Jamal Khashoggi thread (murdered journalist)

Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabists...two sides of the same coin.

Also...I find it real easy that Biden is taking shots at Trump over this when the Obama administration turned man a blind eye to Saudi shit during their time.
 
What are the OBL links? I've read about his MB ones but not OBL.

It depends on which source you want to go to. At the very minimum he interviewed Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 80s, some sources say that he was sympathetic to Bin Laden and supported his campaign against the West, specifically the US.
 
It depends on which source you want to go to. At the very minimum he interviewed Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 80s, some sources say that he was sympathetic to Bin Laden and supported his campaign against the West, specifically the US.

Hmm roger. Cheers.
 
Well, there's religion, and there's the Muslim Brotherhood. Several countries, including Saudi Arabia, consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization. So they might be the loudest in the most violent, but who knows how much influence they actually have with Saudi Arabia?

I think the only reason that any American media is giving this a second thought is to try to use it in context of what Trump is or is not doing. Otherwise, I really don't think they care.

Like them or lump them, Saudi Arabia is a stable force in the region, and they can keep some of the more belligerent neighbors at bay. Not to mention their mutually beneficial economic ties to the US.

I don't know much about that guy that got turned into a human jigsaw puzzle, but it sounded like if anyone was deserving of a dirt nap, he was. Honestly I'm really not getting worked up about that.

The Muslim Brotherhood was banned in Syria, Russia, Bahrain, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, as best I can tell. As the Muslim Brotherhood seemed had a decent sized hand in the Arab Spring, it only makes sense that a number of Kingdoms in the area would designate them as a terrorist organization. Granted, that group could be a whole thread unto itself.

The Saudi's are important allies, true; that doesn't mean they are good allies. They use us just has much as we use them, mostly to keep Iran at bay.

I think it's big because he was probably the single largest dissident of the Saudi regime and Wahhabism at large. It's not big because they took him out, hell we should expect it, but it's big because of the "no fucks given" way in which the Saudi's did it.
 
Last edited:
What are the OBL links? I've read about his MB ones but not OBL.

He did a lot of interviews and travelling with OBL and the Mujahideen in the 80's; he felt that fighting the Communist invaders was a just cause.

He distanced himself after OBL became anti-western, at least according to his own writings. Hell, he was one of the first Saudi's to ask why some many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabia.

A journalist visiting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia recently asked me why five out of six students he interviewed at King Saud University still believe that Al Qaida was not responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in America last year? Dealing with this question is increasingly frustrating for me, because I have run out of plausible explanations.

I used to believe that denial of Saudi complicity in the attacks reflected our distress with what happened on that dark day. I hoped that we would have the courage to overcome our perceived humiliation and start looking deep into our national psyche, asking the big question, "Why did 15 of our young men attack America in so brutal a way?"

So far, we are no closer than we were after the attack to answering to this question, because we cannot even find the nerve to ask it. Had we been more confident and less full of bluster, we would have organized seminar after seminar to analyze what happened, to understand the reasons behind it, and to plan for a future without a similar tragedy. After all, Osama bin Laden's hijacked planes not only attacked New York and Washington, they also attacked Islam as a faith and the values of tolerance and coexistence that it preaches.

But despite the enormity of what happened, we remain in denial. We still cling to conspiracy theories even after bin Laden and his fellow conspirators bragged about their great "achievement." We continue to close our eyes to the fact that 19 young Muslim men decided to leave home, head for what they described as jihad, and became criminals.

It is past time to move forward. We must admit that 15 Saudis helped perpetrate the attacks on America of last September 11 th , and that hundreds of other Saudis were needlessly killed far away from home, in the mountains and villages of Afghanistan. We must uncover why Taliban-ruled Afghanistan seemed such an attractive destination for a significant portion of Saudi youth in the years before September 11 th . Afghanistan was a country where Muslims were killing each other. Any Muslim knew that his duty in this case was to try to reconcile the combatants, not join the violence.

When Arabs, including Saudis, first fought in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, their campaign was politically and religiously just. Afghan Muslims were confronting foreign aggressors who sought to impose Soviet-style communism upon them. The Mujahideen were overseen by responsible clerics, who gave a shining example to Saudi youth. Some of those young men remained in Afghanistan as Mujahideen entered Kabul to take part in the bitter infighting that led to the Taliban's rise. Others returned home and were welcomed as heroes.

Were those young men who returned home then wiser than today's Saudi youth? What happened in the last ten years that allowed extremists to find so many eager followers? Since September 11 th we have busied ourselves counseling the Americans, pointing out where they went wrong, but no one is listening. Instead, we should be remedying our own deficiencies. We should be trying to answer the question that the Americans have been asking us incessantly: why did young Saudi men take part in the attacks?

We must answer this question not for the Americans' sake, but for our own. It is not enough to say that the hijackers--and, indeed, the many Saudis being held at Guantanamo Bay--represent a subset of duped youngsters and that the rest of Saudi youth are different. That is true, of course, but the damage that this relatively small group inflicted was monumental. It is far better to try and understand their motives.
In our attempts to defend and justify ourselves over the past year, we Saudis learned about the consequences of extremism at Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City. We wrote about the Michigan Militia and other American radical extremists. Of course there is extremism in America--extremism as ugly as any that we have at home. But the Americans studied and analyzed minutely the Waco and Oklahoma City incidents on their own. The motives behind those attacks were examined in an effort to guarantee that such events would not recur.

We Saudis have failed to do the same. The most pressing issue now is to ensure that our children are never influenced by extremist ideas like those that misled 15 of our countrymen into hijacking four planes that fine September day, piloting them, and us, straight into the jaws of hell.
 
Soooooo.... no one thinks this is a great chance to put some sanctions/publicly shame one of the worst human rights violators in the modern world? AND give the opportunity for the president to do a little tough talking and look strong on the world stage? Gain some geopolitical leverage? Do almost nothing (in reality) but use that leverage to get the Saudi’s to stop beheading people in public and actually fund 2 or 3 of the proxy wars we are fighting for them behind closed doors without screwing up whatever balance (read: little to none) that region has?

Just me? Ok, welp, big gulps huh?
 
Last edited:
Soooooo.... no one thinks this is a great chance to put some sanctions/publicly shame one of the worst human rights violators in the modern world? AND give the opportunity for the president to do a little tough talking and look strong on the world stage? Gain some geopolitical leverage? Do almost nothing (in reality) but use that leverage to get the Saudi’s to stop beheading people in public and actually fund 2 or 3 of the proxy wars we are fighting for them behind closed doors without screwing up whatever balance (read: little to none) that region has?

Just me? Ok, welp, big gulps huh?

I'd prefer a full withdrawal from the region except to buttress Israel and Jordan.
 
The GCC is an interesting coalition with Saudi Arabia and the UAE jockeying for control. Saudi is the traditional leader, but the UAE has made its own moves. There's the possibility of a Saudi/ UAE split over the deseried end state in Yemen even though both sides are playing down that possibility. Qatar is a trash country, but we've invested heavily in Al Udeid. Kuwait is a group of snobbish, ungrateful people with proximity to Iraq and a lot of American military bases.

We could leverage the journalist's murder into some concessions, but would have to tead carefully and not overly antagonize the Saudi's. They are applying pressure to the Qatari dumpster fire and active in Yemen to offset Iran. We need Saudi, but we need them to be better partners.
 
Fair, but that’s a pipe dream for a lnogher day.

Today, though, we have this opportunity, and we are missing it. We are leaving valuable political leverage on the table, IMO.
Not sure what leverage we have in this and don't think we should give a fuck. Dude did it himself.

Geopolitically, are you ready to send the emissaries to Iran tomorrow to align with them? Why are we still in Syria? Turkey and Saudi flexing nuts? No thanks I want nothing to do with that.
 
Fair, but that’s a pipe dream for a lnogher day.

Today, though, we have this opportunity, and we are missing it. We are leaving valuable political leverage on the table, IMO.

I like the way you frame this, which is the same way I would: what's the best way for us to maximize our benefit.

I personally find it really hard to care about what happened to Khashoggi. A country killing a citizen of their country in someone else's country isn't a major problem for my country, IMO. This is especially true if the stories about Khashoggi's involvement with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Saudi intelligence, and the Muslim Brotherhood are true. The man was no friend of America's, or of the West's. And it appears he might have been spying for the Turks.

The only reason I think the US should do anything at all is because it damages our credibility as the moral standard bearer for the world to let this kind of thing go unaddressed, and it involves a very public spat between two of our allies. Additionally, if the US doesn't make something of a big deal out of this whenever it happens and whoever does it (looking at you Russia), it will encourage more of it and eventually someone will kills someone we actually *do* care about.

There are a couple of problems, though., with making this a really-super-big deal. First of all, we kill our own citizens too, we just call it "warfare" and don't try to cover it up so much: ACLU & CCR Lawsuit: American Boy Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

Secondly, for all of our "the Saudis need us more than we need them" talk, we need the Saudis, folks. They are useful regional allies, who are deathly enemies of our Iranian foes, who are taking the lead in dealing with the mess in Yemen, who want ISIS destroyed as much as we do (and are willing to do something about it), and who even help out behind the scenes with our Israel/Palestine problem.

Of course, the Saudis also promote and export Wahabbism, which is a problem for us (and the rest of the world). But I think that gets changed by a Westernized strongman, and it happens over time.

As a person, I think what happened is messed up. The Saudis straight up murdered that dude, cut his body up, and took it God-knows-where and did God-knows-what with it. From a realpolitik point of view though, I don't think it matters that much and I don't think we should jeopardize too much on his behalf. I think we should loudly publicly admonish the Saudi regime, make a show of some temporary sanctions (perhaps postponing this big arms deal everyone is talking about), allow the Saudis their show trial and allow their patsies to take the fall. Then we move on, after getting whatever we can out of the Saudis along the way.
 
Using this as a holding place....seems to be enough of a story to deserve it's own thread....I'm going to move the posts in the Trump thread here.
 
Using this as a holding place....seems to be enough of a story to deserve it's own thread....I'm going to move the posts in the Trump thread here.
Good call and thank you!

Agree with Mara... there is a situation to be exploited here. I am not smart enough to estimate ‘how much’, but I am smart enough to know that it’s more than ‘none’.

As for those that are taking the line of ‘he deserved it/what do you expect’- I’ll agree on the condition that we also agree that the people who did it ALSO agree a pee-pee whacking on some level because they’re pieces of shit, too.

And the opportunity for the president to look strong by tough talking a bit- it boggles my mind he hasn’t taken a hard line here even if it’s only talk. The dude talks constantly about fist fighting political opponents and we can’t get a little ‘fire and fury’ on this one?
 
Last edited:
I've withheld from posting in this discussion because I couldn't remember WTF I was trying to search for. Yay College...

From my understanding of this, and it's been a while since I've discussed this with anyone, but the actions of SA pose a huge issue for the US and our allies if we acknowledge that SA committed a human rights violation. IMO, it's bigger than looking for a political advantage. If we count on SA in that region to execute (lol...pun) their security obligations in the fight against terrorism, we would royally fuck up that partnership by admitting they done made a boo boo. See below.

The Leahy Laws or Leahy amendments are U.S. human rights laws that prohibit the U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense from providing military assistance to foreign security force units that violate human rights with impunity.[1] It is named after its principal sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).[2]

The law covering State Department funded aid is found in Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as amended most recently in January 2014).[7] It states:

(a) IN GENERAL. – No assistance shall be furnished under this Act or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.

The Department of Defense Appropriations version of the Leahy Law (10 U.S. Code § 2249e) reads:[8]
(a) In General.—
(1) Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.​
 
And the opportunity for the president to look strong by tough talking a bit- it boggles my mind he hasn’t taken a hard line here even if it’s only talk. The dude talks constantly about fist fighting political opponents and we can’t get a little ‘fire and fury’ on this one?

That one is easy...just like the Saudis did what they wanted under previous administrations. Oil market impact.
 
Back
Top