featured, Guardian Watch, latest, Saudi Arabia, Yemen
Comments 138

Guardian Watch – Freedland Remembers Yemen is a Thing

Kit Knightly

“Sometimes you need an acquaintance to go missing before you realise that children being blown to pieces is a bad thing,” – Jonathan Freedland (Well, not really, but almost).

Jonathan Freedland has weighed in on the Khashoggi case. He’s outraged, of course. Because they all are. Every single voice in the mainstream world has suddenly realised just how appalled they are that Saudi Arabia does bad things.

They weren’t appalled a few weeks ago, when the Saudis blew up a bus full of school children.

But they are appalled now, because Mike Pompeo was told by the Turkish government, who were told by the Turkish secret service, that a reporter who may or may not be dead, might have been killed by a super-secret Saudi Arabian hit squad (who then died in a car accident). There are video and audio recordings to prove all of this but we’re not allowed to see them yet.

Freedland recounts these alleged gory details with po-faced prurience. Apparently, they might have used a chainsaw. But that’s not really what his article is about – his article is about attempting to claw back some credibility in the face of (perfectly justified) accusations of massive hypocrisy, and deeper questions about the motivations of the media and the agenda of the Deep State.

You see, Yemen is a thing.

It’s the poorest country in the Middle-East and it’s being systematically destroyed by its vastly richer neighbours, with the full backing and cooperation of NATO. In fact, we’re making a fortune out of it. Bombs are expensive, the Saudis need a lot of them, and you can only use them once. Ker-ching.

Domestically, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with a laughable track-record when it comes to human rights. This has been known for decades, it is talked about a lot. Barely a week goes by without some author, somewhere in the alternate media, writing up a story about the crimes of the House of Saud – either international or domestic. So why are we just now hearing about them in the mainstream?

When he was selling wars in Libya and Syria, did Freedland ever once suggest the “humanitarian bombing” of Riyadh?

Did he object to his paper selling ad space to promote the Muhammed bin Salman, “the great reformer”?

Did he boycott events or protest arms deals or in any way speak out?

Did he devote even a single one his columns to the war in Yemen?

People all over the world are asking: “Why are the Saudis suddenly the bad guys? Why can’t Jamal Khashoggi be brushed under the carpet as if he’s nothing but a burning bus full of children or a napalm-strewn wedding reception?”

It’s a question no one in the media has an answer for. They are aware of the contradiction though, and they are busily trying to get around it.

This is Freedland’s attempt:

I can understand the frustration of campaigners for Yemen that the death of one man has captured a global attention that has so rarely focused on the tens of thousands killed…But sometimes it takes the story of a single individual to break through. So it has proved with Khashoggi.

That’s it. A simple brush-off.

That’s the new narrative – nobody really realised just how bad the Saudis were until now. This is the big reveal. The “oh shit” moment. None of them had been on twitter, or read the alternate news or even looked at the comments BTL on their own articles. Yes, Yemen was there in the background but – through forces beyond everyone’s control – it just never broke through to the public consciousness. Oops.

He’s trying to imply that the news just sort of happens, like it’s an organic process beyond the control of the mere mortals writing the stories or filming the segments or thinking up the headlines.

That is patently absurd. We know how the media works, and it’s not some Jungian expression of the collective will. To suggest as much is insulting and ridiculous.

The news is a system by which a handful of mega-corporations distribute propaganda and manipulate public opinion. It is rigidly controlled. They push some issues to the front page and shovel others down the memory hole. When they need to, they make stuff up. Every headline is picked for a purpose, every omission deliberately made. Cogs turn and push the constantly-evolving agenda forward. There are no accidents, and the process is anything but organic.

It’s mechanical. And like all machines, it lacks a soul. There has been no grand awakening of the media conscience. There is no such thing.

There was a reason Yemen was banished to the far reaches of the press for four years. There was a reason the mainstream media were happy to white-wash the Saudi Arabians as they pummelled school buses and weddings with bombs British and American arms companies probably over-charged them for.

There’s a reason every big newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic was happy to serve as Muhammad bin Salman’s PR agency….and there’s a reason they stopped. A real reason, that has nothing to do with Jamal Khashoggi.

We just don’t know what it is yet.

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

138 Comments

  1. wardropper says

    Great article, except that we do have a pretty good idea what the reason is for the media’s ridiculous stance on Saudi Arabia and its current jamming on of the brakes. There is always a Plan B, and the greed which is driving all our western politics today has become desperate enough not to let us wait too long before it will reveal it.

  2. charles says

    ashkanazim bbc historians years ago said never again.
    yet here we are.

    according to the red cross hundreds of thousands of innocent jews died in camps in poland and germany during the ww2.
    we should never forget this even when bibi nutty supports the new nazi guy in brasil and props up the ukrainia nazi parties.

    those brown folks in yemen are not the same pale human semite as the innocent askanazim of germany of 1939.

    brown yemen culling will fade in memory just like the allbright babies and the depleted uranium victims of iraqi.

    as clinton crime inc says what difference does it make
    libya yemen who cares what happened to these million semite
    who cares about ghadaffis missing gold already.

    brasil will soon move embassy from tel aviv like usa usa.

    the gypsy of yememi are not original jewisher or certificated chabad semite they are sub strata.
    khazarian trumps them in this regard it is a talmud fact

    we must believe and trust in the q anon zionist plan
    oded yinon is still shining

  3. charles says

    we expect shoa from perfidious albion from cia and mossadick.
    it is rooted deep in dna.

    pirate nations rape pillage soft ohh so soft power.
    gang counter gang and pseudogang
    problem reaction solution
    general sir frank kitson and sas david sterling.

    where is ukrainias gold and libyas
    where is the 10 billion of the gadaffi families investments
    what of libyas sovreign wealth funds.

    dustification of history
    how old was syriana iraqi and yemeni
    2 much history to complex for simon scharma bbc history.
    in the future the ashkanazim history of the near and middle east will be much easier to understand.

    zionist plots one can understand.

    simple fact is libya was butchered raped yemen dustified china and russia did nothing.
    no russian talk of israli,uk or usa pilots using saud planes to bomb world heritage sites of yemen
    no breach of blockade no rice or wheat emergency medicine aid.

    putin hero not in yemen
    busy selling s400 to partners in donmeh house of saud and not so young oded yinon turk erdogan
    china buying usa debt giving loans to westminster child fiddlers for new train lines from london to birmingham
    business is business progress progress
    war is a masons racket

  4. mark says

    The US has committed so many torture murders they make Salman and the Shady Wahabians look like choirboys.
    They maintain a global gulag of concentration camps and torture chambers in scores of countries where countless people have been, and still are being, tortured and murdered.
    People have been beaten to death, drowned, imprisoned in coffins, had their private parts cut off, and have been (and still are being) tortured and murdered in every way known to man.
    At Bagram in Afghanistan, a man was stripped naked in a freezing cell and chained to the wall in a standing position. He was left like that and died 17 days later. He would probably have considered the killers of Khashoggi very humane by comparison.
    The US President is an enthusiastic advocate of torture. Thinks it’s great. Can’t get enough of it.
    The CIA is now led by America’s very own Irma Griese.
    Of course, this doesn’t stop the US climbing on its high horse and delivering lofty sermons and pious lectures to the rest of humanity about their human rights failings.

  5. Paul says

    And I would assume that the author of this laudable article would agree that there is some reason why the Kashoggi story is being so widely and relentlessly promoted by this de-souled machine. The only explanation I’ve seen get any traction is that somehow the corporate media opinion stenographers are shocked that this could happen to one of their fellow servants of the machine. I don’t consider this satisfactory. What is it about the Kashoggi story that triggers this full-court press?

    • Paul says

      The anti Trump Deep State is on full pre-mid term assault. The Crown Prince is too close to Kushner for their liking; bring down one and the other will follow and leave Trump isolated. Similarly the mail bomber (not nail bomber!) and the shooter yesterday all carry the same MSM narrative – it’s all Trump’s fault and maybe he’s behind it; better settle his hash right away, Vote Democratic and snatch the House from his control and then stymie his Presidency the way the Republicans stymied Obama. It’s a collapsing Political system that’s for sure.

  6. Chris says

    Has anyone else noticed that the Guardian aren’t allowing ANY comments on their Khashoggi coverage?

    • Haltonbrat says

      Guardian allows very few comments these days as they are frightened both of their readers and their controllers. It seems that this possible murder is used by the Guardian to cover up all other crimes in the Middle East. It seems more and more like a false flag.

    • mark says

      The Fraudian’s take on all this a couple of days ago was that Salman had shown what a “courageous reformer” he was by arresting some of the goon underlings he sent to kill Khashoggi. I don’t think they allowed any comments on that either. Sort of like Hitler turning out to be a good guy after all by putting Fritz Schmidt, one of his concentration camp guards, on trial.

  7. Harry Law says

    One thing the repulsive Freedland did get right was one man’s death can generate more interest than the deaths of many others, I am reminded of that excellent film from the 1950’s ‘Ace in the hole’ when Charles Tatum [Kirk Douglas] said this to his young colleague..
    Herbie Cook: Like the faces of those folks you see outside a coal mine with maybe 84 men trapped inside.
    Charles Tatum: One man’s better than 84. Didn’t they teach you that?
    Herbie Cook: Teach me what?
    Charles Tatum: Human interest. You pick up the paper, you read about 84 men or 284, or a million men, like in a Chinese famine. You read it, but it doesn’t stay with you. One man’s different, you want to know all about him. That’s human interest.

    10
  8. Gwyn says

    Aah, the Guardian. Where ”Comment is Free™.” That is, unless you bring up inconvenient facts, such as that the Prime Minister’s husband’s employer benefits from UK involvement in military action in Syria, as that employer, Capital Group, is a major shareholder in the ”defence” firm, Lockheed Martin (they also benefit from LM’s lucrative contracts with the Saudis, of course).

    My comment to that effect has just been deleted by the Guardian’s ever-vigilant censors, I mean, ”moderators.” Perhaps they weren’t too enamoured of my sarcastic remark that the topics of arms sales/military action probably never come up in conversation between May and her husband, and that no high-level corruption could, therefore, be inferred.

    It all makes me grateful for the existence of websites such as Off-Guardian, where one can discuss things in a mature way, with no possibility of the childish resort to censorship. Thanks, Off-G.

    19
    • charles says

      why would they allow that information out of interest?
      who owns the guardian is it not red shields wifey
      no doubt they have money in bombs missiles for brown folks.
      what do you want of them write article explaining fake soft power liberalism inside a rape murder and machine
      or better still what really is chatham house and tavistock all about.

    • George cornell says

      Not really. There surely is a difference between suppressing inconvenient or embarrassing truth vs publicizing public corruption, dishonesty, and trying to inflame public passions against political opponents.

  9. I absolutely loathe what you have done to the English language in your title. That dumbed down, infantile version of English favoured by the Americans is absolutely horrendous. Why on earth would you ape something so base and so low? Nothing is “a thing”. Ever. What you have said there is both meaningless and aesthetically hideous.

    2
    15
    • Bilbo says

      I really appreciate your pedantic, superior tone in this four-line comment about this extremely minor non-issue. Really on point, not pompous and irrelevant at all.

      • Paul Damascene says

        Ah, Bilbo, as regards the offended party’s tone, what struck me were the notes of rage and moral loathing–that this bonesaw taken to English usage might be overlooked amid all this incidental attention to the murder of one, and the genocide of millions.

  10. Keep going Matt, I want to see treble figures on the down vote on under this article.
    Try harder, I know you can do it.
    I know you have the strength.

    5
    1
  11. We know how the media works, and it’s not some Jungian expression of the collective will.
    More like a Freudian manipulation.

    Kit, I was going to say ‘long may you hold a mirror up to Jonathan Freedland’s shitty journalism’, but, to be honest, I hope he resigns (or something worse).

    14
  12. Benge says

    PoorJonathan. He was very busy, suffering from excruciating hurt feelings, what with all that Labour antisemitism flying about. How can a man think about Yemenis starving, or Palestinian limbs shattered by snipers, when he’s having to deal with feeling offended day after day..

    35
  13. summitflyer says

    Good shot across the bow of reality Kit.So very well put .The media will tells us what is good for us to hear/read .This Khashoggi disappearance , disappearance as we don’t have a body and probably never will, has become a very big fly in the proverbial ointment and the spin is on , to make make us look the other way .

    11
  14. Matt says

    “They weren’t appalled a few weeks ago, when the Saudis blew up a bus full of school children.”

    In order to discredit this obvious strawman argument, I typed in “saudi arabia bus children” on Google. Google gave me the following top articles:

    The Guardian: US supplied bomb that killed 40 children on Yemen school bus

    CNN: Bomb in Yemen school bus strike was US-supplied

    Yep. The MSM doesn’t care. They care so little that they reported on the event, multiple times, and repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. was the supplier of the bomb. So little care. Oh my.

    1
    36
    • Kit Knightly says

      The article does not say the MSM did not mention the school bus bombing, it says that the Khashoggi case has received far more coverage and elicited far stronger reactions. This is a fact, is it not?

      Were there widespread calls to sanction KSA over that bombing? Did US officials, members of the press or corporate interests pull out of Saudi events over it?

      52
      • Matt says

        The media has reacted like this because of the gruesome manner in which one of their own journalists was killed. It has elicited stronger reactions because the death of a single person is easier to psychologically process than the deaths of many. And this killing, unlike the accidental bombings in Yemen, was premeditated, with clear intent. These three reasons explain the mainstream media’s visceral reaction to Khashogi’s murder. It’s not because all of them are colluding to feign outrage over Khashogi’s death for some ulterior motive. That simply does not make logical sense. Occam’s razor, in other words. We are accustomed, sadly, of hearing of large numbers of people being killed in air bombings. But for a journalist to be dismembered in a foreign consulate? That is far more rare.

        There have been widespread calls for sanctions against Saudi Arabia for the bombings in Yemen, directed at MBS no less. Here is one such Op-ed published in WaPo, by the Deputy Director of HRW, all the way back in December 2017:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/12/19/its-time-for-the-u-n-to-sanction-saudi-arabia/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5ef2abd1120f

        Further, some here are claiming that the U.S. is “punshing” Saudi Arabia for wanting to buy Russian weapons, or because they don’t want MBS to rule the country. There are a few fallacies in all this: any weapons deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia will be far less than those made with the U.S. Considering that many in the U.S. media, as well as Congress, are now openly calling for an arms blockade against Saudi Arabia, it does not make much logical sense for the U.S. to “punish” Saudi Arabia for buying Russian weapons, by losing a potential multi-hundred billion dollar deal.

        Lastly, regarding the pulling out of events: that is more a case of shrewd business leaders fearing the news about the murder causing economic issues for Saudi Arabia. There’s also a herd effect at play: once one company leaves, others are sure to follow suit. Businesses monitor the media to see how bad things are. They made the correct calculation that Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen would not strain its relations with the U.S. Recent events, however, have changed their minds about this. For one reason why, consider these astonishing statements by the Editorial board of WaPo:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/who-needs-saudi-arabia/2018/10/15/3ebe473c-d0a1-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html?utm_term=.43a2347217b2

        Start with the oil. Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, supplied 9 percent of U.S. petroleum imports in 2017, or about 960,000 barrels a day. But thanks to the shale revolution, the United States is essentially energy independent: It, not Saudi Arabia, is now the world’s largest crude-oil producer. Last year, U.S. daily oil exports averaged 6.38 million barrels, or nearly seven times the Saudi imports. If the Saudis cut back production or boycotted the United States, they could temporarily drive up prices, but the beneficiaries would be U.S. shale companies, which over time would fill the gap — and **deal a devastating blow to the Saudi oil industry.**

        As for arms sales, someone needs to brief Mr. Trump on the actual results of the promises made to him when he visited Riyadh last year. As Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution sums it up, “The Saudis have not concluded a single major arms deal with Washington on Trump’s watch.” Moreover, an end to supplies of U.S. spare parts and technical support, something Russia cannot provide, would quickly ground the Saudi air force. **That would have the welcome effect of ending a bloody bombing campaign in Yemen that a U.N. investigation concluded was probably responsible for war crimes.**

        Saudi Arabia does supply the United States with counterterrorism intelligence. But as Andrew Miller of the Project on Middle East Democracy points out, stopping it “would be a colossal error . . . when there’s already a strong perception in Congress and with Americans that Saudi Arabia has fueled extremism.” **Mr. Miller notes that a law passed by Congress in 2016 opens the way for civil suits against the Saudi government for any terrorist acts it enables.**

        No sane businessman would want anything to do with Saudi Arabia after reading this. Nor does it make good PR to mingle with such ruthless people at business conferences; that would tarnish the brand name.

        There are reasonable explanations for everything.

        3
        23
        • Admin says

          Just to be clear – are you claiming to see no double standard in the way the Yemen and Syrian wars are presented in the mainstream media? You don’t see any difference and you think there is no agenda-driven bias?

          24
          • Matt says

            I didn’t say that there is no difference. But Syria has nothing to do with my post above.

        • kftbJon says

          “October 21, 2018
          The media has reacted like this because of the gruesome manner in which one of their own journalists was killed. It has elicited stronger reactions because the death of a single person is easier to psychologically process than the deaths of many.” …. yes, I noticed this with 9/11.
          Your first WaPo link is a HRW piece that slaps MbS’s hand for being naughty, but under the guise of telling off MbS it takes the opportunity (fills more lines) to justify MbS’s actions due to the bad Iranians, incoming Yemeni missiles etc … yes, can’t see the difference between that and the current media reaction.
          As for your interpretation of “What businesses do” or what “sane business man” will do … yes, I am sure that business decisions are based on whether they have or have not read some WaPo article.

          • Matt says

            kftbJon, I think you misread the article, There is only one reference to Iran in the entire article, which heavily criticizes Saudi Arabia. And even that one reference *does not* justify MBS’ actions. Read that part of the article again:

            The coalition justifies these restrictions by pointing to Houthi-Saleh forces’ use of a ballistic missile in November allegedly smuggled in from Iran. The Saudis say they downed another Houthi-fired missile directed to Riyadh today. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley recently stood in front of a display of missile fragments that she called “concrete evidence” of Iran’s “hostile actions.” *Iran denies the claim. Setting aside the origin of the weapon*, it’s true that a Houthi attack in November directed at Riyadh’s international airport was indiscriminate and a likely war crime. But while the laws of war allow blockades as a military tactic, they don’t permit restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on civilians.

            That paragraph merely describes Saudi Arabia’s own claims. It does not endorse them whatsoever, and describes the Iranians’ own denial. It even says that the origin of the missile is irrelvant to Saudi Arabia’s criminal behaviour.

            Regarding businesses reading the media – how do you think stock prices fluctuate so much? A single article describing an embarassing event for a corporation can cause its stock to nosedive when investors read it. It is the same principle when reading the editorials of one of America’s most popular media outlets after one of its journalists was killed, when trying to assess how the U.S. government is being pressured to respond.

            1
            3
            • kftbJon says

              “A single article describing an embar[r]assing event for a corporation can cause its stock to nosedive when investors read it.” … Indeed, but only if the article contains surprising information that was not publicly available prior or confirms an “unlikely” rumour that had been partially priced in prior. This is not the case with the article you have linked.

              • Matt says

                Of course that one article isn’t enough to rattle investors. I used it as an example of what the majority of the media was saying about how the U.S. government should respond to Khashogi’s killing. My point was that much of the media is saying the same thing as that article.

                These actions are now being heard. A few hours ago this article came out:

                Foreigners sell net $1.1 billion of Saudi stocks as journalist disappearance rattles investors

                The claim by the author, casting all this as suspicious, is wrong. Investors knew that the U.S. government wouldn’t punish Saudi Arabia for its actions in Yemen. But they now believe that the U.S. government may punish Saudi Arabia for Khashogi’s murder, which could include some form of economic sanctions.

                As I said before, there is always a reasonable explanation for everything, which the author did not consider.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Your ‘sane businessmen’, Moshe, knowingly peddle cigarettes that kill, have killed and will kill hundreds of millions, fossil fuels that will kill us all, chemicals that destroy Life on Earth, asbestos, despite knowing its deadly nature, armaments, junk food etc, etc, etc. It was plain that a grub like you would be a brown-noser to the ‘business’ psychopaths.

    • “In order to discredit this obvious strawman argument, I typed in “saudi arabia bus children” on Google. ”
      It’s true what they say…..you really are Eliot Higgins, citizen journalist.

      4
      1
  15. Gwyn says

    How easily people such as Freedland are seduced by their own self-importance. The opportunity to be bit-part players in the U.S. Empire’s global game is too much for these weak-minded individuals to resist. Hence, they will churn out lies, day after day, apparently caring little that they’re always on the wrong side of history.

    As for the Guardian’s general output, well, it’s their sanctimoniousness that gets on my wick. Preaching from on high, while doing their bit to promote inequality and injustice, both at home and abroad. For example, they do their utmost to denigrate Jeremy Corbyn, including their disgusting smears of anti-Semitism against him, while always giving a platform to their hero, the repulsive Tony Blair. Then, there are the daily propaganda efforts which target Russia, China, Venezuela, etc., at the same time as defending Israeli and Saudi atrocities.

    And they have the gall to call what they do ”fearless, independent journalism.” The snivelling, cowardly little wretches.

    59
  16. Seamus Padraig says

    “I can understand the frustration of the campaigners for Yemen that the death of one man has captured a global attention that has so rarely focused on the tens of thousands killed in that dirtiest of wars. But sometimes it takes the story of a single individual – his life and death – to break through.”

    Sort of reminds me of an old quote sometimes attributed to Stalin: “One death is a tragedy; a millions deaths are a statistic.”

    None of them had been on twitter, or read the alternate news or even looked at the comments BTL on their own articles.

    Well, these days, looking at the BTL comments is a bit more difficult, since the Fraudian tend to shut them off after about 5 minutes … when they allow any comments at all.

    25
    • They allow and “pick” comments that parrot the narrative: Brexit bad, remain very, very good, Theresa bad, Corbyn much worse, Boris is a !%^&/` ^$*= and we’re all right on lefties who think like, Tony Blair was wrong over Iraq but did a lot of good stuff. And we wish David Miliband would come back and lead us.

      34
  17. Jules Moules says

    Freedland is impossible to read. His oily, manufactured prose is often so far removed from truth and honesty that it has, for me, exemplified the rotten state of the press, especially the Guardian.

    But Kit’s end question really strikes home with me: Why now?

    39
    • DunGroanin says

      Why?

      Because the poxy war by the proxy armies has met it’s own ‘stalingrad’.
      There are real moves to regain the control from the never-ending- war mongers – them darn russkies just won’t roll over and take it up the arse, again!

      https://southfront.org/turkey-has-not-yet-implemented-agreements-on-idlib-putin/

      That means that just like the old german nazi proxy army set up, funded and supplied by the age old bankers and their neo industrialists, once they failed – the US war machine was unleashed to avoid a catastrophic take over of the old empires by the unstoppable Red Army. And the ensuing cancellations of debts and their banking liscenses!

      Turkey is looking to protect itself and trusts Russia, MBS has learnt of the dangers of Vision 2030, and turned his coat and seems to trust Russia too!

      The imperialist don’t like it at all, their messenger of choice and would be face of the ‘democratisation’ of SA, has been made an example of in a brutal and, yes, public manner: a warning to the many ‘princely’ stooges being groomed by the imperialists.

      Trump knows the neocon/CIA types will endeavour to force his hand. He is aware of threats to him and his family. So far so JFK.

      11
      • Yonatan says

        Why now?

        i) Saudi Arabia is considering buying Russian S-400 air defense system instead of the US THAAD ystem (part of a $100 billion arms deal). That would enable Saudi to defend itself against NATO aircraft.

        ii) Saudi has been considering allowing Russia to construct nuclear power plants there.

        iii) Russia has been making potentially successful efforts to wean Saudi off the Whabbi terrorism gig.

        iv) Saudi Arabia territory would form an important part of any Israel-directed US-implemented satrike against Iran.

        So Saudi policy was threatening to expose the NATO paper tiger, break the USD petrodollar scam and get in the way of Israel’s actions against Iran. People have been deposed for this kind of thing. Once the Kashoggi thing has been disappeared following token Saudi responses, replaced by the latest ‘outrage’ (maybe a ‘big deal’ on Skripal?) Saudi will quietly announce the purchase of THAAD, etc.

        13
      • Matt says

        Another anti-American narrative. Without evidence, the U.S. is accused as being behind all of this, all because Saudi Arabia wants to but some Russian weapons.

        It’s becoming more and more obvious that the anti-American alternative media will link everything back to the U.S. Even Saudi Arabia shopping up their own citizen in a foreign consulate is the fault of the U.S.

        It’s easy to blame the U.S. using the “cui bono” logic. One can easily twist literally any event as “benefiting” the U.S. and there, blame it on them.

        Even when an event doesn’t benefit the U.S., like their lucrative weapons sales to a state being threatened by said state’s murder of a journalist, one can still contort and twist the event to make it seem beneficial to some entity in the U.S.

        25
          • Matt says

            Being put in a position to have to cancel a multi-hundred billion dollar arms deal is not good, no matter what minor benefits there might be for the U.S.

        • kftbJon says

          If the US enables the Sauds then yes, the US is behind all of this. Like parents and their children, the US parent has to take responsibility for the bad actions of their children, in this case Sauds (but just as applicable to Israel). You give your kid a loaded gun then say “not my fault” when someone gets killed?

          • Matt says

            The U.S. does not control Saudi Arabia’s actions, just like how Russia doesn’t control the actions of Belarus. If Belarus murdered a journalist like this, would it be fair to blame Russia? I don’t think it would be at all.

        • wardropper says

          There is no such think as “anti-American”. Like anywhere else in the world, American politicians are not at all the same thing as American people, and American people are as clever, stupid, brilliant and subhuman as people in all other so-called civilized countries.
          Our politicians show by their actions that they have rarely ever had any interest in actually representing the rest of us.

  18. JudyJ says

    I noted that (I think it was) the second question on BBC’s Question Time this week was to ask whether the UK should cease supplying arms to Saudi Arabia over its actions in Yemen. I can’t recall who said it but the main response given, which didn’t appear to be challenged by anyone else on the panel, was words to the effect of “Probably not, because if we didn’t supply arms to them other countries like Russia and China would, so we’d be cutting off our noses to spite our faces and at least we have control over what those arms are used for”. That’s a convenient, disingenuous, non-moralistic line to take, whilst paradoxically trying to take the moral high ground for supplying arms to SA.

    The UK Government has stated in the past – and no doubt still uses the same ‘impressive’ phraseology- that it operates “one of the most robust export control regimes in the world and keeps sales under careful review to meet standards of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria”. British arms export policy states that the government must deny applications “if there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law”. Sounds good but perhaps they would care to take time out some time to go into more detail about what these ‘robust control regimes’ actually consist of other than requesting written guarantees from the buyers at the same time as they hold the lucrative contract under their noses.

    And of course we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that Philip May works for Capital Group, the 2nd largest shareholder in Lockheed Martin, the US military arms firm that sells arms to Saudi Arabia. Capital Group, with assets over £1.1 trillion and making huge profits from war, has paid no tax in the UK in the past 8 years. Just saying.

    51
    • Gwyn says

      Yes, Judy – certain people love to decry corruption in foreign countries, but they’re strangely muted when it comes to examples such as the one you’ve given of our PM’s husband’s employer profiting from wars in which we’re involved through our selling of arms to Saudi.

      They’re unwilling to face up to the crimes of their own side, but will fall for every word of the anti-Putin propaganda to which they’re subjected by our lovely, non-partisan media.

      32
    • I believe we do have some control over how those weapons are used given that British military officers are there in the control room.

      13
      1
      • Yarkob says

        Well, if that is the case, and I sincerely doubt it, knowing what I know about CENTCOM; there may be US staff in that room, but UK? Probably not.

        In any case, even with “friendly” assets in that room, their targeting skills leave a little to be desired, eh?! School buses? Wedding parties? Blockades pof ports? Assisting the onset of famine?

        It all sounds depressingly familiar for anyone who’s watched it unfold in Afghanistan for nearly two decades

        11
      • JudyJ says

        Indeed, lundiel. I recall that after Douma was liberated and terrorists among the population were identified, a significant sized group of western military personnel was also found there, taken into custody and, I think, subsequently transported to Lebanon for passage to their countries of origin, mainly the UK. This was subsequently ‘hushed up’ so we heard no more officially. My theory (and it is very much just that) is that there was at least one informer amongst this group who had been relaying critical internal data to the russians about the terrorists’ and Western intelligence services’ activities in Douma so the Russians agreed to allow the group’s release, on the nominal pretext that there was no evidence against them, in order to protect their informant(s).

        Early reports had said that the role this group played was to give technical advice to the terrorists on getting the optimum destructive and injurious effect from their mortars and rockets when targeting suburban residential areas in Damascus, including schools and hospitals. I myself have little reason to doubt the truth of this allegation.

        13
      • Paul X says

        I remember back in 2011 or 12 Newsnight carried an interview with the Defence Secretary of the time. It was one of those Tory blobs I find hard to distinguish; was Hammond ever DS? There had been ‘one of those unfortunate accidents’, a school, market place or hospital had taken an onslaught from screaming jet bombers. We were assured in the most soothing tones that now all was well because ‘expert’ British military were joining the Saudis in the Control Room advising them on targeting. So it wouldn’t happen again, O No!

    • DunGroanin says

      There is no need to ‘cut off’ Arms sales to undemocratic regimes if THEY have already STOPPED buying!

      Then they need punishing!

  19. I can’t help thinking of the similarity between the rise and (likely) fall of Mohammed Bin Salman with that of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan who was given the kiss of death by John McCain (thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar).
    The Americans and their allies clearly don’t give a shit what happens in Yemen so Salman has to have done something very un-American that has also upset Turkey.

    22
    • Frankly Speaking says

      He’s bought Russian S-400 missiles, that’s what’s upset the Yanks.

      He’s threatening the security of Turkey with his ISIS headchoppers, that’s what’s upset Erdogan.

      He’s drawing more attention of investors than Israel, that’s what’s upset Lindsay and his masters.

      MBS will be replaced, Lindsay already publicly authorised the regime change.

      18
  20. The media’s spontaneous ‘outrage’ neatly highlights the collective hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of its members. Establishment hack par excellence, and exemplary Zionist shill, Freeland’s fake empathy with the long suffering people of Yemen is particularly revolting. These people are the antithesis of the enlightened humanitarians they present themselves as.

    48
  21. Smitty says

    Excellent! To the point!!! Freedland and his ilk are nuttin but farcestream hacks who peddle their presstitute disinfo and feigned, fake moral outrage day in and day out. A pox on these puke integrity wastrels.

    PS: Kit. I’ve been banned and disappeared from The Fraudian more than 10, TEN, times! At the very least. But lemmee tell ya me resurrections have been just as numerous, And currently . . . . HA!! Praise the . . .

    26
    1
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Moshe aka ‘Matt’ is just hasbara ordure-nothing more.

      25
      4
      • Matt says

        The usual anti-semitic “hasbara” accusation, for the umpteenth time. Not everyone who disagrees with you on the internet is an Israeli cyberwarrior. I suggest you spend some more time outside, otherwise, you will lose your sanity.

        2
        23
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Your denial proves the proposition, Moshe, as you lie without exception.

      • Rhisiart Gwilym says

        ‘Hasbarordure’! Nice coinage, Mulga. I must copy that! Please feel free to use my ‘hasbarollocks’ too. 🙂

        6
        2
    • Matt says

      ;], well, I can’t deny that. But I’d rather say I enjoy pitting my beliefs against another person’s and seeing who is more truthful. It’s a sort of test of strength.

      3
      16
      • Yarkob says

        “I enjoy pitting my beliefs against another person’s and seeing who is more truthful. It’s a sort of test of strength.”

        Methinks it is you who needs to “spend some more time outside”

        12
        3
        • Matt says

          At first, I did not know why you kept called me “Moshe”. After some googling, it seems that this is a variation of the name “Moses”.

          That this website lets you get away with paranoid, anti-semitic outburts, while constantly accusing me of “abuse”, just shows how biased the moderation policy is.

          • Admin says

            We let you get away with your own style of paranoid rants. And both you and Mulga frequently insult us in a way that wouldn’t be tolerated on most sites. The ideal solution would be for both of you to grow up, get some manners and stop. If you persist in this OT hair-pulling the comments will be deleted.

            13
            1
            • Mulga Mumblebrain says

              I only ‘insult’ (translating from the gibberish-call you to account)you over your odious anthropogenic climate destabilisation denialism. Otherwise your work is, in my opinion, excellent.

          • JudyJ says

            Matt,
            ‘I did not know why you kept calling me “Moshe” ‘. Those of us on here of a certain generation and historical perspective see the name ‘Moshe’ and without hesitation think of only one person: Moshe Dayan who, to quote from Wikipedia, “became to the world a fighting symbol of the new state of Israel”. You have just given away your relatively youthful age, which might explain your lack of knowledge or understanding of a key contributor to the combative history of Israel over several decades in the not too distant past. He died (of natural causes) in 1981. In the 1970s when I was a naive teenager, immune and ignorant to all the woes of the world, he was familiar to many of us entirely because of the attention he attracted in the world press as he was undoubtedly a charismatic figure, albeit not someone to be regarded as an icon of virtue even by those who agreed with his politics. To be such a recognised personality in those days, pre-dating instant and worldwide news coverage, social networking and home computers was quite an achievement. With regard to Mulga addressing you as ‘Moshe’ I’ll leave you to choose whether to be insulted or flattered!

            1
            1
            • Matt says

              Huh, well you learn something new every day. Thanks for the info. But I think that is not what “Mulga” was referring to when using that name to describe me.

  22. In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt

    33
    1
  23. rilme says

    Freedland loves this. The “is” have killed about 10,000 Palestinians in the past twenty years, but let’s not talk about that. This is great for “israel”, and that’s the main thing, isn’t it?

    32
    2
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      I have no idea whether Freedland is an Orthodox Talmudic Jew, or is just thoroughly brainwashed in the millennial tradition. The Talmudists openly declare that killing ‘enemy’ (and, at base, they make no bones about the fact that ALL goyim are their enemies)civilians is not just permissible, but is, in fact, a ‘mitzvah’ or good deed. That includes children, even babies, if it can be said that they would grow up to ‘oppose the Jews’. And Sordid Barbaria and Israel are close allies, as in their drive to ‘obliterate’ Iran, and in their roles in the takfiri death-squad butcher assault on Syria. Just why the Sordids’ butchery of Kashoggi has set off the long overdue exposure of the radical Evil of Sordid Barbaria and its diabolical Wahhabist death-cult, which, interestingly, was founded and brought into alliance with the Sordid Mafia family, by two ‘doenmeh’ ie crypto-Jews who ‘converted’ to Islam after the failure of the revolt of the failed Messiah Sabbatai Zevi.

      27
      2
    • Antonym says

      So IS had ~ 500 Palestinians killed a year the last 20 years. Why is that such special statistic that Gaza is mentioned ad nauseam by some? That is ISIS number for a few months. Irak, Syria, Yemen or Iran were/are way above this number over decades. Iran had over 14,000 road deaths in 10 months during 2017.
      I guess all that doesn’t count as no Jewish “world controllers” were involved.

      3
      21
        • @Brutally remastered. It’s called “whataboutism” and the time honoured ploy of those who wish to redirect rather than deal with the realities at hand. You got it and were right on the ball.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        500 Palestinians per year for twenty years-that’s 10,000 mitzvot offered up to your psychopathic God, eh Antonyl. You must be overjoyed, but don’t forget the tens of thousands of other ‘two-legged animals’ that you
        Gods Upon the Earth’ have slaughtered in Lebanon and elsewhere.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Gloating over the deaths of others is such a Zionazi obsession, eh, Antonyl. You really don’t bother to hide your all-encompassing hatred of the ‘two-legged animals’, do you.

  24. After more than 10 years my Guardian account has had its commenting facility ‘disabled’, I’m banned in other words. I don’t know why either. May have had something to do with being a bit ‘contrary’, I can only speculate. The authoritarian manner in which it is done (no previous warnings such as the pre-moderation thing they do) is infuriating. Oh and I can’t bear Freedland, or any of the cultural managers. John Crace is often an honourable exception, but he’s just sketching and can take the piss. Anyway, the consolation is that articles’ allowing comen were becoming whittled down to few in number and with increasingly restricted time slots. Time I went to the Indy anyway. Let me quote the guy out of the band Brooklyn Funk Essentials “fuck you ….()… Guardian” (I got cash).

    32
    4
    • George Cornell says

      To be banned by the Fraudian is usually an indication that you would not accept their doctrinaire party line on something, most often on the Middle East. It reflects well on you.

      30
    • harry stotle says

      Can’t imagine Freedland producing such an unvarnished accout of the regime in KSA – hysterical guff about Corbyn’s existential threat to Jews, yes, 100 years of internal brutality or state sponsored terrorism by the Saudis, no.

      25
  25. Matt says

    There’s a reason every big newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic was happy to serve as Muhammad bin Salman’s PR agency….and there’s a reason they stopped. A real reason, that has nothing to do with Jamal Khashoggi.

    We can now confirm that the “alternative” media has totally lost touch with reality. Apparently, if the MSM criticizes a foreign government for literally chopping up a journalist working for an American newspaper, then that must mean that there is some sooper-secret plot afoot. Can’t be because, you know, this stuff is deplorable. Nope. As for the lack of outrage over Yemen, The New York Times wrote an article explaining why many have reacted to this murder so strongly. I suggest you read it before jumping to premature conclusions:

    How One Journalist’s Death Provoked a Backlash That Thousands Dead in Yemen Did Not

    But they are appalled now, because Mike Pompeo was told by the Turkish government, who were told by the Turkish secret service, that a reporter who may or may not be dead, might have been killed by a super-secret Saudi Arabian hit squad (who then died in a car accident). There are video and audio recordings to prove all of this but we’re not allowed to see them yet.

    Despite the pathetically embarrassing attempt to make the accusations seem flimsy by inserting words like “may or may not”, “might have”, etc, mixed in with some innuendo, a dishonest tactic commonly used by this website when discussing literally any accusation by the West against poor iddle Russia, Saudi Arabia just admit to killing the journalist:

    Saudi Arabia claims Khashoggi was killed in a fight, contrary to other accounts

    6
    74
    • grandstand says

      So you prefer the credible evidence-free “It was the Russians that did it” school of journalism to one that accepts that it doesn’t know all of the facts and so is more nuanced in its reporting. Understood.

      40
      3
      • Matt says

        There is no such thing as the “It was the Russians that did it” school of journalism. It doesn’t exist. It’s nothing more than a red herring.

        Waiting for facts is fine, but that’s not what this website does. What this website does is actively disseminate false information in lieu of facts, while the evidence is being compiled. They did this with MH17, did it again with the Mueller hacking indictment, and more recently, with the Skripal story.

        The fact of the matter is that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels accidentally shot down MH17 with a BUK.

        The Mueller indictment named and shamed the 12 GRU hackers who hacked into the DNC. Their methods are now known, with a level of detail so high that no public hacking accusation has ever received in history.

        The Skripals were poisoned by two GRU agents, who Russia has been caught lying about, claiming they are not GRU. Even their hometown residents have confirmed their identities and openly admitted they received the Hero of the Russian Federation award, exactly corroborating what Bellingcat has claimed so far.

        These are all facts that can not be denied. Just like how there is nothing “suspicious” about the Western MSM being up in arms at one of their journalists being chopped into tiny pieces like a lamb in a foreign consulate.

        I fully agree that the MSM is sometimes dishonest. But websites like this one exaggerate the level of dishonesty and hypocritically lower the impossibly high standard of evidence that they set for the MSM, when it comes to themselves. That is simply wrong and openly dishonest.

        4
        77
        • grandstand says

          Matt:

          Did you believe that there were WMD in Iraq? Did you believe that Ghaddafi was attacking civilians? I assume you have been disabused of the former – incidentally I can say categorically that unlike almost all of my friends I did not believe what the press was saying then. As to the latter, read the British Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee report on the Libyan invasion – its statements about the behaviour of the press make interesting reading. I think that George Bush had something to say (or rather garble) about people who continue to believe proven liars.

          If you don’t like this site, you don’t have to be here – why are you btw? The fact that your negative comments are published points to a greater willingness here to seek truth than in most of the MSM.

          53
          • Matt says

            grandstand , you make some reasonable points, and I agree with you in principle.

            I was only 7 years old when the Iraq War began, and thus have the (unfortunate) benefit of hindsight to know that the WMD claims were false. When the Libyan invasion happened, I was only in high school, uninterested in geopolitics, so even for that, I only have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened.

            It’s true that the media tends to champion armed intervention by their respective governments. It’s perfectly reasonable to not believe someone after repeatedly having your trust broken. But what I don’t understand is how this gives license to people to claim that any assertion by the mainstream media is false, or to accuse the entirety of the mainstream media as working for the interests of the elite, and thus framing all their actions based off of that. It seems unreasonable to me.

            All claims should be reasonably challenged, but also given a reasonable chance to flourish, regardless of who made them.

            I like Off-G because of the commenting system and policies. But I don’t like it when people believe/spread demonstrably false information. I’m sure that the founders of this website have pure intentions and simply want to help make the world more truthful. But having good intentions does not mean it’s OK to say whatever.

            5
            14
        • JudyJ says

          “…These are all facts that cannot be denied”. I emphatically beg to differ but life is too short to explain realities to the blinkered. Enough people have tried already and clearly failed.

          21
          2
        • Ken Kenn says

          Blimey Matt there’s some ” facts” there aren’t here?

          ” What this website does is actively disseminate false information in lieu of facts, while the evidence is being compiled.”

          Are all these “facts ” fully proved and not awaiting confirmation any further?

          If so – who confirmed these facts to be true?

          You or the Minister for facts?

          Here’s one fact:

          The MSM will mention stories and have to cover their backsides just in case some one or some people have a go at them for not mentioning a story. Yemen is one such case re:the Guardian.

          Yet the fact is that one D Trump is ” mentioned ” by the Guardian by the hour and the BBC mentions by the minute Brexit facts.

          Therefore there are mentions and there are obsessions.

          Trump’s one – Yemen isn’t and Freedland et al would rather discuss the former rather than the latter.

          I suspect the only reason the Guardian mentions the US link is purely to have a crack at Trump on behalf of the Democrats.

          I don’t know whether that is a “fact ” but I thought I’d mention it just in case anyone reads my post history.

          By the way I don’t like Trump but I certainly don’t like the Democrats either.

          In fact Liberals are more annoying to me than the right and Freedland and the Guardian fit that bill nicely.

          Here’s a final fact for you:

          The Russia/Skripal nonsense will only see a Court in absentia of the accused.

          Livenenko style.

          • Paul X says

            These days the ‘Democrats’ are the cheer leaders for the Intelligence Agencies and the Military, a rather strange turn around after decades of suspicion and worse. Britain is firmly on their side and the media happily jump in with often crass ‘criticisms of Trump. Britain’s Secret Service gave the green light for former Senior MI6 spy Christopher Steele to write a report, subsequently known as The Urination Dossier that claimed the Russians had tapes of Trump watching this performance making him vulnerable to blackmail. He had utilised the services of Russian “informants’ (Sergei?). The Democrats paid for it and Steele himself went to America, leaked parts of his report to a newspaper and then said he would do anything in his power to stop Trump becoming President. From a man who had been Head of MI6’s Russia Desk for some years was clearly speaking with the consent of the most senior British Spooks or he would have been a Peter Wright case. Britain wedded itself to the so called CIA-Democrats before the result, whoops! Pretty desperate stuff in retrospect, they saw which way the wind was blowing, no doubt.

        • Thomas Peterson says

          Matt wrote:
          The fact of the matter is that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels accidentally shot down MH17 with a BUK.

          That’s actually not a fact. It’s a claim.

          10
        • kftbJon says

          ‘There is no such thing as the “It was the Russians that did it” school of journalism. It doesn’t exist. It’s nothing more than a red herring.’ … I remember Theresa May convicting the Russians the day after Skripal, without any evidence (still no evidence) and the newspapers repeating that conviction with “Yes, It’s the Russians” then producing lots of articles describing the badness of Putin. Maybe the press is not anti-Russian, in which case the press was just doing what the government was telling them to do.

          11
          1
          • Matt says

            You’re conflating the lack of publicly-released evidence with a lack of evidence itself. Theresa May did not publicly reveal the evidence that the British government has, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.

            As for evidence, there is now plenty of it. The close friends of the two suspects, as well as their hometown residents, have given numerous interviews to the Russian media, openly corroborating Bellingcat’s claims of their true identities, and even admitting that they won the Hero of the Russian Federation awards.

            The alternative media and the Russian state media can smear Bellingcat all they want, but can only selectively ignore the mountain of interviews done by the Russian independent media. Because there is no way to discredit/dismiss them.

            • Pained Scientist says

              You’re conflating the lack of publicly-released evidence with a lack of evidence itself. Theresa May did not publicly reveal the evidence that the British government has, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.

              That has to be the most asinine thing I have read on here since Louis Something ran away.

              Son, the whole point of evidence is that you SEE IT. Until we see it have to proceed on the assumption it ISN’T THERE. Because the alternative is lunacy. That holds true for science, for law and for every area of human interaction that demands a minimum of common sense.

              I used to teach 11 year olds who didn’t need that explaining to them. Congratulations.

              10
              1
              • Matt says

                Scientifict inquiries are not the same as legal ones. Classified information is compiled over a long period of time and then finally released.

                The British have evidence, but don’t have an obligation to release such evidence immediately. It’s up to them to compile it in a manner that can be used in a court of law, and then the evidence will come out. That is how it always plays out in these kinds of investigations.

                Saying that the British government has no evidence because it hasn’t publicly released it is wrong.

                1
                3
                • JudyJ says

                  So there we have it, in a nutshell, for those who may not understand how investigative processes work. To paraphrase: ‘why on earth does Off Guardian and other alt media even exist when there are no justifiable reasons to challenge official narratives. If they tell us that’s what happened how dare we be so audacious as to question them?’ I’m not sure how geared up Matt is to explain so many inconsistencies in many official narratives (Skripal, Syria, MH17 to name but three cases) but we probably would be wise to to shelve that prospect.

              • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                Bare-faced lying is THE hallmark of hasbara. That is why I am convinced that Moshe (‘Matt’) is a Zionazi disinformer. That and the fanaticism, of course. They HATE Putin for thwarting the vivisection of Syria, following the prime Zionazi planning document, the infamous Oded Yinon Plan.

                2
                1
                • Admin says

                  It doesn’t matter if Matt is hasbara or just a bit special. If he’s wrong show it with data, if he’s right, agree with him. But don’t call him or anyone else names.

                  Or at least try very hard not to most of the time. The occasional slip is understandable

            • Ken Kenn says

              I don’t know about you – but I’m waiting for the picture of Petrov ( unless Bellingcat have invented an newer name for him?) having a medal put on his chest by Putin.

              I don’t expect to see one.

              p.s. I have sent my letter to Santa for this Xmas.

              I can prove the letter really exists. I have a photocopy.

              I’m just waiting confirmation that Santa exists.

              Perhaps Bellingcat or your good self could prove that he does exist.

              He will exist eventually though – won’t he?

              1
              1
    • Agree with some of what you said. This isn’t really ‘alternative media’, it’s just people like Kit who aren’t able to comment on MSM because they’re banned. Plenty like him with his opinions still commenting btl on papers like Guardian but eventually they’ll be censored too. At least your criticism of Kit isn’t censored nor are you threatened with ‘moderation’, right? I think Kit was dishonest in the way he portrayed the Saudi Consulate as well, reacting the same way to his modal verbs, but right about Freedland.
      OffGuardian can be too apologetic over Russia as well, that’s been noticed.

      5
      15
      • Matt says

        You make a reasonable point, Paul. But I still think that this is a worrying trend displayed by the alternative media. It’s as if they are incapable of criticizing the Russian government’s actions anymore. I think it’s because they rely far too much on RT for their media consumption. This is why the West should give more latitude to sidelined journalists who can only go on RT for intellectual discussion. I think this would go some way in lessening the reliance of the alternative media on a single, partisan state-sponsored channel.

        4
        50
        • Portonchok says

          Talking to yourself “Paul”?
          I’ll call you out: how’s the weather in Cheltenham today?
          Trying to bring a site down this way is a typical MO and actually not very intelligence (sic), oops.

          12
          3
      • PSJ says

        I entirely disagree. Kit and OffG are journalists in every meaningful sense. What do you consider “dishonest”? (a word I think applies well to your weak apologia and allusive put downs btw).

        “That’s been noticed”?? Good lord, by whom? Will they send the guys round?

        37
        1
        • Matt says

          Uh, they’re dishonest for casting doubt on Khashogi’s murder, as is evident from the dishonest way in which the author tried rubbishing the narrative, merely because the big, bad mainstream media reported on it.

          He has now been proven wrong, as the Saudi’s admit to the killing. So stop defending the indefensible.

          2
          50
          • Admin says

            You’re spamming this site, please stop. By all means discuss but don’t allege repeat lies and misrepresent the content of our articles.

            58
            2
    • PSJ says

      If you aren’t sickened by Freedland excusing himself for the blatant politicisation of suffering there’s something wrong with you my friend. The simple truth is he happily ignored the Yemen slaughter until discrediting the Saudis or discomfiting MBS appeared on his agenda. It’s blatant and undeniable. You either repudiate it or you admit to having no discernible sense of right and wrong.

      43
      1
      • Matt says

        I don’t read much of Freedland, so I can’t judge him or Kit’s comments about him. But I do read many mainstream websites, and every single one of them has extensively covered the horrors of the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Not only that, but even the most establishment folks (like those from Brookings Institute), have openly criticized the intervention using virtually the same words used by alternative media writers. It’s quite surprising, because according to the alternative media, the mainstream media doesn’t cover the Yemen conflict very much. But it does. And it’s full of the same outrage that you will find in the alternative media.

        3
        59
        • PSJ says

          Ah I see, you’re either deluded or lying. Thanks. Will ignore you in future.

          53
          2
          • PSJ, thats right. Don’t feed the trolls. Don’t even read the trolls. Just downvote their post if you recognize the name.

            5
            2
          • Rhisiart Gwilym says

            That’s the right response PSJ: once the hasbarollockser/troll has well-identified him/her/theirselves conclusively – as ‘Matt’ has very clearly – then place under DR. DADE’s care: Don’t Read. Don’t Answer Don’t Engage. Starve them of attention. Since Off-G is a site where commenters are named at the top of their comments, it’s very easy to do here. Just scroll quickly down till you reach the next bona fide commenter. Best of both worlds: admin. operates an excellent no-ban, no-censorship, total freedom-of-speech policy, yet we readers don’t have to waste an time or effort on the hasbarollocksers’/trolls’ lying, poisonous, tendentious rubbish – what Mulga humorously calls ‘hasbarordure’. Spread that word! LOL!

            6
            1
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            Oh, it’s lying, the trade-mark hasbara technique.

        • Admin says

          @Matt

          Freedland, the focus of the article, had not mentioned Yemen in over a year previous to this. And the contrast in the MSM between the treatment of the deaths of of civilians in Yemen compared to the deaths of civilians in Syria has been pointed out innumerable times by far better and more honest commenters than you. You are in fact a repeat and shameless liar (I don’t use the term lightly), misrepresenting our past and current work, insulting our authors and other commenters, abusing our open comment policy.

          You emailed us some time ago to say you would not be visiting this site any more. Yet here you are. Given that it fails to meet so many of your standards we’re at a loss to understand why you spend so much time here posting repeat falsehoods or bewildered defences of indefensible western foreign policy actions. Consider getting an account at the Guardian which is full of people of your persuasion, for whom truth is merely a troublesome inconvenience when introduced by those you prefer to call “bots.”

          Of course if you insist on posting here you remain free to do so.

          73
          1
        • harry stotle says

          “I don’t read much of Freedland, so I can’t judge him or Kit’s comments about him.” – then you have failed to grasp the entire point of the article.

          See the film posted by Axisofoil above for a brief excursion through human rights abuses in KSA.
          Kit rightly asks why is a war apologist like Jonathan ‘White Helmets’ Freedland giving so much attention to allegations about the treatment of one individual when heavy handed tactics are a given should any dissident protest about oppressive conditions in KSA – after all, this is a matter of public record, and has been for some time.

          At the same time supposedly civilised regimes in the west are instrumental in providing military hardware responsible for the murder of large numbers of civilians in the Yemen (and elsewhere) – while some of the secondary consequences of internal conflict such as the collapse of infra-structure or spread of deadly diseases like cholera contribute to further msiery which once again is now taking place on a grand scale.

          Unfortunately most MSM hacks (like Freedland) are usually on the wrong side of history, presumably because the people who control the media are doing rather nicely from the economics associated with global conflict – as a matter of interest what part of this don’t you understand?

          25
          • Matt says

            “presumably because the people who control the media are doing rather nicely from the economics associated with global conflict”

            This is a common claim made by anti-imperialist thinkers, but it is one of those feel-good claims that has no basis in reality. No one “controls” the media, nor is there any evidence that mainstream journalists are controlled by anyone. They post their opinions freely, of their own accord. One can not attribute the opinions of those they disagree with as being controlled by an invisible entity. None of the recent wars or conflicts were a result of arms manufacturers or their shareholders encouraging war for profit. The wars happened for various reasons, and all were planned by the President and his National Security Council. If you think that their decisions, as incorrect as they are, are influenced by arms manufacturers, then provide evidence. Until then, no one can honestly claim that the “military-industrial complex” is responsible for these recent wars and that they “control” the mainstream media to advance these wars. No mainstream journalists get their talking points from the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.

            15
            • Ken Kenn says

              Matt

              One anti imperialist thinker ( who doesn’t use Wikipedia for info) is available on Youtube.

              Type in Andrew Marr – Noam Chomsky.

              It is a study in polite insulting from Mr Chomsky.

              The irony is that Marr doesn’t even know it’s happening.

              12
              • Matt says

                Profiting from war does not mean that those corporations are responsible for these wars. It’s the President and his National Security Council who are. If anyone can prove that the MIC, either directly or indirectly, controls these decisions, then I will happily admit that I am wrong.

                • JudyJ says

                  Matt,
                  “Profiting from war does not mean that those corporations are responsible for these wars”.

                  I shall quote just one short passage from Dan Glazebrook’s book ‘Divide and Ruin: the West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis’: “David Cameron is, for once, telling the truth when he says “Whatever it takes to help our businesses take on the world – we’ll do it.” [followed by Glazebrook’s observations] ‘Whatever it takes’ means not only the destruction of our public services; it also means the destruction of entire countries”.

                  Glazebrook elaborates that it is not a case of Western Governments doing all they do out of heartfelt concern for the wellbeing of Western corporate bodies but it is very much a case of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’.

                  I highly recommend Glazebrook’s book if you want to read an analysis of today’s world politics from a non-MSM angle in order to get a balanced overview of the situation.

                  Evidence of corrupt collusion can be found regularly if you just choose to look for it. https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/uk-refused-to-raid-lycamobile-citing-its-tory-donations

                  But, of course, the intentions of ‘liberal’ Western government are that eventually none of us should have any access to this sort of information. I wonder why?

            • harry stotle says

              “Until then, no one can honestly claim that the “military-industrial complex” is responsible for these recent wars and that they “control” the mainstream media to advance these wars.” – I see, no-one is to blame, it’s all just been a terrible misunderstanding, and cultural analysts like Jonathan Freedland are fearless truth purveyors, is that what you are saying?

              Because if I wanted that sort of shite I could always drop in at the Guardian but the reason I visit Off-G, like most of the other commentators, is because we are not quite as gullible as you when it comes to swallowing wholesale the dubious rational for endless war in the Middle East or why confected media outrage about a single Saudi atrocity simply doesn’t ring true given their extensive record of human rights abuses which the MSM usually downplays (for obvious geopolitical reasons).

              • Matt says

                No, that is not what I’m saying.

                First, the media has covered the Yemen war in detail and has condemned the U.S. government, as well as the Saudis, for their role in the war. There are countless examples of this.

                Second, the media is up in arms about Khashogi’s murder because he was a journalist working for a major Western media outlet. The manner in which he was killed, sliced into tiny pieces, in a consulate no less, has also contributed to their reaction.

            • John2o2o says

              Quoting Mr Matt:
              “No mainstream journalists get their talking points from the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.”

              – lol, thank’s for the laugh Mr Matt. With respect: either you’re stupid or you’re on their payroll.

              3
              1
              • Matt says

                Instead of resorting to cheap insults, try proving my statement wrong. Which mainstream media journalists promote war because they were told to do so by the MIC?

            • Mulga Mumblebrain says

              Your lying, here, reaches depths of delusional falsity that make you this week’s ‘Golden Hasbara’ winner-no doubt about it. Anyone familiar with Chomsky and Herman’s work, or that of numerous others, or has worked in, or known those who have, the Western fakestream media propaganda system knows that this comment is the epitome of filthy bull-dust.

        • Makropulos says

          Doesn’t it strike you as strange when the west suddenly condemns a certain regime for getting away with murder after it has been getting away with murder for decades – and even with the support of the west? I would say that this announces another scene change on the pantomime stage to accomodate a new plot.

          22
        • Yarkob says

          you’re back, Elliot!

          we’d missed your pearls of wisdom. I was wondering (not wondering) what your take on his would be. could you please point me to any of your oft-visited MSM pubs that “extensively covered the horrors of the saudi intervention in Yemen”? You see, i also read many mainstream websites in my efforts to remain objective about the spoon-fed narrative we’re being exposed to, and unfortunately i couldn’t find anything “extensive”, just a few offhand comments here and there. there was about 5 minutes of pearl-clutching after the first bus atrocity, but the next one didn’t even make the front page.

          Back to the Atlantic Council with you, you massive fraudulent tool

          19
          3
        • MSMs coverage of Yemen is framed within an ongoing catastrophe scenario, much like they dealt with the Congo and Somalia. It takes the view that it’s similar to a natural disaster and is best addressed by giving to charities and NGOs while hinting that Saudi Arabia’s willingness to engage in sectarian strife is part of their cultural make up. You certainly don’t get politicians being hard pressed by journalists wanting to know why British forces are in Saudi control rooms, nor do you get an incident by incident update. It’s just something bad that happens somewhere else.

          12
          • Paul X says

            BBC News recently led with a long piece on Yemen but it concentrated on the school bus bombing as if that was what all the fuss about. They never give a tally of the number of air strikes (thousands since 3/15). They repeat the old UN figure of 10,000 killed which the UN itself says is way out of date. They can’t mention Houtis without adding ‘backed by Iran’ but never explain Iran isn’t actually fighting there. I have yet to see film of a Saudi airstike although I’ve seen many of Russian attacks in Syria. If we did see the World’s most sophisticated weaponery blasting the poorest people in the Arab world there might be more resistance so it’s just not shown, British intelligence officials and military are right there in the Control Room ‘helping’ targeting….consider that!

            15
            • JudyJ says

              And we don’t see film of the US dropping white phosphorus in Syria ‘for tactical reasons’, irrespective of the fact that it’s mutilating many innocent people.

              10
    • mark says

      Freedland’s conversion on the Road to Damascus is all very commendable, but it is a very recent and highly selective development. More important, it serves the Zionist agenda. Divert, distract, deceive. Okay, the IDF kiddie killers have just gunned down another thousand demonstrators in Gaza with dum dum bullets and British sniper rifles, but the slaughter in Yemen that we have been ignoring for years now is even worse, so you must be anti semitic to voice any criticism of the Chosen People who can do no wrong, and anyway they are just goys who were put on the earth to serve the Chosen People like donkeys, so they don’t matter anyway. Let’s all forget about the Kikenreich and focus all attention on that poor bumped off journalist instead.

      15
  26. Paul X says

    It’s either an American Deep State Regime Change to get somebody more compliant in charge and somebody who isn’t so close to Trump’s son-in law or Revenge by the Imprisoned Princes who are funding a campaign against him. But I’d plump for the Spooks jostling for more control over their wayward President.

    28

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole