Tag Archives: war on drugs

That is the stage I am seeing. Not some (as I personally see it) an alert cry of Barclays getting out of Silver, offering $312 per ounce as the ‘alerting’ video is giving rise to, it looks lovely, but if you check even one setting, we see when we look deeper “a dramatic 2025 where, despite huge short positions, silver prices soared above $90, forcing institutions like TD Securities to close positions at significant losses, as retail and institutional demand causes a severe supply squeeze.” As such was the video a position so that others holding a short setting might unload it unto others? I have no knowledge of commodities, but Abu Dhabi and Dubai were ‘accused’ as the people ‘demanding’ silver as a real commodity, not a settlement or a dollar setting. As such I got curious. There is no 2 week calendar anywhere, but perhaps I wasn’t looking where I needed to look. At present we are given “Barclays holds a strongly bullish position on silver for 2026-2027, projecting significant price increases to $75 $75/oz and $65 $65/oz, respectively, due to expectations of a Federal Reserve easing cycle, a weaker U.S. dollar, and inflationary pressures. These forecasts represent a substantial upgrade in their precious metals outlook, marking a very constructive view on the sector.”, as such I see no closing any market in 2 weeks, or any $312 offering and then there are some questions on billions of ounces the do not exist. 

That setting and the accusation of  fraud is as far as I can tell a setting of optimal liability towards YouTube and its ‘deliverer’ as YouTuber ‘Crises Signal’ what is true? Is he right and is the complete media and banking system corrupt to the core? I would believe the first part, but there are issues with the second part and the accusations towards Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Riyadh does not sit well with me. As I see it, Islam does not reward the deceivers and these three places are loaded with true believers in Islam. Yes, I know that anything is fair in war, but these parties aren’t interested in war, they merely want what is due to them (as we get presented) and is this where the fish are captured to ‘buy’ the short positions. At least that is what I can get out of this and there is a loosely connected second part. 

It was given to me by the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/26/death-penalty-saudi-arabia-executions-essam-shazly-human-rights) where we see ‘‘Don’t they have mercy?’: A mother on losing her son in a record year of Saudi executions’ and the Guardian always ready to collect on ‘human’ suffering. The story is seemingly about “Essam al-Shazly is the latest foreign national to die in a ‘horrifying’ surge in capital punishment under the rule of Mohammed bin Salman” but you are being lied to. Not outright lies, the stories are to ‘include’ and connect Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud to what is happening here, but as I personally see it, he might not even be aware of what is going on. You see, Saudi Arabia has an absolute no tolerance on drugs. This is not new, this has been the case for a long time and as such this is Saudi law. As such the courts convict him and executed him. There is every chance that the Crown Prince might not be aware of the existence of Essam al-Shazly and we are getting shown “far from being a drug trafficker her son fished for a living and was coerced into smuggling, then forced into a confession by Saudi officials.” No matter what we are told, he did smuggle and that comes with the punishment of death. And the ‘forced into a confession’ sounds nice, but did that actually happen? It might, it might not. But the people reading this are thinking “oh, what a poor drug dealer” but you would be wrong. There is an absolute law in Saudi Arabia and it states that in this war on drugs “including the death penalty for smugglers and repeat offenders.” As such it was a given and this has been a given fact for years but these dealers finding mules or smugglers giving out an assumed story “that they have several profitable lines and only those who never done this have a good chance of coming through” all whilst 95% (a speculated number) is getting nabbed at the borders. I reckon that there profit margin is a thousand fold, so if one in a hundred makes it through they still make a fortune and as I see it Essam al-Shazly is one of the 99 who didn’t make it and that is a shame, but the punishment of these crimes is known. As such I wonder who is sacrificing these 99 people so that they get one through and they get the 100 times the investment. I think that these 100 all get send through at nearly the same time, which would buckle the Police system and the bigger the chance would be that 2 out of 100 get through, but this is a pure speculative thought on what is going on. 

So when we get to ““The fault lies with the judge; don’t they have any mercy at all? Drugs are harmful it is true, but you caught a carrier, he is not a dealer,” she says. “Punish him for that.”” No, it does not lie with the judge, the punishment was clear on all smugglers and a carriers is a smuggler, even if you call that person a mule. As such he got punished for that. So whilst we then get the actual price of the Guardian “While Saudi Arabia tries to project a benign international image through hosting major sporting and cultural events, including 2034 World Cup, the execution of hundreds of mostly impoverished foreigners for non-violent drug crimes has gone largely unnoticed and unreported. In some cases, they were sentenced to death for trafficking drugs in return for the promise of just a few hundred dollars.” And in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia there are no ‘non-violent’ drug crimes, there are drug crimes and most of them face the death penalty, and as I see it, merely the first time user who is caught might not get the death penalty. The setting might seem harsh, but Saudi Arabia is not in the market of waging a war on drugs, they are all sentenced to die. And considering that in 2024 we were given “Since 1971, the U.S. has spent more than a trillion dollars on the war on drugs”, I agree that something needs to be done and Saudi Arabia took the other path. And unless there is a better way to capture the people behind the drugs trade, it seems that Saudi Arabia has the only path available to them. Perhaps when the world realizes that any drug action towards Saudi Arabia comes with the death penalty, smugglers and mules will consider that they are in a useless battle they cannot win, because a 1%-3% survival chance is not a real chance you should ever consider. 

And the setting that the Guardian gives us all might seem humanitarian, but it is deceptive. The rules were out there in the open, the Guardian had access to them, So giving is a cry story about a mother exploiting her grief to get a story might be one of the lowest things they have ever done. But when it comes to Saudi hatred the Guardian has always done what it needed to do to get other Saudi haters on the same page of whatever they deem a worthy cause, but I think that America has had its days with the war on drugs and as such I think that the Saudi way might be best for Saudi Arabia and the 30-40 arrests Egyptian smugglers is a price to pay, lets face it, they have 118 million people, they can lose 50, considering the price that Saudi Arabia has to pay when 1000 get addicted you have to consider 0.00004237% versus 0.02832%, in the setting of numbers, the Egyptians lose. When you look at the numbers, the KSA is keeping its population as safe as it can and that is if only 1000 get affected, when the numbers increase the Egyptians end up having even less of a chance. The Guardian needs to get its head straight. We all have priorities and the KSA has its priority and it has capital punishment, as such it seems simple. Someone is making actual war on drugs and is showing no compassion. As such I might suggest an advertisement on Egyptian TV where the KSA makes its sentiment known on TV and newspapers, perhaps when less people take the dangerous step of heading down this path something might be resolved. Perhaps Egyptian authorities will get a name or a place where from they operate. Did the Guardian consider this step? Were they aware of what they were doing?

I don’t know, I am merely asking questions and I am not asking them from Saudi Arabia as their point of view is clear. I might not completely agree with it, but it is their country, they are their laws and 90% of that nation is Sunni Muslim, so are all these convicted people Muslims? As such there is a setting of Muslim law and there is a larger setting here that the Guardian is seemingly actively avoiding. 

Have a great day, make a profit today, but I foresee a danger if you depend on some silver stories out there.