3 ms·

If this causes major shifts, I don't imagine they'll be apparent on day 1. Its not like Saudi Arabia was eagerly awaiting to burn some major bridges with the US

If this causes major shifts, I don't imagine they'll be apparent on day 1. Its not like Saudi Arabia was eagerly awaiting to burn some major bridges with the US. Check back on day 365, or day 3650.

rickydroll 2y ago
I would not be surprised if this became an "October surprise" to weaken Biden and the Democrats further.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Right? Its a card in the Saudi Royal Family's pocket to be played when it suits them. Not something to just throw down all willy-nilly.
- bequanna 2y ago
  I don’t follow. By pretty much every measure, Biden appears to be the establishment candidate. Who is out to get him?
  - consumer451 2y ago
    > By pretty much every measure, Biden appears to be the establishment candidate. Who is out to get him? Certainly the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem. Other parties out to get Biden are likely corporate lobbying groups as the Dems have been showing some backbone with regard to regulations in recent times.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem Then Riyadh would prefer Biden. American fossil fuel producers are their competition. (Not claiming knowledge about MBS’s preferences. Just underlining this isn’t as simple as implied.)
      - consumer451 2y ago
        Since we repealed the law forbidding oil export, it's a global market. Riyadh and Houston have always been on great terms as they have common goals and common enemies. The Dems propose moving to a green economy, this is terrible for all fossil fuel extractors.
      - mrighele 2y ago
        Riyadh would prefer the one willing to sell secrets for a couple of million dollars.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >Certainly the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem. Is this not common knowledge? Yes, since Dems always worked just fine for them too.
      - consumer451 2y ago
        Really? "Both sides." > You all are wealthy enough, he (Trump) said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil...
        coldtea 2y ago
        Consider the source. And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too.
        consumer451 2y ago
        > Consider the source. The source is a paper run by an ex-News Corp employee. > And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too. This is extremely hand-wavy. To get down to specifics, look at the history of the opening of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. GOP opens it, Dems close it. Look at EPA fuel efficiency regulations, which party increases them? I understand being frustrated by how corporate-friendly both parties in the USA are, but to just throw your hands up in the air while stating "both sides" is ignoring reality and surrendering your agency.
        lmm 2y ago
        > The source is a paper run by an ex-News Corp employee. So someone who's used to being owned by a billionaire and pushing their agenda, and good at it, and presumably doing the same thing now under another billionaire? What point were you trying to make?
  - b112 2y ago
    As a Canuck, I don't get why the US us trying to elect candidates, older than a pope typically is. Both candidates are ancient. Some want different candidates. On both sides.
    - bdcravens 2y ago
      For the most part, the mechanics of the current bipartisan system. In the current election system of primaries (in place since 1972), an incumbent has never lost. They haven't even lost a state in 44 years. So basically the incumbent has a defacto first right of refusal when it comes to their party's nomination. The other party has been shaped by a political movement with a lot of power and momentum, and the founder of that movement more or less has the same defacto first right of refusal.
      - adolph 2y ago
        I think the parent comment is commenting on presidential candidate ages, which has had two consecutive new records in age and incumbency didn't seem to factor. Prompt: list of us presidents and their year of birth and age when elected You will see a list with few year of birth regressions and most ages in 50-60. Two years of 70+ is an outlier.
        bdcravens 2y ago
        Incumbency is why younger options aren't being considered. It's more of an "in spite of" rather than "because of" situation.
    - mejutoco 2y ago
      If we are going to think bigger I suggest more than 2 viable parties.
      - jonathankoren 2y ago
        You’re going to have to eliminate first past the post for that to work. Both parties are essentially coallitions. Christian nationalists and big business, and their apologists on one side, and everyone else on the other.
nonrandomstring 2y ago
> Its not like Saudi Arabia was eagerly awaiting to burn some major bridges with the US. Bridges aren't typically their target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept...
- fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
  The allegations here, if I got it right: 1. One guy who worked for Saudi intelligence knew about the attacks (disputed). 2. 15 of 19 attackers were Saudi nationals (dubious relevance, generally we don’t blame a whole country for crimes committed by individuals from that country). 3. Bin Laden family has close ties to the Saudi royal family, and Al Queda got funded by the Bin Laden family. My surface-level takeaway is that Saudi royals deserve criticism for associating with the supporters of terrorism. However, I don’t see evidence the Saudi state conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    Why are you asking me if yoou read it?
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
      My feeling is that discussion of this issue includes a lot of people implying things, making vague accusations. I feel it’s useful to get specific about the claims so readers can understand them.
      - nonrandomstring 2y ago
        Fair enough. And I'm glad you did, because it turned what was a sardonic throwaway comment by myself - "Oh they like burning skyscrapers not bridges" - into some real reflection, for a few of us, me included, researching and thinking a bit more deeply about it. 9/11 is a turning point in world history. Even today, much of what's going on in the digital world around cybersecurity, digital rights and software design is reverberating from what happened two decades ago. I have people close to me still living with the PTSD. I think for some of the current generation who cannot directly remember it but live in the shadow, it's what WW2 was to mine. For them it's important to keep clarity, and not give in to myths, convenient narratives and conspiracy theories. And that takes constant courage. Looking back at it, it's beyond insane. We waged two theatres of war against completely the wrong countries, killed millions and wrecked our own culture, waged disinformation psyops on our own people to maintain a lie, for what? And despite shooting Bin Laden - which was never a trial or any kind of real justice by our standards of civilisation, I can't help thinking the bad guys just got away with it all. And there they are, still talking about "petrodollars" while the climate fails and the planet burns.
adventured 2y ago
The US is now the world's largest energy producer, oil and natural gas. Saudi Arabia's security context is anything but solid. I'd question whether they have much room to play with in terms of messing with the US (maybe at the edges, nothing fundamental). I suppose they could sign a large strategic guarantee with China as a form of diversification of security.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > US is now the world's largest energy producer, oil and natural gas And Iran finds itself emboldened by renewed ties to Russia.
ryandrake 2y ago
There's that quote, which always seems to get misattributed to a different vaguely-middle-eastern public figure every time it's repeated: "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel." Whether or not anyone actually said it, it seems to be more and more likely as oil verrrry slowly becomes less and less relevant.
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  I thought you were going to say a different quote, along the lines that: change always takes more time than we expect, and has more impact than we imagine. Having primed myself so, I had to reread the camel quote a few times before I understood it!
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    I too was primed for the Bill Gates (?) quote about change in a year vs a decade.
- hnbear 2y ago
  Land Rover beats Mercedes?

If this causes major shifts, I don't imagine they'll be apparent on day 1. Its not like Saudi Arabia was eagerly awaiting to burn some major bridges with the US. Check back on day 365, or day 3650.

rickydroll 2y ago

I would not be surprised if this became an "October surprise" to weaken Biden and the Democrats further.

vel0city 2y ago
Right? Its a card in the Saudi Royal Family's pocket to be played when it suits them. Not something to just throw down all willy-nilly.
bequanna 2y ago
I don’t follow. By pretty much every measure, Biden appears to be the establishment candidate. Who is out to get him?
- consumer451 2y ago
  > By pretty much every measure, Biden appears to be the establishment candidate. Who is out to get him? Certainly the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem. Other parties out to get Biden are likely corporate lobbying groups as the Dems have been showing some backbone with regard to regulations in recent times.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem Then Riyadh would prefer Biden. American fossil fuel producers are their competition. (Not claiming knowledge about MBS’s preferences. Just underlining this isn’t as simple as implied.)
    - consumer451 2y ago
      Since we repealed the law forbidding oil export, it's a global market. Riyadh and Houston have always been on great terms as they have common goals and common enemies. The Dems propose moving to a green economy, this is terrible for all fossil fuel extractors.
    - mrighele 2y ago
      Riyadh would prefer the one willing to sell secrets for a couple of million dollars.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >Certainly the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem. Is this not common knowledge? Yes, since Dems always worked just fine for them too.
    - consumer451 2y ago
      Really? "Both sides." > You all are wealthy enough, he (Trump) said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil...
      - coldtea 2y ago
        Consider the source. And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too.
        consumer451 2y ago
        > Consider the source. The source is a paper run by an ex-News Corp employee. > And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too. This is extremely hand-wavy. To get down to specifics, look at the history of the opening of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. GOP opens it, Dems close it. Look at EPA fuel efficiency regulations, which party increases them? I understand being frustrated by how corporate-friendly both parties in the USA are, but to just throw your hands up in the air while stating "both sides" is ignoring reality and surrendering your agency.
        lmm 2y ago
        > The source is a paper run by an ex-News Corp employee. So someone who's used to being owned by a billionaire and pushing their agenda, and good at it, and presumably doing the same thing now under another billionaire? What point were you trying to make?
- b112 2y ago
  As a Canuck, I don't get why the US us trying to elect candidates, older than a pope typically is. Both candidates are ancient. Some want different candidates. On both sides.
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    For the most part, the mechanics of the current bipartisan system. In the current election system of primaries (in place since 1972), an incumbent has never lost. They haven't even lost a state in 44 years. So basically the incumbent has a defacto first right of refusal when it comes to their party's nomination. The other party has been shaped by a political movement with a lot of power and momentum, and the founder of that movement more or less has the same defacto first right of refusal.
    - adolph 2y ago
      I think the parent comment is commenting on presidential candidate ages, which has had two consecutive new records in age and incumbency didn't seem to factor. Prompt: list of us presidents and their year of birth and age when elected You will see a list with few year of birth regressions and most ages in 50-60. Two years of 70+ is an outlier.
      - bdcravens 2y ago
        Incumbency is why younger options aren't being considered. It's more of an "in spite of" rather than "because of" situation.
  - mejutoco 2y ago
    If we are going to think bigger I suggest more than 2 viable parties.
    - jonathankoren 2y ago
      You’re going to have to eliminate first past the post for that to work. Both parties are essentially coallitions. Christian nationalists and big business, and their apologists on one side, and everyone else on the other.

nonrandomstring 2y ago

> Its not like Saudi Arabia was eagerly awaiting to burn some major bridges with the US. Bridges aren't typically their target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept...

fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
The allegations here, if I got it right: 1. One guy who worked for Saudi intelligence knew about the attacks (disputed). 2. 15 of 19 attackers were Saudi nationals (dubious relevance, generally we don’t blame a whole country for crimes committed by individuals from that country). 3. Bin Laden family has close ties to the Saudi royal family, and Al Queda got funded by the Bin Laden family. My surface-level takeaway is that Saudi royals deserve criticism for associating with the supporters of terrorism. However, I don’t see evidence the Saudi state conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  Why are you asking me if yoou read it?
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
    My feeling is that discussion of this issue includes a lot of people implying things, making vague accusations. I feel it’s useful to get specific about the claims so readers can understand them.
    - nonrandomstring 2y ago
      Fair enough. And I'm glad you did, because it turned what was a sardonic throwaway comment by myself - "Oh they like burning skyscrapers not bridges" - into some real reflection, for a few of us, me included, researching and thinking a bit more deeply about it. 9/11 is a turning point in world history. Even today, much of what's going on in the digital world around cybersecurity, digital rights and software design is reverberating from what happened two decades ago. I have people close to me still living with the PTSD. I think for some of the current generation who cannot directly remember it but live in the shadow, it's what WW2 was to mine. For them it's important to keep clarity, and not give in to myths, convenient narratives and conspiracy theories. And that takes constant courage. Looking back at it, it's beyond insane. We waged two theatres of war against completely the wrong countries, killed millions and wrecked our own culture, waged disinformation psyops on our own people to maintain a lie, for what? And despite shooting Bin Laden - which was never a trial or any kind of real justice by our standards of civilisation, I can't help thinking the bad guys just got away with it all. And there they are, still talking about "petrodollars" while the climate fails and the planet burns.

adventured 2y ago

The US is now the world's largest energy producer, oil and natural gas. Saudi Arabia's security context is anything but solid. I'd question whether they have much room to play with in terms of messing with the US (maybe at the edges, nothing fundamental). I suppose they could sign a large strategic guarantee with China as a form of diversification of security.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> US is now the world's largest energy producer, oil and natural gas And Iran finds itself emboldened by renewed ties to Russia.

ryandrake 2y ago

There's that quote, which always seems to get misattributed to a different vaguely-middle-eastern public figure every time it's repeated: "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel." Whether or not anyone actually said it, it seems to be more and more likely as oil verrrry slowly becomes less and less relevant.

doctor_eval 2y ago
I thought you were going to say a different quote, along the lines that: change always takes more time than we expect, and has more impact than we imagine. Having primed myself so, I had to reread the camel quote a few times before I understood it!
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  I too was primed for the Bill Gates (?) quote about change in a year vs a decade.
hnbear 2y ago
Land Rover beats Mercedes?