Tag Archives: Saad Aljabri

October 9, 2025 · 17:35

The opposing voice

That’s me (if you were wondering). The setting is that I take offense to the media and the way they are conducting their business. The larger setting is that I have no overwhelming love for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I have no business in Saudi Arabia, I have no relatives, no experience there and I have never been there. The simple setting is that I could have business there, but I do not. I am however drenched in fair play and the media settings are in an abundance of corruption, whoring (for the digital dollar) and smearing for the ‘friends’ they claim to have. Claim is as good as anything, because the political field is forever in flux. 

And the media is to be held to account much higher standard than they are now. So as the Guardian gives their new ‘abundance’ of smearing through their emotional settings like “and was the kind of expert – passionate, principled, always glad to hop on the phone – that journalists loved having in their digital Rolodex”, yes smearing the goo to soften the reader and something broke in me. So here goes:

‘Money talks: the deep ties between Twitter and Saudi Arabia’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/09/twitter-saudi-arabia-deep-ties-elon-musk-prince-mohammed)

Where we see “Ali al-Ahmed didn’t think that Elon Musk was responsible for the decline and fall of Twitter. Musk was another face representing an old regime. And its sins began well before Musk bumbled into Twitter HQ, in October 2022, carrying a porcelain sink. (In an attempt at humor, Musk posted a video of himself arriving at the Twitter offices carrying a sink with the caption “Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!”)” The first ‘error’ Elon Musk wasn’t responsible for anything (as I see it) he overpaid for a social media for well over 50% ($44 billion) A friend of mine and myself saw that the accounts were ‘spiked’ and that fake accounts were abundant. My personal view was that he paid over $15B too much for it and that is his right. As well as that Musk wasn’t ‘old’ regime anything. And at present is is ‘valued’ at $52.3 billion, so he made ten billion in just three years, that is not old anything, It is a massive influx of value (I never saw that). 

Then Ali Al-Ahmed gives us the one truth that matters ““They care about making money. Twitter and Facebook are not champions or models for human rights. These people are nothing but money-grubbers.” Twitter had banned Ahmed’s Arabic-language Twitter account, which had 36,000” that is social media for you and as I see it LinkedIn is about to be set to that same drive. It is all about the communications that are being drawn to catering (to whom is the question). Then we get the ‘dubious’ part (cannot agree, whether I see it that way or not). “For Saudi authorities, Twitter was an asset in every sense. The billionaire Saudi businessman Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was Twitter’s largest outside shareholder, and the site had become a key tool in the government’s apparatus of surveillance and control.” Is it really? It might be, but that is social media for you. If you share with the world, you share with EVERYONE, not just your ‘core’ people and the Saudi Government might as well take notice (as does the German, French, America and Commonwealth nations). Then we get a ‘tainted’ part. With “Ahmed believed his Twitter account had been compromised. He worried that spies had access to it, which would endanger dissident Saudis with whom he exchanged private messages. This wasn’t an idle concern. One of his contacts was Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, an aid worker who, in 2018, was abducted by Saudi security forces for running a satirical Twitter account that parodied members of the government. Abdulrahman, who was then 37, was sentenced to 20 years in prison.” There is a hidden truth, EVERY Twitter account is compromised. We do it ourselves and whether it is some security forces or hackers, they all try to get information and the Chinese, Israeli and Russians make the Saudi security forces look like little kids in the playground. And the writer knows this. So there.

Then we get the (seemingly) big lie “As the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi demonstrated, the Saudi state pursued vigorous methods of transnational repression, allegedly sending hit squads after enemies abroad.” In the first place. Where is the evidence? What makes a murder brutal? There is no body, as such Jamal Khashoggi is merely missing and the press knows this (apparently he moved to bora bora with a 19 year old mistress) but that is something I am willing to dismiss as have no evidence of this. The second lie is “Saudi state pursued vigorous methods of transnational repression, allegedly sending hit squads after enemies abroad” this might be true, but it requires evidence (that pesky requirement) and I do not see the evidence given by Saad Aljabri as evidence. He silenced a few settings through the CIA to set silent the evidence against him. The truth and all the truth is my motto and he has allegedly over 3,000,000,000 reasons not to be honest. Then we get the ‘meh’ setting. In “Prince Mohammed used his country’s bottomless reserves of oil and capital to flood Silicon Valley, politics, sports leagues and other power centers with cash and influence. Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and Peter Thiel’s investment vehicle, Founders Fund, were among the most notable recipients of Saudi money, but they were just two among hundreds. In 2016, Uber received an astonishing $3.5bn from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF). Blackstone’s infrastructure fund got $20bn. By autumn 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported, Saudi Arabia had become “the largest single funding source for US startups”.” So Saudi Arabia is setting wealth to create wealth? Isn’t that the proper use of Business Intelligence? So they had the money and they were starting up companies (to get a return on investment I reckon) and then we get another setting ““They’re surveillance states. They’re police states,” said Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown University. “They want to use the latest technology in order to continue to remain in power and surveil their populations. So they have another interest in trying to sort of be the beneficiaries of hi-tech developments, hoping that that will help them internally with their own political rule.”” Might be seen as direct settings of intelligence and I would say that this is a valid use of technology. The west is run over by Hamas and Gaza sympathizers and we do nothing. Saudi Arabia knows how dangerous that could become and they are making sure that these people do not succeed and I reckon that the UAE is on that setting too. There is something to be said for the Saudi approach when we see the ‘news’ that is spread through social media. As I see it, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests are rampant in the streets of Europe and they are ‘supporting’ one another making life in Europe less and less interesting and the populist agenda is somehow fed through that. Saudi Arabia has no interest in getting involved through that setting.

Then we get the ‘dangerous’ part ““Since late 2017 or January of 2018, Prince Mohammed has exercised control over more Twitter stock than is owned by Twitter’s founder,” according to a civil complaint filed against Twitter and the consulting firm McKinsey by Omar Abdulaziz, a film director and Saudi exile. Abdulaziz said that the consultancy helped finger him as a prominent online dissident, leading to his Twitter account being hacked. (In 2020, Canadian authorities warned Abdulaziz that he was a target of a Saudi kill team.) According to Abdulaziz’s original complaint, “Because of the tremendous wealth of key figures in [the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia], major corporations have enabled, collaborated with, and turned a blind eye to [its] efforts to suppress, torture, falsely imprison, terrorise and murder dissenters both within Saudi Arabia and around the world.” Twitter had given the Saudi government a reach well beyond its borders.” It is dangerous as it assumes several parts. In part as the setting of Omar Abdulaziz, he failed a complaint, how did that end? We do not know. We are given that “finger him as a prominent online dissident, leading to his Twitter account being hacked”, so was this on McKinsey? He was out there getting ‘visibility’ as a film director and some might not like that (for all kinds of reasons) it might have been an Islamophobe. Then we get “In 2020, Canadian authorities warned Abdulaziz that he was a target of a Saudi kill team.” What authorities? I reckon that the CSIS got wind of something and did their job, but where is the evidence? I get that the CSIS gets all kinds of information (Saad Aljabri anyone)? So they did their job (if they were the source). So what was that Saudi Kill team? Overzealous football supporters? And with “suppress, torture, falsely imprison, terrorise and murder dissenters both within Saudi Arabia and around the world.” Twitter had given the Saudi government a reach well beyond its borders” we get another setting of ‘seemingly’ setting the stage. Where evidence doesn’t exist, the media drenches the story in emotion and what we call soft pressures and I have had enough whilst this happens they are pushed around and they want their digital dollars. And this is how the seemingly get it. And in conclusion, Twitter doesn’t give them anything, because some already showed me that others use Twitter (say X) for exactly the same reason and that gives the population of one (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) a much larger pool with Trolls, Russian, China, Commonwealth, America, CIA, NSA, DIA, Democratic corporations and a whole range of alphabet combinations and there are several who would like to take out someone they don’t care about and lay the blame on Saudi Arabia for all the interesting reasons that we might not see. 

So this is how I see emotional articles from the Guardian at present. Feel free to disagree because that is how I am. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 7, 2021 · 10:38

Where the media should never be

A case was brought to my attention, normally it goes nowhere, but this article (at https://millichronicle.com/2021/03/opinion-ghada-oueiss-lies-about-saudi-and-american-spies/) struck a nerve. In all this, there were a few unknowns. I had never dealt with the Milli Chronicle, I did not know the writer and it was against Al Jazeera, a news outlet that had shown to be often enough to be in good faith, but the article still stung. Lets take a look

There was ‘Al Jazeera anchor Ghada Oueiss sues Saudi and UAE crown princes over phone hack, harassment’ (at https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3113604/al-jazeera-anchor-ghada-oueiss-sues-saudi-and-uae-crown), the South China Morning Post gives us this last December. It is there where we see “She sued Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed for allegedly hacking into her phone and stealing and doctoring images to silence her”, this is interesting because it is not the first time that Mohammed bin Salman is accused of this. I am wondering how much of it is actually true. You see one definite part in this is that one should always keep their hands clean, as such there is a larger debate on who did the deed, and as such how is any evidence of this tested and validated? Perhaps Ghada Oueiss is seeing a pay day? When we look back at a similar accusation we saw the failed papers and the debatable papers by FTI consulting. There was clear evidence that his phone was hacked, but there is also a decent setting that MBS was framed and that a third party hacked his phone.

All this becomes a second stage when we see ‘Al Jazeera anchor’s anti-Semitic Twitter persona’ (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1704376/media) a setting that was seen last July. There we see “On July 8, Al Jazeera anchor Ghada Oueiss wrote an opinion article for the Washington Post in which she detailed her alleged struggle with cyberbullying campaigns on Twitter at the hands of — as she claims — droves of Saudi and Emirati bots”, so in all this we see another Washington Post mention all towards a columnist no one gives a fuck about (pardon my French). Isn’t it interesting that they all knew one another and they are all the making the ‘alleged attempt’? As I see it Al Jazeera just entered the frame where they should not be ‘Creating the no news’ and there is every chance that this will now hit their credibility. We are also given ““Al Jazeera, though Ghada Oueiss and others, calls for chaos in its support for militias and violence against the state and calls for hatred in any form possible to defy and distort the image of those who oppose its sponsors in Qatar and its ally Turkey,” Egypt-based media expert Hani Nasira told Arab News.” This requires me to have more in depth knowledge of Hani Nasira which I do not have, but it also gives (optionally plasters) Ghada Oueiss as a tool for usage as we are treated to “Al Jazeera, though Ghada Oueiss and others”, gives rise to a different kind of journalism, I wonder who was looking that deep? So as we return to the Milli Chronicle and “Ghada needs defendants who reside in Miami, Florida in order to bring her lawsuit there. Two of the USA Defendants live in Miami, Florida—which is why Ghada made them defendants in her lawsuit. Ghada complains that these two Americans joked about eating dinner at the Olive Garden Restaurant in Miami, so now, Ghada no longer feels safe in Miami—even though she lives in Qatar.” And perhaps this reminds you of something? I wrote about it a few weeks ago and let me get a sample. It is seen in my article ‘Number of states’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/06/number-of-states/) there we see (at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747.66.1.pdf) at [4] “Fortunately, in the United States, justice is measured not by the might of one’s arms; what is lawful is measured not by the reach of one’s sword; and the law itself is not laggard when faced with a prince who, having directed the dismemberment of a prominent U.S. journalist overseas, also dispatched a team of hunters and killers into the United States and Canada to murder again”, it is interesting that all the elements were outside the USA, more important, there is a lack of Canadian Courts in play when it comes to Dr. Saad Aljabri. And personally, it might be me, yet how much value do we give a complaint when it starts with “Richard III, William Shakespeare” a play that is seen as a tragedy, just like that court case, so why was the intending ‘victim’ not in a Canadian court? And it does not end there, the opposition (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is shown in the Guardian ‘Saudi state companies sue ex-spy chief in Canada over alleged $3bn fraud’ with the additional part “Aljabri, exiled in Canada, was a top aide to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who was deposed as heir to the throne by Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a 2017 palace coup.” I am not stating that one is true and one is false, but which journalist dug into the finances of Dr. Saad Aljabri? $3,000,000,000 is a lot more than most will ever make, and even as a top aide to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef there is a decent option that Dr. Saad Aljabri would end up being a millionaire, even a multi millionaire, but not a billionaire. 

I feel certain that I can live like a king in Monaco for €250,000,000, so why would I need more? Some do and for a top-aide to end up being a multi billionaire, that requires some doing and no one is asking those questions, they are all doing the same thing from different directions, like a bachelor getting to work in the morning every day from a different direction, someone is getting screwed. The people expecting neutral news is one, there are a few more but I will let you decide on that.

You see, we all want confirmation, one stating that fraud was not committed whilst the court case is filed in the US, not in Canada. So what investigation took place in Canada? Then when we see the Milli Chronicle with “It seemed like a crazy joke until the reporter said there was actually a lawsuit number, 1:20-cv-25022– and that I was personally named as a member of a shadowy, nefarious, evil-doing operation that Ghada calls “The Network” on pages 19 and 20 of her 93-page diatribe”, who investigated this stuff? The fact that it makes the Milli Chronicle and not the NY Times is a valid question, but there is every indication that the Washington Post system is working full throttle in their attempt to paint a target and they are using all they can and the non-friends of Saudi Arabia are the helping hands that the Washington Post is seeking. It is speculative, but it is my view and the evidence is stacking up against the Washington Post and now against Al Jazeera as well. I do hope that the chief editor is taking a hard and a very critical look at the work of Ghada Oueiss. I will let them decide and figure out what is actual truth and I do hope that they will inform the audience, they allegedly have credibility to repair.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 1, 2020 · 17:56

Just the facts?

Isn’t that what it needs to be in media? Just the facts? The issue is that media in general and in this case the BBC specifically is setting a different stage and I am not sure why. Now, I will give up front that it is my opinion and perception against that of the BBC and the stage is up in the air. For the most, or basically nearly always, the BBC is on point and is highly reliable. In this case, some facts are debatable and one factor is that I do not have all the inn’s and out’s (pun intended). That is also a factor and I am trying to keep that in mind. So the article ‘Saudi king sacks defence officials’ would initially be something I would have glanced over. Merely because even if I would be applying for the position of Defence official for the Saudi Arabian government, I do not speak the language and I reckon that there are plenty of Saudi nationals eager to get that position. In the second, the role was until recently in the hands of Prince Fahad bin Turki, and I am no prince (no matter what the ladies say). In addition we are given “The men, along with four other officials, face an investigation into “suspicious financial dealings” at the Ministry of Defence, the decree said”, implying that this is all about the politics, and I never cared for politics. It all starts with “critics say the high-profile arrests have been aimed at removing obstacles to the prince’s hold on power”, my first question becomes, who are those critics? In the second, in light of how things are in Yemen, I see no real setting that Prince Fahad bin Turki is any kind of obstacle in the current power setting in Saudi Arabia, now I will admit immediately that I have no real idea on who is in that power cycle, yet I wonder if those ‘critics’ are aware of what is and who are, or are they merely setting the stage for others to set a presentation stage? You see the accusation is given speculated strength via ‘critics say’ yet we do not get any mention of who those critics are, do we? Yet the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53980115) goes off the deep end when we see “However he has been embroiled in a series of scandals, including the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul in 2018 and an alleged murder plot against a former Saudi intelligence agent in Canada”, this is achieved in a few ways. In the first, the entire Khashoggi debacle is set to flawed intelligence, especially the ‘added’ intelligence by UN essay writer Agnes Calamard, I dealt with that in several articles, especially in ‘Demanding Dismissal’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/07/04/demanding-dismissal/), so not only can we prove that Jamal Khashoggi is murdered, we can merely speculate on that, and that is before we need to realise that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any directive from Saudi Arabia to allegedly kill Jamal Khashoggi, if there was it would have ‘leaked’ to every newspaper in the world, all we got was a level of emotional outbursts devoid of evidence. And there is the alleged plot against Dr. Saad Aljabri, the allegations went so far that they try to convict Saudi Officials in another country, how is that for failing evidence? Yet that same court has no real intentions to seriously look into “Saudi officials accuse Aljabri of leading a group that misspent $11 billion of government funds and skimmed $1 billion for themselves, the Wall Street Journal reported, an allegation he denies” interesting is it not? 

So it seems that the critics are all about spinning yarn, if not they would have been out there supported by actual and factual evidence, they are not. And the implied situation in Istanbul, which comes up in every Saudi story is this time linked to the sacking of defence officials, all whilst the evidence attached is drowning additional events is disbelief and more credibility is removed from the situation. That was not hard, was it?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,