4 ms·

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 b

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.

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.