Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Said He Would Use “A Bullet” On Khashoggi in 2017

The New York Times has reported that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in 2017 that he would use “a bullet” on Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. That was well before his murder and contradicts the Crown Prince’s later statement that they were friends. It is one of a long line of lies made by the Crown Prince and the Saudi government to try to cover up the role of the Crown Prince. The evidence is overwhelming that the Crown Prince ordered the murder but the Trump Administration has refused to acknowledge the evidence of its own intelligence services and now has missed a deadline set by Congress. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has a close relationship with the Crown Prince and the Administration is clearly unwilling to allow his murdering of a Washington Post journalist interfere with the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

The report states that an intercept involved a conversation between the Crown Prince and top aide Turki Aldakhil about Khashoggi in September 2017. The two Saudis apparently expressed concern that Khashoggi’s writings were too critical of the Saudi regime. Bin Salman reportedly told Aldakhil that if Khashoggi refused to return to Saudi Arabia willingly, then he should somehow be forced back. If not, he would take out Khashoggi with “a bullet.”

Most of the members of Congress have acknowledged the obvious role of the Crown Prince and even leading Republicans saying that continued denials are unbelievable and embarrassing for the country. Even before this intercept, the U.S. intelligence services disclosed a  “smoking gun phone call” of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with an alleged instruction to “silence Jamal Khashoggi as soon as possible.”  Moreover, there is a recording referencing the Crown Prince by the murderers as well as an intercept of a team member calling an aide to Prince Mohammed and saying “tell your boss” that the mission was accomplished. Intercepts also show that Prince Mohammed was trying to find ways to lure Mr. Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia.  It also ignores the detailed plans involving the Crown Prince’s close aide and a large team of men sent from Saudi Arabia, including a body double for Khashoggi.

What followed the murder was a series of planned lies, including sticking with the original plan of claiming that Khashoggi was shown leaving the consulate.  The Saudis however failed to use Khashoggi’s shoes after having the man don the dead man’s clothes. With the disproving of every lies, the Saudis added new ones. Finally, the Saudis simply declared that they will not allow criticism of the Crown Prince, which is described as a “red line” issue.  It seems to suggest that the Crown Prince is simply off the table in any investigation regardless if he ordered the killing.

The Crown Prince’s reign has been a blood-soaked legacy of torture and murder. Every indication is that the Crown Prince takes a personal and insatiable interest in torture and killings. Yet, even with the brutal and savage murder of a Washington Post journalist, the U.S. government has refused to implicate the Crown Prince. The question is what we represent as a nation if we turn a blind eye to the targeted murder of a journalist and a litany of lies designed to cover up the involvement of a figure like the Crown Prince. We cannot simply shrug and say that this is “business not personal.” This is murder.

68 thoughts on “Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Said He Would Use “A Bullet” On Khashoggi in 2017”

  1. Khashogg was a journalist like Osama Bin Laden was a travel agent. Both ended up the same way. Call it kismet. Enough of the liberal virtue bashing over the elimination of this Hamas tool.

      1. Anonymous:
        Embarrassed? You wanna live in some pollyannish never never land where candy grows on trees and unicorns give you free coach rides be my guest. Since I live in this world, I’ll rejoice in the demise of my country’s enemies and cozy up to any ally. The real world’s a dangerous place in case you haven’t noticed and naïveté is fatal. You wanna see real embarrassment? Try spouting off like a babe in the woods. Btw, Morality is an internal concept. It doesn’t map onto the world at large. Never has; never will.
        PS: A good history book would be a mind-opening addition alongside the comic book collection.

  2. I’ve yet to see a reason why I should care. What, you think these things don’t regularly happen in that part of the world or does cloaking oneself in the robe of “journalist” give a person special status?

    The middle east lives by different rules. Get over it and don’t go there. What’s happening, here, is the imposition of colonial western value systems on the people of middle east who have a long history of rejecting it. The Khashoggi story exists only because Trump is in office and the Left think there is a button to push – the same Left who tells us Benghazi was about an Internet video.


  3. So what’s the difference between the Crown Prince offing an anti-government journalist and President Obama droning a US citizen in the Middle East who produced pro-jihad and anti US YouTube videos?

  4. “The New York Times has reported that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in 2017 that he would use “a bullet” on Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.”


    It is not uncommon in that side of the world to stone a woman to death for merely being raped. I don’t see a difference between killer stones and killer bullets. I also see that our frineds on the left are willing to commit infanticide so who are they to talk about the morals of another country.

    Understand, we cannot control the killings in other countries or we would be dealing with very few countries or none at all. We can encourage other nations to behave better but not to the extent that it significantly intererferes with our foreign policy. In this complex world I believe killing is bad and we should start at home first. Start with the Democrats that support or are mute on the subject of infanticide.

    1. It is not uncommon in that side of the world to stone a woman to death for merely being raped.

      Actually it is uncommon. People are executed in Saudi Arabia for homicide and for what might be called ‘national security crimes’. Not very many for other reasons.

      1. That’s true. They just line an occasional spectacle to keep the vassals in line.

      2. DSS take a look at what I said and then look at what you said. My comment was quite broad: ”
        It is not uncommon in that side of the world to stone a woman to death.”. You limited the action to Saudi Arabia: “Actually it is uncommon. People are executed in Saudi Arabia ”

        Stoning is a method of execution and it is even used in Saudi Arabia.

  5. And Vladimir Putin shot down a plane in 2014 killing 298 people in Ukraine and a communist predecessor of Xi Jinping killed up to 10,000 people in 1989 in Tienanmen Square.

  6. The Crown Prince ordered the killing of a Saudi citizen who was a journalist in America.
    The head of the FBI in America ordered the killing of our President JKF and ordered the likking of JFk and MLK. Yes. Or no? We need a full debate on this. There is a building in DC housing the FBI named and honored J. Edgar Hoover. Time to change the name to protect the innocent.

    1. Hey folks: Go Google the term COINTELPRO or Cointel Program. Also look up MKULTRA Program.
      Whowas it that gave automatic weapons to farmers in the Klan who thought they needed them?

  7. Journalists in the US have latched onto Khashoggi as a martyred idol, but in doing so, they are pushing out yet another deceptive narrative, and normalizing a new definition of “journalist — political activist who exploits press freedom to wage info-warfare and shape public opinion and government policy in the desired direction. Khashoggi was more a foreign agent of Saudi Arabia. That someone at the Washington Post hired him to pen some articles shows how activists with causes have permeated the national political media.
    Apparently, dethroning MBS was an activist agenda motivating Khashoggi to make friends in Washington.

    I’m not in any way defending the Saudi Prince and his half-baked hit squad and PR “clean-up” team. I don’t take any position on who should be the next monarch of Saudi Arabia. I already accept that it will have to be a pretty tough hombre, given the lust for control of oil reserves, both within the kingdom, and among their neighbors just across the Persian Gulf.
    MBS did get beat up internationally for the Khashoggi murder, making it less likely he’ll try a hit on foreign soil ever again.

    On balance, who is to say that someone else would be better as Crown Prince? MBS disempowered the religious sheiks after 38 years of them having powers to impose religious law on the population. He gave women driving privileges. He’s trying to reform the economy.

    I’m not buying the Washington press corp’s portrayal of Khashoggi as a journalist. Nor am I buying into their gathering political activism. It’s ruining their profession, and leading the country astray into a dark place where bad policy decisions get made.



    Trump-Kushner business interests come first for this administration. Neither the president nor his son-in-law is going to jeopardize those interests for any moral principles. To the contrary, Trump wants the world to know America no longer cares about niceties.

    Our historic western allies, in Trump’s view, tolerate too much socialism. Therefore we should pivot ‘away’ from them and embrace strongmen who share Donald Trump’s values. And Prince bin Salman is certainly one of those strongmen. Salman’s willingness to have critics murdered sends just the right message to Donald Trump’s critics.

    Jamal Khashoggi reported for The Washington Post, Trump’s biggest critic! Therefore Khashoggi’s murder should chill correspondents linked to liberal media. That’s ‘good’, from Trump’s perspective. Journalists for ‘leftwing sources’ should know their lives are cheap. That will make think twice before criticizing Trump.

    Donald Trump has the full support of American rightwing media. They represent the ‘only’ America Trump cares about. That America realizes that businessmen must put their interests first. And having a businessman in the White House is more important than moral leadership. So forget Jamal Khashoggi; no loyal Trump Supporter cares about Saudi dissidents.

      1. Tabby, is this one of those gags that’s supposed to get funnier with every post? I question if it will. It already seems old, in fact.

          1. Tabby, you’re having a mid-life crisis where communicating through frivolous videos seems insanely hip. It’s an uncool older guy trying to ape the kid.

          2. Pay attention, Absurd, if you want to be one of “the cool kids”.
            I’m on the verge of being labeled “uncool”, and I don’t think I could bear that😧, so I’m watching my step.

            1. Tom ……don’t worry….I think there are enough “uncools” on this blog to form a support group.

              Are Monday nights good for you? 😎


              1. I’m afraid Monday night is not possible, Cindy; I’m not allowed to go out on weeknights like the cool guys. – signed, Tom, might post as anon.

        1. Peter H. It’s just their way of putting their fingers in their ears and yelling NA..NA…NAAA….I don’t hear you. The facts and truth prick their little bubbles, and if the bubble busts, then they have to listen to reason or facts. And they DO NOT like that.

    1. This is moral leadership, one that Trump actually demonstrated when calling out the Left during his SOTU speech.

      Meanwhile, Peter Shill and his employer David “whataboutisms” Brock want to change the subject when it comes the irreligious left and their immorality



      Governor Cuomo, Cardinal Dolan continue war of words over abortion

      NEW YORK – More than two weeks after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law expanding legal protection for abortion, his battle with New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan continues in the op-ed pages of New York newspapers.

      In a Feb. 6 op-ed in the New York Times, Cuomo accused President Donald Trump and the “religious right”, including Dolan, of “spreading falsehoods about abortion laws to inflame their base.”

      “Activists on the far right continue to mislead with the ridiculous claim that the act will allow abortions up to a minute before birth,” he wrote.

      According to the law’s wording, the Reproductive Health Act will allow for abortions “within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or (when) there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.” The bill also removes act of abortion from the criminal code, and instead places it in the public-health code, and strips most safeguards and regulations on the procedure. Non-doctors will now be permitted to perform abortions.

      “While Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, and the Catholic Church are anti-choice, most Americans, including most Catholics, are pro-choice,” Cuomo said. “While governments may very well enact laws that are consistent with religious teaching, governments do not pass laws to be consistent with what any particular religion dictates.”

      Cuomo, himself a Catholic, said he signed the Reproductive Health Act “to protect against” the “extreme conservatives” who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.

      “The decisions I choose to make in my life, or in counseling my daughters, are based on my personal moral and religious beliefs,” Cuomo said, but the “oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York – not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.”

      New York has consistently been one of the most pro-choice states, and was the first to legalize abortion in 1970, three years prior to the passing of Roe v. Wade. It currently has the highest abortion rate in the nation.

      In a post to his personal blog, Dolan shot back, accusing Cuomo of “hiding behind labels” like the “religious right” to malign those opposed to abortion when it was convenient for him.

      “This is something new from the governor,” Dolan wrote. “He did not consider me part of the ‘religious right’ when seeking my help with the minimum wage increase, prison reform, protection of migrant workers, a welcome of immigrants and refugees, and advocacy for college programs for the state’s inmate population, which we were happy to partner with him on, because they were our causes too. I guess I was part of the ‘religious left’ in those cases.”

      Quoting former Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, Dolan noted that abortion is not about “right versus left, but right versus wrong.” Dolan also rejected Cuomo’s attempt to cast abortion as a “Catholic issue” instead of a human rights issue.

      “The governor also continues his attempt to reduce the advocacy for the human rights of the pre-born infant to a ‘Catholic issue,’ an insult to our allies of so many religions, or none at all. Governor Casey again: ‘I didn’t get my pro-life belief from my religion class in a Catholic school, but from my biology and U.S. Constitution classes,’” Dolan noted.

      Responding to Cuomo’s remarks that religion is personal, Dolan said: “Yes, religion is personal; it’s hardly private, as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s life and struggle for civil rights so eloquently showed. Governor Cuomo’s professed faith teaches discrimination against immigrants is immoral, too. Does that mean he cannot let that moral principle guide his public policy? Clearly not.”

      “Debate abortion on what it is. Don’t hide behind labels like ‘right wing’ and ‘Catholic,’” the cardinal concluded. It is not the first time Cuomo and Dolan have exchanged words over the Reproductive Health Act, as well as the Child Victim’s Act, which extended the statute of limitations for reporting childhood sexual abuse.

      At a late January press conference, Cuomo slammed the Catholic Church over the sex abuse crisis: “Tell the truth. Jesus Christ teaches about truth and justice – social justice – and that’s not what the church did here,” he said.

      In a January 28 op-ed in the New York Post, Dolan criticized Cuomo for insulting the Church and for signing the “ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law.”

      “All this in a state that already had the most permissive abortion laws in the country,” the cardinal wrote. “Those who once told us that abortion had to remain safe, legal and rare now have made it dangerous, imposed and frequent.”

      Responding to Dolan’s criticism, as well as calls from several other bishops for his excommunication, Cuomo doubled down on his defense of separating his religion from his politics in comments to reporters: “I have my own Catholic beliefs, how I live my life. … That is my business as a Catholic…I don’t govern as a Catholic. I don’t legislate as a Catholic.”

      1. Estovir, we’re supposed to look to Catholics for moral leadership..???

        If you bothered following mainstream media you’d know the Catholic church is in the midst of another scandal; this one involving a bishop accused of repeatedly raping a nun.

        But in your rightwing media bubble, liberals are supposed to run like thieves from the late-term abortion issue.

        1. Yeah, let’s look to admirers of Barnett Slepian for moral leadership.

          1. Tabby, spare me the chore of having to pick up my phone to Google Barnett Slepian. I consume large amounts of news. That name could be familiar but I need another clue.

            Presume instead that ‘no one’ on this thread knows Mr. Slepian. Therefore you could phrase your comment like these:

            “Gay Activist, Barnett Slepian”.

            “Black union organizer, Bernard Slepian”.

            “Late term abortion provider, Bernett Slepian”.

            “Marijuana proponent, Barnard Slepian”.

            “Barnard Slepian, gun control advocate arrested on DUI.”

            This way, Tabby, first-time Turley readers pick up on your example. And everyone gets in the habit of identifying people. Instead of dropping names with presumed moral outrage. Like the name alone alone should make us recoil in convulsions.

            And this another example of how right-wing media dumbs people down. Certain names are supposed to make us froth with moral outrage. And anyone not recognizing those names is clueless to real news.

          2. Suit yourself, Absurd. My moral leadership😇comes from Hollywood and the HHHNN network.

        2. Petulant Peter cries “we’re supposed to look to Catholics for moral leadership..??”

          You are welcome to choose Lt Gov Justin Fairfax, Gov Ralph Northam or Jeff Bozo as your immoral compass but your daugher would be assaulted in the first, your baby would be killed in the second and your wife would have a collecfion of pics of Bezos tiny phalax. However since you are David Brock’s but boy, Fairfax might be a good dom master for you, Northam would get into role play (rope noose and white sheet are extra) and Bezos would use a strap-on when you bent over if David Brock didnt push you out of the way

          You asked cupcake.

          1. Estovir, every argument you make includes a false equivalency. Like we can’t just stick with the Catholic Church?

            You raised the Catholic with your reference to Cardinal Dolan. However honorable Dolan might be, the Catholic church remains in crisis mode. I take no glee from that. It’s very sad, in fact.

            But we shouldn’t let a decaying institution influence social policy.

            Furthermore, I’m not obligated to defend Fairfax, Northam, Bezo’s and Brock in detailed paragraphs. Just because you dropped those names doesn’t mean you score in terms of debate. It only means you’re dropping names!

            What if college debate tournaments were reduced to name dropping? Imagine how vague they would get? No one would stay on topic. There would be no incentive. You just keep dropping names.

              1. I think the “name dropping” that Peter dislikes would include the name “Fox News”, which he and others have used 100s of times here.
                “Hannity” would be a close 2nd, and we also have “right-wing media bubble”.
                So it’s not surprising that, eventually, the Brock Boys and Soros Stooges like Peter would be credited for their loyalty to their primary influences, and their heroes.- Tom, in case the log-in doesn’t take

                1. Tom, it’s the Trumpers on this thread who bring Fox News into everything. We can never get away from Fox. The reason Estovir drops names like that is ‘because’ of Fox News. Fox conditions viewers to think like that.

                  1. It is an automatic assumption
                    turned accusation that any non-left-wing, politically uncorrect view is due to “Fox News”, “Hannity”, being trapped inside of a “right-wing medis bubble”, etc.
                    Peter and others use that gimmick constantly. Not surprising that there’d be some repercussions resulting from the endless repetition of their favorite stunt.

                    1. Tom, name-dropping is a source of endless repetition. A 24 hour news channel can drop an individual’s name dozens of times per week.

                      If that name is always linked with an outrage of some kind, viewers make the association within a news cycle.

                      The same can happen in mainstream media. But fine newspapers get specific with regards to Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.

                      Fox News, however, is not concerned with exploring specifics. They don’t want to complicate simple narratives. That’s not the business of Fox News.

                    2. “But fine newspapers get specific with regards to Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.”

                      The Washington Post of today is not a fine newspaper. It is trash.
                      Who: Anonymous sources that are inaccurate.
                      “What, When, Where, Why and How.” Spin


  9. If they didn’t have oil where would they be. Who needs them? I think that we don’t

  10. Not only is evidence of MbS and Netanyahu’s murder and mayhem clear, but so is evidence of both of them interfering in the 2016 US election with continuing interference since then. Yet they are honored by US officials while innocent national leaders are demonized. US officials long ago lost all political credibility.

    1. Thanks on the update on your fantasy life. I was waiting for it with bated breath.

  11. “The question is what we represent as a nation if we turn a blind eye to the targeted murder of a journalist and a litany of lies designed to cover up the involvement of a figure like the Crown Prince. We cannot simply shrug and say that this is “business not personal.” This is murder.”
    We have long passed the point where concern for what we represent as a nation has mattered much. The leaders of our nation have sold themselves and their country for money, domestic and foreign. Corporations are people too, even religion means nothing as the Supreme court just signified that some religions are more worthy than others. Our treaties are meaningless, so are out threats. We demand other countries live up to human rights standards we don’t adhere to ourselves. The only question remaining is what are we going to do about it?

    1. I would suggest the United States has always pursued its strategic interests like every other nation in history and that is normal and to be expected. All the moralizing is immature. but, given our national penchant for moralizing, inherited from our Puritan colonial predecessors, it’s not surprising.

      I suggest Henry Kissinger was just the right kind of diplomat for America to help it get over it’s moralistic proclivities but what has come since him has not really operated on his level.

      As an American I want my government to pursue its national interests. IT’s true I am somewhat inclined to peace and diplomacy rather than war. But that is ONLY because i view it as a more efficient means to ends. I do not eschew war or warlike approaches because of moralizing.

      We should aim to be mature in our considerations and rise above the tut-tutting all the time.

      1. I would suggest the nations strategic interests aren’t one and the same with those being pursued. Haliburton made $39.5 billion off the Iraq War alone. The forces that ensure we are always fighting expensive wars aren’t concerned about the interests (and lives)of the soldiers that fight them. Eliminating sanctions against Russia to help locate a hotel in Moscow isn’t in the country’s interest.

        Wiping out restrictions on polluting ou air and water only does corporations good. Ignoring science and climate change so that individuals and corporations may profit is not in the country’s interest. Wanting a better life for your children isn’t immature.

        1. If you’re going to exaggerate, Enigma, go for broke…..pretend that it was actually $39.5 TRILLION that Halliburton “off the Gulf War alone”.

            1. “stick to what I can document”

              Which means you found no articles on established left wing news sites to back up your claim, so you went for broke.

              Was Craigs List or Reddit unhelpful? Clearly Enigma graduated from a vigorous graduate school program hence his impeccable “sources”

              “Reader Supported News is a new service by the creator of Truthout, Marc Ash. I started Truthout in downtown Los Angeles in the summer of 2000, as the Democratic convention unfolded a few blocks away.”

                1. Enigma,…
                  – I had never heard of this RSM, probably for a very good reason.
                  I hope that you are not influenced in any way by them on investment decisions like IRA decisions, 401Ks, etc.
                  Those idiots are financially illiterate.

        2. For the record, the operating income of Halliburton from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2011 was about $22 bn. About 1/4 of their revenue was derived from government contracts in re Iraq.

        3. Enigma

          Didn’t those folks at Koch tell you that ensuring that our country is always waging expensive wars is always in our special interest as long as governments of countries that have valuable natural resources refuse to turn them over to REX Xon.
          The FOXES here would prefer a peaceful hand-over, I presume, but their leaders are all dictators who murder their own people and hate us for our freedoms? – so we have to liberate their oil before it’s all gone.

  12. Mr. Turley you really need to choose your words more carefully. Khashoggi was not a “journalist” as that term is understood to claim certain privileges. He was a political agent and operative of long standing. A “spook” if you will. He was hired by the WAPO to write a few hit pieces to further the Post’s political agenda.

  13. Khashoggi was not some foreign correspondent who works for a for a few years in Tangier or Istanbul and then returns to his home in Takoma Park. He was a Saudi national and a participant in his country’s political life. Killing him was astonishingly vicious and cruel. That having been said, reasons of state may indicate we not make much of a stink about it because we have other irons in the fire.

    What is the source of your Saudi obsession?

    1. I agree with that. He was not just a participant he was a power player and in their circles that can mean you get dealt with like an errant Bedouin in the desert.

      it’s primary a matter for Turkey since it happened there. We have a serious potential conflict if Turkey gets too onery on top of all the trouble the Saudis make. Cool heads must prevail.

Comments are closed.