I mean, I’m not defending him per se. I’m just saying that it’s a bit tricky when talking about a national state, and acts taken by a head of state. At least in terms of speaking at it like the act of a regular civilian. Trust, I’m not saying I agree with any of them, as I’m a Western-leftie to a large degree. But I am aware that countries do what they feel is best for them, and don’t see the West as any more noble than they are. Perhaps they look at Tony Blair as not fit to run whatever business because he’s a ‘murdering scumbag’ who likely bombed many nameless and faceless innocents in their country.
All I’m saying is it is one thing if a Head of State orders a war or even a death and if Bill Gates did it. Such an act would have a different implication on BG as ‘fit and proper’ than it necessarily will for a Head of State, and I don’t think they should be spoken of as if they are one and the same. I don’t understand much about the Saudis, but I do think an individual and a head of state are different. Barack Obama strikes me as a non-violent type of guy, but in his capacity as President of the United State, I wouldn’t put it past him to order a war or death. So while you are speaking about MBS, you are speaking about his actions as a head of state, which I am saying can’t be looked at in the same way as a civilian.
And if it needs to be said, I agree that what happened to Kasoggi was abhorrent. But I do feel it enters into the world of ‘politics’, which doesn’t mean it cannot be opposed, but still requires a little differentiation to MBS being a man who stabbed someone he got into an argument with in a bar. Again, not an endorsement of him to take over, just feel that characterising a head of state by his actions in office is not necessarily an exact science, I feel.
