"Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday. (...) The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties. Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have "rolled over" after the threats."
The British government really wanted to investigate this, but protecting you from islamo-evil comes first. What other motive could they possibly have had to stop the corruption investigation of Britain's largest defence company?
I'm quite baffled at the muted reception to this story.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, it's all about the death tech loot and possibly the most craven, miserable use of the waronterror so far.
I know its hopelessly jejune to contemplate how much all this violates the waronterror script but...
Is the safety of the great british public the plaything of prince bandar?
If so, by what mechanism?
Are our burgeoning secret services totally dependent on the kindness of saudis?
Do the saudis have anything to do with international terrorism?
Were the threats ever made?
Is it right to give in to such terrorist threats?
Would terrorists feel the need to avenge the prince's embarrassment?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, you answered your own question Paul. The reason this gets such a muted reception is that it doesn't fit the script. A few years ago I read the daily howler a lot and he always analysed the media in this way: look what the "script" is and then you can understand why certain stories, no matter how shocking or bizarre or spectacular, will remain meaningless factoids, trivial anecdotes. They just don't fit the script. The result is the most striking aspect of all news media I think, how they update their sites every few minutes, give you all this information, but the underlying "script" remains completely immobile, inflexible, unassaultable. Badiou calls it "stagnating hysteria".
ReplyDeleteI've tried to make some sense of it here, but its a tough one
ReplyDelete