4 ms·

This might sound insensitive but I don't get what the big deal is. Even if the Saudis had the journalist killed, how is that different than all the other (more)

This might sound insensitive but I don't get what the big deal is. Even if the Saudis had the journalist killed, how is that different than all the other (more) horrible things other governments have been engaging in?

throwaway2048 8y ago
Kidnapping and murdering people using official diplomatic status in foreign countries is a massive violation of the norms of international diplomacy. The fact that countries don't normally do stuff like this is what keeps diplomatic channels open, and wars from starting.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
stephengillie 8y ago
From the article: > Torture. Assassination of political dissidents. Financing terrorism. Civilian airstrikes. Oppression of women and religious minorities. Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights ranks among the world’s worst. Not unlike CIA and military actions in South America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East (e.g. Iran Contra), and Guantanamo & Thailand, over the past 150 years.
- a008t 8y ago
  At least with the CIA, arguably, the intentions were good. There are success stories, too - Japan, West Germany, South Korea. As far as I am aware, the Saudi establishment is only out for themselves.
flyinglizard 8y ago
It is a big deal - committing violence against your own citizens in diplomatic havens on foreign soil is as dark as it gets. However, there are good things going on in Saudi Arabia right now and the West would be futile to derail this. The Saudis need to answer for their actions, but not at the price of stopping the modernization they are undergoing.
- dudul 8y ago
  I'm not an expert but I've read/seen here and there that even the whole "modernization" thing is overblown. The "women can drive!" thing was mostly for show, and is barely applied in practice. It seems to even be the opposite : while former rulers were sharing power with their counselors, MBS looks like he wants to rule alone and unopposed.
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    MBS wants to turn Saudi Arabia into something like a Gulf state. Therefore they are investing in tech (directly and indirectly e.g Softbank), building a new tech city with relaxed rules, etc. They know the oil run won't last for another 50 years.
- Kaveren 8y ago
  Why are you so eager to buy into the modernization narrative? Killing an innocent journalist is not very modernizing, and I can't pretend to believe even for a second that MBS didn't know about this. It's clearly only for PR so they can make more money and continue to commit atrocities. There won't be real progress. When I hear "anti-corruption purge" I think "get rid of my political enemies".
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    I'm sure MBS knew about this. Many people will find it offensive, but the Middle East has its own rules. Saudi Arabia is nothing like a Western state in terms of its power structure and population. Things that we find barbaric are contributing to long term stability. In this area, when you lose control over the population you get things like the Syrian civil war. But that's not at odds with modernization. Singapore is a very modern nation, as is China in parts and you could count some Gulf states on some aspects. Modernization does not have to include democracy and human rights in the way they are perceived in the West. Whatever happens, it's a long process and has inertia. Put hard limits on MBS and his ilk, but be wary of turning SA into a pariah state over this. They are turning their back to Whabbism and radical Islam, it won't be good for anyone if things are rolled back.
abledon 8y ago
I think parent comment shouldn’t be flagged, helps give context for an ELI5 explanation
tomhoward 8y ago
Best to try and avoid starting flamewars over sensitive topics like this. There's plenty of discussion all over the internet about the question you've posed. Re-litigating it here isn't likely to progress it any further than people have been able to do elsewhere.
growlist 8y ago
Is this a serious question? If so one response is: where would you draw the line? It doesn't seem a huge leap from eliminating a single troublesome journalist to eliminating a troublesome citizen/group of citizens/town/region/entire ethnic group..
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  They've been violently suppressing religious groups for years, so it's not like that is a hypothetical scenario, rather close to being the status quo. Is it fair that the murder of just one columnist gets this sort of attention?
losvedir 8y ago
In one sense it is a big deal - we don't want precedent that it's okay to kill your citizens in other countries (cf Skripal), but you're right that in another sense this seems to be how the world has always worked. I remember when Obama killed a US citizen overseas in a targeted airstrike (al-Awlaki) I was pretty upset about that and worried about the precedent it would set but it didn't catch on in the same way. Obviously "journalist" is more sympathetic than "accused terrorist" but the principle is the same, to me.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  Don’t forget that his 16 year old son was killed in that strike too. He was not an accused terrorist.
  - user982 8y ago
    His son was targeted and killed in a separate, later strike.
    - hyperpape 8y ago
      My mistake, thank you.
kopo 8y ago
It doesn't make much sense. There are other journos who have died in custody or are still rotting away in custody.

throwaway2048 8y ago

Kidnapping and murdering people using official diplomatic status in foreign countries is a massive violation of the norms of international diplomacy. The fact that countries don't normally do stuff like this is what keeps diplomatic channels open, and wars from starting.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

stephengillie 8y ago

From the article: > Torture. Assassination of political dissidents. Financing terrorism. Civilian airstrikes. Oppression of women and religious minorities. Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights ranks among the world’s worst. Not unlike CIA and military actions in South America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East (e.g. Iran Contra), and Guantanamo & Thailand, over the past 150 years.

a008t 8y ago
At least with the CIA, arguably, the intentions were good. There are success stories, too - Japan, West Germany, South Korea. As far as I am aware, the Saudi establishment is only out for themselves.

flyinglizard 8y ago

It is a big deal - committing violence against your own citizens in diplomatic havens on foreign soil is as dark as it gets. However, there are good things going on in Saudi Arabia right now and the West would be futile to derail this. The Saudis need to answer for their actions, but not at the price of stopping the modernization they are undergoing.

dudul 8y ago
I'm not an expert but I've read/seen here and there that even the whole "modernization" thing is overblown. The "women can drive!" thing was mostly for show, and is barely applied in practice. It seems to even be the opposite : while former rulers were sharing power with their counselors, MBS looks like he wants to rule alone and unopposed.
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  MBS wants to turn Saudi Arabia into something like a Gulf state. Therefore they are investing in tech (directly and indirectly e.g Softbank), building a new tech city with relaxed rules, etc. They know the oil run won't last for another 50 years.
Kaveren 8y ago
Why are you so eager to buy into the modernization narrative? Killing an innocent journalist is not very modernizing, and I can't pretend to believe even for a second that MBS didn't know about this. It's clearly only for PR so they can make more money and continue to commit atrocities. There won't be real progress. When I hear "anti-corruption purge" I think "get rid of my political enemies".
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  I'm sure MBS knew about this. Many people will find it offensive, but the Middle East has its own rules. Saudi Arabia is nothing like a Western state in terms of its power structure and population. Things that we find barbaric are contributing to long term stability. In this area, when you lose control over the population you get things like the Syrian civil war. But that's not at odds with modernization. Singapore is a very modern nation, as is China in parts and you could count some Gulf states on some aspects. Modernization does not have to include democracy and human rights in the way they are perceived in the West. Whatever happens, it's a long process and has inertia. Put hard limits on MBS and his ilk, but be wary of turning SA into a pariah state over this. They are turning their back to Whabbism and radical Islam, it won't be good for anyone if things are rolled back.

abledon 8y ago

I think parent comment shouldn’t be flagged, helps give context for an ELI5 explanation

tomhoward 8y ago

Best to try and avoid starting flamewars over sensitive topics like this. There's plenty of discussion all over the internet about the question you've posed. Re-litigating it here isn't likely to progress it any further than people have been able to do elsewhere.

growlist 8y ago

Is this a serious question? If so one response is: where would you draw the line? It doesn't seem a huge leap from eliminating a single troublesome journalist to eliminating a troublesome citizen/group of citizens/town/region/entire ethnic group..

SiempreViernes 8y ago
They've been violently suppressing religious groups for years, so it's not like that is a hypothetical scenario, rather close to being the status quo. Is it fair that the murder of just one columnist gets this sort of attention?

losvedir 8y ago

In one sense it is a big deal - we don't want precedent that it's okay to kill your citizens in other countries (cf Skripal), but you're right that in another sense this seems to be how the world has always worked. I remember when Obama killed a US citizen overseas in a targeted airstrike (al-Awlaki) I was pretty upset about that and worried about the precedent it would set but it didn't catch on in the same way. Obviously "journalist" is more sympathetic than "accused terrorist" but the principle is the same, to me.

hyperpape 8y ago
Don’t forget that his 16 year old son was killed in that strike too. He was not an accused terrorist.
- user982 8y ago
  His son was targeted and killed in a separate, later strike.
  - hyperpape 8y ago
    My mistake, thank you.

kopo 8y ago

It doesn't make much sense. There are other journos who have died in custody or are still rotting away in custody.