Tag Archives: Turki bin Saleh Al-Maliki

The direction doesn’t matter

That is a weird stage to set things on, but for me in Australia, I am looking to events in the NW (actually WNW to North), Canada looks at it as events in the East (actually ESE) and Europe sees it as events to the South (actually SE), we look at things from a different perspective and in this the ABC (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-31/uae-saudi-arabia-yemen-strikes-port-weapons-shipment/106188568) we get ‘UAE withdraws personnel from Yemen after Saudi Arabia air strikes’ and the headline matters, but this is not the most important part. You see, I partially take offense to “The United Arab Emirates is pulling its personnel out of Yemen after Saudi Arabia’s bombing of an alleged shipment of weapons and vehicles it claimed had been going to a separatist group. The UAE Ministry of Defence said it would withdraw its remaining “counter-terrorism teams” from southern Yemen after Saudi Arabia issued a 24-hour deadline to the Emirates to leave and cease sending weapons and money to any group in the country.” This follows the issue I have with “Both Saudi Arabia and the Emirates intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015, as the major players in a coalition fighting the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the north.” The ABC is wrong here, these aren’t Houthi rebels, they are Houthi Terrorists and they better realise their wrongful setting of the euphemism brush that they use in cases of Yemen events. As I see it,“A terrorist is an individual who uses or threatens violence against non-combatants (such as civilians) to create widespread fear and thereby achieve political, religious, or ideological goals.” And in all this Iran is equally guilty for enabling these terrorist events by delivering hardware and knowledge to the Houthi terrorists. We merely get “On 9 October 2021, Houthi forces launched two suicide drones on King Abdullah Airport in Jizan, Saudi Arabia. The attack left 10 wounded; six Saudi nationals, three Bangladeshi and one Sudanese as well as and minor damage to civilian property.” Yet, if the media took the trouble to question Colonel Turki bin Saleh al-Maliki of the Royal Saudi Air Force, they would get a number a lot higher and more recent of the attacks these terrorists made on Saudi Arabian soil, even though Yemeni hardware could never enabled these actions, neither was it possible to see the attacks on 14 September 2019, where drones were used to attack oil processing facilities. Houthi forces never had the knowhow and precision to follow through in that, making Iran the most likely culprit (I use culprit loosely as I never saw the evidence) and the western media is massively shy the reports on this, because that would enable Saudi Arabia to get the backing from the global population and that is a second setting the world was not ready for. It is all nice if one party is show to be the bad apple, but when too much evidence is showing to be incorrect, the people will ask questions and the media set themselves up for that stage. And there are developing stages here. As ABC gives us “But Dr Kendall said the Saudis and Emiratis supported different factions in southern Yemen, with Saudi Arabia preferring a united Yemen and the Emiratis supporting the separatist STC, which wants to create a new state in the south. That rivalry has intensified, especially after the UAE expanded its influence and military presence across southern Yemen and its islands, while Saudi Arabia responded by bombing the STC in Yemen’s eastern provinces last week. “Clashes have erupted in the past, most notably in 2019, but now is the most serious clash yet. This is a very serious disagreement about how, when and if the south should break away,” Dr Kendall said.” It shows that my knowledge is lacking involving Yemeni events and I blame the media for not keeping us up to date and that is the function of the media. ABC has been properly advising its readers (listeners and watchers too) of these events, but they likely have limiting resources. And as I see it, ABC stands mostly alone, whilst American, British and European news agencies let that chapter slide as (as I personally see it) Yemen isn’t sexy enough for the news. But that also implies that too many hand the bad card to Saudi Arabia whilst that is not the proper thing. As I see it, Iran is a lot more guilty of these bad cards than Saudi Arabia would have ever been entitled to.

We are also given ““The UAE categorically rejects any attempt to implicate the country in tensions among Yemeni parties and strongly denounces allegations that it exerted pressure on, or issued directives to, any Yemeni party to undertake military operations that would undermine the security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or target its borders,” the Emirati government said in a statement.” I cannot counter that because the media never gave us the real deal, but I am willing to color both nations in happy green, whilst keeping Iran in evil red (as colours go in my view of things) and that makes coloring the borders a problem, because I have seen close (thought Arabian news sources) to half a dozen attacks on Saudi civilian targets, making the Houthi terrorist the guilty party. So why is the ABC labeling them ‘Houthi rebels’? 

It is a setting that due to one sided and limited exposure a setting of question and whilst we might see the UAE and Saudi Arabia as the noble sides, there is more going on in Yemen and that could give us a setting of doubt and we are able and willing to be in doubt, because as I see it, most of the media isn’t doing their job (as I personally see it).

All whilst ABC gave us this image which is striking. There is a whole range of elements in action, some in the hearts of the Yemeni and the media just won’t give us the real deal. Why is that?

Have a great day and today is the last day of the year here, tomorrow will be another year.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

In opposition

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. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Repetition of a speculated lie

That is the setting that the Guardian is giving us (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/07/saudi-arabia-ukraine-us-talks-analysis) with the underlying text “a country with ambitions to be a major diplomatic player despite its horrific human rights record, including the kidnap and murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018”, so how often does a lie need to be repeated before people might accept it as a truth? 

You see on February 27, 2021 I wrote ‘That was easy!’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) where I blew the massive disregard for evidence to smithereens, an essay presumably written by UN essay writer Eggy Calamari. The report of a lot of pages and several times I blew their ‘assessment’ apart on simple logic. So, does that make me correct? No, but I firmly believe that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty and that was not to be seen. Just as an apology is not a valid defense, a ‘highly likely’ from the CIA does not constitute evidence. ‘Highly likely’ is a speculation at best, as such it is not evidence. Moreover no one actually did a forensic analyses on these so called tapes. As such it is a mere document of collected speculations. One source gave me that JK escaped to Tora Tora with a young mistress. I do not believe that, but there are speculations all over the field and now with the Guardian 4 years later I basically had enough. 

The terms “kidnap and murder”and “murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi” connects to other articles, so there is that too. The first one connects to a 5 year old article named ‘‘Mockery of justice’ after Saudis convict eight over Khashoggi killing’ and the other is ‘‘He couldn’t see light at the end of the tunnel’: Jamal Khashoggi’s widow on their life and his death’. All speculative views. So in 5 years no one was able to prove anything, as such his Royal Highness Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are innocent. You think I am kidding? No, I am not. Evidence is central here and the media have been using the JK case as a cash cow for digital dollars. 

I think it is high time that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes new steps to silence these innuendo’s. If I had anything to say about this, I would give the media a taste of its own medicine. The Guardian (at al) would be banned from covering sport (and other) news in Saudi Arabia. I reckon that The Times, The Express, The Observer and others (the UK has dozens of newspapers) can cover Sport in Saudi Arabia, the Guardian gets banned until 2035 for all these events. When they are on the outside looking in, they will soon start screaming like little tea grannies on how unfair life is for them. 

I personally also think out is time for Saudi Arabia to take a harder stance on who their allies really are. It is nice that President Trump is coming for a investment donation of 1 trillion, however the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been barred from the F35 for a long time now. So if China could arrange for the J20 to be released to Saudi Arabia, they would be a much more worthy ally. So why doesn’t Saudi Arabia invest that money in China? Their might be larger considerations and I would not be privy to them, but an ally that merely claims to be an ally and whilst Saudi Arabia was under attack from Houthi terrorists, The US channels or assistance remains closed, even though several parties (including Colonel Turki bin Saleh Al-Maliki) who had shown several times that the Houthi terrorists were using Iranian drones to attack civilian Saudi targets (King Abdullah Airport in the southwestern Jizan province). The western media overlooked (I my view intentionally) that side of the story. And there is a lot more. As I personally see it intentionally silencing these matters should be seen as worse, but that is merely my point of view.

Oh, and the fact that I saw in hours these facts over 4 years ago and the ‘media’ never corrected their point of view is another matter entirely. They had no problems with replicating that work of fiction ‘Blood and Oil’ who used art of effective or persuasive writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech to make a case that never was. That is how I see it (to be certain I bought the book and I shot it to hell within the hour (I only looked at the Khashoggi mentions)

So how is the Guardian sizing up right now?

I reckon that there is a price to pay for these settings and it is time that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is making these people pay for the intentional distortion of truth, but I am not in command of anything in Saudi Arabia, so my view could be ignored. If it wan’t for that pesky setting that China has another option to put America (and the UK) out of business in certain parts of the world. I wonder if Iran could hand America a trillion dollars (and a lot more for several other parts). 

Did I oversimplify matter for the average reader? Have a great Saturday. I am off to a decent Saturday and Vancouver is still 9 hours away from Saturday.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

The new student

There is a class, this class is out there and it has many students. Yet its teacher had never expected that the BBC would be joining his class and this teacher is beside himself. The teacher is Mediocrates and his Syllabus called ‘Thats good enough’ has been handed from student to student for generations. Yet until today this teacher had never considered that the BBC would be joining him, and he is happy, he is very very happy.

This all started some time ago, yet for me to see another MBS bashing exercise is just too much, especially when it comes from the BBC. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-62940906) gives us ‘Mohammed Bin Salman: Saudi prince’s controversial invitation to the Queen’s funeral’. In the first Why controversial? He is the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So far not a biggie, but then we get “A declassified CIA report concluded that the crown prince had authorised the murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018

So lets make a little list

  1. The CIA report did not do that, it stated that it was highly likely, which is not the same. By the way this is the same organisation that send former secretary of state Colin Powell with a shining silver suitcase to places like a rockstar with the evidence that Iraq had WMD’s. So how many were found in the end? Not any did they? At that presentation they had graphics, now they have less than nothing. The rule of law states that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty and the prove is missing on many levels. Even the hack job that the UN report represents never properly analysed the recordings, it gets worse that there is no one had ACTUALLY heard the entire recording and that is on Turkey. Then we get the ‘dismemberment’ part, there was no evidence of any kind that this had happened, merely the figment of some limelight seeking individual, and no evidence is showing that this ever happened.
    We now have all kinds of rumours. One is of him and a 20 year old mistress going to Tahiti. I doubt that there is anyone believing that story, but you can find creative yo-yo’s on any street-corner. 

REALITY CHECK

  1. Did something happen to JK? I speculate that this is the case and there is nothing to support that he had any other plans then to go back to his fiancee.
  2. Can we prove that something happened? No, there are strong indications, but no evidence. And in this Turkey, the tool of Iran played a very dangerous game. It is my belief they never had anything, but Turkey wanted to please Iran and the lack of forensic evidence on the tapes as well as the fact that those tapes were never fully revealed plays towards my view on the matter. Is it not interesting that the Washington Post never demanded their release? It made all kinds of other claims, claims that lack evidence, but the release of those tapes were demanded, the same could be said for the United Nations who had their tools attack the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but presented no evidence that actually holds water.

Then we get “The pressure group Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) has accused Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies of using the Queen’s funeral as a way to – in their words – “whitewash” their human rights records.” Here we have a different situation. The CAAT (or the group of tea grannies holding a banner) as I would see it have been clear about accusing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but they never made clear loud mentions of Houthi terrorists and Iran arms supplies, did they? Here the western media has gone out of its way to keep silent regarding the actions of Iran (like drone attacks on civilian targets in southern Saudi Arabia). They gave no visibility to the presentations of Colonel Turki bin Saleh Al-Maliki who on more than one occasion gave the media the clear evidence of Iranian drones. Yet the WSJ had no problems showing the application of “Iranian Kamikaze Drones Creates New Dangers for Ukrainian Troops”, why is that? Do the stake holders and share holders like the Ukrainian side of the matter? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been forced to fight with one hand on its back against Houthi terrorists for too long. Yet the people and the media had no issue sending Boris Johnson to Riyadh talking about cheap oil. So why would they do that? It is my personal belief that the media has done everything it could to prolong this war. An event that started 8 years ago almost to the day and could have been resolved 5 years ago, but that did not fit with the needs of stakeholders hoping to get some cash out of Iran (a speculative view) and that is not all, the captured smuggling shipments from Iran did not make the news either, so what gives?

Finally there is a stage that most ignore. These acts ‘supporting’ Iran will have a much higher cost soon enough, when that happens will the media make a true call to action and a call to answer from media stakeholders or will they silent and mute like with Martin Bashir? 

The largest folly is the Aramco attacks on 14 September 2019. It is impossible for Houthi forces to have done that, yet everyone was so eager to accept that it was a Houthi attack. To give an example. I am a goalie (ice-hockey) and I would love to be the Goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs, but I lack the skills to be THAT good a goalie, as such Kyle Dubas (aka the Elvis Costello of the NHL), the general manager of the Maple Leafs will never put me on that spot, I am not god enough. It hurts, but that is fair. That lack of skill is essential. There is NOT ONE Houthi operative that has that skill level. The news gave us that 25 drones and missiles were used. So we either have an amateur rifleman how shoots near perfect bulls-eyes 25 times in a row, or Houthi forced found 25 operatives all getting near perfect hits in place. Such statistics are a fable, yet the media just swallowed the story and there is the problem, the media can no longer be trusted and now we see the BBC signing up for classes by Mediocrates.

There is a lot more but why bother, I reckon that certain people will not care. 

So when we see “All of which partly explain why international criticism of the crown prince is muted at most”, I merely respond

Frank Gardner, you idiot. How much visibility have YOU given to the Iranian part of that equation? How much evidence did you test and read? Or was this just a hatchet paint-job so that the CAAT gets one more mention?

Is Saudi Arabia a perfect nation? I doubt it and it would be for Muslims to give voice to that, I am not Muslim and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a Muslim monarchy. I reckon from my side, the most perfect nation in the world is likely to be New Zealand and Canada is in that top 5 as well. Two Commonwealth nations and they got their with the guidance of Queen Elisabeth 2. It will not have been directly, but she was a guiding force. The rest have a lot to answer for and this BBC article shows us that the UK has its own media skeletons all over its bloody field. 

This might be a decently valid article and their might be some concerns regarding the presence of some people according to others, but her Majesty kept global peace (for the most) for over 70 years. I think we can all shut the hell up and let the international dignitaries pay their last respect.

Did I oversimplify the matter?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics