip shows one of those services with an American chaplain leading a religious service for American servicemembers. In it, he spoke generically about the evangelical faith. That’s all there was to it.” The chaplain did not urge servicemembers to go among the Afghan people and attempt to gain converts to Christianity, the official said. In the second instance, a young sergeant received a shipment of Bibles translated into Dari and Pashtu from his church in the United States. The film showed a discussion about the Bibles. “What it did not show was the chaplain counseling the young sergeant that distributing the Bibles was against U.S. Central Command’s General Order No. 1,” the official said. The chaplain confiscated the Bibles. “As far as we know, none ever got off base.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen was asked about the incident – which happened in May 2008 – during a Pentagon news conference today. “It certainly is – from the United States military’s perspective – not our position to ever push any specific kind of religion, period,” Mullen said. There is no indication disciplinary action was taken against the young servicemember. “The counseling sufficed,” the official said. General Order No. 1 specifically forbids “proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice.”
Replies to Comment # 42. #45. To: Skip Intro, war (#42) none ever got off base Ever seen minority report. Your view reminds me of that movie. Pre crime. Even though it isn't really a crime. Even though there are unalienable rights. You must think that our rights come from a piece of paper and not that that piece of paper simply recognizes rights that people inherently have.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 42. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|