Sure. Nothing at all.
Except that Prince Walid surrendered his investment to the same people who ran moles at Twitter.
Nothing to see here.
It's just a coincidence.
Move along.
The story likely plays out just the same regardless...
I get what you're saying but the whole "it's a conspiracy here is some unrelated thing I can't connect but I'm suspicious" thing is such an easy to do, the internet is full of it... I don't think it adds anything, or is even accurate.
And let's say somehow that thing with the investment doesn't happen.... I don't think that changes the story or the lessons from it.
They didn't really need the investment to plant the spies. He just applied for a job and got it. Any foreign spy can do the same and nothing will change.
This seems to me like focusing on the trees instead of the forest. I would think that when discussing Saudi control over a company, we might be interested in more than just some low-level henchmen, but maybe the Saudi prince who owns a third of the company.
To hear some other people talk, this is "conspiracy" territory now. But c'mon, we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company.
Comments
Sure. Nothing at all. Except that Prince Walid surrendered his investment to the same people who ran moles at Twitter. Nothing to see here. It's just a coincidence. Move along.
The story likely plays out just the same regardless...
I get what you're saying but the whole "it's a conspiracy here is some unrelated thing I can't connect but I'm suspicious" thing is such an easy to do, the internet is full of it... I don't think it adds anything, or is even accurate.
And let's say somehow that thing with the investment doesn't happen.... I don't think that changes the story or the lessons from it.
They didn't really need the investment to plant the spies. He just applied for a job and got it. Any foreign spy can do the same and nothing will change.
This seems to me like focusing on the trees instead of the forest. I would think that when discussing Saudi control over a company, we might be interested in more than just some low-level henchmen, but maybe the Saudi prince who owns a third of the company.
To hear some other people talk, this is "conspiracy" territory now. But c'mon, we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company.
Without proof for your second part... yes.