Jamal Khashoggi was geen groot criticus van de Saoedische dictatuur en bepaald geen held

As`ad AbuKhalil schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen bericht, eerder gepubliceerd op Consortium News, stelt dat de in feite hysterische reactie in het westen en dan m.n. die van westerse massamedia over de verdwijning van Khashoggi voor een fiks deel een onoordeelkundige beeld geeft over 'journalist' Khashoggi.

Zonder de vele artikelen van Khashoggi te hebben gelezen die in Saoedi-Arabië werden gepubliceerd en zonder veel van diens leven te weten, hebben ze in feite een ex-fanatiek aanhanger van het Saoedisch koningshuis (bloederige dictators) schoon gewassen.......

Khashoggi was heel lang een groot bewonderaar van het Saoedische koningshuis en heeft zich het grootste deel van zijn leven achter deze dictatuur en al haar bloederige uitspattingen geschaard.........

Khashoggi zou zelfs aan de kant van Osama bin Laden hebben gevochten, al was het dan als embedded journalist......

Vergeet niet dat alle jaren dat Khashoggi in Saoedi-Arabië werkte, echte journalistiek niet was toegestaan, laat staan kritiek leveren op de dictatuur....... Collega's die door de dictatuur van S-A werden opgepakt en gemarteld vanwege 'de geur van kritiek' in hun berichtgeving, behoefden niet te rekenen op steun van Khashoggi.......

Zelf concludeer ik na een aantal columns van Khashoggi in de Washington Post* (WaPo) te hebben gelezen, dat Khashoggi weliswaar vuile handen heeft gemaakt in Saoedi-Arabië, al was het maar het niet opkomen voor collega's die niet zo braaf waren en zwaar werden gestraft, maar hij in de VS wel degelijk fiks tekeerging tegen S-A en bijvoorbeeld haar smerige oorlog in Jemen (die hij overigens niet als genocide aanduidde, zoals het overgrote deel van de westerse collega's dat nalaten)......

Er is niet veel nodig om de doodstraf te krijgen in S-A en gezien een aantal van zijn columns overschreed hij daarmee een lijn, die waarschijnlijk tot zijn dood leidde..... Zo had hij verder kritiek op o.a de blokkade van Qatar en de propaganda van S-A tegen Iran, zaken die in S-A 'doodstrafwaardig' zijn...... Kortom Khashoggi is ten inkeer gekomen, wat hem niet vrijpleit van het jarenlang propaganda maken voor het bloederige Saoedische koningshuis.

Lees het artikel van AbuKhalil en oordeel zelf:

Jamal Khashoggi Was No Critic of the Saudi Regime

October 16, 2018 at 10:51 am

Written by Consortium News

Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, who disappeared in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week is not quite the critic of the Saudi regime that the Western media says he is.

(CN Op-ed) — The disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week has generated huge international publicity, but unsurprisingly, little in Saudi-controlled, Arab media. The Washington Post, for whom Khashoggi wrote, and other Western media, have kept the story alive, increasing the pressure on Riyadh to explain its role in the affair.

It’s been odd to read about Khashoggi in Western media. David Hirst in The Guardian claimed Khashoggi merely cared about absolutes such as “truth, democracy, and freedom”. Human Rights Watch’s director described him as representing “outspoken and critical journalism.”

But did he pursue those absolutes while working for Saudi princes?

Khashoggi was a loyal member of the Saudi propaganda apparatus. There is no journalism allowed in the kingdom: there have been courageous Saudi women and men who attempted to crack the wall of rigid political conformity and were persecuted and punished for their views. Khashoggi was not among them.

Some writers suffered while Khashoggi was their boss at Al-Watan newspaper. Khashoggi—contrary to what is being written—was never punished by the regime, except lightly two years ago, when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) banned him from tweeting and writing for Al-Hayat, the London-based, pan-Arab newspaper owned by Saudi Prince Khalid bin Sultan.

By historical contrast, Nasir As-Sa`id was a courageous secular Arab Nationalist writer who fled the kingdom in 1956 and settled in Cairo, and then Beirut. He authored a massive (though tabloid-like) volume about the history of the House of Saud. He was unrelenting in his attacks against the Saudi royal family.

For this, the Saudi regime paid a corrupt PLO leader in Beirut (Abu Az-Za`im, tied to Jordanian intelligence) to get rid of As-Sa`id. He kidnapped As-Sa`id from a crowded Beirut street in 1979 and delivered him to the Saudi embassy there. He was presumably tortured and killed (some say his body was tossed from a plane over the “empty quarter” desert in Saudi Arabia). Such is the track record of the regime.

Finding the Right Prince

Khashoggi was an ambitious young reporter who knew that to rise in Saudi journalism you don’t need professionalism, courage, or ethics. In Saudi Arabia, you need to attach yourself to the right prince. Early on, Khashoggi became close to two of them: Prince Turki Al-Faysal (who headed Saudi intelligence) and his brother, Prince Khalid Al-Faysal, who owned Al-Watan (The Motherland) where Khashoggi had his first (Arabic) editing job.

Khashoggi distinguished himself with an eagerness to please and an uncanny ability to adjust his views to those of the prevailing government. In the era of anti-Communism and the promotion of fanatical jihad in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Khashoggi was a true believer. He fought with Osama bin Laden and promoted the cause of the Mujahideen.

The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius and others want to embellish this by implying that he was an “embedded” reporter—as if bin Laden’s army would invite independent journalists to report on their war efforts. The entire project of covering the Afghan Mujahideen and promoting them in the Saudi press was the work of the chief of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki, Khashoggi’s principal patron-prince.

Western media coverage of Khashoggi’s career (by people who don’t know Arabic) presents a picture far from reality. They portray a courageous investigative journalist upsetting the Saudi regime. Nothing is further from the truth: there is no journalism in Saudi Arabia; there is only crude and naked propaganda.

Editors are trusted individuals who have demonstrated long-time loyalty. Khashoggi admitted to an Arab reporter last year in an interview from Istanbul that in Saudi Arabia he had been both editor and censor. Editors of Saudi regime papers (mouthpieces of princes and kings) enforce government rules and eliminate objectionable material.

Khashoggi never spoke out for Saudis in distress. He ran into trouble in two stints as Al-Watan editor because of articles he published by other writers, not by himself, that were mildly critical of the conservative religious establishment—which he at times supported. He was relocated to another government media job— to shield him from the religious authorities.

Khashoggi was the go-to man for Western journalists covering the kingdom, appointed to do so by the regime. He may have been pleasant in conversation with reporters but he never questioned the royal legitimacy. And that goes for his brief one-year stint in Washington writing for the Post.

A Reactionary

Khashoggi was a reactionary: he supported all monarchies and sultanates in the region and contended they were “reformable.” To him, only the secular republics, in tense relations with the Saudis, such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, defied reform and needed to be overthrown. He favored Islamization of Arab politics along Muslim Brotherhood lines.

Khashoggi’s vision was an “Arab uprising” led by the Saudi regime. In his Arabic writings he backed MbS’s “reforms” and even his “war on corruption,” derided in the region and beyond. He thought that MbS’s arrests of the princes in the Ritz were legitimate (though he mildly criticized them in a Post column) even as his last sponsoring prince, Al-Walid bin Talal, was locked up in the luxury hotel. Khashoggi even wanted to be an advisor to MbS, who did not trust him and turned him down.

Writing in the Post (with an Arabic version) Khashoggi came across as a liberal Democrat favoring democracy and reform. But he didn’t challenge Saudi regime legitimacy or Western Mideast policy. Mainstream journalists were enamored with him. They saw him as an agreeable Arab who didn’t criticize their coverage of the region, but praised it, considering the mainstream U.S. press the epitome of professional journalism. Khashoggi was essentially a token Arab writing for a paper with a regrettable record of misrepresenting Arabs.

In Arabic, his Islamist sympathies with Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) were unmistakable. Forgotten or little known in the West is that during the Cold War the Saudis sponsored, funded, and nurtured the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the progressive, secular camp led by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Ikhwan controlled the Saudi educational system raising Saudi students to admire the Brotherhood. But Sep. 11 changed the Saudi calculus: the rulers wanted a scapegoat for their role in sponsoring Islamist fanaticism and the Ikhwan was the perfect target. That made Khashoggi suspect too.

Hints Against Him

Recent articles in the Saudi press hinted that the regime might move against him. He had lost his patrons but the notion that Khashoggi was about to launch an Arab opposition party was not credible. The real crime was that Khashoggi was backed alone by Ikhwan supporters, namely the Qatari regime and the Turkish government.

A writer in Okaz, a daily in Jeddah, accused him of meeting with the Emir of Qatar at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York and of having ties to “regional and international intelligence services.” If true it may have sealed his fate. Qatar is now the number one enemy of the Saudi regime—arguably worse than Iran.

Khashoggi was treated as a defector and one isn’t allowed to defect from the Saudi Establishment. The last senior defections were back in 1962, when Prince Talal and Prince Badr joined Nasser’s Arab nationalist movement in Egypt.

Khashoggi had to be punished in a way that would send shivers down the spine of other would-be defectors.

By As`ad AbuKhalil / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

====================================

* 'Read Jamal Khashoggi’s columns for The Washington Post' 

Zie ook:
'Bolton (o.a. Trumps adviseur buitenlandse zaken) wil de Khashoggi tapes niet horen, hij is het arabisch niet machtig....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Khashoggi: VS prijs voor uit de wind houden van Saoedische terreurkroonprins MBS >> 450 miljard dollar'

'Trump geeft toe dat de VS niets te maken heeft met het beleid in andere landen >> 'gelukkigen' in deze: de moordenaars van Khashoggi.......'

'Trump weet het zeker, de top van de Saoedische dictatuur wist niet van de moord op Khashoggi....'

'Tony Blair weigert na de moord op Khashoggi een lucratieve deal met Saoedi-Arabië op te zeggen'

'Saoedi-Arabië vindt zich een baken van licht tegen het duister verspreidende Iran..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Macron (Franse president) laat ware gezicht zien op vraag over wapenleveringen aan Saoedi-Arabië'

''Onderzoek' naar moord op Khashoggi in Saoedisch consulaat te Istanbul voorafgegaan door grote schoonmaakactie........'

'Khashoggi waarschijnlijk vermoord vanwege kennis over de 9/11 aanslagen'

'Khashoggi terecht groot in media, waar de aandacht voor Saoedische genocide op sjiieten Jemen amper wordt genoemd'

'Saoedi-Arabië heeft 15 'psychopathische macho's nodig om één journalist te vermoorden'

Saoedi-Arabië heeft op verzoek van de VS intensief haar islam ideologie (en die van ISIS) verspreid.....

Weer een geval van je gelooft je ogen niet als je het leest: de psychopathische Saoedische kroonprins Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), de oorlogsmisdadiger die verantwoordelijk is voor de gaande zijnde genocide op sjiieten in Jemen*, werd maar liefst 75 minuten lang gepromoot door de Washington Post (WaPo).

Tijdens de promotie voor deze schoft stelde deze 'MBS' dat de VS en andere westerse landen Saoedi-Arabië hebben gevraagd haar vorm van islam, het wahabisme uit te dragen in landen die banden onderhielden met de Sovjet-Unie, ofwel als instrument te dienen tegen het 'communisme.........'

E.e.a. nadat Saoedi-Arabië het wahabisme ging uitdragen als reactie op Nasser, de 'socialistische' president van Egypte, waar de term 'nasserisme' haar oorsprong vond. Nasser was de Egyptische president die tijdens zijn leven (en lang daarna) immens populair was in de arabische wereld........

In de 80er jaren leidde dit tot de samenwerking van de VS met Saoedi-Arabië in de strijd tegen door de Sovjet-Unie gesteunde linkse bewind in Afghanistan, ofwel: dit leidde tot de strijd tegen de Russische troepen in dat land....... Met deze steun werd de Taliban als strijdgroep groot (en machtig) in Afghanistan, dezelfde Taliban, die de VS met de NAVO aan de leiband nu al bijna 17 jaar lang bestrijd zonder enig succes, sterker nog: de Taliban is niet ver verwijderd van het punt waarop de oorlog begon in 2001....... Een oorlog die aan een enorm aantal burgers het leven heeft gekost (ofwel: die zijn vermoord), lullig genoeg kan je daar (althans ikzelf) geen cijfers voor vinden**, men spreekt over tienduizenden, echter dat moet intussen de 250.000 al lang zijn gepasseerd.......

Lees hoe ook het bouwen van moskeeën en madrassa's (islam scholen) door Saoedi-Arabië over een fiks deel van de wereld (zie het cijfer voor te bouwen moskeeën in Bangladesh in het volgende artikel), en daarmee de verspreiding van het fanatieke wahabisme (de ideologie van IS...) voor een groot deel is te danken aan de VS en andere westerse landen..... Overigens bleek uit de gelekte e-mails van Hillary Clinton, dat Saoedi-Arabië de grootste sponsor is van IS........ I.p.v. Clinton te vervolgen (ook door de reguliere massa-media) voor het niet delen van deze informatie, het niet ingrijpen op deze informatie en haar innige banden met Saoedi-Arabië, maakt men zich druk om wie de e-mails heeft gelekt...... Ongelofelijk!!

Saudi Crown Prince: America Asked Us to Spread Ideology of ISIS

March 29, 2018 at 1:01 pm

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — In the latest continuation of western media’s shameless promotion of a known war criminal, the Washington Post (WaPo) sat down with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) last Thursday for a 75-minute discussion (even the Post itself previously published an acknowledgment of his crimes).

While the Post’s write-up focuses mainly on the allegation that MBS has Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, “in his pocket,” the war in Yemen, and the rights of women in the Kingdom, most curious is the second-to-last paragraph of the report, which states the following:

“Asked about the Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism, the austere faith that is dominant in the kingdom and that some have accused of being a source of global terrorism, Mohammed said that investments in mosques and madrassas overseas were rooted in the Cold War, when allies asked Saudi Arabia to use its resources to prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.” [emphasis added]

What? Allies asked Saudi Arabia to use its resources — specifically, investments in mosques and madrassas overseas —to prevent countries from forming alliances with the former Soviet Union?

Of course, it was already known that Saudi Arabia was doing just that for decades, but this is the first time the blame has been openly shifted to Western allies in an interview with a major newspaper.

As the Week explained in 2015, Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars “investing heavily in building mosques, madrasas, schools, and Sunni cultural centers across the Muslim world. Indian intelligence says that in India alone, from 2011 to 2013, some 25,000 Saudi clerics arrived bearing more than $250 million to build mosques and universities and hold seminars.”

The effects of this policy have been far-reaching. As even pro-war pundit Fareed Zakaria has documented:

“In Southeast Asia, almost all observers whom I have spoken with believe that there is another crucial cause [behind the ‘cancer’ of Islamic extremism] – exported money and ideology from the Middle East, chiefly Saudi Arabia. A Singaporean official told me, ‘Travel around Asia and you will see so many new mosques and madrassas built in the last 30 years that have had funding from the Gulf. They are modern, clean, air-conditioned, well-equipped – and Wahhabi [Saudi Arabia’s puritanical version of Islam].’

Recently, it was reported that Saudi Arabia plans to contribute almost $1 billion to build 560 mosques in Bangladesh. The Saudi government has denied this, but sources in Bangladesh tell me there’s some truth to the report.”

Saudi Arabia’s funding for extremism has even reached as far as the Indian Ocean. According to the New York Times, Saudi Arabia has “for decades spread its conservative strand of Islam in the Maldives by sending religious leaders, building mosques and giving scholarships to students to attend universities.” Is it a mere coincidence therefore that the South China Morning Post reported that Indian intelligence sources are claiming hundreds of Maldivians have joined ISIS in Syria?

We also know from Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails that Saudi Arabia was almost certainly one of ISIS’ prime sponsors — and that the Clinton camp was well aware of this issue.

While this is the first time a prominent figurehead like MBS has admitted not only that Saudi Arabia spreads its Wahhabist strain of Islam across the world but also that it was done at the request of its western allies, there is proof that MBS’ claim is a well-kept secret of former and current American administrations.

As former U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad wrote in September 2016, a Saudi official quietly admitted this little-known fact almost two years ago:

“He [the Saudi official] explained that Saudi support for Islamic extremism started in the early 1960s as a counter to Nasserism—the socialist political ideology that came out of the thinking of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser—which threatened Saudi Arabia and led to war between the two countries along the Yemen border. This tactic allowed them to successfully contain Nasserism, and the Saudis concluded that Islamism could be a powerful tool with broader utility.

“Under their new and unprecedented policy of honesty, the Saudi leadership also explained to me that their support for extremism was a way of resisting the Soviet Union, often in cooperation with the United States, in places like Afghanistan in the 1980s. In this application too, they argued, it proved successful. Later it was deployed against Iranian-supported Shiite movements in the geopolitical competition between the two countries.” [emphasis added]

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

===========================================

*  De VS is vanwege haar steun medeverantwoordelijk voor de Saoedische genocide in Jemen, zie: 'VS doet planning van de Saoedische genocide in Jemen.....'

** Niet vreemd dat er geen cijfers met het totaal aantal vermoordde burgerslachtoffers te vinden zijn, immers de reguliere westerse media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici hebben daar geen belang bij, zij hebben deze zinloze (illegale-) oorlog van meet af aan gepromoot en gesteund........

Zie ook: 'Saoedi-Arabië dreigt Iran aan te vallen voor vanuit Jemen afgevuurde 'raketten' op Saoedische 'doelen..........''