9 ms·

the public opinion doesn't need to be swayed on this and it's unlikely that the cia would ever release things that would threaten their process of getting such

the public opinion doesn't need to be swayed on this and it's unlikely that the cia would ever release things that would threaten their process of getting such things. there's a difference between healthy skepticism of intelligence agencies and a grasping at straws to cast doubt on anything they do.

resters 8y ago
Public opinion about MBS was quite favorable a few short months ago, and it is this story alone that threatens it. So those who claim MBS was responsible may be right or wrong. Without a clear definition of how his potential responsibility relates to US national interest, the matter isn’t even necessarily something the CIA should worry about at all. By skipping that step and jumping right to PR to help fuel moral indignation in Americans, the CIA is way way way out of bounds. The agency is not supposed to be a bunch of wise elders providing moral guidance, it’s supposed to protect national security. Quite likely most senior CIA officials have far more blood on their hands than MBS.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>By skipping that step and jumping right to PR to help fuel moral indignation in Americans, the CIA is way way way out of bounds. What if CIA was told to do so? Apparently the SA has not paid /signed by it's deadline for a major weapons purchase. 15B I think... and oil is lower now. So CIA is to serve our interests and has the prince by the b*lls. CIA might even get their entire budget paid by this episode. Oil is under $50 a barrel now or $30+ lower I am pretty sure Erdogan would not that outraged if the Saudis cut him a deal too.
- arcticfox 8y ago
  > Without a clear definition of how his potential responsibility relates to US national interest, the matter isn’t even necessarily something the CIA should worry about at all. The free press is one of the cornerstones of US national interest; allowing our journalists to be murdered because they said something about a foreign power is a threat to that.
  - resters 8y ago
    Uh, the US has prosecuted its own journalists recently, demanding life in prison. This has nothing to do with press freedom whatsoever.
  - vkou 8y ago
    And yet, Julian Assange is facing extradition for being a journalist (And earlier, the Trump administration was looking to extradite an American journalist to Turkey.) The free press isn't a cornerstone of national interest - it is a sometimes useful, but often inconvenient tool.
  - beginningguava 8y ago
    China currently has dozens of journalists "in jail" meaning they are most likely dead and the US media hasn't said a peep. Shouldn't they be calling for sanctions against them, rather than attack Trump for doing just that with his tariffs?
    - kwi3 8y ago
      From "Manufacturing Consent" - "A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients will be unworthy"
- dash2 8y ago
  > Public opinion about MBS was quite favorable a few short months ago, and it is this story alone that threatens it. No, also his prosecution of the war in Yemen. > By skipping that step and jumping right to PR to help fuel moral indignation in Americans, the CIA is way way way out of bounds. The US at its best stands up for a free press, and against, for example, authoritarian states being free to murder their critics worldwide. > Quite likely most senior CIA officials have far more blood on their hands than MBS. In the light of Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen, this statement is clearly false.
  - resters 8y ago
    This is absurd. Who is selling SA the weapons it will use in Yemen.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      > This is absurd. Who is selling SA the weapons it will use in Yemen. Everyone who gets a chance? (-a few European countries who stopped recently.)
    - dash2 8y ago
      The fact that other governments are involved does not make SA's actions less bad.
    - moosey 8y ago
      This is whataboutism. Both are horrid: Corporations in the United States that build and sell weapons with the permission of the US government, other western governments and corporations that do the same as well. Yeah, horrid. It doesn't excuse the fact that SA and MBS are also horrible.
      - resters 8y ago
        Not at all. To qualify I would need to be defending MBS. On balance the US causes substantially more human suffering in the world than all other terror groups and despots combined. It’s strange that character attacks on MBS work so well to make Americans assume that the US must be the good guy. In the US there is a tremendous appeal to the narrative that the US is the (relative) good guy. American exceptionalism is a religion and it easily leverages the widespread white suoremecist views of Americans who already mistrust the brown folks. So beware of reinforcing the American exceptionalism dogma when you cite “whataboutism”. It is often budled into that critique.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

resters 8y ago

Public opinion about MBS was quite favorable a few short months ago, and it is this story alone that threatens it. So those who claim MBS was responsible may be right or wrong. Without a clear definition of how his potential responsibility relates to US national interest, the matter isn’t even necessarily something the CIA should worry about at all. By skipping that step and jumping right to PR to help fuel moral indignation in Americans, the CIA is way way way out of bounds. The agency is not supposed to be a bunch of wise elders providing moral guidance, it’s supposed to protect national security. Quite likely most senior CIA officials have far more blood on their hands than MBS.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>By skipping that step and jumping right to PR to help fuel moral indignation in Americans, the CIA is way way way out of bounds. What if CIA was told to do so? Apparently the SA has not paid /signed by it's deadline for a major weapons purchase. 15B I think... and oil is lower now. So CIA is to serve our interests and has the prince by the b*lls. CIA might even get their entire budget paid by this episode. Oil is under $50 a barrel now or $30+ lower I am pretty sure Erdogan would not that outraged if the Saudis cut him a deal too.
arcticfox 8y ago
> Without a clear definition of how his potential responsibility relates to US national interest, the matter isn’t even necessarily something the CIA should worry about at all. The free press is one of the cornerstones of US national interest; allowing our journalists to be murdered because they said something about a foreign power is a threat to that.
- resters 8y ago
  Uh, the US has prosecuted its own journalists recently, demanding life in prison. This has nothing to do with press freedom whatsoever.
- vkou 8y ago
  And yet, Julian Assange is facing extradition for being a journalist (And earlier, the Trump administration was looking to extradite an American journalist to Turkey.) The free press isn't a cornerstone of national interest - it is a sometimes useful, but often inconvenient tool.
- beginningguava 8y ago
  China currently has dozens of journalists "in jail" meaning they are most likely dead and the US media hasn't said a peep. Shouldn't they be calling for sanctions against them, rather than attack Trump for doing just that with his tariffs?
  - kwi3 8y ago
    From "Manufacturing Consent" - "A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients will be unworthy"
dash2 8y ago
> Public opinion about MBS was quite favorable a few short months ago, and it is this story alone that threatens it. No, also his prosecution of the war in Yemen. > By skipping that step and jumping right to PR to help fuel moral indignation in Americans, the CIA is way way way out of bounds. The US at its best stands up for a free press, and against, for example, authoritarian states being free to murder their critics worldwide. > Quite likely most senior CIA officials have far more blood on their hands than MBS. In the light of Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen, this statement is clearly false.
- resters 8y ago
  This is absurd. Who is selling SA the weapons it will use in Yemen.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    > This is absurd. Who is selling SA the weapons it will use in Yemen. Everyone who gets a chance? (-a few European countries who stopped recently.)
  - dash2 8y ago
    The fact that other governments are involved does not make SA's actions less bad.
  - moosey 8y ago
    This is whataboutism. Both are horrid: Corporations in the United States that build and sell weapons with the permission of the US government, other western governments and corporations that do the same as well. Yeah, horrid. It doesn't excuse the fact that SA and MBS are also horrible.
    - resters 8y ago
      Not at all. To qualify I would need to be defending MBS. On balance the US causes substantially more human suffering in the world than all other terror groups and despots combined. It’s strange that character attacks on MBS work so well to make Americans assume that the US must be the good guy. In the US there is a tremendous appeal to the narrative that the US is the (relative) good guy. American exceptionalism is a religion and it easily leverages the widespread white suoremecist views of Americans who already mistrust the brown folks. So beware of reinforcing the American exceptionalism dogma when you cite “whataboutism”. It is often budled into that critique.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]