4 ms·
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
by 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...
- eternalban 8y agoThe scope and details were, in fact, a secret: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untol...