Tag Archives: United Nations

March 8, 2025 · 10:43

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

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

January 7, 2025 · 08:49

UN Redundant Whining Association

Let’s see how we could optionally expose the media and set a department of the UN to the trashcan of useless to the maximum degree. It is a ride that has seen some time. The first part we got around late July 2024. The rumours went round and at some point the UN decided to put a stop to it and on August 5th (at https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/investigation-completed-allegations-unrwa-staff-participation-7-october) we were given under the headline ‘Allegations on UNRWA staff participation in the 7 October attacks’. There we see “I acknowledge the completion of the investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) into the serious allegations that 19  area UNRWA staff members in Gaza were involved in the abhorrent attacks of 7 October on southern Israel” with the added “In April, an independent Agency-wide review by three reputable research centres under the leadership of former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna concluded that UNRWA ‘possesses a more developed approach to neutrality than other similar UN or NGO entities’. The Agency has started implementing the recommendations of the review” and is fully committed to them.” Now we can accept that for what it is (I do not), but the massive takeaways here in this brief are ‘the completion of the investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)’, ‘an independent Agency-wide review by three reputable research centres’ and ‘UNRWA ‘possesses a more developed approach to neutrality than other similar UN or NGO entities’’ as such we could surmise that the UNRWA is well versed in tradecraft, they even pulled the wool over the eyes of the French foreign minister and three ‘reputable’ research centres. The other option is that these four players were in league with Hamas which I find unrealistic. 

Less then 24 hours ago we were given (at https://nypost.com/2025/01/06/us-news/un-watchdog-group-urges-dismantlingly-of-unrwa-for-enabling-crimes-gainst-humanity/) ‘UN watchdog group urges dismantling of UNRWA for ‘enabling crimes against humanity’’ we get the added “A United Nations watchdog group says the infamous UN relief agency that provides $1.5 billion a year to Palestinians should be disbanded for colluding with terrorists and “enabling crimes against humanity.” “The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) is neither independent nor neutral,” says a scathing new report by the Swiss-based group UN WATCH.” So, why did the OIOS miss this? More important, as we see that several Israeli news sources gave us parts of this already, why were these parts (as I see it) intentionally overlooked? It was not by all media, but the largest collection of media courtesans merely used part of the past news as a source for (as I personally see it) pursuit of digital dollars. And it took the watchdog some time to figure this out. Which I do not hold against them. But the larger setting is reached. The United Nations is as useless as some say they are and now in the setting with Trump and Musk, we can safely set the premise that the UN is a cost that the United States can avoid having.  As I see it António Guterres will have to do a lot more than smooth talking. There might be a setting where the UN could be disbanded. There is every cause to consider that the organisation’s 37,000 staff members could find themself thrown of that gravy train. To illustrate further I offer the image below. I cannot vouch for the numbers, but the image is powerful. So don’t use these numbers as is, trust but verify I say and so did some marine named Gibbs.

What it does show is that the UNRWA is as useless as some expect them to be and the crying newscasts we see now like ‘7 infants dead in Gaza from cold weather, inadequate shelter: UNRWA’ and ‘Social order in Gaza will collapse if Israel ends cooperation with UN aid agency, official says’ it is too late for that, the UNRWA is done for (unless massive amounts of evidence ‘suddenly’ comes forward. We saw in the beginning of December aid from the UAE get to Gaza. In the day after that we see armed masked men (supposedly Hamas) drive of with a whole stack of these boxes. We cannot hold the UAE on that, they did the almost unthinkable, they found hundreds of volunteer who created these care packages in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. What happens in Gaza becomes the question. So was the UNRWA involved? Or was Hamas merely a block away collecting these boxes? Your guess (or speculation) is as good as mine. However, when we consider the timeline from August I have to conclude that Hamas is the cancer on the Palestine people and they will not ever find release unless Hamas has been eradicated. 

It is a harsh reality we see here (I saw that about a year ago). But change has to happen and disbanding the UNRWA might be a first requirement.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

December 11, 2024 · 16:59

Out of bounds

Is the setting we should enable. You see, there are. Few sides and many of them come from an unreliable media (which includes nearly ALL media). We are given ‘Jamal Khashoggi’s widow urges Starmer to raise husband’s murder at Saudi meeting’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/09/jamal-khashoggis-widow-urges-starmer-to-raise-husbands-at-saudi-meeting). You see, my issue (since the very beginning) has been that the data is unsubstantiated, lacks reliability and a few other settings. 

In the very first is that there is not now, nor has there been ever a body. Forensic evidence has been lacking since day one and in the clear setting (based on law) we can say that Jamal Khashoggi has been missing, but that is all. The media has been rife with all kinds of speculations based on grainy pictures. Pictures that could have been taken in the White House for all we know. Ever since it was on my radar, going back to 2020, I started the stages in ‘Demanding Dismissal’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/07/04/demanding-dismissal/) where I gave a report on the stages that I had an issue with. The larger debatable presented truths was debated by me in “[92] Turkish Intelligence assessed that he may have been dead within ten minutes after entering the Consulate. Here we are treated to ‘he may have been dead’, ‘may’ refers to speculation, not fact, the footnote gives us “The ten minutes reference is based on the fact that after ten minutes, Mr. Khashoggi voice was not heard”, this implies that Turkish Intelligence has 100% of the embassy bugged and wired, that is extremely doubtful on several levels.” I debate the issues set in the UN document and basically attack the UN for doing such a hatchet job on an attack against a monarchy that was seen in the document which I will attach at the bottom. As such the Guardian giving us “Jamal Khashoggi’s widow has urged Keir Starmer to raise her husband’s murder at his meeting with the Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.” Get’s my response of ‘What murder? What evidence can you present?’ You think I am joking, but I am not. More important, the document (from the United Nations under essay writer Agnes Calamard) gives the much larger setting (made by me) of “The report mentions ‘interrogation’ 4 times, yet these so called tapes on the torture/interrogation of Jamal Khashoggi. Who heard them? How were they forensically tested and who tested and seconded any report of these findings and optional facts?” The tapes which spiralled the non-logical media into flame driven and digital currency driven idiots. Up to now, 4 years later I have yet to see any report on the settings of the ‘interrogation tapes’ none of this was ever presented and the Turkish media (who flamed things out of proportions all by themself) has yet to present any kind of intelligence or mere forensic evidence of this media. 

As such I have an issue with that. I have less of an issue with “We look here to your country, to the UK and to the US and most western countries, with respect because you have justice and you care for democratic and human rights. Forgetting Jamal’s case does not align with the values of justice and democratic and human rights in your country.” It is her view on the matter. The setting that the so called transgressions happened in a foreign location in a foreign country, neither of them United Kingdom or United States makes it a nice statement, but that is all it is. Oh and by the way, should Keir Starmer open his mouth in that case, I will demand loudly that he also raises his voice for all the Turkish Journalists that have died in Turkish captivity. Not one but dozens of them. I get why Hanan Elatr Khashoggi raises the issue, but al far as I know at least one source stated that Jamal was with a 19 year old (now 25 year old) mistress on a location in Bora Bora. I cannot vouch for the quality of that intelligence, but there you have it and as far as I was able to tell, none of the media looked into that matter, either to debunk or verify that ‘setting’. As such, I can tell that the attacks should be seen as merely anti-Saudi rhetoric. 

As such as we see “The government said the project aimed to generate £250m of investment and was expected to create more than 1,000 skilled jobs in Greater Manchester.” And as I (personally) see it. 1000 skilled jobs versus one journalist no one cares about, the journalist loses. Is it that bland a situation? Yes, it is. Mainly because no valid evidence has ever been produced. The CIA report gave us “please explain to me how the United States has any actual evidence regarding the events in a foreign nation on a consulate that is another nations grounds? How was this evidence collected? Creating a mountain of non-substantial evidence is not really evidence, even as circumstantial evidence that is founded on probability will not hold water, even if the statement “officials have said they have high confidence“, they lost the credibility they had with a silver briefcase holding evidence on WMD in Iraq, you do remember that part, don’t you? (It was roughly 16 years ago)” If it was actual evidence, the CIA would not hand us “officials have said they have high confidence” it blands the taste of spices and merely gives us the burger with the taste of a drip-mat. And it is always nice that the Guardian (not the most reliable source on Saudi intel) is wrecking up the past with an article like this. I countered their (and other sources) forms of ‘evidence’ within an hour. And the UN essay involved helped immensely. It came from statements in the document like “officials have said they have high confidence”, “he may have been dead” as well as “Mr. Khashoggi had been injected with something, passed out, and taken alive from the Consulate in some box or container” shows massive levels of speculation. I can do that as I was on the other side of the Indian Ocean, they (as I see it) cannot. And should Keir Starmer put 4,000 British jobs valued at a quarter of a billion at risk for something that is highly speculative and placed out of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom from day one, he should be regarded as more stupid than anyone would hazard a guess on. Just my point of view and I get why Hanan Elatr Khashoggi takes that stage, but no one else will put their livelihood on the line. With the exception of those wanting the limelight for a useless cause (those people do exist), as such I see this article as one that should be out of bounds from the very start.

a_hrc_41_crp.1Download

It is what it is. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

November 6, 2024 · 00:24

iRan is not an Apple product

There is a larger setting in the world (predominantly the middle east). We are given by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3yqzx72zno) ‘Iran’s supreme leader says enemies will receive ‘crushing response’’. I left it to the left at first (three days ago) for the reason that the entire Iran debacle is like hauling water to the sea. Where the text starts with “The US and Israel “will definitely receive a crushing response”, Iran’s supreme leader has said, following an Israeli attack on Iran a week ago.” It sounds nice, but Iran is limited to deliver attacks through terrorist fractions. It is too scared to attack directly. In the beginning it was about deniability, but that is gone now and Iran is on the verge of be labelled “a terrorist nation” by pretty much all nations. And it is scared of that as such it is trying to kiss up to Antonio Guterres. Yet Israel decided on October 13th “Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz reinforced on Sunday his decision to declare U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres persona non grata over what he described as a failure to condemn Iran’s missile attack and antisemitic and anti-Israel conduct.” There are other nations thinking that Guterres has outlived its usefulness as a UN tool (I speculate that Ukraine is one of them). So when we see the BBC give us “The threat comes as Iran assesses whether and how to respond to Israel’s attack last month, that Iran said killed four soldiers, which was in retaliation for an Iranian missile attack against Israel earlier in October.” There is only so much Iran can get away with and whilst the US is begging to leave the oil fields alone (they get a slice of that revenue I reckon). Iran is now losing whatever options they had. As I see it Robert F. Worth said it best “‘The Iranian Period Is Finished’. Hezbollah’s losses have led some in Lebanon to imagine a future without it.” You see Hamas might seen shelter behind civilian bodies there, but Hezbollah is merely a small part of the 5.5 million population and Israel has had enough. 

Now that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been called a persona non grata, the options for the UN will diminish a lot more and Hezbollah has none left. Their only option is for Iran to engage in a full scale war and Iran is hesitant to do so. With the attacks on Saudi Arabia (via Houthi proxy) they only stand the smallest of chances if other Arabian nations support them and those nations are not willing to do that (as I personally see it). And the issue continues (and worsens). The BBC also reported “Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” is an alliance of Tehran-backed groups that include Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and well-armed groups in Iraq and Syria. Most have been designated as terrorist entities by some Western states.” Let me be clear, they merely voiced the words of Iran and there is the problem. Do you think that the BBC would have given Germany the ‘respect’ by calling it the third kingdom? (1933 – 1945) And the larger option becomes that ‘their’ axis of resistance is in shambles. The Hamas terrorists are hiding behind the population they claim to protect. Hezbollah terrorists are relying on exploding pagers and the rest of Hezbollah has no clue what to do and Houthi terrorists are in a dangerous position. Lloyds reported yesterday “Houthis’ reported to be earning an estimated $180m a month from illegal safe-transit fees paid by unnamed shipping agents to secure safe passage through the Red Sea” as well as a report from ynet news that ‘Houthis turn to social media to raise funds for war’, this tells me that they are now cash strapped and here the UN is close to useless. They might talk a nice talk but it seems to be finally falling on deaf ears. In the meantime a report a mere 15 hours ago gives us that Houthi forces are trying to align themselves with Al-Qaeda forces. This happened whilst one source gives us “the two terrorist groups agreed to put aside their differences and focus on weakening the Yemeni government” the beginning of all kinds of escalations. And that is the setting for Iran, or as the American voices state “Become Al-Qaeda’s bitch or fall alone”, I cannot vouch for that, but Iran depended on deniability and now that this is gone Iran faces the reality of going to war. So how long until that goes wrong? In all these settings the United Nations might be out of options as well (until a new CEO is elected). You see on October 24th we got to hear “UN Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday that his country’s on-going invasion of Ukraine violates the United Nations Charter and international law.” ‘Reiterated’? This has been going on for 10 years and now we see ‘reiterated’? I reckon that the insertion of North Korean troops is making this a larger stage. Basically it is now a world war. You see, there is no real definition, one that aligns with todays setting of “In order to qualify as a world war, at least one of three criteria must be met: the conflict takes place between multiple nations across the globe, battles are fought in many different locations, and the war must be fought against great powers with significantly advanced technology.” It now involves Russia, Ukraine and North Korea. At this point I believe that the setting of a World War is reached. You see one criteria was met and this reflects back unto Iran too. Because in this setting, Iran might be getting cozy with Russia, but Russia has its own brand of troubles and that is setting the grind in another direction. As such Iran loses whatever friends they thought they had. As such we are given “Saudi Arabia, Jordan and United Arab Emirates unite against Iran, with support from the United States.” A statement that is presumptuous, but lacks clear evidence (as I see it). It is likely to be true, but I have not seen that evidence. And in this setting Iran has two options, the first is to engage is all out war, the other is to drop the terrorist organisations Hezbollah and Houthi, leaving them to fend for themselves. 

I could be wrong but this is as I see it the political chessboard where we have three players. I would personally see a different stage where the board is used with the chess pieces of Chinese chess. It would be a decent challenge to get any player to actually win whilst the other two are hacking on the pieces and that applies to all sides in this equation. If we get a ‘dopey to dollars’ equation I reckon that Israel has a lead because Iran is about to lose two thirds of its ‘axis’ and that results in less pieces to move around and more exposure of its own pieces. And the number one weakness for Iran is that they cannot move their oil fields or oil infrastructure. That is the bottleneck for Iran, and they have less and less options for securing that financial option.

As I personally see it Iran is about to become ‘I ran’ and they now have no place to run to.  

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

November 4, 2024 · 20:41

Its not just bread

We all relish bread. It is not always clearly on the front of our brains. But the one thing that keeps hunger at bay in every day of life is a piece of bread. The Khaleej Times gives us (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/world/mena/uae-helps-gaza-bakeries-make-bread-again-amid-hunger-crisis) ‘UAE helps Gaza bakeries make bread again amid hunger crisis’ that the UAE has made clear moves to deal with this. 

Oh, and as far as I can see pretty much none of the others have done so. Can anyone show me clear evidence that the UNRWA has done the same to any degree? I do not see any of this information. Perhaps over the last 74 years that they were in some kind of office in Palestine whilst this oversight happened? The UNRWA gives us “Provide direct relief and works programmes for Palestinian refugees”, as such is bread not an essential initial need? Now we see “The UAE has started an initiative to help Gaza make bread again amid critical shortage due to the ongoing war. Countless of Palestinians have been surviving on bread as food supplies run out — but even bread is not always easy to find. Chaotic scenes have been unfolding at bakeries as crowds of hungry Gazan, young and old, scramble for a loaf.” As well as “As part of the drive, essential production supplies — including flour and other materials — have been provided so that bakeries could open again amid a worsening hunger crisis triggered by border closures and restrictions on food aid.”

It beckons the thought, did the UNRWA get anything done? No matter how ‘political’ the UN has become. The fact that the United Arab Emirates clearly shows the world that the UNRWA as well as the UN itself has become nothing less than a joke. We are given (in other media) “The UN system’s total revenue grew to US$ 74.3 billion in 2022 – an increase of US$ 8.4 billion, or 12.8%, compared to 2021. One of the entities with the highest absolute revenue growth is the World Food Programme (WFP)” an increase of $8.4 billion (not all WFP) is shown and how much went to the UNRWA? It is the Khaleej Times that gives us (see above) “As part of the drive, essential production supplies — including flour and other materials — have been provided” as such I wonder what that Russian Tool (António Guterres) is doing. He was ‘elected’ into office in 2017. As such he’s had plenty of time to seemingly do something. 

Only one day earlier we saw ‘UAE dispatches 12 trucks with urgent relief for 30,000 Palestinians’ with the underlying “So far, the country has provided more than 40,000 tonnes of urgent aid and it will continue its work to ensure the “immediate, safe, unhindered, and sustainable delivery of aid on a wide scale, through all possible means”” with that we see a first clear sign of evidence that the United Nations has a lot of explaining to do. 12 trucks is a clear start of doing just that. Whilst the United Nations is ‘discussing’ how to best go about it, the teams of Sultan Mohammed Al Shamsi is getting it done. I believe that the west, which is so stellar about the United Nations might reconsider who they think needs to be heading this disaster loaded organisation. 

That is my overly simplistic sense of this setting.

Have a great Monday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

October 18, 2024 · 10:17

An interesting twist

There is an interesting  twist on the premise of timing happening. It is given to us by Politico. The headline ‘Khashoggi death: Saudi ambassador reveals new details’ and I have more than one reason. We read the statement by Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud. I would like to add that I presented ‘evidence’ (of a sort) on July 4th 2017 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/07/04/demanding-dismissal/) with ‘Demanding Dismissal’. And after that a little more on the 10th of September in ‘Squid rings of theatrics’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/10/squid-rings-of-theatrics/) it is nice that others are catching on and I do not blame Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud on this, but the media? Yes, the media is pricing itself out of the game really fast now. The article gives us “Speaking to POLITICO’s Power Play podcast, Ambassador Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud rejected the claim, insisting that the Saudi royal family continues to oppose the version of events backed by the U.S. as well as the U.K. And he disclosed that those the regime claims were responsible are still alive — casting rare light on the fate of the individuals blamed for the assassination”. Yet here he forgets one player. The United Nations and in particular Agnes Calamard (aka Eggy Calamari), I still have the UN document online where close to a dozen pieces on debate come into play. We also get “A detailed, declassified 2021 CIA report concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had approved the operation during which Khashoggi was brutally murdered and dismembered, possibly after an attempt to kidnap him in the consulate where he had gone to pick up documents for his wedding to his Turkish fiancée” showing us the larger folly (read: failure of the CIA) to dig into the truth. Don’t get me wrong, I was not part on any of this, as such I am a bystander at best, but I can read and illuminate the stupidity of others is a part time hobby of me, as such I found 5 items in the first hour giving us doubt on the entire issue and what is more important, the media neglected actions on ANY of this. More important they were speculatively deciding to fuel this fire to gain digital dollars for their presumptuous aiding the United Nations, as well as other players having the need to bash Saudi Arabia.

One hour that a simple man like me needed and I handed everyone the goods on what I found and where I found it (except the ‘claimed’ evidence that he was on Bora Bora with a mistress, because there was no evidence on this claim). 

Then we get to “Speaking to host Anne McElvoy, the kingdom’s top diplomat in London described the death and dismemberment of Khashoggi as “an awful crime — a stain on our country, not just the government but every Saudi out there,” while firmly denying any complicity by the powerful Saudi monarch.” My issue on this is ‘Where are the body parts?’ I saw the image that the Daily Mail giving us (I believe it was the Daily Mail) an image of some random person holding a trash-bag, which could have been any trash. That paper lined itself with protection stating somewhere there ‘could have been’ and/or ‘we suspect’ all tidied up. I personally believe that here Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud was wrong. You see, this is not a stain on Saudi Arabia, but a stain on the media. To the need of (what I expect to be) the drive for digital dollars the media made themselves the culprit, losing whatever credibility they thought they had.

And for me it is a nice twist on this all. You see I presented these facts going back more than 5 years and in the meantime the media, as well as (wannabe) writers Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck who gave us the fictional story ‘Blood and Oil’ they all ran the money mill to stamp out their revenue using Saudi Arabia as the source of their income. 

The nice twist is that these western lies are now pointing in another direction, is it an option? I think it dies, but the likelihood that Israel did this is remote at best. Who else? Well I have some ideas on this but they are highly speculative and completely absent of evidence. I’ll let the media dig their own hold deeper in this.

But this twist that Politico handed me is putting a smile on my face. On this rainy Friday 5 years of looking into the matter is showing a new sign of life and that is not the best part of this. What was once ‘massive’ evidence can now be proclaimed as useless. You see, none of these reports did a forensic investigation into the tapes of Khashoggi’s ‘interrogation’ the reports give us that no one listened to the entire tape. There is no forensic evidence on the tape and that has been cleverly ‘hidden’ in the full texts. The one part that could have made the Khashoggi case a real case was ignored by the Media, the CIA and the United Nations. 

So how do you like your kippers? With or without aioli?

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

October 4, 2024 · 21:11

Accepted doubt

This is on my, or better stated my view on matters. In this case it is the Reuters article ‘Exclusive:  Kushner has discussed U.S.-Saudi diplomacy with Saudi crown prince’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/kushner-has-discussed-us-saudi-diplomacy-with-saudi-crown-prince-2024-10-04/) which was released less than 30 minutes ago. I have had serious doubt on the media on a near global stage and at this moment Reuters has gained several points towards doubt. Yet, in this case I am willing to put doubt on my ability to see things clearly. 

So, lets take a look.

“The news that Kushner and Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader discussed a peace accord”, here we see the statement “de-facto leader”, we know that Saudi Arabia still has a king, but what stops Reuters to state “The news that Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud discussed a peace accord”, both are in principle correct. Yet the Reuters statement comes across as Saudi bashing. ‘To put a person in its place’ might be the interpretation as many would see it, especially in the Middle East. Then we get “renew questions about whether Kushner’s financial ties with Riyadh could influence U.S. policy under his father-in-law”, so what is the issue here? It is a serious question because the article does not give us a complete report on what those ties are, we get a link to the Hill, there we see ““crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House” my question in this is were laws broken? You see, the investment was done AFTER he left the White House. So were laws broken, or were they not. 

Then we get “To encourage Saudi Arabia to recognise Israel, the Biden administration has offered Riyadh security guarantees, assistance with a civilian nuclear program and a renewed push for a Palestinian state. The deal could reshape the Middle East by uniting two long-time foes and binding the world’s biggest oil exporter to Washington at a time when China is making inroads in the region” How come that China is diminished with “when China is making inroads in the region” and what is this about “assistance with a civilian nuclear program”. My issue is that China has been making inroads for the better part of two years. As such making inroads, comes across as a joke, massively inaccurate. So why was the civilian nuclear program added? Could be true, could be anything. But the media at present has a massive credibility issue and whilst space on a webpage is nearly free, Reuters is a little stingy on using it.

Last we get to “The Saudi relationship with Trump was notably close. Trump’s first foreign trip as president in 2017 was to Riyadh, accompanied by Kushner. After Saudi expatriate opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump stood by the crown prince in spite of a U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing. MbS denied involvement.” Is filled with inaccuracies. No clear evidence has been produced that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, there was an assumption and the setting that “U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing” is even more inaccurate. The document A/HRC/41/CRP.1 which was given to the world by the Human Rights Council does not give us that either. In that report U.S. Intelligence is mentioned twice. In one case we are given “The Directive states that if a U.S. intelligence agency “acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping,” that agency has a duty to warn the intended victim.” No mention of authorisation or anything regarding an order by Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. I am adding that document at the bottom. As such I have issues with the Reuters article. 

There is more but read the article yourself. The article hands us a pice of evidence that Reuters is losing credibility. 

I am not a Trump fan, but at present there is a larger stage and the Biden administration of fumbling the ball, and as issues go at present, China will be a large bigger inroad in the Middle East (Saud Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) in 2025 and I have to wonder how much inroad they will make in Egypt in 2025.

But I hope that the message comes across. And in the second stage, what laws did Kushner break? Because in the end that is what matters. 

Have a great day

a_hrc_41_crp.1Download

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

August 29, 2024 · 23:34

Awareness is fuel to any cause

That is the skeptical look I have. You see social media is a flammable stage of all kinds of woke and non woke commitments. Some are real and most aren’t very real in the mindset of anyone else. I am not belittling any ‘cause’ but that is how I feel. We get exposure to a million and one causes and they are the settings for a mere speculated 100,000 people. Everyone has a cause and most of them have a dozen causes. I will not bother you with the amount of influencers touching on any cause that helps THEM get more visibility. It is a crackpot mix of people at times. So when I saw the Middle East Eye give us ‘How the UAE crushes dissent by arbitrarily revoking citizenship’, I became a little more aware. The opinion story (at https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-uae-crushes-dissent-arbitrarily-revoking-citizenship) gives us the link to UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan with the stage that he is pictured in Abu Dhabi on 6 December 2023 is a nice touch, but he is not mentioned in the opinion piece, not even once. So why is his picture there? Then we get to the MENA group, which is mentioned once “A report by the Mena Rights Group, published last month, exposed the extensive and troubling nature of this trend”, as such I have questions. With the “the extensive and troubling nature” it is the first mention I see of this. We see the mention “3 March 2011, when 133 Emirati academics, judges, lawyers, students and human rights defenders signed a petition addressed to the president of the UAE and the Federal Supreme Council, calling for democratic reforms”. As such there are seemingly mentions of this since 2011 and this I the first time I hear of it? There is no visible mention of the MENA rights group in Al Jazeera or Arab News, as such I have questions on the validity of this. We see the mention of “Many affected by this practice are either defendants in the “UAE84” trial or their family members.” With a reference that it was “politically motivated and marred by fair trial violations.” As such I raise questions. You see, if that was the case, would it not be in nearly every Muslim writing from Al Jazeera to Arab News, not to mention the Guardian, BBC and a whole range of American woke news casts? Then we get to one of the writers of the opinion piece Jenan al-Marzooqi. Is that a relative of the accused Ibrahim al-Marzooqi? It might be, but I do not know this. The opinion piece is largely a one sided mention relying on the MENA Rights group who was founded in 2018 in Geneva. I would think that if it was an actual counted group a whole range of newspapers (western and Arabic) would have made mention of it, perhaps they did, but this is the first I see of this.

We then see the mention of “citizenship revocation be applied under the principle of proportionality – a principle that was clearly disregarded in this case.” With the word proportionality referring to the link (at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/newyork/Documents/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-web_final.pdf) a United Nations document. This is funny, but when you read the document the reference is toward “American Convention on Human Rights, art. 20.” A serious notion, if it was not for the setting that this is playing not in America. With the stage of “deprivation of nationality must be in conformity with domestic law” we get an issue, but I am not sure it is an important one. I am not the expert on Emirati law, a setting not raised in this case. That document also gives us “Some States also allow the deprivation of nationality for naturalised mono-nationals, thereby leaving them stateless.” Is that the case in UAE law? If it is the opinion piece becomes largely pointless, if they only had thought of including that point in the opinion piece. Add to this “In July 2016, five of his six children travelled to the US for medical treatment.” Really? 5 of his 6 children? All for medical treatment? It could be, but this one liner gives a serious boost to disregarding this piece (in my humble opinion). And when we get “concluded last month with at least 43 defendants sentenced to life in prison on bogus terrorism charges” where the word ‘bogus’ is a personal view by the opinion writer and could be ignored. You see if it was serious, that line was accompanied with at least one paragraph addressing that setting, giving optional weight to the word ‘bogus’.

The more I read of this article, the more I wonder what Middle East Eye had in mind with this opinion piece. I am not saying it is invalid, it is an opinion piece after all. Validity is given through evidence, or at least that is what I have always believed. Validity and verification go hand in hand. At the end we see one answer and two more linked names. 

  • Jenan al-Marzooqi is a human rights activist and the daughter of Emirati prisoner of conscience Abdulsalam Mohammed Darwish al-Marzooqi
  • Estelle Allemann is a legal fellow at MENA Rights Group
  • Alexandra Tarzikhan is the legal adviser for Southwest Asia and North Africa with the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights.

All very neat, so we have one MENA Rights Group waving their hand for visibility, one activist and a legal adviser linked to the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights.

I would have thought that 2 of them would have created a much better piece. This gets me to the issue of what were they after? You see, I do have legal training, but I am not a lawyer, I have been a Trade Mark Attorney. And as I see it, there are all kinds of verifications missing. Basically, there is no indiction that anything illegal (according to UAE law) was done, or at least the article does not clearly shows this. I did not completely ready the links to the other articles. When a case is made in THIS opinion piece, you have to present the evidence in THIS opinion piece, not link to it. Even if you merely quote it. I feel that more and more media (news and other media) are making a mess of things. They all have to get to the news and opinion pieces faster and as such they create short cuts and deprive the readers of a complete view of the matter, whether it is an opinion piece of now and a legal adviser, as well as a Human Rights person would (or at least should) know this.

We all create awareness, mostly to fuel the fire that lights us. This is not wrong, especially in this social networking world. We have always done this to some degree, but now we have merely increased the visibility of us. Whether that is a good thing remains to be seen. If there is one winner it is the MENA rights group, they got the most visibility here.

Have a lovely day. My Friday starts in 26 minutes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

August 20, 2024 · 03:58

What makes it a story?

That is the question that floats to the top. You see, the bulk of the media, including the BBC nowadays have lost too much credibility. The issue becomes verification, and in too many places there isn’t to much of that. So in this mindset I stumbled upon an article. This was in part funny, as I mentioned the ‘disgraced’ Al Jabri only two days ago and 11 hours ago this article was published by the BBC. I do not think the two are connected and it is clear that no such connection should be made other than the mention of these timelines (to keep my blog to some degree a valid source). But 11 hours ago (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz8934wrro) we see the appearance of ‘Power, oil and a $450m painting – insiders on the rise of Saudi’s Crown Prince’ by Jonathan Rugman. The article was glared over by me, until I noticed a name. This set me in a different mindset and it is time to report on this.

It all starts with “he summoned a senior security official to the palace, determined to win his loyalty” and the name Saad al-Jabri is mentioned. The man who seems to manage a multi billion portfolio for the CIA (allegedly) and was in a court case in America, whilst he is in Canada and setting the space not to allow certain evidence to be mentioned. We then get mentions like “According to Jabri” and (did I mention) that he is a disgraced official, but that part is not mentioned in the article? The mentioned stage “he was friends with the heads of the CIA and MI6” makes for ‘exciting’ reading, but in my mindset it is a dangerous connection because there is a lot of non-verification. So we get the first reference ‘Family of exiled top Saudi officer Saad al-Jabri ‘targeted’’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52790864). There we get “Dr Saad al-Jabri, who helped foil an al-Qaeda bomb plot against the West”. My issue was that there is little verification. Now, this makes sense because it is intelligence related and they do not spout these issues in open places. But with the accusation of treason and ‘funds removal operations’ according to other Saudi sources it sets the possibility that Al Jabri made a sting using optional Al Qaeda plants and now we get the setting that the CIA gave him safe passage whilst Al Qaeda gets the optional blame for it all. I am not saying that this is what happened, but the timing of the intertwined facts are a little too convenient (for Al Jabri). This could have been all set aside with proper verification, but the term ‘according to sources’ allows for my speculation, and lets be clear, I was and still am speculating on this.

And the stage of “He was also the linchpin in all Saudi Arabia’s relations with the “Five Eyes” (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) intelligence agencies.” This is important because linchpin means “a person or thing vital to an enterprise or organisation”, as such Saad Al Jabri was important to the stage of some (most likely the CIA) and Al Jabri in a self professed difficult situation was eager to carry that mantle (my speculation), especially as he was accused to have taken the quick way out with billions. People have done a lot more for a mere 0.1% of such an amount. 

Then we get to “we shed new light on the events that have made MBS notorious – including the 2018 murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi” and this had issues with me. On February 27th 2021 I wrote ‘That was easy!’, (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) in this blog article I shot holes in an United Nations document, with a lot more issues that I was happy with. The fact that I had even one issue with a document from the United Nations should have been close to impossible. The fact that I did implies that this was a hatchet job and I added the UN document so that people could see it for themselves. In addition at a later stage I added the mention that Khashoggi was alive with a mistress spending their days on Bora Bora (I also mentioned that this came from a non-reliable source). The setting we have now is that there is a debatable story (in depth) due to at least one main source that is debatable and the mentions of Al Jabri needs to be seen as at the very least debatable. This is what you get when the lack of verification is there, there is simply no other outcome as I see it.

We then see “accusing MBS of forging his father the king’s signature on a royal decree committing ground troops”, as well as “The prince was apparently so impatient for his father to become king that in 2014, he reportedly suggested killing the then-monarch – Abdullah, his uncle – with a poisoned ring, obtained from Russia. “I don’t know for sure if he was just bragging, but we took it seriously,”” my issue here is two fold, the one mention of “I don’t know for sure if he was just bragging” sounds nice, but in both cases the source is Al Jabri and in my view he is a debatable source on more than one issue and verification is missing here and that is all on Jonathan Rugman as I see it. This all takes me back to the 70’s. A writer named James Grady wrote a book that was made into a movie with Robert Redford, the movie was called Three days of the Condor. After I saw the movie I also read his sequel ‘Shadow of the Condor’ (I believe that was the book). There we come across the term ‘Gamaljoen’ (I read the book in Dutch). The term makes reference to a person that is raised to a much larger status than he (or she) should be. Because of the status those who are wielding that person are raised as well. That is the feeling that I have on Al Jabri. Now lets accept that I could be (totally) wrong, but that requires verification to see and we see no verification with the debatable doubts I throw on to the Khashoggi issue we get an unbalanced stage. And I am trying to avoid the “he said, she said” debate. This is why there are issues with an in depth story. There are other sources mentioned, but these are all to ‘trivial’ matters. 

We then get a part that reflects on my story yesterday ““He planned for my assassination,” Jabri says. “He will not rest until he sees me dead, I have no doubt about that.”” Whether he did or did not is also debatable. The ‘simple’ fact is that I created an optional plan to do just that, in under an hour no less. And I am not a professional on the matter. The fact that Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud has actual specialists on the matter and we see some ‘tiger team’ bungling it puts question marks on it all. Is there an actual execution order out on Al Jabri? It is a valid question. I have no doubt that Al Jabri is likely to face jail time at the very least is he ever goes back to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there is a wallet with billions (allegedly) missing to support my view. 

With “The killing of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 implicates MBS in ways that are very hard to refute. The 15-strong hit squad was travelling on diplomatic passports and included several of MBS’s own bodyguards” the writer of the BBC story is missing the beat. You see, the setting of “implicates MBS in ways that are very hard to refute” is what I did (in part) in the UN document in the article I mentioned earlier (That was Easy!) I cast a really large doubt in the issues, in the second setting ‘15-strong hit squad’ is also extremely debatable. If it was a hit a mere 1 person would have sufficed. That there was an optional team to ‘retrieve’ is possible, but the media used the setting to explode their paper revenue, so too much of it is too ludicrous for words. The media is nowadays too much about creating emotional flames for the supportive need of clickbait, at the expense of their own credibility. 

Then we get “A declassified US intelligence report released in February 2021 asserted that he was complicit in the killing of Khashoggi” yet the linked article states “The report released by the Biden administration says the prince approved a plan to either “capture or kill” Khashoggi”, whilst we see “We assess”, which in CIA terms would be seen as fairy tale material. It lacks evidence, merely conjecture. All whilst the linked report (by the office of the US director of national intelligence) can no longer be retrieved. That’s your evidence? 

There is a lot to make up for and the BBC better do that soon, as the article ends with “Jonathan Rugman is consultant producer on The Kingdom: The world’s most powerful prince” the writer being a producer of materials as well? Whatever could be wrong next.

The amazing amounts of fairy tale materials that goes back as far as the United Nations gives pause for a larger setting, whatever you call ‘inDepth’ is almost a new kind of story with the APNews happily posting it with the mention of ‘Former Saudi official alleges Prince Mohammed forged king’s signature on Yemen war decree’ a mere 4 hours ago. Is that how the news goes around nowadays?

And to all I say have a great Tuesday, a mere 4 hours until breakfast for me, time that I snore like a lumberjack. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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

January 28, 2024 · 19:59

Uproarious Nonsensical players support terrorism.

This was a stage I saw last week, but I didn’t trust the source. Now that the BBC is joining that list, the game changes somewhat. The story (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68119268) gives us ‘UN agency condemns aid halt over alleged help for Hamas attacks’. Now, I haven’t had a great deal of trust in the UN and it melted down close to nothing when that UN essay writer Eggy Calamari launched her attack on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in particular His royal highness Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. I debunked her fiction (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) in ‘That was easy!’. Now, I am not saying he was innocent, because I CANNOT prove that. Yet a person is regarded innocent until proven guilty and that document shows massive gaps and no clear evidence of guilt. I will go even further that the UN took its time AVOIDING one piece of evidence and for the most no one has ever seen it. The document is added to that article, so feel free to read up on it. This matters as we saw similar acts on the UN avoiding the guilt of Houthis and the acts by Hamas. The United Nations (as that joke goes) is less useful than a crack dealer in a schoolyard. This all matters because now we see “The head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, has urged the countries that halted funding to reconsider their “shocking” decision.” My somewhat less than politically correct response is “Are you out of your flipping mind?” This is not some ‘misplaced’ act of doubt. This is a direct accusation that members of the UNRWA have actively been assisting Hamas with a terrorist attack. So the UN better wake the folly up and start properly investigating. The quote “The agency says it is investigating and has already sacked those employees” I understand and I accept that the UN needs to properly investigate things, but this comes from several sides and at present Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States have suspended funds to the UNRWA, so this is serious. These are nations with an effective intelligence network. As such the UN has its nightmare scenario running amok (no idea how one runs a muck), but this is not a setting lost in translation and this is an accusation, not some half baked allegation. I rely on evidence and I have not seen any, but these are organisations that have all kinds of connections, as such I tend to accept the allegation until proper presentation is made. The issue is that the allegations against Saudi Arabia by the UN and FTI Consulting (which the UN used)  had holes in them, several and both reports were used even though the people behind it should have known better and the fact that I showed holes in these reports in less than 24 hours implies that others would have done so quicker, but they remained silent. And now the UN has a problem. Through the UNRWA they stand to lose a lot of fundings and until they clean their houses (plural) the world has pretty much had enough of that UN gravy train. The fact that we are treated to “It would be immensely irresponsible to sanction an agency and an entire community it serves because of allegations of criminal acts against some individuals, especially at a time of war, displacement and political crises in the region.” You see, this is not some ‘criminal’ element. These are people ACTIVELY supporting terrorists and terrorist goals. One might state (might being the operative word) that the attacks of October 7th might not have been possible without direct support by UN staff members. I know it is a stretch, but it might not be far from the truth and the UNRWA conveniently sacked these people. So how will they be prosecuted? A missing question. 

Today we see the start of nations at large demanding accountability from the UN. They kept silent on Houthi attacks on Saudi civilians. The kept silent on terror attacks by Hamas and that is merely the tip of the iceberg. This all reminds me of an old saying and I used it against a few companies in the past. When you cater to everyone, you please no one. It does not seem fair, but that is the reality we face. We cannot please all and the lesson will be a hard one to learn by the United Nations and we will see that soon enough (I reckon before March 1st).

Enjoy your Sunday, mine is mostly gone by now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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