Tag Archives: Blood and Oil

To all the dopey’s in the land

It sounds weird, but there are times that I have to flex my disgust. It might not be nice but at times you cannot stay indifferent to ignorance. And as such I start this Monday with a blog with a little scent of negativity. So Yesterday I saw an image. It doesn’t matter who send it as I do herald free speech at times. The person did nothing wrong and perhaps they believe this to be true. But I know better, or at least the evidence (I am pretty much always driven by evidence) gives my view the larger credibility.

As you can see, it is seemingly a leftish opinionated view. Some people feel that way and that is their right. But I have looked into this and what do I get as my response to “Based on what evidence?” I get:

As such, well I have read books (plural) the works of Stephen King, Alistair McLean, Desmond Bagley, John Le Carre, William Gibson, JRR Tolkien, JK Rowling, James S. A. Corey and many many more. I would feel safe to say hundreds more. So I have read books. So the person who did this:

Yet more importantly, I also read the UN report on this issue which I discussed in ‘That was easy!’ Which I did on February 27th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) I shot holes in that document by some UN essay writer and I specified them, but there was one part I left out in the open. There was also the fictional setting from a book called ‘Blood and oil’ written by two wannabe reporters (as far as I can remember) and my response was “All whilst the report that gives us “the Crown Prince’s support for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad”, a stage that is not met with actual facts and factual evidence.

It is evidence that counts. Do I know that he is innocent? No, I do not, yet the law was unable to prove this to any degree and more important the media made all kinds of speculation whilst hiding behind ‘might’ and ‘could have’, similar to the UN report where we see terms like ‘high confidence’ by the CIA and ‘high confidence’ is not evidence. These are the people who claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and they never gave us the factual evidence even though even though they had around 16,000 troops there. Evidence counts and we weren’t given any. It is as I personally see it ‘an American smear campaign’ and Huawei can tell you what that is like. They are still going through it. So what was the ‘evidence’ I omitted? Well we have all heard of those torture tapes but no-one (I say again no-one) gave us any factual and forensic evidence of this/these tape(s). There is not forensic report stating how long this torture lasted, forensic evidence that it was the voice of Jamal Khashoggi and such matters. Perhaps it exists and perhaps it does not. In the meantime the media threw all kinds of loosely connected stories and more than one by people who were ‘protected’ by anonymity.

That is the factual setting and the story I referred to has the actual document that the UN spread, so feel free to check that reference and the list of issues I found within an hour, isn’t it strange that the media never did that? It is the result of a smear campaign on behalf of a stakeholder vying for the needs of unnamed people. 

As such I debunked the setting of “On the left, the guy who ordered his 15-man death squad to kill and dismember American journalist Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.” In the first what order was there and who gave it? Then we get to “kill and dismember”, how is that proven. There was never a body and as for kill? Apparently he is living the sweet life on Bora bora with his mistress. A speculation that was never proven either. We merely know for a fact that he was at some point in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. That is all we know for sure. The rest is speculation and even the UN resorted to an essay writer, to set certain cogs in motion. Is my evidence any better? I can agree that some people state that this is not, but I am resorting and critically analyzing the data we are given and I used that UN document. At no point did I use any Saudi Documentation. So have a great day (it felt good to get this of my chest yet again).

135 minutes until breakfast.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Repetition of a speculated lie

That is the setting that the Guardian is giving us (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/07/saudi-arabia-ukraine-us-talks-analysis) with the underlying text “a country with ambitions to be a major diplomatic player despite its horrific human rights record, including the kidnap and murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018”, so how often does a lie need to be repeated before people might accept it as a truth? 

You see on February 27, 2021 I wrote ‘That was easy!’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) where I blew the massive disregard for evidence to smithereens, an essay presumably written by UN essay writer Eggy Calamari. The report of a lot of pages and several times I blew their ‘assessment’ apart on simple logic. So, does that make me correct? No, but I firmly believe that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty and that was not to be seen. Just as an apology is not a valid defense, a ‘highly likely’ from the CIA does not constitute evidence. ‘Highly likely’ is a speculation at best, as such it is not evidence. Moreover no one actually did a forensic analyses on these so called tapes. As such it is a mere document of collected speculations. One source gave me that JK escaped to Tora Tora with a young mistress. I do not believe that, but there are speculations all over the field and now with the Guardian 4 years later I basically had enough. 

The terms “kidnap and murder”and “murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi” connects to other articles, so there is that too. The first one connects to a 5 year old article named ‘‘Mockery of justice’ after Saudis convict eight over Khashoggi killing’ and the other is ‘‘He couldn’t see light at the end of the tunnel’: Jamal Khashoggi’s widow on their life and his death’. All speculative views. So in 5 years no one was able to prove anything, as such his Royal Highness Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are innocent. You think I am kidding? No, I am not. Evidence is central here and the media have been using the JK case as a cash cow for digital dollars. 

I think it is high time that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes new steps to silence these innuendo’s. If I had anything to say about this, I would give the media a taste of its own medicine. The Guardian (at al) would be banned from covering sport (and other) news in Saudi Arabia. I reckon that The Times, The Express, The Observer and others (the UK has dozens of newspapers) can cover Sport in Saudi Arabia, the Guardian gets banned until 2035 for all these events. When they are on the outside looking in, they will soon start screaming like little tea grannies on how unfair life is for them. 

I personally also think out is time for Saudi Arabia to take a harder stance on who their allies really are. It is nice that President Trump is coming for a investment donation of 1 trillion, however the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been barred from the F35 for a long time now. So if China could arrange for the J20 to be released to Saudi Arabia, they would be a much more worthy ally. So why doesn’t Saudi Arabia invest that money in China? Their might be larger considerations and I would not be privy to them, but an ally that merely claims to be an ally and whilst Saudi Arabia was under attack from Houthi terrorists, The US channels or assistance remains closed, even though several parties (including Colonel Turki bin Saleh Al-Maliki) who had shown several times that the Houthi terrorists were using Iranian drones to attack civilian Saudi targets (King Abdullah Airport in the southwestern Jizan province). The western media overlooked (I my view intentionally) that side of the story. And there is a lot more. As I personally see it intentionally silencing these matters should be seen as worse, but that is merely my point of view.

Oh, and the fact that I saw in hours these facts over 4 years ago and the ‘media’ never corrected their point of view is another matter entirely. They had no problems with replicating that work of fiction ‘Blood and Oil’ who used art of effective or persuasive writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech to make a case that never was. That is how I see it (to be certain I bought the book and I shot it to hell within the hour (I only looked at the Khashoggi mentions)

So how is the Guardian sizing up right now?

I reckon that there is a price to pay for these settings and it is time that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is making these people pay for the intentional distortion of truth, but I am not in command of anything in Saudi Arabia, so my view could be ignored. If it wan’t for that pesky setting that China has another option to put America (and the UK) out of business in certain parts of the world. I wonder if Iran could hand America a trillion dollars (and a lot more for several other parts). 

Did I oversimplify matter for the average reader? Have a great Saturday. I am off to a decent Saturday and Vancouver is still 9 hours away from Saturday.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

An interesting twist

There is an interesting  twist on the premise of timing happening. It is given to us by Politico. The headline ‘Khashoggi death: Saudi ambassador reveals new details’ and I have more than one reason. We read the statement by Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud. I would like to add that I presented ‘evidence’ (of a sort) on July 4th 2017 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/07/04/demanding-dismissal/) with ‘Demanding Dismissal’. And after that a little more on the 10th of September in ‘Squid rings of theatrics’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/10/squid-rings-of-theatrics/) it is nice that others are catching on and I do not blame Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud on this, but the media? Yes, the media is pricing itself out of the game really fast now. The article gives us “Speaking to POLITICO’s Power Play podcast, Ambassador Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud rejected the claim, insisting that the Saudi royal family continues to oppose the version of events backed by the U.S. as well as the U.K. And he disclosed that those the regime claims were responsible are still alive — casting rare light on the fate of the individuals blamed for the assassination”. Yet here he forgets one player. The United Nations and in particular Agnes Calamard (aka Eggy Calamari), I still have the UN document online where close to a dozen pieces on debate come into play. We also get “A detailed, declassified 2021 CIA report concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had approved the operation during which Khashoggi was brutally murdered and dismembered, possibly after an attempt to kidnap him in the consulate where he had gone to pick up documents for his wedding to his Turkish fiancée” showing us the larger folly (read: failure of the CIA) to dig into the truth. Don’t get me wrong, I was not part on any of this, as such I am a bystander at best, but I can read and illuminate the stupidity of others is a part time hobby of me, as such I found 5 items in the first hour giving us doubt on the entire issue and what is more important, the media neglected actions on ANY of this. More important they were speculatively deciding to fuel this fire to gain digital dollars for their presumptuous aiding the United Nations, as well as other players having the need to bash Saudi Arabia.

One hour that a simple man like me needed and I handed everyone the goods on what I found and where I found it (except the ‘claimed’ evidence that he was on Bora Bora with a mistress, because there was no evidence on this claim). 

Then we get to “Speaking to host Anne McElvoy, the kingdom’s top diplomat in London described the death and dismemberment of Khashoggi as “an awful crime — a stain on our country, not just the government but every Saudi out there,” while firmly denying any complicity by the powerful Saudi monarch.” My issue on this is ‘Where are the body parts?’ I saw the image that the Daily Mail giving us (I believe it was the Daily Mail) an image of some random person holding a trash-bag, which could have been any trash. That paper lined itself with protection stating somewhere there ‘could have been’ and/or ‘we suspect’ all tidied up. I personally believe that here Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud was wrong. You see, this is not a stain on Saudi Arabia, but a stain on the media. To the need of (what I expect to be) the drive for digital dollars the media made themselves the culprit, losing whatever credibility they thought they had.

And for me it is a nice twist on this all. You see I presented these facts going back more than 5 years and in the meantime the media, as well as (wannabe) writers Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck who gave us the fictional story ‘Blood and Oil’ they all ran the money mill to stamp out their revenue using Saudi Arabia as the source of their income. 

The nice twist is that these western lies are now pointing in another direction, is it an option? I think it dies, but the likelihood that Israel did this is remote at best. Who else? Well I have some ideas on this but they are highly speculative and completely absent of evidence. I’ll let the media dig their own hold deeper in this.

But this twist that Politico handed me is putting a smile on my face. On this rainy Friday 5 years of looking into the matter is showing a new sign of life and that is not the best part of this. What was once ‘massive’ evidence can now be proclaimed as useless. You see, none of these reports did a forensic investigation into the tapes of Khashoggi’s ‘interrogation’ the reports give us that no one listened to the entire tape. There is no forensic evidence on the tape and that has been cleverly ‘hidden’ in the full texts. The one part that could have made the Khashoggi case a real case was ignored by the Media, the CIA and the United Nations. 

So how do you like your kippers? With or without aioli?

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Ruler of law goes metric

Yes, we all have settings that are part of us, for the most the rule of law is accepted by nearly all. But when do we realise that it is not that simple? There is the notion that this rule of law has an Imperial and a metric setting and that is the core of what we face today. I got my view from the Canadian CBC (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-khashoggi-lawsuit-dismissed-1.6676798). There we get ‘U.S. judge dismisses lawsuit against Saudi prince over Khashoggi killing’, s0 at what point does the US set the stage for events that took place in an alleged Saudi environment in Turkey no less? Lets look at the simple facts, Jamal Khashoggi is as far as I can tell a Saudi dissident, not an American citizen and I do not care what was planned. It never got to be. This person has gotten more ‘alleged’ assistance in a month than most American citizens have seen in a decade. Then we are given “U.S. District Judge John Bates suggested he was reluctant to throw out the lawsuit but had no choice given the Biden administration’s decision.” And I will get back to this in a moment. We are also given “Khashoggi was killed and dismembered in October 2018 by Saudi agents in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul” which is the supporting lie. You see, his body was never found, there is absolutely no evidence that he was dismembered, or killed. For all we know he is spending the rest of his days with his new mistress of 19 years old in a luxurious hotel on Bora Bora. It is equally speculative, is it therefor more wrong?

And we do take notice of “Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice said in a November court filing that the Biden administration had determined that Prince Mohammed, “as the sitting head of a foreign government, enjoys head of state immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts as a result of that office.”” It is the stage that was always going to happen, there was no evidence of any kind, mere speculation and Daily Mail categorised forms of speculated innuendo that never goes anywhere. Lets be clear, I cannot prove the innocence of certain people, but I cannot prove their guilt either and a person is innocent until proven guilty. That is the law and there is no metrical version of that, it is imperial, it is black letter law and that is what the law is. The media wants you to forget this so that they can cater to the digital dollar a little longer. And you are the tool they are using for that. In the mean time Jeff Bezos (via Andy Jassy) denied himself an annual 6 billion and change going up to close to $30 billion in full deployment mode. This is the damage Amazon did to themselves and it is fine by my book, although a little less nice as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia decided not to buy it either. My loss and I get that. But below all this is a stage where the US is in a lot more problem. You see, they desperately need the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia assist them with cheap oil and I have stated this before. Why would they do that? The US has proven themselves to be a fleeting and unreliable ally to say the least. Do not take my word for that, look at the victims in Yemen and Syria and ask yourself, what did the US achieve? Close to nothing and now that they are at the abyss, the hangman’s rope has a very uncomfortable feeling. And as I see it, should the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia want it and limit the shipments of Crude Oil by an additional mere 1 million barrels a day, the US will explode in a stage of anarchy, just before Christmas and that realisation is at stake. The US overplayed its hand for at least two years and now we see that anarchy could become the turnstile of events. So do not think this is something that President Biden started. This is the stage 4 previous administrations colluded under (sort of) and yes, former president Trump might be the only one trying to turn it around but it would have been too little and optionally too late too. The previous congresses made sure of that. They were all too ego driven to see that impact grow and grow. And before you consider the immense state of “Khashoggi had criticised the crown prince’s policies in Washington Post columns. He had travelled to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain papers he needed to marry Cengiz, a Turkish citizen.” You see the US had the option to make him a citizen from 2017 onwards but they chose not to do that (optionally it was in the hands of Khashoggi). So for over a year there was a stage where he had the option to make a change, optionally the US intelligence office could have prevented it if there was a voice, but there wasn’t one. This implies (to me) that there was no real warning, no real danger which now sheds a light on a lot of issues and it does not look good for the US. Hiding behind some metric version of the law was never going to work well and I have highlighted close to half a dozen issues from the beginning and the fictional book of Blood and Oil merely worked for my case. When you see all these articles, all these media evidence and it comes with words like ‘alleged’ and ‘could have’, how wrong do you think I am? 

It is sad watching governments trying to cater to ego and to the clear need of a commodity that their non-allies have, it is a pathetic view and it is not getting better any day soon.

I will let you investigate that, just be sure you rely on the sources you can rely on.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Religion

Hatchet do your job

It is perhaps the first time that I ever felt shame to have given Amnesty International consideration. It is the first time that I saw a once good organisation fall from grace straight into a sewer, that is the Amnesty International I saw today.

I started to read their report ‘Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians’. The problem starts on page 14. There we see: “Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued an explicit policy of establishing and maintaining a Jewish demographic hegemony and maximizing its control over land to benefit Jewish Israelis while minimizing the number of Palestinians and restricting their rights and obstructing their ability to challenge this dispossession. In 1967, Israel extended this policy beyond the Green Line to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it has occupied ever since. Today, all territories controlled by Israel continue to be administered with the purpose of benefiting Jewish Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians, while Palestinian refugees continue to be excluded.” Perhaps AI needs a historic education. In 1948, the Jewish population started to see the impact Germany had, the impact inaction from others had. The German European rock tour of 1939-1945 had caused a holocaust where an estimate of 6,000,000 jews were put to death, they were put to death using industrial methodology, a system NEVER used before and the Germans almost pulled it off, a complete act of genocide using industrial methodology. 

[speculative part] I believe that the allies feared what would come next, thousands of super angry Jews would hunt collaborators and antisemites in EVERY corner of Europe, it would halt European rebuilding for decades. It gave urge for a State of Israel as fast as possible. And in 1948, less than 2 years after the end of WW2 it became a reality.
So when was the last time any issue of this size was settled within a decade? 
[end speculative part]

The state of Israel was created and the first thing the jewish population needed to do was to ensure their SURVIVAL. They needed to make certain that the world could not complete what the Germans had started. And within 20 years the state of Israel was stronger, yet also angry. The millions of ‘resettled’ Jews learned that their places of living were now becoming the most sought after and most expensive real estate in Europe. Areas in Amsterdam, Munich, Paris, and many other cities were now worth a fortune, its inhabitants thrown away and cast aside.

That report does not give this, does it? The people of Israel were thrown from one place into another place, a place where everyone wanted them dead. A return to the fears of WW2. That part is not given to us either is it? The report gives us one mention of ‘Second World War’ it is in footnote 69. The report gives us First World War, yet I find no mention of WW2. I searched several other words, there is no mention making this report a joke. There was a real fear for the Israeli’s in the state of Israel, there was a real fear of genocide and AI casually paints over that setting like it never existed. The word ‘holocaust’ appears twice in a report of 280 pages, a setting that was the most real fear jews and the people of the state of Israel ever faced and that fear is still real today with the abundance of antisemitism all over the world and Western Europe, the report ignores this. And it seemingly casually edits the events. I find no mention of “Kill the Jews” a setting that the people of Israel see thrown at them from Palestine, from Iran, from Lebanon. Israel is surrounded by enemies of the state of Israel and the Amnesty International report is blatantly unaware of that, or does a real good job pretending to be ignorant. 

This is important, because this is what set the start of the State of Israel, the Jewish people accepted their own state, but it was set in a poisoned well, a well that the Allied forces set upon the world so that they didn’t need to deal with all the collaborators and antisemites in Europe, a setting still true today. It took me less then 5 minutes to get to this and yes, I did not read the entire report. Just like I never needed to read the whole story of Blood and Oil by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck a setting where journalists rely on fiction to get their wealth in. In the AI report we see “The following, by no means comprehensive, set of developments in the history of Palestine and Israel are pertinent to understanding the issues covered by Amnesty International’s report.” Interesting the the set of developments that I gave you all is not in their report. And that matters, WW2 was a catalyst of unimaginable proportions, to ignore that is to ignore the room where this political card game was played and this report is a political card game, to what end is not clear to me just yet. But just like the UN with their hatchet job on the Jamal Khashoggi case this report is equally dangerous. Certain people want to start a staged play, I do not know what stage or what play at present, but it is clear we are being played and that is a dangerous setting that the AI report gives us. 

It is a story dipped in misrepresented facts and that is perhaps the most dangerous game of all, because facts are one, but the underlying stream of events that led to these facts are in cases such as just equally important.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Number of states

We all have states, we all have considerations. There isn’t a person who does not enter that stage, the stage of the blame game. Now, I could blame the Saudi Crown prince for my poverty, they never did anything for me, but is that not the central part in all this? 

It started some time ago, yet the Al Jazeera article that starts with “Lawyers have filed an amended complaint in the US-based lawsuit against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) containing allegations about attempts to “lure” an ex-spymaster’s family to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and summons for two alleged members of the “Tiger” hit squad”, the there are the allegations to ‘lure’, interesting as lure means “tempt (a person or animal) to do something or to go somewhere”, in this I wonder is it a crime, and there is a stage: ““Luring” is not a crime at the top of most people’s minds, but the law in Washington and other states does make luring a child or developmentally disabled person a felony”, as such is ex-Saudi intelligence officer Saad al-Jabri a child or a disabled person? In the second, what evidence is there that there is a direct connection between the attempted lure and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS)? I am not stating that this is not the case, I actually do not know, so I am asking the question. And as we turn to the PDF (at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747.66.1.pdf), we see a few things. The first is seen at [4], when we see “Fortunately, in the United States, justice is measured not by the might of one’s arms; what is lawful is measured not by the reach of one’s sword; and the law itself is not laggard when faced with a prince who, having directed the dismemberment of a prominent U.S. journalist overseas, also dispatched a team of hunters and killers into the United States and Canada to murder again.”, and I hereby demand that the accusers show evidence, evidence that holds up in court, in the pretrial the stage of ‘the dismemberment of a prominent U.S. journalist’, so at what stage was some journalist dismembered, what evidence is there that this ever happened?

Then at [5] we are treated to “The target of that attempted killing is Plaintiff Dr. Saad Aljabri”, at what stage did “attempts to “lure”” change into “attempted killing”? What evidence supports this?

So when the delusional man (Dr. Saad Aljabri) relies on “a longtime trusted partner of senior U.S. intelligence officials”, all whilst he no longer has value, it stands to reason that he uses his so called friends one more time to get a huge pay day. Something to hold him over until he passes away and as some of these people rely on the delusional stage of immortality, that pay day needs to be bigger and better.

At that point there is all kinds of emotions, and when we get to [11] we see “Defendant bin Salman has taken steps to lure Dr. Saad back to Saudi Arabia or to another jurisdiction where he could be more easily killed without consequences”, so what evidence is there that the Crown Prince was directly involved, also ‘where he could be more easily killed’ is an assumption that cannot be proven, not proven as an act and not proven towards any person. And this charade of laughing usage of the law, is set in 199 pages, the pages, I added in the link, the pages that Al Jazeera correctly added. It is like the second instalment of Blood and Oil, that fictional piece by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck, to my amazement I have never seen so many organisations using fiction, allegations and innuendo to frame a person, in this case Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Oh and before I forget, who was that prominent US journalist? Khashoggi was a columnist and an author. A columnist for the Washington Post, that does not make him a prominent US journalist, does it? 

And there is more the use of intentional ‘mis-statements’ like at [7] “Dr. Saad ledhelped to lead a team that saved hundreds” are emotional statements that have no bearing on the alleged case, a stage that is set to folly from the get go. 

So lets take a look at this respected person

  • He was dismissed from his governmental positions on 10 September 2015.
  • In September 2017, Saudi authorities sought Al Jabri’s arrest for corruption. 

I reckon that part is not illuminated in the brief, is it? In addition to this the number one laughing stage is that we are told “border agents at Toronto Pearson International Airport stopped the group and refused them entry into Canada”, so not only is it an alleged setting, it is an alleged setting that was allegedly staged in Canada, so why is it in an American court? This is about something else and it has nothing to do with Dr. Saad Aljabri, but with his American friends, perhaps they get a slice of that yummy settlement cake. Feel free to disagree and especially to oppose this, it is fair to do so, I am just saddened that the law, especially US law allows for such pieces of fiction to proceed. I would be happy to support anything to go to court if it was a lot less fictional, and let’s face it, consider that it was an attempted lure, a lot more facts on a brief that would be a lot less than 199 pages might have done the trick. I see so much fiction there, on so many pages, I wonder how the writer of that brief can live with him/her self. And in all this, when exactly did Canada become the 51st state?

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Intentionally creating imbalance

This happens, it happens more often than you think, but that is a separate issue. Yet too often have you seen that the media all over the world have thrown evidence to the side of the road, just to aid in imbalance? Consider that stage for a second. We all have our own windmills to fight, it is not simplifying to Don Quixote, even though it is tempting. I would be drawn to “The truth may be stretched thin, but it never breaks, and it always surfaces above lies, as oil floats on water”, even as some might rely on “Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness”, a stage we all all face, all sides of it. In this Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra might have been a larger philosopher than anyone realises, even if it made little sense in those days, it does in these days, in the age of digital awareness, sides of insanity and madness finally make sense.

In this I start with ‘Jamal Khashoggi: Journalist’s fiancee sues Saudi crown prince’. It is not the first page but it is another page that in isolation makes the most sense to use. Yes, there are all kinds of people telling me how insane I am, the madness that I show in this when soo many sources telling me otherwise.  A stage that I would accept if the soup wasn’t getting cooked on a high flame. In the BBC article I start with the fiancee is the one party I would give a pass on. I believe that she was hurt and she is filing, but there is the real matter, is it not? 

Even as we are given “Hatice Cengiz and the rights group Khashoggi formed before his death are pursuing Mohammed bin Salman and more than 20 others for unspecified damages”, so a group formed before his death? It is the ‘unspecified damages’ that takes the cake, the biscuits and the pot of tea. In the matter we need to look and address ‘a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, accusing him of ordering the killing’. This part we need to see with a clinical view. What evidence exists? The term ‘ordering the killing’ requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The infamous UN essay by Agnes Callamard showed that there is no evidence, there is no body and the work of fiction called ‘Blood and Ice’, shows even more lack of truths. As I personal see it ‘Blood and Oil’ is a fictional work by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck, a fictional work with a collection of facts based on people who actually exist. It reads easy and is seemingly created for a longer term, a stage I have not seen in Journalistic work, but this is not that, is it? It is an important take to realise, as the case created by the ‘Hatice Cengiz and the rights group Khashoggi’ calls for it. Consider the stage of a court, the costs involved. I will concede that there are leagues of people willing to set the stage through pro-bono work because of the limelight the case will get, but in the end, there was no evidence, the bast we can hope for is that Jamal Khashoggi is missing. This is not about personal feelings or personal knowledge, it is what can be proven in court and even if any evidence EVER comes to the surface, the setting that it can be linked to the Crown prince is close to impossible to prove. A stage where a person no one cared about (except his mum and the person he shares a bed with) has received close to 80 million hits online and that is merely a conservative guess. At some point I saw the counter go well over 60 million and that was a year ago. So has something bad happened to him? Personally I believe tht to be the case, but I cannot prove it. I was not there and NO ONE presented any evidence to the fact that this has happened. It happened in  nation that is the puppet of Iran and tht nation has the most incarcerated journalists in the world and that nation has been the discussion of a whole range of murdered journalists, murders that cannot be proven, but they state that they have the evidence on this, yet they never properly presented it. As I personally see it, the acts of a puppet nation without evidence. 

As such, when we see “After listening to purported audio recordings of conversations inside the consulate made by Turkish intelligence, UN special rapporteur Agnes Callamard concluded that Khashoggi was “brutally slain” that day”, the UN report does not show any evidence to positively confirm that the person allegedly being interrogated was Jamal Khashoggi, in the UN report at [398] we see “In an international forum at least, a review of the rules of evidence and jurisprudence conducted by the Special Rapporteur shows that the admissibility of the tapes and potentially other intercepts relating to Mr. Khashoggi’s death will depend on the form in which they are ultimately produced, their reliability, the fairness to the defendants of using such evidence, and the interest of the international community in providing justice to Mr. Khashoggi and his family”, here we see no mention that the tapes PROVE that the tapes are beyond the shadow of a doubt the recordings of Jamal Khashoggi. Yet at [41] of that report we are given “Recordings of only seven different conversations over a two-day period were made available to the inquiry. Combined these amounted to 45 minutes of tape, when, according to Turkish Intelligence, they had access to at least seven hours of recordings. The remaining six hours and 15 minutes may or may not be relevant to the inquiry, but without doubt there remains much more recorded information than that made available to the Special Rapporteur”, consider that allegedly only 10.7% of the available recordings were made available, so in what universe does that not constitute reasonable doubt or even an alleged form of tempered evidence? This is merely a setting of 2 elements in a much larger report. None of it proves murder, to a much larger extent it is a document that due to manipulation could set many optionally involved people free. 

My setting is seen in the report at [244] where we see “Much attention has been focused on whether the Crown Prince himself ordered the murder. However, this focus on “ordering” the crime and on finding the “smoking gun” creates expectations which legal systems, both domestic and international, may not be able to meet.  The search for justice and accountability for human rights violations should also and as importantly require identifying those that have abused their influence and power or failed to act with the diligence required of their positions” and the stage of ‘which  legal systems, both domestic and international, may not be able to meet’. It was the stage I had from the very beginning, whatever happened, it cannot be proven and now we get to the good stuff. A report that is well over a year old gives us this, so why continue, this is not about ‘justice’ this is about creating middle east imbalance, optionally this is about people catering towards Turkey and Iran for a third reason and they have no issues burning Saudi needs. The larger stage is however a much more dangerous side. As some seemingly clever people are setting their needs of ‘we need no Saudi Arabia’, we see a stage where Russia and China are willing to set a much larger stage, as such it could cost the EU and the US well over $15 billion in trade deals and goods over the foreseeable future. I will be happy (not knowing whether if I am able) to take over that business. Yet walking way for crumbs from a $15,000,000,000 piece of pastry is even larger madness; of all the windmills I face, an income well below $135,000 a year (pre taxation) is perhaps the easiest to overcome if the opportunity is offered. The moment the two larger players are set in a stage where they lose out, we will see all kinds of demands and contemplated compromises, I merely wonder if it will be too late for them at that point.

And consider the larger issue, how much effort had been made towards all the murdered journalists in Turkey, or even those currently in a Turkish prison? How much articles have you seen on that part of the equation? Some sources give 47 (one less than China) some sources say a lot more, theft that in 2016 well over 100 were in prison gives us question on some data that Forbes presents (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/12/12/the-countries-imprisoning-the-most-journalists-in-2019-infographic), even as we see one source giving us ‘85 journalists and media workers in jail in Turkey’ (complete with a name list) we see a stage of catering and hiding behind ‘media workers’, yet the stage of 47 and 85 is a little too big, so I am willing to go on a madness quest and state that the media themselves are catering to the wrong parties and they need to consider this a lot quicker then they currently are.

Could I be wrong?
Yes, absolutely! Yet consider the evidence and sources. I reflect on the produced US report (which I will happily label a mere essay), and when we see the other stage (like Jeff Bezos and FTI Consulting) and accusation after accusation, all whilst evidence open to the media is ignored, you tell me, Am I wrong?

When a book refers to “dismembering Khashoggi’s body like butchers”, all whilst the body is never found, all whilst evidence of dismembering cannot be produced and whilst there is no digital evidence of any kind, we see “a gripping work of investigative journalism” and in all this, no one is asking questions. I for one do not stand for the hypocritical stage that is exploited by the media on several fronts. Fell free to disagree, yet I feel that there is enough evidence on my side, whilst the lack of evidence on the other side is massively questionable.

I will let you decide on this, like I pretty much always do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Speculations, tomato juice and oil

Yup, when we see tomato juice and we call it blood, it is called a speculation. Until the liquid is tested, it could be blood, but that setting is quickly diminished when we test the liquid, and in this the setting of speculation is also important, when we say ‘it looks like blood’ it is one thing, yet when we say ‘I can clearly see that this is blood’ it becomes something else, yet the person could still hide behind a second statement by saying ‘I really thought it was blood’ and all is OK (from that point of view), but for others it is less clear. So that is the setting I had when I saw the article in Al Jazeera yesterday and I wrote about it in ‘To decide in anger’, I wrote about it yesterday at (https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/03/to-decide-in-anger/). So this morning I walked past my favourite bookshop and learned the they had the book Blood and Oil and the sales lady took me straight to it (bless her happy youthful heart), so roughly 73 seconds later, I was the owner of the book. A book I honestly would not have bought if I had not read the Al Jazeera article, so they can add the statistics to that part too. 

In this I learned early on that was in a style that I liked. It is also a dangerous style to use when it is anything else but fiction, and that is how we need to see it, it is for the larger extent a work of fiction. In this chapter 18 (In cold blood) which is about Jamal Khashoggi is as I personally see it as massively fictive.

To explain this I need to take you on a small journey. In the UN report (by UN Essay writer Agnes Calamard) we see at [208] “It also seems improbable that this plan to murder was hatched by the team on its own, or as has been apparently argued at trial, by the team leader alone, once on site”, the application of ‘seems improbable’ is clearly speculative, it makes ‘plan to murder’ fail as speculative as well. Consider that in Common law there is Murder, which requires the evidence of intent and there is manslaughter, which has a lower stage of evidence. In addition any of these actions are void of any evidence towards the Crown prince, no matter what is stated, the evidence has never ever been produced.

So when we see in the book on page 303 “the bloodcurdling detail of the brutality of the killers, dismembering Khashoggi’s body like butchers”, it is merely one of 4 issues I found in the chapter. There was never any evidence of any action, because there was never any evidence and this is what these fictional writers are setting their optional success to, it helps the they are well known writers of the Wall Street Journal. 

This is merely one of the parts of the journey. The other part is one the is a little more scientific. Consider that you add 50 quotes that have a high probability of truth, it is unproven, but those who know will of course highlight any the they know to be true. So as 20-30 out of the 50 are proven to be true, it will taint the other 20 with the ring of truthfulness.  It you give 50 quotes the are highly likely, every hit will optionally be given the ring ‘that might be true too’, this is beside the point that the chance to get one right becomes increasingly likely. It is there the the book (which is nicely written) goes from partial fiction to non-fiction. It is not new and it actually comes from Robert Ludlum (that is where I got the tactic from). He wrote about it in his book ‘The Chancellor Manuscript’ there the writer Peter Chancellor gets his fingers on details, facts he cannot prove and as an academic work it would be laughed at, but he sets it out as fiction and as people look at the book ‘Reichstag!’, people would look at it and wonder if it could be true. It is the the stage where a group called Inver Brass pushed Peter Chancellor and it was merely the beginning. This is exactly the stage the Blood and Oil find itself in and with the stage of what could be true, we can now see a larger stage. In this I looked at it differently because of all the materials I had looked at in the last few months. I do not regret buying the book, because as a fictional work, it reads nicely and plenty of us are curious about the Saudi Royal family, the pictures are a nice addition to the book. And if I can find 4 debatable offered facts in one chapter, I can find a lot more in the book, that is if we treat it as non-fiction. The setting goes on, when we see certain quotes we would consider that the leak would be the personal assistant to Mohammed Bin Salman, consider just how unlikely that is. Would ANY personal assistant be that open about the optional next regent of Saudi Arabia? It would be the highest position that any non-Royal could ever hold (I am assuming the any person assistant of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is not a member of the royal family). 

It is perhaps too funny, but I am just now realising the I am listening to the Mikado whilst writing this. A topsy turvy play on the gentleman of Japan. I feel that the setting is correct, and the stage where we cannot distinguish between fact and fiction is overwhelmingly appealing, but for me Blood and Oil is because of what I do know a work of fiction, the rest hat I cannot proof to be either is happily accepted in the fictive state, it makes the book easier to read. 

Even as the back of the book makes reference to ‘investigative journalism’, it is nice to see that the work from people of the Wall Street Journal can be easily seen as fictive, I wonder what other fictive works the paper optionally offers (a ha ha ha moment from my side).

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics