The House of Saud at it again (Khashoggi disappearance)

[GG]

16 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He interviewed OBS before 9/11. Was pictured openly with AQ members and an RPG launcher:

(center)

 

Due to the inherent western IC connections between the Mujaheddin and OBS prior to 9/11 - as well as his employment in the Langley owned WaPo - it's 99% certain he was an intelligence asset himself. A go-between to spin stories that need spinning. This is more common than you'd think. 

 

His relationship with bin Talal is also well documented. Bin Talal - who at one point owned CitiBank and the largest shares of Twitter, 20th Century Fox, and other US media corporations - has not just blood on his hands as a known financier of both Shia and Sunni terror groups (including AQ), he also work(ed) closely with the USIC for many, many years and was an active donor to many political campaigns. Bin Talal was confined, fined, and tortured for days by MBS in 2017 for these crimes. 

 

He has a serious ax to grind with both MBS and Trump. Khshoggi was one of his mouthpieces in KSA (and the west). 

 

This is spook on spook crime - not an innocent journalist getting whacked. You just won't hear it reported that way. 

 

 

As a writer (even in fiction) my entire job depends on freedom of expression and the press, so I'm sensitive to it. But Trump's words don't bother me because I've heard them in context. He's never referred to the press corps or the press as an enemy of the people. He very clearly defines a subset of the press that intentionally misleads the public (in stories just like this) to cover up the sins of spooks and nation states across the world.

 

To me, that's a very clear distinction - but it's intentionally conflated by the press because "Orange man bad". 

 

Stop perpetuating myths.  Bin Talal never "owned" Citicorp.  He had a large passive stake in the bank after one of its many missteps.

[Deranged Rhino]

43 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Stop perpetuating myths.  Bin Talal never "owned" Citicorp.  He had a large passive stake in the bank after one of its many missteps.

 

Bin Talal was heavily invested and the major shareowner of major financial institutions, media conglomerates, and Silicon Valley tech companies for decades- while being heavily involved in financing political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. He was one of the richest men in the world. 

 

He did all that while also financing both Sunni and Shia terror cells around the region.

 

Bin Talal is not just a bad guy, he's the worst kind of guy you could hope to meet. Yet he was given a pass for years due to his investments and political connections. Don't try to pretend he wasn't a major player in finance, tech, and media. 

[3rdnlng]

Trump actually has a policy in the Middle East which includes an alliance with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia. This alliance basically opposes Iran and its nuclear ambitions and support of terrorism, not only in the ME but around the world. Saudi Arabia is a key part of that alliance. A murder happened in the Saudi embassy in Turkey. From all accounts it was horrific and caused and known about beforehand by the upper echelons of the Saudi government. With that said, a thousand people are killed or murdered every day in that area of the world. Should we as a country denounce it? Sure. Should we upset our alliance that includes Saudi Arabia over this? Hell no. The world's a tough place and adhering to well thought out policies is in our interest as a country. Trump has responded to this in the proper way. He's spoken out about and put sanctions on several Saudi citizens. As far as upsetting our alliance, he's not doing a damn thing. That's good.

 

Before Trump we were lacking any coherent policy. All  Obama did was draw red lines in the sand and ignore them while supplying our enemies with weapons. He "droned" indiscrimately and paid ransom money to our enemies. All the people getting their panties in a wad over the killing are about 10 years too late.

[GG]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Bin Talal was heavily invested and the major shareowner of major financial institutions, media conglomerates, and Silicon Valley tech companies for decades- while being heavily involved in financing political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. He was one of the richest men in the world. 

 

He did all that while also financing both Sunni and Shia terror cells around the region.

 

Bin Talal is not just a bad guy, he's the worst kind of guy you could hope to meet. Yet he was given a pass for years due to his investments and political connections. Don't try to pretend he wasn't a major player in finance, tech, and media. 

There's a world of difference between being one of the world's biggest dumb money investors and the Fed bailing out Citibank to hep Bin Talal.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

There's a world of difference between being one of the world's biggest dumb money investors and the Fed bailing out Citibank to hep Bin Talal.

?

 

I didn't make the last point. It's irrelevant to the discussion. The point is Bin Talal and his money was at the forefront of several major industries in the west - including banks, social media, and entertainment - all the while he was cozying up to western politicians and the IC AND funding terrorism on all sides. 

 

He was and continues to be given a pass by the same media establishment and western politicians he used to own. 

 

That those media outlets and politicians are the ones most upset about this murder is telling. This isn't about a dead spook. It's about Bin Talal v MBS. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

?

 

I didn't make the last point. It's irrelevant to the discussion. The point is Bin Talal and his money was at the forefront of several major industries in the west - including banks, social media, and entertainment - all the while he was cozying up to western politicians and the IC AND funding terrorism on all sides. 

 

He he was and continues to be given a pass by the same media establishment and western politicians he used to own. 

 

That those media outlets and politicians are the ones most upset about this murder is telling. This isn't about a dead spook. It's about Bin Talal v MBS. 

 

You most certainly did in prior discussions.

 

 

[Witless Bills Fan]

A grown up assessment of this story

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/21/dc-establishment-gets-almost-everything-wrong-trumps-saudi-posture/

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, GG said:

You most certainly did in prior discussions.

 

It's irrelevant to the discussion of Bin Talal v MBS and how Khashoggi ties in. It's also sidestepping the larger point: Bin Talal, a truly evil man (not a word I use lightly), owned politicians, Silicon Valley, and large swaths of the financial sector and entertainment sector for many years. He nurtured Obama's political career from the start, for example. And because of these compromising connections, he was given a free pass to finance terror around the globe by those very same politicians, media establishments, and tech companies. 

 

They're still covering for him. His affluence and influence is undeniable - as are his connections to terror financing, human trafficking, and all manner of evil. 

 

You scoff (and I get it) when I bring up a cabal and ask for names. Bin Talal is one such name. He's a threat - not to this country but to humanity, and he's treated with kid gloves by the WaPo, NYTs, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Obama, Bush, and the Clintons... because he owns them. 

[Deranged Rhino]

(yet again we were well ahead of the curve re: the fiance story)

 

[GoBills808]

My guess is that as time goes on it's going to be increasingly hard to sell MbS as a reformist, or even an ally. His military intervention in Yemen has exacerbated the civil war and contributed to the ongoing humanitarian crisis (not to mention entrench AQ/ISIS elements), his domestic platform wrt human rights issues is oxymoronic, and state-sanctioned assassinations of dissidents (however complicated and/or condoned by the US) is not a responsible method of governance. 

 

I believe he's vastly overplaying his hand. Those military contracts the president speaks of aren't going anywhere, that's entrenched policy and the lifeblood of the House of Saud. Reducing oil production to the US is an empty threat imo as it would directly contradict their ability to contain Iran via sanctions...Iranian oil gets more attractive as Saudi production decreases. 

[Nanker]

Remember, MBS had Alwaleed Bin Talal arrested in his  sweeping takeover of the Saudi Kingdom last year. He had to pay up $$$Billions to gain his release. I recall at the time that Gregg didn’t think he had that much cash and that he would likely end up dead or worse. 

 

Maybe ABT has a friend in Erdogan. They probably have ties that go back to the Ottoman Empire. 

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Remember, MBS had Alwaleed Bin Talal arrested in his  sweeping takeover of the Saudi Kingdom last year. He had to pay up $$$Billions to gain his release. I recall at the time that Gregg didn’t think he had that much cash and that he would likely end up dead or worse. 

 

Maybe ABT has a friend in Erdogan. They probably have ties that go back to the Ottoman Empire. 

Tough to make that connection resonate w/ DR's theory now that Erdogan has publicly accused Soros of inciting division in Turkey. The points don't match up.

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

My guess is that as time goes on it's going to be increasingly hard to sell MbS as a reformist, or even an ally. His military intervention in Yemen has exacerbated the civil war and contributed to the ongoing humanitarian crisis (not to mention entrench AQ/ISIS elements), his domestic platform wrt human rights issues is oxymoronic, and state-sanctioned assassinations of dissidents (however complicated and/or condoned by the US) is not a responsible method of governance. 

 

I believe he's vastly overplaying his hand. Those military contracts the president speaks of aren't going anywhere, that's entrenched policy and the lifeblood of the House of Saud. Reducing oil production to the US is an empty threat imo as it would directly contradict their ability to contain Iran via sanctions...Iranian oil gets more attractive as Saudi production decreases. 

 

Yemen is an Iranian proxy war. MBS didn't start it, and the efforts of the GCC/West over the past two years in terms of hitting Hamas and Hezbollah in multiple theaters at once has brought Iran to the brink of losing in Yemen. 

 

With or without MBS, Yemen will not be fixed until Iran/Hezbollah backs off. That won't happen until the Mullahs are gone... and that's coming.

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Tough to make that connection resonate w/ DR's theory now that Erdogan has publicly accused Soros of inciting division in Turkey. The points don't match up.

 

The cabal is not monolithic. They fight with each other often, and openly (through proxies). The only thing they agree on is the desire to remain in the shadows rather than on the front page. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yemen is an Iranian proxy war. MBS didn't start it, and the efforts of the GCC/West over the past two years in terms of hitting Hamas and Hezbollah in multiple theaters at once has brought Iran to the brink of losing in Yemen. 

 

With or without MBS, Yemen will not be fixed until Iran/Hezbollah backs off. That won't happen until the Mullahs are gone... and that's coming.

I don't dispute that. It was more a call to question his capacity as a military policymaker/strategist (I believe he was Minister of Defense at the time they decided to get involved?)...motivations aside, wouldn't you conclude Saudi intervention in Yemen has not had the desired effect?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I don't dispute that. It was more a call to question his capacity as a military policymaker/strategist (I believe he was Minister of Defense at the time they decided to get involved?)...motivations aside, wouldn't you conclude Saudi intervention in Yemen has not had the desired effect?

 

Oh, I'm no fan of what's been happening in Yemen. Spilled a lot of digital ink here bashing the Saudis for their waging of that war in 2015-2016. But there's been a marked change in tactics, and success since MBS took over in November of '17. The Houthis have been on the run (and are talking peace for the first time) because their funding from Iran has dried up as the Iranian economy has plummeted. 

 

War's terrible. Proxy wars even more so because they're brutal for the civilian populations. But removing MBS only strengthens the Mullah's hold on power in Iran, and would allow them to reestablish supply lines and funding into Yemen, further exacerbating the war. 

 

MBS is trying to end not just one war, but several. All at once. He's not a reformer for how he wages war, he's a reformer for how he's changing and opening the Saudi culture to the west. 

 

If you want to end the war in Yemen, and I think we both do, we need to focus on ousting the Mullahs, not MBS. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Oh, I'm no fan of what's been happening in Yemen. Spilled a lot of digital ink here bashing the Saudis for their waging of that war in 2015-2016. But there's been a marked change in tactics, and success since MBS took over in November of '17. The Houthis have been on the run (and are talking peace for the first time) because their funding from Iran has dried up as the Iranian economy has plummeted. 

 

War's terrible. Proxy wars even more so because they're brutal for the civilian populations. But removing MBS only strengthens the Mullah's hold on power in Iran, and would allow them to reestablish supply lines and funding into Yemen, further exacerbating the war. 

 

MBS is trying to end not just one war, but several. All at once. He's not a reformer for how he wages war, he's a reformer for how he's changing and opening the Saudi culture to the west. 

 

If you want to end the war in Yemen, and I think we both do, we need to focus on ousting the Mullahs, not MBS. 

I disagree with you fundamentally on MbS and his motivations but there's a ton of common ground between us about how violence and the threat of violence is used politically. It's one of the reasons I jumped in this thread. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

I disagree with you fundamentally on MbS and his motivations but there's a ton of common ground between us about how violence and the threat of violence is used politically. It's one of the reasons I jumped in this thread. 

 

 

 

Topics like this are so complex and divisive that disagreements are to be expected. I try to learn as much as I can from other people's perspectives, to better inform my own, so I'm never afraid of that. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[GoBills808]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This statement is a poignant example of the collective schizophrenia our country is suffering from due to hyper-partisanship.

 

It's 100% true. It's also pretty transparent attempt to justify the long-standing brutality of US foreign policy through equivocation. And people eat it up.

 

The continuation of a decades old campaign of using military and quasimilitary assets to 'manage' our interests abroad deserves a MUCH better lens than which side of the aisle you tend to agree with.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

This statement is a poignant example of the collective schizophrenia our country is suffering from due to hyper-partisanship.

 

It's 100% true. It's also pretty transparent attempt to justify the long-standing brutality of US foreign policy through equivocation. And people eat it up.

 

The continuation of a decades old campaign of using military and quasimilitary assets to 'manage' our interests abroad deserves a MUCH better lens than which side of the aisle you tend to agree with.

 

Agreed for the most part - and it's posts like this that make me want to suggest you take an honest look at the changes to US foreign policy since Trump took over despite your feelings about the man. He ran on changing precisely that long standing, bipartisan agenda. And now he's made tremendous strides to achieve what he campaigned on. It's why he's such a threat to both sides and the media. It's why the coverage is 94% negative and the comparisons to Hitler began on day one (despite no evidence of his policies/leadership being in any way fascist or repressive to civil rights/liberties). America First isn't isolationist, it isn't even nationalist as much as it is about changing that exact agenda.

 

Really smart men and women who spent their lives fighting for this country realize the truth of what you said above - and it's why they are working with Trump to change it despite the tremendous risk. The last president who so blatantly attempted to buck this bipartisan agenda wound up shot in Dallas.