5 ms·

I am not the only one saying this since eons, but power and money are the only things that work in global relations. Countries are forced to develop nuclear we

I am not the only one saying this since eons, but power and money are the only things that work in global relations. Countries are forced to develop nuclear weapons because treaties are not honored owing to special interests. If your big brother is powerful, you can get away with almost anything. As much outrage the journalist killing has caused, they will be able to buyout any powerful dissidents, corporations or countries.

mc32 8y ago
Something’s different about this. Journalists get killed by rogue government elements in Mexico, Russia, probably even Turkey itself, but you don’t see the same reaction. What gives?
- gtsteve 8y ago
  It happened in an embassy in another country, as opposed to an event that could be passed off as a mugging gone wrong. It was provably done by agents of the government, so that's what makes it especially inflammatory.
- danso 8y ago
  The difference here is that critics don’t believe that Khashoggi was killed by “rogue government elements” — they believe he was killed because of orders from the top of government. Can you recall the last time a journalist, or other controversial citizen, was killed inside their country’s own embassy? Nevermind one that had such a blatant coverup? I would agree that other governments may have had citizens assassinated and made it look like “rogue government elements”, but not nearly as obvious.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I agree with what you say, but the implications are rather interesting. It means that while we know less than stellar governments kill journalists, the killings themselves aren’t as upsetting as the manner of the killing? As if there is an accepted “etiquette” in those things?
    - lbriner 8y ago
      I'm not so sure it's as much about etiquette than deniability. If he was killed in some "accident" then the other countries or corporations can easily buy the lie, avoid the confrontation and keep the money/relationship (even if they think it is likely to be state-sanctioned). Because it was such a screw up (fiance waiting outside was a kind of solid witness as well as the recording etc.), it is much harder for others to accept the "accident", which becomes toxic PR and therefore something to distance yourselves from.
      - danso 8y ago
        This is exactly what I was thinking. Other alleged government-ordered assassinations have enough plausible deniability that they may indeed be the work of rogue elements. For example, at around the same time that Khashoggi's death became known, Bulgarian journalist Viktoria Marinova was found raped and murdered after she had gone out for a jog. It was immediately suspected to be politically-motivated, as she had recently anchored a news program that looked at EU corruption. A few days ago, a 21-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of Marinova's rape and murder, and prosecutors do not believe that she was killed for her work [0]. Of course, that doesn't mean she wasn't killed as part of a state plot. But there's not much reason to suspect that over the possibility that she was a random murder victim. For her death to be as scandalous and controversial as Khashoggi's, it would have to have the same evidence of suspicious circumstances. For example, the 21-year-old suspect being an employee of Bulgaria's intelligence agency or military covert forces, and being caught and identified right after her death, but taking 1+ weeks to come up with the confession that he randomly murdered her, despite purported audio recordings that suggest that he murdered with political intent. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/viktoria-marinova-murder-suspect-admits-attacking-journalist-181019161609175.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/viktoria-marinova-mur...
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    This is bullshit. The difference is that this guy was a blue check mark with a column in the Washington Post. He was a journalist, one of them. If a human rights activist had been killed in the same way the story would have blown over already. It is not news to anyone that Saudi Arabia is the personal fief of the Saud family, who are brutish medieval thugs. Everyone knows perfectly well that they cut off people’s hands and crucify people and if there’s a government on the Arabian peninsula that doesn’t use torture according to Amnesty or Human Rights Watch I’ll be very much surprised. The denial was not meant to be credible, it was meant to be nakedly obvious that he was killed in the consulate and they were meant to get away with it s it free as a warning to any other dissidents. And the next time they will. It’s the combination of being a guy who goes to inside Beltway cocktail parties, the Turkish government having the consulate bugged and the Saudis’ gross incompetence that did it. The absence of any one would have had them getting off Scot free.
    - danso 8y ago
      So presumably you're going to provide us a list with human rights activists who have been killed in the same way? That said, I don't see what you're arguing here. Is there any doubt that the murders of well-known people get more attention than murders of less-known people? And when a well-known someone is brazenly murdered in connection to the reason he was well-known, that the fame effect is amplified? What's your point?
      - mc32 8y ago
        Not an activist, but the head of the Interpol was kidnapped (and currently whereabouts unknown) by his own country. Not a random person, but head of the Interpol. Don't see the same outcry. Also the Maltese journalist (Caruana) uncovering European dark money who was bombed --not much press.
        danso 8y ago
        There's not been the same outcry but there has definitely been coverage of the fact that Meng Hongwei had been detained by the Chinese government [0], just as there was when Fan Bingbing, "China's most famous actress", disappeared before recently announcing she had been investigated for tax evasion [1]. Should there be more outcry about the Chinese government detaining its citizens without transparency? Sure, but I think it's obvious why Khashoggi's case has received more attention. Not just that he died and his body is currently missing, but for the ongoing coverup. Also, both have at least been officially accused of crimes by their government, whereas Khashoggi AFAIK had not been at the time of his death. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/world/asia/china-interpol-men-hongwei.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/world/asia/china-interpol... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/asia/china-fan-bingbing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/asia/china-fan-bing... edit: Memories and perceptions vary, of course, but Caruana's murder from what I remember got a massive amount of attention in the media. The top Google result for "Caruana murder" are currently from the BBC, NPR, The Guardian, and the NYT. In addition, the "Forbidden Stories" collaboration was launched to continue her work: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/world/europe/journalist-murder-malta-eu.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/world/europe/journalist-m... > After her death, 45 journalists from 18 news organizations agreed to work together to pursue leads from her work on corruption and international money-laundering networks, as well as look into the circumstances surrounding her death. Forbidden Stories, an investigative nonprofit in Paris devoted to completing the work of jailed and murdered journalists, coordinated the collaboration, in which The New York Times took part. She was killed 1 year ago but her death still gets recent coverage, like this article from 2 days ago from the Committee to Protect Journalists: https://cpj.org/blog/2018/10/efforts-to-find-mastermind-in-murder-of-malta-jour.php https://cpj.org/blog/2018/10/efforts-to-find-mastermind-in-m...
- eternalban 8y ago
  What gives, imo, is that the "international community" [whatever that means to you ..] has decided that MbS can not be the next King of SA. Heads of state are routinely dispatching people by various violent means, including "bloody dismemberment" by remote controlled Drones. Normally, this is "OK" by the "international community", unless the head of state in question has crossed the said "community" or violated unspoken "international" protocols not disclosed to us peons. Another view is that Western leaders never err -- how can they? -- in violently dismembering people (and their families) and only brown (or otherwise shaded) leaders commit such sins. In other words, no Nobel Prize for you, MbS. I remember chuckling reading in Vanity Fair how the CEOs of the "international" criminal banking guild were all huddled up and worried about the ethical issue of should they go to MbS's upcoming gathering or not. Besides chuckling, I was impressed by the amazing discipline of those who control MSM to line up the bipartisan ducks when the order is issued from on high. But seriously, in the early 70s the United States of America and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reached a secret strategic agreement. And the USA no longer wishes to hold up their end of that grand agreement. Naturaly, HN, this is my opinion.
  - danso 8y ago
    > Heads of state are routinely dispatching people by various violent means, including "bloody dismemberment" by remote controlled Drones. Why not give examples? I can give a well-known one: President Obama's approval of the 2011 drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen residing in Yemen (his 16-year-old son, also a U.S. citizen, was killed in another strike but was not officially targeted for killing). https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a... It was controversial years later, including today -- his 8-year old daughter was killed during a 2017 U.S. raid [0], but I think we can agree that Obama was far from danger of stepping down. However, the facts surrounding al-Awlaki's and Khashoggi's deaths are different enough to suggest there are natural, non-conspiracy reasons for why MBS is facing far more scrutiny. We can only imagine hypotheticals, but if Obama had ordered a drone strike on Sean Hannity on U.S. soil, and then pretended for a week that it was an accident despite his signature on the kill order, I'm pretty sure he would have faced similar levels of outrage. > But seriously, in the early 70s the United States of America and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reached a secret strategic agreement. And the USA no longer wishes to hold up their end of that grand agreement. The United States's and Saudi Arabia's strategic of the past decades has hardly been "secret". And the U.S. is far from eager to disengage from that alliance, as recent headlines suggest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-privately-doubts-saudi-account-of-journalists-death/2018/10/20/4c459c07-eceb-4600-91ea-95228128e7ec_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white... > At the same time, Trump defended the oil-rich monarchy as an “incredible ally” and kept open the possibility that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not order Saudi agents to kill Khashoggi. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-e...
- forapurpose 8y ago
  It's because he was, effectively if not literally, an American journalist. It's well known among journalists, and there's even a sort of exponent-based 'law' that's sarcastically cited - I can't remember it, but it's something like: 1 person killed on your block is equivalent to 10 people killed 100 miles away, etc. An American killed means much more to Americans than 100 people from Saudi Arabia killed, and vice versa.
  - mc32 8y ago
    He was Saudi, hence his visit to the embassy to get some marriage license thing done. It’s like saying an American correspondent stationed in Iran is actually an Iranian. Even if he had been, say, what’s that conspiracy theorist-cum-journalist, Jones. If he’d bern offed as an American, I’m unsure of yhd media reaction. Of course, you might come and retort hd wasn’t a “true journalist”. But then we’re picking anc choosing fights.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > He was Saudi To be clear, I wasn't talking about his legal status. I'm talking about how the conception of him in the minds of many Americans: A journalist for the Washington Post is an American journalist, to a great degree, in many Americans minds. If he worked for the Jerusalem Post or a prominent Saudi news organization, IMHO Americans would have much less interest. Many Al Jazeera journalists have experienced pretty bad treatment, but I doubt most people know. The rest of the parent comment is a made-up situation.
js8 8y ago
I disagree, IMHO what works best are immigrants and emigrants. Typically, the country people emigrate into has more influence in that relationship, but there is an effect the other way around, too.
forapurpose 8y ago
> power and money are the only things that work in global relations Power is the only thing that works anywhere (money being a source of power) at a certain level, but that's kind of like saying all science is physics - it'd doesn't really have explanatory use. The question is how and why it's exercised. Domestically in advanced countries, it's controlled to a significant extent by government, which is controlled by citizens and people with power, who all can be manipulated by mass media, who are subject to Facebook and Twitter's power, which is influenced by public opinion and stockholders and the news the CEO reads, etc. etc. etc. It's a complicated web. > Countries are forced to develop nuclear weapons because treaties are not honored owing to special interests But even nuclear weapons treaties are influenced by public opinion. After (and before) the treaty with Iran was signed, there was a intense campaign on the U.S. right to discredit it, along with their attempts to discredit everything Obama did, giving Trump sufficient political support to break the treaty. If the public has been strongly in favor of it, it would have been a different story. So what power led the U.S. to break the treaty? Public opinion? Whoever was trying to influence public opinion in that direction? Large donors to the Trump or the GOP? There is a web of influence. But I will say this for the the theory of "power and money" - the best way IMHO to find the power behind something is to follow the money: Who benefits? Who is benefited from the murder of Khashoggi? Who benefited from the portrayal of the Saudi dictator as a good person? Who benefits from the response?

mc32 8y ago

Something’s different about this. Journalists get killed by rogue government elements in Mexico, Russia, probably even Turkey itself, but you don’t see the same reaction. What gives?

gtsteve 8y ago
It happened in an embassy in another country, as opposed to an event that could be passed off as a mugging gone wrong. It was provably done by agents of the government, so that's what makes it especially inflammatory.
danso 8y ago
The difference here is that critics don’t believe that Khashoggi was killed by “rogue government elements” — they believe he was killed because of orders from the top of government. Can you recall the last time a journalist, or other controversial citizen, was killed inside their country’s own embassy? Nevermind one that had such a blatant coverup? I would agree that other governments may have had citizens assassinated and made it look like “rogue government elements”, but not nearly as obvious.
- mc32 8y ago
  I agree with what you say, but the implications are rather interesting. It means that while we know less than stellar governments kill journalists, the killings themselves aren’t as upsetting as the manner of the killing? As if there is an accepted “etiquette” in those things?
  - lbriner 8y ago
    I'm not so sure it's as much about etiquette than deniability. If he was killed in some "accident" then the other countries or corporations can easily buy the lie, avoid the confrontation and keep the money/relationship (even if they think it is likely to be state-sanctioned). Because it was such a screw up (fiance waiting outside was a kind of solid witness as well as the recording etc.), it is much harder for others to accept the "accident", which becomes toxic PR and therefore something to distance yourselves from.
    - danso 8y ago
      This is exactly what I was thinking. Other alleged government-ordered assassinations have enough plausible deniability that they may indeed be the work of rogue elements. For example, at around the same time that Khashoggi's death became known, Bulgarian journalist Viktoria Marinova was found raped and murdered after she had gone out for a jog. It was immediately suspected to be politically-motivated, as she had recently anchored a news program that looked at EU corruption. A few days ago, a 21-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of Marinova's rape and murder, and prosecutors do not believe that she was killed for her work [0]. Of course, that doesn't mean she wasn't killed as part of a state plot. But there's not much reason to suspect that over the possibility that she was a random murder victim. For her death to be as scandalous and controversial as Khashoggi's, it would have to have the same evidence of suspicious circumstances. For example, the 21-year-old suspect being an employee of Bulgaria's intelligence agency or military covert forces, and being caught and identified right after her death, but taking 1+ weeks to come up with the confession that he randomly murdered her, despite purported audio recordings that suggest that he murdered with political intent. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/viktoria-marinova-murder-suspect-admits-attacking-journalist-181019161609175.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/viktoria-marinova-mur...
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  This is bullshit. The difference is that this guy was a blue check mark with a column in the Washington Post. He was a journalist, one of them. If a human rights activist had been killed in the same way the story would have blown over already. It is not news to anyone that Saudi Arabia is the personal fief of the Saud family, who are brutish medieval thugs. Everyone knows perfectly well that they cut off people’s hands and crucify people and if there’s a government on the Arabian peninsula that doesn’t use torture according to Amnesty or Human Rights Watch I’ll be very much surprised. The denial was not meant to be credible, it was meant to be nakedly obvious that he was killed in the consulate and they were meant to get away with it s it free as a warning to any other dissidents. And the next time they will. It’s the combination of being a guy who goes to inside Beltway cocktail parties, the Turkish government having the consulate bugged and the Saudis’ gross incompetence that did it. The absence of any one would have had them getting off Scot free.
  - danso 8y ago
    So presumably you're going to provide us a list with human rights activists who have been killed in the same way? That said, I don't see what you're arguing here. Is there any doubt that the murders of well-known people get more attention than murders of less-known people? And when a well-known someone is brazenly murdered in connection to the reason he was well-known, that the fame effect is amplified? What's your point?
    - mc32 8y ago
      Not an activist, but the head of the Interpol was kidnapped (and currently whereabouts unknown) by his own country. Not a random person, but head of the Interpol. Don't see the same outcry. Also the Maltese journalist (Caruana) uncovering European dark money who was bombed --not much press.
      - danso 8y ago
        There's not been the same outcry but there has definitely been coverage of the fact that Meng Hongwei had been detained by the Chinese government [0], just as there was when Fan Bingbing, "China's most famous actress", disappeared before recently announcing she had been investigated for tax evasion [1]. Should there be more outcry about the Chinese government detaining its citizens without transparency? Sure, but I think it's obvious why Khashoggi's case has received more attention. Not just that he died and his body is currently missing, but for the ongoing coverup. Also, both have at least been officially accused of crimes by their government, whereas Khashoggi AFAIK had not been at the time of his death. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/world/asia/china-interpol-men-hongwei.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/world/asia/china-interpol... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/asia/china-fan-bingbing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/asia/china-fan-bing... edit: Memories and perceptions vary, of course, but Caruana's murder from what I remember got a massive amount of attention in the media. The top Google result for "Caruana murder" are currently from the BBC, NPR, The Guardian, and the NYT. In addition, the "Forbidden Stories" collaboration was launched to continue her work: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/world/europe/journalist-murder-malta-eu.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/world/europe/journalist-m... > After her death, 45 journalists from 18 news organizations agreed to work together to pursue leads from her work on corruption and international money-laundering networks, as well as look into the circumstances surrounding her death. Forbidden Stories, an investigative nonprofit in Paris devoted to completing the work of jailed and murdered journalists, coordinated the collaboration, in which The New York Times took part. She was killed 1 year ago but her death still gets recent coverage, like this article from 2 days ago from the Committee to Protect Journalists: https://cpj.org/blog/2018/10/efforts-to-find-mastermind-in-murder-of-malta-jour.php https://cpj.org/blog/2018/10/efforts-to-find-mastermind-in-m...
eternalban 8y ago
What gives, imo, is that the "international community" [whatever that means to you ..] has decided that MbS can not be the next King of SA. Heads of state are routinely dispatching people by various violent means, including "bloody dismemberment" by remote controlled Drones. Normally, this is "OK" by the "international community", unless the head of state in question has crossed the said "community" or violated unspoken "international" protocols not disclosed to us peons. Another view is that Western leaders never err -- how can they? -- in violently dismembering people (and their families) and only brown (or otherwise shaded) leaders commit such sins. In other words, no Nobel Prize for you, MbS. I remember chuckling reading in Vanity Fair how the CEOs of the "international" criminal banking guild were all huddled up and worried about the ethical issue of should they go to MbS's upcoming gathering or not. Besides chuckling, I was impressed by the amazing discipline of those who control MSM to line up the bipartisan ducks when the order is issued from on high. But seriously, in the early 70s the United States of America and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reached a secret strategic agreement. And the USA no longer wishes to hold up their end of that grand agreement. Naturaly, HN, this is my opinion.
- danso 8y ago
  > Heads of state are routinely dispatching people by various violent means, including "bloody dismemberment" by remote controlled Drones. Why not give examples? I can give a well-known one: President Obama's approval of the 2011 drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen residing in Yemen (his 16-year-old son, also a U.S. citizen, was killed in another strike but was not officially targeted for killing). https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a... It was controversial years later, including today -- his 8-year old daughter was killed during a 2017 U.S. raid [0], but I think we can agree that Obama was far from danger of stepping down. However, the facts surrounding al-Awlaki's and Khashoggi's deaths are different enough to suggest there are natural, non-conspiracy reasons for why MBS is facing far more scrutiny. We can only imagine hypotheticals, but if Obama had ordered a drone strike on Sean Hannity on U.S. soil, and then pretended for a week that it was an accident despite his signature on the kill order, I'm pretty sure he would have faced similar levels of outrage. > But seriously, in the early 70s the United States of America and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reached a secret strategic agreement. And the USA no longer wishes to hold up their end of that grand agreement. The United States's and Saudi Arabia's strategic of the past decades has hardly been "secret". And the U.S. is far from eager to disengage from that alliance, as recent headlines suggest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-privately-doubts-saudi-account-of-journalists-death/2018/10/20/4c459c07-eceb-4600-91ea-95228128e7ec_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white... > At the same time, Trump defended the oil-rich monarchy as an “incredible ally” and kept open the possibility that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not order Saudi agents to kill Khashoggi. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-e...
forapurpose 8y ago
It's because he was, effectively if not literally, an American journalist. It's well known among journalists, and there's even a sort of exponent-based 'law' that's sarcastically cited - I can't remember it, but it's something like: 1 person killed on your block is equivalent to 10 people killed 100 miles away, etc. An American killed means much more to Americans than 100 people from Saudi Arabia killed, and vice versa.
- mc32 8y ago
  He was Saudi, hence his visit to the embassy to get some marriage license thing done. It’s like saying an American correspondent stationed in Iran is actually an Iranian. Even if he had been, say, what’s that conspiracy theorist-cum-journalist, Jones. If he’d bern offed as an American, I’m unsure of yhd media reaction. Of course, you might come and retort hd wasn’t a “true journalist”. But then we’re picking anc choosing fights.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > He was Saudi To be clear, I wasn't talking about his legal status. I'm talking about how the conception of him in the minds of many Americans: A journalist for the Washington Post is an American journalist, to a great degree, in many Americans minds. If he worked for the Jerusalem Post or a prominent Saudi news organization, IMHO Americans would have much less interest. Many Al Jazeera journalists have experienced pretty bad treatment, but I doubt most people know. The rest of the parent comment is a made-up situation.

js8 8y ago

I disagree, IMHO what works best are immigrants and emigrants. Typically, the country people emigrate into has more influence in that relationship, but there is an effect the other way around, too.

forapurpose 8y ago

> power and money are the only things that work in global relations Power is the only thing that works anywhere (money being a source of power) at a certain level, but that's kind of like saying all science is physics - it'd doesn't really have explanatory use. The question is how and why it's exercised. Domestically in advanced countries, it's controlled to a significant extent by government, which is controlled by citizens and people with power, who all can be manipulated by mass media, who are subject to Facebook and Twitter's power, which is influenced by public opinion and stockholders and the news the CEO reads, etc. etc. etc. It's a complicated web. > Countries are forced to develop nuclear weapons because treaties are not honored owing to special interests But even nuclear weapons treaties are influenced by public opinion. After (and before) the treaty with Iran was signed, there was a intense campaign on the U.S. right to discredit it, along with their attempts to discredit everything Obama did, giving Trump sufficient political support to break the treaty. If the public has been strongly in favor of it, it would have been a different story. So what power led the U.S. to break the treaty? Public opinion? Whoever was trying to influence public opinion in that direction? Large donors to the Trump or the GOP? There is a web of influence. But I will say this for the the theory of "power and money" - the best way IMHO to find the power behind something is to follow the money: Who benefits? Who is benefited from the murder of Khashoggi? Who benefited from the portrayal of the Saudi dictator as a good person? Who benefits from the response?