4 ms·

Just to play devil's advocate here. What is it that people want? Countries and companies to stop doing business with murderous regimes and governments? Then who

Just to play devil's advocate here. What is it that people want? Countries and companies to stop doing business with murderous regimes and governments? Then who is there to do business with? Should anybody do business with the US, EU, China, Russia, etc? It's crazy how millions are suffering in Yemen due to saudi/US/EU backed war and yet the entire media apparatus is going crazy over one person. Makes me wonder what's really going on here.

umeshunni 8y ago
You're being brigaded/downvoted, but to answer your question - the real reason there's manufactured outrage over this killing in the US is that Khashoggi worked for an influential US media company (WaPo). Otherwise, this is just a case of the Saudi administration 'taking care of' one of their own who turned against them. For the last few years, the Saudi regime has been kidnapping and imprisoning others who have done the same, only with limited external reporting and even less outrage. BBC Newsnight had a fascinating report in this about a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2KYQWPUbG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2KYQWPUbG4 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40926963 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40926963 [transcript]
- Aqueous 8y ago
  Another significant reason for the (non-manufactured) outrage is that the man who ordered the murder, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (a.k.a. MBS) is much, much too close with Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of the current President of the U.S and a senior White House official. There are questions about Kushner's connection to this killing, whether he and Trump could have stopped it but chose not to (because they have been in possession of intelligence that warned them it was going to happen), or worse, whether, in fact, they deliberately allowed the killing to happen. These questions are still unanswered. This isn't about America's selective attention or double standards. Dictators and despots in foreign countries feel free to murder journalists from the US media because Trump has given them, either implicitly or worse, permission to do so.
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    Yeah, but that's not really news. We had Bush holding hands with Saudi royal family members shortly after 19 Saudis perpetrated 9/11. Trump and his family are hucksters so of course they're looking for a Saudi money angle. It's not particularly notable compared to the overall pattern, just an instance.
cribbles 8y ago
What's "really going on" is the media taking notice of one of its own being butchered by the Saudis. As you correctly observed, there is no political will in the US/UK/SA bloc to draw attention to Saudi-borne atrocities. This percolates down to major news platforms, contingent upon an implicit truce between Saudi Arabia and the media class. This was frustrated (although likely not severed) by the Khashoggi affair. To address your larger concern - I am sympathetic to the argument that the most 'advanced' nation-states are no less complicit in 'barbaric' acts, war crimes, systemic violence, etc etc than those which more often receive scrutiny. Even in this light, the Saudi example is exceptional: it's an explicitly anti-democratic hereditary autocracy with a medieval justice system having no concept of codification (other than deference to the Quran and Hadith) or legal precedent (rulings are inconsistent and case-by-case). Essentially any investment capital or financial dealings with the SA, the state, is directly debited to or from the Saudi royal family. This is different from China and even Russia, for which one could make also the case that the state is insufficiently democratic, has arcane/draconian laws, etc etc, and that the money is likely to be siphoned off to oligarchs or state accessories. In fact, to your point, business with these countries _is_ often criticized - some would say to not a great enough degree. But drawing an equivalence on the basis of questionable state actions alone is, well, equivocating in this case.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
It’s a good question. I think at issue is which killings are acceptable under “normalcy”. Obviously soldier/spy deaths are OK, sex workers are OK to kill since they’re by definition sinners, work-related deaths are OK for low wage workers as long as the injury is not acute, accidental military slayings are OK outside of developed nations because of the “we tried” doctrine, black kids are OK because black folks have “opted in” by choosing to commit more crime than whites, First Nations people are ok because they opted out of U.S. sovereignty...* I think some people feel journalist killings are fundamentally a violation of normalcy. * not saying I agree with any of that, but this is the mainstream consensus

umeshunni 8y ago

You're being brigaded/downvoted, but to answer your question - the real reason there's manufactured outrage over this killing in the US is that Khashoggi worked for an influential US media company (WaPo). Otherwise, this is just a case of the Saudi administration 'taking care of' one of their own who turned against them. For the last few years, the Saudi regime has been kidnapping and imprisoning others who have done the same, only with limited external reporting and even less outrage. BBC Newsnight had a fascinating report in this about a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2KYQWPUbG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2KYQWPUbG4 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40926963 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40926963 [transcript]

Aqueous 8y ago
Another significant reason for the (non-manufactured) outrage is that the man who ordered the murder, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (a.k.a. MBS) is much, much too close with Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of the current President of the U.S and a senior White House official. There are questions about Kushner's connection to this killing, whether he and Trump could have stopped it but chose not to (because they have been in possession of intelligence that warned them it was going to happen), or worse, whether, in fact, they deliberately allowed the killing to happen. These questions are still unanswered. This isn't about America's selective attention or double standards. Dictators and despots in foreign countries feel free to murder journalists from the US media because Trump has given them, either implicitly or worse, permission to do so.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Yeah, but that's not really news. We had Bush holding hands with Saudi royal family members shortly after 19 Saudis perpetrated 9/11. Trump and his family are hucksters so of course they're looking for a Saudi money angle. It's not particularly notable compared to the overall pattern, just an instance.

cribbles 8y ago

What's "really going on" is the media taking notice of one of its own being butchered by the Saudis. As you correctly observed, there is no political will in the US/UK/SA bloc to draw attention to Saudi-borne atrocities. This percolates down to major news platforms, contingent upon an implicit truce between Saudi Arabia and the media class. This was frustrated (although likely not severed) by the Khashoggi affair. To address your larger concern - I am sympathetic to the argument that the most 'advanced' nation-states are no less complicit in 'barbaric' acts, war crimes, systemic violence, etc etc than those which more often receive scrutiny. Even in this light, the Saudi example is exceptional: it's an explicitly anti-democratic hereditary autocracy with a medieval justice system having no concept of codification (other than deference to the Quran and Hadith) or legal precedent (rulings are inconsistent and case-by-case). Essentially any investment capital or financial dealings with the SA, the state, is directly debited to or from the Saudi royal family. This is different from China and even Russia, for which one could make also the case that the state is insufficiently democratic, has arcane/draconian laws, etc etc, and that the money is likely to be siphoned off to oligarchs or state accessories. In fact, to your point, business with these countries _is_ often criticized - some would say to not a great enough degree. But drawing an equivalence on the basis of questionable state actions alone is, well, equivocating in this case.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

It’s a good question. I think at issue is which killings are acceptable under “normalcy”. Obviously soldier/spy deaths are OK, sex workers are OK to kill since they’re by definition sinners, work-related deaths are OK for low wage workers as long as the injury is not acute, accidental military slayings are OK outside of developed nations because of the “we tried” doctrine, black kids are OK because black folks have “opted in” by choosing to commit more crime than whites, First Nations people are ok because they opted out of U.S. sovereignty...* I think some people feel journalist killings are fundamentally a violation of normalcy. * not saying I agree with any of that, but this is the mainstream consensus