|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 23, 2018 14:28:18 GMT -5
Personally, I don't think severing ties with the Saudis would have been the right thing to do. But do think that a lot can be done at a diplomatic level. Also, the intense negative attention that this incident has received has thrown a light on who and what MBS really is, as an individual. He has lost, I think, the trust of many nations, which is going to make his future dealings a lot harder than he would have liked. That aside, I'm going to throw a new thought into the mix. Individual responsibility. And I'm NOT victim-blaming here. Jamal Khashoggi knew full well that the Saudis had it in for him. He even called the embassy ahead of his visit for assurances about his safety. He was given those assurances and he chose to trust them. Each of us has to bear some responsibility for the choices we make. This doesn't mean that he is to blame for what happened or that it is his fault. But, given what he knew, it was a stupid decision that cost him his life. He could have gone to the embassy in NYC or Washington DC, which would have been a lot safer. Should countries go to (economic) war over one individual's poor choice? I don't think so. Whoa. That's a whole lot of presumption you just made there, galid. Let me hip you to something. Jamal Khashoggi could have gone to a embassy in the U.S. and maybe he should have. EXCEPT...So yeah. You are unintentionally blaming the victim. Big Time. Sorry, but that's the very definition of victim blaming.
ETA:
Do you REALLY think Kashoggi had any inkling he would be murdered the minute he stepped inside the embassy? That his body would be cut up and dissolved in acid? Do you really think those options crossed his mind? Because I sure don't.
And you say that he sought assurances for his safety like that was a bad thing.
On "personal responsibility." Why is it that when people use that phrase, they apply it to one person but not another? Why does it apply to Kashoggi and not MBS? What about his decision to have a journalist murdered?
I'm sorry, Gail, this line of reasoning makes me mad because, despite what you say, it IS victim blaming, pure and simple.
And, look, no one has said to sever ties with Saudi Arabia. But how about holding MBS personally accountable, seeing him come to justice? But no, no so much as a peep from our spineless lump of a president. Because, hey, you know, money.
Hey, and gas prices are lower too! Arms sales, good! Dead journalist, meh. Saudi Arabia, good! Iran, bad! Dead journalist, meh. Cheap gas, good! Dead journalist, meh. America's rep on human rights, meh. Dead journalist, who cares? Yeah, if there is such a thing as victim blaming, that's it. Anyone can use 20/20 hindsight and say "Maybe he shouldn't have done that," but no one should expect that he's going to be murdered when he walks into his own country/s embassy, and you're basically saying we should shrug and say "Well, he should have expected that his country was like that." Word.
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Nov 24, 2018 4:20:22 GMT -5
No, it is not about victim-blaming. The only people to blame here are the people who murdered Khashoggi and the person who ordered it. I'm talking about personal responsibility. Blame and responsibility don't always mean the same thing. Take the word 'blame' out of the equation for a moment.
As adults, each of us make lots of decisions, every day, that can have far reaching consequences. There are risks involved in most of those decisions - even getting into your car and driving a couple of miles to the supermarket is a risk. But you weigh up the risk, consciously or unconsciously, and you decide that your need for groceries outweighs the risk. Let's assume (God forbid) you get t-boned by a drunk driver. Are you to blame? Hell, no! The drunk driver is. However, recognize that you chose to be in your car. You didn't plan to have an accident but your choices brought you to that place, at that time. If you don't take personal responsibility for making those choices you are likely to live your life with a lot of outrage, feeling victimized at every turn.
Every action has a consequence. We all complain about poor air-quality but we drive cars, don't we? We buy manufactured goods? We are all part of our own problems and if we don't see that, and take ownership of that, how will anything get better?
Khashoggi chose his career. He chose to speak out about wrongs and injustices. In my opinion, that makes him a hero. He knew there were huge risks but he did it anyway. That does not mean he is to blame for being murdered. Come on, no sane person (other than MBS and his ilk) could say that. Like all of us, Jamal Khashoggi had choices. His choices led him to that place at that time. If we could ask him if he could have his life over, would he do anything different, I'm pretty sure that he would say no. Maybe he'd avoid that embassy ruse, but he'd still be a journalist who spoke out, no matter what that choice led to. That's taking personal responsibility for outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 24, 2018 13:51:05 GMT -5
So Khashoggi chose to do what he did knowing the risks. But earlier, you used that to argue that we (the US) should not be responsible for his choices. I.e., that we shouldn't be expected to take any action against the Saudi government that would be to our disadvantage.
Your definition of "personal responsibility" seems to be that if you choose to be a journalist who antagonizes hostile and autocratic governments, you should not expect anyone to have your back.
I know it's almost laughable nowadays to talk about the United States defending a free press and human rights, but at least compared to Saudi Arabia, we historically have at least given lip service to those ideals. Even for non-US citizens.
Now you're saying "Eh, Kashoggi knew the risks, why should we put ourselves out on his behalf?"
We should do that because it's right. We should do it because otherwise we might as well just admit that we don't give a fuck about anything other than gas prices. We should do it because why wouldn't Saudi Arabia and other countries keep doing things like this, now that we've shown we don't care?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 24, 2018 15:24:20 GMT -5
No, it is not about victim-blaming. The only people to blame here are the people who murdered Khashoggi and the person who ordered it. I'm talking about personal responsibility. Blame and responsibility don't always mean the same thing. Take the word 'blame' out of the equation for a moment. As adults, each of us make lots of decisions, every day, that can have far reaching consequences. There are risks involved in most of those decisions - even getting into your car and driving a couple of miles to the supermarket is a risk. But you weigh up the risk, consciously or unconsciously, and you decide that your need for groceries outweighs the risk. Let's assume (God forbid) you get t-boned by a drunk driver. Are you to blame? Hell, no! The drunk driver is. However, recognize that you chose to be in your car. You didn't plan to have an accident but your choices brought you to that place, at that time. If you don't take personal responsibility for making those choices you are likely to live your life with a lot of outrage, feeling victimized at every turn. Every action has a consequence. We all complain about poor air-quality but we drive cars, don't we? We buy manufactured goods? We are all part of our own problems and if we don't see that, and take ownership of that, how will anything get better? Khashoggi chose his career. He chose to speak out about wrongs and injustices. In my opinion, that makes him a hero. He knew there were huge risks but he did it anyway. That does not mean he is to blame for being murdered. Come on, no sane person (other than MBS and his ilk) could say that. Like all of us, Jamal Khashoggi had choices. His choices led him to that place at that time. If we could ask him if he could have his life over, would he do anything different, I'm pretty sure that he would say no. Maybe he'd avoid that embassy ruse, but he'd still be a journalist who spoke out, no matter what that choice led to. That's taking personal responsibility for outcomes. Wow. I'd call that an example of "tortured logic" if the circumstances of Khashoggi's death didn't make it wildly inappropriate. You said, "Each of us has to bear some responsibility for the choices we make. This doesn't mean that he is to blame for what happened or that it is his fault. But, given what he knew, it was a stupid decision that cost him his life. He could have gone to the embassy in NYC or Washington DC, which would have been a lot safer" and I showed you how that was not the case.
Instead of doubling down, it would have been nice of you to acknowledge you were wrong in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Nov 26, 2018 4:35:30 GMT -5
Wow. You guys are amazing. You took one thing I said, then another thing I said and twisted them together to make something that I didn't say.
That's real talent. I can't compete with that.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 26, 2018 19:30:08 GMT -5
Wow. You guys are amazing. You took one thing I said, then another thing I said and twisted them together to make something that I didn't say. That's real talent. I can't compete with that.
You said "personal responsibility." You said "Should countries go to (economic) war over one individual's poor choice?" You said he could have avoided his fate.
I don't see how anyone is twisting what you said.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 26, 2018 19:54:32 GMT -5
I heard the Saudis turned over their calendar to the US senate and sure enough, there were no murders on it. Just some innocent meetings in Riyadh and such.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 26, 2018 19:56:00 GMT -5
I heard the Saudis turned over their calendar to the US senate and sure enough, there were no murders on it. Just some innocent meetings in Riyadh and such.
Also a carpet cleaning on the schedule.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 26, 2018 20:49:52 GMT -5
Wow. You guys are amazing. You took one thing I said, then another thing I said and twisted them together to make something that I didn't say. That's real talent. I can't compete with that.
That's cool. You have your own talent for slipping the knife into Jamal Khashoggi for making a "stupid decision that cost him his own life" and then claiming a weak disclaimer in the first sentence takes precedence over what you add in the second.
Thusly, I firmly and categorically reject your accusation of "twisting" anything. No one has twisted your words. Your words have been read and interpreted in a way you don't agree with. It's not the same thing.
If you are going to blame a man for his own assault, kidnapping, blood-letting, dismemberment and murder, you can hardly play the offended innocent if others call you out for doing so.
You're free to keep trying though.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 27, 2018 15:42:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 30, 2018 13:44:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 30, 2018 18:51:30 GMT -5
You do not have any more access to "the truth" than anyone else.
Let's look at what the undisputed facts are:
1. The CIA director was absent from the Senate briefing. 2. Several Senators wanted her to be there and were unhappy at her absence. 3. There are claims (from unnamed sources) that the White House directed her not to be there. 4. Those claims have been denied by the White House. 5. No direct word from the CIA or the director.
It is possible that "The White House told Haspel not to be there" is "fake news." But consider this hypothesis for a moment: the White House did tell Haspel not to be there.
What would that look like? What would people say?
For certain, the White House would not admit that Trump told her not to be there. And the National Security Advisor is going to give the official POTUS-approved story. And Haspel, if she wants to keep her job, is not going to publicly contradict her bosses.
So if she was actually told not to attend the briefing, the fact that official White House sources deny it doesn't mean much. And the fact that the sources saying she was are unnamed? Lots of political reporting comes from unnamed sources - people who would lose their jobs or worse if named.
None of this proves that the official story is false. On the other hand, it is odd that she wasn't there, when she was expected to be there, and so far there has been no counter-explanation, just the White House saying "We didn't tell her not to be there." And crickets from the CIA.
There are other plausible explanations for her absence. But you don't have nearly enough information to claim to be dispensing "the truth" here. Mindlessly repeating the White House's talking points does not settle the issue.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Nov 30, 2018 19:13:40 GMT -5
So you think the CIA spokesperson is also lying in a public statement? Because the link and quote is from the CIA spokesperson, Timothy Barrett.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 30, 2018 20:10:44 GMT -5
Trump needs NO ammunition in his war against Fake News reporting he doesn't like. Not as long as you're going to make the assertion a THREE PARAGRAPH "story" from Reuters is somehow "good factual reporting" over a far more detailed and thorough article from The Guardian. You have made it quite clear you don't understand how journalism works, but there is nothing strange about unnamed sources. "Senate staffer" is a nice way to say someone who is a top aide to Senator Joe Blow has been authorized by his or her boss to talk to the press but on background and here's a primer on what that means:
I know none of this will dissuade you in the least from pathetically blind devotion to Team Trump's rotten rationalizations of why the butchering of Jamal Khashoggi is a total hear no evil/see no evil/speak no evil load of steaming hot bullshit, but maybe someone whose mind isn't so padlocked might get why senate staffers DON'T want their names connected to the info they give to reporters. Duh.
However, if you're really all hyped over unnamed sources, what about someone who doesn't mind going on the record and putting President Pussygrabber on blast. Your boy, Little Lindsay Graham ain't too happy with CIA Director Gina Haspel's no-show and if The Guardian is too Lefty for your discriminating tastes, how reliable is Glenn Beck's The Blaze for your Righty tastes?
Pompeo and Mattis say there's no proof Mohammed bin Salman ordered Khashoggi's death. Haspel didn't say shit because she didn't show up. The CIA believes the House of Saud was involved. Trump says MBS told him he had nothing to do with it and that's good enough for him.
Meanwhile, Khashoggi is still dead and his body still hasn't been found. Merry Fucking Christmas, celawson.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 30, 2018 20:27:15 GMT -5
So you think the CIA spokesperson is also lying in a public statement? Because the link and quote is from the CIA spokesperson, Timothy Barrett.
Because the CIA would never ever never ever lie to the public. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT.
|
|