Saudis Kill Journalist in Instanbul Consulate

[Raj Ahten]

And then they cut up his body and shipped it back to the Kingdom, if Turkish sources are correct. This whole affair is a new low and really quite despicable in its barbarism. Apparently the crown prince wants his critics heads on pikes, quite literally it would seem. The moral bankruptcy of the current US administration is also on full display. Trump wants to pretend that nothing happened so he can still keep selling weapons. (Which will be used to bomb Yemen, another clusterfuck.) It's open season on dissidents now. Article on the matter.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump is probably glad the Saudis murdered a Washington Post journalist, and is wondering if he can get away with doing the same.

[aerius]

Nothing new. Welcome to US-Saudi relations for the last 60+ years.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, but I'm also pretty sure you would say "nothing new" even if Trump rolled tanks down the National Mall and pulled a Tiananmen Square. At some point, its pretty obviously just an excuse not to care about atrocities, and to sneer at anyone who does.

[aerius]

You obviously have no fucking clue on the history of US-Saudi relations (I'm not surprised, you're fucking clueless on damn near everything). Newsflash, the US has been happily selling them weapons for the last 60 years so that they can oppress their own people and wage proxy wars on all their neighbours. Not to mention funding radical fundamentalist terrorist groups. Saudis beheading foreign journalists is about as routine as people being killed by drunk drivers. The US government turning a blind eye to Saudi atrocities while selling them weapons and giving them oil money has been standard operating procedure since before I was born.

[TheFeniX]

Really the only thing you can hope for is that since Trump is already so anti-press this might actually get some traction. But I'm not holding my breath.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Yeah, but I'm also pretty sure you would say "nothing new" even if Trump rolled tanks down the National Mall and pulled a Tiananmen Square. At some point, its pretty obviously just an excuse not to care about atrocities, and to sneer at anyone who does.

For Trump, that would be nothing new, but that doesn't mean anyone here has become desensitized to the atrocities being carried out in the name of US foreign policy, especially when it comes to aiding and abetting a terrorist enabling state who just happened to find an excuse to invade territory they have always considered rightfully theirs.

It's good to be concerned about this latest outrage, but it is equally good to put this in the proper context.

[The Romulan Republic]

You obviously have no fucking clue on the history of US-Saudi relations (I'm not surprised, you're fucking clueless on damn near everything). Newsflash, the US has been happily selling them weapons for the last 60 years so that they can oppress their own people and wage proxy wars on all their neighbours. Not to mention funding radical fundamentalist terrorist groups. Saudis beheading foreign journalists is about as routine as people being killed by drunk drivers. The US government turning a blind eye to Saudi atrocities while selling them weapons and giving them oil money has been standard operating procedure since before I was born.

I am well aware of that history, and you (and others) should not presume my ignorance simply because I do not list every Saudi and American atrocity in my most recent post. But that history does not change my view that "this is nothing new" is a piss poor response to atrocities, that at some point it simply becomes an excuse for the apathetic or self-indulgently cynical not to give a shit, and that it is one which you tend to fall back on.

Seriously, what is your point: "The US and the Saudis did shitty things before, so only an ignorant fool would care this time?" How does that even follow? And if that is your position, why don't you do us all a favour and not care enough to stop posting?

Yeah, shit like this has gone on before- but seldom with this much publicity. Is this case more deserving of that publicity than every other shitty thing involving the Saudis? Probably not. But this is the way people are- its impossible, no matter how well-informed or committed to an issue you are, to be aware of or acknowledge every horrible thing that happens in the world, so people tend to focus on specific, dramatic cases that then become in some way emblematic of the larger issues (which then unfortunately allows those who wish to silence such criticism to play the Whataboutism card and call them hypocrites for not also talking about (insert issue here)). Criticism of the Saudis, and America's relationship with them, has been around for a long time, and building recently due to the war in Yemen. This case, I think, has simply become symbolic of a much larger issue.

Its also getting more attention now because while other American governments have made dubious arms deals with the Saudis, with Trump there's the added issue of his close personal business ties, his conflicts of interest, his complete disregard for the emoluments clause... so there's an added issue of whether Trump is acting out of what he sees (rightly or wrongly) as the national interest, or whether he is acting purely for personal profit.

Donald being Donald, my money is firmly on the latter.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Saudis beheading foreign journalists is about as routine as people being killed by drunk drivers.

Um, would you care to actually point to some examples?

The online archives of the Committee to Protect Journalists only has a single killing of a foreign journalist in Saudi Arabia since 1992, who was gunned down by Al-Qaeda operatives, not beheaded by the state. UNESCO also keeps a database of killed journalists, which lists only the same case for Saudi Arabia. I cannot find any evidence that Saudi Arabia has any established history of regularly murdering foreign journalists as you claim.

Saudi Arabia has done enough horrible things that you shouldn't be having to make stuff up.

[aerius]

It's Saudi Arabia. After the first 500 decapitations it's kinda hard to remember who's losing their heads.

[Aleister Crowley]

It's Saudi Arabia. After the first 500 decapitations it's kinda hard to remember who's losing their heads.

Why isn't the American government demanding answers from the Saudis? This is exactly what the terrorists do. If they're the allies of America then surely they should have to answer for their actions. I mean, if any other country did it that's how it would be. Great Britain doesn't get a pass. None of the European Union would. If Japan even made the slightest noise of chopping anyone's head off, they would be hit so hard. Why does Saudi Arabia get to be the exception? Those are rhetorical questions of course, but I'd love to hear your opinion on this. I might give mine after. I'll just hold out for now.

[Raj Ahten]

You obviously have no fucking clue on the history of US-Saudi relations (I'm not surprised, you're fucking clueless on damn near everything). Newsflash, the US has been happily selling them weapons for the last 60 years so that they can oppress their own people and wage proxy wars on all their neighbours. Not to mention funding radical fundamentalist terrorist groups. Saudis beheading foreign journalists is about as routine as people being killed by drunk drivers. The US government turning a blind eye to Saudi atrocities while selling them weapons and giving them oil money has been standard operating procedure since before I was born.

Deciding to kill dissidents abroad under the cover of diplomatic offices is pretty brazen by any standard. It doesn't exactly happen every day. The only people I can really think of who do it on a semi regular basis are North Korea and Russia and those operations were hardly no cost.


Given how this case is going I expect we'll see far more of this type of thing in the future if the response is basically a shrug from official quarters. I will say Trump is good for one thing here though: showcasing US hypocrisy in mideast affairs, which, as you note, is nothing new.

[Tribble]

What is Saudi Arabia's relationship with Turkey? And Edrogan's relationship with the USA? Edrogan is not exactly a shining example of honesty and benevolence, and I take anything he and the Turkish government / media says with a huge grain of salt as well.

Hell I can think of reasons why Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Trump would want this guy dead (not to mention other countries possibly standing to benefit from the controversy), so it might be more along the lines of "who beat the others to the punch?"

Saudi Arabia is naturally prime suspect; however I'm not entirely sure they are the only suspect, at least at the moment.

Not to dismiss all of the atrocities they have committed and the US indulgence in it of course.

[Ralin]

So, I'm confused. How is the Saudi government swatting a Saudi journalist who got too big for his britches in any way, shape or form America's business? The only other party that seems to have any right to a say in the matter is Turkey, and last I checked both Saudi Arabia and Turkey were sovereign countries, not American vassals.

Why exactly should Trump get involved?

[Rogue 9]

So, I'm confused. How is the Saudi government swatting a Saudi journalist who got too big for his britches in any way, shape or form America's business? The only other party that seems to have any right to a say in the matter is Turkey, and last I checked both Saudi Arabia and Turkey were sovereign countries, not American vassals.

Why exactly should Trump get involved?

Because perhaps the United States should not be selling weapons to countries that are willing to so brazenly violate diplomatic norms?

[Ralin]

Because perhaps the United States should not be selling weapons to countries that are willing to so brazenly violate diplomatic norms?

Why? You make it sound like doing business and selling weapons is some sort of boon the US gives to countries that toe the line and do as they're told instead of trade between peers.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, I'm confused. How is the Saudi government swatting a Saudi journalist who got too big for his britches in any way, shape or form America's business? The only other party that seems to have any right to a say in the matter is Turkey, and last I checked both Saudi Arabia and Turkey were sovereign countries, not American vassals.

Why exactly should Trump get involved?

Don't play dumb. A statement expressing one's opposition to atrocities is not treating another country as a vassal. Or he could have at least just kept his mouth shut, and not blabbered excuses about how it could have been someone else who did it.

Also, if you really want to go max nationalist isolationist (if you have zero understanding of how an interconnected world actually works, in other words), then Trump could still... stop selling weapons to the Saudis.

America is not neutral in this. Its not just letting the Saudis do what they please without interference. It is actively propping up this regime.

Edits: A cynical man might argue that the Saudis effectively ARE US vassals, and as long as that's the case, we should at least be doing a better job of reigning our vassals in. Or else cut them loose and let them truly stand on their own.

[Beowulf]

So, I'm confused. How is the Saudi government swatting a Saudi journalist who got too big for his britches in any way, shape or form America's business? The only other party that seems to have any right to a say in the matter is Turkey, and last I checked both Saudi Arabia and Turkey were sovereign countries, not American vassals.

Why exactly should Trump get involved?

He was a permanent resident of the United States.

[Elheru Aran]

So, I'm confused. How is the Saudi government swatting a Saudi journalist who got too big for his britches in any way, shape or form America's business? The only other party that seems to have any right to a say in the matter is Turkey, and last I checked both Saudi Arabia and Turkey were sovereign countries, not American vassals.

Why exactly should Trump get involved?

He was a permanent resident of the United States.

In addition to that:

--There is a certain responsibility to stand for the rights of journalists to operate with freedom in order to safeguard the free press. Allowing them to be murdered with impunity is not exactly the sort of thing we should just let slide.

--Additionally: if Trump doesn't want to look like he doesn't care about that-- even though we all know he probably doesn't-- he should make a public statement condemning this at the very least, if not extending it to sanctioning the Saudis. His complicity with them makes him look pretty bad right now, particularly given the journo was working for the Post, an organization he's butted heads with in the past.

--Our relationship with them isn't exactly one of 'equals'. To them, we're basically a massive department store handing them brand new military toys in return for black gold. It's no big secret that they've been trying to crush Yemen for the past year or so and killing a heck of a lot of people down there. Of which the current administration has said pretty much precisely zilch other than perhaps vague 'that's too bad' sentiments. It's almost as though our vested interests in Saudi oil overrule basic human rights and the cause of peace.

[Ralin]

He was a permanent resident of the United States.

And I'm a US citizen. If I commit a crime while I'm in China America doesn't get a say in how I'm punished, much less if I manage to offend the government so badly that they skip ahead to grabbing and killing me.

--There is a certain responsibility to stand for the rights of journalists to operate with freedom in order to safeguard the free press. Allowing them to be murdered with impunity is not exactly the sort of thing we should just let slide.

This is what American imperialism looks like. Human rights have a long history of serving as a justification for violating the sovereignty of non-western countries. Hell, just look at how we got into Iraq. In reality journalists do not have an unlimited right to criticize their governments and cause trouble and many countries reserve the right to punish journalists who cross the line without involving the legal system.

Additionally: if Trump doesn't want to look like he doesn't care about that

Our relationship with them isn't exactly one of 'equals'. To them, we're basically a massive department store handing them brand new military toys in return for black gold.

Again with this idea that Saudi Arabia is somehow beneath America and that trade is a boon that America bestows upon deserving vassals instead of a business arrangement that benefits both sides. How exactly does Saudi Arabia buying American weapons make them something other than equals, or at least peers?

It's no big secret that they've been trying to crush Yemen for the past year or so and killing a heck of a lot of people down there. Of which the current administration has said pretty much precisely zilch other than perhaps vague 'that's too bad' sentiments. It's almost as though our vested interests in Saudi oil overrule basic human rights and the cause of peace.

I’m confused. Are you saying Yemen is part of America now?

[The Romulan Republic]

So, your argument is "Human rights served as an excuse for imperialism, therefore we should stop carrying about human rights"? As opposed to "Human rights served as a justification for imperialism, so we should be more consistent and honest in our support for human rights."

But then, the fact that you are openly asserting the "right" of governments to extrajudicially kill journalists tells me exactly what your true colours are. Nationalism and isolationism above all else, even human lives. Just another willing internet sock puppet of the likes of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Donald Trump.

[Ralin]

So, your argument is "Human rights served as an excuse for imperialism, therefore we should stop carrying about human rights"? As opposed to "Human rights served as a justification for imperialism, so we should be more consistent and honest in our support for human rights."

No. My argument is that America doesn't get to meddle in other countries', especially non-western countries', affairs using the exact same ideological weapon that has justified centuries of of imperialism and colonialism.

But then, the fact that you are openly asserting the "right" of governments to extrajudicially kill journalists tells me exactly what your true colours are.

The fact that you're openly asserting America's right to decide how Saudi Arabia polices their own citizens shows exactly what your true colors are. You do grasp that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, right? The fact that they dealt with the guy ~extrajudicially~ doesn't really matter given that all indications are that they did it because he deliberately went out of his way to criticize and antagonize the government, and no one seems to be denying that he did that.

Nationalism and isolationism above all else, even human lives. Just another willing internet sock puppet of the likes of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Donald Trump.

One of the few good things about Trump's presidency is that he more or less hasn't started any new wars or bombed any places that America wasn't bombing already. Hell, very low expectations but he's done more to normalize shit and diffuse tensions with North Korea than our last two presidents did in 16 years. Apparently that causes you some sort of cognitive dissonance because deep down you believe that the only legit government is the one that operates under American and European rules.

[The Romulan Republic]

No. My argument is that America doesn't get to meddle in other countries', especially non-western countries', affairs using the exact same ideological weapon that has justified centuries of of imperialism and colonialism.

Okay, first off, I freely acknowledge that I don't give two shits about sovereignty next to the the cause of universal human rights. Including America's sovereignty. I'm an advocate of global government, and I have made no secret of that on this forum. I have also been quite clear that by global government, I do not mean "an American empire". You will never convince me that an abstract concept of national sovereignty is a more important or worthwhile right than the right of actual flesh and blood beings to express their views without being tortured and murdered.

Also, because a valid principle has been misused, does that mean we should abandon the principle altogether? Because phrase it however you want, that does indeed sound like what you're saying: that because human rights have been used as a justification for imperialism, we should never attempt to defend or promote human rights internationally under any circumstances, and instead return to the view that there are no rights, that any brutality is acceptable, as long as its within a "sovereign country's" borders.

Moreover, the journalist in question was a US resident and reporter for a US paper. It damn well is America's business. Nor is the US only now contemplating whether to involve itself in Saudi Arabia's affairs- we have actively been propping up their regime for decades. And Donald Trump has additional personal responsibility, given his comments in support of the Saudis, his business deals with the Saudis, and his frequent attacks on the free press. So this is not a case of whether the US should or should not intervene in another country's affairs. This is a question of how the US should act in a situation where it is already deeply involved, and has helped to create this situation in the first place. You have not adequately addressed this point.

The fact that you're openly asserting America's right to decide how Saudi Arabia polices their own citizens shows exactly what your true colors are. You do grasp that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, right? The fact that they dealt with the guy ~extrajudicially~ doesn't really matter given that all indications are that they did it because he deliberately went out of his way to criticize and antagonize the government, and no one seems to be denying that he did that.

YOU ARE DEFENDING THE ALLEGED TORTURE, MURDER, AND DISMEMBERMENT OF A HUMAN BEING. Essentially by saying that the Saudis have a right to murder him (I guess there are some rights you feel comfortable asserting internationally-just not human rights), and by arguing that "he was asking for it", then calling me an imperialist and implying I am a racist for disagreeing.

Tell me: why do the "rights" of an abstract construct (a nation) take precedence over the rights of living beings? Because the concept of human rights has been misused to justify imperialist actions and atrocities? So has the concept of national sovereignty.

One of the few good things about Trump's presidency is that he more or less hasn't started any new wars or bombed any places that America wasn't bombing already. Hell, very low expectations but he's done more to normalize shit and diffuse tensions with North Korea than our last two presidents did in 16 years. Apparently that causes you some sort of cognitive dissonance because deep down you believe that the only legit government is the one that operates under American and European rules.

The fact that he hasn't started a war with North Korea is almost entirely due to the credit of others, not himself. He has also conducted multiple airstrikes in Syria, and continued involvement on the ground there. But I guess that's something you can overlook, at least in Trump's case.

As to your assertions about my views, they are a dishonest attempt to put words in my mouth so you can portray me as an imperialist and racist in order to defend chopping up journalists. But hey, he said bad things about his king, so clearly he was asking for it.

Moreover, in the big picture, you are arguing for something that does not exist, and never can. We live in an interconnected world, and it is only becoming more so due to mass transportation, instant global communication, and issues of global scope such as refugees and climate change. That is not opinion, it is fact. What happens in one country will effect what happens in other countries. Therefore, what happens in one country is the business of other countries. You might as well try to stop the Sun from rising, as pretend that national isolationism... excuse me, sovereignty, is or ever has been (or ever could be) anything but a fantasy. That doesn't mean "American rule", or European rule. It means that every country will, and must, have a say in the affairs of every other.

But if you really want America to stay out of Saudi affairs, fine- then you should be supporting ending arms sales to the Saudi regime. You should be condemning Trump sticking his nose in to make excuses for the Saudi regime. But I doubt you will, because I believe that you are not motivated by any actual principle, just hatred of the US/the West.

[houser2112]

One of the few good things about Trump's presidency is that he more or less hasn't started any new wars or bombed any places that America wasn't bombing already. Hell, very low expectations but he's done more to normalize shit and diffuse tensions with North Korea than our last two presidents did in 16 years. Apparently that causes you some sort of cognitive dissonance because deep down you believe that the only legit government is the one that operates under American and European rules.

The fact that he hasn't started a war with North Korea is almost entirely due to the credit of others, not himself.

Indeed, if this article is true:

Mattis — along with his now-ousted colleagues National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — was frequently labeled ones of the few adults in the room whose military and strategic expertise helped him gain Trump’s trust and moderate the president’s most dangerous foreign policy impulses.

For instance, Mattis reportedly stopped Trump from ordering the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in April 2017, a move that would have escalated Syria’s brutal civil war and brought the US much deeper into the conflict. He also pushed Trump to stick to a diplomacy-first approach to North Korea rather than defaulting immediately to military options. And according to Trump himself, Mattis convinced him that torture is a bad idea.

[Beowulf]

The fact that he hasn't started a war with North Korea is almost entirely due to the credit of others, not himself. He has also conducted multiple airstrikes in Syria, and continued involvement on the ground there. But I guess that's something you can overlook, at least in Trump's case.

We started bombing Syria before Trump took office.

He was a permanent resident of the United States.

And I'm a US citizen. If I commit a crime while I'm in China America doesn't get a say in how I'm punished, much less if I manage to offend the government so badly that they skip ahead to grabbing and killing me.

But he didn't commit a crime in KSA. And the expectation is that the government will do what it can in order to mitigate your punishment. I mean, if you kill someone, yeah, America probably won't do much. Get caught stealing a propaganda poster? Maybe just getting deported to never visit again will be good enough.