I didn't about either of these projects. The Saudis are not known for their leniency, so I imagine that the prisons are not so much for terrorists as those who may be suspected of becoming terrorists. I may be doing them a disservice in saying that, but I would imagine that anyone who commits an act of terrorism in Saudi would not be expected to be rehabilitated, unless this is a new word for spending 30 years in jail or getting executed.

The wall is a huge construction. Here I believe that it is to stop illegal immigration rather than terrorism, as they say. Saudi is a very rich country with a majority of (legal) immigrants. The indigenous Saudis would not want immigration to get out of hand. They are very comfortable with the situation as it is. I suppose it would double as a protection against terrorists, but I don't think this is a prime goal. Anyway, Saudi does a proficient job in generating its own terrorists and exporting them.

I wonder how they determine who is a significant security risk.
I bet a few if them would prefer the special treatment to just being a regular ole criminal.

Isn't it amazing what some people will do to protect their homes and families?  Even to the point of building "Apartheid Walls!"

I've been to "Chop-chop Square" in Riyadh where public executions and maimings are performed.  No--I would never attend one.  But I am wary of Saudi "justice" and wonder what kind of public relations motive the monarchy has for this latest construction project.

Eric,

I am discussing how to fight terrorism, maybe I should have called this thread how to deter terrorist attacks, or just Terrorism Thread #3
The security barrier has been successful in decreasing terrorist attacks for Israel, and other countries build walls for that reason. With that said, I doubt it is fair, but what would be an acceptable response to terrorist attacks, anyhow? Using the tactic of terrorism to fight creates a war against citizens.

from what I understand in reading abdulksaida's posts, who I had considered a moderate, she is not interested in a two state solution anymore. I don't know if that is a popular opinion with Palestinians, but with that mentality in mind what relevance is there to discussing what is fair about a security barrier without wanting a two state solution? Its a all or nothing discussion where examples of palestinian suffering demanding sympathy & requesting validation as the real victims are mentioned for the purpose of illustrating that Israelis need to leave. How will anyone concede a point when the intent and direction of those comments is to dispute the right of Israel to exist as a nation when that is not negotiable.I feel the same about arguments that try to point out that the Palestinian people should overthrow Hamas with the knowledge of how they got control of Gaza.
Less demands of appropriate sympathy and support for extremist sides of the conflict would be helpful in learning about the facts of that conflict, but that would be another thread.

"In setting the Barrier's route, Israeli officials almost totally ignored the severe violations of Palestinian human rights. The route was based on extraneous considerations completely unrelated to the security of Israeli citizens. A major aim was to build the Barrier east of as many settlements as possible, to make it easier to annex them into Israel ." Israeli Center for Human Rights

The world supreme court has decided that the Wall must be torn down and it's the responsibilty of all governments, including the US, to make sure this is done. Barriers between states are quite usual. The Israeli Wall does not mark out a recognized border but land which Israel has stolen.

Abdulksaida;

"...i am only defending my people and cant propose anything..."

Perhaps that is why this conflict has dragged on for 60 years without resolution.

How about a different strategy? All the others have failed so far.

Any cretin, however morally depraved, may say anything whatsoever about the World Court, just as any criminal may reject the law of the land.

Despite being thoroughly brainwashed by the American media, you've got some residual sense of decency.

An advisory opinion by the World Court indicates the relevant binding provisions of international law. The Israelis are legally bound to knock down the Wall. As a criminal state with the support of the United States, they aren't doing it.

A legal opinion states what the law is. It is the law that is binding. Criminals, of course, refuse to be bound by the law. Idiots are unware of the difference between 'an opinion' and 'a legal opinion'.

The palestinians don't want t olive a decent life. They want a glorious death.

only i propose that we are refugee to come back to our homeland and i think that is legitamate asking and my right and the right of all refugee palestinians whom till now dont forget theri homes and many still have the key of their homes with them.