Saudi Arabia is disgusting
NOprophet_NØprofit
Shipmate
The country is basically hell already for anyone not a Saudi man. Xenophobic abusive etc. But apparently Iran is the enemy. WFT?
But now we see the Saudi pricks are exposed as murderers in another country with the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. And the dangerous trumpy is trying to preserve bzillions in guns, bombs and other deadly military crap by trying to spin a story about rogue people doing the murder, and the effing media report this stupid explanation faithfully. They suck too.
Really lovely that the Saudis cut up the murdered man's body. Yep people, these are steadfast allies in the middle-east. The story is going to get spinned further. Just got to make sure the money keeps flowing from the bombs the Saudis need to kill Yemeni civilians with.
But now we see the Saudi pricks are exposed as murderers in another country with the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. And the dangerous trumpy is trying to preserve bzillions in guns, bombs and other deadly military crap by trying to spin a story about rogue people doing the murder, and the effing media report this stupid explanation faithfully. They suck too.
Really lovely that the Saudis cut up the murdered man's body. Yep people, these are steadfast allies in the middle-east. The story is going to get spinned further. Just got to make sure the money keeps flowing from the bombs the Saudis need to kill Yemeni civilians with.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Saudi regime has been disgusting for decades. It's a shame that events in Turkey* means that the world notices but decades of oppression don't.
* Which hardly has a good record either on this kind of thing
But I wonder how many Americans, Brits, or Canadian voters will make "End oil and weapon deals with Saudi Arabia now!" a prerequisite for any party asking for their support in the next election.
In my experience, opposition to the KSA tends to be a mile wide and an inch deep among the populations of its trading partners: yeah yeah, everyone hates flogging and witch-trials, but at the end of the day, no one really has the stomach for any of the hard economic decisions that would need to be made in the event of a boycott.
Turkey is actually very nice to its journalists. On the whole it prefers to lock them up rather than kill and dismember them. Mind you it does so quite prolifically, by the hundreds. Wiki link.
That's an interesting use of tense there, which makes it sound like I'm asking about a hypothetical situation, and what you would do in that case.
But it's not a hypothetical. Right now, you can promise yourself "I will not vote for any party that refuses to end oil and weapon deals with Saudi Arabia". Is that the position you're taking?
I believe the Liberals have now gone on record as saying "Gee, we sure hope these tanks don't get used for bad stuff over there", but haven't actually cancelled the contracts. (Which they could have done, at least at one point.)
It makes no sense to condemn Iran and North Korea and to support this feudal, racist, backward bunch. Except money.
Trumpy continues to suggest that it doesn't matter and that jobs matter. Well, maybe another Sept 11 is required, which made the neocons and warmongers happy with the 2001 attack which gave them the "Pearl Harbor" they desired: the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Let's keep bathing the middle-east in blood while exporting the oil. The point being that the only way America would sign on to anything remotely concerned with this murder, Saudi human rights violations, Saudi funding of terrorism worldwide including the 2001 attacks is if the oil keep flowing, and preferably if they could engineer to control it again as a colonial enterprise, like they do in Iraq. Because money. And this isn't just trumpy. It's a string of leaders. It almost makes a person consider conspiracy theories re Sept 11 attacks, but I really think it's a continuation of the usual economic opportunism. Because money is more important than anything.
I did write to our local MP a few months ago and got a supportive reply (mentioned it in church on Sunday, as it happens), but there's little she can do as an inexperienced Opposition back-bencher. Some will remember Robin Cook's ethical arms policy which stated that the government "will not issue an export licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression". Saudi was clearly one of his targets but he was trumped by business needs and political expediency. So much for morals.
BTW (and I know it's not Saudi Arabia) has anyone else been following the admirable TV series about President Assad? Utterly fascinating - sounds like the intrigues of ancient Rome. As it happens, Mrs. Assad went to the same school as my son, though not at the same time,
I won’t say there shouldn’t be an outcry about Khashoggi, but that incident seems to me to pale into insignificance compared to the situation in Yemen, where the Saudis are responsible for what is shaping up to be the worst famine the world has seen in 100 years. That should generate fury on a massive scale.
I am, too, frankly astonished at the lack of general care and concern, particularly by our leaders, over this. Syria's tyrant gets grief, but don't mention the (Saudi-Yemeni) war.
All too true.
Consider the Sept 11 attacks. That was newsworthy. The more than ten times number of people killed in road crashes weren't newsworthy.
There is of course a bias to not report on non-European-looking people whose cultures are very different, but I don't think that's what is transpiring here.
If there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia it is likely to be inspired by religion I suppose, but against that is my understanding that most Islamic extremist groups are funded by the Saudi elite and in some cases run by them. They are oppressive, but traditional in their practices. I don't think there's much risk of a democratic or liberal revolution.
So, how about a quick war? Over by Christmas. Promise.
We are fucked. There is nothing we can do about this.
So why do we tolerate/ encourage/ welcome? Leaving aside the blindingly obvious (weapons sales) and the politically expedient (we trust them to supply our oil more than Putin/ Maduro/ etc) the answer can be summed up in the title of a book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which has ever been treated as Holy Writ in the FCO, helped by the fact that the PS at the FO in the 1930s, Robert Vansittart, was a a cousin of Lawrence.
I think for our US cousins it is arms sales first, then oil: but we Brits are still pretty hooked on tales of derring-do in the desert, all of course as imagined by David Lean and personified by the young Peter O'Toole.
Frankly Trump can say what he wants this time: it won't have as much impact on the rest of the world because they don't have much respect for DT and the man is widely (if privately) regarded as a buffoon and liar. Of course the media are going to report the ludicrous idea of DT's "rogue elements" - all the better to bring up come the election in 2020 as proof that he's a moron.
I think this may be the issue that finally divides the rest of NATO (with the possible exception of the UK) from the US when it comes to KSA: whether that translates into taking a harder line on KSA over Yemen remains to be seen.
As for Iran, again the rest of the western alliance has, by-and-large, taken the US line here by cracks have begun to emerge.
Apparently Khashoggi tried to get the documents through the embassy in Washington DC and they directed him to London; then when he went to the embassy in London they directed him to the consulate in Istanbul. I think Khashoggi might have smelled a rat in ordinary circumstances, but since his fiancee is Turkish he probably dropped his guard, seeing the trip to Istanbul as a chance to see her.
Saudi Arabia would still have plenty of markets for its oil. It wouldn't be seriously affected for more than a few weeks. We, on the other hand, would either have to go begging around the other oil-producing countries for our supplies or seriously reduce our oil usage (with the attendant reductions in quality of life that would ensue).
Meanwhile, Russia and China would leap at the chance to make billions of roubles/yuan by taking over our armament contracts. So Saudi Arabia wouldn't be seriously affected for very long there either. We, on the other hand, would be several billion pounds worse off virtually overnight.
Ultimately, the only effect would be that we would get poorer and weaker while Russia and China - those well-known bastions of human rights - would get richer and stronger. The Yemenis would still be getting killed, of course. If you want a world that's dominated by Vladimir "vote for anyone you like, but if it's not me I'll have you killed" Putin and Xi "voting? don't make me laugh" Jinping then by all means go for it.
These are the realities of global politics, people. If you stick to your highbrow principles and insist on keeping your hands clean then you will get spectacularly shat on by those who don't.
On one hand, yes, you're probably right.
On the other, there appears to be no principle you'd not take round the back and shoot deader than a dead dog if it meant you might suffer even slightly economically.
So, on balance, fuck the Saudis, and the camel they rode in on. And fuck you too.
It's not just about economics. It's also about the global power balance. On the whole, I think the world is better off having us in positions of power than having Russia or China in those positions. For one thing, it puts us in a position to try to lobby and otherwise pressure the Saudis into ceasing their activities in Yemen. You think they'd listen to us after we cut all ties to them? You think Russia or China gives half a dried-out fuck about the Yemenis?
If your aim is to actually help the Yemenis then surrendering what sway we have over the Saudis isn't going to achieve that. If, on the other hand, your aim is some kind of keep-my-own-hands-clean non-interventionism then carry right on.
Is the world better off, or are we better off? asked Pogo. Which is answered in ways not kind to us, for example, in a 2001 speech which later was published as one of Great Canadian Speeches:
I think we have to ask critically and honestly: "who is the world better off for?" The alternative currently if we stop what we're doing is chaos and disintegration of what little bits of civil society there is in many parts of Asia, Africa, South America. But it is not a binary between "we control" and "we abandon". The alternative is to actually support over many decades, the development socially, politically and economically of countries we currently support because our core values in practice are only about money. We exploit because we want. We'd have to practice the values we claim, rather than just the money.
They are the problem. We are not the solution.
Well we could of course invade and/or nuke them. Gulf war 3 here we come so Trump can make a name for himself with the Bushes
(Way TMI, so spoiler box:
Dear God.
(votive)
Minor tangent, which may take a bit to explain:
Yesterday, before I had the above info fairly clear, I got to wondering about K's last name: it looks Turkish rather than Arabic. So I skimmed his Wikipedia entry (which, as you might expect, is in process). K is/was Turkish on his dad's side. The Wiki entry makes for interesting reading: evidently lots of enmeshment with his family and the Saudi royal house and gov't. Bin Laden got a mention. (Not accusing K or his family of anything. Am just reporting there was some sort of contact/relationship with either K or his dad. K, I think.)
Which is a long way round to: might his mixed ethnicity have been a factor in attitudes towards him? Saudi royals might think he's not *really* an Arab and can't be trusted, despite his connections with the royals. And the Turkish gov't might well think just the opposite.
It might, at least, have given the Saudi royals an extra reason to go after K and be especially brutal towards him. I got the impression that Turkey didn't do a whole heck of a lot to find him. Maybe it gave them a reason. (Though maybe couldn't, 'cause dangerous politics.)
I've always tended to think that Saudi justice (and Middle Eastern, in general) was barbaric. (Though much the same as in the OT, where it's also barbaric. And I bear in mind that my gov't has done uncountable awful things, over the years.)
Cutting off hands of thieves, and executing a princess and her lover were bad enough.
But this...
(vomit)
AIUI, bin Laden wanted to overthrow the Saudi royals. Not that I want any goal of his fulfilled, but...
EU travel ban on Saudi government officials.
Freezing Saudi assets.
Arms sale ban.
Proscribing Wahhabist forms of Islam.
Withdrawal from all bilateral agreements with Saudi Arabia.
Revocation of visas for visiting Saudis.
Basically, treat them like the pariah state they are.
And to be absolutely clear, as vile as Khashoggi's murder is, I would already have put these measures in place decades ago.
The Saudi military is a joke; they wouldn't have gone into Yemen if they didn't already have active support from the West (which in this context is mostly the US and Britain), including strategic and tactical level help
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-20/saudi-arabia-says-fight-in-consulate-led-to-khashoggi-death/10399234
Oh my.
And Poland invaded Germany to start WW2.
"For the task assigned them
Men aren't smart enough or sly
Any rogue can blind them
With a clever lie. " (Bertold Brecht)
On the face of it, it’s not obviously more ridiculous than the idea that they are interested in reform or trying to minimise civilian casualties in Yemen - both of which are lines that were pushed by their allies in Western media. One thinks of Friedman’s fawning over MBS in the pages of the New York Tines.
"MBS"?
Thx.
As Climacus said above, it's the Crown Prince. This was the kind of article I was referring to:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html
Well, I guess "fight" is a nebulous enough term that, push comes to shove, the Saudis can claim they weren't lying, as long as Khaggoshi put up even the smallest amount of physical resistance against his assailants.
If only we had acted against the Kingdom decades ago. There was always a reason not to I suppose.
One of the things this murder calls to mind is the scene in Fargo where a body is put through a woodchipper. To me, the woodchipper seemed too small to do the job properly, as my woodchipper arks up at the smallest wooden branch being put through it. Obviously, there are really big ones that could do the job, but the cleaning would be hell. You'd have to ask a butcher for advice I suppose, but the machines are designed differently. When I ask for a lamb's neck to be cut up they use a kind of vertical electric knife with two serrated blades running up and down.
Kashoggi's murder is a terrible crime, and terrible crimes have been committed before by countries seeking to protect their perceived interests. Journalists are murdered on a regular basis in all sorts of horrific ways. What gets me is the daily abuse of humanity carried out by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and I appreciate that you see the irony too. I won't broaden it out to Syria. There is no comparison between the brutal murder of a man and the carpet bombing of cities in Yemen.
I reckon that your set of proposals instituted with immediate effect is likely to do greater harm to us than to Saudi Arabia, given the existence of a viable alternative market in China. I think Saudi Arabia is too tied in to Western economies to be able to be effectively punished at the moment.
I would like to see a kind of staged process. We (the west) do need to get out of the business of supplying arms to the Saudis. They will get them from China and Russia, but I think that the cost to us is manageable. We absolutely need to end any co-operation with the Saudis over Yemen. I have heard that there is targeting assistance provided to the Saudis under the cover of saying we are trying to help them avoid civilian targets. That must stop. The Saudis are not avoiding civilian targets.
We need to become less reliant on Saudi oil. In the past, that was about sourcing oil ourselves. Now it is about renewables. That strikes me as a realistic option now.
Once we are no longer so reliant on petrol, we institute your program, except that we don't freeze Saudi assets, we take them. That will involve dealing with our own tall poppies, as we call them in Australia. We will probably need to bribe the greedy bastards by promising a distribution of Saudi shares on a proportional basis to existing shareholders. That should keep them happy.
I don't agree that we should ban their version of Islam though. Just get all their adherents to wear ankle bracelets through other means.
NOTE: no disrespect intended to Mohammed, Islam, Wahabists, nor Muslims in general, . Just seems to me that M probably wouldn't be too happy with these folks.
This, I think, is the lever that that the internal community do have.
They have reacted so strongly to this - as opposed to Yemen - because it undermines the internal diplomatic system. You grant diplomats legal immunity, and their embassies sovereignty, if this is abused it undermines the whole system. The war in Yemen is bad, but the state of the world will deteriorate a lot more if the diplomatic system ceases to function. I believe the Chinese would see that as a concern too, they may have abducted the head of Interpol, but they did it within their borders.