Saudi Arabia says will retaliate against any sanctions over Khashoggi case

[sanemax]

8 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

Ask a Saudi about traffic laws and Sharia, that will make a boring day go quicker.

OK, Im off out to look for a Saudi Arabian  today , so that I can ask him 

[alanrchase]

OK, Im off out to look for a Saudi Arabian  today , so that I can ask him 

I am led to believe that Pattaya is a good place to start your quest.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

11 hours ago, farcanell said:

Yes yes, that’s all very nice... but Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN, and accordingly to article 13b of the Rome treaty, the ZuN security council can bring cases to the ICC

 

the United States of trumptopia, has a veto on the security council,  so can excuse itself from crimes... Saudi Arabia doesn’t.

 

i read that as the UN being able to bring a case against Saudi citizens.... unless trump vetos it.

 

Saudi Arabia isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute. Your assertions as to the ICC's authority with regard to non-signatories, both in theory and practice are "very nice", but do not necessarily reflect reality. It isn't quite a simple a picture as you attempt to paint.

 

In order for your scenario to even begin to unfold, there would have to be enough support from UN members (either UNGA or UNSC, depending on path taken) in order to put things in motion. In both bodies there are enough countries (other than the US) with vested interests or being susceptible to pressure, so that the motion would be effectively blocked.

 

The UN failed to act, or even condemn much worse than this. Expecting that much will come out of taking it there is unrealistic. Making it all about the US and Trump is a nice story.

[farcanell]

11 hours ago, Naam said:

and then the UN invades Saudi Arabia and arrests MbS. as simple as that.

Sure... that appears to be the way the US might wish to influence the UN.... after all, trump was asking why he couldn’t invade Venezuela.

 

but personally, I’m thinking that there might be a couple of viable alternatives / steps between “bringing a case against Saudi” and “invade Saudi Arabia”

 

but then. I’m not a murican, so perhaps my reasoning mechanism differs from yall

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Sure... that appears to be the way the US might wish to influence the UN.... after all, trump was asking why he couldn’t invade Venezuela.

 

but personally, I’m thinking that there might be a couple of viable alternatives / steps between “bringing a case against Saudi” and “invade Saudi Arabia”

 

but then. I’m not a murican, so perhaps my reasoning mechanism differs from yall

 

Do you somehow imagine that the US is the only country that's got vested interests in this incident fading away? Like...no other countries having major trade with SA? No other countries with interests regarding oil prices? Or regional security concerns?

 

You mention "viable alternatives", yet fail to detail what would these be. If your lower rung for "action" is "bringing a case against Saudi" you might be in for some disappointment. Put it otherwise, if it comes to even this, consider it a result.

[farcanell]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Saudi Arabia isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute. Your assertions as to the ICC's authority with regard to non-signatories, both in theory and practice are "very nice", but do not necessarily reflect reality. It isn't quite a simple a picture as you attempt to paint.

 

In order for your scenario to even begin to unfold, there would have to be enough support from UN members (either UNGA or UNSC, depending on path taken) in order to put things in motion. In both bodies there are enough countries (other than the US) with vested interests or being susceptible to pressure, so that the motion would be effectively blocked.

 

The UN failed to act, or even condemn much worse than this. Expecting that much will come out of taking it there is unrealistic. Making it all about the US and Trump is a nice story.

Right... so are you saying that the UN Security Council can not direct, by any mechanism, the ICC to investigate....or just that it’s not simple?

 

if it falls into the “can not”, I beg to differ

 

if it falls into the “not simple” catergory, then not only do I agree, but I posited that myself.

 

 

 

 

[Naam]

1 hour ago, manarak said:

the crucial difference lies in the ability to evolve.
the bible has been modified several times while the qr'an can't be amended because muslims believe every word is exactly what god said.

the Bible has never been modified. interpretations changed. the latter took centuries. perhaps Islam needs seven centuries (time difference Bible New Testament / Qr'an) to arrive at new interpretations? "Muslims believe every word..." is a generalising assumption. i've met many Muslims who do "not believe every word..." but i admit they are a minority.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Right... so are you saying that the UN Security Council can not direct, by any mechanism, the ICC to investigate....or just that it’s not simple?

 

if it falls into the “can not”, I beg to differ

 

if it falls into the “not simple” catergory, then not only do I agree, but I posited that myself.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you trying to put words in my mouth, again?

 

Your version of "not simple" isn't quite on-mark.

[farcanell]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do you somehow imagine that the US is the only country that's got vested interests in this incident fading away? Like...no other countries having major trade with SA? No other countries with interests regarding oil prices? Or regional security concerns?

 

You mention "viable alternatives", yet fail to detail what would these be. If your lower rung for "action" is "bringing a case against Saudi" you might be in for some disappointment. Put it otherwise, if it comes to even this, consider it a result.

Dude.... every country on the planet has a vested interest... every one.... I’m sure by posing such a silly question, your not really trying to insult me.

 

although, it might be arguable about insults, when I suggest that even you should be able to come up with at least one “viable alternative” tween bringing a case against Saudi Arabia and invading Saudi Arabia... 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Dude.... every country on the planet has a vested interest... every one.... I’m sure by posing such a silly question, your not really trying to insult me.

 

although, it might be arguable about insults, when I suggest that even you should be able to come up with at least one “viable alternative” tween bringing a case against Saudi Arabia and invading Saudi Arabia... 

It has yet to be determined if the ‘vested interests’ in play are those of the United States or those of Trump/Kushner and their family businesses. 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Dude.... every country on the planet has a vested interest... every one.... I’m sure by posing such a silly question, your not really trying to insult me.

 

although, it might be arguable about insults, when I suggest that even you should be able to come up with at least one “viable alternative” tween bringing a case against Saudi Arabia and invading Saudi Arabia... 

 

And yet, your posts keep singling out the the US as the only relevant party with regard to "veto" or blocking possible avenues of legal or diplomatic action.

 

I'm not the one making assertions about "viable alternatives" - you are, while failing to explain what would these amount to. If you can't be bothered to make your argument, don't expect other posters to do it for you.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It has yet to be determined if the ‘vested interests’ in play are those of the United States or those of Trump/Kushner and their family businesses. 

 

It's not an either/or. Trump and Kushner possibly having personal vested interests in maintaining relations with SA, doesn't imply there are no US interests as well. It would cast a shadow over any decision the administration takes, but it's not as if previous administrations would have had no issues taking action vs. SA, even if the personal stake was off the table.

[Chomper Higgot]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's not an either/or. Trump and Kushner possibly having personal vested interests in maintaining relations with SA, doesn't imply there are no US interests as well. It would cast a shadow over any decision the administration takes, but it's not as if previous administrations would have had no issues taking action vs. SA, even if the personal stake was off the table.

I have no doubt that previous administrations had/would have had 'issues' taking action against Saudi Arabia.

 

However, the indications are that this administration has very particular issues relating to personal business and financial relationships between Trump/Kushner and Saudi Arabia and that it is these personal business/financial interests that are dictating the US administration's response to Saudi Arabia.

 

 

[ballpoint]

1 hour ago, Naam said:

the Bible has never been modified. interpretations changed. the latter took centuries. perhaps Islam needs seven centuries (time difference Bible New Testament / Qr'an) to arrive at new interpretations? "Muslims believe every word..." is a generalising assumption. i've met many Muslims who do "not believe every word..." but i admit they are a minority.

Not even seven centuries to catch up.  Having a copy of the wrong bible would get you burned at the stake in England four centuries ago, and the last execution by the Inquisition took place in 1826, just two centuries ago.

[TMNH]

On 10/14/2018 at 9:23 PM, bendejo said:

Money by way of (very inflated) hotel fees is a low-key "laundered" pay-for-favor method.

DT used to get money from his daddy by old Fred coming into his casino and buying very large amounts of poker chips.  This is one thing he actually does have lots experience with, "so true!"  Dad's money is what kept li'l Donnie going.  When the old man died he needed other sources, and that was when he started doing Russian money laundering deals.

 

 

You are correct Sir!

[Naam]

4 hours ago, sanemax said:

There you go, both the Koran and Bible condensed into one sentence 

the relation/dependency is quite obvious.

[Naam]

1 hour ago, ballpoint said:

Not even seven centuries to catch up.  Having a copy of the wrong bible would get you burned at the stake in England four centuries ago, and the last execution by the Inquisition took place in 1826, just two centuries ago.

i stand corrected

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, ballpoint said:

 Having a copy of the wrong bible would get you burned at the stake in England four centuries ago, .

Although that was nothing to do with the content of what was written in the Bible

[Berkshire]

On 10/15/2018 at 8:23 AM, bendejo said:

Money by way of (very inflated) hotel fees is a low-key "laundered" pay-for-favor method.

DT used to get money from his daddy by old Fred coming into his casino and buying very large amounts of poker chips.  This is one thing he actually does have lots experience with, "so true!"  Dad's money is what kept li'l Donnie going.  When the old man died he needed other sources, and that was when he started doing Russian money laundering deals.

 

You got that right.  Trump blew through daddy's money by doing bad deals (e.g., casinos) and coming up with dumb business ideas (e.g., Trump steak, airline, magazine, wine, etc.).  About the only times he made money was his sham university, sham foundation, taking dirty Russian and Saudi money, stiffing contractors, and cheating on his taxes.  He was never a great businessman, but rather, the Great American Shyster...which is how he got the Apprentice gig and POTUS. 

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, manarak said:

the crucial difference lies in the ability to evolve.
the bible has been modified several times while the qr'an can't be amended because muslims believe every word is exactly what god said.

Actually, if you knew anything about the history of Islam, you'd know that for most of its history Muslim societies were, on average, far more tolerant than Christian ones.

[candide]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you knew anything about the history of Islam, you'd know that for most of its history Muslim societies were, on average, far more tolerant than Christian ones.

You are right. However the historical trajectory was somehow different. Islam has been largely diffused by Arab and Turkish conquerors who quickly found themselves as a minority governing countries with a significant Christian and Jewish population already there, including in the ME. So they rather used soft power to convert people, such as taxing only non-Muslims. 

In most Christian countries it has been rather an internal evolution and linked to national identity.

To some extent, that's the European wars against the Ottoman empire, and the colonisation of most Muslim countries, that reinforced the link between Islam and national identity and ultimately contributed to a less tolerant Islam (among other causes).

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Are you trying to put words in my mouth, again?

 

Your version of "not simple" isn't quite on-mark.

Im not putting words anywhere... I asked a simple question, because your post was unclear. A question which you avoided answering.

 

 

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And yet, your posts keep singling out the the US as the only relevant party with regard to "veto" or blocking possible avenues of legal or diplomatic action.

 

I'm not the one making assertions about "viable alternatives" - you are, while failing to explain what would these amount to. If you can't be bothered to make your argument, don't expect other posters to do it for you.

Perhaps I single out America because, wether I like it or not, America is still seen by most, as the leader of the free world.

 

perhaps I single out America, because where America goes, my country is likely to follow

 

perhaps I single out America, because other nations are already making noises about repercussions, (if the killing is proven), whereas America (trump) is not

 

perhaps I single out America, because trump appears heavily invested (financially) in Saudi Arabia, 

 

perhaps i I single out America, because America is refusing to let its citizens face an international court, yet today, even republican senators, are referencing international laws and accountability in regard to this killing.... (hypocrite much?) 

 

The above was the point from which which I started, at the beginning of this thread, by the way, prior to side tracking for an abc on alternatives to a full scale invasion of a sovereign country

 

perhaps i I single out America, because amongst other veto power countries, the American response can still be influenced by public opinion (oh.. that needs clarification... GB and France will listen to conscience and country... Russia and China will do whatever they want... the US.... unpredictable and dangerous, but maybe there’s still a shred of decency there)

 

Ok.... more... as you appear unable to come up with one viable alternative or step ( which is what I said) between bringing a case against Saudi Arabia and invading Saudi Arabia ( which is what I said) on your own, then I will help

 

throw the crown prince under the bus... there ya go... one viable alternative..... lol... but that’s not going to happen mr grumpy face.... so best I give another viable alternative.

 

throw the ambassador to Turkey, plus a dozen Saudi nationals, under the bus... there ya go... another alternative.

 

let your mind roam free.... I’m sure there’s more to consider.... and I’m 100% convinced that you can do this... and look intelligent at the same time.

[manarak]

6 hours ago, Naam said:

the Bible has never been modified. interpretations changed. the latter took centuries. perhaps Islam needs seven centuries (time difference Bible New Testament / Qr'an) to arrive at new interpretations? "Muslims believe every word..." is a generalising assumption. i've met many Muslims who do "not believe every word..." but i admit they are a minority.

https://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I have no doubt that previous administrations had/would have had 'issues' taking action against Saudi Arabia.

 

However, the indications are that this administration has very particular issues relating to personal business and financial relationships between Trump/Kushner and Saudi Arabia and that it is these personal business/financial interests that are dictating the US administration's response to Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

Do you seriously imagine that another POTUS would have taken a very different path on this? Not in terms of Trump's lack of diplomatic skills, nuance and the like - but with regard to actual response. Asserting that Trump's possible personal stake effects his decision making is fair enough, if needs a more solid substantiation. Asserting that the response would have been significantly altered under different circumstances is somewhat doubtful.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

51 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do you seriously imagine that another POTUS would have taken a very different path on this? Not in terms of Trump's lack of diplomatic skills, nuance and the like - but with regard to actual response. Asserting that Trump's possible personal stake effects his decision making is fair enough, if needs a more solid substantiation. Asserting that the response would have been significantly altered under different circumstances is somewhat doubtful.

 

‘Lack of diplomatic skills, nuance and the like’

 

What, like Trump offering excuses on behalf of the Saudi Arabians.

 

This isn’t US foreign policy on behalf of US interests, it’s US foreign policy traded for the personal business and financial benefit of Trump/Kushner.

 

The evidence to back this up is already in plain sight but don’t worry  if you’ve missed it, tge forthcoming Democrat controlled House is going to drag it all into the glorious light of day.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This isn’t US foreign policy on behalf of US interests, it’s US foreign policy traded for the personal business and financial benefit of Trump/Kushner.

In what way and too what extend will Trump/Kushner benefit from this ?

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

In what way and too what extend will Trump/Kushner benefit from this ?

One of the problems when you have a president who hasn't put his business interests in a blind trust and keeps his business interests confidential, is that you never know. Whereas if his interests were in a blind trust, the question wouldn't arise.

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

One of the problems when you have a president who hasn't put his business interests in a blind trust and keeps his business interests confidential, is that you never know. Whereas if his interests were in a blind trust, the question wouldn't arise.

Donald has so much money , I shouldnt think that he would be concerned about making a bit extra .

[Morch]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

Im not putting words anywhere... I asked a simple question, because your post was unclear. A question which you avoided answering.

 

 

 

Try that on someone else, please. You posed a bogus question supposedly referencing what I said, but actually misrepresenting it, while making it into a contrived either/or proposition. Not obliged to address such nonsense. If anything isn't clear, it's your contention that there are "viable" options involved, how the current administrations' response is markedly different from others', and why your comments single out the US.