Saudi Arabia is disgusting

edited October 2018 in Hell
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.
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Absolutely disgusting. And yet weirdly best-mates with all our friendly Human Rights loving western nations. I wonder why that is.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    The Saudis have been murdering people in Yemen for months. It's a shame it takes the death of someone we think matters to draw our attention to them. The
  • Death of a Princess was first shown in 1980. Anyone who still thought after that that the House of Saud were decent people had some weapons to sell.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    The Saudis have been murdering people in Yemen for months. It's a shame it takes the death of someone we think matters to draw our attention to them. The

    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
  • Let us not forget the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Absolutely disgusting. And yet weirdly best-mates with all our friendly Human Rights loving western nations. I wonder why that is.

    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.

  • I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd go further, and deny them the ability to launder their money through London, alongside cutting off their funding for Wahhabi hate-preachers across the globe.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    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

    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.


  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd do it in a heartbeat.

    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?

  • And for the record, I don't vote in either Korean or Canadian elections, but if I were back in Canada, I'm actually undecided about how Saudi-Canada business deals would effect my vote. I'd like to say, "Yes, cut them off entirely", but on the other hand, I don't know if it's right for the government to tell Canadian workers "You know those jobs you though you had making armoured vehichles for the Saudis, well, tough luck, you don't have them now".
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Here is the context for the armoured vehicles reference above.

    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.)
  • edited October 2018
    Saudi Arabia needs regime change. A revolution. Complete withdrawal of support. Oh sorry. Money is more important.

    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.
  • Why doi we continue to sell them arms …. answer we need the money! Perhaps Brexit means we'll now all be wearing white robes and forbidding women to drive. Wouldn't S Arabia be a good partner?
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    I have for a long time felt angry about Britain's cosying-up to the Saudis, although I can see why it's happened. The Yemen catastrophe, now predicted to be the world's worst famine, was totally avoidable. For me the last straw was the bombing - "collateral damage my foot! - of that school bus a few months ago (heart-breaking report on last night's BBC TV news). It seems strange that this apparent murder in Turkey has provoked more attention than all these other deaths. I feel totally helpless to do anything, and I feel soiled by our country's involvement.

    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,
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I am also perplexed by the outcry against Saudi Arabia over this particular incident. AIUI, geopolitics between Turkey / Qatar / Saudi / the US has a lot to do with it.

    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.
  • Do people think it is because they, the Yemenis, are brown? Muslim? Far away? All of these and more?

    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.
  • stetson wrote: »
    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.
    I'm an active member of a political party that in our manifesto for the 2017 general election stated
    We would end the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, Israel and other repressive regimes.
  • A policy I totally agree with, and one which "my" party largely agrees with. Problem is, it won't go down in Barrow-in-Furness or Warton or other places where they build the instruments of death.
  • 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.
    As I suggested above.
    Do people think it is because they, the Yemenis, are brown? Muslim? Far away? All of these and more?
    All too true.

  • The focus on a particular person is because he had a public profile, both as a journalist in Saudi and then in the USA where he lived. It isn't really news when an Arab country bombs another, it isn't news when western countries ie., America bombs and kills either. It's too common. Nor do we hear about most of the murders in other places. This one is significant because how, where and why he was killed. And it has the additional attractions of a hit-team which also enjoyed cutting up the deceased's body. The macabre details add to the pornography of it.

    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.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Part of the issue with Khashoggi is that he was lured into the consulate, and then butchered. Another part is that he was a respected journalist, and journalists - despite the "fake new" crap that denigrates us - have an important role to play in exposing corruption and other evils. He was butchered because he dared to criticize the Crown Prince. How is this not a significant problem?

  • Maybe it would be a good thing if we lost access to Saudi oil for a while. I guess there's a risk of it collapsing the world economy, or at least taking an edge off it. I don't have the background in economic modelling to work out whether that's a thing. If the West imposes sanctions (because you know China is just as bad if not worse than the Saudis), they probably will have very little effect on them, but screw our economies right up.

    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.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Part of the issue with Khashoggi is that he was lured into the consulate
    Not exactly lured. He wanted to get married, and needed some documents that he would only be able to obtain by visiting a consulate/embassy or travelling back to Saudi Arabia. Visiting a consulate to obtain visas or other documentation is one of those things many of us have done (in my case the British consulate in NY, the British Embassy in Tokyo and the Japanese consulate in Edinburgh).

  • The country is basically hell already for anyone not a Saudi man. Xenophobic abusive etc. But apparently Iran is the enemy. WFT?
    Nearly right - the KSA is OK if you are a royal saudi male.

    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.
    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.
    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.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Part of the issue with Khashoggi is that he was lured into the consulate
    Not exactly lured. He wanted to get married, and needed some documents that he would only be able to obtain by visiting a consulate/embassy or travelling back to Saudi Arabia. Visiting a consulate to obtain visas or other documentation is one of those things many of us have done (in my case the British consulate in NY, the British Embassy in Tokyo and the Japanese consulate in Edinburgh).
    Actually "lured" is exactly the right word.

    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.
  • That's assuming that the ordinary Consular staff knew what was going on - they may well not have done.
  • OK, so we cut off all ties to Saudi Arabia including oil purchases and weapons sales. What would actually happen next?

    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.
  • I'm actually struggling to know how to respond to that.

    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.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited October 2018
    While I can't argue with Marv in the myopic timeframe, I'm strongly in favour of generally massive reductions in oil consumption and arms sales overall. Mostly for their own reasons, but the gradual de-energizing of the middle eastern horror show is definitely a tick in the PROs column.
  • edited October 2018
    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:
    These policies are hellbent on the West maintaining its control over the world’s resources at whatever cost to the people. ...it’s a very old fight of the West against the Rest. Sunera Thobani

    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.
  • If your aim is to actually help the Yemenis then surrendering what sway we have over the Saudis isn't going to achieve that.
    How's that going for you? So far our 'sway' has got us 9/11, neverending war, an Islam so radical that you'd struggle to slip a Rizla paper between Wahhabism and Isis, a genocide in Yemen, dismembered journalists, slavery, beheadings or imprisonment of political activists and a religious police that has the Iranians saying "steady on, old chap".

    They are the problem. We are not the solution.
  • OK, so we cut off all ties to Saudi Arabia including oil purchases and weapons sales. What would actually happen next?

    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.

    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
  • So what do you propose be done Doc Tor, to protest the murder of this man?
  • I hadn't followed the story closely. I knew he disappeared into the embassy/consulate, and was feared dead. Last night, I heard the worst yet, though evidently not physically proven yet.

    (Way TMI, so spoiler box:
    Mr. Khashoggi was not only killed and butchered, but the last reportedly preceded the first...and there's audio...and the people involved were laughing and listening to music.

    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...






  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    So what do you propose be done Doc Tor, to protest the murder of this man?

    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.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    For one thing, it puts us in a position to try to lobby and otherwise pressure the Saudis into ceasing their activities in Yemen.

    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
  • edited October 2018
    One journalist versus 18 Saudis. Nice fight.

    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)
  • It’s reflective of what they feel their influence is.

    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.
  • chris--

    "MBS"?

    Thx.
  • The Crown Prince. His initials.
  • Ah, thx. It could also be "more b... s...".
  • Ha ha. :smiley:
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    chris--

    "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
  • Climacus wrote: »
    Climacus wrote: »

    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.
  • It reminds me of the shout "look out he's got a gun" in the film Animal Kingdom.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    So what do you propose be done Doc Tor, to protest the murder of this man?

    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.

    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.
  • Or respectfully ask the Prophet to have A Little Talk with the violent ones of that sect, in the middle of the night. (A la "A Christmas Carol".)

    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.
  • One of the things that has happened, is ministers and business pulling out of a conference in Saudi (except BAE Systems of course :( ). So what I hear you cry ? Thing is. The conference is about how Saudi is going to transform its economy from dependence on oil over the coming century - for which they need external help.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.