5 ms·

The Saudis themselves aren’t claiming they didn’t kill Khashoggi, only that MBS was unaware of it. This boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? I’d be a lot more c

The Saudis themselves aren’t claiming they didn’t kill Khashoggi, only that MBS was unaware of it. This boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? I’d be a lot more concerned if they took a position that this was a total farce. They haven’t. Why do you think some kind of fake video or audio was needed then to convince world leaders that this has crossed a line? Also, how are the collective of regular people at all qualified to verify such a video? There are people whose job it is to do this kind of thing and if we think that is a broken system, that’s another issue altogether.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> This boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? No, the CIA position that MBS knew about and ordered the murder and that it was not a rogue operation does not differ only by “semantics” (except in the sense that every difference in meaning, even the mostvsubstantive, is “semantic”) from the “rogue operation” cover story that the KSA retreated to after their “he visited and left the consulate with no problem, if something happened it had nothing to do with us” story failed and then the “okay, he was killed in our embassy, but it was not murder, just a fight that he started” story also failed. > I’d be a lot more concerned if they took a position that this was a total farce. They did take that position until they realized that it wasn't working.
- codezero 8y ago
  So are you saying they changed their story to fit a false narrative? If so why would they do that? Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation, executed by Saudis, wouldn’t the Saudis still hold some responsibility? If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > So are you saying they changed their story to fit a false narrative? They changed their story from one false narrative (that exculpated them from any connection) through a series of others (which admitted slightly more connection in each, but in all cases carefully denied a direct role for the crown prince.) > If so why would they do that? The initial lie was to deflect any blame. The subsequent revisions were due to the fact that the initial lie was transparently false, so everyone assumed the worse, so they continued to search for a lie which would both be accepted and at least mitigate the blame the regime was getting. > Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation I'm not saying that, the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is. That's the story they've retreated to, all previous exculpatory stories having failed. > If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay. Since MBS is in the middle of massive purges to consolidate his absolute control under the cover of an anticorruption campaign, having the excuse of a rogue operation to also use in those purges isn't exactly inconvenient. But, yes, the “rogue operation” story does naturally bring some blame onto the government of the Kingdom, which is why it was the third story, and not the first.
    - codezero 8y ago
      I am not assuming you have an opinion or knowledge on this but you seem more informed than I am. If the Saudis are retreating to this story, what is the theory on what may have really happened? This back and forth, I thought, stemmed from the idea that the recording is or could have been faked (unclear by who, Turkey?), it sounds like, from what you said above, the tape doesn’t matter except that it caused Saudi Arabia to change its story. If it did, it sounds like it was a good thing since it made them retreat from as you said, a transparently false lie. At this point I’m not sure what my point is any more. Sorry :)
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > the Saudis are retreating to this story, what is the theory on what may have really happened? The dominant one (and what the CIA has reportedly concluded) is that the Crown Prince (the effective ruler of the Kingdom) ordered the murder; the precise motivation isn't (AFAIK) clear; Kashoggi was a critic of the regime with a significant media impact, but what in particular led to the killing is murky, but MBS isn't running a warm fuzzy regime that is generally respectful of human rights and individual liberty, so while them killing a dissident Saudi journalist abroad is unusual, it's not much outside of their normal patterns; murdering dissidents (or executing them without an opportunity for presenting a defense) isn't new, nor is surveillance and harassment of Saudi dissidents abroad. > This back and forth, I thought, stemmed from the idea that the recording is or could have been faked (unclear by who, Turkey?) Yes, and that was the initial Saudi claim when Turkey claimed to have tape. Apparently, some of Saudi Arabia’s defenders haven't caught up with the new regime story, which no longer denies anything that is believed based on the tape alone, but only the attribution of the acts captured in the tape to the command of the leadership rather than rogue elements, which (AFAIK) is not at all rooted in the tape content itself.
        codezero 8y ago
        Thanks for all this.
creaghpatr 8y ago
The video itself has become a litmus test in the media so it's definitely relevant. The media are particularly obsessed with whether or not Trump has seen the tape, with the implication that it would influence his view on the matter. There is a lot of pressure in the media (including leaks of the transcript by the CIA) for the President to watch the tape. Headline of this article: "Khashoggi Trump refuses to listen to audio tape of Jamal Khashoggi's 'vicious' murder" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/jamal-khashoggi-killers-may-have-taken-body-parts-out-of-turkey-in-luggage https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/jamal-khashogg... edit: *leaks https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/10/cant-breathe-khashoggi/2271797002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/10/cant-breathe-...
- codezero 8y ago
  I kind of get your point - if his view is different only because he hasn’t seen the tape that is interesting. This suggests the tape is the only evidence of wrongdoing? I thought there was sigint showing calls being made to and from the embassy from MBS, and other corroborating evidence, and the tape was meant to be the smoking gun. Maybe I’m just brainwashed. I think my take is something horrific happened and someone should be answering for it, we rarely have a smoking gun and still need to make decisions based on the information we have, it’s odd to me that this thread kind of is telling me, or I’m way misinterpreting things (possibly!), that the tape’s existence brings everything we know into doubt because it could be faked and we should pretend nothing happened, or just let the Saudis tend their own house, ignoring our shared economic and military ties.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> This boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? No, the CIA position that MBS knew about and ordered the murder and that it was not a rogue operation does not differ only by “semantics” (except in the sense that every difference in meaning, even the mostvsubstantive, is “semantic”) from the “rogue operation” cover story that the KSA retreated to after their “he visited and left the consulate with no problem, if something happened it had nothing to do with us” story failed and then the “okay, he was killed in our embassy, but it was not murder, just a fight that he started” story also failed. > I’d be a lot more concerned if they took a position that this was a total farce. They did take that position until they realized that it wasn't working.

codezero 8y ago
So are you saying they changed their story to fit a false narrative? If so why would they do that? Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation, executed by Saudis, wouldn’t the Saudis still hold some responsibility? If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So are you saying they changed their story to fit a false narrative? They changed their story from one false narrative (that exculpated them from any connection) through a series of others (which admitted slightly more connection in each, but in all cases carefully denied a direct role for the crown prince.) > If so why would they do that? The initial lie was to deflect any blame. The subsequent revisions were due to the fact that the initial lie was transparently false, so everyone assumed the worse, so they continued to search for a lie which would both be accepted and at least mitigate the blame the regime was getting. > Also, if you are saying it was a rogue operation I'm not saying that, the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is. That's the story they've retreated to, all previous exculpatory stories having failed. > If say, US special forces or the CIA killed a journalist critical of the US against the intent of the commander in chief, someone still is going to have hell to pay. Since MBS is in the middle of massive purges to consolidate his absolute control under the cover of an anticorruption campaign, having the excuse of a rogue operation to also use in those purges isn't exactly inconvenient. But, yes, the “rogue operation” story does naturally bring some blame onto the government of the Kingdom, which is why it was the third story, and not the first.
  - codezero 8y ago
    I am not assuming you have an opinion or knowledge on this but you seem more informed than I am. If the Saudis are retreating to this story, what is the theory on what may have really happened? This back and forth, I thought, stemmed from the idea that the recording is or could have been faked (unclear by who, Turkey?), it sounds like, from what you said above, the tape doesn’t matter except that it caused Saudi Arabia to change its story. If it did, it sounds like it was a good thing since it made them retreat from as you said, a transparently false lie. At this point I’m not sure what my point is any more. Sorry :)
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > the Saudis are retreating to this story, what is the theory on what may have really happened? The dominant one (and what the CIA has reportedly concluded) is that the Crown Prince (the effective ruler of the Kingdom) ordered the murder; the precise motivation isn't (AFAIK) clear; Kashoggi was a critic of the regime with a significant media impact, but what in particular led to the killing is murky, but MBS isn't running a warm fuzzy regime that is generally respectful of human rights and individual liberty, so while them killing a dissident Saudi journalist abroad is unusual, it's not much outside of their normal patterns; murdering dissidents (or executing them without an opportunity for presenting a defense) isn't new, nor is surveillance and harassment of Saudi dissidents abroad. > This back and forth, I thought, stemmed from the idea that the recording is or could have been faked (unclear by who, Turkey?) Yes, and that was the initial Saudi claim when Turkey claimed to have tape. Apparently, some of Saudi Arabia’s defenders haven't caught up with the new regime story, which no longer denies anything that is believed based on the tape alone, but only the attribution of the acts captured in the tape to the command of the leadership rather than rogue elements, which (AFAIK) is not at all rooted in the tape content itself.
      - codezero 8y ago
        Thanks for all this.

creaghpatr 8y ago

The video itself has become a litmus test in the media so it's definitely relevant. The media are particularly obsessed with whether or not Trump has seen the tape, with the implication that it would influence his view on the matter. There is a lot of pressure in the media (including leaks of the transcript by the CIA) for the President to watch the tape. Headline of this article: "Khashoggi Trump refuses to listen to audio tape of Jamal Khashoggi's 'vicious' murder" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/jamal-khashoggi-killers-may-have-taken-body-parts-out-of-turkey-in-luggage https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/18/jamal-khashogg... edit: *leaks https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/10/cant-breathe-khashoggi/2271797002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/10/cant-breathe-...

codezero 8y ago
I kind of get your point - if his view is different only because he hasn’t seen the tape that is interesting. This suggests the tape is the only evidence of wrongdoing? I thought there was sigint showing calls being made to and from the embassy from MBS, and other corroborating evidence, and the tape was meant to be the smoking gun. Maybe I’m just brainwashed. I think my take is something horrific happened and someone should be answering for it, we rarely have a smoking gun and still need to make decisions based on the information we have, it’s odd to me that this thread kind of is telling me, or I’m way misinterpreting things (possibly!), that the tape’s existence brings everything we know into doubt because it could be faked and we should pretend nothing happened, or just let the Saudis tend their own house, ignoring our shared economic and military ties.