5 ms·

MBS already wants to modernize and liberalize Saudi Arabia. This is for economic reasons, and, I would guess, also because his macabre reputation is a drag when

MBS already wants to modernize and liberalize Saudi Arabia. This is for economic reasons, and, I would guess, also because his macabre reputation is a drag when he's partying with his Western friends. Any boycott that would get Saudi Arabia more humane government would be a good boycott. It just seems more likely that sanctions would wreck their economy and lead to a religious fanatic taking over.

sam_lowry_ 1y ago
Mohammed bin Salman? He is probably a complex man, but by accident of history the only thing we know about him is the killing of Khashoggi and the gnarly details of the body disposal process.
- thomassmith65 1y ago
  That's the one, unfortunately. In Saudi Arabia, if you're not someone he wants to torture or kill, you can enjoy increased religious freedoms, gender equality, and international ties. It's a bit like Iran before the revolution: the Shah was liberalizing and modernizing his nation, while at the same using SAVAK to torture his opposition.
  - ath3nd 1y ago
    > In Saudi Arabia, if you're not someone he wants to torture or kill, you can enjoy increased religious freedoms, gender equality, and international ties. Increased compared to taliban rule? Wow, thanks so much to the benevolent dictator for allowing a woman to go out without a male companion without being stoned. And thank the benevolent dictator for not having an interest in me specially. All praise the guy who could dismember many people but chooses to do that only to a couple, and who could imprison many, but does it mostly to his family and whoever he pleases.
    - thomassmith65 1y ago
      If there were an overwhelming majority in Saudi Arabia who demanded the full set of human rights we have in the West, then it would be unconscionable to say anything positive about Mohammed bin Salman. This quote is from a story from before Saudi women got the right to drive. The piece argues it was a common take: Mashaal El-Maliki, a housewife: "Female driving will destroy family life because it will give husbands a chance to know other women who (as drivers) will be free and without guardians." https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-protest-driving-ban-not-popular https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-prot... The best path forward is whatever path is the shortest to making life bearable for liberal Saudis, but that doesn't end in conservative revolt (and deeper theocracy). When a considerable portion of a nation opposes basic freedoms, there are fewer viable options.
  - cholantesh 1y ago
    >the Shah was liberalizing and modernizing his nation Quaint revisionism; in fact Mossadegh was already actually liberalizing and modernizing the nation while Pahlavi was turning it into a US/UK client state.
    - thomassmith65 1y ago
      Neither Mossadegh nor Pahlavi were ideal leaders, and both were better than what Iran has today.
      - cholantesh 1y ago
        No leaders are 'ideal', but the only way you can equivocate between these two is taking it making a tacit assumption that reorienting the state apparatus and your economy towards the needs of foreign clients - and away from the enrichment of regular people at home - is good.
        thomassmith65 1y ago
        The concern I raise is that religious fanatics replace MBS. In that context, the relevant Iranian comparison is pre-1979 and post-1979. Post-1979 is a nightmare, a terrifying Twilight Zone episode. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran In Saudi Arabia, MBS is probably better than a more fanatical Wahabist government. I gather the power struggle between the royals and the clerics is ongoing. Human rights progress would reverse under the latter.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
No, he does want to turn saudi arabia into a secular democracy. He is just doing the bare minimal in order to gain legitimacy and investments/business. He is not a believer in human rights, democracy and religious freedom. He is literally a dictator and a murder.
- sthkr 1y ago
  He doesn't need to. Saudi Arabia doesn't give citizenship to foreigners. We don't want permanent foreigner migration like Japan and South Korea and other countries. 99% of the population is already Muslim. All foreigners are temporary workers on 1 year visas. They're just in KSA for doing their jobs. Their views never mattered in the past, now and will never matter in the future. They do their job contract and they leave. Lol what's so amazing about democracy. Look at America. Democracy means income taxes, giving citizenship to foreigners, bringing third world shithole refugee criminals, junkies and crap, having your government policies change way too much often, giving precedence to foreigners for jobs. No thanks! Saudi Arabia has a good small growing population of 20 million Saudi citizens. It's close knit, homogeneous, same religion, culture etc. Monarchy provides us all the benefits we need. Look at Kuwait, it tried having a partial democracy and fails miserably.
  - victorbjorklund 1y ago
    Yea, you guys having slaves without citizenships is so innovative. You really are so smart for making sure your slaves dont have any rights.

sam_lowry_ 1y ago

Mohammed bin Salman? He is probably a complex man, but by accident of history the only thing we know about him is the killing of Khashoggi and the gnarly details of the body disposal process.

thomassmith65 1y ago
That's the one, unfortunately. In Saudi Arabia, if you're not someone he wants to torture or kill, you can enjoy increased religious freedoms, gender equality, and international ties. It's a bit like Iran before the revolution: the Shah was liberalizing and modernizing his nation, while at the same using SAVAK to torture his opposition.
- ath3nd 1y ago
  > In Saudi Arabia, if you're not someone he wants to torture or kill, you can enjoy increased religious freedoms, gender equality, and international ties. Increased compared to taliban rule? Wow, thanks so much to the benevolent dictator for allowing a woman to go out without a male companion without being stoned. And thank the benevolent dictator for not having an interest in me specially. All praise the guy who could dismember many people but chooses to do that only to a couple, and who could imprison many, but does it mostly to his family and whoever he pleases.
  - thomassmith65 1y ago
    If there were an overwhelming majority in Saudi Arabia who demanded the full set of human rights we have in the West, then it would be unconscionable to say anything positive about Mohammed bin Salman. This quote is from a story from before Saudi women got the right to drive. The piece argues it was a common take: Mashaal El-Maliki, a housewife: "Female driving will destroy family life because it will give husbands a chance to know other women who (as drivers) will be free and without guardians." https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-protest-driving-ban-not-popular https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-prot... The best path forward is whatever path is the shortest to making life bearable for liberal Saudis, but that doesn't end in conservative revolt (and deeper theocracy). When a considerable portion of a nation opposes basic freedoms, there are fewer viable options.
- cholantesh 1y ago
  >the Shah was liberalizing and modernizing his nation Quaint revisionism; in fact Mossadegh was already actually liberalizing and modernizing the nation while Pahlavi was turning it into a US/UK client state.
  - thomassmith65 1y ago
    Neither Mossadegh nor Pahlavi were ideal leaders, and both were better than what Iran has today.
    - cholantesh 1y ago
      No leaders are 'ideal', but the only way you can equivocate between these two is taking it making a tacit assumption that reorienting the state apparatus and your economy towards the needs of foreign clients - and away from the enrichment of regular people at home - is good.
      - thomassmith65 1y ago
        The concern I raise is that religious fanatics replace MBS. In that context, the relevant Iranian comparison is pre-1979 and post-1979. Post-1979 is a nightmare, a terrifying Twilight Zone episode. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran In Saudi Arabia, MBS is probably better than a more fanatical Wahabist government. I gather the power struggle between the royals and the clerics is ongoing. Human rights progress would reverse under the latter.

victorbjorklund 1y ago

No, he does want to turn saudi arabia into a secular democracy. He is just doing the bare minimal in order to gain legitimacy and investments/business. He is not a believer in human rights, democracy and religious freedom. He is literally a dictator and a murder.

sthkr 1y ago
He doesn't need to. Saudi Arabia doesn't give citizenship to foreigners. We don't want permanent foreigner migration like Japan and South Korea and other countries. 99% of the population is already Muslim. All foreigners are temporary workers on 1 year visas. They're just in KSA for doing their jobs. Their views never mattered in the past, now and will never matter in the future. They do their job contract and they leave. Lol what's so amazing about democracy. Look at America. Democracy means income taxes, giving citizenship to foreigners, bringing third world shithole refugee criminals, junkies and crap, having your government policies change way too much often, giving precedence to foreigners for jobs. No thanks! Saudi Arabia has a good small growing population of 20 million Saudi citizens. It's close knit, homogeneous, same religion, culture etc. Monarchy provides us all the benefits we need. Look at Kuwait, it tried having a partial democracy and fails miserably.
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  Yea, you guys having slaves without citizenships is so innovative. You really are so smart for making sure your slaves dont have any rights.