Murder of Washington Post Journalist Jamal Khashoggi

pepe

Celestial
If a leader used gas to kill, why would he be such a coward to deny it? I am not sure he would use it. In the long run he stands to lose much more than he gains by making enemies of the world..

Imagine admitting to gassing thousands of your own or cleansing your own. World's most wanted topper.

They do it and all blame who ever they are gassing or a new entry to the picture, not the original rebels but now Islamic State who are a law unto themselves did it, AKA some of the rebels who want take it up a notch.
 

bill.zen

I want to believe
Imagine admitting to gassing thousands of your own or cleansing your own.

True, but I believe that if country 2 blames country 1 of gassing its own citizens, it could be that country 2 wants something from 1 that it can’t get by conventional means. Meaning that it needs to lie about something to gain international support for whatever action it deems necessary.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
History has documented plenty of cases of government coverup, corruption, and lies.

For all sorts of reasons under all sorts of circumstances. We probably won't do much in this case - if there is truth to it - any more than we did about 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudi. I'm not saying their government was behind it but I am saying we weren't prepared (and still aren't) to confront them with rhetoric we have no problem using capriciously on others.

Clearly they have a very sharp dagger at our throats. One that we made and handed to them, and that goes well back into the 19th century and includes the US, England, France, Germany to start the list.

Here's the published #s:

How much petroleum does the United States import and export? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Frequently Asked Questions

How much petroleum does the United States import and export?

In 2017, the United States imported approximately 10.14 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 84 countries. Petroleum includes crude oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels including ethanol and biodiesel. Crude oil accounted for about 79% of U.S. gross petroleum imports in 2017 and non-crude oil petroleum accounted for about 21% of gross petroleum imports.

In 2017, the United States exported about 6.38 MMb/d of petroleum to 186 countries, of which about 18% was crude oil and 82% was non-crude oil petroleum. The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 3.77 MMb/d.

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2017 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Iraq.

Top sources and amounts of U.S. petroleum imports (percent share of total), respective exports, and net imports, 2017
million barrels per day

Import sources
Gross imports Exports Net imports
Total, all countries 10.14 6.38 3.77
OPEC countries 3.37 (33%) 0.19
3.17
Persian Gulf countries 1.75 (17%) 0.01 1.73
Top five countries1
Canada 4.05 (40%) 0.87 3.18
Saudi Arabia 0.96 (9%) <0.01 0.95
Mexico 0.68 (7%) 1.08 -0.40
Venezuela 0.67 (7%) 0.06 0.61
Iraq 0.60 (6%) <0.01 0.60

Note: Ranking in the table is based on gross imports by country of origin. Net imports volumes in the table may not equal gross imports minus exports because of independent rounding of data.
The top five destination countries of U.S. petroleum exports in 2017, export volume, and share of total petroleum exports

Mexico—1.08 MMb/d—17%
Canada—0.87 MMb/d—14%
China—0.45 MMb/d—7%
Brazil—0.40 MMb/d—6%
Japan—0.35 MMb/d—5%
 

Kchoo

At Peace.
Imagine admitting to gassing thousands of your own or cleansing your own. World's most wanted topper.

They do it and all blame who ever they are gassing or a new entry to the picture, not the original rebels but now Islamic State who are a law unto themselves did it, AKA some of the rebels who want take it up a notch.
What anoys me most is the accusations sound more like a witch hunt gaslighting than fact.

But ultimately, this leader needs to show true leadership. As the leader of the area where gas is used, he should show the world the truth. Own it, or fix the bastards that did it...
 

AD1184

Celestial
As the truth will never be known I will hazard a guess that Hussain gassed the Curds and Long neck did his own.
Saddam Hussein's gassing of Kurds in Halabja took place in 1988. Our governments at the time did not give much of a damn. The British Foreign Office issued a statement reading "We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions. Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq's behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail." Saddam was 'our man' at the time, of course. Just as Assad was one of ours until not so long ago:

article-2408805-1B94E57D000005DC-829_634x509.jpg


At left, John Kerry. At right, Bashar al-Assad. Their wives are in the middle.

No skipping in those examples necessary as they are none genocidal. But yeah if you are asking me, if it's stone cold and he deserves to meet his maker, then do it already.

You know as well as I, that honesty carries certain weight more so in certain countries.
If we take it for granted that Syria used chemical weapons when alleged in this conflict then those actions are not genocidal. Genocide and mass murder are not the same thing. Saddam's gassing of Kurds was arguably genocidal because it was aimed at a particular ethnic group and killed many more than are alleged to have been killed in supposed nerve gas attacks in Syria.

Many more peaceful protesters (around six-hundred) were killed in Egypt in 2013 by the military junta which seized power in that country after its first democratic election achieved the wrong result. We all looked the other way. As we did when around a thousand peaceful protesters were murdered by China in the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. The culprits of that atrocity are now granted state visits in the west.

In Syria, the information we received about chemical attacks was controlled by Islamist rebels who are allied with al Qaeda (the al Nusra Front). The OPCW was unable to investigate the incidents in accordance with its own protocols (except for the last one, where they found no trace of nerve agent). Where sarin-like substances were found, the samples had been passed to them with no chain of custody and no sarin-like substance was ever recovered by the OPCW itself. It was of no strategic value for Assad to use chemical weapons. He has been winning the fight, and the odd single-munition chemical weapon attack would not speed that up in any way.

Our actions in the middle east are fundamentally dishonest. We make a pretence that they are based on morality, when in truth they are taken in appeasement of Saudi Arabia, whose actions and aims are not moral, as we would recognize the term moral. Saudi policy becomes our policy. Assad is a monster, sure, but his opponents are lunatics, and it is only because of Saudi demands that we support the lunatics over Assad.
 

pepe

Celestial
True, but I believe that if country 2 blames country 1 of gassing its own citizens, it could be that country 2 wants something from 1 that it can’t get by conventional means. Meaning that it needs to lie about something to gain international support for whatever action it deems necessary.

So you think the leaders of the West have fabricated events in order to secure oil. I have a more positive outlook and see us as acting on both counts or chemical usage as paramount.

This bed of conspiracy made when our actions have good intention at heart is one I can't lay in. The oil in Iraq was left as a symbol I guess. Hello by the way bill.
 

pepe

Celestial
Saddam Hussein's gassing of Kurds in Halabja took place in 1988. Our governments at the time did not give much of a damn. The British Foreign Office issued a statement reading "We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions. Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq's behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail." Saddam was 'our man' at the time, of course. Just as Assad was one of ours until not so long ago:

article-2408805-1B94E57D000005DC-829_634x509.jpg


At left, John Kerry. At right, Bashar al-Assad. Their wives are in the middle.


If we take it for granted that Syria used chemical weapons when alleged in this conflict then those actions are not genocidal. Genocide and mass murder are not the same thing. Saddam's gassing of Kurds was arguably genocidal because it was aimed at a particular ethnic group and killed many more than are alleged to have been killed in supposed nerve gas attacks in Syria.

Many more peaceful protesters (around six-hundred) were killed in Egypt in 2013 by the military junta which seized power in that country after its first democratic election achieved the wrong result. We all looked the other way. As we did when around a thousand peaceful protesters were murdered by China in the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. The culprits of that atrocity are now granted state visits in the west.

In Syria, the information we received about chemical attacks was controlled by Islamist rebels who are allied with al Qaeda (the al Nusra Front). The OPCW was unable to investigate the incidents in accordance with its own protocols (except for the last one, where they found no trace of nerve agent). Where sarin-like substances were found, the samples had been passed to them with no chain of custody and no sarin-like substance was ever recovered by the OPCW itself. It was of no strategic value for Assad to use chemical weapons. He has been winning the fight, and the odd single-munition chemical weapon attack would not speed that up in any way.

Our actions in the middle east are fundamentally dishonest. We make a pretence that they are based on morality, when in truth they are taken in appeasement of Saudi Arabia, whose actions and aims are not moral, as we would recognize the term moral. Saudi policy becomes our policy. Assad is a monster, sure, but his opponents are lunatics, and it is only because of Saudi demands that we support the lunatics over Assad.

Monsters and lunatics vs Stolen valour. I'm not sure about that one.

The facts are as clear as mud in the Middle East. Because their is no respecting the truth, you reckon those who gather intelligence don't factor any of that in.

So as you highlight many mass killings in the world go blindly by and yes I know, but chem and the genocide possibilities or achievements do in fact take center stage. Or we who wear the gown of stolen valour are still indeed crusading foreign lands in order to prolong our lives of luxury by slaying thousands in the name of a lie. Bit of both but I'm as sure as dammit going to give humanity the bigger bit.
 

pepe

Celestial
What anoys me most is the accusations sound more like a witch hunt gaslighting than fact.

But ultimately, this leader needs to show true leadership. As the leader of the area where gas is used, he should show the world the truth. Own it, or fix the bastards that did it...

So heinous an act even Hitler tried to hide it. Imagine if he tried to pin it on rebels within his own ranks. Nobody can own it yet are low enough to use it, Russians are still at it on the sly but more a horse head in the bed scale.

We are the force of and for good and among our own is a faction who see it back to front.

Self harmers who don't like themselves as a nation.
 

AD1184

Celestial
Monsters and lunatics vs Stolen valour. I'm not sure about that one.

The facts are as clear as mud in the Middle East. Because their is no respecting the truth, you reckon those who gather intelligence don't factor any of that in.

So as you highlight many mass killings in the world go blindly by and yes I know, but chem and the genocide possibilities or achievements do in fact take center stage. Or we who wear the gown of stolen valour are still indeed crusading foreign lands in order to prolong our lives of luxury by slaying thousands in the name of a lie. Bit of both but I'm as sure as dammit going to give humanity the bigger bit.
I am not really sure what you are on about in most of this post. The term 'stolen valour' I have heard in reference to people who pose deceptively as veterans of conflicts which they took no part in. I do not understand its relevance to the current discussion.

I think those who gather intelligence for our countries are not the most honest of people, and may have aims that are different to what you and I would hope they were. Fundamentally they are a tool of the state, and are wielded to clandestinely achieve the state's aims, whether they be good or bad. Anyway, there has been reporting from confidential sources that there is scepticism within the intelligence community about the veracity of the evidence against Assad.

Chemical weapons were only supposedly used after Obama had announced that their use would be an arbitrary 'red line' leading to US military involvement in the conflict. Their use would not benefit Assad if it would draw America into the conflict, but their being seen to be used by Assad would strongly benefit rebel forces, who would benefit from American involvement.

Bombs and bullets kill just as well as poison gas. When people are bombed or shot, and have their limbs blown off and die in agony, they are not any more grateful for it. The alleged sporadic use of gas, enveloping a few handfuls of people at a time, is an entirely arbitrary thing to latch onto next to the scale of the fighting and all those who have been consumed by it.
 

pepe

Celestial
I am not really sure what you are on about in most of this post. The term 'stolen valour' I have heard in reference to people who pose deceptively as veterans of conflicts which they took no part in. I do not understand its relevance to the current discussion.

I think those who gather intelligence for our countries are not the most honest of people, and may have aims that are different to what you and I would hope they were. Fundamentally they are a tool of the state, and are wielded to clandestinely achieve the state's aims, whether they be good or bad. Anyway, there has been reporting from confidential sources that there is scepticism within the intelligence community about the veracity of the evidence against Assad.

Chemical weapons were only supposedly used after Obama had announced that their use would be an arbitrary 'red line' leading to US military involvement in the conflict. Their use would not benefit Assad if it would draw America into the conflict, but their being seen to be used by Assad would strongly benefit rebel forces, who would benefit from American involvement.

Bombs and bullets kill just as well as poison gas. When people are bombed or shot, and have their limbs blown off and die in agony, they are not any more grateful for it. The alleged sporadic use of gas, enveloping a few handfuls of people at a time, is an entirely arbitrary thing to latch onto next to the scale of the fighting and all those who have been consumed by it.

My linking of stolen valour is connected to a pretence of morality you say we operate under. Claiming to be one thing when in fact it is not the case.

I personally see gassing as a whole other level and just because someone red lines it, doesn't mean thoughts on the subject would differ as from before. Bombs and bullets are different to me as the gassing can do so much more damage in one event and the tactic is essence of cowardice evil.
 
Last edited:

wwkirk

Celestial

wwkirk

Celestial
The latest. (Face saving. Scapegoat.)
Saudis preparing to admit Jamal Khashoggi died during interrogation, sources say
The Saudis are preparing a report that will acknowledge that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's death was the result of an interrogation that went wrong, one that was intended to lead to his abduction from Turkey, according to two sources.

One source says the report will likely conclude that the operation was carried out without clearance and transparency and that those involved will be held responsible.

One of the sources acknowledged that the report is still being prepared and cautioned that things could change.
 

pepe

Celestial
It will also enable Trump to conveniently sweep the mess under the carpet:


The classic faceless third party did it. What else can he say when there is nothing else to report but the answers to his direct questions.

Business is business and doesn't mix with pleasure or the opposite. He is quite open about putting his nation first in terms of offense and defence of the economy. He is hated for it as it leaves him no time to worry on the previous level. I find that endearing.
 

Kchoo

At Peace.
The classic faceless third party did it. What else can he say when there is nothing else to report but the answers to his direct questions.

Business is business and doesn't mix with pleasure or the opposite. He is quite open about putting his nation first in terms of offense and defence of the economy. He is hated for it as it leaves him no time to worry on the previous level. I find that endearing.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think your IQ must be way above average.
 

pepe

Celestial
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think your IQ must be way above average.

That is a compliment but I am sure I am around just below average. I have wasted an awful lot of time justifying why we do what we do and complain about what ever we end up doing.
 
Top