SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the accidental-kidnapping-and-execution dept.
Saudis preparing to admit Jamal Khashoggi died during interrogation, sources say
The Saudis are preparing a report that will acknowledge that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's death was the result of an interrogation that went wrong, one that was intended to lead to his abduction from Turkey, according to two sources.
One source says the report will likely conclude that the operation was carried out without clearance and transparency and that those involved will be held responsible.
One of the sources acknowledged that the report is still being prepared and cautioned that things could change.
The Washington Post columnist was last seen in public when he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in Turkey on October 2. Previously, Saudi authorities had maintained Khashoggi left the consulate the same afternoon of his visit, but provided no evidence to support the claim.
Saudi Arabia could hike oil prices over the Khashoggi case. Here's why it would backfire
Saudi Arabia's not-so-veiled threat issued in a government statement Sunday emphasized its "vital role in the global economy" and that any action taken upon it will be met with "greater action". But as oil ticks upward, a look at history and geopolitics suggests that while a Saudi-driven oil price spike would bring pain for much of the world, it would ultimately backfire on itself.
"If this is something the Saudis were allowed to do, they'd be really shooting themselves in the foot," Warren Patterson, commodities analyst at ING, told CNBC's Squawk Box Europe on Tuesday. "In the short to medium term we'll definitely see an incremental amount of demand destruction, but the bigger issue is in the longer term."
Any action in withholding oil from the market, he said, "would only quicken the pace of energy transition."
Previously: Turkey Says that a Missing Critic of the Saudi Government was Killed in Saudi Consulate in Istanbul
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 18 2018, @01:20AM (2 children)
3, Your ignorance about islam and its koran [thereligionofpeace.com] is not excusable in this day and age. Download the koran for free and read it for yourself. The verses are written sorted by length, longest verses first and shortest last. However, the official way to read and interpret the material is chronologically with later verses abrogating the earlier ones [wikiislam.net] in the many cases of conflict. You do it that way and you will see that it is all about promulgating violence and hate. We banned Nazism, with effort. With more effort, we can ban islam for much the same reasons and using many of the same laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 18 2018, @02:13AM
Eh? So there's no death and destruction in the bible at all? Sure, maybe one is more violent than the other, but lets be fair.. just ban the lot of em. Its about time.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 19 2018, @07:24PM
Well, you've sure done a great job of proving my point!
Pick a religion, and unless they are unusually pacifist (e.g. Quakers and Jains) you'll find advocacy of violence against non-believers:
* Christianity: The Crusades, duh. Also, near constant warfare in Europe post-Reformation between Protestants and Catholics. Christianity was also used to justify the genocide of numerous people in the Americas, Africa, and southern Asia. In modern times, George W Bush called the wars he started in the Middle East a crusade, and his favorite mercenaries Blackwater also think of themselves as modern-day crusaders.
* Judaism: Tons of violence in the name of Judaism throughout what the Christians call the Old Testament. In modern times, Judaism is being used to justify both discrimination against non-Jews living in Israel, but also violence against Palestinians. Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman in particular has often suggested violence in the name of Judaism.
* Hinduism: The Baghavad Gita is ultimately a long explanation of why violence is justified and necessary. Modern Hindus often use their religion to justify attacking Muslims in Kashmir.
* Buddhism: A particular form of Shinto-tinged Buddhism was a key part of the Japanese ideology in World War II. In modern times, much of the conflict in Myanmar/Burma is Buddhists using violence against Christians.
* Atheism: Atheist Communists, particular Josef Stalin, massacred people because they were religious in some way. So no, you aren't off the hook if you're atheist.
* Islam: Mohammed fought quite a number of battles himself, and violence and warfare was the origin of the Sunni-Shia split. In modern times, Wahabi Islam of the sort practiced by Saudi Arabia is particularly violent.
So no, I don't see Islam as standing out here as being radically more violent than other religious viewpoints. Your average Ahmed is just trying to get through life more or less like you are.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin