Saudi Crown Prince calls Iran leader 'new Hitler' - NYT

[Rimmer]

A baiting post and reply have been removed

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You don't see any implications about that in the article? A case of fanboyitis.

 

Considering I never opined anything particularly favorable regarding the Crown Prince, that's just more of your nonsense. Apparently, if one doesn't embrace your point of view it makes them a fan...oh well.

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Considering I never opined anything particularly favorable regarding the Crown Prince, that's just more of your nonsense. Apparently, if one doesn't embrace your point of view it makes them a fan...oh well.

Apart from coming up with improbable scenarios to vindicate his foreign policy blunders.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Apart from coming up with improbable scenarios to vindicate his foreign policy blunders.

 

I haven't come up with any "improbable scenarios to vindicate his foreign policy blunders". What I have presented is another take on things. If you'd actually bothered paying attention, you'd notice that they do not necessarily even convey much by way of support to his moves. That you insist on addressing issues from a particular partisan point of view is another matter.

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/7/2017 at 12:40 PM, Morch said:

 

Back with that "you mean...", eh? No, what I meant was that your implying something which is not even directly supported by the article you linked. What you "think" is another matter.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Identified as Buyer of Record-Breaking da Vinci

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is leading an austerity drive at home, is the bidder who paid a record $450.3 million for a Leonardo da Vinci portrait of Jesus Christ, settling one of the art world’s biggest mysteries.

Prince Mohammed, known by his initials MBS, was identified as the buyer of the 500-year-old painting, “ Salvator Mundi, ” in U.S. intelligence reports, according to people with direct knowledge of the information. ..

“The image of the crown prince spending that much money to buy a painting when he’s supposed to be leading an anticorruption drive is staggering,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and leading expert on Saudi politics.

http://www.cetusnews.com/news/Saudi-Arabia’s-Crown-Prince-Identified-as-Buyer-of-Record-Breaking-Da-Vinci-.ByEk-UzvbM.html

 

Duh.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Identified as Buyer of Record-Breaking da Vinci

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is leading an austerity drive at home, is the bidder who paid a record $450.3 million for a Leonardo da Vinci portrait of Jesus Christ, settling one of the art world’s biggest mysteries.

Prince Mohammed, known by his initials MBS, was identified as the buyer of the 500-year-old painting, “ Salvator Mundi, ” in U.S. intelligence reports, according to people with direct knowledge of the information. ..

“The image of the crown prince spending that much money to buy a painting when he’s supposed to be leading an anticorruption drive is staggering,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and leading expert on Saudi politics.

http://www.cetusnews.com/news/Saudi-Arabia’s-Crown-Prince-Identified-as-Buyer-of-Record-Breaking-Da-Vinci-.ByEk-UzvbM.html

 

Duh.

 

 

 

Yes...and?

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yes...and?

 

“The image of the crown prince spending that much money to buy a painting when he’s supposed to be leading an anticorruption drive is staggering,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and leading expert on Saudi politics."

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes...and?

 

And the picture he bought was of Jesus Christ. First of buying an image of someone the Muslims believe is a prophet of God is bad enough. But someone that Christians believe to be god in a painting depicting him as such? The Iranians are going to love this.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes...and?

 

And the nudge nudge wink wink was there in the times article for all to see. Some just couldn't.

[Morch]

@ilostmypassword

 

Seems like you're a bit excited there....what with posting three separate posts.

Is he buying the painting for his private collection? Hanging it in the royal toilets? Is there a corruption angle?

About the painting not being in line with religious points of view - thought you'll be all for that, guess imaginary point scoring is even better, though? As far as I recall, that Louvre branch being set up in Abu Dhabi would host such paintings anyhow.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

@ilostmypassword

 

Seems like you're a bit excited there....what with posting three separate posts.

Is he buying the painting for his private collection? Hanging it in the royal toilets? Is there a corruption angle?

About the painting not being in line with religious points of view - thought you'll be all for that, guess imaginary point scoring is even better, though? As far as I recall, that Louvre branch being set up in Abu Dhabi would host such paintings anyhow.

 

 

 

Just wanted to make sure you got all the points. And still you missed one.

Wow! What a man crush!

 

You think it was a good idea to spend that much money while he's in the middle of a campaign calling for austerity and transparency? And this wouldn't be the first that he's done such a thing. It wasn't just Bruce Riedel who agrees with me. But to repeat something you apparently missed:

“The image of the crown prince spending that much money to buy a painting when he’s supposed to be leading an anticorruption drive is staggering,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and leading expert on Saudi politics. You may think that the Crown Prince's access to huge amounts of decidedly non transparent cash isn't a cause for corruption concern among the Saudis ? Clearly Bruce Riedel disagrees with you. Anonymous poster on one hand, Bruce Riedel on the other. Hmmm...tough choice.

 

And in Islam images of prophets are verboten. But what's even worse is when a human which Muslims believe Jesus was, is portrayed as a god. That's blasphemy. And because it's going to be hung in Abu Dhabi,( at least for the time being because it was not donated to the museum and may well end up in his private collection), that's going to make it okay in the eyes of Salafis?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just wanted to make sure you got all the points. And still you missed one.

Wow! What a man crush!

 

You think it was a good idea to spend that much money while he's in the middle of a campaign calling for austerity and transparency? And this wouldn't be the first that he's done such a thing. It wasn't just Bruce Riedel who agrees with me. But to repeat something you apparently missed:

“The image of the crown prince spending that much money to buy a painting when he’s supposed to be leading an anticorruption drive is staggering,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and leading expert on Saudi politics. You may think that the Crown Prince's access to huge amounts of decidedly non transparent cash isn't a cause for corruption concern among the Saudis ? Clearly Bruce Riedel disagrees with you. Anonymous poster on one hand, Bruce Riedel on the other. Hmmm...tough choice.

 

And in Islam images of prophets are verboten. But what's even worse is when a human which Muslims believe Jesus was, is portrayed as a god. That's blasphemy. And because it's going to be hung in Abu Dhabi,( at least for the time being because it was not donated to the museum and may well end up in his private collection), that's going to make it okay in the eyes of Salafis?

 

You can just say that you wanted to bait....and you go on with this in your usual pathetic way.

 

I never said anything about it being a good idea. Same goes for the previous related story you obsessed about. I just don't think that it will carry quite the weight you hope for. That you try to frame positions as either deriding the Crown Prince or offering unconditional support is, of course, your usual way of dishonest "discussion".

 

Seeing as you're an anonymous poster yourself, and one that does not usually have much by way of original insight on topics ME, the fascination with associating and identifying  yourself with various, more established sources is quite understandable. Quite amazing how you can convince yourself that a couple of quoted lines imply a wholesale agreement with your views. Guess what you consider to be "clearly" is somewhat idiosyncratic, to put it gently. As you repeatedly misrepresent my positions, your childish assertions (Riedel agrees with me, Reidel does not agree with you - do..do talk about "man crush") are irrelevant. I am sure that from a Western point of view, or an outsider one, "staggering" will do. That this directly applies to how Saudis will interpret things, perhaps not quite.

 

The article you yourself linked actually provides a wider context, in which such acquisitions are seen as statements related to prestige, politics and social change. It also expands on similar actions (if on more humble scales) by other Gulf players. That you choose to highlight one facet, repetitively, and ignore others does not recommend a balanced view of things.

 

The concern displayed regarding blasphemy or how Salafis might see this is rather amusing. What is it you're on about, really? Would have thought anything which contributes to greater openness and change on that front to be welcome.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Morch

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can just say that you wanted to bait....and you go on with this in your usual pathetic way.

 

I never said anything about it being a good idea. Same goes for the previous related story you obsessed about. I just don't think that it will carry quite the weight you hope for. That you try to frame positions as either deriding the Crown Prince or offering unconditional support is, of course, your usual way of dishonest "discussion".

 

Seeing as you're an anonymous poster yourself, and one that does not usually have much by way of original insight on topics ME, the fascination with associating and identifying  yourself with various, more established sources is quite understandable. Quite amazing how you can convince yourself that a couple of quoted lines imply a wholesale agreement with your views. Guess what you consider to be "clearly" is somewhat idiosyncratic, to put it gently. As you repeatedly misrepresent my positions, your childish assertions (Riedel agrees with me, Reidel does not agree with you - do..do talk about "man crush") are irrelevant. I am sure that from a Western point of view, or an outsider one, "staggering" will do. That this directly applies to how Saudis will interpret things, perhaps not quite.

 

The article you yourself linked actually provides a wider context, in which such acquisitions are seen as statements related to prestige, politics and social change. It also expands on similar actions (if on more humble scales) by other Gulf players. That you choose to highlight one facet, repetitively, and ignore others does not recommend a balanced view of things.

 

The concern displayed regarding blasphemy or how Salafis might see this is rather amusing. What is it you're on about, really? Would have thought anything which contributes to greater openness and change on that front to be welcome.

Ah, the usual insults. A sign that nothing substantive will follow.

As for the "couple of lines implying a wholesale agreement with my views." I think that statement from Riedel is quite clear and explicit. Instead of addressing it you try to explain it away by alleging some mitigating unspecified context.  And yes he is an expert on Saudi Arabia. Maybe you can find some experts who think MBS's extravagant expenditures are wise moves? 

 

As for how the Salafis will see this. "Would have thought anything which contributes to greater openness and change on that front to be welcome." Your conclusion is stated in the premise. Does it contribute to greater openness?.  There's such a thing as going too far and too fast. Gradualism and self control would be a lot wiser. But as the Crown Prince has repeatedly demonstrated, self-control, and for that matter, self-awareness, don't seem to be his strong points.

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Ah, the usual insults. A sign that nothing substantive will follow.

As for the "couple of lines implying a wholesale agreement with my views." I think that statement from Riedel is quite clear and explicit. Instead of addressing it you try to explain it away by alleging some mitigating unspecified context.  And yes he is an expert on Saudi Arabia. Maybe you can find some experts who think MBS's extravagant expenditures are wise moves? 

 

As for how the Salafis will see this. "Would have thought anything which contributes to greater openness and change on that front to be welcome." Your conclusion is stated in the premise. Does it contribute to greater openness?.  There's such a thing as going too far and too fast. Gradualism and self control would be a lot wiser. But as the Crown Prince has repeatedly demonstrated, self-control, and for that matter, self-awareness, don't seem to be his strong points.

 

 

You get what you give. Whine on.

 

That you think a something you quote to be "clear" doesn't make it so. I don't read it as a "clear" affirmation of your own views. Wouldn't be the first argument your attempt to build on the strength of a few quoted words. As for the bogus "try to explain it away by alleging some mitigating unspecified context" - I have already addressed the same point (differences in how things are perceived by outsiders and locals) on previous instances of the same, it seemed redundant to rehash things again. Maybe you can stop twisting my posts and implying things I have never said - such as Riedel not being an expert or that this was a wise move?

 

Still not sure what is your complaint with regard to the blasphemy and Salafist objections thing. Sounds like you're just grasping at straws on this one.

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You get what you give. Whine on.

 

That you think a something you quote to be "clear" doesn't make it so. I don't read it as a "clear" affirmation of your own views. Wouldn't be the first argument your attempt to build on the strength of a few quoted words. As for the bogus "try to explain it away by alleging some mitigating unspecified context" - I have already addressed the same point (differences in how things are perceived by outsiders and locals) on previous instances of the same, it seemed redundant to rehash things again. Maybe you can stop twisting my posts and implying things I have never said - such as Riedel not being an expert or that this was a wise move?

 

Still not sure what is your complaint with regard to the blasphemy and Salafist objections thing. Sounds like you're just grasping at straws on this one.

"While Muslims regard Christ as a prophet, Islamic religious scholars and clerics generally regard the depiction of human forms of prophets as a sacrilege."

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

"While Muslims regard Christ as a prophet, Islamic religious scholars and clerics generally regard the depiction of human forms of prophets as a sacrilege."

 

Again - what is it you're complaining about? The Crown Prince not being devout enough? Them museums being set up in the Gulf blasphemous?

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Again - what is it you're complaining about? The Crown Prince not being devout enough? Them museums being set up in the Gulf blasphemous?

Saudis are still very conservative in their religious beliefs. Why do something so potentially and gratuitously antagonizing? For the sake of prestige?

[ilostmypassword]

A fascinating analysis that clarifies much about the Crown Prince's policies

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.827058

[Scott]

If you want a suspension, continue with the snide personal remarks and it will happen.  

[JemJem]

pot........kettle........black........and all that 

[ilostmypassword]

Actually, the story just got even better. After the Wall Street Journal article appeared, Abu Dhabi claimed that it had purchased the the painting.  Then the Financial Times reported that, no, it was actually purchased by the Saudi Government. A source said “It is supposed to be a state to state gift, like when France gave the Statue of Liberty to the U.S.”

So just as France commissioned Bartholdi to create his masterpiece as a gift to the USA, Saudi Arabia commissioned da Vinci to create one for Abu Dhabi?

So Abu Dhabi apparently lied about purchasing the painting because it was in no way a potential public relations black eye for the Crown Prince?

And is there a meaningful difference between a purchase by the Saudi Government and a purchase by the Crown Prince?

Anyway, a nice summary is available here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/the-middle-easts-biggest-mystery-who-paid-usd450-million-for-a-second-rate-leonardo.html

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Saudis are still very conservative in their religious beliefs. Why do something so potentially and gratuitously antagonizing? For the sake of prestige?

 

And still -- what is your point? That the Saudi Crown Prince might be moving to fast introducing new ideas? That some Saudis might be offended? As the articles you quote indicate, this is not a trend started by the Crown Prince, nor is it limited to Saudi Arabia.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

A fascinating analysis that clarifies much about the Crown Prince's policies

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.827058

 

That would be a Zvi Bar'el piece. You'll find that, as with other topics, he is sure to have other columns and articles where he airs different somewhat less critical views.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, the story just got even better. After the Wall Street Journal article appeared, Abu Dhabi claimed that it had purchased the the painting.  Then the Financial Times reported that, no, it was actually purchased by the Saudi Government. A source said “It is supposed to be a state to state gift, like when France gave the Statue of Liberty to the U.S.”

So just as France commissioned Bartholdi to create his masterpiece as a gift to the USA, Saudi Arabia commissioned da Vinci to create one for Abu Dhabi?

So Abu Dhabi apparently lied about purchasing the painting because it was in no way a potential public relations black eye for the Crown Prince?

And is there a meaningful difference between a purchase by the Saudi Government and a purchase by the Crown Prince?

Anyway, a nice summary is available here:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/the-middle-easts-biggest-mystery-who-paid-usd450-million-for-a-second-rate-leonardo.html

 

 

The article you linked actually supports a few other links within, giving a wider context to this trend of art acquisitions. Other than wishful thinking, and a couple of lines interpreted to fit - doubt that this makes as much of an impact on relevant public opinion as suggested.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The article you linked actually supports a few other links within, giving a wider context to this trend of art acquisitions. Other than wishful thinking, and a couple of lines interpreted to fit - doubt that this makes as much of an impact on relevant public opinion as suggested.

Then why did the Abu Dhabians lie about it?

[Morch]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Then why did the Abu Dhabians lie about it?

 

I don't know, and I'm not obsessing about it. There's tons of stuff going on in the Middle East, a whole lot of intrigue or just things which aren't being properly reported on. Not all of it is germane to core issues, and coverage is not all what its cranked up to be. If it helps, think about Thailand, and the level of accuracy, follow up and spins related to stories here.

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know, and I'm not obsessing about it. There's tons of stuff going on in the Middle East, a whole lot of intrigue or just things which aren't being properly reported on. Not all of it is germane to core issues, and coverage is not all what its cranked up to be. If it helps, think about Thailand, and the level of accuracy, follow up and spins related to stories here.

It goes to what has been repeatedly point out about the Crown Prince: his impulsivity and lack of regard for consequences. Here's some more:

Why Saudi Prince's Sale of the Century Won't Sell
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.826941

Goes nicely into how how his own actions have sabotaged his economic reform program.

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It goes to what has been repeatedly point out about the Crown Prince: his impulsivity and lack of regard for consequences. Here's some more:

Why Saudi Prince's Sale of the Century Won't Sell
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.826941

Goes nicely into how how his own actions have sabotaged his economic reform program.

 

 

 

So basically, you're hijacking the topic in order to push a point of view which isn't even debated much....

 

To reiterate - the Crown Prince may be as you describe him. His policies may not be well thought out, or well executed. My point of view on this relates to the state of things he inherited (or about to), and to the level of threat poised by Iran. In this context, carrying out in the same old style of his predecessors would not, IMO, would have generated better results, and would have run further risks related to domestic issues.

 

The OP is not really about yachts, paintings or Aramco, but deals with Iranian-Saudi struggle for dominance in the Middle East. Trying to make the Crown Prince's supposed character flaws into a centerpiece of each related topic is tiresome, and offers but a limited take on things.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So basically, you're hijacking the topic in order to push a point of view which isn't even debated much....

 

To reiterate - the Crown Prince may be as you describe him. His policies may not be well thought out, or well executed. My point of view on this relates to the state of things he inherited (or about to), and to the level of threat poised by Iran. In this context, carrying out in the same old style of his predecessors would not, IMO, would have generated better results, and would have run further risks related to domestic issues.

 

The OP is not really about yachts, paintings or Aramco, but deals with Iranian-Saudi struggle for dominance in the Middle East. Trying to make the Crown Prince's supposed character flaws into a centerpiece of each related topic is tiresome, and offers but a limited take on things.

Given that he is, in effect, the ruler of Saudi Arabia, and has already made many serious mistakes in his conduct of foreign policy, I don't think a closer look at his modus operandi is at all besides the point. 

And as for the Iran question, oddly enough, Thomas Friedman gets it about right:

Obsession With Iran Is Driving the Mideast and the U.S. Crazy

"And the Iranians want to get wide — to expand their influence from Tehran to the Mediterranean — not by creating a successful and attractive development model at home that Arabs and other Muslims would want to emulate, but rather by forcing their way into Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq through local Shiite militias that have created states within these states.

This is generating a lot of anxiety in the Arab world, the U.S. and Israel without enough people stepping back and thinking: So pro-Iranian militias control a bunch of bad neighborhoods in Beirut, Sana, Damascus and Baghdad... What are they really “winning”?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/opinion/american-obsession-iran-middle-east.html

 

To be fair, I can understand why Israel so strongly favors the anti-Iranian obsession of their de facto ally - this is where at least 2  otherwise dubious Haaretz columnists approve of  Saudi policy - but somehow I don't think that they necessarily have the Saudis' best interests at heart. Better the Saudis get a bloody nose and or a black eye rather than the Israelis.

Edited December 10, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/8/2017 at 11:21 PM, Morch said:

 

Again - what is it you're complaining about? The Crown Prince not being devout enough? Them museums being set up in the Gulf blasphemous?

Saudi Arabia Disputes That Crown Prince Bought ‘Salvator Mundi’

American officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter, and Arabs familiar with the details of the sale, both reiterated on Friday that the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was the true buyer at the time of the auction.

The purchase comes at an awkward time for the crown prince because he is leading a sweeping crackdown on corruption and self-enrichment by the Saudi elite...

The painting, “Salvator Mundi,” may also offend Saudi sensibilities: Human portraits and especially portraits of religious figures are forbidden under the strict Saudi brand of Islam, and this one raises particular issues because it is depicts Jesus as savior.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-salvator-mundi-crown-prince.html

The Saudis are denying it out of modesty and because they aren't at all concerned about possible religious repercussions.