No I’m saying regardless of your opinion, you shouldn’t have an opinion based on the source of the statement is what I’m saying. Yes MBS is trash, but I would still listen to what he has to say.

Sadly we know this is not true. Just ask the Palestinians and Russians. Regardless of our opinions, those weapons they sent aren’t moldy and absolutely do work.

So you think giving people freedoms to drink and go to bars is a bad thing?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-opens-first-liquor-store-rcna135597

And yes I’m fully aware of Khashoggi. What I’m saying is all people all governments have good and bad. I can easily agree with many things that awful people do. It doesn’t make them any less awful, but I’m not so ignorant to be opposed to something just because an awful person says it.

So to hate a good idea just because of it’s messenger is ignorant at best and harmful at worst.

The reason I bring this up is because in USA it’s becoming more and more like this. That regardless of what the policy is, the only thing the stupid politicians care about now is who the messenger is. And it’s doing incredible damage to the country.

Now, obviously you’re just making a statement. I don’t really disagree with it as I think MBS is a horrible human being. But I really don’t like the idea of agreeing or disagreeing with someone based on the person saying it.

This is absolute proof that the US knows China won’t invade. If the US thought there was even a slight chance that the invasion would happen, they would have not sent garbage. Especially since they keep calling Taiwan the unsinkable carrier and how important Taiwan is to protect the first island chain. So the only 2 possibilities are that:

1. It’s not actually important to the first island chain (which we know it is, that’s why China even cares about it at all).

2. US has no concern what so ever of China invading.

So now we know it’s absolutely the US trying to start a conflict with China to invade Taiwan. They want this kind of news to leak out so China would be emboldened to attack.

*Edit: And if anyone says it’s about semiconductors, you don’t understand how semiconductor manufacturing works. Any violent conflict would pretty much result in a total destruction of the semiconductor factory.

Except by your own argument it really is. The UK has blocked many sites for many reasons. However, none of those reasons are for crowd control. Your example is ironically proof of the statement. This is the first time a western nation has banned media for the explicit purpose of quelling a protest and suppressing speech. Your example is a government banning a site not to quell a protest or to suppress speech, but instead because of a governmental disagreement between two nations. Now which one you think is valid for suppressing speech is a totally different question, only that they are two separate and completely different reasons.