I don’t go into ‘in opposition’ mode too often, because it tends to be an exercise of mopping the floor whilst the tap is spilling right on the floor. And you come to the conclusion that it is better to close the tap FIRST, before you start exercising with a mop. That is merely my opinion, but it holds water (as the phrase goes). The exercise is the ABC article (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-23/f-35-fighter-jet-sale-saudi-arabia-uae-australia-weapons-exports/106029218) giving us ‘Australian F-35 exports face fresh scrutiny as jets approved for Saudi Arabia’ where we get.
So, as we get blatant stupidity from Australian shores with “The president also contradicted the 2021 US intelligence assessment by saying the crown prince “knew nothing” about Khashoggi’s killing.” I countered this case on grounds of the United Nations report by UN comedian Egsy Calamari (aka Agnes Callamard) in the article ‘That was easy!’ I found a dozen shortfalls on that report (which also uses the US Intelligence assessment) and beyond that I left the largest folly unspoken. At no time were the tapes actually forensically tested. They could have been listening to a tape with recordings of the Shadow, listening to Orson Welles. I reckon they didn’t do that, but the blatant holes in that investigation were astounding and they are paid 6 figure incomes? For what?
And the least said about “Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are among the groups who have called for arms bans to Saudi Arabia, especially after the 2018 murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the country’s human rights record, and role in the Yemen war.” The better. They turning their backs on the actions of Hamas and Houthi terrorist actions is astounding. As such I do not give too much credence to the writings of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and it makes little sense, they were a force for good in the 80’s, how the world turns.
So whilst we get “Andrew Witheford, international and crisis lead from Amnesty International Australia, said putting the highly-lethal jet into the hands of another country in the region was “problematic”.” Really? So how is that view going for America and its Venezuelan repertoire? And beyond the fact that Saudi Arabia is a stable monarchy, it is making great strides in several factors. But don’t worry China is willing to flog their Chengdu J-20 by the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation at any time, and how will that help Australia? Oh, and I hereby claim my 1% bonus if Saudi Arabia switches to the Dragon, over that amount I would get (from China) $52 million, a nice retirement fund, so I can move to Toronto and Abu Dhabi, life can be fun at the autumn of your life.
How is anything that this article gives you all relevant to the setting? So as the ABC gives us “A Saudi-led coalition has been waging a war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen since 2015.” We need to realise that there are no Houthi rebels, there merely are Houthi terrorists.
But do not take my word for it, ask Colonel Turki bin Saleh Al-Maliki he has the recovered several drones used on Saudi civilian airports and civilian targets. The media was so great in filtering out those facts, I wonder if you do the same. Is there a setting where Saudi Arabia uses weapons in defence of IT’S OWN COUNTRY? Yes, there is, defence works that way. But the media is eager to avoid their gaze on the rough stuff, like the Ghouta chemical attack in 2013 where the population was hit by rockets containing the chemical agent sarin. It might not seem related, but it is, when the atrocities of terrorists are laid bare, the people will ask difficult questions of the media. And that is not good for the digital dollar, is it.
So back to the story, as we are given “The UN Arms Trade Treaty, to which Australia is a party, says states must regulate the export of “parts and components” used to assemble weapons if there is knowledge the arms would be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain war crimes.” We see the uncomfortable truth that they do not address action of Hamas as it is not part of the UN Arms Treaty Trade, nicely played. But this sanctimonious setting is getting on the nerves of too many people and the setting of a journalist no one cares about has been playing out for 8 years. All whilst the people are pointing fingers at the one who states that he is innocent and for the better part there is no evidence, the media takes whatever they could to get more digital dollars whilst ignoring clear evidence. So as we now against get the US intelligence assessment, most will not be clued in that some of this is based on
“we need to consider ‘an intelligence service or operative simply has to make a stab at assimilating what all this means’, this can be surmised into one single word ‘Speculation!’, it is fair for Intelligence operatives to do, but in law it is set to evidence and there is none, something I saw in 10 minutes into the initial report.” as well as “The Special Rapporteur was not allowed to obtain clones of the recordings so she could not authenticate any of the recordings. Among other aspects, such authentication would have involved examination of the recordings’ metadata such as when, how the data were created, the time and date of creation and the source and the process used to create it.”
The simplest setting of law, Evidence, you either have it or you do not and no one has any clear evidence and the US intelligence assessment of ‘Highly Likely’ does not hold water in court.
The simplest of settings and it is interesting how the media is filled with Islamophobes drenched in anti Saudi sentiment, it is not a completely correct setting, but that is how I see it. As such I am in opposition for the simple reason of evidence. And consider this, Andrew Witheford, gives us “The F-35 used to only be sold to essentially liberal democratic countries” is that not a from of discrimination? By the way if all sounds right, America has become a (according to some) an authoritarianism, as such why is Australia even producing the parts of the F-35? Just a small question to cleanse the pallet.
Have a great day today, Monday is now less than 325 minutes away.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 