"His column in a Saudi-owned Arab newspaper was canceled. His marriage was collapsing. His relatives had been forbidden to travel to pressure him to stop criticizing the kingdom’s rulers. Then, after he arrived in the United States, a wave of arrests put a number of his Saudi friends behind bars, and he made his difficult decision: It was too dangerous to return home anytime soon — and maybe forever. So in the United States, he reinvented himself as a critic, contributing columns to The Washington Post and believing he had found safety in the West.... According to interviews with dozens of people who knew Mr. Khashoggi and his relationship with the Saudi leadership, it was his penchant for writing freely, and his organizing to push for political reform from abroad, that put him on a collision course with the crown prince.... 'Mohammed bin Salman had been paying millions of dollars to create a certain image of himself, and Jamal Khashoggi was destroying all of it with just a few words,' said Mr. Tamimi, the friend. 'The crown prince must have been furious.'"
From
"For Khashoggi, a Tangled Mix of Royal Service and Islamist Sympathies" (NYT).
UPDATE:
पोस्ट्स
१८३ टिप्पण्या:
"In the United States, he reinvented himself as a critic, contributing columns to The Washington Post and believing he had found safety in the West...."
If he didn't become an American, he fooled himself.
So Khashaggi was taking around with terrorists?
72 pieces, 72 virgins.
Khashoggi is worth more dead to Erdoğan than alive.
He needs a safety net if he's been in hiding.
Thank God for fracking. We don’t have to depend on those barbarians any more.
There were something like 10,000 murders yesterday.
Most of them were not committed by Americans. How does this really impact America besides the slur 'how does it feel to work with a murderer'?
One might ask the Clinton campaign staff that question with as much evidence.
I don't care about him. I don't care about the Saudi Royal Family.
It SEEMS that the Sauds are trying to reform their nation so it only takes 3 male witnesses to confirm a female was raped, but in general, their country is a shithole and their morality does not jibe in any way with mine.
So call it racism if you will, but when one corrupt country may or may not have murdered a journalist, my question is simple: Was he an American?
No. Okay. This is what they do! They did under the Obama administration...who worked with them, the Clinton Administration...who worked with them...the Carter Administration... who worked with them.
The Iranian Mullahs murdered a LOT of people during the Green Revolution while Obama played golf. I kept mentally BEGGING him to give a 'Tear down this wall!' speech. HE, more than anyone else, could have made that speech and changed the WORLD!
He didn't care. I don't care.
The only reason that this is getting so much ink is that journalists REALLY disapprove of Journalists getting fired or killed.
Unless it was a Muslim extremist killing an entire magazine's staff for religious reasons. Then...for some reason (another form of racism) they don't care so much.
I do not doubt that the Saudis are capable of murdering their opponents in barbaric ways, but this story is too weird for me to immediately swallow without evidence to back it up, and Erdogan's Turkey is high on my list of regimes I would trust even less than the Saudis.
A little too convenient. I'd look at the thug Erdoğan
Note to progressives: THIS is what happens to you when you publicly criticize a "literally Hitler" - you are tortured, chopped up, and disappeared.
How very multi-cultural for the Post to be running Islamist columns.
From Wiki:
Political scientists no longer consider Turkey as a fully fledged democracy, citing the lack of free and fair elections, purges and jailing of opponents, curtailed press freedom, and Erdoğan's efforts to broadening his executive powers and minimize his executive accountability.
.
.
.
Widespread 2013 protests broke out against the perceived authoritarianism of Erdoğan's policies; he criticized the protestors and then had them suppressed by police, which killed 22 people, injured numerous others and brought international condemnation from foreign governments and human rights organizations.
.
.
.
A US$100 billion corruption scandal in 2013 led to the arrests of Erdoğan's close allies, and incriminated Erdoğan.[14][15][16] His government has since come under fire for alleged human rights violations and crackdown on press and social media, having blocked access to Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube on numerous occasions.[17] Erdoğan's government lifted the bans when directed by court orders,[18][19][20] but later reimposed them.[21][22] In 2016, Turkey under Erdoğan began a crackdown on freedom of the press; in 2016 and 2017, more journalists have been incarcerated in Turkey than in any other country.
That being said, the House of Saud is no better.
So...Trump...worst Hitler ever.
We haven't jailed any journalists, purged any colleges, nor put Clinton, Pelosi, or DiFi, or Durbin (just to name the girls) into prison.
America deserves a better form of Autocrat.
Andrew Sullivan could use a nice long work situation sans State Department protection in Turkey before he flaps his gums about what 'authoritarian government' means.
That he was even able to write his drivel shows that he is not in one.
He is/was Muslim Brotherhood. That will help explain why the American left are throwing such a fit.
Khashoggi was Muslim Brotherhood and has always been MB - a group that would take down the Saudi Royal family in a heartbeat. That little inconvenient fact is overlooked in all of these stories and is the main reason he was "removed". It's like Tariq Ramadan in Europe, the darling of the left there too, until his behavior with women finally caught up to him. MB singing sweet songs that enrapture the press and make them look away from what these people really want - power of their own.
There are no "good guy" in the Middle Eastern Muslim States. It's a box of snakes and the red ones bite just as bad as the green ones. If you keep that in mind and act accordingly - you can start to approach Arab politics where the art of destruction is more important than any other characteristic - it shows you have power.
If he was connected to intelligence, he got sloppy. I'd look into the the Turkish woman for whom he went to the embassy, in order to get an attestation of divorce so that he might marry again. Cherchez la femme. She's not getting enough attention.
Blogger Browndog said...
"He is/was Muslim Brotherhood. That will help explain why the American left are throwing such a fit."
That's why Erdogan is throwing such a fit.
The security gate at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul looks like a retired goat-pen from the Iowa State Fair.
Why was this guy allowed to live in the US?
Let the Brotherhood give him sanctuary.
I don't care about this guy/ story. Does that make me a bad person?
You expect the times to tell you the truth:
Who Is Jamal Khashoggi? by Avi Melamed - I
https://m.soundcloud.com/user-437576028/who-is-jamal-khashoggi?utm_source=soundcloud&up
There are some pretty lurid tales about what happened to Khashoggi circulating in the international media right now. But then I remembered the lurid stories circulating about what was going on inside the Superdome during Katrina, and the more lurid they were the more false they were, and I've decided that until we see Khashoggi's body, or pieces thereof, I will suspend judgement.
Yes this half Dexter, half scarface scenario doesn't work.
But you see how much info they have to omit, to make the narrative work.
The Muslim Brotherhood connections are a smoke screen. That he has "Islamist sympathies" is no secret. It applies to millions of people in the Arab world. Given the right to self-determination, most Arabs are going to elect Islamic governments. The country that was held as the exemplar for democracy promotion in the Middle East, Iraq, has the following in its constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."
@FIDO::
I am confused by a couple of statements you have made. First you write:
So call it racism if you will, but when one corrupt country may or may not have murdered a journalist, my question is simple: Was he an American?
But then about the Green Movement protests you write:
The Iranian Mullahs murdered a LOT of people during the Green Revolution while Obama played golf. I kept mentally BEGGING him to give a 'Tear down this wall!' speech. HE, more than anyone else, could have made that speech and changed the WORLD!
Why were you "mentally BEGGING" for Obama to do something about people who were not Americans?
Also, what is really the evidence that a speech by Obama could have "changed the WORLD?" The Green Movement was a reaction to a perceived fraudulent presidential campaign that reelected Ahmadinejad over Mir-Hossein Mousavi. The Green Movement were supporters of Mousavi, who had been the prime minister of Iran in the 1980 and had been an adviser during Khatami's presidency. Even if the Green Movement had gotten what it wanted, it would not have fundamentally changed Iran, let alone "the WORLD!"
I expect Trump's next SCOTUS pick to replace the RBG to be accused of cannibalism.
Nobody knows anything, but the NYT is sure putting whipped cream on this guy. A murderous thug was murdered by a murderous thug in a foreign country. Yawn.
@Amadeus 48L
Nobody knows anything, but the NYT is sure putting whipped cream on this guy. A murderous thug was murdered by a murderous thug in a foreign country. Yawn.
Sorry, what is the evidence he was a murderous thug?
There are many who would take down the Saudi government and this 'journalist' was one. From the Saudis' perspective, he probably needed killing. We should take a neutral stand in all such matters because we shall never fully understand Middle Eastern culture which is ancient, entrenched and antithetical to ours .
Can anyone point to any change in government in the Middle East that was a change for the better. Maybe Ataturk. Whatever comes after the Saudi royal family will be worse, even though the present rulers are pretty bad.......I remember all the stories about how bad the Shah and his secret police were. What could possibly be worse than the Shah's regime?
What could possibly be worse than the Shah's regime?
Maybe that of the Ayatollah Khomeini?
Very simple: there are zero direct geo-political effects of this guy getting whacked. I get it is upsetting to journalists and in normal Democrat fashion, anything that goes wrong in the world is a cudgel to use against Trump, but at the end of the day...no ramifications.
If Obama gave a speech, that was a zero risk proposition to Obama and had a very significant impact both morally and to the morale of the Green Revolution.
Most of those people just want their isolation to stop. They want an economy. They want to travel. They want to not be lumped in with the assholes who are in charge of them.
But Obama was a poltroon. He figured his Iranian deal, where he gives them billions of dollars while giving them moral credence was a much better plan.
So yes, a low risk, high reward speech is big on my list.
I am not FOR human rights violations. The Iran Mullahs do this. Erdogan too. I am against human rights violators because I am human.
I am also against murder but I also have an economy of outrage.
@William:
Whatever comes after the Saudi royal family will be worse, even though the present rulers are pretty bad
To be highly skeptical of revolution is the central conservative insight. A US policy of regime in Saudi Arabia would be a terrible idea. But that does not mean that the US has to arm, provide intelligence, and give military assistance to Saudi Arabia in its foolish, destructive behavior as well as publicly supporting them on the world stage. US-Saudi entanglement is mostly a Cold War era anachronism.
I do not doubt that the Saudis are capable of murdering their opponents in barbaric ways, but this story is too weird for me to immediately swallow without evidence to back it up, and Erdogan's Turkey is high on my list of regimes I would trust even less than the Saudis.
Yeah, he's a would-be new Ottoman sultan, complete with palace. It's certainly something that needs a look before taking Turkey's word for it.
It could also be something in-between: they tried to intimidate him and he had a heart attack. "Aw, crap. Now what?"
How small palaces look these days compared to skyscrapers.
Erdogan is Dr. Ford. Believe him or else. He has 245 journalists in prison as of January 2018. A champion of press freedom?
@FIDO:
If Obama gave a speech, that was a zero risk proposition to Obama and had a very significant impact both morally and to the morale of the Green Revolution.
Most of those people just want their isolation to stop. They want an economy. They want to travel. They want to not be lumped in with the assholes who are in charge of them.
Had the Green Revolution been successful, Mir-Hossein Mousavi would have been named president. They were not trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic. And the nuclear deal was far more consequential for the international world than whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi was president from 2009 to 2013. Your claim also ignores the fact that Mousavi, the political head of the Green Movement, did not even want American support.
Didn't Khashoggi first seek refuge pseudonymously in the US at Jellystone National Park dressed as a bear with side-kick Boo-Boo?
And don't get me started on how difficult it is to find a halal pic-i-nic basket.
A Saudi Thomas Becket.
A Saudi Thomas Becket.
I was thinking that Erdogan is trying to be a Turkish Henry Tudor.
It's a,proxy war like with Catholic Spain and protestant UK, with Qatar and turkey representing the other side, quradawi who issued fatwas against sad at, Myanmar and coalition troops.
J. Farmer said...
"Sorry, what is the evidence he was a murderous thug?"
His relations with the Islamic Brotherhood. I know you think Muslims are somehow more respectable than the Mafia, the Hells Angels, the Bloods and the Crips. But some of us have sense enough to recognize that the members of murderous gangs are all murderous gangsters.
WHY DID THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT MORSI'S MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD?
The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration Kindle Edition
Obama Policies Aided Muslim Brotherhood in Infiltrating the Clinton Foundation
Muslim Brotherhood-tied group paid for Keith Ellison to visit Mecca in 2008
Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood
According to Wikipedia, [The Muslim Brotherhood, ]as of 2015 is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
There is a good piece by Karen Elliot House in the WSJ that assumes that Khashoggi is dead and goes on in the same vein as the NYT. However reading it one can't help but wonder: why would the Saudis kill the guy in their own consulate? Khashoggi could have disappeared anywhere in the world with a lot of questions being asked, but no easy direct tie to the Saudis. Is MBS really that stupid that he would take the action described in such a way. I don't think he is, but if he is, he certainly doesn't deserve our support.
Until I see some hard facts that the "Saudi's did it" I am going to cling to the belief that this is a frame up. Regardless of whatever sins Khashoggi may or may not have been guilty, the scenario is just too hard to believe.
They were not trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Another Farmer encyclopedia-like assertion.
Blogger David Begley said...
Thank God for fracking. We don’t have to depend on those barbarians any more.
Bingo !
If the Saudis whacked the guy, they didn’t do it on US soil or territory. And he shouldn’t have been living in the US. We don’t need the Brotherhood here. Let the Brotherhood avenge one of their members.
The media outcry and the nonsense from some US politicians is silly. Muslims have been killing each other for over one thousand years over their various versions of Islam. Just keep it out of the US.
The Saudis did. So we have no interest here. This guy was not American and his ideology is not remotely compatible with the US.
If the Brotherhood can bring about their version of Islam through democratic means (though like all ideologies they won’t be able to maintain it through democratic means) then good for them. It didn’t work out for them in Egypt. I know Obama was upset by this but the US can deal with el-Sisi just fine.
Our primary national interest as to this stuff is to keep the Salfists and Brotherhood out of the US.
@brylun:
According to Wikipedia, [The Muslim Brotherhood, ]as of 2015 is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Most countries, including the US, are not on that list. Saudi Arabia has had an oscillating relationship with the MB for years. It has supported them in the past as a bulwark against communism and secular nationalism. The recent designation of the MB as a terrorist organization, which occurred in 2015, was mainly a result of their stunning electoral success in Egypt. One of the reasons groups splintered from the MB, including Al Qaeda, was because the group was insufficiently militant and had been renouncing violence as a tactic throughout the 1990s.
@Michael K:
Another Farmer encyclopedia-like assertion.
Read Hooman Majd's The Ayatollahs' Democracy if you want the argument laid out in more explicit terms. Or even better, if you have some evidence that the Green Movement was seeking the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, please provide it. There is also The Hawkish Uses and Abuses of the Green Movement in Iran:
"The claim that the Green movement protests created an opportunity for regime change is one of the most misleading arguments Iran hawks have used over the last six years. It ignores that the Green movement was not a revolutionary one, nor was it a prelude to an uprising. Its leaders and most of its supporters did not seek the overthrow of the regime, but sought instead the recognition of their civil rights and the election of a particular candidate. There was no possibility of regime change through “popular uprising,” so there was no chance to be missed.
More vocal U.S. support would have changed nothing for the better, and would in all likelihood have made the crackdown even harsher than it was. Besides, the Green movement didn’t want the support of the U.S. and understood perfectly well that an endorsement from Washington would be disastrous for their standing in Iran. More to the point, U.S. engagement with Iran was effectively put on hold for the next several years because of the protests. There was no progress on the nuclear issue in 2009 or 2010, and the U.S. slapped down the efforts of Turkey and Brazil to broker a deal. Gerson is recycling a set of talking points about the Green movement that was discredited years ago, and in so doing confirms that he doesn’t understand Iran or its politics very well at all."
In a world where discredited means 'things with which I do not agree'...
Yep.
Francisco... yes, Erdogan is as despotic as a Tudor.
I prefer David Goldman's writings on Iran, including that mosque attendance is less than 2 % and the birth rate is below Europe's.
The people are behaving just like the Russians were under communism.
There was a small elite, sort of like Silicon Valley Democrats, that had special privileges and the rest just survived as best they could.
I guess all your trips to Iran have made you an expert.
@mccullough:
If the Brotherhood can bring about their version of Islam through democratic means (though like all ideologies they won’t be able to maintain it through democratic means) then good for them. It didn’t work out for them in Egypt. I know Obama was upset by this but the US can deal with el-Sisi just fine.
It "didn't work out" because the military launched coup d'etat against a democratically elected government. It was then that Egypt made the MB illegal, designated them a terrorist group, and threw most of their members in jail. In response, Obama had this to say:
"President Obama spoke with Egyptian President Abdelfattah al-Sisi today regarding the U.S.-Egyptian military assistance relationship and regional developments, including in Libya and Yemen. President Obama informed President al-Sisi that he will lift executive holds that have been in place since October 2013 on the delivery of F-16 aircraft, Harpoon missiles, and M1A1 tank kits. The President also advised President al-Sisi that he will continue to request an annual $1.3 billion in military assistance for Egypt. Beginning in fiscal year 2018, the President noted that we will channel U.S. security assistance for Egypt to four categories – counterterrorism, border security, Sinai security, and maritime security – and for sustainment of weapons systems already in Egypt’s arsenal."
The Iranian fertility rate is European low. That’s a good point. But it’s been on the uptick again (still below replacement level) as The Supreme Leader a few years back decreed the need again for a 20 million person army.
But given inflation in Iran, they couldn’t feed a 20 million man army. So we can just laugh at the Supreme Leader.
@Michael K:
I prefer David Goldman's writings on Iran, including that mosque attendance is less than 2 % and the birth rate is below Europe's.
We have already debated demographics and religiosity in Iran. It has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. The Green Movement was not a revolutionary movement. If you, or Mr. Goldman, has evidence to the contrary, please link to it, and we can discuss it.
I guess all your trips to Iran have made you an expert
Oh, get off it, Doc. I have been to Iran about as many times as you have, and we both have opinions. So what?
@mccullough:
The Iranian fertility rate is European low. That’s a good point. But it’s been on the uptick again (still below replacement level) as The Supreme Leader a few years back decreed the need again for a 20 million person army.
Recent demographic studies have actually suggested that Iran's fertility rate has reached replacement levels. Mohammad Jalal Abbasi is a professor of demography at the University of Tehran and is head of the Asian Population Association. You can read his data at RECENT CHANGES AND THE FUTURE OF FERTILITY IN IRAN
I have been to Egypt 5 times, and I am scheduled to go again in January and February. I have been there during Sadat, Mubarak and Morsi. I look forward to experiencing Egypt during Sisi, and my sense is that Sisi is the best, and Morsi was the worst.
But I assume Mr. Farmer's opinions may differ from mine.
"Sorry, what is the evidence he was a murderous thug?"
He was a Saudi and a Muslim.
Isn't that enough?
Oh, look. Robert Cook swoops in with claims of racism. Gee, I don't know how anybody will recover from such lucid and trenchant commentary.
I don't like being manipulated. When the Times doesn't tell us the truth about the victim's background, I'm inclined to shrug and move on. "Islamist sympathies" means "Death to America," as far as I can tell, so no great loss. There are Arab liberals, and making the mistake of supporting "Death to America" because it is popular is stupid. We did that in 1979, and how did that work out?
We aren't under any obligation to protect our enemies.
As far as upholding international law, Turkey should close the Saudi embassy and expel all their diplomats until the two countries get along again. Turkey can pursue a criminal case against the murderers. We should assist within normal limits, as a police matter.
It "didn't work out" because the military launched coup d'etat against a democratically elected government. It was then that Egypt made the MB illegal, designated them a terrorist group, and threw most of their members in jail.
The unfortunate alternative was what was happening immediately before: churches going up like tiki torches every weekend, with government-encouraged mobs doing the torching.
@bylun:
I have been to Egypt 5 times, and I am scheduled to go again in January and February. I have been there during Sadat, Mubarak and Morsi. I look forward to experiencing Egypt during Sisi, and my sense is that Sisi is the best, and Morsi was the worst.
But I assume Mr. Farmer's opinions may differ from mine.
My opinion is very simple: Egypt is not the kind of society I would ever want to live in and hence I have no plans to immigrate there. How Egyptians decide to arrange their society is their business, not mine. Similarly, how Americans choose to arrange their society is our business, not the Egyptians.
Farmer,
I’m not surprised it’s back up to replacement level (if it is).
The Supreme Leader decreed the need for another 20 million man army a few years ago and banned vasectomies and tubal ligations. Not handing out conforms anymore either.
Of course that army will starve with the high inflation of The Islamic Republic. Maybe China and Russia can keep pissing away money on the Mullahs. Good for the US if they do. Keep pumping the oil and fracking and watch The Mullahs and Putin cry.
Oh, get off it, Doc. I have been to Iran about as many times as you have, and we both have opinions. So what?
You dismissed as an anecdote a story about a personal friend who is Iranian. Your "expert" is somebody I never heard of and American Conservative is your usual source but not the source most people use on Iran. David Goldman has written for years as "Spengler" in Asia Times and has a book on Iran. I prefer him and, of course, Reuel Marc Gerecht.
I read his book when the author was still listed as "Unknown."
Call it complementary friction. And dream up all the worst-case scenarios of Iran fracturing along ethnic lines or just exploding violently in a spasm against the mullahs, and it’s hard to see how any of these eventualities are bad for Saudi Arabia or Israel. Loose nukes would be a problem, but the clerical regime without the JCPOA is still years out from developing atomic weapons. A vengeful Revolutionary Guard military operation aimed against the Saudi oil industry undoubtedly would worry Riyadh, but such attacks would immediately trigger the U.S. Navy, which could be life-threatening for the Iranian military. The clerical regime probably isn’t stupid enough to allow its outrage to open itself up to American firepower.
The Saudis do have to fear Iranian mischief among the Saudi and Bahraini Shia. But the Iranians haven’t been passive bystanders in attempts to exploit enormous Shiite grievances against the Sunni royal families in the peninsula.
Your comments are mostly bullshit.
Keep The Brotherhood out of the US. This guy should have never been in the US.
Robert Cook: "He was a Saudi and a Muslim.
Isn't that enough?"
That is more than enough for leftists who have made careers as defining whiteness as synonymous with racism.
Or dont you like the new rules you and your pals created?
@John Lynch:
I don't like being manipulated. When the Times doesn't tell us the truth about the victim's background, I'm inclined to shrug and move on. "Islamist sympathies" means "Death to America," as far as I can tell, so no great loss.
That is not what "Islamist sympathies" means The Iraqi government, that we spent $2 trillion and thousands of American lives to bring in existence, also has "Islamist sympathies." It's written into their constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established." Does this mean that Iraq wants "Death to America?"
That's not Islamist sympathies, and you know it.
@Michael K:
You dismissed as an anecdote a story about a personal friend who is Iranian. Your "expert" is somebody I never heard of and American Conservative is your usual source but not the source most people use on Iran. David Goldman has written for years as "Spengler" in Asia Times and has a book on Iran. I prefer him and, of course, Reuel Marc Gerecht.
I am not sure which "anecdote" you are referring to. It is not in this thread. The fact that you never heard of Hooman Majd is pointless. I simply referred you to a source on the Green Movement in Iran. You can read it or not. I don't care.
As for Reuel Marc Gerecht, he is a neocon who favors a highly interventionist foreign policy. I think I have explained sufficiently over the years why I reject such a policy. But also, it was Gerecht himself who made the following point: "Conference speaker Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Middle East specialist for the CIA, argued that Shiite clerics and Sunni fundamentalists may hold the keys to spreading democracy in the Middle East – not the secular moderates that many Americans have placed their faith in."
Your comments are mostly bullshit.
Name a single thing I have written here that is "mostly bullshit."
Does this mean that Iraq wants "Death to America?"
This is why I do not engage Farmer.
Running with a torch in a field of straw men.
@John Lynch:
That's not Islamist sympathies, and you know it.
Please do not tell me what I know and what I do not know. I don't participate in obfuscation, and I say exactly what I think.
First, "Islamism" itself is a very broad category that encompasses a variety of viewpoints and splinter factions. Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Ruhollah Khomeini all fall under the Islamist umbrella and all have divergent viewpoints on a host of issues.
Second, "Islamist sympathies" is an even more vague description. Sympathetic to what, precisely? And what are they antithetical, too.
Third, to quote the Oxford Encyclopedia's definition: "The term “Islamism” at the very least represents a form of social and political activism, grounded in an idea that public and political life should be guided by a set of Islamic principles. In other words, Islamists are those who believe that Islam has an important role to play in organizing a Muslim-majority society and who seek to implement this belief."
Given that definition, and the plane stated words of the Iraqi constitution, Iraq is clearly an Islamist country, not simply a country that has "sympathies" with "Islamism."
narciso said...
Yes this half Dexter, half scarface scenario doesn't work.
10/15/18, 8:54 AM
Hahaha!
If only it happened in Florida, would be perfect!
@Michael K:
This is why I do not engage Farmer.
Running with a torch in a field of straw men.
It isn't a strawman when it's a direct response to something someone said. John Lynch wrote: ""Islamist sympathies" means "Death to America," as far as I can tell, so no great loss."
Addressing that claim is not attacking a straw man.
Allegedly murdered writer Jamal Khashoggi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1970s, considered Osama bin Laden a friend, mourned his death, and was a backchannel between the Saudis and al-Qaeda prior to 9/11
Allegedly murdered writer Jamal Khashoggi was an advisor to fmr Saudi intel chief Turki al-Faisal Who was the head of the CIA in Saudi Arabia when Turki al-Faisal was running Saudi intel? John Brennan
-Jack Posobiec
Well Maliki was dawa, ironically they let an actual Iranian and Syrian agent in charge and dpractically exiled chalabj.
The green movement was akin to solidarnosc which wasn't originally revolutionary either.
And Prince Turki was one of the leading shareholders in bcci, and had ties to the creepy poem lawyer through his son on social media.
And we have Farmer, again, pushing the theory that the poor, picked on, Muslim Brotherhood were the good guys, the democrats, and that the present regime there was evil in replacing them. He apparently thinks that since the Crooked Hillary State Dept and Obama White House were able to push Egypt into their hands, that they are somehow the good guys here. Which of course ignores what they did when they took over power - exactly what you would expect from the parent organization of al Quaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS - they started murdering Christians, and reversed the policy of effective neutrality with neighboring Israel. Of course the military stepped in - they didn't want another war with Israel, esp a nuclear armed Israel. And that was what the MB was pushing hard towards. The Arab Spring was one of the stupidest foreign policy misadventures of our lifetimes, maybe equaling the Kennedy Administration assassinating the democratically elected leader of South Vietnam. Their score here: 0/3 with Lybia still a violent failed state, MB evicted from power in Egypt before they could kill all their Christians, and then get nuked when they tried to invade Israel, and Syria, whose dissentigration has cause the emigration problem that may do what almost a thousand years of Muslim invasions couldn't do to Europe.
His relatives had been forbidden to travel to pressure him to stop criticizing the kingdom’s rulers. Then, after he arrived in the United States, a wave of arrests put a number of his Saudi friends behind bars, and he made his difficult decision: It was too dangerous to return home anytime soon — and maybe forever.
As brutal as Saudi's seem to be, I would imagine they would threaten the guy's family if he did not shut his pie hole.
Takes courage to continue attacking the royals when they might incarcerate or torture or kill your relatives.
@Browndog:
Allegedly murdered writer Jamal Khashoggi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1970s, considered Osama bin Laden a friend, mourned his death, and was a backchannel between the Saudis and al-Qaeda prior to 9/11.
None of this is new information, and it is a very misleading account. Khashoggi was supportive of bin Laden's efforts in Afghanistan to drive out the Soviets. He was not sympathetic to bin Laden's attempts to wage a wider cause, and he specifically attempted to counsel bin Laden against them. All of this is covered in Lawrence Wright's A Looming Tower.
I don’t see Farmer backing The Brotherhood. He’s right that they were democratically elected in Egypt and were then overthrown by the military, which is consistent with how Egypt operates since Nasser.
J. Farmer would be explaining how the Muslims simply want to live in peace with us as they were sawing his head off with a rusty knife.
Yes and that came about because state (Harriman and Forrestal Jr) listened to halberstam who in turn was being fed misinformation by a viet Minh agent.
It is very rare that the sauds kill or even render a dissident abroad, Nasser attal was the example Ali Ahmed mentioned.
Does everyone agree that Khashoggi getting whacked in Turkey is not something that should concern the US? We have to pretend to be “concerned” about this type of behavior but pretend is all it is.
@Bruce Hayden:
And we have Farmer, again, pushing the theory that the poor, picked on, Muslim Brotherhood were the good guys, the democrats, and that the present regime there was evil in replacing them.
I have never made any such statements. And there have been sectarian conflicts between Muslims and Coptics in Egypt for decades, going back to least the early 1980s. Numerous conflicts, including the Nag Hammadi massacre, occurred under the reign of Hosni Mubarak.
Well first we need to establish that it actually happened then make sure Graham and Rubio don't do something to destabilize the swing producer of the world's crude.
@gahrie:
J. Farmer would be explaining how the Muslims simply want to live in peace with us as they were sawing his head off with a rusty knife.
Again, never made any such statement or intimation. What I do say is that the threat to the US by Islamic jihadists is overblown and that supporting regime change operations in Muslim majority countries is a stupid, counterproductive policy. If you want to argue about those positions, let's go ahead. Also, there really is no such thing as a "Muslim world" that we can be at war or at peace with. Paramilitary and counterinsurgency operations to attack Al Qaeda are one thing. Trying to transform Afghan society is something completely different.
Europe depends on Saudi crude, not us.
We are spectators here except with respect to Iran which is still our enemy.
The regime is the enemy, not the people.
Revolutions are not begun by down trodden peasants. They are begun by middle class, just as the French Revolution was begun by the Bourgeois. Danton had a wife and children. So did Camille Desmoulins.
J Farmer asserts: Also, there really is no such thing as a "Muslim world" that we can be at war or at peace with.
No umma?
Why do you deplorables swallow the semen of the 911 perpetrators? Isn't giving Putin a handjob enough?
@mccullough:
Does everyone agree that Khashoggi getting whacked in Turkey is not something that should concern the US? We have to pretend to be “concerned” about this type of behavior but pretend is all it is.
The short answer: yes and no. It should not matter that much because there have been plenty of reasons over the last several years to justify disentangling the US-Saudi relationship. The Saudi's stupid and destructive war on Yemen is far more consequential than Khashoggi's possible murder.
The trouble it causes for MBS is that he has devoted a tremendous amount of PR resources into convincing people that he is a modernist and a reformer. Hence his shakedown purge is sold as an "anti-corruption" campaign. The Yemen attack is now ridiculously reframed as a defense against Iran. The capital markets, though, have been able to see through MBS' "reformist" chimera:
"According to research by JPMorgan, capital outflows of residents in Saudi Arabia are projected at $65 billion in 2018, or 8.4% of gross domestic product (GDP). This is less than the $80 billion lost in 2017, but a sign of a continued bleed. Significantly, the projection was made before the contretemps with Canada. According to research by Standard Chartered, the first quarter of 2018 saw $14.4 billion in outward portfolio investment into foreign equities, the largest surge since 2008. There are concerns that the government is leaning on banks and asset managers to discourage outflows, a kind of informal capital-control regime.
This flight signals the dimming of the optimism surrounding Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 economic plan. Many of the institutional reforms outlined in the plan—designed to diversify the Saudi economy, attract foreign investment and create jobs—are needed to liberalize the state-led, resource-dependent economy. Investors had hoped Riyadh would follow through on economic reforms, but have been disheartened by such high-profile actions as the arrest of prominent businessmen last year, and a recent campaign to silence critics, especially women activists. These measures—add to them now the spat with Canada—indicate that the state favours regime stability and consolidation over the rule of law, and the creation of institutions and regulations that can check the state.
Whatever the political compulsions behind these actions, they have done little to address the fundamental problem of the Saudi economy—that it is captive to, and reliant on, the state. For private sector growth to take place, capital needs to feel safe, and investors need legal guarantees to protect them. But this has not happened. Instead, the business cycle continues to be fuelled by government project-spending tied to oil revenues: government deposits appear in local banks, then loans go out to favoured private-sector contractors. Business activity ebbs and flows with the boom-and-bust cycle of oil revenues."
-Saudi Arabia’s problem is capital flight
Let me add that it looks more and more like if Khashoggi got whacked by the Saudis, it was because he was very visibly working against their effective alliance with Israel against Iran. Which should be no surprise, since he apparently has/had been a MB member for decades, and the Kingdom's interface with that organization. And it is very clear that the Saudi rulers consider Iran its chief enemy right now, by far, as the latter runs proxy wars closer and closer to the kingdom. Iran, of course, is seeking to supplant Saudi Arabia as the spiritual center of Islam (as the average Iranian moves further and further away from the Shiite faith of his fore bearers, much of it due to the clerical corruption of the Iranian quasi-theocracy).
The Obama Administration made it a common practice to use Hellfire missiles shot from our drones to take out those it considered enemies of our country (even taking out innocent bystanders, on occasion, as collateral damage). Why is executing Khashoggi on (effectively) Saudi soil any worse? After all, Khashoggi, one of their subjects, was very likely more dangerous to the Kingdom, than many of Obama's drone effected execution victims ever were to our national survival.
@mockturtle:
J Farmer asserts: Also, there really is no such thing as a "Muslim world" that we can be at war or at peace with.
No umma?
As a sociological construct, yes. As a political entity, no.
Robert Cook brings the racism.
Howard brings the homophobia.
I love the tolerant left.
What is Trump supposed to do with the Saudis? Terminate diplomatic relations? Terminate commercial relations? Cancel the secret defense treaty FDR made with Ibn Saud.
A pedant says what?
Like I wrote yesterday- anyone advocating a change in policy towards Saudi Arabia or Turkey, based on what did or did not happen to Khashoggi, is a fool who does not understand how geo-politics actually works. Not one man nor a hundred of them matter on this scale. Khashoggi was not an American, and likely wasn't a man of high moral stature either- every piece of evidence I have seen that is credible indicates he was a opportunist at best, and he might well have been murdered by the Saudis.
One is free to make arguments that our relationship with the Saudis should be different, but Kashoggi's fate is not one of those arguments, and that is me granting the absolute worst allegations against the Saudis being true here, which I don't actually think is supportable yet in any way.
@Bruce Hayden:
And it is very clear that the Saudi rulers consider Iran its chief enemy right now, by far, as the latter runs proxy wars closer and closer to the kingdom.
The only recent proxy war in the area was in Syria, in which the US, Turkey, and the GCC were arming, funding, and supporting jihadist forces to topple Assad due to the latter's alliance with Iran. Had that succeeded and the Assad regime toppled, what do you think Syria would look like right now? Supporting jihadist forces in Syria was also a proximate cause of the rise of ISIS.
The attack on Yemen is not a proxy war, because the Iranians do not control the Houthis and their involvement has been minimal, though what increases there have been in recent years have mostly been as a result of the attack by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has also empowered AQAP through its war on Yemen.
Over the past decade, Sunni Arab policies have led to the destabilization of Syria, the rise of ISIS, and the war in Yemen. Nothing Iran has done over the same time frame has been anywhere near as destructive and destabilizing.
Well tell Lindsey and corker and Rubio on that point, we will be rid of one but the other two remain, corker who was one of the lead enablers of the Syrian salafi rebels which were a 500 million dollar scandal.
Face it: A 'journalist' gets offed and the media go wild.
@cubanbob:
What is Trump supposed to do with the Saudis? Terminate diplomatic relations? Terminate commercial relations? Cancel the secret defense treaty FDR made with Ibn Saud.
No. We should cancel the arms sales agreement, and we should cease providing them with the intelligence and aerial refueling that are crucial for their conduct of the war against Yemen. And for what it's worth, we should have done these things long before Khashoggi's alleged murder.
Well sunnis think they are thr majority in Iraq as in Yemen, but it's a more Shia majority.
The US could make it be known that MbS should not be the crown prince any longer. Find another one that
doesn’t put us in situations like these.
Farmer,
That’s totally unrealistic. And naive. The Saudis are still very useful to the US.
And the houthi will stop launching missiles at targets in the kingdom, tell me another one.
You choose your unicorn:
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2018/10/15/Ex-CIA-expert-No-audiotape-on-Khashoggi-was-given-to-US-intelligence.html
Secretary Pompeo: #Iran’s support for Houthis in Yemen not only enables attacks on Saudi Arabia & UAE, but also risks increasing Yemen's already massive humanitarian crisis. Ayatollah Khamenei must be held accountable for destabilizing Gulf's security & prolonging suffering of the Yemeni people.
@mccullough:
Farmer,
That’s totally unrealistic. And naive. The Saudis are still very useful to the US.
How are supporting radical jihadists in Syria and Yemen and trying to starve the population of Yemen into submission so that Saudi Arabia can impose an illegitimate ruler on Yemen "useful to the US?
narciso said...
And the houthi will stop launching missiles at targets in the kingdom, tell me another one.
"Although the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia have made a big deal about missiles that the Houthis have fired at Saudi Arabia, those firings are pinpricks compared to the aerial assault in the other direction for which the missiles have been an attempt at retaliation. Missiles would not be launched if the Saudis and Emiratis had never launched their destructive expedition."
-War Crimes In Yemen
"The claim that Saudi Arabia is “simply defending itself” by attacking Yemen is utter nonsense, and it is easily exposed as such. The Saudis and their allies were not being threatened from Yemen by the Houthis or anyone else when they initiated their bombing campaign and blockade against the country. There were no attacks on Saudi territory that warranted retaliation, nor were there attacks on any other member of the coalition. The coalition was organized with the express purpose of reimposing a discredited, unpopular leader on the country after he had been forced from power. From the start, the Saudi-led war was an aggressive campaign waged against the bulk of the population of Yemen by a group of outside governments. It was only after the Saudis and their allies began pummeling and starving Yemen that Yemenis began launching attacks into Saudi territory."
-The War on Yemen and the ‘Self-Defense’ Lie
"Why do you deplorables swallow the semen of the 911 perpetrators? Isn't giving Putin a handjob enough?"
ZING!
Mr. Farmer's first link was from Paul Pillar, about whom Wikipedia says this: The Wall Street Journal editorial page criticized "CIA insurgents", including Pillar, for "engaging in a policy debate" and were "clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry".
Mr. Farmer's second link does not work.
Farmer,
China or the US (actually both) will sell arms to Saudi Arabia. No sense losing out on that money. And the US needs to have influence in a country that has that much oil.
We move out then China moves farther in.
Who gives a shit about Yemen? If the Saudis want to wage war there that’s up to them.
Ah paul pillar, snorfle. China may have already supplied the kingdom nuclear capable vs 27 missiles.
Fixed it for ya
Blogger mccullough said...
Who gives a shit about Manhattan and Washington DC? If the Saudis want to wage war there that’s up to them.
@brylun:
Mr. Farmer's first link was from Paul Pillar, about whom Wikipedia says this
None of that refutes the point that was being made. If Paul Pillar says there are 50 states in the US, your citation from Wikipedia would not refute that.
Mr. Farmer's second link does not work
Here is the complete link if the hyperlink is not working:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-war-on-yemen-and-the-self-defense-lie/
The Saudis began their attack on Yemen in March 2015. There were no missile attacks against Saudi Arabia before that, so the notion that the war is a defense against missile attacks is fatuous.
Howard,
Feel free to go to Yemen and fight. Lord Byron would be proud. But you won’t do it because it’s not important to you. You don’t give a shit about Yemen.
Back to Zeppelin lyrics.
@mccullough:
China or the US (actually both) will sell arms to Saudi Arabia. No sense losing out on that money. And the US needs to have influence in a country that has that much oil.
"Transforming the Saudi military to employ Russian, much less Chinese, weapons would cost a fortune even by Gulf standards, would require years of retraining and would greatly reduce its military power for a generation. Russia cannot produce next-generation fighter aircraft, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles for its own armed forces, much less for the export market. China has not produced, never mind exported, the sophisticated aircraft and missile defense systems Saudi Arabia wants."
-Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply
Mr. Farmer's support and citation of Paul Pillar reveals his position as a lefty John Kerry proponent. Surprisingly.
@mccullough:
Who gives a shit about Yemen? If the Saudis want to wage war there that’s up to them.
Well, for starters, our participation and backing has engendered a huge amount of anti-Americanism in the region that could lead to blowback years down the road. Second, the Saudi's efforts in Yemen are empowering Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Third, you could just as easily say, "who gives a shit about Syria? If the Saudis want to wage war there that's up to them." Except the support for jihadists to attack Syria is what helped lead to the rise of ISIS.
Also, there really is no such thing as a "Muslim world" that we can be at war or at peace with.
Even if it has been at war with us for 1,400 years.
@brylun:
Mr. Farmer's support and citation of Paul Pillar reveals his position as a lefty John Kerry proponent. Surprisingly.
Oh please, you obviously don't know shit about me or my politics. I am neither a "lefty" nor a "John Kerry proponent." But please, by all means, read the link and tell me what is factually incorrect in it or what illogical arguments it makes. That you don't like the author is not a rebuttal of the argument.
China is Saudi Arabia’s best oil customer. Naive to think China would let Saudi Arabia collapse if US cut the Saudis loose. China would step in even farther.
Again, who gives a shit about Yemen? It’s another Middle East shithole
@mccullough:
China is Saudi Arabia’s best oil customer. Naive to think China would let Saudi Arabia collapse if US cut the Saudis loose. China would step in even farther.
You are setting up a false choice. Our only two options are not (1) indulge the Saudis in everything they do or (2) cut them loose. We have commerical and diplomatic relations with China, but we do not support them in everything they do, and we attempt (when possible) to curb some of their impulses.
Again, who gives a shit about Yemen? It’s another Middle East shithole
I already answered this question.
Farmer,
The “US is creating more terrorists” is a stale talking point. The Middle East has been fucked up for a long time. Just keep them out of the US and from acquiring nukes and we’ll be fine. And the oil markets need some stability.
Let Islam’s internal struggle continue. Too many different factions to even track, and the money and corruption behind each.
Eventually they will emerge from the Dark Ages.
Farmer,
There is no false choice here. Saudis war in Yemen is their own business. No US interest is involved other than to pretend we are concerned about the welfare of those in Yemen. Certainly we shouldn’t oppose any concerned American from going over there and fighting on behalf of whoever they want. Feel free to get yourself killed.
But it would be foolish to cut a $100 billion in arms sales over this. Or Khashoggi.
In 2011, Andrew McCarthy wrote: Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.) is in Egypt, meeting with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood — the Islamist organization whose goals are to destroy Israel, “conquer Europe” and “conquer America” (to quote its most influential jurist, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi).
The Brotherhood, which operates throughout the world, seeks the imposition by governments of strict sharia law (as outlined in Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law) and, eventually, a global caliphate. Naturally, the Obama administration describes it as a “largely secular” and moderate organization — and William Taylor, President Obama’s hand-picked “special coordinator for transitions in the Middle East,” announced last month that the administration would be quite “satisfied” with a Brotherhood victory in the Egyptian elections.
@brylun:
"The short answer is that the Brotherhood is not in a meaningful sense a single organization at all; elements of it can be designated and have been designated, and other elements certainly cannot be. As a whole, it is simply too diffuse and diverse to characterize. And it certainly cannot be said as a whole to engage in terrorism that threatens the United States."
-Should the Muslim Brotherhood be designated a terrorist organization?
@mccullough:
Farmer,
There is no false choice here. Saudis war in Yemen is their own business. No US interest is involved other than to pretend we are concerned about the welfare of those in Yemen.
This completely ignores the fact that the US is actively participating in and supporting the war in Yemen. In the early 1990s, a US-led coalition went to war against Iraq because they invaded Kuwait. Why wasn't Iraq's attack on Kuwait "their own business?"
And Yemeni security services were trained by Iraqi Republican guards:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/15/10-key-questions-khashoggi-affair-answer-buying-press-narrative/#.W8SVpmp4jm4.twitter
I'm surprised Mr. Farmer didn't link to the NYT and WaPo editorials against designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.
It's pretty clear when you put Kerry, Obama, Keith Ellison, the Clinton Foundation, Paul Pillar, NYT, WaPo, Brookings and Mr. Farmer on one side of an issue.
@mccullough:
Tiny thought experiment. Imagine if in early 2015, the Iranians announced that they would be attacking Yemen in order to impose their preferred leader on the country and then spent the next three years trying to starve the Yemenis into submission, bombing hospitals and food production facilities, and blockading the country. Would it be your position that Iran wanting to attack Yemen "was their own business?"
Farmer,
What is “active participation”? That’s pretty vague.
As far as Gulf War 1, I agree. HW Bush was a fool. Not as foolish as his son but foolish.
@brylun:
It's pretty clear when you put Kerry, Obama, Keith Ellison, the Clinton Foundation, Paul Pillar, NYT, WaPo, Brookings and Mr. Farmer on one side of an issue.
Oh and that other "lefty John Kerry proponent" Pat Buchanan:
"Today, the Saudi prince has become toxic, and his ascension to the Saudi throne seems less inevitable than two weeks ago. Yet, well before Khashoggi’s disappearance in the consulate, Crown Prince Mohammed’s behavior had seemed wildly erratic.
Along with the UAE, he charged Qatar with supporting terrorism, severed relations, and threatened to build a ditch to sever Qatar from the Arabian Peninsula. To protest criticism of his country’s human rights record by Canada’s foreign minister, he cut all ties to Ottawa.
Last year, he summoned Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Riyadh, held him for a week, and forced him to resign his office and blame it on Iranian interference in Lebanon. Released, Hariri returned home to reclaim his office.
Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….
A professed reformer, Crown Prince Mohammed opened movie theaters to women and allowed them to drive, and then jailed the social activists who had called for these reforms.
Three years ago, he initiated the war on the Houthis, after the rebels ousted a pro-Saudi president and took over most of the country.
And, since 2015, the crown prince has conducted a savage air war that has brought Houthi missiles down on his own country and capital.
Yemen has become Saudi Arabia’s Vietnam.
That our principal Arab ally in our confrontation with Iran, which could lead to yet another U.S. war, is a regime headed by so unstable a character should raise serious concerns about where it is we are going in the Middle East."
-With Friends Like These
Farmer,
I look at the countries and see if there is a US interest. I suppose Iran taking over Yemen would give it a country bordering Saudi Arabia. That might be a concern to the US and China. In and of itself I wouldn’t care. But the US and China need a stable Saudi Arabia since it’s a top oil producing country.
Saudi Arabia is a mutual interest to the US and China.
@mccullough:
What is “active participation”? That’s pretty vague.
"U.S. refueling and logistical support of Riyadh’s air force - even more than the arms sales - risked making the United States a party to the Yemen conflict under international law, three officials said."
-Exclusive: As Saudis bombed Yemen, U.S. worried about legal blowback
That was in October of 2016. US support and backing for the war has only continued since.
I look at the countries and see if there is a US interest.
What US interest is there in supporting the Saudi attacking Yemen?
Yemen borders Saudi Arabia. They apparently believe they have an interest in who runs the place and want their guy back in. The US and China don’t have a strong interest against this. You seem to think the Saudis are irrational here but the US and China don’t think so.
If MbS is a stability problem, then the US and China will let that be known and he will be gone. The US and China have an interest in making sure the person running the show their is acceptable to them.
There is a,pattern worth noting though, sales hired mujahadeen back from Afghanistan and Bosnia and they turned on him, the Russians employed basayev in Azerbaijan et al
@mccullough:
You seem to think the Saudis are irrational here but the US and China don’t think so.
I don't know how you can claim to know what "the US and China...think" about any specific issue.
I have not made judgments about MBS' rationality or irrationality. By the Saudis own standards, the war has been an epic failure and contributed to instability (when returning stability to Yemen was one of the proposed reasons for the war in the first. Even under the rubric of trying to curb Iranian influence, the war has failed to achieve its goals. I agree with this assessment:
"When the military intervention began, it was called Decisive Storm because it was expected to be successful and quick, but it was never going to be either of those things. Over 40 months later, it has unfortunately become even worse than the horror that opponents of this policy warned that it would be at the start. The Saudi coalition absurdly claimed to be fighting for the stability of Yemen, but it has thrown the country into chaos and worsened all of its existing divisions. Just as I feared it would, outside intervention intensified and prolonged the existing conflict and the civilian population has paid the highest price as a result. An already poor country has been kicked into the abyss of famine and cholera thanks to relentless coalition bombing and a strangling blockade, and all of it has been done with the ongoing blessing and support of our government.
Our government’s support for the war on Yemen exemplifies all of what is worst in U.S. foreign policy. It began with the unthinking, automatic backing for “allies” that we aren’t actually obliged to assist, and it continued with the pathetic refusal to hold those states accountable for their numerous war crimes. The president committed the U.S. to involvement in a foreign war without Congressional debate or authorization, and the U.S. has remained illegally involved in the war ever since. The military intervention itself was a war of choice, and the U.S. then chose to support it when there was nothing requiring our government to do so. U.S. interests have been consistently subordinated to the interests of Saudi and Emirati clients to the detriment of all concerned."
-The War on Yemen and Everything That’s Wrong with U.S. Foreign Policy
Didn't this last engagement began when the youthi included coalition topple sales? Who was a client of the kingdom?
China also “supports the war” in Yemen.
Perhaps the US and China have a different view than you.
If the Chi Coms are for it, it must be double-plus good.
@mccullough:
China also “supports the war” in Yemen.
Perhaps the US and China have a different view than you.
"These strategic interests ensure that China’s principal goal in Yemen is preserving long-term political stability. Therefore, Beijing’s strategy in Yemen has consisted of backing the political faction that is most likely to reunite and stabilize the country. In the early stages of the conflict, Chinese officials viewed Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies as unilateral aggressors, which were destabilizing Yemen and preventing the Houthis from consolidating power. This interpretation of the Yemen conflict caused China to convince one of its leading international allies, Pakistan, to refrain from participation in the GCC military intervention in Yemen.
China’s strategic calculus began to change in late 2015, as the Houthis’ territorial expansion stagnated, and Hadi recaptured control over Aden. The Houthis’ loss of momentum and heightened international isolation caused Chinese policymakers to question the Houthis’ ability to guarantee Yemen’s long-term stability. These doubts were strong enough to convince Chinese policymakers to pivot towards Hadi’s pro-Saudi coalition. China’s shifting alignment was confirmed in January 2016, when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Saudi Arabia and announced his support for Hadi’s “internationally recognized government” in southern Yemen."
-China's Role in the Yemen Crisis Aug 2017
"The coalition hides behind the fig leaf that they are trying to restore the discredited former president, but Hadi has no support inside Yemen and the UAE long since moved on to support other proxies as they try to carve out a sphere of influence for themselves. External intervention in Yemen’s conflict has not only prolonged and intensified the war, but it has also devastated the civilian population, created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and exacerbated the country’s existing political divisions."
-No, the Saudis Aren’t ‘Defending Themselves’
China gets more than 10% of its oil from Saudi Arabia.
Interesting stuff Farmer. It's hard to agree with the whole of your position, because of the elements of isolationism in it. You do a good job as usual laying out the con side of the argument without addressing the pro side, which I'm sure you know exists.
That aside, how do you you feel about the US trying to get the contracts for the Saudi reactors? There is no chance they are going to accept the 123standard. Like so much in the mideast it's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
mccullough:
China gets more than 10% of its oil from Saudi Arabia.
If the war in Yemen ended immediately, the Saudi regime would not fall, and Saudi oil would not stop flowing into the world market.
Farmer,
Why are you choosing sides? The Houthis could surrender or the Saudis could stop supporting their preferred leader.
It would be great if the civil war ended. So maybe the Houthis should stop fighting.
Anyone here give a shit if Hadi or the Houthis rule Yemen until the next civil war breaks out in that shithole?
@pacwest:
Interesting stuff Farmer. It's hard to agree with the whole of your position, because of the elements of isolationism in it. You do a good job as usual laying out the con side of the argument without addressing the pro side, which I'm sure you know exists.
As usual, I reject the description of "isolationism." Not supporting a Saudi war is not isolationist, and I am not calling for a severing of either diplomatic or commercial relations with Saudi Arabia.
As for the "pro side," the primary arguments for supporting the Saudi coalition is that (1) The Saudi are attempting to stabilize Yemen, (2) Saudis are fighting the war in self-defense, and (3) the war is to curb Iranian influence. I have attempted, perhaps not entirely successfully, why I reject all three of those justifications.
That aside, how do you you feel about the US trying to get the contracts for the Saudi reactors? There is no chance they are going to accept the 123standard. Like so much in the mideast it's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
To be honest, it is not an issue I have followed with a great deal of closeness, and I do not feel sufficiently informed to have a hard opinion one way or the other. In general, I am in favor of nuclear power, but I know there are issues surrounding the Saudi demand that they be able to enrich their own uranium. There are also known issues with the Saudis adopting the Additional Protocols, which I am also generally in favor.
@mccullough:
Why are you choosing sides? The Houthis could surrender or the Saudis could stop supporting their preferred leader.
I choose the side I'm always on: America's. I do not believe the US should be involved in the Yemeni Civil War, and I don't believe we should be providing intelligence and military asset assistance to the Saudis to involve themselves in the war. But the Saudis themselves seem to think US support for their actions is important. And to the degree that the US has an interest in stability in the middle east and to not empowering radical salafi jihadists, the Yemen war works in the opposite direction of both of those interests.
Well who ultimately triumphed in the Lebanese civil war:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/the-khashoggi-slaying-the-anti-trump-media-and-american-foreign-policy.php
Refueling planes and providing intelligence is pretty soft “involvement.”
It’s not irrational to think the Houthis will not be able to run the joint and that the “radical salafists” will flourish there even more than they already did. Yemen could be worse under the Houthis. Certainly no reason to think it would be any better.
@narciso:
Two things.
1) The establishment media's hatred and loathing of Trump is well known to anyone with a pair of a eyes and a brain and is also completely irrelevant to the foreign policy questions at hand.
2) The case for disentangling the US-Saudi relationship existed long before Khashoggi's alleged murder.
@mccullough:
Refueling planes and providing intelligence is pretty soft “involvement.”
Was the US "involved" in the Iran-Iraq War?
It’s not irrational to think the Houthis will not be able to run the joint and that the “radical salafists” will flourish there even more than they already did.
Saudi Arabia's involvement has empowered radical salafists in Yemen. The Saudi effort resembles the Soviet effort in Afghanistan and is likely to remain a quagmire for Saudi Arabia, bleeding it of resources as it fails to achieve its goals, which it entered the war foolishly believing would be a quick and decisive victory.
"The U.S. is at war in Yemen. Special Forces are on the ground in Saudi Arabia assisting the oil giant against its impoverished neighbor. Washington also is providing Riyadh’s military with munitions, targeting assistance, and aerial refueling. All to bomb a nation whose people have done nothing against Americans."
-America Should See Saudi Arabia’s War on Yemen for the Horror It Really Is
The whole article is worth a read.
Cato is naive, as usual. Not practical at all. That think tank doesn’t understand human nature. They are as naive as Ocasio-Cortez.
Cato has no responsibility. It’s like the Model UN in high school.
It may be a mistake for the US to back Saudi Arabia in Yemen. It may not. No way of knowing. The idea that Yemen will be more stable under the Houthis is wishful thinking. No support for it. It’s a guess.
Yemen has never been much of a stable country. The issue is whether it’s stable enough. No one knows which way is better for Yemen.
@mccullough:
Cato is naive, as usual. Not practical at all. That think tank doesn’t understand human nature. They are as naive as Ocasio-Cortez.
That is classic ad hominem. You don't address any of the actual arguments made, you simply attack the institutional affiliation.
I think at this point we have covered about as much back and forth as we're going to get on this thread. I appreciate that your point of view is not reflexively interventionist, and I understand that you are making a version of a realist argument that I nonetheless reject. In any event, it was from my perspective a fruitful discussion and thanks for engaging with me.
Good grief ! A Farmer thread again.
A sensible post at Powerline about this.
I see narciso had here first.
Naturally, Farmer disagrees.
It’s not an ad hominem. It’s a general critique of Cato’s sloppiness and naïveté.
Want a specific critique of this bukkshit essay: “history suggests” is a bullshit explanation for anything. It’s junior high level reasoning. There is no evidence, none, that the Houthi control of Yemen wouldn’t be worse. Much worse.
The Houthis started a civil war, something Cato tries to ignore. Again, the Houthis started a civil war.
And Cato is now bitching that the Saudis are more effectively brutal than the Houthis. Gimme a fucking break. This “yeah the Houthis are rally bad but the Saudi coalition is worse” is bullshit reasoning. It’s a fucking war. Both sides are killing civilians. The Houthis would kill every last person to get power. Let’s not kid ourselves. They are not @the good guys.” There are no “good guys” in Yemen.
No evidence the Houthis wouldn’t lead to total chaos. They already started a ducking war they can’t win. Maybe put some blame on that.
@Michael K:
Good grief ! A Farmer thread again.
A Farmer thread, or a McCullough thread? Whose to say?
Naturally, Farmer disagrees.
Especially since the link provides nothing new to the discussion and only rehashes points I have already addressed over and over. As I have said, my position on Saudi Arabia is exactly the same as it was before Khashoggi's alleged murder and does not rely on his case for the argument. It remains exactly as it did when I was criticizing the Obama administration for supporting and backing the Saudi's foolish attack on Yemen.
@mccullough:
It’s a general critique of Cato’s sloppiness and naïveté.
And it says nothing about the arguments put forth. In fact, it is an exact attempt to avoid engaging the article's arguments by saying you don't like the institution they are affiliated with.
Do you think the US policy of arming and supporting radical jihadists against Assad in Syria was a good idea? Do you think it would be good for the region and for US interests if the Syrian state failed and then became a battleground for competing jihadist factions? One of the key benefactors of the war in Yemen is Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, with whom the Saudis are working and supporting.
Had the Green Revolution been successful, Mir-Hossein Mousavi would have been named president. They were not trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic. And the nuclear deal was far more consequential for the international world than whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi was president from 2009 to 2013. Your claim also ignores the fact that Mousavi, the political head of the Green Movement, did not even want American support.
And the people did. Which side do you want to support?
And frankly, revolutions have this habit of NOT STOPPING wherever X wants them to stop. See American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Russian Revolution all the South American Revolutions etc.
What starts as a little tiny change ('Hey Louis...we just want a little legal reform, okay? And maybe the nobles paying some taxes?'), because of the suppressed pressure become something rather larger (SHHHHH-SNICK!)
"But FIDO" I can hear you rebut, "In that case, we wouldn't know WHAT would come next."
Well, we know what the East Germans became after they were thrown support. And we know what the Russians became when they got the opposite.
But a 'maybe good/maybe bad' is better than a 'demonstrably horrible NOW'.
And your opinions on how good that illegal treaty was is unshared by me and many others...including former boosters of it.
@FIDO:
And the people did. Which side do you want to support?
First, what is your mechanism for knowing what "the people" wanted in that situation? Second, I didn't (and still don't) want to support either side.
And frankly, revolutions have this habit of NOT STOPPING wherever X wants them to stop. See American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Russian Revolution all the South American Revolutions etc.
Except the Green Movement was never revolutionary in its orientation and was never seeking revolutionary goals. It's demand was quite simple: to name Mir-Hossein Mousavi the 2009 winner of the presidential election, which they widely believe was corrupted in favor of the incumbent.
From Iran's Green Movement: Reality and Aspirations:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that there are no clear set of ideas to have emanated from the Green Movement. Unlike most political movements which might arise suddenly and protest against their regimes, the Green Movement announced its demands before its ideas could crystallise and be tracked historically. Initially, the movement had just two main ‘demands’:
1. That the outcome of the 2009 presidential elections be reviewed
2. That the movement would stay on the streets till the first demand was met.
As time passed, Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Green Movement supporters realised that they could not pin their hopes on such demands. Ahmadinejad thus won his second term as president with the blessing of the supreme leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, and all official institutions – both military and constitutional. In this critical moment, the most Influential and truest ideas of the Movement emerged and were exposed to wider interpretation, until the reformist leaders such as former president, Muhammad Khatami as well as historical and prominent Iranian figures such as Hashemi Rafsanjani, chair ofthe Expediency Council, quit the movement. Khatami and Rafsanjani both returned and participated in recent parliamentary elections which were held under the supervision of the interior ministry, led by a minister appointed by Ahmadinejad. This course of events was generally interpreted as an indication that the movement was in decline. Both men withdrew from the movement, ended their relationships with it and implicitly accepted the 2009 election outcome."
Trump, Haley, and Tillerson all voiced support for the Iranian protests that occurred at the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018. What did this accomplish?
I gave a specific critique on the essay. It ignores certain facts (who started the war), minimizes Houthis killing of civilians, and assumes that somehow Houthi rule would be more stable. No evidence for this proposition at all.
Also, you assume radical jihadists wouldn’t flourish more in Yemen under Houthi rule.
Again, Yemen is a shithole and always has been. There are no good guys there. The Houthis disrupted the status quo by starting a war. The Saudis backed their guy. Not an irrational decision. And Saudi Arabia is very useful to the US (and China) so we backed their play. This is how geo politics works.
As US involvement goes, this is pretty light. Not like Libya and definitely not like Iraq. This is Saudi Arabia’s shitshow. And the Houthis. They wanted war and they got it.
'too soon to tell' that's like judging solidarnosc a failure, in 1983, that would be a premature conclusion, prince sultan, new in the defense ministry, in the early 60s, engaged in an earlier campaign in yemen, that was a proxy fight with Nasser, this was modestly more successful but that's at the margins,
I think seth franzman's rather pragmatic analysis of khashoggi, rather some of the extrapolations by Bradley, and goldman, were more on point, he was a dilettante not a militant, but that entails consequences, specially if you find yourself in the Ankara/doha nexus,
@mccullough:
Also, you assume radical jihadists wouldn’t flourish more in Yemen under Houthi rule.
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are the sworn enemies of the Houthi, so it is hard to imagine how they would "flourish more...under Houthi rule."
As US involvement goes, this is pretty light. Not like Libya and definitely not like Iraq. This is Saudi Arabia’s shitshow. And the Houthis. They wanted war and they got it.
US involvement in the Syrian Civil War was "not like Libya and definitely not like Iraq." That doesn't make it a good idea. A less disastrous policy is still a disastrous policy.
More on this sketchy story about Khashoggi.
♦Flag #5 – The left-wing, highly political, intelligence apparatus – and all DC interests are joined by the notorious right-wing members of the UniParty war machine. [Rubio, Sasse, Flake, Schumer, Menendez, et al] Together with the exact same left-wing media voices (right and left), and all the political ‘think-tanks’, who advance the DC drumbeat. Yes, the gang is all back together again in their high-brow pontification of ‘muh values‘.
♦Flag #6 – The story is being pushed into U.S. media outlets by a notorious Muslim Brotherhood mouthpiece, Khaled Saffuri:
[I]n the past 24 hours we now have a glimpse of exactly who is feeding the establishment media reporting on the Khashoggi matter — including at least one source who was tied to a joint Libyan intelligence and al-Qaeda plot to assassinate the Saudi crown prince.
Khaled Saffuri is the protege of al-Qaeda fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is currently serving a 17-year sentence in federal prison for his role as bagman for the Libyan/Al-Qaeda assassination plot. (read more)
Sketchier and sketchier.
And how are the Houthi going to rid Yemen of al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists?
Wanting to do it and actually getting it done are very different.
The can’t even win the civil war they started. Let’s not ascribe any benevolence or competence to them.
And the US didn’t fuck up the Middle East (or Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran).
Some of the countries just happen to have oil, which is a crucial resource in the world. So we have to deal with those places as best we can. We often make mistakes, sometimes big ones. But that’s part of the game. There are no good guys in these countries. Even a place like Turkey is turning to shit.
It’s as if Islam is to blame. A useless ideology that brings misery to the masses.
Tim Lister, the recipients of the latest link has been ghosts with paul cruikshanks of two memoirs of mi 6 assets in al queda, morten storm and aimen dean, aka ali al hurrani, the last pushes the usual narratives, bosnia was the great motivator behind al queda recruitment in the 90s, curiously this echoes the time brennan was station chief in Riyadh, when the prince's father was on the board of international Islamic relief organization and the chairman of the Saudi high commission on bosnia, which funded the camps that the hijackers trained at, later Iraq was the big recruitment pitch, and now Syria, of course Bosnia stopped being the source of conflict, maybe there is something to the milieu, that these recruits come from as much in Europe, like djamal beghal and Tarik massoud, as in the gulf states,
@mccullough:
And how are the Houthi going to rid Yemen of al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists?
Wanting to do it and actually getting it done are very different.
I never said they would. I said that AQAP would not "flourish" under Houthi controlled territory.
The can’t even win the civil war they started. Let’s not ascribe any benevolence or competence to them.
I have never ascribed either to them.
And the US didn’t fuck up the Middle East (or Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran).
I never said it did.
Some of the countries just happen to have oil, which is a crucial resource in the world. So we have to deal with those places as best we can.
I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that indulging reckless Saudi behavior is not dealing "with those places as best we can."
has been at the forefront of spotting the omissions and outright lies
https://twitter.com/EmreUslu/status/1051481191394828288
Farmer,
It’s reckless Saudi behavior. Not US behavior.
Yemen has been a safe haven for radical Islamists for a long time no matter who is nominally in charge. The only direct US interest there is containing or exterminating these guys. The Saudis seem to be really concerned as to who has the title of leader there. We don’t but to placate Saudi Arabia we’ve given them a bit of help in their war with the Houthis. Perhaps we shouldn’t. But it’s not worth canceling a $100 billion arms sale over. Sometimes you have to go along with stuff like this. Just the way it is.
Personally, I don’t care who is in charge of the shithole this year or the near future. It’s basically another Afghanistan, a pretend country of tribes and terrorists with some sane people who had the misfortune to be born there.
I’d love for all US troops to get out of Afghanistan and for us to just gather intelligence and bomb the jihadists we think pose a threat. Anyone who happens to be within the bomb radius is an unfortunate victim. That’s been our approach to Yemen since 2009.
Whether the Saudis guy ends up on top or the Houthis finally prevail doesn’t matter to me. The Houthis, should they prevail, can pop off about the sovereignty of Yemen all they want. If the US thinks anyone within Yenen’s borders poses a threat to the US, then the US should eliminate those threats regardless of whatever the “leaders” of Yemen think.
But it should take a lot more than this civil war in Yemen to change the US use of Saudi Arabia. And it’s a laughable suggestion (not that you suggest this) that the US should do it over the assassination of some Brotherhood operative. Khashoggi knew the score. He stepped into the Arena. And he lost.
It is not an exaggeration to say that there are no clear set of ideas to have emanated from the Green Movement. Unlike most political movements which might arise suddenly and protest against their regimes, the Green Movement announced its demands before its ideas could crystallise and be tracked historically. Initially, the movement had just two main ‘demands’:
1. That the outcome of the 2009 presidential elections be reviewed
2. That the movement would stay on the streets till the first demand was met.
And the Calling of the Estates General was to reform the tax code and authorize a finance bill for the King.
And the Call to Parliament was for the Colonies to have representation IN Parliament.
Now, if their revolution was so fragile that they didn't have ANY legs on their own, that might be a reason to judge EX POST FACTO, that they were not ready.
But that is ex post facto reasoning. AT THE TIME, we didn't know what Reagans speech would do. We didn't know that the Soviet apparatus would fall so quickly. We did not know that the Prince of Saud would start murdering his family and reforming Saudi Arabia.
We didn't know how Tiananmen Square would work out.
But one thing we do know. Those with terminal hand-wringing syndrome like yourselves are the Kvetchers of History, not the Drivers of it.
FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Trump are transforming the world. And you are there telling them they are all doing it wrong.
Well.
wonder if the friendlander group, fed the daily basilisk like a hummingbird,
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2018/10/15/EXCLUSIVE-A-Qatari-whitewasher-lands-in-US-coinciding-with-Khashoggi-crisis-.html
@mccullough:
It’s reckless Saudi behavior. Not US behavior.
The US is participating in the war. We provide logistics and intelligence to the Saudis, we refuel Saudi aircraft, and there are US special forces on the ground in Saudi Arabia participating in the war.
The only direct US interest there is containing or exterminating these guys.
The Saudi intervention is having the exact opposite expect of what you say is the "only direct US interest there." It is neither containing nor exterminating these guys. It is empowering them.
But it should take a lot more than this civil war in Yemen to change the US use of Saudi Arabia. And it’s a laughable suggestion (not that you suggest this) that the US should do it over the assassination of some Brotherhood operative.
The primary effect of Saudi foreign policy in the region has been the destabilization of Syria and Yemen, the empowering of Sunni jihadists in those countries, and an attempt to blockade and isolate Qatar, which houses the largest US base in the middle east.
Please explain how this serves American interests.
@FIDO:
Nobody is talking about metaphysical certitude. Obviously we cannot know what is going to happen.
Now, if their revolution was so fragile that they didn't have ANY legs on their own, that might be a reason to judge EX POST FACTO, that they were not ready.
Yet you claimed in your first comment that Obama "could have made that speech and changed the WORLD!"
We didn't know how Tiananmen Square would work out.
We didn't know how toppling Gadaffi would turn out, either. Does that make it a good idea?
Now if you want to claim that an Obama speech about protests over a presidential election would have somehow transformed the movement on the ground and turned it revolutionary, go right ahead.
That and three bucks will get you a gallon of milk.
p.s. And if you want to read the Green Movement Charter from June 2010, an English translation is available here. Some quotes:
"The emergence of various deviations from and gradually erected impediments on the path of achieving such goals and ideals as justice, independence, freedom, and the Islamic Republic for which the people won the glorious Islamic Revolution;"
"The Green Movement represents the continuation of the struggle of the Iranian people for freedom, social justice, and national sovereignty, goals that were also pursued in the Constitutional Revolution [1905-1911], the movement for nationalization of the oil industry [1951-1953], and the Islamic Revolution [1978-1979]."
"The secret to the survival of the Iranian-Islamic civilization is the coexistence and convergence of national and religious values in the history of our land."
"The Green Movement is an Iranian-Islamic movement that seeks a free, developed, and advanced Iran. On this basis, any Iranian who accepts reliance on monotheistic collective wisdom as the way to build a better tomorrow is counted among the supporters of the Green Movement."
"The Green Movement is pursuing the ideals and goals of the Islamic Revolution, relying on critical rereading of what has happened since the Revolution -- particularly in the relationship between the nation and the government -- and on the national accord of the people of Iran, meaning the Constitution. It wants a better future for the Iranian nation."
OMG ! Farmer is everywhere !
See ya.
Love you too, buddy. Hugs and kisses.
Well yes. I only have some prior history which backs me up, so silly me. The Monroe Doctrine was essentially just a speech as well. JFKs call to reach the moon was just a speech. What Gandhi did was just a bunch of speeches.
Perhaps you might want to rethink that dismissiveness.
As stated, Obama was the IT Girl of 2008 and many Muslims loved him. Working for the COMMON Muslim people would have, IMO, had some serious social cachet.
By the bye...how well DID that agreement Kerry brokered stand up?
From what I understand, not very well.
@FIDO:
By the bye...how well DID that agreement Kerry brokered stand up?
From what I understand, not very well.
Until the administration's foolish decision to withdraw from it, the JCPOA was working very well. If the remaining parties are unable to save it, we will end up in a situation with no inspections or restraints on Iranian nuclear activity and no international consensus on sanctions. India has already announced that it will continue to purchase Iranian oil, as will China. So we could very likely end up with no inspections/constraints and no international sanctions to compel the Iranians behavior. Otherwise known as lose-lose.
In inside the kingdom, laceys follow up, they have an anonymous saudi official saying that high hopes for Obama, he disappointed them when it came to Mubarak,
Opinions vary:
https://www.globalmbwatch.com/2018/10/14/jamal-khashoggi-a-global-muslim-brotherhood-operative-writing-for-the-washington-post/
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा