I’m so disappointed with the global status this shithole maintains. They are spending so much money on bots and propaganda that if you look at Twitter, Tiktok or Instagram it’s full of organic spam and any comments calling out this disgusting place get removed or piled on.
Khashoghi died because he funded a campaign against the Saudi Twitter bot army.
If it helps, that money is leaving their country which is funded by a natural resource that is losing its economic value and they have nothing economically beyond that, plus will get drilled by climate change which they are responsible for in a lot of ways!
So, temporary problem :-)
How many PGA golfers lined up to join LIV golf sponsored by the Saudi regime? Last year this was Phil Mickelson simping for the Saudi government saying: “I certainly do not condone human rights violations. And addressing what happened to Jamal Khashoggi is awful. But I have seen the good that game of golf has done throughout history. And I really believe that LIV can be good for the game of golf as well.’’
Money trumps morals.
Same with soccer
deleted by creator
Now watch this drive
Fuck this comment is a throwback.
Any Gen Z know what this means?
Millennial/Gen Z depending on definition here, I did not.
And after watching it I’m still not convinced it wasn’t an impersonator sketch.
Imagine how we felt when it happened in real time.
Now watch this drive.
An idiot only getting the job because of Daddy’s merits, and it making you realize it really is a club for the wealthy to fuck around in.
And so far what has been our decision from this nightmare? “Yeah the children of the oligarchs do suck, best to just stick to the ancient old fuckers, cause the original is best!”
And for some reason you have no issue with people participating in the PGA? How does this make sense in your mind?
As a guy with zero clue on golf…can you illustrate the rest?
The USA is the most murderous and destructive regime on the planet. Why would someone take issue with a golfer playing in LIV and not the PGA? Makes no sense to me. It’s really weird how this Khashoggi thing gets so much press.
I mean… checking wikipedia LIV is literally funded and founded by the Arabia Saudí government, like they literally created it.
PGA as far as I can see… isn’t exactly the same situation.
So the connection would a little bit more direct on the LIV case.
Okay but a little more direct doesn’t really justify the single-mindedness in this story. The PGA wouldn’t be what it is without government support in one way or another, but even if it was 100% grass roots bootstrapped, the vast majority, if not all of these golfers support the USA. It’s just jaw dropping hypocrisy.
It’s just jaw dropping hypocrisy.
It’s really not; you’re doing some serious stretches here to try and turn this around into your anti-US narrative.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Meanwhile all those dead Yemenis don’t even warrant a mention, especially since it might have poeple asking why we were over there helping kill them in the first place
I saw a single decent report on Yemen and it was on pbs in like 2014 or 2015 maybe. It showed how the Saudis are bombing the shit out of them with ordinance made in the USA and all the starving children dying because of the blockade on any asstancd getting to them.
I haven’t seen any comparable coverage since.
The war in Yemen had very little coverage in the West. People are talking about all the drones being used in Ukraine, but they’d been using drones with similar devastating effecet in Yemen - the main difference being they tended to target people rather than tanks.
See, Yemen is a bad place where bad things are allowed to happen. By Western logic stuff only becomes real if it enters our imaginary bubble of perpetual safety. That’s also why 9/11 and the Ukraine invasion got such a big reaction.
To be clear, the bubble is not real, it can all happen here.
it’s just very memorable and visceral how it was carried out
deleted by creator
via a drain pipe.
The Blob (1988)
Probably because in a free from authoritarian government the free press is supposed to be the ultimate checks and balances on personal liberty. When you can’t even write something negative about a leader without being dismembered in a hotel and disposed of in duffle bags like trash, that should be ringing alarms for anyone that isn’t licking boots.
Wasn’t he investigating payments from MBS to Jared Kushner?
free press is supposed to be the ultimate checks and balances on personal liberty.
So what does it mean when “free” press is all just owned by rich chucklefucks who have a vested interest in making things as unfree for the working class as possible?
It means that the alarm bells went off and people paid more attention to capitalism, and voting in people that actively worked against them, because those elected officials treated people they disliked even worse. Then we got a wanna be dictator that went full “journalists are an enemy of the state” because they say mean (TRUE) things about him. Journalists now choose between being able to eat, or sounding the alarm that costs them a job (and falls on deaf ears).
Journalists are extremely protective of their own, they really like to believe they are a separate class above the regular people. They go as far as releasing press freedom indexes that include feelings, and penalize not granting them additional rights.
Saudi-led Opec Plus cartel decided to cut production by 2m barrels a day – the opposite of what Biden administration officials had pleaded with the Saudis to do. After the shock of that embarrassing announcement, which threatened to raise gas prices around the US midterm elections, Biden vowed: “There’s going to be some consequences for what they’ve done.”
I thought you liked the free market?
It’s only free for American companies.
When Canadian companies like Bombardier try to get involved in the free market, they get blocked by the US DOJ until they run out of money.
Canadian private jet companies just can’t catch a break1.
1 Unless its a federal election year, and Québec seats are up for grabs.
Lol fair enough, but the CSeries is legitimately a really nice plane so it’s a shame that it ended up getting sold to Airbus for pennies.
That classic free market system where a cartel has regular meetings to set production levels to maximise their profits.
cartels are a free market force. Cartelisation is a natural consequence of market logic
Actual free markets are almost as rare as actually existing socialism.
free market is when good so obviously when the market does something bad it must not be the market
the free market produced the triangle trade ffs
Really? I thought the most infamous example of triangular trade was more of a mercantilism thing.
Ah, of course, real capitalism has never been tried
A “free market” as the term is usually understood is a well-defined thing, which of course has many problems and failure modes, but is not well-represented by a market dominated by a large cartel routinely controlling prices. It is also not the same thing as capitalism.
How is it defined? Usually understood by whom? Are you talking about abstract concepts or historical examples of “free markets” and their development?
Cartels and monopolies are the result of “free markets” btw. The strongest agents will organize to dominate and destroy the competitors however they can.
The free market is an abstract concept, one which rarely exists in anything like its ideal form due to its instability under current conditions of capitalist development. The original definition given by classical economics is still the prevalent one. Despite what slogans from some proponents of capitalism would have you believe, not only are free markets not identical with it, but capitalism tends to take markets further and further from anything resembling their theoretically ideal state of freedom.
DAE LE BOTH SIDES WHICH MEANS STATUS QUO SIDE IS BEST
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between free-markets and market concentration. If by a free-market, we use the standard neoclassical meaning of one where there is no/very little/minimal government or public regulation to influence demand or supply or the price mechanism, which in material terms implies that those are completely controlled by private capital and its owners, then there is nothing stopping this from being an oligopoly, a cartel or a monopoly. Actually lack of public regulation has generally lead to more concentration, not less.
I think you are confusing the neoclassical ‘perfect competition’ (which does not, and cannot, exist in the real world) and neoclassically defined ‘free’-markets.
Please don’t try drop econ-101 learns on Marxists if you don’t know the definitions of free-market economics, perfect competition or oligopolies.
If it involves “an oligopoly, a cartel, or a monopoly” then it is not a “free market” according to what they taught me in econ 101, everything convincing that I’ve heard since, and what Adam Smith explicitly wrote down when he first described the idea. Wikipedia cites Karl Popper in saying that in classical economics a free market is one that’s “free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities,” and that it’s a market in which economic rents are minimised. A monopoly is by definition antithetical to a free market. Any neoliberal suggestions that attacking the whole concept of public regulation of markets will always make them more free are simply lies, and should not be accepted.
That there is at present little or nothing preventing any imperfectly but approximately free markets that might otherwise exist devolving into less free ones dominated by monopolies, cartels, corrupt and captured regulators, out-of-control rent seeking, frauds that rely on information asymmetry, and other such perversions is (obviously, I thought) the reason why I’ve been consistently saying that “free” markets are not something we see much of in reality. Perhaps that’s not exactly congruent with Marxism, but I don’t think it’s inconsistent with it either.
according to what they taught me in econ 101
Wikipedia
lol
How do all these cartels keep getting in my free market? Gosh darn-it!
If it involves “an oligopoly, a cartel, or a monopoly” then it is not a “free market”
Markets unregulated tend towards oligopoly, cartels and monopoly over time. Free market is interchangeable with private autocracy.
“The free market is so wonderful that the slightest unpleasant activity makes the free market no longer wonderful but that isn’t the free market’s fault except everyone with means is able to make that unpleasant activity happen, which again isn’t the free market’s fault and we can not possibly have a better system.”
Yes, companies exist under capitalism.
A free market is a distinct concept from a perfect market. You’re describing a perfect market operating under ideal conditions.
A free market with laissez-faire policies lends itself directly to cartels and monopolies because a perfect market cannot exist without government intervention. Maybe you should’ve paid attention in ECON 101.
A free market is a distinct concept from a perfect market. You’re describing a perfect market operating under ideal conditions.
The free market is a theoretical model assuming perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information and it is indeed ideal within those assumptions. The issue is that it’s not realistic. Real-world markets can be brought closer to the free market ideal by regulation. Don’t let those laissez-faire fucks confuse you what they’re peddling, by equivocation, is unregulated markets which are the complete opposite of free, what they want is institutionalised market failure.
Next time a “free market advocate” shows up on your doorstep, tell them to give you all their trade secrets so that you have better information about everything, it’s what they want, after all.
I dunno, maybe they changed the terminology since I took it. Seems to me “free market” was not previously imbued with all that meaning you guys are reading into it. I’m not convinced it isn’t just an Americanism. To me a “free market” is simply one that’s substantially free of distortion, resembling to a notable extent a perfect market. But I’ll certainly avoid the phrase in future.
A “free market” is an unregulated market. At least, that’s how it’s sold in politics. An unregulated market lends itself towards cartels and monopolies.
Indeed, I am convinced of it. Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to help fill in my ignorance there. It was a pleasure being your crazy person on the internet for the day.
deleted by creator
welcome to monopoly capitalism, the inevitable end stage of free market systems
Yes
Lol no Saudi is weaker than it ever has been. The Saudis know their military is shit and their people won’t do anything to preserve their regime if the Iranians come after them. With the U.S. pulling out of the Middle East since Afghanistan they are flailing about seeking treaties with the Chinese and the Russians to guarantee their safety. However the Russian military and their equipment have proven to be very shit. The Chinese talk a good game but they don’t have the military to project power overseas and most of their equipment is based on Russian garbage.
The US doesn’t need their oil as we are a net exporter now. They’ve also cut oil exports in the last year to try and prop up prices. There is also a very good chance they have passed peak oil production and simply can not produce more.
So what does Saudi have left to offer? Peace with Israel and a conclusion to the Palestinian conflict… maybe. At least that is what they are offering Blinken for an Alliance during their latest visit.
Don’t let the article fool you the Saudis are weak and know they are in trouble without US guarantees of peace.
Do you really think the media would do that? Just outright lie to benefit their capitalist overlords?
Dont do that. The Guardian is a pretty good source. Yes they are alarmist at times, but they’re the last UK newspaper to lick a boot.
The problem is systematic. It didn’t take long for BBC to go from respectable journalism to trans genocide.
The BBC has reported the official line since time immemorial. Their director is now more pro-fascist than ever, but the Guardian is not the mouth-piece of the government as the BBC was, and have had their offices raided numerous times.
Alright you’ve convinced me. They don’t attack journalists who are on the side of evil.
Eh, while they are a good publication overall, the Guardian is the definition of permitted dissent.
As an American, I really hope that Saudi Arabia crumbles and implodes. It’s a horrible country with horrible leadership and governance.
I hope you’re right. They sure have been breaking from the pattern lately, I guess it’s a logical explanation…
The only reason the USA is exporting all that oil is because they don’t have the facilities to refine it.
No. The USA has a lot of natural oil reserves, but a lot of them are more expensive to extract than the global average.
Even with American companies no longer investing in new production, the USA has a lot of oil it has access to extract.
How has Western equipment fared in the Ukrainian counteroffensive? Last I checked, the Leopard 2 and Challenger were relegated to backline support because they weren’t effective on the offensive and that Ukraine is still struggling with air defence (given that Russia has been tossing around FABs with impunity). The real takeaway from this conflict is that artillery is king and that tanks/planes can’t keep up in development pace with modern interceptors like drones and MANPADS. WW2’s doctrine of large-scale combined arms and blitzkrieg tactics may be a thing of the past.
The only country on this planet that is currently capable is SEAD is the USA. No single or combined European power/s can put together a strike package that can significantly degrade an enemies air defenses. I don’t think China has the capacity yet and Russia obviously doesn’t have it.
I don’t expect Ukraine even with Western hand me down Vipers to take down Russian air defenses. They may be able to contest for air superiority over a sector of the battlefield but it would be costly.
Stealth is a huge component of modern Western air warfare doctrine that allows fighters to operate in contested airspace. But stealth isn’t SEAD.
For everyone else, light mobile artillery, long range rockets, AA and drones are going to be the way forward.
Stealth is still susceptible to infrared, which is what Ukraine was using to shoot down Russian aircraft at the start of the war.
If your CAS needs to get into visual range, it’s fucked. If it doesn’t, the usefulness of stealth gets called into question (particularly because, y’know, the entire point of CAS is to have a big bomb to drop on someone, and strapping that to a mounting point ruins your stealth profile).
yeah that’s because the only reason anyone was angry about that was the lack of plausible deniability the saudi’s gave
Intrigued Modi noises
That smug shit should be staked-out in the desert for a week.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Since then, Mohammed bin Salman – Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and de facto ruler, who, according to US intelligence officials, approved Khashoggi’s assassination – has managed a near complete rehabilitation of his increasingly autocratic regime.
Prince Mohammed has met with Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron and other world leaders; he’s positioning Saudi Arabia as a global tourism destination; and he’s plowing ahead with plans to build Neom, his $500bn futuristic city in the desert.
Trump dropped the pretense that the US-Saudi alliance is anything more than a transactional arrangement based on keeping global oil prices stable, common security interests in the Middle East, and negotiating large weapons deals.
After Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in February 2022, disrupting global oil markets, the prince seized his opportunity to pressure Biden into becoming a supplicant seeking lower gasoline prices for American consumers.
Then last October, as the world braced for a surge in fuel prices due to the Ukraine war and sanctions against Russian oil, the Saudi-led Opec Plus cartel decided to cut production by 2m barrels a day – the opposite of what Biden administration officials had pleaded with the Saudis to do.
After the shock of that embarrassing announcement, which threatened to raise gas prices around the US midterm elections, Biden vowed: “There’s going to be some consequences for what they’ve done.” Yet, a few months later, the US administration quietly dropped any pretense of holding Prince Mohammed and his regime accountable.
The original article contains 1,260 words, the summary contains 240 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Putin taught Kim Jong, who taught MBS, who taught Modi. When one or two civilians lives are an acceptable compromise to retain a relationship with another country, you open up that route for all.
Edit: The triggered tankies from Hexbear just soothe my soul. Cry more.
And Sauron taught Voldemort who taught Thangos who taught Putler.
Incredible bit
please read a fucking book
“In my fantasy land, everything I say is true”
yeah nobody knew about assassinations or political killings until Putler invented it in 2002
Machiavelli who
Please tell me you’re doing a bit.
Lmao classic just saying stuff
this post gave me brain damage
Death to America
Wow not kidding pretty much all hexbear… and I’m sorry they are upset cause Putin didn’t originally come up with murder? Like not even defending anything just in here to shout and make noise because their favorite shitstain was called a mean name? They truly are peak rational humans huh? How could we not see their superiority? ತ_ತ
If you need help explaining just how fascist the west is to an average person, point out how they keep aligning themselves with some of the most savage murderous regimes in human history. There isn’t a single answer that doesn’t make them look like a complete monster.
People who talk of the west as fascist must not know much of what’s going on in the east or eastern history.
‘This is bad.’
‘No, another thing is bad.’
Right, sorry, only one problem allowed at a time.
Calling something Fascist when it is very clearly and objectively not Fascist does not actually make it Fascist. The West isn’t Fascist. The point he was trying to make is that people like you have a world of view so narrow and ignorant that you don’t understand what Fascism is, hence the incorrect usage. A country like Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan are Fascist, a country like Germany or the Netherlands are not.
Western goverments endorse most of what’s happening in the east
No, they don’t.
there’s a 99.99% probability you are sending this comment from a chinese piece of hardware your government is totally fine importing from china
China barely produces hardware, unless someone is specifically buying a product from a Chinese company. A lot of hardware isn’t even manufactured in China anymore, let alone designed and engineered.
Just check for yourself, open up the devices around you and check where they are made…
Whatboutism? What’s that?
By that standard the only countries not monstrous are those too feeble to ally with.
Plenty of countries on all continents have sided with oppressive regimes, and conveniently ignored atrocities as long as they’re aimed at someone else. In anything from the Korea or Pakistani wars, to genocides in Central America, to slave trading within the African continent.
The West is due some criticism, but this approach is useless.
America itself has been an oppressive regime. Britain and France were both oppressive regimes not too far in the past (and still to some degree today).
Why are people surprised that oppressive regimes ally themselves with other oppressive regimes? Geopolitics isn’t a story of “good” and “bad,” it’s a story of rational self-interest.
If freedom of press is one of the ways you can assess how fascist a state is, which it is, then I wonder which countries you consider better than the west. China? Russia? North Korea? Yeah, all places renown for not silencing journalists, poisoning political opponents or ruling with an iron fist. All places where you can just criticize the government, publicly, on prime TV, in the journals, without repercussions.
Also all places where they don’t murder people for their political views, where they don’t incarcerate them, torture them, send them to “re-education camps” or try to genocide entire ethnic groups in order to reduce dissent.
At the end of the day, “the west” remains the only place where you can actually go on tv, in the squares and protest against the government decisions, criticize them and even vote for the government to leave power. Is it perfect? Hell no, it’s a disgusting system rigged by the rich and powerful, but it’s still miles ahead of any totalitarian, authoritarian dictatorship.
Also it’s not like China isn’t buying lots of oil from Iran, a country which it’s as much a savage murderous regime as Saudi Arabia, and from Russia, an imperialistic warmongering nation. And the reason it’s clear, they need energy as much as the west needs energy. It’s the reason why everyone puts up with those kinds of people.
The sooner we, as a species, can move away from oil, coal, gas and the likes, the better it will be for everyone. No more energy wars and a cleaner planet overall.
How much good has your criticism of the government done?
Do you have affordable housing? Are your healthcare needs covered? Is your taxpayer money going to help improve your life? Is the homeless issue solved? Has your government avoided going to war? Has your government fixed the rampant racial inequality in the prison system?
I say this like it’s to an American, but really it applies to most Western countries.
Well, some of those point have improved in some countries of the western block. Not everyone is American btw. And I’m not saying the west is perfect, but when making a statement like “this is why the west is the worst” you also need to tell me who is better.
Lots of these issues are extremely present in other non-western countries as well and even more so. Or are you telling me that outside of western countries everyone else has affordable housing, free, good and available healthcare, a good and fair justice system, no racial inequality and no wars?
Sure, I’m not denying that conditions aren’t perfect, but the argument being made is that having a democracy influences government policy to align with citizens’ interests.
Looking at per-capita wealth, the West should be doing much better on these key issues under the assumption that the government exists to make people’s lives better.
Who is doing so much better though? It seems like most countries have similar issues and it’s not really a West vs East thing. Costa Rica seems like one of the nicer places to live in the world right now, but it’s a “Western” country and it’s also tiny.
I look at Eastern countries like Korea and Japan and see a ton of problems with workers being abused and authoritarian legal systems. Better than the US in some ways but worse in others. I would rather live in the US despite the worse healthcare cause I don’t want to work 12 hours a day.
US labour law exists in spite of democracy, not because of it. Also, I think it’s hard to argue that Korea and Japan aren’t Western democracies (in that, they value Western democratic ideals and structure their governments around the Western concept of democracy).
China ended absolute poverty within their borders. That’s 800 million people in a 40 year period.
You’re a fool. CPC / CCP did no such thing. Plenty of starving homeless people in China to this day and zero social safety net.
Tell me you haven’t been to China without telling me you haven’t been to China
Here are some of my sources.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8489.12353
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837721001411
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019739752200128X
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13892240601062488Please provide your sources for starving homeless legions.
So it’s OK to fund death squads and start war at every country that even remotely approaches socialism if you allow the illusion of freedom. Got it.
Russia does the same to countries in their sphere of influence who even think about approaching the west. I’m looking at Georgia, Moldavia and now Ukraine. Also they really like to meddle in Africa and the middle east through PMCs like Wagner, prop up local dictatorships and harvest labor and natural resources for themselves.
China is also trying their hand at the imperialistic game, although they are newer at it. They are trying to enter many African countries and stationing there Private Security Companies (which are paramilitaries still controlled by the Chinese government, because of course they are). In Asia they are also trying to increase their influence. In the South China Sea they are trying to claim other nations exclusive economic zones as their own while in the Indian Ocean they are trying to secure military ports by forcing 99 years leases (similar to the British lease on the port of Hong Kong). I believe this plan is called the string of pearls and I also believe Indians consider it a way of encircling them (China-Pakistan corridor, China-Myanmar corridor and in the ocean ports in Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Djibouti and the Mauritius).
Let’s say that all major powers have tried and keep trying their hand at imperialism. The only difference is that the US has a much bigger economic power than Russia and has been playing the game for a lot longer than modern China
See the problem with this logic is that you’re weighing the west’s real actions at best, or probably their white washed actions against fairytale versions of their adversaries who only exist in the west’s propaganda. It’s not hard to be better than someone written to be a caricature of evil.
Or maybe it’s the opposite and it’s Chinese propaganda and Russian propaganda depicting a caricature of the west where everyone apparently is a Nazi, while suppressing all discourse about their evil doings? Maybe they’re the ones who created this fairytale.
Have you ever considered that possibility? Or you really think Russia and China have never done any wrong and have no propaganda, they’re just squeaky clean? Because let me tell you then…
China? Russia? North Korea? Yeah, all places renown for not silencing journalists, poisoning political opponents or ruling with an iron fist.
They’re all better than the USA. The rest is what the US told you to think.
Yes, then try to go to Red Square in Moscow with a pro Ukraine sign, go to Tienanmen square with a sign against the occupation of Tibet or a sign against Xi. Even if you don’t believe that, just to see what happens.
Then, do the same in any western country, with a sign against the local government or pro Russia or whatever you prefer. Just try it and report back please. Let’s see who has more freedom of speech.
Going with your example here, try to highlight Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, and how there’s lobbies for Israel that are basically worldwide (it’s most prevalent in USA, AIPAC and CUFI being the big 2) spreading Pro-Israel propaganda. Israel’s propaganda machine also has bot farms (called war rooms) distributing propaganda just like the Kremlin bots.
Try pointing all of that out, then see what happens then in the very country that touts its freedom of speech. (Hint: You get put on a list and you’re smeared so bad your job is in jeopardy).
I suggest you read up on this, it’s interesting. Here’s a link for some reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
Generally, pointing something out that a state doesn’t want to be pointed out will involve the state cracking down on you, it’s just state policy. Shouldn’t be but it is. I support all dissidence.
I’m gonna tell you a secret, no one is going to arrest you for saying what you are saying in the USA. I’m pretty sure most Americans are not even that much into Israel to begin with. It’s just a game of geopolitics.
And we are talking about the USA again. The west is not just the USA btw. Also, I’ve been to Israel, a couple times now, and that place is so fucked up, it’s not even a joke.
This being said, have you tried doing what I said? Answer me clearly. Go to Red Square, protest against the occupation of Ukraine. Go to Tienanmen square, protest against the occupation of Tibet. Just try it.
I’ll go to Rome or Paris or London to protest against Israel if you want, it’s really not a big deal. Actually, it’s more likely somebody would join me than arrest me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This being said, have you tried doing what I said? Answer me clearly. Go to Red Square, protest against the occupation of Ukraine.
Well in Russia’s case, they just arrest everyone and put them in jail for 5-15 years and make up laws saying that you can’t criticise the army/government or protest. So people stop protesting because they don’t want to go to the shithole that is Russian jail, or even worse like in one case with a schoolgirl doing a non-approved drawing, the father being subject to CIA torture methods (i recall one of them he had the russian anthem blasted at him at ear-damaging volume, which is what the CIA done in Guantanamo bay).
Also, the elections are rigged in Russia (just so you know that information).
The west’s own savage actions so massively dwarf anything Saudi has done in this period that it’s a pretty silly guilt by association point.
The only sane and rational comment in this thread.
Maybe to you, but these people are either unaware of their actions or think their actions are good. You have to tie it to something else.
This is a brain dead take because it’s just guilt by association. Having diplomatic relations with countries around the world doesn’t mean that you endorse or support their government. A country that’s ruled by a shitty ideology like Fascism or Marxism is something to be weary of, but these countries do in fact exist and they do play a role in global politics and economics. For example, the UAE and Israel normalizing relations doesn’t mean that they support each other, but they recognize each other’s influence and understand that diplomacy and cooperation is more beneficial and productive than shunning each other.
I mean we tried to sanction, shun, and ignore authoritarian countries like Cuba and North Korea for decades… How has that worked out for us? My point is that we can’t cut relations with every country we don’t like. There are situations where that should be the case and there are definitely arguments for us to be more cautious when dealing with these types of regimes, but we can’t cut ourselves off from the vast majority of the world (which is authoritarian) nor can we force countries to adopt our ways (we tried with Iraq and Afghanistan, it didn’t work).
shitty ideology like Fascism or Marxism
Crakkka, I aint reading past that
Lol it’s funny how racists are always either Fascist or Marxist. Let me guess you’re scum who’s dumb enough to follow one of these failed murderous ideologies
👋
Seethe and cope trash
Google the name of your favorite politician shaking hands with one of saudi arabia rulers
Anybody find one with Bernie?
Isn’t he part of the democratic party? Just look for pictures of his ceos
You couldn’t find one with Saudi rulers either?
Just wondering what you think, didn’t Jamal Khashoggi write articles defending Hisbullah and other terrorist orgs that Saudis didn’t like? I am not justifying the actions of SA, but just wondering here.
How is that even relevant? Is it ok to kill a person and just brush it off only because that person wrote articles?
