by Steve James on Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:32 pm
The Saudi prince may be trying to eliminate competitive Islamic fundamentalists; but, it is itself "the" fundamentalist nation. Bin Laden was a Saudi, and the wahabis are as radical as any other sect. Perhaps, the journalist did favor the Muslim Brotherhood, but that doesn't make him worse than the Saudis (who bombed the Towers on 9/11). The reason we allegedly care is that the Saudis have been our allies, and are at the center of the Muslim world.
I'd say that the Turk's true reasons for exposing what happened is the key. In general, the Turks have favored the Muslim Brotherhood, so they have a reason to make the Saudis look bad. The Saudis have their own record, so it's easy to believe that they're capable of eliminating opponents. In that, however, they are certainly no different than any Middle Eastern state.
Not only will few Americans have no idea of the Persian/Arab conflicts, they will have no idea of the religious and social conflicts within them. Combine that with the fact that national boundaries are almost always artificial and contain non-Muslim ethnic and tribal groups, some are not native Arabic or Farsi speakers. Iow, the region is too complicated to make generalization sufficient for understanding anything.
I am interested in knowing what we should do because some Muslims killed a Muslim journalist. I mean, is it a matter of principle? Nations shouldn't kill journalists? Or, the Saudis are bad guys and we have to do something about them?
If we sanction, the Saudis will deny and pay. The sanctions won't last forever. We don't want the government to fail because the next one would be purely religious and not familial. Otoh, it's more likely that we'll give more support to Turkey, and perhaps bother them less about the Kurds.
(Btw, I think it's interesting that there's almost no news about Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria recently.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."