Trump - missing journalist no reason to stop Saudi investments

[Srinivas]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

No. Trolling in this instance is constantly referencing conspiracy theories in contradiction to forum rules

it's a ridiculous  term to shut down discourse imo. anything that main stream media disapproves is a conspiracy theory. 

for example:ive seen people here spout russia collusion. nothing proven so far so that would also be a conspiracy theory at this point.

 

 

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Srinivas said:

it's a ridiculous  term to shut down discourse imo. anything that main stream media disapproves is a conspiracy theory. 

for example:ive seen people here spout russia collusion. nothing proven so far so that would also be a conspiracy theory at this point.

 

 

"it's a ridiculous  term to shut down discourse imo. anything that main stream media disapproves is a conspiracy theory."

No, it's proven to be fake/a hoax by sane people or so far out there no investigation is needed and only people like yourself believe it. 

 

"for example:ive seen people here spout russia collusion. nothing proven so far so that would also be a conspiracy theory at this point."

It's quite possible it happened and that's why there is an investigation going on to find out. That's nothing even remotely close to your loony conspiracy theories. 

[observer90210]

Why deal with a Saudi kingdom known to fund terror groups indirectly ?

 

Trump should rather do what's necessary to have oil prices to crash even more. This will humble the Saudis and the world will applaud as rock bottom oil prices mean rock bottom prices for many other things. But let's not dream as Trumpy has much to interests himself in oil money.

[simple1]

26 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Why deal with a Saudi kingdom known to fund terror groups indirectly ?

 

Trump should rather do what's necessary to have oil prices to crash even more. This will humble the Saudis and the world will applaud as rock bottom oil prices mean rock bottom prices for many other things. But let's not dream as Trumpy has much to interests himself in oil money.

Currently trump's Foreign Policy (LOL) is actually increasing oil prices, oil price is not decreasing.

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti

[ballpoint]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump - missing journalist no reason to stop Saudi investments

But if we find conclusive evidence the Saudis murdered him, we will immediately attack Iran.

[Trouble]

Rather than all the criticism, why not wait until the intelligence people learn the facts first. Trump said in the Oval Office that we needed to wait and see but that if the Saudi government did indeed do something like this the US government would have to figure out a strategy.  I agree with him. Why would you give away 100 billion dollars worth of business (even if they are MOU's) to Russia or China and put that much at risk undermining it coming into the USA and threatening jobs?  Seems Khashoggi went into embassy and didn't come out and they are also saying a 15/17 man hit team arrived on a private jet, etc.  Why would you need anymore than a few guys to do that?  It surely will be an interesting story and the USA is in a difficult situation as Saudi Arabia is the single strongest force pushing back against Iran something that Israel can't take a front seat doing.  It's like the first thing the Dems and press do is figure out a way to criticize Trump and his Administration, even before the facts are known.  It's all about the hyping the news cycle rather than reporting events. None of the big three CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are news businesses. They simply are hour after hour of opinion hosts with opinion panels. Each hour, no matter the world events, it's the same 5 stories with hosts and panels repeating the same 5 stories over and over. None of them are really news outlets. 

[lannarebirth]

Saudi Arabia needs to get with the program and disappear people on an industrial scale, like China. Then people will see it as "business as usual".

[Srinivas]

26 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Rather than all the criticism, why not wait until the intelligence people learn the facts first. Trump said in the Oval Office that we needed to wait and see but that if the Saudi government did indeed do something like this the US government would have to figure out a strategy.  I agree with him. Why would you give away 100 billion dollars worth of business (even if they are MOU's) to Russia or China and put that much at risk undermining it coming into the USA and threatening jobs?  Seems Khashoggi went into embassy and didn't come out and they are also saying a 15/17 man hit team arrived on a private jet, etc.  Why would you need anymore than a few guys to do that?  It surely will be an interesting story and the USA is in a difficult situation as Saudi Arabia is the single strongest force pushing back against Iran something that Israel can't take a front seat doing.  It's like the first thing the Dems and press do is figure out a way to criticize Trump and his Administration, even before the facts are known.  It's all about the hyping the news cycle rather than reporting events. None of the big three CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are news businesses. They simply are hour after hour of opinion hosts with opinion panels. Each hour, no matter the world events, it's the same 5 stories with hosts and panels repeating the same 5 stories over and over. None of them are really news outlets. 

how dare you interrupt our Trump Tourettes Syndrome. ????

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trump Tourette Syndrome

[spidermike007]

Trump was actually more honest when he said "they buy my $50,000,000 condos, and they buy alot of weapons, so I really, really like them". This is a man so completely devoid of ethics, character, morality and any sort of barometer that indicates to him the difference between right and wrong. He has been thieving and stealing for so long, he no longer has the ability to discern what the difference is.

 

The Saudis have long been enemy number one for planet earth. Their continued support of the heinous brand of Islam called Wahhabism, makes them a terrorist nation, and the world's top sponsor of terror. Prince Salman has amply demonstrated his complete unwillingness to adhere to world norms, and bring his nation into the 21st century. He is a mule salesman, who happened to be born into royalty. And his recent order to murder Khashoggi showed his true face to the world. I guess they expected to get away with it, when they sent their hit squads to Turkey. Not the case. You were caught red handed, you heinous fool. You are a thug, a madman, a creep, and a charlatan. And Trump loves you for those qualities. Tiny Don never met a dictator he did not like. It is the democratically elected allies that he despises. 

 

Now, much of the world is finally seeing the House of Saud for what it is. Finally. And they are going to spurn the upcoming economic conference. There is a good chance Steve Mnuchin might be the only one who shows up. That would be completely in character for him.

 

Prince Salman. Terrorizing the world and the women of his nation daily.

Donald Trump. Moving America backwards daily, and definitely not making the nation great again.

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump was actually more honest when he said "they buy my $50,000,000 condos, and they buy alot of weapons, so I really, really like them". This is a man so completely devoid of ethics, character, morality and any sort of barometer that indicates to him the difference between right and wrong. He has been thieving and stealing for so long, he no longer has the ability to discern what the difference is.

 

 

Could you provide a link for that quote ?

[spidermike007]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Could you provide a link for that quote ?

 

Trump’s meek response to the diplomatic crisis highlights the ongoing conflicts of interest posed by his business empire. 

At a 2015 campaign stop, Trump bragged to the crowd about his business dealings with the Saudis. “Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them,” Trump said. “They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/donald-trump-has-a-serious-saudi-arabian-conflict-of-interest/

 

[Srinivas]

here is an interesting character, Jamals Cousin Adnan.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Khashoggi

"A commercial pioneer, he established companies in Switzerland and Liechtenstein to handle his commissions as well as developing contacts with notables such as CIA officers James H. Critchfield and Kim Roosevelt and United States businessman Bebe Rebozo, a close associate of U.S. President Richard Nixon. His yacht, the Nabila, was the largest in the world at the time and was used in the James Bond film Never Say Never Again.^[8][9] After Khashoggi ran into financial problems he sold the yacht to the Sultan of Brunei, who in turn sold it for $29 million to Donald Trump, who sold it for $20 million^[11] to Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal as part of a deal to keep his Taj Mahal casino out of bankruptcy."

 

I suspect Jamal is no ordinary "journalist" either.He has got to be knee deep in the kingdoms geopolitic power plays ofcourse. 

 

[Morch]

On 10/12/2018 at 6:43 AM, simple1 said:

Trump never stops lying. His claim of $100 billion of new arms sales to KSA has been fact checked and proven to be false. USA has only got MOUs for the large majority of sales, letter of intent, which any commercial vendor would never claim as an actual sale. Usual attempt o f BS baffles brains by trump.

 

At least some of them arms deal comprising the lump thing were initiated during Obama's terms in office - so while true Trump was taking credit for the previous administration's work, it does paint a more complicated picture with regard to US relations with SA.

 

As for many contracts signed being MOUs, letters of intent and such - your commercial vendor is probably not in the international arms trade business. Such deals often take years to be carried out, due to details involved, legal approval process, specifications, manufacture and supply rates. Also, there are different levels of financial commitment involved - so while sure, no $100 billion changed hands, it's not quite hot air either. Certainly got an effect on stocks and future plans of relevant firms.

[Morch]

On 10/12/2018 at 8:30 AM, BoganInParasite said:

Trump is redefining amoral.

 

I don't think so, actually. More like not being PC about it. Past administrations kept up relations with SA regardless of transgressions, but were less blunt about it. Don't know that countries and governments operate according to individual moral principals, but that's another issue.

[Morch]

On 10/12/2018 at 9:43 AM, neeray said:

I am quite shocked. I have not heard Trump say yet "but they said they didn't do it".

Remember, he always defends the alleged perp not the victim.

The Trump doctrine!

 

He left that for Bolton, who already entertained the possibility of it being a false flag operation...

[Morch]

On 10/12/2018 at 12:11 PM, Bluespunk said:

That’s no reason to not do the right thing. 

 

What would be that "right thing"? And who gets to decide this?

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What would be that "right thing"? And who gets to decide this?

The right thing would be not to ignore what happened. 

 

As didn’t happen regarding Russia with the U.K. poisoning incident. 

 

But russia doesn’t buy so many USA arms do they. 

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The right thing would be not to ignore what happened. 

 

As didn’t happen regarding Russia with the U.K. poisoning incident. 

 

But russia doesn’t buy so many USA arms do they. 

 

The OP is about Trump's statement regarding the incident, not sure how you mean "ignore", then. There are further statements from US politicians asserting this needs looking into and steps needed to be taken if necessary. Again, not exactly "ignore".

 

Russia is a not-so-friendly country which carried out an attack on UK national, and on UK soil. The current incident is somewhat different with regard to countries involved and their relations with the US, location of the attack and identity/nationality of victim. So while it might be tempting to draw parallels, not quite same same. The one thing which would be more salient in this regard, is Trump's own position vs. Senate/Congress (and even parts of administration) - some similarity there.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The OP is about Trump's statement regarding the incident, not sure how you mean "ignore", then. There are further statements from US politicians asserting this needs looking into and steps needed to be taken if necessary. Again, not exactly "ignore".

 

Russia is a not-so-friendly country which carried out an attack on UK national, and on UK soil. The current incident is somewhat different with regard to countries involved and their relations with the US, location of the attack and identity/nationality of victim. So while it might be tempting to draw parallels, not quite same same. The one thing which would be more salient in this regard, is Trump's own position vs. Senate/Congress (and even parts of administration) - some similarity there.

The two incidents are the same. 

 

A government murdered (allegedly at this point for Saudi Arabia) one of its citizens in another country. 

 

The response, if it is proven Saudi did as accused, should be the same. 

 

Edit: oh and by ignore I mean this

 

“They're (the Saudis) spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs ... for this country. I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States, because you know what they're going to do? They're going to take that money and spend it in Russia or China or someplace else," Trump said.“

[candide]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The two incidents are the same. 

 

A government murdered (allegedly at this point for Saudi Arabia) one of its citizens in another country. 

 

The response, if it is proven Saudi did as accused, should be the same. 

 

Edit: oh and by ignore I mean this

 

“They're (the Saudis) spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs ... for this country. I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States, because you know what they're going to do? They're going to take that money and spend it in Russia or China or someplace else," Trump said.“

On top of it the figure of $110 billion is fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/11/trumps-billion-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-still-fake/?utm_term=.84dae6e646b9

[Bluespunk]

21 minutes ago, candide said:

On top of it the figure of $110 billion is fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/11/trumps-billion-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-still-fake/?utm_term=.84dae6e646b9

So trump’s lying...why am I not shocked?

[simple1]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

At least some of them arms deal comprising the lump thing were initiated during Obama's terms in office - so while true Trump was taking credit for the previous administration's work, it does paint a more complicated picture with regard to US relations with SA.

 

As for many contracts signed being MOUs, letters of intent and such - your commercial vendor is probably not in the international arms trade business. Such deals often take years to be carried out, due to details involved, legal approval process, specifications, manufacture and supply rates. Also, there are different levels of financial commitment involved - so while sure, no $100 billion changed hands, it's not quite hot air either. Certainly got an effect on stocks and future plans of relevant firms.

I'm well are of the comments you have made, doesn't change my mind.

[bendejo]

Um, who is it that keeps saying the press is the enemy of the people?

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The two incidents are the same. 

 

A government murdered (allegedly at this point for Saudi Arabia) one of its citizens in another country. 

 

The response, if it is proven Saudi did as accused, should be the same. 

 

Edit: oh and by ignore I mean this

 

“They're (the Saudis) spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs ... for this country. I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States, because you know what they're going to do? They're going to take that money and spend it in Russia or China or someplace else," Trump said.“

 

Them pesky facts are somewhat different, though.

 

Skripal was a UK citizen, and the attack was carried out on UK soil. The UK is a major ally of the US, and Russia is a long standing adversary of both.

 

khashoggi was a SA citizen, and the attack was carried out in Turkey. Turkey's current relations with the US are "troubled", and SA is a US ally of-sorts.

 

If memory serves, the US response was at the request of/coordinated with the UK. Further, it was against Trump's inclination.

 

So really, more complicated than the simplistic "the same".

 

Regarding the edited addition - you seem to have a rather wide definition of "ignore", all the more so considering that expecting an instant reaction over an unfolding story would be unrealistic, nor prudent. It does go back to previous comments though - is the bottom line of your position that the US ought to deal only with nations which are pure as snow? That would sure cut down the list some. And, like it or not, Trump's comment regarding the "vacuum" eventually filled by other players is true.

[Bluespunk]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Them pesky facts are somewhat different, though.

 

Skripal was a UK citizen, and the attack was carried out on UK soil. The UK is a major ally of the US, and Russia is a long standing adversary of both.

 

khashoggi was a SA citizen, and the attack was carried out in Turkey. Turkey's current relations with the US are "troubled", and SA is a US ally of-sorts.

 

If memory serves, the US response was at the request of/coordinated with the UK. Further, it was against Trump's inclination.

 

So really, more complicated than the simplistic "the same".

 

Regarding the edited addition - you seem to have a rather wide definition of "ignore", all the more so considering that expecting an instant reaction over an unfolding story would be unrealistic, nor prudent. It does go back to previous comments though - is the bottom line of your position that the US ought to deal only with nations which are pure as snow? That would sure cut down the list some. And, like it or not, Trump's comment regarding the "vacuum" eventually filled by other players is true.

The two cases are the same. 

 

The consequences should be the same. 

 

My underlying is position is not as you say, but rather trump is a hypocrite. 

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The two cases are the same. 

 

The consequences should be the same. 

 

My underlying is position is not as you say, but rather trump is a hypocrite. 

 

You can repeat that the cases are "same", while disregarding obvious differences cited - doesn't change reality.

 

If your underlying position is "Trump is a hypocrite", then it would hold true with regard to most politicians, and businessmen as well. Arms deals and other trade ventures with SA went on, despite obvious transgressions regarding civil/human rights, under previous administrations as well, and of course, by other countries and governments as well. To repeat, as positions go, this one's rather trivial.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can repeat that the cases are "same", while disregarding obvious differences cited - doesn't change reality.

 

If your underlying position is "Trump is a hypocrite", then it would hold true with regard to most politicians, and businessmen as well. Arms deals and other trade ventures with SA went on, despite obvious transgressions regarding civil/human rights, under previous administrations as well, and of course, by other countries and governments as well. To repeat, as positions go, this one's rather trivial.

 

 

I can repeat it if I believe it so. 

 

I do. 

 

Whether trump is less a hypocrite than other is politicians is irrelevant. 

 

It is his words I am commenting on. 

 

Whether you regard it as irrelevant or not is a trivial point. 

[lannarebirth]

17 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I can repeat it if I believe it so. 

 

I do. 

 

Whether trump is less a hypocrite than other is politicians is irrelevant. 

 

It is his words I am commenting on. 

 

Whether you regard it as irrelevant or not is a trivial point. 

 

For the most part I agree with you, although we are both wrong in that the world doesn't work exactly think or act  the way we wish it would. Given that China is also a dictatorship and its transgressions vis a vis disappearances, lack of due process, and incarcerations are many many orders of magnitude greater than Saudi Arabia's would you also support a severance of diplomatic relations and trade with China?  I would frankly, but I know that is a minority and unpopular position given that everyone's making money from it right now.

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

For the most part I agree with you, although we are both wrong in that the world doesn't work exactly think or act  the way we wish it would. Given that China is also a dictatorship and its transgressions vis a vis disappearances, lack of due process, and incarcerations are many many orders of magnitude greater than Saudi Arabia's would you also support a severance of diplomatic relations and trade with China?  I would frankly, but I know that is a minority and unpopular position given that everyone's making money from it right now.

I have no more love for China’s regime than Saudis. 

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I can repeat it if I believe it so. 

 

I do. 

 

Whether trump is less a hypocrite than other is politicians is irrelevant. 

 

It is his words I am commenting on. 

 

Whether you regard it as irrelevant or not is a trivial point. 

 

There was no argument about you not being able or allowed to repeat your views, even if these contradict factual details. It was simply pointed out that what you believe in relies on faulty premise and inaccurate facts.

 

The suggested judgement regarding relevancy seems contrived. If extending the argument to reference supposedly similar instances is alright, then commenting on other, similar instances of related hypocrisy by other/past leaders and governments applies as well. 

 

Your last line, other than being a lame, petulant retort, doesn't even make sense. Not that the rest of your posts do either.