7 ms·

I am surprised they are even allowed to "operate" in all these cities... especially the USA/Europe.

by Amfy 4y ago

curiousgal 4y ago
Saudi Arabia funded 9/11, Israel shot an American citizen, the U.S. continues to operate as usual with those countries. My point is that, politics is never about the people/victims.
- rat9988 4y ago
  > Saudi Arabia funded 9/11 Well, some conspiracy theories are considered facts now.
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > some conspiracy theories are considered facts now. There are mainstream sources detailing evidence of Saudi funding for Al Quaeda. [1] Whether they approved of/sanctioned 9/11 is another matter. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evidence-of-financial-links-between-saudi-royal-family-and-al-qaeda https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evide...
    - imglorp 4y ago
      A civil court agrees too. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-arabia-must-face-u-s-lawsuits-over-sept-11-attacks-idUSKBN1H43A1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-ar...
      - zaphirplane 4y ago
        No dog in this race First of all this is a civil case of liability which ranges from indirect responsibility to facilitated thru incompetence/ambivalence Second this article is about dismissal of the case over jurisdiction for parts of the claim Third “The judge also dismissed claims … lack … jurisdiction” Maybe the case is over with a ruling, maybe there is an article proving a link, maybe maybe but this article doesn’t make that Proof
    - jollybean 4y ago
      It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. If a very rich American went to South America for a decade and then bombed a building in Rio, he would have 'financial relationship' to the US via a number of investments. It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. Osama Bin Laden was a member of a big, sprawling, super rich Oligarchic family in Saudi. Obviously, there were dealings, and obviously some Saudis probably funded some things here and there. Just like a Texan Evangelical Oil Billionaire might fund Christian Schools in Peru, which may even be good schools. But the charity run by a guy with ties to 'American Rio Bomber'. Everything at that level is intertwined, it's not sufficient to suggest that proves anything. The 'State' of Saudis is 'mostly a good actor to the outside world, even if they are bad in many ways internally. They allow the free flow of oil at market prices, 'per the deal' and don't align with China, Russia, or some other crazy state, and they are not trying to invade Iran or get nukes (though there are backup plans). And they play nice with Israel, not directly trying to start a war with them, or 'create' one between them and Israel. Most of their vast holdings are invested reasonably.Also, in the 'war on terror' which is actually a financial network and intelligence war, they have been playing 'on the right side' - as 'terrorists' are more dangerous to them than the US anyhow. So that's kind of what we can expect from them. In 100 years, hopefully things will be a bit better.
      - nyokodo 4y ago
        > It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. The evidence points to the Saudi royal family funding a terrorist organization. That’s a lot more than just a rich citizen, that is their autocratic ruling family and the evidence is very convincing. Their reasoning probably was more about regional concerns rather than attacking the US, however when you fund fanatics they don’t always follow the script.
      - nyolfen 4y ago
        >It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. this is false. there is a great deal of direct and circumstantial evidence that has come out in the last two years. this isn't "bin laden knew people", this is "the 9/11 hijackers received assistance from saudi diplomats in the US" https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabia/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabi...
    - vbezhenar 4y ago
      This is quote from wikipedia: Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." So basically US sponsored 9/11. Is there any moral grounds to blame Saudi Arabia?
      - nyokodo 4y ago
        > So basically US sponsored 9/11. The US did supply the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Al Qaeda did eventually arise from the Mujahideen so 9/11 is certainly blowback but the CIA would need to be funding and aiding Al-Qaeda operatives during the late 90s to 2001 for there to be equivalency with Saudi but I’m not aware of any evidence to support that. Besides, the point wasn’t that the CIA was innocent it was that Saudi was guilty.
      - Bud 4y ago
        Well, there's the fact that 95% of the hijackers were Saudis.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        "Alqaida" literally means "the base". As in "the foundation [of struggle]", not as in "the database".
    - m00x 4y ago
      The US also funded Al Qaeda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
      - nyokodo 4y ago
        So this was 2012 in Syria and any support for Al-Qaeda was accidental and unintentional, from the article: “US-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front, and some of the US-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when the program was first proposed”
  - dontlaugh 4y ago
    Just because some theories are ridiculous doesn’t mean that there aren’t many real conspiracies. There’s a reason the CIA pushed the idea of conspiracy theory as something ridiculous, it’s great cover.
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      The CIA didn't need to do anything: Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Yeti, all sorts of mysterious / conspiracy theories just propagate on their own and at times because they're fun to imagine as real.
      - peteradio 4y ago
        What is the "conspiracy" behind Bigfoot. The word "conspiracy" used to have a specific meaning different from "farfetched".
        ROTMetro 4y ago
        The Democrats are keeping bigfoot secret until they get the bigfoot population high enough to replace the MAGA crowd.
        peteradio 4y ago
        Those damn democrats!!!
      - dontlaugh 4y ago
        They coined the term and publicised it. The things you described used to be called just myths.
        superturkey650 4y ago
        No they didn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_an...
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
    Lately it seems the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact is 3-6 months.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Even if we assume they're 100% true, two cherry picked incidents is very far from proving that "politics is never about the people/victims".
chiph 4y ago
National law enforcement agencies often have reciprocity with foreign countries. For example, the FBI has offices in many countries to facilitate things like investigations and extraditions. The common name is "Legat" and they operate in cooperation with and at the pleasure of the host country. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/international-offices https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/international-offices It sounds like the Chinese police are operating like they're in their home country. Which they are not. Sooner or later, their activities are going to get them PNG'd (made Persona Non Grata) and they'll be asked to leave.
- ngcc_hk 4y ago
  Asked to leave and then swap to another one. How many police they have. Millions. Or 10 millions.
wil421 4y ago
The FBI has an office in Beijing. I’m doubting either government cares that much if they police their own citizens. It’s probably more complex with dual citizens. There’s so many people in each country there has to be some cooperation from time to time.
- walterbell 4y ago
  Big difference between the activity in this report and legal (e.g. extradition) cooperation.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  China technically doesn’t recognize dual citizenship for anyone over 18. But they’ve been known to rescind someone rescinding their citizenship before, which is messed up.
  - PebblesRox 4y ago
    > they’ve been known to rescind someone rescinding their citizenship I'm trying to figure out what you mean here, and wondering if you have a typo. Would you please elaborate?
    - mvid 4y ago
      My take is that even if you rescind your Chinese citizenship, the CCP can choose to un-rescind it, re-exposing you to Chinese authority.
      - nonethewiser 4y ago
        ... but this just give you dual citizenship.
        zdragnar 4y ago
        That doesn't help you if they have you in China and keep you from getting access to an embassy. Dual citizenship only helps if they actually recognize it, or your host country learns of your plight- neither of which are the case here.
jollybean 4y ago
It should not be surprising at all - you are 'allowed' to do what you have the power to do and get away with. China speaks with one voice, Xi, everyone else a thousand voices. US has 10 000 people at least who make up the power of Xi. President, senator, CEO, senior bureaucrat, judge, heads of NGOs, Universities, police, military etc. all 'put in one group and coordinated with an ambitious 50 year plan' in the West. Even in a single country. Europe, N. America, Japan, Korea, Australia have to partner with 'everyone else' in a comprehensive way to stand up to this. Trans Pacific was a big opportunity that Trump didn't have the foresight to grasp - he wanted to have 'unipolar power' in a world where the US just does not have the leverage it did after WW2 and no amount of 'wishing' or even exceptional leadership will change that. US could 'solve all it's problems' and it would still be the reality that % of global GDP would be declining because other nations are 'coming on line'. Oddly, a panacea of 'other voices' may serve to counterbalance. Even if they are acting in self interest, to the extent they are not overrun by China, their own voices add up to something. We are seeing the beginning of that in Africa, with their stance on the Ukraine issue. While they should definitely be taking a more assertive stance via Russia, the fact they are where they are (and partly due to the fact Russia is their 'breadbasket') is an indication of coherent self interest on some level. I don't think it's cause for world wide alarm, but there needs to be a plan.
- cetahfh14615 4y ago
  The TPP was more complicated than this and there was bipartisan opposition to it. The opposition to it wasn't merely Trump's isolationism but genuine concerns about the economic affects it would have on domestic citizens
- Bakary 4y ago
  >China speaks with one voice, Xi, everyone else a thousand voices. US has 10 000 people at least who make up the power of Xi. President, senator, CEO, senior bureaucrat, judge, heads of NGOs, Universities, police, military etc. all 'put in one group and coordinated with an ambitious 50 year plan' in the West. Even in a single country. This is an orientalist and simplistic take. The CCP is an enormously complicated system and there are many cliques and ideological debates within it. As any sinologist will tell you, the power struggles at the very top are mostly unknown to us (except years later, to historians) but even in Mao's era there was certainly not a single voice.
kccqzy 4y ago
They are not "operating" in any official capacity. They are just there, doing their "persuasion." Remember the USA and Europe have good free speech laws that will protect those "persuasion." Even with police cooperation agreements in place, they don't have the usual police power like arresting anyone. A NYT article from back in 2016 says, > In 2014 […] That was the year the two countries signed a bilateral police cooperation agreement, the first of its kind between China and a European nation. > The Chinese officers do not have arrest powers in Italy, but they are paired with Italian officers who could arrest someone, except no arrests have been needed. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/chinese-police-rome-italy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/chinese-poli...
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Remember the USA and Europe have good free speech laws that will protect those "persuasion." I know the US is a special case, but in most of Europe, free speech does not cover threats, intimidation and blackmail.
  - semiquaver 4y ago
    Laws are only as good as the prosecutors enforcing them, and with the support of a nation state it’s very easy to evade criminal prosecution. I suspect that few if any European legal systems are set up to effectively deal with an adversary operating in this manner.
  - Bud 4y ago
    Huh? The US is not a "special case" in this way.
    - kergonath 4y ago
      I meant in terms of how people view free speech in general

I am surprised they are even allowed to "operate" in all these cities... especially the USA/Europe.

by Amfy 4y ago

I am surprised they are even allowed to "operate" in all these cities... especially the USA/Europe.

Saudi Arabia funded 9/11, Israel shot an American citizen, the U.S. continues to operate as usual with those countries. My point is that, politics is never about the people/victims.

rat9988 4y ago
> Saudi Arabia funded 9/11 Well, some conspiracy theories are considered facts now.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > some conspiracy theories are considered facts now. There are mainstream sources detailing evidence of Saudi funding for Al Quaeda. [1] Whether they approved of/sanctioned 9/11 is another matter. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evidence-of-financial-links-between-saudi-royal-family-and-al-qaeda https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evide...
  - imglorp 4y ago
    A civil court agrees too. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-arabia-must-face-u-s-lawsuits-over-sept-11-attacks-idUSKBN1H43A1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-ar...
    - zaphirplane 4y ago
      No dog in this race First of all this is a civil case of liability which ranges from indirect responsibility to facilitated thru incompetence/ambivalence Second this article is about dismissal of the case over jurisdiction for parts of the claim Third “The judge also dismissed claims … lack … jurisdiction” Maybe the case is over with a ruling, maybe there is an article proving a link, maybe maybe but this article doesn’t make that Proof
  - jollybean 4y ago
    It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. If a very rich American went to South America for a decade and then bombed a building in Rio, he would have 'financial relationship' to the US via a number of investments. It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. Osama Bin Laden was a member of a big, sprawling, super rich Oligarchic family in Saudi. Obviously, there were dealings, and obviously some Saudis probably funded some things here and there. Just like a Texan Evangelical Oil Billionaire might fund Christian Schools in Peru, which may even be good schools. But the charity run by a guy with ties to 'American Rio Bomber'. Everything at that level is intertwined, it's not sufficient to suggest that proves anything. The 'State' of Saudis is 'mostly a good actor to the outside world, even if they are bad in many ways internally. They allow the free flow of oil at market prices, 'per the deal' and don't align with China, Russia, or some other crazy state, and they are not trying to invade Iran or get nukes (though there are backup plans). And they play nice with Israel, not directly trying to start a war with them, or 'create' one between them and Israel. Most of their vast holdings are invested reasonably.Also, in the 'war on terror' which is actually a financial network and intelligence war, they have been playing 'on the right side' - as 'terrorists' are more dangerous to them than the US anyhow. So that's kind of what we can expect from them. In 100 years, hopefully things will be a bit better.
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything. The evidence points to the Saudi royal family funding a terrorist organization. That’s a lot more than just a rich citizen, that is their autocratic ruling family and the evidence is very convincing. Their reasoning probably was more about regional concerns rather than attacking the US, however when you fund fanatics they don’t always follow the script.
    - nyolfen 4y ago
      >It's conspiratorial and misrepresentation to talk about this - to the point of it being a lie. this is false. there is a great deal of direct and circumstantial evidence that has come out in the last two years. this isn't "bin laden knew people", this is "the 9/11 hijackers received assistance from saudi diplomats in the US" https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabia/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabi...
  - vbezhenar 4y ago
    This is quote from wikipedia: Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." So basically US sponsored 9/11. Is there any moral grounds to blame Saudi Arabia?
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > So basically US sponsored 9/11. The US did supply the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Al Qaeda did eventually arise from the Mujahideen so 9/11 is certainly blowback but the CIA would need to be funding and aiding Al-Qaeda operatives during the late 90s to 2001 for there to be equivalency with Saudi but I’m not aware of any evidence to support that. Besides, the point wasn’t that the CIA was innocent it was that Saudi was guilty.
    - Bud 4y ago
      Well, there's the fact that 95% of the hijackers were Saudis.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      "Alqaida" literally means "the base". As in "the foundation [of struggle]", not as in "the database".
  - m00x 4y ago
    The US also funded Al Qaeda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      So this was 2012 in Syria and any support for Al-Qaeda was accidental and unintentional, from the article: “US-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front, and some of the US-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when the program was first proposed”
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  Just because some theories are ridiculous doesn’t mean that there aren’t many real conspiracies. There’s a reason the CIA pushed the idea of conspiracy theory as something ridiculous, it’s great cover.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    The CIA didn't need to do anything: Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Yeti, all sorts of mysterious / conspiracy theories just propagate on their own and at times because they're fun to imagine as real.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      What is the "conspiracy" behind Bigfoot. The word "conspiracy" used to have a specific meaning different from "farfetched".
      - ROTMetro 4y ago
        The Democrats are keeping bigfoot secret until they get the bigfoot population high enough to replace the MAGA crowd.
        peteradio 4y ago
        Those damn democrats!!!
    - dontlaugh 4y ago
      They coined the term and publicised it. The things you described used to be called just myths.
      - superturkey650 4y ago
        No they didn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_an...
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  Lately it seems the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact is 3-6 months.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Even if we assume they're 100% true, two cherry picked incidents is very far from proving that "politics is never about the people/victims".

chiph 4y ago

National law enforcement agencies often have reciprocity with foreign countries. For example, the FBI has offices in many countries to facilitate things like investigations and extraditions. The common name is "Legat" and they operate in cooperation with and at the pleasure of the host country. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/international-offices https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/international-offices It sounds like the Chinese police are operating like they're in their home country. Which they are not. Sooner or later, their activities are going to get them PNG'd (made Persona Non Grata) and they'll be asked to leave.

ngcc_hk 4y ago
Asked to leave and then swap to another one. How many police they have. Millions. Or 10 millions.

wil421 4y ago

The FBI has an office in Beijing. I’m doubting either government cares that much if they police their own citizens. It’s probably more complex with dual citizens. There’s so many people in each country there has to be some cooperation from time to time.

walterbell 4y ago
Big difference between the activity in this report and legal (e.g. extradition) cooperation.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
China technically doesn’t recognize dual citizenship for anyone over 18. But they’ve been known to rescind someone rescinding their citizenship before, which is messed up.
- PebblesRox 4y ago
  > they’ve been known to rescind someone rescinding their citizenship I'm trying to figure out what you mean here, and wondering if you have a typo. Would you please elaborate?
  - mvid 4y ago
    My take is that even if you rescind your Chinese citizenship, the CCP can choose to un-rescind it, re-exposing you to Chinese authority.
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      ... but this just give you dual citizenship.
      - zdragnar 4y ago
        That doesn't help you if they have you in China and keep you from getting access to an embassy. Dual citizenship only helps if they actually recognize it, or your host country learns of your plight- neither of which are the case here.

jollybean 4y ago

It should not be surprising at all - you are 'allowed' to do what you have the power to do and get away with. China speaks with one voice, Xi, everyone else a thousand voices. US has 10 000 people at least who make up the power of Xi. President, senator, CEO, senior bureaucrat, judge, heads of NGOs, Universities, police, military etc. all 'put in one group and coordinated with an ambitious 50 year plan' in the West. Even in a single country. Europe, N. America, Japan, Korea, Australia have to partner with 'everyone else' in a comprehensive way to stand up to this. Trans Pacific was a big opportunity that Trump didn't have the foresight to grasp - he wanted to have 'unipolar power' in a world where the US just does not have the leverage it did after WW2 and no amount of 'wishing' or even exceptional leadership will change that. US could 'solve all it's problems' and it would still be the reality that % of global GDP would be declining because other nations are 'coming on line'. Oddly, a panacea of 'other voices' may serve to counterbalance. Even if they are acting in self interest, to the extent they are not overrun by China, their own voices add up to something. We are seeing the beginning of that in Africa, with their stance on the Ukraine issue. While they should definitely be taking a more assertive stance via Russia, the fact they are where they are (and partly due to the fact Russia is their 'breadbasket') is an indication of coherent self interest on some level. I don't think it's cause for world wide alarm, but there needs to be a plan.

cetahfh14615 4y ago
The TPP was more complicated than this and there was bipartisan opposition to it. The opposition to it wasn't merely Trump's isolationism but genuine concerns about the economic affects it would have on domestic citizens
Bakary 4y ago
>China speaks with one voice, Xi, everyone else a thousand voices. US has 10 000 people at least who make up the power of Xi. President, senator, CEO, senior bureaucrat, judge, heads of NGOs, Universities, police, military etc. all 'put in one group and coordinated with an ambitious 50 year plan' in the West. Even in a single country. This is an orientalist and simplistic take. The CCP is an enormously complicated system and there are many cliques and ideological debates within it. As any sinologist will tell you, the power struggles at the very top are mostly unknown to us (except years later, to historians) but even in Mao's era there was certainly not a single voice.

kccqzy 4y ago

They are not "operating" in any official capacity. They are just there, doing their "persuasion." Remember the USA and Europe have good free speech laws that will protect those "persuasion." Even with police cooperation agreements in place, they don't have the usual police power like arresting anyone. A NYT article from back in 2016 says, > In 2014 […] That was the year the two countries signed a bilateral police cooperation agreement, the first of its kind between China and a European nation. > The Chinese officers do not have arrest powers in Italy, but they are paired with Italian officers who could arrest someone, except no arrests have been needed. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/chinese-police-rome-italy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/chinese-poli...

kergonath 4y ago
> Remember the USA and Europe have good free speech laws that will protect those "persuasion." I know the US is a special case, but in most of Europe, free speech does not cover threats, intimidation and blackmail.
- semiquaver 4y ago
  Laws are only as good as the prosecutors enforcing them, and with the support of a nation state it’s very easy to evade criminal prosecution. I suspect that few if any European legal systems are set up to effectively deal with an adversary operating in this manner.
- Bud 4y ago
  Huh? The US is not a "special case" in this way.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    I meant in terms of how people view free speech in general