Something's Strange About the Khashoggi Affair
News Flash!!-- Saudis Kill Man!
Does that news flash sound strange to anyone?
Why is the media so absorbed in the matter of the alleged (or likely) Saudi killing of Jamal Khashoggi? Does the media not know that the Saudis kill people all the time? The Saudi led genocidal war in Yemen has not shocked their sensibilities enough to raise a fuss, but the possible killing of someone who wrote for the Washington Post-- now that just goes too far! What about Obama? Remember how he ordered the assassination, by predator drone, of an american citizen-- actually, two american citizens, one of whom was a 16 year old boy? There wasn't much of a fuss about that now was there? How about when the 28 pages, which showed that Saudi Prince Bandar directly funded the persons providing the leading 9/11 hijackers with all of their needs in the preparatory phases of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, were released? Not a peep.
Let's think about this for a second.
We know 1.) That Trump was aware of the issue of Saudi Involvement in 9/11 at the time of his presidential campaign. We know this because he issued very strong statements to that effect. 2.) That the first country which Trump visited after his election was Saudi Arabia.
Given these two facts, we ask the following question: Did Trump raise the issue of Saudi involvement in 9/11 with MbS when he met with him in that visit to SA?
We can answer that question in one of two ways. 1.) He did not. 2.) He did.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that the answer to the question is option #1.
Assuming, then, that option #2 is the correct answer, let us proceed to imagine the different ways in which the issue might have been raised.
1.) The hard line approach: Trump denounces the Saudis and cancels all military, economic, and other kinds of ties with the government which assisted in mass-murdering 3000 Americans.
2.) The means of escape approach: Trump raises the issue as something of great concern to him, and asks MbS for assistance in identifying any persons in the Saudi system that might have been complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
3.) The innuendo approach: Trump does not directly raise the issue, but only hints that he is aware of it in order to encourage MbS and company respond accordingly. That is, Trump takes option #2, but indirectly.
As is obvious, option #1 did not occur. Options #2 and #3 are, essentially, equivalent. Let us assume, then, that it was either of the latter two options.
Now, consider that four months after Trump's visit to SA, MbS initiated a major "corruption purge" within the Kingdom. (As a side note, it was even reported at the time that Prince Bandar had been arrested in the purge- although, given his public appearances lately, that seems unlikely-- unless he was subsequently released.) Is it possible that the "corruption purge" was but an instance of MbS putting into execution the actions which would have been prompted by a request from the President of the United States to "round up" those in the Kingdom that were complicit in the 9/11 attacks? (Or, alternatively, is it possible that the purge was already planned as a consolidation of power by MbS, but that the before-mentioned request by Trump led MbS to carry out the already-planned purge in such a way as to answer, in some degree, that request?) If we assume that Trump raised the issue, it seems strongly suggested by the timing of this purge that this is so.
Assuming, then, that the purge was a response to Trump's raising of 9/11 with the Saudis (or, that, at least, certain actions within the otherwise pre-planned purge were taken in response to Trump's raising of the issue), we cannot but conclude that whatever networks within SA, or within other countries, which were complicit in 9/11 would seek to destroy MbS for taking an action which brought them one step closer to justice. (This would be the case even if we assume that the purge had nothing to do with MbS's response to Trump's raising of 9/11, but that he did take other actions which were responses to it.)
Now, apparently, Khashoggi was an insider-- someone who "knew where the bodies were buried" in the Kingdom. He was an adviser to non other than Prince Turki bin-Faisal--, former Saudi Ambassador to Britain and the US and head of Saudi Intelligence at the time of 9/11, the sister of whom, Haifa bint Faisal, is the wife of Prince Bandar, who we know to have also directly funded the 9/11 hijackers at the time of 9/11 along with Bandar. Zacarias Moussaoui, whom judge Leonie M. Brinkema called "completely competent" and "an extremely intelligent man" testified, in a written oath to the court, that Prince Turki provided funding for the 9/11 attacks.
So, let's assume that Khashoggi had knowledge of the role of SA in 9/11. Given all that has been said above, consider that Khashoggi's first article with the Washington Post was an attack on MbS, specifically, in response to the corruption purge of September 2017.
If we assume that the corruption purge, or something in the corruption purge, was a response by MbS to Trump's raising of the 9/11 issue, and if we assume that Khashoggi was within the circle of those complicit in 9/11, it makes sense that Khashoggi would break with MbS at the time of the purge and begin the process of vilifying him.
Assuming that the media acts as a propaganda vehicle for those forces which were responsible for 9/11, we would expect, in response to any action taken by MbS to bring the truth of 9/11 closer to light, to see the media jump on the first major opportunity to build international opposition to MbS's regime. That is to say, it seems that if the forces in the US and Britain which were complicit in 9/11 knew that MbS was taking actions which could lead to the truth coming out, they would use their capabilities to create opposition to MbS as a prelude to a possible regime change of some kind in SA. Hence, we would find the media, formerly so quiet about Saudi machinations, suddenly absorbed in the coverage of an act, or alleged act, by MbS, to the effect of casting him as another world leader fit for the Qaddafi treatment. Perhaps that act is the killing of Khashoggi. Indeed, CNN is already running articles headlined "Pompeo warns Saudi prince his future as king is in peril over Khashoggi, source says". In the meantime, the economic side of international pressures have begun. To cite merely one example, the CEOs of JP Morgan, Blackstone, Blackrock, Credit Suisse and HSBC -- guys who would probably eat you for lunch, literally-- have pulled out of a major upcoming economic conference in Saudi Arabia. Chatham House is saying that "the US and European allies will need to use their leverage to make the Saudi leadership come to its senses". A break in support for MbS by the Brits would be very telling, given the role of Britain in the 9/11 affair, and in much of Saudi wiles.
Here are what we can safely consider as "facts":
1.) Trump knew about the issue of Saudi involvement in 9/11, and expressed strong feelings about the matter.
2.) The first nation which Trump visited as president was SA.
3.) Four months after Trump's visit, MbS launches a major "corruption purge" in SA.
4.) Khashoggi announces his break with MbS immediately following the corruption purge.
5.) Khashoggi was closely involved with Prince Turki- a key figure in the Saudi perpetration of 9/11.
Here are what we have as possibilities respecting this situation:
1.) Trump did or did not address the issue of Saudi involvement in 9/11 with MbS in his trip to SA.
A.) If we assume Trump did not, our inquiry ends.
B.) If we assume that Trump did, then we must, for reasons made above, assume that the message to MbS was, in effect, "The truth, or at least a part of the truth, is going to come out. You can come out on the good side, or the bad side. So why don't you assist us in finding those in your country who were complicit in 9/11 and come out on the good side."
Making assumption 1B, we have the another possibility:
2.) MbS's corruption purge either was, or was not, a reciprocation of the request which Trump delivered during that visit to SA. That is, the purge, or at least certain activities occurring in conjunction with the purge, either did, or did not represent bona fide responses by MbS to Trump's request.
A.) If we assume that neither the purge, nor anything occurring in conjunction with the purge, represented responses to Trumps request, then our inquiry ends.
B.) On the other hand, if we assume that either the purge, or actions taken in conjunction with the purge, were responses by MbS to Trumps request, then the fact that Khashoggi began to attack MbS right after the purge took place is seen as expected, if we make one more assumption respecting a last relevant possibility:
3.) Khashoggi either was or was not allied to the interests in SA which were complicit in 9/11.
A.) If he was not allied to these interests, then our inquiry ends.
B.) If he was allied to these interests, as his association with Prince Turki suggests, then assuming 1B and 2B, the fact that Khashoggi broke with MbS right after the corruption purge is not surprising, since we would expect, assuming 1B and 2B, that the forces in SA and elsewhere comlicit in 9/11 would, of course, respond very negatively to any action taken by MbS which would assist in bringing the truth of 9/11 out.
Given facts 1 through 5, in conjunction with assumptions 1B, 2B, and 3B (all of which assumptions seem far from unreasonable), the timing of Khashoggi's break, as well as the suddenly shocked response of the establishment to the alleged killing of Khashoggi by MbS when they had been so willing to ignore actions much worse than that before, are both accounted for. We would expect MbS to be coming under international pressure in the direction of regime change from those international forces which were complicit, or strongly influenced by those who were complicit, in 9/11. That is something which it seems that we must consider as possibly happening right now. Of course, even if we do not assume 2B or 3B, if we at least assume 1B and that MbS took any action in reciprocation of Trumps request, we would still expect to see international blow-back against MbS. In fact, even if we assume 1A, we would expect to see international blow-back against MbS if he took any actions whatsoever to bring at least some of the hidden truth of 9/11 out. The Saudis were obviously aware of what Trump said about the Saudi-9/11 cover-up in his campaign, and, assuming they are not complete idiots, it is reasonable to assume that the MbS's regime would take corresponding actions, even if Trump never directly or indirectly brought up the issue with them. It is easy to imagine how efforts might have been undertaken by MbS and co. to prepare for a partial truth to come out in which the blame could be put on forces in SA other than those connected with MbS's regime- or at least claimed to have no connection to his faction in the Saudi establishment.
Lest I be misunderstood, this post is not an endorsement of MbS, or the atrocities he has committed, or something justifying the killing of Kashoggi. This is an attempt to bring to attention a certain possibility as to what might be going on in light of other not-unreasonable possibilities which are usually not taken into account.