My take on the Saudi Arabia issue.

yet ANOTHER War n Peace TOME


no one can read that Shit, Hogan

give us a 6 word post, willya?

Is anybody actually advocating going to war with Saudi Arabia?

That would be bonkers.

However, I don’t think the US should do nothing while a friendly nation casually liquidates a journalist during the equivalent of running an errand to the DMV. This is a very different situation than a war correspondent getting killed in a war zone, or even a journalist getting killed when investigating terrorism or drug cartels, this is (potentially) an ally killing a journalist because fuck-that-guy.

Though you’d think we’d ought to focus our concern on the Saudi’s daily bombing of Yemeni civilians.

"The death of one man is a tragedy ..." unless he's an "enemy of the people" or, apparently, and enemy of the crown prince MBS.

doowdniw said:

"The death of one man is a tragedy ..." unless he's an "enemy of the people" or, apparently, and enemy of the crown prince MBS.

Click to expand...

who gives a fuck about that fat fuck

Kirkrapine said:

Turkey. It has the most current and historical ties to Europe.

Click to expand...

As an adversary...

doowdniw said:

"The death of one man is a tragedy ..." unless he's an "enemy of the people" or, apparently, and enemy of the crown prince MBS.

Click to expand...

So the Kingdom will roundup the usual suspects; they will torture and then kill a half a dozen or a dozen of participants and all will be right in the Kingdom again.

It's just silly to suggest that the Kingdom of Saud would seek anybody's permission or need to be emboldened by anybody to go about their usual business of imprisoning, torturing, or killing people that disagree with them.

Colonel Hogan said:

You clearly misunderstood me. When I allowed as to how an action by an agent of a foreign government otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity (which, after all, is the result of a considered treaty executed between those two governments) could spark a war, I was thinking in terms of a most extreme violent act directed against the country! It is why I specifically used the analogy of an attempted assassination of a foreign LEADER by someone covered by diplomatic immunity. That's not just a routine mugging. It is an act directed against the government.

So in this case, if I follow the whack-brained logic of half the people in this thread, the nation who should go to WAR with the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia for killing a Saudi citizen in a Saudi consulate within the borders of Turkey is the United States. Excuse me...???

There is not one thing under international or United States domestic law that would support such an insane response.

Let me be more specific. Do you want to know what would likely happen if you should get into a road rage incident with an automobile with diplomatic plates and the driver runs you off the road and you're killed? Or for that matter if the guy just busted into your house and shot you and your family? Consider the following:



Now....all of those incidents (and the reactions they provoked) took place within and between the countries where the incidents occurred. The United States is not about to do shit about a foreign national, killed by his own government, within the borders of another country simply because the victim held American residency status under a Green Card, and least of all because he happened to work for the Washington Post.

The law matters. Jurisdiction matters. And it matters ONLY wherein those laws and jurisdiction actually apply. And there is absolutely no evidence that any laws or jurisdictions apply in such a way to warrant intervention by the United States.

Diplomatic immunity isn't MY idea of a good idea. It's our government's idea of a good idea.

Meanwhile, Otto Warmbier was an American citizen who ultimately died of injuries suffered at the hands of the North Koreans for stealing a propaganda poster. We didn't do shit about that either. You think this is worse?

Click to expand...

This whole affair doesn't have a damn thing to do with Khashoggi or international law and conventions. This is all about the press attempting to force Trump to bend to their will. And as can be seen in this thread there are more than enough "useful idiots" to play the "A-Men." The press is engaged in this 'crusade' in total disregard of the current Geo-political situation in the Mid-East.

As you have pointed out, the US has no jurisdiction and neither do the Turks. And to the point neither of us have a dog in the fight either.



Khashoggi was not a US citizen and he wasn't a reporter for WaPo.

bellisarius said:

While many argue that the difference between the two is almost indistinguishable the fact is that the Saudi's are the lesser evil.

The Saudi's have an internal problem with the Wahab's.
Saudi Arabia has always been ruled by a partnership. The Saudi royal family dealing with the secular while the Wahab's kept the masses under control with the divine.
With the Saudi's trying to modernize a conflict between themselves and the Wahab's began to erupt raising the specter of a civil war within the kingdom. And that would be bad for everyone, not just the US.
.

Click to expand...

bellisarius said:

Saudi Arabia is actually a partnership between the Saud's and the Wahab's.
The Saud's provide the Wahab's money to keep the natives in line. The Wahab's are the group doing the financing you speak of and the Wahabi religious police, quite separate from the regular police, are the ones doing the beheading.

The new crown prince of Saudi Arabia is trying to drag the kingdom out of the 7th century and neither the Wahab's nor the Muslim Brotherhood want anything to do with that. Khashoggi, as a member of, or at least sympathetic ties to, the Muslim Brotherhood represented a threat to the modernization program..

Click to expand...

bellisarius said:

The House of Saud has heretofore been followers of Wahhabism. But they are NOT of the House of Wahhab. Two different tribes whose goals are starting to diverge.
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
The old alliance is breaking down.

Looking at Saudi Arabia as a business you have the Saud's pumping the oil and selling it to the rest of the world then donating large sums to the Wahhab's who then used the money to preach the murder of the Saud's customers. The Saud's were bound to wise up at some point, the Wahhab's are just bad for business.

Click to expand...

I took time to read your posts and they rectified many of my misunderstandings of the Middle East, thanks.
Biased or not, this article increased my understanding too:


Can Mohammed bin Salman break the Saudi-Wahhabi pact?

"Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MBS) is seen as the mastermind behind Riyadh's strategy to revamp the Saudi economy and limit the power of the clerics over state affairs. The crown prince (...) explicitly blamed the kingdom's turn towards ultraconservatism on the Iranian revolution in 1979 and Tehran's attempts to spread the revolution across the Middle East.
But was it really revolutionary Iran that pushed Saudi Arabia towards ultraconservatism?

1979 is famously known for the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by a group of insurgents whose goal was to overthrow the House of Saud for its perceived corruption and emulation of the West.
The seizure of the Grand Mosque shook the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And when people across the Muslim world listened to him launching deadly protests, the House of Saud was terrified. The House of Saud's response to the crisis was to roll back King Faisal's modernisation initiatives and empower the religious authorities.

Following the revolution in Iran earlier the same year, there was a great deal of speculation that the seizure of the Grand Mosque was directed from Tehran, a suspicion that was later dispelled.

Although the events of the 1970s indeed affected Saudi Arabia, the country did not become ultraconservative then. Its embrace of rigid interpretations of Islam goes as far back as the 18th century when the Saud family struck a deal with an ultraconservative Islamic scholar....The Wahhab-Saud pact..."


https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/o...break-saudi-wahhabi-pact-180107091158729.html

bellisarius said:

This whole affair doesn't have a damn thing to do with Khashoggi or international law and conventions. This is all about the press attempting to force Trump to bend to their will. And as can be seen in this thread there are more than enough "useful idiots" to play the "A-Men." The press is engaged in this 'crusade' in total disregard of the current Geo-political situation in the Mid-East.

As you have pointed out, the US has no jurisdiction and neither do the Turks. And to the point neither of us have a dog in the fight either.



Khashoggi was not a US citizen and he wasn't a reporter for WaPo.

Click to expand...

Did you hear Rep. Castro (DPOS)suggest that Jared Kushner may have solicited the murder of Khashoggi?

Oblimo said:

Though you’d think we’d ought to focus our concern on the Saudi’s daily bombing of Yemeni civilians.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to be upset about something, it sure as hell doesn't hurt to have at least a little perspective.

Rightguide said:

Did you hear Rep. Castro (DPOS)suggest that Jared Kushner may have solicited the murder of Khashoggi?

Click to expand...

No, but nothing the press or the dems do or say is coming as much of a surprise to me these days.

beew said:

I took time to read your posts and they rectified many of my misunderstandings of the Middle East, thanks.
Biased or not, this article increased my understanding too:


Can Mohammed bin Salman break the Saudi-Wahhabi pact?

"Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MBS) is seen as the mastermind behind Riyadh's strategy to revamp the Saudi economy and limit the power of the clerics over state affairs. The crown prince (...) explicitly blamed the kingdom's turn towards ultraconservatism on the Iranian revolution in 1979 and Tehran's attempts to spread the revolution across the Middle East.
But was it really revolutionary Iran that pushed Saudi Arabia towards ultraconservatism?

1979 is famously known for the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by a group of insurgents whose goal was to overthrow the House of Saud for its perceived corruption and emulation of the West.
The seizure of the Grand Mosque shook the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And when people across the Muslim world listened to him launching deadly protests, the House of Saud was terrified. The House of Saud's response to the crisis was to roll back King Faisal's modernisation initiatives and empower the religious authorities.

Following the revolution in Iran earlier the same year, there was a great deal of speculation that the seizure of the Grand Mosque was directed from Tehran, a suspicion that was later dispelled.

Although the events of the 1970s indeed affected Saudi Arabia, the country did not become ultraconservative then. Its embrace of rigid interpretations of Islam goes as far back as the 18th century when the Saud family struck a deal with an ultraconservative Islamic scholar....The Wahhab-Saud pact..."


https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/o...break-saudi-wahhabi-pact-180107091158729.html

Click to expand...

As I said, time will tell. He is essentially playing the role of Martin Luther in this and the results, if he's successful, is going to be a long and bloody internecine war.

bellisarius said:

No, but nothing Trump does or say is coming as much of a surprise to me these days.

Click to expand...

I hear you.

bellisarius said:

This whole affair doesn't have a damn thing to do with Khashoggi or international law and conventions. This is all about the press attempting to force Trump to bend to their will.
And as can be seen in this thread there are more than enough "useful idiots" to play the "A-Men." The press is engaged in this 'crusade' in total disregard of the current Geo-political situation in the Mid-East.

As you have pointed out, the US has no jurisdiction and neither do the Turks. And to the point neither of us have a dog in the fight either.
Khashoggi was not a US citizen and he wasn't a reporter for WaPo.

Click to expand...

So true. But you can't blame laypeople (but for the Left) for buying into it .
Because the Press on both sides is rife with half-baked truths and deliberate omissions. They are playing on our lack of Civic education and knowledge of History and Politics.

Just look at the article below.
It starts with the typical emotions-inducing scenario, then when it gets to the bones of it, it omits the crucial points for a more nuanced understanding of these issues: Whahabism- Saudi Crown - Muslim Brotherhood - The 1979 Islamic Revolution.

I remember clearly how outraged it made me feel about the US and the UK.
This thread was Huge for me because of the added understandings.






--------------------------------------------

Enough of the shameful kowtowing to the Saudis
read:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/04/shameful-kowtowing-saudi-prince-visit-uk

"Remember Raif Badawi? He is the blogger who was sentenced in 2012 to 10 years in jail, and 1,000 lashes, for daring to advocate respect for human rights, secularism and democracy in his native Saudi Arabia.

The man who controls Badawi’s fate, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto Saudi ruler, will be in London this week. But many [..criticise..] Salman regime’s continuing repression of political opponents and activists, systemic discrimination against women, routine use of torture and capital punishment and its murderous war in Yemen.

David Cameron once claimed Saudi intelligence averted terrorist attacks in Britain, and the Saudi alliance is highly valued in the fight against Islamic State, al-Qaida and other jihadist groups. Ignoring evidence that Saudi Sunni Wahhabism has played a key role in encouraging anti-western extremism.

May’s government wants to safeguard, and if possible increase British arms sales to Saudi Arabia [...]. May’s main focus is not on the unnumbered Yemeni civilians who continue to die as a result of the Saudi-led, British-backed bombing campaign. "

beew said:

So true. But you can't blame laypeople (but for the Left) for buying into it .
Because the Press on both sides is rife with half-baked truths and deliberate omissions. They are playing on our lack of Civic education and knowledge of History and Politics.

Just look at the article below.
It starts with the typical emotions-inducing scenario, then when it gets to the bones of it, it omits the crucial points for a more nuanced understanding of these issues: Whahabism- Saudi Crown - Muslim Brotherhood - The 1979 Islamic Revolution.

I remember clearly how outraged it made me feel about the US and the UK.
This thread was Huge for me because of the added understandings.






--------------------------------------------

Enough of the shameful kowtowing to the Saudis
read:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/04/shameful-kowtowing-saudi-prince-visit-uk

"Remember Raif Badawi? He is the blogger who was sentenced in 2012 to 10 years in jail, and 1,000 lashes, for daring to advocate respect for human rights, secularism and democracy in his native Saudi Arabia.

The man who controls Badawi’s fate, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto Saudi ruler, will be in London this week. But many [..criticise..] Salman regime’s continuing repression of political opponents and activists, systemic discrimination against women, routine use of torture and capital punishment and its murderous war in Yemen.

David Cameron once claimed Saudi intelligence averted terrorist attacks in Britain, and the Saudi alliance is highly valued in the fight against Islamic State, al-Qaida and other jihadist groups. Ignoring evidence that Saudi Sunni Wahhabism has played a key role in encouraging anti-western extremism.

May’s government wants to safeguard, and if possible increase British arms sales to Saudi Arabia [...]. May’s main focus is not on the unnumbered Yemeni civilians who continue to die as a result of the Saudi-led, British-backed bombing campaign. "

Click to expand...

You're a babbling mess, paki que. Get off the meth.

Saint_Anne said:

You're a babbling mess, paki que. Get off the meth.

Click to expand...

I'm curious.
Why don't you use your root account whennaddressing me too, RobDownSouth?

It's not like you shy away from hurling racial insults at people. You troll BotanyBoy and SpeareChucker with racial slurs all the time, under your root account.

beew said:

I'm curious.
Why don't you use your root account with me, RobDownSouth?

It's not like you shy away from hurling racial insults at people. You troll BotanyBoy with racial slurs all the time under your root account.

Click to expand...

Why dont you answer me with your root account, paki que? You have no problems babbling endlessly with that one

bellisarius said:

This is all about the press attempting to force Trump to bend to their will.

Click to expand...

beew said:

So true. But you can't blame laypeople (but for the Left) for buying into it .
Because the Press on both sides is rife with half-baked truths and deliberate omissions. They are playing on our lack of Civic education and knowledge of History and Politics.

Just look at the article below.
It starts with the typical emotions-inducing scenario, then when it gets to the bones of it, it omits the crucial points for a more nuanced understanding of these issues: Whahabism- Saudi Crown - Muslim Brotherhood - The 1979 Islamic Revolution.

I remember clearly how outraged it made me feel about the US and the UK.
This thread was Huge for me because of the added understandings.






--------------------------------------------

Enough of the shameful kowtowing to the Saudis
read:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/04/shameful-kowtowing-saudi-prince-visit-uk

"Remember Raif Badawi? He is the blogger who was sentenced in 2012 to 10 years in jail, and 1,000 lashes, for daring to advocate respect for human rights, secularism and democracy in his native Saudi Arabia.

The man who controls Badawi’s fate, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto Saudi ruler, will be in London this week. But many [..criticise..] Salman regime’s continuing repression of political opponents and activists, systemic discrimination against women, routine use of torture and capital punishment and its murderous war in Yemen.

David Cameron once claimed Saudi intelligence averted terrorist attacks in Britain, and the Saudi alliance is highly valued in the fight against Islamic State, al-Qaida and other jihadist groups. Ignoring evidence that Saudi Sunni Wahhabism has played a key role in encouraging anti-western extremism.

May’s government wants to safeguard, and if possible increase British arms sales to Saudi Arabia [...]. May’s main focus is not on the unnumbered Yemeni civilians who continue to die as a result of the Saudi-led, British-backed bombing campaign. "

Click to expand...

Khashoggi was, and is, billed as a voice of "progressivism" in the Mid-East for his criticism of the Saud's. Yet at the same time he was very much a card carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hopefully the readers memory isn't so short that they don't recall the "Arab Spring" and what happened in Egypt during the demonstrations and after the fall of Mubarak. A US reporterette gang raped in the streets of Cairo. After the election of Morsi and the raising of the Brotherhood to power Coptics, Christians, really anyone not a fundamentalist Muslim were murdered or beaten. The churches burned along with many of the parishioners. Egypt spiraled into such a state of chaos that the military had to step in. So much for what the brotherhood says and what the brotherhood does.

Re. Yemen. The Houthi's, being Shia, are very much proxies of Iran. And that's what the conflict is all about. The Saudi's are not about to allow a Shia insurgency to threaten their Southern border. Especially when said insurgents have stated as their ultimate goal the overthrow of the kingdom and taking it for their own. And what ever government they formed would only last as long as it took the Revolutionary Guard to move in and "bring order" to the region.

Iran's oil reserves are dwindling (THEY claim much larger reserves than the experts give them credit for) and the quality of their oil is somewhat better than sludge, but not by much. They do have light crude but no where near as much as the heavy stuff. Getting their hands on the Saudi oil fields AND Mecca/Medina would put them in the drivers seat of the worlds energy markets AND the religion. That is highly unlikely to happen, but the Iranians can dream can't they?

What is the US's goal in all of this? Two fold, world energy market stability. The US achieved energy independence almost a year ago. We don't need oil from anyone...........period. But keeping the Saudi's as an independent arbiter in the market is of great importance. Should Iran ever get their hands on the Arabian fields they and the Russians would be dictating the price of energy for the rest of the world. While the US has no need for their oil, or foreign trade for that matter (of all the developed nations the US is the least dependent on foreign trade) we recognize the chaos that would ensue should the free flow of energy and goods be disrupted to any great degree.

The second goal is to force a regime change in Iran via economic pressures. The belief being that given the opportunity the citizens of Iran would westernize and secularize in rapid order. The people of Iran are no happier with the secret police of the Ayatollah's than they were with the secret police of the Shah. Very soon now (Nov. 4th?) the US sanctions re. Iranian oil goes into effect. Right now China is buying as much Iranian oil as it can lay its hands on ahead of the sanctions. When those sanctions go into effect Iran's already severe economic crisis takes a steep dive towards the bottom. Somewhat later, due to the tarriff's and running out of oil, China's economy will start to tank as well. Which is why, regardless of all their bluster, China is not only coming to the table re. trade talks but putting pressure on Iran as well.

Will it all work out as gamed? Probably not. But hopefully well enough that everyone will relax a bit and life will go on.

bellisarius said:

Khashoggi was not a US citizen

Click to expand...

This is correct. He was a US resident with a green card.

bellisarius said:

and he wasn't a reporter for WaPo.

Click to expand...

This is also correct. He was a journalist who began writing for WaPo in September 2017 after relocating to the US in June of that same year.



Man, those pesky technicalities are something else, ain't they?

Colonel Hogan said:

Well, if you're going to be upset about something, it sure as hell doesn't hurt to have at least a little perspective.

Click to expand...

Touché. Ouch.

IrezumiKiss said:

This is correct. He was a US resident with a green card.



This is also correct. He was a journalist who began writing for WaPo in September 2017 after relocating to the US in June of that same year.

Man, those pesky technicalities are something else, ain't they?

Click to expand...

He did not write for WaPo, he submitted some writings to WaPo that they published. Details, details.

He had a green card but he was still a Saudi citizen on Saudi soil. More details.

I can only wonder if he thought, as a journalist, that he considered himself immune to the consequences of the situation that he placed himself in as so many journalists seem to be want to do?

Now he's just a cadaver being played in a fools game.

If he's murdered bv dissection, he's not a cadaver. Details.

doowdniw said:

If he's murdered bv dissection, he's not a cadaver. Details.

Click to expand...

OK, he's a cadavers. What part of his body are you interested in?

Not to mention that he worked for an American newspaper, lived in a US state, and has 2 American children. Oh, and he was killed for something he wrote in an American newspaper.