I used to argue with Iyad on Minekey (a place to have a twitter like arguments before twitter) 10+ years ago. We disagreed frequently. I always learnt something from his arguments so I befriended him on fb. Never would have I imagined how quickly can his innocent activism escalate to have an actual hit team dispatched to have him silenced.
I was the same, the only difference is my passport and government I criticize. Yet I live a normal life, never felt threatened or in danger. It made me realize how important and fragile are those values.
If they feel entitled to murder a US person like Khashoggi (and Trump did shield them, so that is not an irrational calculation on their part), no one is safe, whatever their passport.
Let us not forget the women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul - known for protesting the ban on women driving - being inhumanely tortured, including sexual violence, now facing terrorism charges.
What pisses me off is that as a liberal Muslim, we feel under constant attack from Saudi/wahabis. These Wahabi Muslims are everywhere in the U.S. and Europe. Liberals are going out of there way to defend Saudi men's right to force their wives and daughters wear hijab. But there is no attempt to expose what it is like to be liberal Muslim in the west.
It's not a liberal value to force people to wear hijab. It's a liberal value to accept that some people want to wear hijab, and other people want to walk around in speedos, and both of these are fine as long as it's their own choices.
What is it like to be a liberal Muslim in the West? I'm not one, but I am a member of an ethnic minority with similar stereotyping. I have neighbors and coworkers who are Muslims and Hindus and frankly, the ones I'm least comfortable with are the right-wing Christians. Everybody else just wants to get along; I'm upset with the people who announce that anyone who isn't just like them should be coerced out.
What you fail to take into account is following through on your logical conclusions.
Women who choose to wear hijabs aren't without consequences even in western societies because they have social reprocusions levied against them if the don't wear hijabs. It isn't like they are truly free to make that decision.
If I wear a speedo on the train, then walk into the office like that, you can bet that I will also face social repercussions. Freedom isn't about being free of the consequences of what you're doing, it's about the law not forbidding you from doing it in the first place.
> Freedom isn't about being free of the consequences of what you're doing, it's about the law not forbidding you from doing it in the first place.
I've always found that definition useless. Imagine a restaurant where a black person can legally sit-down and order food, but where the townsfolk will beat them up if they do. They are legally not forbidden, there are just consequences! They are free!
Sorry, but freedom from consequences is really an integral part of freedom. Some consequences are unavoidable, but most of them time "consequences" are just oppression through social means as opposed to government means and are not nobler for it.
Strangers mocking you from afar is different than your own family viewing you as an outcast and evil for not following a religious dictum. You are intentionally trying to not see the details because it's in the details that it matters. Walking into a train or an office with a speedo on will not make you an outcast in your circles. Not wearing a hijab in certain Muslim cultures will, specifically your family. It will lead to tension and conflicts and shunning. It is not free of consequences in a much stronger way than walking into a train with just a speedo on in western cultures and you KNOW it.
The level of arrogance and entitlement boggles my mind. But then, what do we expect from a government whose king travels with 500 tons of luggage and 1500 men, inconveniencing locals?
The culture of the Saudi royal family feels like one of immaturity. It's like a bunch of young teenagers got a ton of resources and simply don't know how to channel them into anything meaningful.
This is why I think cheap, green energy is the best hope for democracy in the middle East. Once the black gold becomes "just another commodity" the West will not be bothered to protect these reprehensible human beings. There won't be an intense desire to keep a an ally on side who holds control over the flow of oil.
That is why they are using their enormous wealth investing across the world, buying properties etc (google how much oil money went into London olympics related real estate, for example). It would be nice to get rid of these shitty ruling class, but it would be very very difficult.
A lot of them have $20k / week gambling addictions and a lot of their investments really weren't very good. I don't think a bit of London real estate and a share of uber is going to keep them on top forever, especially when western governments realize that there's no need to be nice to them any more and keeping them out of prison and giving them western visas is a bigger headache than it is worth.
I expect it's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better though. The Saudi Royal family is not going to let itself be drained of wealth slowly and go peacefully into the night. They are going to claw each others' eyes out to maintain their status and privilege. MBS will probably get his comeuppance at some point at the hands of one of his relatives or via some Iranian proxy.
Agreed. Also, an infantile and power-mad ruling class is unlikely to go gentle into the good night when oil revenue tumbles. That's gonna be an epic shitshow eventually, one way or another.
I don't know, I'm not American but somehow the way the American president travels is slightly less offensive to me than a dude who brings his own gold-plated stairs with him everywhere and 17 Boeings just for the staff and his belongings. It's a "little" over the top.
lol. I don't understand the obsession with gold. Sure it is expensive. But it is just gaudy, ugly to decorate anything and everything in gold/gold color.
If you're being a jerk showing off your wealth, at least have some taste. The saudi king's display of wealth is tasteless at best.
" I'm not American but somehow the way the American president travels is slightly less offensive to me "
Depends. I lived in Dresden(Germany), while Obama visited the city. It was total madness for a day, with major roads closed etc.
But it probably was only half on US orders, but on local politicians who wanted to impress the "yes we can" president.
Who cares for the actual local residents, when theres great politics going on?
(in TV I only heard local people praise that day, but from people I met during the day, not so much)
Sure, but that doesn't contradict my statement in any way. The way the american president travels can be both insane, and yet still "slightly less offensive" than a dude who flies around with 17 jumbo jets just for his luggage. At least the american president travels as big as he does because of all the security, armoured car etc - that dude travels that big because he absolutely must have a swimming pool aboard his plane and enough staff to serve his every need whever he goes.
After Saudi Arabia's success in Turkey (Khashoggi), it's no surprise that are trying to replicate it in other countries.
Edit: this incident happened a few months before Khashoggi's assassination per the article. It seems like the Khashoggi case is part of a bigger campaign.
Apparently MBS complained to Trump that he didn't see what the big deal was with khashoggi's murder.
In truth if it had been just another activist that wasn't a journalist at the Washington Post the US media probably would not have kicked up a fuss and we wouldn't even know his name.
> Saudi Arabia wanted to send ten men on an official assignment to Norway, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms to Dagbladet. The ten men were all security guards, who were deployed to work at the Saudi Arabian embassy in Norway, according to Dagbladet’s sources. But Saudi Arabia wanted the security guards to be registered as diplomats in Norway. This would give them extended room for manoeuvring in Norway.
This sounds like they're amateurs, sending 10 at once. Other nations do that probably one by one to stay under the radar.
>The Dubai police found that 12 of the suspects used British passports, along with six Irish, four French, one German, and three Australian passports. Interpol and the Dubai police believed that the suspects stole the identities of real people, mostly Israeli dual citizens.
It doesn't sound like they necessarily came in at the same time though.
Same here, my comment was not about the head count on an attack per se but about the time they wanted to enter the country/start working at the embassy.
In other places, Saudi embassies bail out sexual assault suspects and help them flee the country (my guess is "The police confiscated your passport? What name would you like on your new passport?")
>According to the UN report, and a column written by Bezos' security chief, Gavin de Becker, Bezos was hacked via a message sent from bin Salman's personal mobile phone.
"There's no evidence the Saudis hacked Jeff Bezos's iPhone.
This is the conclusion of the all the independent experts who have reviewed the public report behind the U.N.'s accusations. That report failed to find evidence proving the theory, but instead simply found unknown things it couldn't explain, which it pretended was evidence.
This is a common flaw in such forensics reports. When there's evidence, it's usually found and reported. When there's no evidence, investigators keep looking. Todays devices are complex, so if you keep looking, you always find anomalies you can't explain. There's only two results from such investigations: proof of bad things or anomalies that suggest bad things. There's never any proof that no bad things exist (at least, not in my experience)."
And can you believe they are our allies?! Thanks to this ally, we turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Yemen! We intervene in other countries when human rights are violated... except if it's Saudi Arabia! So shameful!
Iyad should be glad hes not living in Sweden. We would have just let the security team do whatever they felt like and then offer them some fika when finished.
If the Saudis had not been so clumsy as to draw attention to the hit squad by asking for enhanced diplomatic status for them, they might well have succeeded in their mission.
Russians for example have embassies in Europe with staff count that clearly isn't required for normal operations and everyone knows that they are spies. I suppose it's easier to keep an eye on them when they are close by. On the other hand, nothing important would be lost if we just kicked them out.
They also do do normal diplomacy to some degree too, which is basically the obvious part of advancing one's interests - but a lot of stuff is definitely going to be easier to work out face to face.
There is also the problem of technical difficulties.
Setting up secure, verifiable communication channel that is available regardless of disaster or other difficulties would be hard.
I understand most people are used to Zoom and equivalents, but observing is different from making decisions at the highest level. I also think that some of the communication is of the kind that you would want to be sure cannot be recorded.
Exactly.
Worldwide closure of embassies.
Online services - visas etc. Might have the in-person admin work outsourced to 3rd party international corporation.
What is the purpose of diplomatic immunity anyway? I thought everyone was supposed to be equal under the law. If people don't like the law of a specific country, they should just stay in their own countries.
I mean, it's not difficult. The people traditionally given diplomatic immunity are representatives of a country, and they have it so they can carry on their work. Diplomatic immunity is not absolute, and can be voided at any point, or the receiver can be announced as persona non Grata and expelled.
Like, think how in the old times it was traditional that messangers carrying news from one kingdom to the other were untouchable, they had free passage and it was a very bad idea to harm them in any way.
In more practical terms it's so that countries which aren't on best of terms don't use their diplomats as bargaining chips. It would be super easy for say Russia to arrest an American diplomat on fake charges and just keep them in jail(or you know, the other way around). Diplomatic immunity prevents that - it basically says that as long as you are on a diplomatic mission you are immune from prosecution in that country, and for good reason.
I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place. There isn't enough turnover of diplomats anyway and they typically have too much power or they know too much stuff that their citizens don't know - It creates a massive disconnect between politicians and citizens. Maybe they should be less powerful and more disposable. If every country had highly disposable diplomats and government officials, everything would probably be much better for everyone and each country should mind its own business.
No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. It's a logical contradiction. You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line.
>>We can just elect another diplomat in their place.
Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then, if it basically comes with a "disposable" label, and if the government basically says "go and represent us, but if things go tits up we'll just replace you".
>>No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law.
Well, that idea was never true, going back thousands of years. Diplomats are effectively guests and get special treatment, like any guests do. If they abuse our hospitality then they get kicked out, simple.
>>You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law.
Of course you can - after all this isn't a loophole, it's specifically agreed upon and allowed in the law of our democratic societies.
>> You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line.
Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Just like the American president(and most presidents and leaders in fact) is immune from prosecution while in the office - that's also not "equal under law".
Or like police officers are immune from certain prosecution, how journalists are, private investigators etc. The rules are equal - but the rules also say that certain people are exempt. I just don't see the issue here.
>> Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then
Most jobs these days are disposable, attracts plenty of people. Just pay a regular average salary and people will be lining up.
>> Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs.
Clearly it's not. It's a slippery slope. For example, even corporations today have more rights than people, they can move to a new country and not have to apply for citizenship like people do. Corporations also pay lower taxes in many countries, also they can commit crimes and get away with only small fines; they are never jailed or terminated. By extension, corporate executives often get better treatment than regular people when it comes to certain crimes. It's also well know that rich people pay much lower % taxes on average. Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle.
>> Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle.
We've never diverged from it because it was literally never true, at any point in history. But back to the main point - maybe look at it this way: diplomats are offered diplomatic immunity as a courtesy. Countries basically say to each other "look, we're not going to bother your representatives, if you don't bother ours, deal?". Same reason why embassy terittory is technically out of jurisdiction of the hosting country. You could also ask "how is that fair?". Well, perhaps it isn't - but international diplomacy requires some concessions on each side, and that's the concession we agreed on to have good relations with each other. Diplomats are not bothered, embassies are not bothered - but both can be kicked out if needed. Good arrangement if you ask me.
>I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place.
If a diplomat is afraid of their host government, whose interests do you think they are going to represent. Yours or theirs?
What's even the point of sending over a representative if they're not going to represent?
Also, while you could probably find people who would be willing to be cannon fodder in an unsafe diplomatic job, they're unlikely to also have the finesse, savvy and communications skills your country would actually require of its representatives to be adequately represented.
I wonder if we’ll ever get to a point where a non-western autocratic government will carry out a hit job in a western country. Russia sort of does it with the poisoning, but we’d really see a true shift in power when the mafia does it in broad daylight similar to the Khashoggi situation.
The short list is China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia.
Pereira is collateral damage, DGSE setup two bombs, one to make people evacuate the ship, one later to sink it. He went back to ship to retrieve a camera IIRC. So same are IRA phoning in before a car bomb explosion, some efforts to avoid loss of life in this case.
The DGSE ancestor (SDECE) did murder some Algerian independence militants and associates in Europe during the late 50s early 60s tho. Some of them being European, like some German arms dealers (https://www.theafricareport.com/46441/algeria-the-dark-side-...)
Collateral damage becomes a certainty when you start planting bombs everywhere. How could it not? One does not approve these missions thinking the chances are low (and I doubt one would care much if the civilians don't live anywhere that'll be able to kick up a fuss.)
Actually a Russian operative shot and killed a man (Selimchan Changoschwili) in 2019 in Berlin in a park in broad daylight. (And that wasn't exactly the first time Chechens were murdered on the street by operatives in Europe).
There was a Homeland plot point about hacking a pacemaker, which I believe was based on fears about Cheney's pacemaker (or continious flow device). What we recognise as a hit job is too overt and we've likely missed the covert reality.
Another way it might have passed us by if it was in a western country but not a western victim, eg Israel kills an Arab leader at a convention.
Yes, Fred Hampton's assassination was really, really interesting for anybody who read about political philosophy, or anybody interested with the concept of class struggle.
But i would be quite surprised if the hit on Huey was a government hit. His existence prevented another movement like the black panther to take place.
AIUI, Huey was murdered by someone in a crack gang. The CIA was fuelling the crack epidemic. I don't know how much tin foil it involves, but it seems plausible that the CIA used black on black crime to make sure no one cared about the murder.
> His existence prevented another movement like the black panther to take place.
I hadn't heard this, but I'm really not educated on the topic so that's not surprising.
I suppose geopolitically it’s a form of shit-testing. They are probing the limits. Any escalation to this inevitably will lead to war (if someone misjudges and goes after a US diplomat, or official).
And I wonder if the west is close to a misstep. Right now the US is killing Iranian generals and scientists with impunity. All these things have limits.
As other pointed out, its a fairly common practice even for western democratic government, for example French DGSE (CIA equivalent) assassination operations are called "opération Homo" and some of them are well known.
Actually I think there are some good reasons not to engage in it. You certainly don't want to get into a tit for tat situation. Nor do you want to provoke the host country so much that they start piling on sanctions.
There has already been numerous autocratic governments carrying out numerous hit jobs. The United States government has declined to pursue some of them even though the facts aren't disputed all that much.
Was perhaps one of the most surreal assassinations ever:
Exiled brother of a dictator, in an airport surrounded by people and well trained anti-terrorist police forces, killed with a bioweapon, a murderer who thought she was on a Japanese reality TV show, wearing a tshirt saying "LOL" rubbing nerve agent into his eyes and running away with little to no consequence.
She's walking free right now after a small sentence, enjoying life. None of the NK operatives have ever been identified.
I was the same, the only difference is my passport and government I criticize. Yet I live a normal life, never felt threatened or in danger. It made me realize how important and fragile are those values.