Was it true/false, were people allowed to decide… Honestly I think that just is censorship at this point. I don’t agree or disagree with their words, I barely got to read them, yet they were banned for what? Discussion of an opinion we didn’t like?
Was it true/false, were people allowed to decide… Honestly I think that just is censorship at this point. I don’t agree or disagree with their words, I barely got to read them, yet they were banned for what? Discussion of an opinion we didn’t like?
I’m curious too. Thought it was a pretty noteworthy headline at least. Figured I’d read it after I walked the dog. Maybe it was a known bad poster or something?
The title and by-line were very misleading. I still had the link open, so here you go: https://deanblundell.substack.com/p/breaking-trump-just-lost-saudi-arabia
But nobody said “it’s over”, or broke anything off. The post itself literally says that Saudi Arabia didn’t comment.
I think the idea that only traditional media is acceptable is really problematic and implicitly favors corporate media manipulation, but I would have removed this substack post for the deceptive summary alone.
So no discussion is allowed because someone disagrees with a title… sounds like extreme sensorship. North Korea wishes they had it that good. Maybe you should realize you are the slave runners at that point?
I didn’t remove the post. I’m not a mod.
I’m curious: why do you find the summary deceptive? I thought it was quite factual - which is why I elected to post it here.
Did you read the article? It’s not just Saudi media and MBS staying quiet. MBS did tell Trump “it’s over” for all intents and purposes.
I did read it, yes, that is why I still had the link open. The title and by-line heavily suggests that SA has taken action or made statements which demonstrate actively moving away from the US. This is contradicted inside the article itself, as quoted prior.
Has their position likely changed? Sure. Is analysis of the timeline worthwhile? Also yes. But there’s literally nothing there which supports the position that any form of action has occurred that alters existing or future US-Saudi agreements. A step towards Ukraine is something noteworthy, but that doesn’t require a step away from the US, and the step away is still speculative.
That’s not to say I am not fine with speculative. It’s just that it’s not the same content described by: '"BREAKING: Trump Just Lost Saudi Arabia. Trump told the man who controls 12% of the world’s oil to kiss his ass. That man just restructured Middle Eastern security with Ukraine, telling Trump, “It’s over”. ’
Right and wrong aside, much thanks for sharing the link.