Comments

This is my leading theory about Khashoggi, too — 21 Comments

1. Erdogan is a would-be ally of Iran. This is a very suspicious set of circumstances. There are security cameras all around that embassy,.

2. I would look at what else may be going on between us (the US) and the Saudis just now. This charge by the Turks feels like a monkey wrench tossed in the works.

3. There was a video posted that the Saudi’s claimed was of Khashoggi getting into a car and LEAVING the Consulate.
   Someone later posted that K. wanted to go into hiding for various reasons, one of which was his “cold feet” about his upcoming marriage.
   Till a body shows up I have my doubts about all this, and have a feeling that an alive K. might show up in the future.

4. In the netherworld of the Internet is a lot of anti-Israel/anti-Saudi and, reflexively, pro-Iran/pro-Turkey sentiment. I am uncertain whether, as a force, it’s organized and troll-like, or just a lot of nuts and flakes who jump on board anything that involves hating Jews and hating the US, and backing anything else that hates Jews and the United States. I often see individuals that encompass this whole cycle: posting stuff about how Jews in general and Israel in particular are evil; how Wahhab was a Jew; and rationalizing, if not outright propagandizing, to put Iran and Turkey in a positive light.

   It is a long way from anything I have direct knowledge of, but logic tells me that the main thing that hates both Jews and Saudi Arabia are certain groups of Muslims. Nobody involved in this mess is above subterfuge, murder and falsifying things for the Western media, so blind belief is pretty foolish.

5. That’s my current theory, too: Khashoggi walked out of the consulate, was kidnapped by Turks, killed, sewn into a bag, and dropped in the Bosporus (there’s a history of that kind of thing). This would be an attempt to break up the Saudi-American relationship.

6. The Middle East is our global Chinatown. Erdogan is a master of the shell game. Intrigues that would never work in the West will run smooth as a Swiss watch there, because every country has a complete lock on the information and you can’t trust anybody to speak truthfully. For example, I’m still suspicious that the Turkish “coup attempt” of a few years ago was a fake to give Erdogan the opportunity to purge his rivals and dissenters, and scrap the Turkish constitution. I haven’t decided what to think about the current mess but it certainly looks like Byzantine intrigue, and the Turks and Qataris and the MB certainly have a vested interest in upsetting the Saudi applecart. I’m with Kate until I see some evidence to the contrary.

7. Given that the Turks claim he was murdered, I would put money on him being dead- that is a big claim for the Turks to make if Khashoggi isn’t known to be deceased. So I think the open question is how he died. On that, I will await more information.

   I found the CNN story from yesterday to suspicious- it was like somebody wanted to plant the flag on the Saudis murdered him theme, so the story ran that the Saudis “were going to admit” that he died in an interrogation gone wrong. That is quite clever formulation- it implies the Saudis are the source for the story by its very construction, and impossible to refute.

8. Germany’s Die Welt is reporting that Khashoggi was a spy masquerading as a journalist.

   If so, that changes the perspective.

9. Hmmm…where are all these leaks about Khashoggi’s demise coming from? Unnamed sources? Like…Iran? Turkey? Russia? Qatar? John Brennan? Susan Rice? Valerie Jarrett? Where are they coming from? I don’t know, and you don’t either. Anyone seen any evidence?
   This is a propaganda op all the way.

10. In the 70’s Khashoggi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe still was recently. Brennan springs to mind here, since none of the O admin has any love for the Saudis. Also possible that a Saudi faction not in favor of the Prince might have facilitated this.

11. Turkey is very different then we think http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/racists-baffled-by-fair-skinned-turk–20335 nothing beats looking at the media from a different country.

    Lots of tension with centuries of intrigue.

    PS it’s in English

12. Well, the GOP insistence on “innocent until proven guilty” went by the board in a hurry, didn’t it?
    Why are so many people in such a hurry to #BelieveTurks?
    So far, I think Pres. Trump is taking a sound position: don’t make any decisions until we actually know what happened.
    With, you know, evidence or something — not just hearsay from untrustworthy sources.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-on-khashoggi-case-decries-guilty-until-proven-innocent-claims

    “I think we have to find out what happened first,” Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent. I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I’m concerned.”

13. Nice to know that Stephen reads my comments …

    AesopFan on October 16, 2018 at 1:07 am at 1:07 am said:
    Thanks for the very complete picture of the story as we know it today – which is: we still know nothing about what happened to Khashoggi except what Turkey tells us — and we are expected to #BelieveTurks, for some cryptic reason; and people who read the MSM know nothing about Khashoggi himself except that he is missing and presumed dead — by people who have a vested interest in embarrassing MbS and Trump.
    * * *
    OCTOBER 16, 2018
    HMM: What the media aren’t telling you about Jamal Khashoggi….
    It seems possible that Khashoggi was murdered in order to embarrass Crown Prince bin Salman rather than to protect him.

    Posted by Stephen Green at 2:35 pm

14. Alls I want to know is, is he related to Adnan?

15. Guilt based on news stories is a terrible idea.
    Using news stories to look for more info is reasonable.

    (Now my Email* is blacked out, when I’ve saved my name, email…)

16. Are you reading Trump’s Tweets directly? (or relying on the MSM fakers?)

    Donald J. Trump
    ?@realDonaldTrump

    Just spoke with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who totally denied any knowledge of what took place in their Turkish Consulate. He was with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo…

    —
    Dems want Trump to stop the Saudis from a) fighting against Iran, and b) working with Israel.
    Dems are wrong and wrong, again.

    Even if it was Saudis who killed him, but especially if not (2) he’s alive, or (3) he was killed by non-Saudis, or (4) killed by anti-gov’t Saudis.

    Tho (1b) is also possible, killed by Saudis from gov’t by mistake, as compared to (1) killed by Saudi gov’t under orders from the top.

17. NEO: it appears that Graham isn’t saying “if” about the Crown Prince’s responsibility for the murder; he’s assuming it. This just seems wrong to me, and not smart.

    Its right and VERY smart… funny how if someone doesnt see a strategy, its stupid
    Even if they lose to said strategy, then the world is wrong it should of….

    the man entered where?
    and when you enter a place like that whose protection are you under?
    people do not think that your going to be held down, injected, cut up, and dissolved
    well most dont…

    in fact, its that reason that he probably thought it was ok to go to a consulate
    every consulate is watched, all the time, everywhere…

    sheer idiocy is to think that such a place is not watched
    and sheer idiocy to think that ones protection in such a place is not inviolate

    this is akin to killing the EMISSARY of a foreign head of state

    now given that here we do not discuss archives or new found information or corrected information, the rest would be too hard to explain in terms of the example “was worth the pain”

    The amount of harm a person like that which they killed is MORE DAMAGING than what they are going to experience for removing him. Murder? so what? One person is a trajedy, a thousand is a statistic, right?

    Balance that with the kind of information that is in Venona or Mitrokhin archives and many many others that dont have fancy names but were open for short periods of freedom!!!! (and allowes the US to fill in history for the public that our laws prevent us, as patrick moynihan pointed out… whose he? i dont know… but probably has more pull than i do – but not here)

    afraid of such things as:
    The Power of Disinformation
    The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination
    [bet you dont know who wrote THAT! find out what your assumptions are!]

    Secrecy is a form of government regulation.
    Excessive secrecy has significant consequences for the national interest when policy makers are not fully informed, the government is not held accountable for its actions, and the public cannot engage in informed debate.
    Some secrecy is important to minimize inappropriate diffusion of details of weapon systems design and ongoing security operations as well as to allow public servants to secretly consider a variety of policy options without fear of criticism.
    The best way to ensure that secrecy is respected, and that the most important secrets remain secret, is for secrecy to be returned to its limited but necessary role. Secrets can be protected more effectively if secrecy is reduced overall.
    [edited for length by n]

18. go here and read this line
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi_M%C3%BCnzenberg
    After directing the Comintern’s handling of the Sacco and Vanzetti case in 1925, Münzenberg took charge of the League against Imperialism, created in Brussels in 1927

    follow the link to:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti
    search for the term above: “Comintern”

    its not there… is it?
    why? its just one link BACKWARDS (which you cant do easily) away

    read:
    The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class – By Fred Siegel

    let me clue you in to a REAL EYE opener…

    Drawing on declassified commidern documents, stephen koch in his Double lives: Spies and writers in the secret soviet war against the west, explains that Munzenbergs insight was to recognize that cultural attitudes could be converted to political capital for the communist cause.

    Munzenbergs goal, koch writes, was “to create for the right-thinking non-communist west… the belief that… to criticize or challence soviet policy was the unfailing mark of a bad bigoted, and probably stupid person, while support was equally infallible proof of a forward looking mind commmitted to all that was best for humanity and mankind by an uplifting refinemnet of sensibility.”

    Isnt that EXACTLY what you guys complain about the POLAR LEFT today?

    THAT ATTUDE WAS GIVEN TO US IN 1930s and nurtured since then to fight the same fight with new people ignorant of the prior fight, and then win the fight that was lost last time

    Munzenberg also recognized that the principal counter myth to russian revolution was “the IDEA of America”

    Those soviet sympathizers seized upon the sensational events of sacco-Vanzetti case not with a view toward establishing the innocence of the accused, but to “instill a reflexive loathing of the united states and its people – to undermind the myth of the land of opportunity, the united states would be shown to as an almost insanely xenophobic place, murderously hostile to foreigners”

    what happened to supreme court justice is not what happened given the above
    and with the saudi’s killing someone
    well, that is also not what happened given the above
    nor is immigration
    nor is calling everyone a nazi

    They are just following stuff you didnt study or know from the 1930s strictly because you were told it was crazy, and they put skulls on sticks, and gave you attitude to be more curious elswhere less productive!!!

    if not, then explain this knowing what is now from 1920 and 1930s? where they were hip on recreating history applying what they learned, keeping what in the dark?

    discuss symptoms all you want
    you wont have time to get to the desease

19. Why care about Khashoggi?
    Because he wrote for the WaPo?

    The WaPoo has an interesting history with the MB.

    Also in February 2017, the Post contained an article about the proposed designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The article cited unidentified “experts” who claimed there was “no evidence” to support the claim that major US Muslim organizations are tied to the Global Muslim Brotherhood. The article also cited the very same groups’ own denial of such ties but failed to do even the most rudimentary investigative research regarding the US Muslim Brotherhood.
    The Washington Post seems to have come a long way from the days when it employed experienced investigative reporters with deep knowledge of the subjects on which they were reporting. For example in 2004 former investigative journalist Doug Farah wrote a series of groundbreaking articles on the Global Muslim Brotherhood for the Post. It does not seem likely that we will see reporters such as Farah featured in the Post anytime soon.

20. Artfldgr:

    I said it wasn’t smart because it’s premature, assuming facts not in evidence.

21. In his famous 1947 “Long Telegram” and subsequent Foreign Affairs article, George Kennan described what he thought was the “political personality of Soviet power.” It was an effort at what he called a “task of psychological analysis” to discern a “pattern of thought” and the “nature of the mental world of the Soviet leaders.”
    If Soviet “conduct is to be understood”—and, as a matter of American strategy, “effectively countered”—it required not only a grasp of the principles of Soviet ideology but the effects of “the powerful hands of Russian history and tradition.” Kennan thus argued that Josef Stalin and other Soviet leaders saw international politics and the struggle for power through a unique set of lenses, lenses that might filter and distort even nature’s purest colors and shapes. It mattered less what wavelengths objects reflected than what wavelengths appeared to Russian eyes.
    Kennan’s analysis described Russian “strategic culture,” that is, a set of deeply ingrained ideological, political, military, and even institutional habits and practices that color strategic decision-making and supreme command.

    He viewed Soviet behavior not as a break from past history, but as old Russian wine in new bottles.

    If that was true in 1947, and strategic culture is a slow-to-change thing, why not now?

    Why dont we ask neo? both myself, and victor david hansen above would like to know
    if you want to see ME asking the question, before hansen go back almost 10 years
    same question…
    [edited by n]

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>