While I didn’t see it mentioned, there’s another underlying issue that affects Tim Cook. As an out gay man, I find it curious that he chums it up with someone who would have him executed just for his sexuality (note, not even behavior). It is simply enough to be accused of being gay to be arrested and executed in Saudi Arabia. I understand his fiduciary responsibility as CEO supersedes his personal issues in this context. But if the murder of a journalist is a red line, then why not this?
Right. My thoughts exactly.
Cook and all the other tech giants have no trouble cozying up to regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China--where gay rights are virtually nonexistent. And they don't say one negative word about those regimes. But Trump is the devil.
Uh huh...
They are all just massive hypocrites. As long as it's good for business, they are more than happy to do business with bad state actors.
It is what it is .. and imo it has always been, behind the facades. That is human nature . As depressing as it may be.
American journalists? I think that is not a correct assumptions. He is not an American and probably hates America. Just my opinion. Business is business, Tim have responsibilities to Apple stockholder....
Based on what?
The guy had an American green card, and wrote for the Washington Post. It doesn't get much more "American journalist" than that.
Green Card? This is inaccurate.
What's your agenda here? The O-1 versus EB-1 "green card" have the same legal protections. I apologize for generalizing the term. I have struck out my own imprecise language in my comments and corrected the specific term, but it doesn't change the protections one iota.
Simply accuracy. Working here, and having the same protections, doesn't make to "American". Saying so is inaccurate.
You can’t point to any official guidelines that dictate how to refer to him. He lived in the US and worked for an American newspaper. It is fair to refer to him as an American journalist. You could also fairly refer to him as a Saudi Journalist. However, I think most people would assume an American journalist lived in the us and at the very least wrote for an American paper.
both your and the authors preferences are valid. The detail seems pretty minor in light of the story itself.
If the article only referred to him as an American journalist, that would be a little misleading. The good news is that a few paragraphs later, the story using this phrase: "Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident Saudi journalist who lived in the United States and wrote for The Washington Post." No one reading this piece could be confused about his nationality or where he worked.
Dude. That pic of him with the Osama bin laden was during the Afghan war when the US supported the rebels against Russia. He was there on assignment as a journalist. Be careful of regurgitating Fox News right wing conspiracy theories in trying to downplay his murder...cause...um...he was one of “them”. It’s the kind of xenophobic otherizing that disregards fact for lies.
That is 100% accurate. Back then, the US supported the Mujahideen, so if it were the only occurrence of Mr. Khashoggi associating with Muslim extremists, I would never quote that incident. However, that was only one of many other actions of Mr. Khashoggi supporting Muslim extremists. He has supported extremist Islamists his entire life. There's a great article published in Haaretz a few days ago that covers in much detail Mr. Khashoggi's support for extremist Muslim movements.
Haaretz cannot be accused of being right-wing, pro-Zionist or even pro-Israel. In fact, this newspaper is considered by most Israelis to be extreme left-wing, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Nevertheless, even Haaretz could not ignore the fact that Mr. Khashoggi was an ardent supporter of extremist Islamic movements. Many facts are listed in that article, so if you are interested in the truth, read the article. You seem to be a left-winger, so the left-wing reputation of Haaretz should add to the credibility of the source for you.
Of course, there are literally hundreds of other sources available out there that list the facts of Mr. Khashoggi's being a supporter of Muslim extremists around the world.
Even though I condemn a brutal murder of any human being not directly involved in harming civilians, and so by this standard I condemn the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it's important to note here that he was not a freedom-loving journalist who purely wanted to report truthfully on the current events.
Jamal Khashoggi met the same kind of death that he wished on others. He has always been an ardent supporter of extremism (as extremism as perceived by the western standards). Starting from the recently surfaced picture of him standing with mujahideen holding a grenade launcher and continuing throughout his "journalistic" career, Jamal Khashoggi did not meet an Islamic extremist that he didn't love. He supported all major Muslim extremist movements in the Middle East, including Al Qaida...
Thank you for presenting facts and avoiding over-reactionary, sensationalist rhetoric. I see why some get emotional about these things, but the Appleinsider author of this article is quite a ways off base. Just look at the title of this article... 100% ridiculous. We (especially the media/journalist/editors) can greatly increase prospects of positive change if we stop spewing crap and instead err on the side of being rationale and sensible, which this Appleinsider article is not.
I am not the author, however: while I appreciate Sirozha's contributions with facts, they are mostly cherry-picked and a red herring to the larger point of Stephen's piece.
Mike, with all due respect, when there's a fundamental difference in opinions, quoting a Wikipedia article about a controversial person like Mr. Khashoggi is a little silly.. Obviously, it's extremely politically incorrect right now to point out the fact that Mr. Khashoggi was not the good guy that the press tries to present him to be at the moment.
So, let's set Wikipedia aside, since it's not an authoritative source. Of course, my post is not an authoritative source either. How about Haaretz? Would it be authoritative enough for you? Here's the article.
Even though I condemn a brutal murder of any human being not directly involved in harming civilians, and so by this standard I condemn the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it's important to note here that he was not a freedom-loving journalist who purely wanted to report truthfully on the current events.
Jamal Khashoggi met the same kind of death that he wished on others. He has always been an ardent supporter of extremism (as extremism as perceived by the western standards). Starting from the recently surfaced picture of him standing with mujahideen holding a grenade launcher and continuing throughout his "journalistic" career, Jamal Khashoggi did not meet an Islamic extremist that he didn't love. He supported all major Muslim extremist movements in the Middle East, including Al Qaida...
Thank you for presenting facts and avoiding over-reactionary, sensationalist rhetoric. I see why some get emotional about these things, but the Appleinsider author of this article is quite a ways off base. Just look at the title of this article... 100% ridiculous. We (especially the media/journalist/editors) can greatly increase prospects of positive change if we stop spewing crap and instead err on the side of being rationale and sensible, which this Appleinsider article is not.
I am not the author, however: while I appreciate Sirozha's contributions with facts, they are mostly cherry-picked and a red herring to the larger point of Stephen's piece.
Mike, with all due respect, when there's a fundamental difference in opinions, quoting a Wikipedia article about a controversial person like Mr. Khashoggi is a little silly.. Obviously, it's extremely politically incorrect right now to point out the fact that Mr. Khashoggi was not the good guy that the press tries to present him to be at the moment.
So, let's set Wikipedia aside, since it's not an authoritative source. Of course, my post is not an authoritative source either. How about Haaretz? Would it be authoritative enough for you? Here's the article.
Haaretz is linked in the Wikipedia article, whether or not you care for it as a "authoritative source." Wikipedia is a very good aggregator including some sources that agree with you, and some that don't.
And, Stephen's piece is about Apple and Saudi ties, not if Khashoggi was a good guy or not. You said it yourself, extra-judicial killings are bad.
While I didn’t see it mentioned, there’s another underlying issue that affects Tim Cook. As an out gay man, I find it curious that he chums it up with someone who would have him executed just for his sexuality (note, not even behavior). It is simply enough to be accused of being gay to be arrested and executed in Saudi Arabia. I understand his fiduciary responsibility as CEO supersedes his personal issues in this context. But if the murder of a journalist is a red line, then why not this?
Right. My thoughts exactly.
Cook and all the other tech giants have no trouble cozying up to regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China--where gay rights are virtually nonexistent. And they don't say one negative word about those regimes. But Trump is the devil.
Uh huh...
They are all just massive hypocrites. As long as it's good for business, they are more than happy to do business with bad state actors.
Good point, now look at the flipside of this. You have the Prince of a country which has some of the most restrictive beliefs in the world who is knowing visiting with an open gay man. If this Prince really believed in what his country stood for then he would not being interacting with the western world. You have hypocrites on all sides. In the end Tim and the Prince are Human and they both did not seem to have an issue with how each other looks at the world and what they believe.
Even though I condemn a brutal murder of any human being not directly involved in harming civilians, and so by this standard I condemn the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it's important to note here that he was not a freedom-loving journalist who purely wanted to report truthfully on the current events.
Jamal Khashoggi met the same kind of death that he wished on others. He has always been an ardent supporter of extremism (as extremism as perceived by the western standards). Starting from the recently surfaced picture of him standing with mujahideen holding a grenade launcher and continuing throughout his "journalistic" career, Jamal Khashoggi did not meet an Islamic extremist that he didn't love. He supported all major Muslim extremist movements in the Middle East, including Al Qaida...
Thank you for presenting facts and avoiding over-reactionary, sensationalist rhetoric. I see why some get emotional about these things, but the Appleinsider author of this article is quite a ways off base. Just look at the title of this article... 100% ridiculous. We (especially the media/journalist/editors) can greatly increase prospects of positive change if we stop spewing crap and instead err on the side of being rationale and sensible, which this Appleinsider article is not.
I am not the author, however: while I appreciate Sirozha's contributions with facts, they are mostly cherry-picked and a red herring to the larger point of Stephen's piece.
Mike, with all due respect, when there's a fundamental difference in opinions, quoting a Wikipedia article about a controversial person like Mr. Khashoggi is a little silly.. Obviously, it's extremely politically incorrect right now to point out the fact that Mr. Khashoggi was not the good guy that the press tries to present him to be at the moment.
So, let's set Wikipedia aside, since it's not an authoritative source. Of course, my post is not an authoritative source either. How about Haaretz? Would it be authoritative enough for you? Here's the article.
Haaretz is linked in the Wikipedia article, whether or not you care for it as a "authoritative source." Wikipedia is a very good aggregator including some sources that agree with you, and some that don't.
And, Stephen's piece is about Apple and Saudi ties, not if Khashoggi was a good guy or not. You said it yourself, extra-judicial killings are bad.
No, I didn't say all extra-judicial killings are bad. I said that extra-judicial killings of those who are not directly involved in harming civilians are bad. However, I completely support extra-judicial killings of terrorists, especially in situations where bringing justice to them in a judicial way is not possible.
The premise of the article is that Saudis are so bad that Apple should not be doing business with them, which is completely ridiculous. Saudis are better now than they were 60, 40, 30, 20, and even 10 years ago. They finally allowed women to drive. The country is changing. It may not be changing quickly enough by your standards, but consider what happened to Russia when it decided to change quickly. It reverted back to an authoritarian rule after trying relative freedom for only a decade.
There are countries out there that are much worse than Saudi Arabia. Apple should not be doing any business with China if you decide to apply the same standard. Chinese kill dissidents in their prisons all the time. Yet, Apple is fully dependent on China and cannot divest from that authoritarian and brutal Communist regime even a little for obvious reasons - everything that Apple makes is manufactured in China.
Even though I condemn a brutal murder of any human being not directly involved in harming civilians, and so by this standard I condemn the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it's important to note here that he was not a freedom-loving journalist who purely wanted to report truthfully on the current events.
Jamal Khashoggi met the same kind of death that he wished on others. He has always been an ardent supporter of extremism (as extremism as perceived by the western standards). Starting from the recently surfaced picture of him standing with mujahideen holding a grenade launcher and continuing throughout his "journalistic" career, Jamal Khashoggi did not meet an Islamic extremist that he didn't love. He supported all major Muslim extremist movements in the Middle East, including Al Qaida...
Thank you for presenting facts and avoiding over-reactionary, sensationalist rhetoric. I see why some get emotional about these things, but the Appleinsider author of this article is quite a ways off base. Just look at the title of this article... 100% ridiculous. We (especially the media/journalist/editors) can greatly increase prospects of positive change if we stop spewing crap and instead err on the side of being rationale and sensible, which this Appleinsider article is not.
I am not the author, however: while I appreciate Sirozha's contributions with facts, they are mostly cherry-picked and a red herring to the larger point of Stephen's piece.
That wiki of Khashoggi is definitely not an accurate or thorough portrayal. Wiki can be accurate at times, in this case it’s missing a lot of his history.
Sirozha did not cherry pick, but did present a relevant perspective the author failed to provide.
Nobody is condoning the Saudi’s actions, it’s abhorrent. But responding to this particular crime by doing what most of what this article is suggesting is lunacy.
American journalists? I think that is not a correct assumptions. He is not an American and probably hates America. Just my opinion. Business is business, Tim have responsibilities to Apple stockholder....
Based on what?
The guy had an American green card, and wrote for the Washington Post. It doesn't get much more "American journalist" than that.
Green Card? This is inaccurate.
What's your agenda here? The O-1 versus EB-1 "green card" have the same legal protections. I apologize for generalizing the term. I have struck out my own imprecise language in my comments and corrected the specific term, but it doesn't change the protections one iota.
Simply accuracy. Working here, and having the same protections, doesn't make to "American". Saying so is inaccurate.
Why does he have to have an "agenda"? Your proscribing one to him is, frankly, more suggestive that you have one....
Yeah, you'd be wrong, then.
So why in the world did you proscribe one to him? Because he dared to disagree wirh you? There was literally nothing in his statement that might have been agenda-based.
I didn't. I asked. If I proscribed one to him, I would have very clearly said so.
His viewpoint on how we should have referred to the man is contra-indicated by the AP style guide, and Chicago as well. Like I said, I understood where he was coming from, but not his doubling-down on it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Also, I think a better word than "proscribed" would be "ascribed".
This is an important topic to discuss. However, we do have rules for a reason. If you're going to participate in this thread, new user or old, read the commenting guidelines linked at the bottom of every page.
While we're loosening the political restrictions for this thread, and this thread alone for now, this thread will be strictly moderated for other infractions. Be respectful.
I am pleased that AI sees the value in open discussion of topics such as this! To my mind, there are many rumors and not enough facts to reach a conclusion -- so discussion helps.
I hope that AI will open similar articles/discussion threads of other current topics.
The migration caravan/convey situation is one topic I'd like to see discussed... There has to be a better way to resolve this than:
just allowing it to happen
hope that it doesn't happen
ignoring it
Peoples' lives, well-being, rights and consciences are at stake!
There is precisely zero connection to Apple in regards to the caravan, so I wouldn't expect an editorial about it.
I beg to disagree. I saw a bunch of smart phones owned by the members of the caravan. I'm sure some of them own iPhones. There's a clear connection there. One undeniable question is, Will the iPhones carried by these Central American migrants be serviced in the US Apple Stores? If they are, does it mean that Apple became a Sanctuary Corporation? If they aren’t, does it mean that Apple is a Bigoted Corporation? Should half of us all throw our iPhones in the garbage in either of these two scenarios materializes? I think we need an editorial on this.
Even though I condemn a brutal murder of any human being not directly involved in harming civilians, and so by this standard I condemn the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it's important to note here that he was not a freedom-loving journalist who purely wanted to report truthfully on the current events.
Jamal Khashoggi met the same kind of death that he wished on others. He has always been an ardent supporter of extremism (as extremism as perceived by the western standards). Starting from the recently surfaced picture of him standing with mujahideen holding a grenade launcher and continuing throughout his "journalistic" career, Jamal Khashoggi did not meet an Islamic extremist that he didn't love. He supported all major Muslim extremist movements in the Middle East, including Al Qaida...
Thank you for presenting facts and avoiding over-reactionary, sensationalist rhetoric. I see why some get emotional about these things, but the Appleinsider author of this article is quite a ways off base. Just look at the title of this article... 100% ridiculous. We (especially the media/journalist/editors) can greatly increase prospects of positive change if we stop spewing crap and instead err on the side of being rationale and sensible, which this Appleinsider article is not.
I am not the author, however: while I appreciate Sirozha's contributions with facts, they are mostly cherry-picked and a red herring to the larger point of Stephen's piece.
Mike, with all due respect, when there's a fundamental difference in opinions, quoting a Wikipedia article about a controversial person like Mr. Khashoggi is a little silly.. Obviously, it's extremely politically incorrect right now to point out the fact that Mr. Khashoggi was not the good guy that the press tries to present him to be at the moment.
So, let's set Wikipedia aside, since it's not an authoritative source. Of course, my post is not an authoritative source either. How about Haaretz? Would it be authoritative enough for you? Here's the article.
Haaretz is linked in the Wikipedia article, whether or not you care for it as a "authoritative source." Wikipedia is a very good aggregator including some sources that agree with you, and some that don't.
And, Stephen's piece is about Apple and Saudi ties, not if Khashoggi was a good guy or not. You said it yourself, extra-judicial killings are bad.
I don't see a link to Haaretz in the Wikipedia article. This probably means that there's a struggle of editors happening over this article right now, which is customary for Wikipedia. Stuff gets added and deleted all the time.
American journalists? I think that is not a correct assumptions. He is not an American and probably hates America. Just my opinion. Business is business, Tim have responsibilities to Apple stockholder....
Based on what?
The guy had an American green card, and wrote for the Washington Post. It doesn't get much more "American journalist" than that.
Green Card? This is inaccurate.
What's your agenda here? The O-1 versus EB-1 "green card" have the same legal protections. I apologize for generalizing the term. I have struck out my own imprecise language in my comments and corrected the specific term, but it doesn't change the protections one iota.
Simply accuracy. Working here, and having the same protections, doesn't make to "American". Saying so is inaccurate.
You can’t point to any official guidelines that dictate how to refer to him. He lived in the US and worked for an American newspaper. It is fair to refer to him as an American journalist. You could also fairly refer to him as a Saudi Journalist. However, I think most people would assume an American journalist lived in the us and at the very least wrote for an American paper.
both your and the authors preferences are valid. The detail seems pretty minor in light of the story itself.
I wouldn’t assume an American journalist lives in America. I’d assume he (or she) is American and a journalist. I think it introduces an unnecessary element to a story to refer to a foreign resident as an ‘American ______.’ Because some readers might then get it in their heads that an American was murdered. Why even invite that misinterpretation?
Yeah, I love Apple Insider and have been a reader for a long time, but this "American journalist" comment is really odd and misleading to me. I'm British (originally) and moved to the US in 2010. I had a work visa the first few years, then permanent residency, and eventually - in 2017 - citizenship. At no point before 2017 would I or people I associate with have considered me an "American Project Manager".
I've also lived in Tokyo and Bangkok over the past couple of years (on visas, just like Khashoggi did in the US). At none of these times would I have considered myself a Japanese or Thai Project Manager... And neither would anyone else I know of.
Good piece IMO, and I agree with most of its content. I just don't understand why a misleading comment like this would be left in.
I hate to say it, but this is just a click-bait headline.
Nothing in the article justified the title.
The line about Apple hosting a potential murderer at Apple Park is just yellow journalism. Short of having precogs, there's no way Apple could have known.
American journalists? I think that is not a correct assumptions. He is not an American and probably hates America. Just my opinion. Business is business, Tim have responsibilities to Apple stockholder....
Based on what?
The guy had an American green card, and wrote for the Washington Post. It doesn't get much more "American journalist" than that.
Green Card? This is inaccurate.
What's your agenda here? The O-1 versus EB-1 "green card" have the same legal protections. I apologize for generalizing the term. I have struck out my own imprecise language in my comments and corrected the specific term, but it doesn't change the protections one iota.
Simply accuracy. Working here, and having the same protections, doesn't make to "American". Saying so is inaccurate.
You can’t point to any official guidelines that dictate how to refer to him. He lived in the US and worked for an American newspaper. It is fair to refer to him as an American journalist. You could also fairly refer to him as a Saudi Journalist. However, I think most people would assume an American journalist lived in the us and at the very least wrote for an American paper.
both your and the authors preferences are valid. The detail seems pretty minor in light of the story itself.
I wouldn’t assume an American journalist lives in America. I’d assume he (or she) is American and a journalist. I think it introduces an unnecessary element to a story to refer to a foreign resident as an ‘American ______.’ Because some readers might then get it in their heads that an American was murdered. Why even invite that misinterpretation?
I spoke to several people about this incident and both were convinced this reporter was an American because of the slipshod way his story has been reported. Our media is lazy, at the very least, in their reporting. At worst, they are propagandists. I mean, seriously... the media is convinced that reporting Twitter comments counts as journalism these days, for chrissakes.
That body language though! Looks like one of two things to me: 1. Cook and Co are very uncomfortable in the presence of the Saudis. Sitting back from the table, not sharing it, distancing themselves physically from their opposites. 2. The Saudi's "alpha" versus Cook's "beta". The Saudi's are owning the table, and the Apple folks, with one exception, are giving it to them.
That body language though! Looks like one of two things to me: 1. Cook and Co are very uncomfortable in the presence of the Saudis. Sitting back from the table, not sharing it, distancing themselves physically from their opposites. 2. The Saudi's "alpha" versus Cook's "beta". The Saudi's are owning the table, and the Apple folks, with one exception, are giving it to them.
I wonder who that is in the bottom right. Could it be Phil Schiller?
Why Apple should do all it can to disengage from the Saudi regime. ....
That's kind of a slippery slope with a lot of fine lines... An equally valid case could be made that Apple should disengage with the U.S.:
-- During the Bush administration we kidnapped, tortured and imprisoned private citizens without charges or legitimate trial.
-- During the Obama administration we executed countless people guilty and innocent alike using drones and special operations.
-- Our current leader has been termed a racist, fascist and misogynist who regularly incites hatred and violence -- particularly against the press and its reporters -- that recently resulted in a rash of domestic terrorism.
That's not to trash the U.S. or any of its presidents. Similar allegations could be made against most countries.
It is meant to point out that going there not only crosses a very fine line but it starts down the infamous slippery slope.
wow, drop a little knowledge on someone and their panties bunch up to the point they have to delete your post...go ahead, do your thing...nothing I said was offense nor did drop insults or curse words. You made sure you said what you had to say and I guess that's all that matters.
What are you talking about? No posts have been deleted in this thread at all.
you are correct sir, and I apologize for jumping the gun..
That body language though! Looks like one of two things to me: 1. Cook and Co are very uncomfortable in the presence of the Saudis. Sitting back from the table, not sharing it, distancing themselves physically from their opposites. 2. The Saudi's "alpha" versus Cook's "beta". The Saudi's are owning the table, and the Apple folks, with one exception, are giving it to them.
I wonder who that is in the bottom right. Could it be Phil Schiller?
Based on the hair and who else is at the table, that would be my guess.
Comments
As depressing as it may be.
Haaretz cannot be accused of being right-wing, pro-Zionist or even pro-Israel. In fact, this newspaper is considered by most Israelis to be extreme left-wing, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Nevertheless, even Haaretz could not ignore the fact that Mr. Khashoggi was an ardent supporter of extremist Islamic movements. Many facts are listed in that article, so if you are interested in the truth, read the article. You seem to be a left-winger, so the left-wing reputation of Haaretz should add to the credibility of the source for you.
Of course, there are literally hundreds of other sources available out there that list the facts of Mr. Khashoggi's being a supporter of Muslim extremists around the world.
So, let's set Wikipedia aside, since it's not an authoritative source. Of course, my post is not an authoritative source either. How about Haaretz? Would it be authoritative enough for you? Here's the article.
The premise of the article is that Saudis are so bad that Apple should not be doing business with them, which is completely ridiculous. Saudis are better now than they were 60, 40, 30, 20, and even 10 years ago. They finally allowed women to drive. The country is changing. It may not be changing quickly enough by your standards, but consider what happened to Russia when it decided to change quickly. It reverted back to an authoritarian rule after trying relative freedom for only a decade.
There are countries out there that are much worse than Saudi Arabia. Apple should not be doing any business with China if you decide to apply the same standard. Chinese kill dissidents in their prisons all the time. Yet, Apple is fully dependent on China and cannot divest from that authoritarian and brutal Communist regime even a little for obvious reasons - everything that Apple makes is manufactured in China.
Sirozha did not cherry pick, but did present a relevant perspective the author failed to provide.
Nobody is condoning the Saudi’s actions, it’s abhorrent. But responding to this particular crime by doing what most of what this article is suggesting is lunacy.
I've also lived in Tokyo and Bangkok over the past couple of years (on visas, just like Khashoggi did in the US). At none of these times would I have considered myself a Japanese or Thai Project Manager... And neither would anyone else I know of.
Good piece IMO, and I agree with most of its content. I just don't understand why a misleading comment like this would be left in.
I hate to say it, but this is just a click-bait headline.
Nothing in the article justified the title.
The line about Apple hosting a potential murderer at Apple Park is just yellow journalism. Short of having precogs, there's no way Apple could have known.
Looks like one of two things to me:
1. Cook and Co are very uncomfortable in the presence of the Saudis. Sitting back from the table, not sharing it, distancing themselves physically from their opposites.
2. The Saudi's "alpha" versus Cook's "beta". The Saudi's are owning the table, and the Apple folks, with one exception, are giving it to them.