« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 263 Scott Adams: Explaining the Khashoggi Situation

2018-10-16 | 🔗

Topic: 

  • Did the crown prince authorize what happened to Khashoggi?

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

The post Episode 263 Scott Adams: Explaining the Khashoggi Situation appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
I like that boom boom pow wow. Alright, if you were getting here early, you are going to enjoy the rare treat of a multiple simelton in your sip? I don't do this often, but when I do it's going to fry your brain grab your cup, your mug, your vessel, your Stein, your glass fill it with the beverage of your choice. I like coffee and raise it to your lips for the simultaneous sip. You know, there's more where that came from well, let's talk about Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince uh, Hamid Bin Solomon, let's just call him the crown prince. Yes Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman so what you're wondering is?
Did he lie to the president? Did he lied to President Trump when he said he didn't anything about it did President Trump believe him well, Let me give you some answers to the question now. I can't read minds: and I wasn't there I can't know with one hundred percent certainty what the situation is I'm going to describe to you an alternative theory compared to the two you've heard and you'd. Would you yourself. If I'm wrong about this, I would be so surprised never know, but if I'm wrong, I would be really surprised so first of all, if you watch CNN they're using careful, but there's things such as President Trump Seems to believe so
Arabia's denial. President Trump believes I don't know if they've said, believes directly. or they say he seems to believe or he acts like. He believes, Prince Bin. does that mean the President Trump believes him now President Trump has never said what he believes. That is not in evidence Well, President Trump has done, as you said that had been Solomon Prince the crown prince, denies it so he's simply explaining what he said and he's not at. his opinion, So do we know the president's opinion because he hasn't spoken it and the answer is this is diplomacy it? diplomacy, you never know was somebody's opinion. Is you only What they're doing right, So here's the explanation of what I think happened there.
NEWS stories or two versions of reality out there and I think they're both ridiculous one- is that the crown prince Saudi Arabia didn't know anything about this. The situation with just show guy being, allegedly killed and dismantled and put in plastic bags and removed from the turkish embassy. So it seems that possible that you wouldn't know. on the other hand, how likely is it well of the Senate and the other story? Is that that he didn't know right so he's not saying he knows, but the other story is that he's just lying We have two versions one. Is he totally new because Of course he knew it was a major deal he's the head, they know everything that's going on the security service isn't going to act without approval. Of course he knew and then the other is you know he didn't know it.
some kind of rogue activity is seems to Maine that both of those hypothesis are possible that both possible but compared to the version I'm going to give you now. So Here's the version that I think is most likely and it's based on. Now we have any big organization works in Saudi, maybe is a big organization. Here's how it works. This is you could call this the dilbert filter. You have a boss who has an opinion of out his critics. He may or may not have spoken specifically about Josh Ogi. But everyone around him- including the head of his security forces, etc. Would absolutely no, what he thought and felt and preferred about the fate of his critics,
they would know, for example, that his first choice would be to Co. Op them to find a way to buy them off, find find a way to maybe lunch. Then, maybe maybe threaten them softly. Maybe in some that way, maybe bring them into the inner circle, but to somehow control them. so they would have known that in a general way print spend some time in one or two control his critics and the first choice would be peacefully. Of course, right. If you could do a peacefully, why the hell? Wouldn't you so the part seems pretty reasonable right, it's reasonable that his security forces would know his preferences now is it likely that the prince was Alden detailed planning of a murder. Do you
He ever sat in a room and said: look we'll get a need to planes. You know make sure they can be tracked. We got you know, put together a team. I got I've got a list. I want you to bring you know Ahmed and Bob, and I don't know what their names are, I hear some good guys you're going to need one. it. You know a cleaner upper, a fixer. I need a trigger guy, maybe a torture. You know but you can't really see that right. You can't imagine that the crown prince was involved in detailed planning. and so far I think we're all the same page is very, unlikely he was involved in detailed planning, but it also one hundred percent likely that his security forces know what his preferences are. Now. What is the price of failure? If you are in Saudi Arabia, security force- and you know the boss one.
to you to find a way to make your biggest critic ineffective. Well, Failure is kind of a bad deal, right you don't want to be the underlying the failed. If there was no direct order. You know you're supposed to make these things happen. You don't need details, so here's what I think I think it is ridiculous, not impossible, but very unlikely, that the prince knew. There was a plan to kill this guy in the embassy and cut him up and remove him. that doesn't seem likely, and the reason is that I don't think he's that dumb this sort of thing, an underling decides to do because the underlying is trapped, in other words the underling needs to make something good happen with Josh Ogi. But all of the peaceful co op
Bing mechanisms are either ineffective, or they know they won't work, or you know, they've they've run that to the end, and they know that they might only have one chance to physically get ahold of him on saudi soil and the embassy is savvy soil, So it feels exactly like an underling decision somebody high up enough that they could put together a team and they had the budget and all that. But could it be true that the prince had no idea. This was going to happen. Answer absolutely absolutely now, it could be just a simple case of deniability. You know that you know it could be that he did sort of know the broad strokes He might not have known the day. Maybe didn't know the details, but I think it's even more likely that he just his underlings to take care of it.
Didn't probably didn't have a deadline? probably didn't have a specific plan? Probably didn't wanna hear. A specific plan of his underlings had one if it was something you might not like and My guess is that when he describes this as a road operation, that's close to true Meaning that he did they did not I have orders from him at least not specific orders. And when he says it was an interrogation that was botched. Is that accurate? Well, if you are the Prince and you told your guys- take care of this critic, but you know make sure you've done everything you can to do it in a in a piece. way the doesn't have any blowback, and then you hear imagine you're the and you hear the news that uh of your guys just got caught dismantling a prominent critic in your embassy.
Imagine how he felt when he got that news. Do you think you said to himself? Oh, my god, I got caught I'll bet, not I'll bet. He said all my life Rick and Lord or a whatever they, however, they swear all day. He said to himself. If anybody had told me, they were even going to try this in the embassy that he probably would have called it off so when he calls it a botched interrogation, it's definitely botched from his perspective, and I doubt he gave recorders. Is he completely, in the clear well, if he suggested that they take care of this problem He didn't want to hear the details and he knew who he was talking to another words. He was talking to people who. Can you say, take care of somebody, they know how to take care of, and if you know what I mean
Is there any precedent for this defense? Yes, there is, and I have a personal connection to it, which is weird. I know a coworker of mine back in my corporate days, MIKE Goodwin wrote a book about his father's experience in world war. Two he was a Navy flyer and he was shot down and captured by the Japanese. So this world war, two it's the middle of the war and he's captured by the japanese um, so my coworker put together the story of how his father was beheaded for entertainment for the troops. The japanese troops would take out some Americans. Just it was sort of like they didn't have entertainment, so they would tie him to a poll after they'd make them dig their own grave and then they whack their heads off and then the head would fall in a pumpkin pie.
Thing and then it kicked the body and sort of a ceremonial fun thing that got the troops going. Now, when the war was over, the people who ran this prison camp were, of course, brought up on you know war crimes and what was the defense of the the war crimes defender? What was his defense? It was this. He said we got an order from the top. That said to I think the word in Japanese with the show button s h, o, be you and I might have the wrong, but I think it should open, so the order was show button,
which is something like take care of them, see the problem. Take care of them is completely context dependent. So the people who murdered the american prisoners for entertainment is Shogun. Somebody saying Shogun, that might be right, so the people at the camp who murdered for entertainment, said we were just following orders: are our boss said take care of them, so we took care of them. What what else? Would that mean, of course that that means, and then when the boss was put on trial, he said predictably, I just said: take care of him: it's a prison camp. We take care of him, I didn't know they were going to kill him now there was a war crime and because the
these were on the losing side. There wasn't much doubt about which way the verdict was going to go. If you know what I mean, so they were found guilty of of war crimes and punished somehow, but there is precedent For the idea that there could be ambiguity from the top guy to the people who were you know using the sword, so It's almost certainly going to morph into one of those situations where I would say that the odds that the crown prince authorized this civic acted, meaning the murder of this guy in the embassy? I would personally put close to zero, because the cost benefit would just be stupid, for the prince right here is the important consideration right. The prince's cost benefit analysis is due.
from an underlings cost benefit analysis 'cause, the underling can not only give fired but executed right. I mean if you really messed up it's a bad penalty, so I know you're going to do anything you can to get the job done and you're going to take a higher level risk, so if you told me that an underling who had great pressure to solve this problem or wanted to stand out or do something if you told me an underlying, took an oversized risk and this was definitely an oversized risk, I would say I can see that happening now? An underling would have pressure that might cause them to make a an unwise. Cost benefit decision that might have been actually just their best choice for the underlying but if you're telling me that the crown Prince
New this plan and knew that this guy was going to be dismembered in the you know in the embassy, I would say: there's very little chance of that, because his cost benefit analysis was different An he I'm pretty sure that you would be better off keeping the critic then to have any chance that this would happen and if you know, if you
me: we're gonna dismember, somebody in the middle of the city, with all these witnesses, twenty witnesses or whatever by the time you count the staff of the embassy plus the fifteen people when an you know, plus the girlfriend who was on the street, there's a ton of witnesses right, it's all kinds of witnesses. So, if you tell me, the crown prince took that chance and thought that was a smart play. You also have to tell me he's: an idiot is a now if, if the news was that the crown prince was just and in the end then I'd say well yeah. It is do any of things, but the evidence is exactly the opposite. The evidence is that he is actually a ski
all the operator- l, L B, a young, so it just doesn't make sense of something that you know. Even even if you factor in use it doesn't make sense for him to do it, but it makes sense. An underling would do. He was a potential political rival and they wanted to go on yeah- I know that they had some benefit from having him gone. That is not in dispute. What I'm saying is that the cost benefit analysis so doing it in the way they did. It would not it's sense for the leader but it might have made sense vitamins as underling who was kinda rogue. but kind of not rogue.
Because the underlying thought they were doing what was best for the leader just leader, didn't specifically ask him to do that. That would be a perfectly reasonable explanation of any large organization. Now ask yourself, as anybody explained this to you that way. Now, let me ask: let's get some feedback now that I've explained it that way. Am I wrong that everything makes sense? now that doesn't mean I'm right. I'm just saying that this explanation I gave you fits the data,
is what we know about the world the best which doesn't make it right? There could be some other explanation, for you know some combination of explanations right doing it on their turf is not smart and that's the key to my opinion. There is a what all right, it's more plausible yeah and the I'm just looking at your comments. Yes, probably wrong: false flag, you know its direction.
Correct was horse race to distract from the Saudi Arabia thing I would say. Yes, I I think it's never one thing. You know, I think the president's tweets about stormy, Daniels and and the worst face comment. I do think it was meant to change the focus to something silly and also focus on the fact that he won the court case at the same time, they're beating
for saying and insulting that so yeah. That was intentional, but I also think there are other reasons you know. One is that he tweets on things that matter he tweets on anything this a victory. So it is not his number one reason, but certainly that was one of the benefits somebody says he clearly could not order. the assassination of a high profile person and and and- and I I'm saying that all of the possibilities that have been discussed are actually plausible. It's plausible that the the prince ordered the hit and then just lied about it plus, for Jeff to compare the odds of it to the other alternatives and the the odds that he had nothing to do with it. Not
indirectly or in a vague connection, is also seems low, but the odds that he expressed, a preference and an underling botched botched. Something seems pretty likely all right, I'm going to get off now and do something else. I'll talk to you later.