Saudi Investment

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Its all about detaching Ukraine from Russian culture, and attaching it to EU/Nato instead.

If you took the time to visit either Russia or Ukraine, or even just speak at length with people from either country, you'd be well aware that the people of both countries regard each other as "brotherly peoples".

The Victorian "spheres of influence" international model which you're assuming is a Kremlin-inspired narrative and it has little or no currency in modern-day Ukraine. Indeed, every Ukrainian I've asked (and I've asked quite a few) has been quite categorical that the military and political trouble between their two countries are caused by the Kremlin and not the Russian people.

That careful apportioning of responsibility hasn't always been reciprocated on the Russian side as many, like you, are acquiring their information concerning the conflict from people who have a political stake in lying about it and who are happy to do so.

recedite

Yourself isit wrote: »

Interesting that one of the charges against Saudi is its war against the shia in Yemen.

However I don't see much opposition to the US, another beligerant in Yemen.

The fact that we (as an EU member state) are imposing sanctions against Crimeans, but not against Saudis, is in line with long term Nato goals.
But lets not pretend that there are any high moral principles involved, or that we in Ireland have any real say in the matter.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

The fact that we (as an EU member state) are imposing sanctions against Crimeans, but not against Saudis, is in line with long term Nato goals.

Any chance of any evidence forthcoming for these wild accusations?

Remember that Russia signed an international treaty in the early 90s guarateeing Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. How's that working out?

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...wild accusations?

Not that wild. Saudis are allies of the USA.
The Yemeni Shia are allies of Iran, which co-operates closely with Russia in the region.
These two blocs are on opposite sides in the Syria conflict. Depending on the outcome of that, either the Russia/Iran side gets an oil and gas route into the Med and on to Europe, or the Gulf states get to use that route.
The USA/Saudi bloc wants the latter outcome. Which means regime change for Assad, because he has a deal with the Russians.

Nato of course, would not exist without "the Russia threat". So Nato needs that to be talked up in the same way that an umbrella salesman needs the threat of rain.

Most EU states are heavily involved in Nato, hence we have EU sanctions imposed against Russia (and therefore against Crimeans)
But no EU or US sanctions against Saudis, instead they receive assistance from some Nato countries in their war against the Yemeni shia infidel.

Hotblack Desiato

I was asking about Ukraine not Saudi Arabia ffs

The Saudis may be many unsavory things but they haven't annexed part of another country.

The EU = NATO shtick was always rather lame but it's a lot more lame since Finland and Sweden joined. Two neutral countries who actually invest in their own defence unlike us.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

So Nato needs that to be talked up in the same way that an umbrella salesman needs the threat of rain.

Rubbish.

Military expenditure by NATO countries had been falling for years until Russia invaded Ukraine, at which point NATO countries started increasing military budgets again.

If Russia doesn't like NATO countries building up their military, then perhaps it should stop invading non-NATO countries and seizing their territory.

I'd also suggest that you would be a little closer to reality if you referred not to NATO - the usual reference in Russian state-controlled media - but to "NATO members" instead. NATO, after all, is a military alliance of democratic nations, where countries must apply to become members. NATO is not a burgeoning military empire bent on acquiring more territory - such as Russia is.

silverharp

there seems to be an unhealthy obsession with Russia out of proportion with their effect on the world, they seem to be the "Jewish Bankers" of the 21st Century when in reality country with horrible demographics, no industry that comes to mind and essentially exports basic resources for Mercs and Gucchi. On one forecast they will have the same population as Germany by 2050 combined with an economy that only has the same GDP as Italy now.
I wonder if part of the ire is that the US left is still sore that they dumped communism? I dont get the hate otherwise.

Yourself isit

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was asking about Ukraine not Saudi Arabia ffs

You asked about both in fact. Since you quoted a post which mentioned both.

The Saudis may be many unsavory things but they haven't annexed part of another country.

The EU = NATO shtick was always rather lame but it's a lot more lame since Finland and Sweden joined. Two neutral countries who actually invest in their own defence unlike us.

The Saudis are attacking Yemen and are responsible, along with the US, with clear genocidal aims.

Why did this thread veer off to Russia?


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/18/us-promoting-war-crimes-yemen-saudi-bombing-obama

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

there seems to be an unhealthy obsession with Russia out of proportion with their effect on the world, they seem to be the "Jewish Bankers" of the 21st Century [... ] I wonder if part of the ire is that the US left is still sore that they dumped communism? I dont get the hate otherwise.

Are you seriously comparing me to a 1930's Nazi because I'm openly concerned about the death and/or disorder which Russia has brought - and which I have seen, first hand - to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and its baleful effects further afield through its open financial and/or propaganda and/or hacking support for nihilistic, deceitful and destructive far-right candidates in France, Hungary, Greece, and the USA?

Gosh :rolleyes:

Yourself isit

robindch wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing me to a 1930's Nazi because I'm openly concerned about the death and/or disorder which Russia has brought - and which I have seen, first hand - to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and its baleful effects further afield through its open financial and/or propaganda and/or hacking support for nihilistic, deceitful and destructive far-right candidates in France, Hungary, Greece, and the USA?

Gosh :rolleyes:

Hes comparing the russopobia of people like you - the assumption that the Russians are behind every political movement you dislike - with similar ideological movements in the past.

This thread is supposedly about the Saudis far more egregious actors on the world stage - and yet it's come back somehow to putin.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing me to a 1930's Nazi because I'm openly concerned about the death and/or disorder which Russia has brought - and which I have seen, first hand - to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and its baleful effects further afield through its open financial and/or propaganda and/or hacking support for nihilistic, deceitful and destructive far-right candidates in France, Hungary, Greece, and the USA?

Gosh :rolleyes:

everyone has their hobby horses but I mean at a strategic level, looking at it from Russia's perspective I think they have earned the right to take their defence seriously and its in the West's interest to work with Russia and not try encircle it. Russia isn't a military threat to the west but there seems to be interested parties trying to restart cold war part deux when in reality Europe is being destabilised from the South and South East not the East. Russia is weak, all it could muster for Syria was a coal fired soviet era aircraft carrier and they don't even appear to have the industrial capacity to replace their ships without engineering help for the west.

Hotblack Desiato

Funny how it was immoral and cowardly to sell out the Czechs, Poles etc etc to Soviet domination and coercion post WWII but it's now perfectly fine and dandy according to some to sell out the Georgians, Ukrainians, Crimeans, etc to Russian domination and coercion today.

silverharp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Funny how it was immoral and cowardly to sell out the Czechs, Poles etc etc to Soviet domination and coercion post WWII but it's now perfectly fine and dandy according to some to sell out the Georgians, Ukrainians, Crimeans, etc to Russian domination and coercion today.

?? there are sanctions against Russia at the moment right and I don't think anyone has suggested that Russia gets a freebie to annex any country it wants on its border. At the same time its not the big boogie man state that its portrayed as. Looking at Georgia it didn't look like a black and white situation and Georgia was officially blamed for starting that particular conflict though id imagine there was shinanigans on both sides but what is the bet the US and the West was interfering in Gerogian politics in a way that would make a Kremlin hacker blush?

Im pretty sure if Chinese or Russian troops were installing military tech and carrying out maneuvers in Mexico everyone would describe it as reckless so I'd say its reckless to encourage a country like Georgia to become a Nato country. WW1 stared because of tightly wound alliances of dubious merit. Surely the history of Europe suggests that you don't create a hair trigger war environment?

recedite

People are starting to wonder why EU countries are supporting Saudi Arabia's bid to influence UN policy on women's rights.

Foreign affairs minister Charlie Flanagan became embroiled in controversy today when he refused to confirm if the Government voted for Saudi Arabia securing a seat on the UN Commission for the Status of Women.

We shouldn't really be surprised. The Saudi's already secured a key position in a UN Human Rights panel, with "western" support.
This despite the fact that Sharia sanctioned beheadings are a favourite form of public entertainment there.

One things for sure Russia, Iran and Syria didn't vote for them. It would make you wonder sometimes if we are with the good guys, or the bad guys.


Reminds me of this...:)

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

silverharp

Apparently this isn't a photoshop , nothing neurotic about this at all :pac:

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

People are starting to wonder why EU countries are supporting Saudi Arabia's bid to influence UN policy on women's rights.

I presume Ireland's vote in favour is in relation to the investment mentioned in the OP.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Dáil deputies voted to force all TDs to pray to another foreign power, The Vatican, before starting Dáil sessions. As expected, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil voted in favour, but they were joined, bizarrely, by the Labour Party Fine Gael Lite.

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

I presume Ireland's vote in favour is in relation to the investment mentioned in the OP.

I wouldn't think so. Is the investment mentioned in the OP coming from the Saudi government, or just from someone who happens to be Saudi?

Without some reason to think that the investment is conditional on the vote, I think you're at risk veering off into conspiracy theory territory here.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Dáil deputies voted to force all TDs to pray to another foreign power, The Vatican, before starting Dáil sessions. As expected, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil voted in favour, but they were joined, bizarrely, by the Labour Party Fine Gael Lite.

Well, no. Nobody's forced to pray, or even to attend while other's pray. If they choose to attend, they're required to stand, but if they find this obligation onerous or distasteful they can juist not turn up until after the prayers. (Which is what most of them have always done.)

And, for the record, the prayer isn't a prayer "to the Vatican". It's addressed to "Almighty God". From a civic point of view I'm not sure that's any better, to be honest, but an attack on the practice of parliamentary prayers is going to be more telling if it's an attack on the actual practice, rather than some fictionalised caricature.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Apparently this isn't a photoshop , nothing neurotic about this at all :pac:

It must be a photoshop. Seriously, you think Angela Merkel has a pixel hat?

The question is, who altered the image and for what purpose? Obviously somebody has told you that this image was used in the Saudi media, and you have chosen to believe this. Snopes says no, it was a joke, and offers a different provenance for the image, but you may have better information. Or you may just be gullible.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

It must be a photoshop. Seriously, you think Angela Merkel has a pixel hat?

The question is, who altered the image and for what purpose? Obviously somebody has told you that this image was used in the Saudi media, and you have chosen to believe this. Snopes says no, it was a joke, and offers a different provenance for the image, but you may have better information. Or you may just be gullible.

just a time issues and predisposed to believe that the saudi's are capable of anything in this regard, i let my internet gofers like yourself to correct if necessary

silverharp

speaking of saudi anyone look into #savedinaali and whether it was a hoax or not, young woman runs away from family but is held by the philippines until her family come and force her to come back. the facts seem outrageous but it didnt seem to get a lot of media traction even though she was livestreaming from the airport

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

just a time issues and predisposed to believe that the saudi's are capable of anything in this regard, i let my internet gofers like yourself to correct if necessary

Mmm. Your preconception may reveal more about you than it does about the Saudi's. Just sayin'.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't think so. Is the investment mentioned in the OP coming from the Saudi government, or just from someone who happens to be Saudi?

Without some reason to think that the investment is conditional on the vote, I think you're at risk veering off into conspiracy theory territory here.

Yes and no. The governments that voted in the Saudi's favour, whether Ireland was one or not, did so for a reason. This reason clearly wasn't how well the Saudi's treat women, so the only other conceivable issues were in the altruistic belief that by being apart of this group the Saudi's might improve their behaviour, or that those voting in favour of the Saudi's were expecting a favour returned. Paint me cynical, but I'd expect it was the latter.

Seriously, you think Angela Merkel has a pixel hat?

Kind of doubt it, but I know what I'm going to be making for next Halloween. Actually forget the hat, thinking of a skin tone body suit with the dodgy bits pixelated out

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Actually forget the hat, thinking of a skin tone body suit with the dodgy bits pixelated out

That's a brilliant idea.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Yes and no. The governments that voted in the Saudi's favour, whether Ireland was one or not, did so for a reason. This reason clearly wasn't how well the Saudi's treat women, so the only other conceivable issues were in the altruistic belief that by being apart of this group the Saudi's might improve their behaviour, or that those voting in favour of the Saudi's were expecting a favour returned. Paint me cynical, but I'd expect it was the latter.

The honours students will have noted that this isn't the first time such an issue was raised. Quite a few years back the Saudis were elected to the UN Human Rights Committee. I don't recall how Ireland voted on that one, but there was a degree of dissatisfaction expressed.

If there is a quid pro quo for such a vote, it's very unlikely to be a private investment in a Waterford shopping centre. The q-p-q will be government-to-government, and it will nearly always take the form of "you support us in this vote, and we'll support you in that vote".

Within the human rights community, there are basically two views about countries like Saudi Arabia being on such committees. If you take the view that the function of the committee is to hold up shining exemplars of good human rights practice, then countries like Saudi Arabia do not belong on the committee. But if you take the view that the function of such a committee is to provide a forum for a discourse about human right, there's little point in holding a discourse in which you refuse to speak to the people who most need to be spoken to, and countries like Saudi Arabia very much belong on such committees.

You argue this one either way, obviously, but the very fact that you can argue it either way means that you can't simply assume that the only possible explanation for the Saudi presence on the committee is that some Saudis bought a shopping centre in Waterford. There are more rational and more plausible explanations.

smacl wrote: »

Kind of doubt it, but I know what I'm going to be making for next Halloween. Actually forget the hat, thinking of a skin tone body suit with the dodgy bits pixelated out

In my case, that would be pretty much all pixels. There is no part of my body which is not dodgy.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. Your preconception may reveal more about you than it does about the Saudi's. Just sayin'.

in fairness I dont think religious people should be going around issuing charges of gullibility

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if you take the view that the function of such a committee is to provide a forum for a discourse about human right, there's little point in holding a discourse in which you refuse to speak to the people who most need to be spoken to, and countries like Saudi Arabia very much belong on such committees.

As long as the 8th amendment remains, Ireland is among those countries most needing to be spoken to about human rights.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

in fairness I dont think religious people should be going around issuing charges of gullibility

And people who claim to be sceptics shouldn't be advancing ad hominem arguments!

Your serve, I think.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

And people who claim to be sceptics shouldn't be advancing ad hominem arguments!

Your serve, I think.

you introduced ad hominem by attacking my character, so if dems the rules. look at it this way and Ill put it in your language, I made a "leap of faith" on a very minor thing on the basis of actual evidence that Saudi is known for censoring media. Being a christian you believe an unlikely proposition which is unsupported by evidence and that is pretty much the definition of gullible.

Peregrinus

But you're the one who is supposed to be defending scepticism, silverharp. If your position is, esssentially, "I'm no more gullible than a religous person", that's a fairly weak position from which to defend scepticism. Essentially you're saying that sceptics can be excused from practising scepticism because religious people don't practice scepticism.

Essentially, you accepted that the image was genuine because, if it were genuine, that would tend to confirm what you want to believe. That's precisely the attitude that you would criticise in a religious person, isn't it? Scepticism that's only deployed against propositions that you don't want to believe isn't really scepticism at all.

The sceptical and critical response to discovering that you had made this error would not be to say that religious people make errors that are as bad or worse; it would be to to try to find out why you had made this error and what you could do differently in the future to avoid making such errors. An examination of conscience, in short. ;-)

Pint?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

But you're the one who is supposed to be defending scepticism, silverharp. If your position is, esssentially, "I'm no more gullible than a religous person", that's a fairly weak position from which to defend scepticism. Essentially you're saying that sceptics can be excused from practising scepticism because religious people don't practice scepticism.

Essentially, you accepted that the image was genuine because, if it were genuine, that would tend to confirm what you want to believe. That's precisely the attitude that you would criticise in a religious person, isn't it? Scepticism that's only deployed against propositions that you don't want to believe isn't really scepticism at all.

The sceptical and critical response to discovering that you had made this error would not be to say that religious people make errors that are as bad or worse; it would be to to try to find out why you had made this error and what you could do differently in the future to avoid making such errors. An examination of conscience, in short. ;-)

Pint?

I'd get nothing done if I was sceptical about every tab I clicked on the internet. being sceptical is about looking into a narrative or whatever and seeing if the more common ones are 100% what they claim to be or not.