World's biggest hotel to open in Mecca, ISIS style

[Irbis]

City in the sky: world's biggest hotel to open in Mecca

The holy city is fast becoming a Las Vegas for pilgrims, thanks to the new £2.3bn megahotel that has four helipads, five floors for Saudi royalty – and 10,000 bedrooms

Four helipads will cluster around one of the largest domes in the world, like sideplates awaiting the unveiling of a momentous main course, which will be jacked up 45 storeys into the sky above the deserts of Mecca. It is the crowning feature of the holy city’s crowning glory, the superlative summit of what will be the world’s largest hotel when it opens in 2017.

With 10,000 bedrooms and 70 restaurants, plus five floors for the sole use of the Saudi royal family, the £2.3bn Abraj Kudai is an entire city of five-star luxury, catering to the increasingly high expectations of well-heeled pilgrims from the Gulf.

Modelled on a “traditional desert fortress”, seemingly filtered through the eyes of a Disneyland imagineer with classical pretensions, the steroidal scheme comprises 12 towers teetering on top of a 10-storey podium, which houses a bus station, shopping mall, food courts, conference centre and a lavishly appointed ballroom.

Located in the Manafia district, just over a mile south of the Grand Mosque, the complex is funded by the Saudi Ministry of Finance and designed by the Dar Al-Handasah group, a 7,000-strong global construction conglomerate that turns its hand to everything from designing cities in Kazakhstan to airports in Dubai. For the Abraj Kudai, it has followed the wedding-cake pastiche style of the city’s recent hotel boom: cornice is piled upon cornice, with fluted pink pilasters framing blue-mirrored windows, some arched with a vaguely Ottoman air. The towers seem to be packed so closely together that guests will be able to enjoy views into each other’s rooms.

“The city is turning into Mecca-hattan,” says Irfan Al-Alawi, director of the UK-based Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, which campaigns to try to save what little heritage is left in Saudi Arabia’s holy cities. “Everything has been swept away to make way for the incessant march of luxury hotels, which are destroying the sanctity of the place and pricing normal pilgrims out.”

The Grand Mosque is now loomed over by the second tallest building in the world, the Abraj al-Bait clocktower, home to thousands more luxury hotel rooms, where rates can reach £4,000 a night for suites with the best views of the Kaaba – the black cube at the centre of the mosque around which Muslims must walk. The hotel rises 600m (2,000ft) into the air, projecting a dazzling green laser-show by night, on a site where an Ottoman fortress once stood – razed for development, along with the hill on which it sat.

The list of heritage crimes goes on, driven by state-endorsed Wahhabism, the hardline interpretation of Islam that perceives historical sites as encouraging sinful idolatry – which spawned the ideology that is now driving Isis’s reign of destruction in Syria and Iraq. In Mecca and Medina, meanwhile, anything that relates to the prophet could be in the bulldozer’s sights. The house of Khadijah, his first wife, was crushed to make way for public lavatories; the house of his companion Abu Bakr is now the site of a Hilton hotel; his grandson’s house was flattened by the king’s palace. Moments from these sites now stands a Paris Hilton store and a gender-segregated Starbucks.

“These are the last days of Mecca,” says Alawi. “The pilgrimage is supposed to be a spartan, simple rite of passage, but it has turned into an experience closer to Las Vegas, which most pilgrims simply can’t afford.”

The city receives around 2 million pilgrims for the annual Hajj, but during the rest of the year more than 20 million visit the city, which has become a popular place for weddings and conferences, bringing in annual tourism revenue of around £6bn. The skyline bristles with cranes, summoning thickets of hotel towers to accommodate the influx. Along the western edge of the city the Jabal Omar development now rises, a sprawling complex that will eventually accommodate 100,000 people in 26 luxury hotels – sitting on another gargantuan plinth of 4,000 shops and 500 restaurants, along with its own six-storey prayer hall.

The ancient Grand Mosque, meanwhile, is undergoing a £40bn expansion to double the capacity of its prayer halls – from 3 million worshippers currently to nearly 7 million by 2040. Planned like a vast triangular slice of cake, the extension goes so far back that most worshippers won’t even be able to see the Ka’bah.

“It is just like an airport terminal,” says Alawi. “People have been finding they’re praying in the wrong direction because they simply don’t know which way the mosque is any more. It has made a farce of the whole place.”

History and heritage? What's that? Some sort of new collection at Paris Hilton?

[fgalkin]

It's no secret that the ideological background for ISIS destroying ancient artifacts comes from Saudi Wahhabism. There is literally no difference between the two, religiously speaking.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

It was predictable that as the Islamic world became richer, and as industrialization allowed exponentially greater numbers to perform the hajj, we would see massive development in and around Mecca.

It is incredibly unfortunate for the dignity and integrity of Islamic culture, and of these cities that are held so sacred by so much of human civilization, that the guardianship of Mecca has fallen to a pack of degenerate illiterate fanatics like the House of Saud, who manage to have all the vices of both nomad bedouin and luxury-loving city-dwellers, with none of the virtues of either.

[FaxModem1]

Could we get a source link?

[Irbis]

Could we get a source link?

Here:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... n-in-mecca

Pictures inside are well worth looking at, colossal architecture looking like LEGO housing dwarfing sad remains of ancient city (not counting stuff bulldozed to make room) looks really depressing.

[Thanas]

Our allies and friends, everyone.

[Broomstick]

"Ally" is not the same as "friend". You don't have to like someone to be allied with them.

Clearly, the Saudia put no value on history. And they don't give a flying fuck about impoverished Muslims.

[Thanas]

"Ally" is not the same as "friend". You don't have to like someone to be allied with them.

Do I need to dig out all the pictures and articles about Saudis getting preferential treatment above that of other allies?

[Grumman]

Our allies and friends, everyone.

There are many reasons to hate the Saudi government, but extreme tackiness rates very low on the list.

[Broomstick]

"Ally" is not the same as "friend". You don't have to like someone to be allied with them.

Do I need to dig out all the pictures and articles about Saudis getting preferential treatment above that of other allies?

That's because they have oil, not because we like them. Well, OK, the Bush family likes them, that was a factor during those PotUS terms.

[Simon_Jester]

"Ally" is not the same as "friend". You don't have to like someone to be allied with them.

Do I need to dig out all the pictures and articles about Saudis getting preferential treatment above that of other allies?

The Saudis are an incredibly useful ally due to their single advantage of massive oil supplies, and you can't handle them diplomatically without direct personal contact with their ruling elite because they're a barbarian kingdom. Thus, it is hard to secure their alliance without at least creating the appearance of befriending them, regardless of what one thinks of them personally.

Even if, hypothetically, the US sobers up and elects a president who will not treat the Saudis as good trustworthy friends in the Middle East... I honestly don't know how to go about disengaging from them without causing some other kind of disaster.

The twenty-first century would be a nicer place if the British had just kept backing the Hashemites instead of switching over to the House of Saud back in the '20s...

[continues banging head in frustration]

[SpottedKitty]

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... n-in-mecca

Pictures inside are well worth looking at, colossal architecture looking like LEGO housing dwarfing sad remains of ancient city (not counting stuff bulldozed to make room) looks really depressing.

<blink>

Anyone else think they're working towards building an actual arcology? Not exactly what I'd call good-looking designs, either.

[Metahive]

"Ally" is not the same as "friend". You don't have to like someone to be allied with them.

Do I need to dig out all the pictures and articles about Saudis getting preferential treatment above that of other allies?

The Saudis are an incredibly useful ally due to their single advantage of massive oil supplies, and you can't handle them diplomatically without direct personal contact with their ruling elite because they're a barbarian kingdom. Thus, it is hard to secure their alliance without at least creating the appearance of befriending them, regardless of what one thinks of them personally.

Even if, hypothetically, the US sobers up and elects a president who will not treat the Saudis as good trustworthy friends in the Middle East... I honestly don't know how to go about disengaging from them without causing some other kind of disaster.

The twenty-first century would be a nicer place if the British had just kept backing the Hashemites instead of switching over to the House of Saud back in the '20s...

[continues banging head in frustration]

Useful is a relative term as they use the oil money to also fund extremism world-wide when they don't waste it on massive vanity projects. They're like the Mafia and we here are like the stupid chumps who keep lending money from them despite knowing full that we're indirectly supporting their criminal agendas this way.

[K. A. Pital]

Before you guys try to separate "friends" from "allies" I would like to remind you. How the Western leaders spilled their condolences after the death of the Saudi king. I want you to remember:

“As our countries work together to confront many challenges, I always valued King Abdullah’s perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship,” Obama said in a statement. “The closeness and strength of the partnership between our two countries is part of King Abdullah’s legacy.”

Abdullah’s spearheading of the Arab Peace Initiative, which was cited by both Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as one of his key achievements, was also included in U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s condolence message as “a tangible legacy that can still point the way towards peace in the Middle East.”

http://time.com/3679640/king-abdullah-s ... ndolences/

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

"Ally" is not the same as "friend". You don't have to like someone to be allied with them.

Clearly, the Saudia put no value on history. And they don't give a flying fuck about impoverished Muslims.

Look. You are guys are in cahoots with these guys, so all the flailing and wailing about ISIS from the United States has always been outright disingenuous because what was more at stake here was the loss of the face the United States will have to deal with because Iraq cost over a trillion in hard cold cash and only to be lost to a bunch of desert hippies. If ISIS had stuck to Syria only, the United States wouldn't have given a fuck except crow when Assad was taken down.

The Saudis are an incredibly useful ally due to their single advantage of massive oil supplies, and you can't handle them diplomatically without direct personal contact with their ruling elite because they're a barbarian kingdom. Thus, it is hard to secure their alliance without at least creating the appearance of befriending them, regardless of what one thinks of them personally.

Even if, hypothetically, the US sobers up and elects a president who will not treat the Saudis as good trustworthy friends in the Middle East... I honestly don't know how to go about disengaging from them without causing some other kind of disaster.

The twenty-first century would be a nicer place if the British had just kept backing the Hashemites instead of switching over to the House of Saud back in the '20s...

[continues banging head in frustration]

The 20th century would have been a better place if the British and French hadn't played "divide and conquer" and instead had tried to create a monolithic Arab state and instead given all these damn desert hippies too much power for their damn own good.

And then the United States came in and continued the grand game and is now in the trap of its own making.

[Simon_Jester]

Anyone else think they're working towards building an actual arcology? Not exactly what I'd call good-looking designs, either.

Giant cities in the desert funded by oil money are certainly a logical place to build the world's first arcology. Nobody wants to go outside because it's shitty outside, the place has to be damn near air-tight and self-contained just to keep people from getting sandblasted...

Useful is a relative term as they use the oil money to also fund extremism world-wide when they don't waste it on massive vanity projects. They're like the Mafia and we here are like the stupid chumps who keep lending money from them despite knowing full that we're indirectly supporting their criminal agendas this way.

Frankly, yes- but they do own the oil and the only way to change that would be to either outright conquer them. Which would have results similar to the Iraq War only worse, and the guerilla war would permanently destroy our ability to exploit the oil in a cost-effective manner. Or to overthrow them and set up a puppet state, but no puppet state would be stable unless it were a Wahhabist fundamentalist state, in which case they'd use ALL the oil money to fund extremists and NONE of it on massive vanity projects.

It's a case of preferring King Log over King Stork.

Before you guys try to separate "friends" from "allies" I would like to remind you. How the Western leaders spilled their condolences after the death of the Saudi king. I want you to remember:

“As our countries work together to confront many challenges, I always valued King Abdullah’s perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship,” Obama said in a statement. “The closeness and strength of the partnership between our two countries is part of King Abdullah’s legacy.”

Abdullah’s spearheading of the Arab Peace Initiative, which was cited by both Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as one of his key achievements, was also included in U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s condolence message as “a tangible legacy that can still point the way towards peace in the Middle East.”

http://time.com/3679640/king-abdullah-s ... ndolences/

If I started counting all the warm, glowing eulogies spoken by World Leader A about World Leader B, when A had no particular liking for B and regarded B as, at best, a necessary inconvenience...

...I suspect I'd be counting for a very long time.

I mean really, would you think I was in my right mind if I expected you to take diplomatic rhetoric at face value on issues like this?

"Ally" is not the same as "friend". You don't have to like someone to be allied with them.

Clearly, the Saudia put no value on history. And they don't give a flying fuck about impoverished Muslims.

Look. You are guys are in cahoots with these guys, so all the flailing and wailing about ISIS from the United States has always been outright disingenuous because what was more at stake here was the loss of the face the United States will have to deal with because Iraq cost over a trillion in hard cold cash and only to be lost to a bunch of desert hippies. If ISIS had stuck to Syria only, the United States wouldn't have given a fuck except crow when Assad was taken down.

I fail to understand why you are speaking to Broomstick as though she were a representative of the US government agencies responsible for setting these policies...

As it stands, this strikes me as a rather dishonest dig at debaters here because it assumes that they're associated with, supporting, and in favor of the US's policies in the Middle East, which in general is very much not true.

The Saudis are an incredibly useful ally due to their single advantage of massive oil supplies, and you can't handle them diplomatically without direct personal contact with their ruling elite because they're a barbarian kingdom. Thus, it is hard to secure their alliance without at least creating the appearance of befriending them, regardless of what one thinks of them personally.

Even if, hypothetically, the US sobers up and elects a president who will not treat the Saudis as good trustworthy friends in the Middle East... I honestly don't know how to go about disengaging from them without causing some other kind of disaster.

The twenty-first century would be a nicer place if the British had just kept backing the Hashemites instead of switching over to the House of Saud back in the '20s...

[continues banging head in frustration]

The 20th century would have been a better place if the British and French hadn't played "divide and conquer" and instead had tried to create a monolithic Arab state and instead given all these damn desert hippies too much power for their damn own good.

Uh... not really.

See, here's the thing. About those "desert hippies" (actually warlike nomadic tribesmen, and if you think 'hippies' and 'warlike' belong in the same sentence you have a problem)...

Basically, the Hashemites and the house of Saud were both rulers of small Bedouin mini-states prior to World War One, in the Arabian peninsula, which was an unimportant backwater of the Muslim world except for the fact that the Hashemites happened to be holding Mecca. The Arabian peninsula was at this time an Ottoman province except for some coastal sultanates that were British protectorates. Likewise, the rest of the Arab lands (broadly speaking, what is now Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt) were Ottoman provinces. Except for Egypt, which had secured independence around 1800, only to fall under British domination circa 1880.

When the Ottomans joined the Central Powers during World War One, the British began masterminding a campaign to take away the remaining Arab provinces. In the process they allied with the Hashemites and the Saudis, and with the assistance of those two groups took over most of the Arab territories.

Historically, the British wound up giving Jordan and Iraq to Hashemite kings; Syria and Lebanon were handled by the French; Palestine was directly handled by the British... and Arabia proper (except the coastal sultanates) went to the House of Saud.

If the British and French had done as you said and tried to create a single Arab mega-state, several problems would have arisen:

1) SOME of the Arab principalities were already independent and had treaty guarantees protecting them, because they were British minion-states.

2) No existing Arab authority was in place remotely capable of administering a swath of land stretching from the Sinai to the Persian border, and there was no single Arab-nationalist movement capable of organizing such a government quickly.

3) Related to (2), exactly who was to be in charge of such a megastate? Remember that the megastate would have included all the land that is now Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and possibly Palestine as well. The only Arab groups of any real note that the British had prior agreements with were the Saudis and the Hashemites, two rival royal clans, of which the Hashemites had the longer pedigree and the Saudis the greater recent history of independent military success.

Putting Saudi monarchs on the thrones of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria would NOT have made the Middle East a better place, realistically.

And historically, the British DID parcel out Jordan and Iraq to Hashemite monarchs. Egypt was not, strictly speaking, theirs to give- they dominated the Egyptian monarchy but didn't own the country outright and hadn't just conquered it from its previous owners. The only remaining pieces of real estate that could have gone to the Hashemites were the bulk of the Arabian peninsula, Syria, and Lebanon.

Giving them Syria and Lebanon as well would not have changed the historical outcome nearly as much. Syria would probably have played out like Iraq (king overthrown, Ba'athists win) resulting in basically the same Syria we have anyway. Lebanon is too small to make much difference in the overall history of the region.

So it would still have come down to "The British should have given the Arabian peninsula to the Hashemites and not the Saudis..." which is exactly what I just said.

[Thanas]

Simon, you are completely unaware of the British and French colonial aim, which was (and it was fully stated policy) to disrupt the arab tribes, to prevent the formation of working states and to create permanent unrest in the region. I posted about this in the History forum already over a year ago.

[Simon_Jester]

I am aware that the aim was "divide and rule."

I am convinced, however, that if the British and French had set out to do the exact opposite, it would have made relatively little difference in the present day. The breakup of a large empire nearly always results in fragmentation and Balkanization, regardless of who is overseeing that breakup or what their motivations are.

So far as I know, a single giant Pan-Arabia would not have been a particularly sustainable state. I am not aware of any reason to expect such a state to be any less susceptible to military coups. Nor would I expect the Pan-Arab super-state to be any less susceptible to internal divisions (e.g. Kurds vs. Sunni Iraqis vs. Shi'ite Iraqis).

So while based on what I do know I find Fingolfin's suggestion completely impractical, I maintain that if the British and French had pursued exactly the same strategy, revolting though that strategy is, and merely picked a different bunch of proxies to use in the Arabian peninsula, it would have made a considerable differerence.

The original cause of my frustration and use of the 'banghead' emoticon was meant to indicate my frustration came from that sense of irony. That such a small change in strategy could have brought about such a result. Rather than imagine a hypothetical world where post-WWI Britain and France were magically suffused with post-colonial wisdom and insight into the brotherhood of all men and all Arabs in particular, we can simply imagine a world where they didn't back the wrong horse. And that would still be better than the outcome we got...

[K. A. Pital]

So was there a glowing eulogy for Kim Il Sung? Was there a glowing eulogy for a myriad leaders much better than Kim Il Sung, and some much better than Saudi petrocrats?

No. Sorry, but no. And let's see what they will say on Putin's funeral, heheheh.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I fail to understand why you are speaking to Broomstick as though she were a representative of the US government agencies responsible for setting these policies...

As it stands, this strikes me as a rather dishonest dig at debaters here because it assumes that they're associated with, supporting, and in favor of the US's policies in the Middle East, which in general is very much not true.

You guys voted in your president. You guys take ownership of your leaders' problems. Don't pretend you have no ownership of anything. The next time some big terrorist attack happens, you can only blame yourselves for the latest fiasco.

And then you guys go hysterical, start bombing someone's shit and then repeat the cycle.

Uh... not really.

See, here's the thing. About those "desert hippies" (actually warlike nomadic tribesmen, and if you think 'hippies' and 'warlike' belong in the same sentence you have a problem)...

I call them hippies because these bunch of backward barbarians whose culture regressed considerably since the time they were at their height which was centuries ago. But thanks to the Mongol invasion and the burning of Baghdad, it's been centuries since an Arab actually was at the head of any empire. Since then, Muslim High Culture has been the province of the Turks and the Iranians.

If the British and French had done as you said and tried to create a single Arab mega-state, several problems would have arisen:

1) SOME of the Arab principalities were already independent and had treaty guarantees protecting them, because they were British minion-states.

2) No existing Arab authority was in place remotely capable of administering a swath of land stretching from the Sinai to the Persian border, and there was no single Arab-nationalist movement capable of organizing such a government quickly.

3) Related to (2), exactly who was to be in charge of such a megastate? Remember that the megastate would have included all the land that is now Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and possibly Palestine as well. The only Arab groups of any real note that the British had prior agreements with were the Saudis and the Hashemites, two rival royal clans, of which the Hashemites had the longer pedigree and the Saudis the greater recent history of independent military success.

Putting Saudi monarchs on the thrones of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria would NOT have made the Middle East a better place, realistically.

And historically, the British DID parcel out Jordan and Iraq to Hashemite monarchs. Egypt was not, strictly speaking, theirs to give- they dominated the Egyptian monarchy but didn't own the country outright and hadn't just conquered it from its previous owners. The only remaining pieces of real estate that could have gone to the Hashemites were the bulk of the Arabian peninsula, Syria, and Lebanon.

Giving them Syria and Lebanon as well would not have changed the historical outcome nearly as much. Syria would probably have played out like Iraq (king overthrown, Ba'athists win) resulting in basically the same Syria we have anyway. Lebanon is too small to make much difference in the overall history of the region.

So it would still have come down to "The British should have given the Arabian peninsula to the Hashemites and not the Saudis..." which is exactly what I just said.

Look. You aren't exactly making any excuse worth a damn here. I'm not even sure why you are indulging in this 'what if'. If the British and French wanted to, they could have well created a pan-Arab state. The British did that in India, mind you, which essentially is a similar scale project. There was some degree of Arab nationalism way back then. Of course, the ones who opposed Arab nationalism happened to the tribes who spent most of their time in small desert towns and not the ones who stayed in the big cities. Go figure.

[Starglider]

So was there a glowing eulogy for Kim Il Sung?

Of course, many of them, because the Workers' Party of Korea insisted and executed anyone in North Korea who wrote an insufficiently glowing one. That's just the way Workers' Parties roll.

[Zaune]

So was there a glowing eulogy for Kim Il Sung? Was there a glowing eulogy for a myriad leaders much better than Kim Il Sung, and some much better than Saudi petrocrats?

I'm sure the Chinese managed something for the sake of appearances, and maybe the Russians as well.

[Irbis]

There are many reasons to hate the Saudi government, but extreme tackiness rates very low on the list.

Guess you missed the part where they bulldoze 400-1200 year old buildings to do it, plus the whole turning what was supposed to be spartan pilgrimage into 10.000$ per day Disneyland?

Not that I care much about religion, but turning hard journey that was supposed to make you a better, more tolerant person into gilded cash cow is pretty much epitome of asshattery

That's because they have oil, not because we like them. Well, OK, the Bush family likes them, that was a factor during those PotUS terms.

Bush? I seem to recall a lot of earlier US presidents having even more closer contacts with them, say Reagan relying on them to poison half of Asia with rabid religious propaganda plus money for extremists, or handing out astronautic gigs like candy to bored spawn of that inbred family.

[Simon_Jester]

So was there a glowing eulogy for Kim Il Sung? Was there a glowing eulogy for a myriad leaders much better than Kim Il Sung, and some much better than Saudi petrocrats?

No. Sorry, but no. And let's see what they will say on Putin's funeral, heheheh.

I bet that world leaders who do not have an incentive to antagonize Russia will say all manner of nice things.

North Korea is basically a kingdom ruled by a deified monarchy in the name of nationalist socialism or socialist nationalism or some such. Insult the current ruler's father and the current ruler will probably be offended, but since North Korea hates everyone and vice versa, that doesn't matter.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy too... but Saudi Arabia doesn't hate everyone and its friendship is valuable. Fail to say nice things about the dead king at his funeral and you offend his sons... who now rule the country. So you say nice things about the dead king.

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of American leaders who are entirely too friendly with the Saudis. But my point is it does not matter that they are too friendly, they would end up having to say most of the same things anyway unless they were prepared to sacrifice the advantage of having good relations with the world's leading oil producer.

I fail to understand why you are speaking to Broomstick as though she were a representative of the US government agencies responsible for setting these policies...

As it stands, this strikes me as a rather dishonest dig at debaters here because it assumes that they're associated with, supporting, and in favor of the US's policies in the Middle East, which in general is very much not true.

You guys voted in your president. You guys take ownership of your leaders' problems. Don't pretend you have no ownership of anything. The next time some big terrorist attack happens, you can only blame yourselves for the latest fiasco.

So let me get this straight:

Your argument is that citizens in a democracy are liable to be criticized personally for decisions they opposed. And that they have no grounds to complain about negative consequences they predicted stemming from actions they opposed.

To me, that sounds incredibly stupid. It sounds less like a logical basis for apportioning blame, and more like you trying to come up with a weak justification for your desire to vent your spleen in the general direction of the only Americans handy.

Find some Americans who actually supported this shit and go take it out on them. It's not hard to find them on the Internet.

Uh... not really.

See, here's the thing. About those "desert hippies" (actually warlike nomadic tribesmen, and if you think 'hippies' and 'warlike' belong in the same sentence you have a problem)...

I call them hippies because these bunch of backward barbarians whose culture regressed considerably since the time they were at their height which was centuries ago.

And you still do not understand... My criticism is that this is an unjustified insult to hippies.

The differences between warlike desert nomads and hippies are extremely large.

Look. You aren't exactly making any excuse worth a damn here. I'm not even sure why you are indulging in this 'what if'.

Because wishful thinking about counterfactuals is part of human nature? I mean, given that you literally just made a lame excuse for your desire to vent resentment about American foreign policy at people who already have repeatedly aired their disagreement with same, you're not in a good position to criticize me for not making sense.

If the British and French wanted to, they could have well created a pan-Arab state. The British did that in India, mind you, which essentially is a similar scale project.

United India only wound up working out because the British created a pan-Indian nationalism that had not previously existed, by uniting the Indians against a common enemy... namely, the British! And even so, British India wound up fragmenting along ethno-religious lines into four separate countries: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

If pan-Arabia followed the same pattern, you'd see at least a few generations of colonial rule, followed by a decade or so of driving the colonialists out, followed by a generation of fragmentation and internal warfare splitting pan-Arabia into several independent pieces divided along religious or regional lines. I am not at all sure how different this would look from what actually happened, by the time 2015 rolled around.

At least, I'm not sure it'd look much different, unless other decisions were also made differently (e.g. the WWII Allies decide to settle the Jewish refugees in Madagascar or depopulate Bavaria and park the Jews there or something).

There was some degree of Arab nationalism way back then. Of course, the ones who opposed Arab nationalism happened to the tribes who spent most of their time in small desert towns and not the ones who stayed in the big cities. Go figure.

The problem faced by Arab nationalism (at least, secular Arab nationalism) is that unlike the anticolonial nationalism of most other parts of the world, it has a major, credible competitor in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. The Arab world has been saturated with Islam and revolved around Islam for so long that being a Muslim is considerably more important in most Arabs' eyes than being an Arab is.

This is not something that a change in British or French colonial policy would have changed. Just as the precursors for the Arab nationalism of Nasser were already in play, so were the precursors for the Wahhabism of the Saudis.

[Grumman]

There are many reasons to hate the Saudi government, but extreme tackiness rates very low on the list.

Guess you missed the part where they bulldoze 400-1200 year old buildings to do it, plus the whole turning what was supposed to be spartan pilgrimage into 10.000$ per day Disneyland?

Not that I care much about religion, but turning hard journey that was supposed to make you a better, more tolerant person into gilded cash cow is pretty much epitome of asshattery

I did not miss it, I just don't care very much about Saudi Arabia's "War on Hajj". It is a symptom of everything that is wrong with that country, not the cause.