Saudi Arabia says will retaliate against any sanctions over Khashoggi case

[Morch]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

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.

 

Or, more likely, you''re simply doing the usual knee-jerk bash.

 

Claiming that after almost a couple of years of Trump the US is still  seen as "the leader of the free world" (even if that title held much meaning prior to this) is nothing short of disingenuous. Given the many posts criticizing Trump and the US, I doubt you actually see the US as such at this time.

 

If your country is likely to follow the US, then your issues should be with your own country, rather than lay the blame on the US.

 

As for other countries "making noises about repercussions" - do tell. Or better yet, revisit these such statements when push comes to shove. Until then, hot air. Plus, by the way, US senators and congressmen have voiced such views as well. Apparently, you're quite aware of such - seeing your comment on US politicians statements and supposed hypocrisy regarding international law.

 

Trump may be personally heavily financially invested in SA. What does it have to do with singling out the US, isn't too clear.

 

GB and France will do what's in the best interests of their nations. Asserting that they will "listen to conscience" will need a stronger support than simply claiming so. And, of course, Russia and China get a free pass, but somehow, it's all on the US.

 

As for your "viable alternatives" - why are you insisting I ought to come up with one? I'm not the one who raised the issue. As for your first suggestion - is it based on any meaningful or extensive knowledge regarding Saudi Arabian politics? Because otherwise, it would imply that the "viable" part is not much substantiated.

 

What does "throwing the the ambassador to Turkey, plus a dozen Saudi nationals, under the bus" have to do with "viable"?  Finding some scapegoat or some bogus story is a coverup (if a lame one). It doesn't stand anywhere between initiating legal proceedings and a full scale invasion.

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘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.

 

Let's try again. Imagine Trump doesn't have any personal financial stake as far as SA goes. Better yet, imagine Trump isn't president. Would the US response be significantly different? Not in the sense of playing the usual diplomatic games more smoothly, but as per actual action.

 

If the angle you're shooting for is to try and spin my posts as being Trump apologetics, try harder. They aren't about whitewashing Trump's transgressions, but rather about US interests dictating pretty much the same response regardless. The observation suggested is that in this instance, it would seem Trump's interests converge with traditional US policy on SA. On other instances (say, vs. Russia) these two sets of interests do not converge, and are even at odds.

[farcanell]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

The question was not bogus at all.... and I know your smart enough to realize this... but on you go with contrived rubbish, attempting to discredit maliciously, verses by way of reasonable argument

 

the question seeked clarification, which ironically, you demand of others, yet are unwilling or unable to give, without resorting, as usual, to volumous amounts of words which can oftentimes be best described as obsfugation or deflection   

 

I also clearly explained why i why I singled out the US, and gave a couple of examples of options. Having to actually give examples, to a mature forum, perplexes me. I can understand the lack of realisation that options exist, might be beyond a sixth grader, but your simply trolling to illicit a response, by insinuating that there are no options that occur to you

 

as to this administration vs any other.... well congratulations... there you go again, adding more things in, attributing them to me, when you know I never made any equivalence to another administrations and how it handled anything.

 

theres that rubbish post answered.

[Morch]

Just now, farcanell said:

The question was not bogus at all.... and I know your smart enough to realize this... but on you go with contrived rubbish, attempting to discredit maliciously, verses by way of reasonable argument

 

the question seeked clarification, which ironically, you demand of others, yet are unwilling or unable to give, without resorting, as usual, to volumous amounts of words which can oftentimes be best described as obsfugation or deflection   

 

I also clearly explained why i why I singled out the US, and gave a couple of examples of options. Having to actually give examples, to a mature forum, perplexes me. I can understand the lack of realisation that options exist, might be beyond a sixth grader, but your simply trolling to illicit a response, by insinuating that there are no options that occur to you

 

as to this administration vs any other.... well congratulations... there you go again, adding more things in, attributing them to me, when you know I never made any equivalence to another administrations and how it handled anything.

 

theres that rubbish post answered.

 

No, you presented your "are you saying" faux question as a contrived either/or proposition which is better suited to the arguments you push. And no, I don't actually think my post was even unclear to begin with. I'm left with the feeling that you're not really asking for any clarification, but rather spoiling for another lengthy and pointless argument.

 

You haven't "clearly" explained why you single out the US. Unless "perhaps" to qualify each and every related statement is your idea of clarity. Further, all of your "points" were addressed, with a rather clear explanation of their irrelevancy.

 

The ongoing insistence that other posters come up with examples for an argument you yourself presented is somewhat perplexing. You seem to expect other posters to make your arguments for you, or to guess what's on your mind. Regardless of your accusations, I fail to see how the two examples you provided relate to "viable", or even much to do with your previous comments.

 

The comparison to other administrations (or other governments) was obviously my own. It is directly related to the issue of singling out the US. Rather obvious, and not quite as your presented.

 

 

[farcanell]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Or, more likely, you''re simply doing the usual knee-jerk bash.

 

Claiming that after almost a couple of years of Trump the US is still  seen as "the leader of the free world" (even if that title held much meaning prior to this) is nothing short of disingenuous. Given the many posts criticizing Trump and the US, I doubt you actually see the US as such at this time.

 

If your country is likely to follow the US, then your issues should be with your own country, rather than lay the blame on the US.

 

As for other countries "making noises about repercussions" - do tell. Or better yet, revisit these such statements when push comes to shove. Until then, hot air. Plus, by the way, US senators and congressmen have voiced such views as well. Apparently, you're quite aware of such - seeing your comment on US politicians statements and supposed hypocrisy regarding international law.

 

Trump may be personally heavily financially invested in SA. What does it have to do with singling out the US, isn't too clear.

 

GB and France will do what's in the best interests of their nations. Asserting that they will "listen to conscience" will need a stronger support than simply claiming so. And, of course, Russia and China get a free pass, but somehow, it's all on the US.

 

As for your "viable alternatives" - why are you insisting I ought to come up with one? I'm not the one who raised the issue. As for your first suggestion - is it based on any meaningful or extensive knowledge regarding Saudi Arabian politics? Because otherwise, it would imply that the "viable" part is not much substantiated.

 

What does "throwing the the ambassador to Turkey, plus a dozen Saudi nationals, under the bus" have to do with "viable"?  Finding some scapegoat or some bogus story is a coverup (if a lame one). It doesn't stand anywhere between initiating legal proceedings and a full scale invasion.

Here’s more rubbish for me to spin.

 

disengenius to spin trump as the leader of the free world.... I know, right... who in their real mind can see him as a leader?

 

well.... my dumb arsed politicians will probably side with the US, in need... so... yer... dumb arsed but still following the US... so fine, their fault to follow a deranged mad man... or rather... their fault to continue forward, honoring alliances and agreements. I’m happy to wear that. We are honoring our commitments, regardless of how badly behaved our ally is.

 

i sincerely hope it’s because they figure trump will implode sooner than later, and then the world will get back to normal, but in the meantime, the world beyond thai visa, still takes its cues from America. (And you know it!)

 

trump arab finance... pick on that, whilst ignoring the overly long list of reasons ... sure... why not. He’s benefited financially and declared them his friends, which means as a minimum, that he is biased.... clear enough... if not, no matter, as they are my reasons, not yours, and I think it self evident

 

as to viable alternatives.... dude... obsfugate and deflect. I said that there were alternatives existing between asking for an ICC investigation and an invasion. Please put no more time toward taxing your brain over it, because I didn’t really ask you to come up with one, but rather suggested that you ought to come up with one.

 

heres another just for you, because there are dozens of options... dozens.. but one more, anyway.... here ya go.... A Saudi military investigation into the men (hit squad, if you will) identified by the Turks.

 

scratch my sack... that sounds better than invading Saudi Arabia, doesn’t it?

 

and oh oh oh.... you think this will be anything other than a whitewash... how cute

 

lastly...more of your trade mark deflection, which does work on others, because they can’t be bothered.... Russia and China don’t get a free pass... I certainly did not mean to imply that, and your probably the only member who might infer that.... it is simply just acceptance that they will probably not act transparently, but rather autocratically, which we cannot influence.

 

GB and France are influenced by events, and are not making up excuses for the saudis.... that leaves one person who is.... Note... not one country... I’ve been watching republicans flip all afternoon, and it’s hilarious. (Don worry, I’m sure they’ll flop back)

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed. 

[farcanell]

9 hours 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.

 

 

 

 

So there my faux question.... 

 

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, you presented your "are you saying" faux question as a contrived either/or proposition which is better suited to the arguments you push. And no, I don't actually think my post was even unclear to begin with. I'm left with the feeling that you're not really asking for any clarification, but rather spoiling for another lengthy and pointless argument.

 

It was asked in response to your assertion that the saudis weren’t bound by the ICC, whereas I pointed out that the UN Security Council could refer a case to the ICC

 

How is it anything but a genuine question, which you refuse to address

 

lol... edit in... yer, it is kind of an “either/or” question.... either the UN can instigate ICC action, or they can not

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

So there my faux question.... 

 

It was asked in response to your assertion that the saudis weren’t bound by the ICC, whereas I pointed out that the UN Security Council could refer a case to the ICC

 

How is it anything but a genuine question, which you refuse to address

The Saudi Embassy people can claim diplomatic immunity and thus be immune from any prosecution 

[farcanell]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The Saudi Embassy people can claim diplomatic immunity and thus be immune from any prosecution 

Yes.

 

100%

 

saudi citizen on Saudi soil, as well.... much like trump announcing US citizens, on anyone’s soil, will not be prosecuted by the ICC. ( backed by their security council veto against having a security council request made to the ICC, which Saudi, still a UN member, does not have)

 

so it devolved to ones international reputation... and ones concern about that reputation.

[bristolboy]

57 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The Saudi Embassy people can claim diplomatic immunity and thus be immune from any prosecution 

They can claim diplomatic immunity from Turkish authorities. That's who their credentials were presented to. It doesn't give them worldwide blanket immunity.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, farcanell said:

Here’s more rubbish for me to spin.

 

disengenius to spin trump as the leader of the free world.... I know, right... who in their real mind can see him as a leader?

 

well.... my dumb arsed politicians will probably side with the US, in need... so... yer... dumb arsed but still following the US... so fine, their fault to follow a deranged mad man... or rather... their fault to continue forward, honoring alliances and agreements. I’m happy to wear that. We are honoring our commitments, regardless of how badly behaved our ally is.

 

i sincerely hope it’s because they figure trump will implode sooner than later, and then the world will get back to normal, but in the meantime, the world beyond thai visa, still takes its cues from America. (And you know it!)

 

trump arab finance... pick on that, whilst ignoring the overly long list of reasons ... sure... why not. He’s benefited financially and declared them his friends, which means as a minimum, that he is biased.... clear enough... if not, no matter, as they are my reasons, not yours, and I think it self evident

 

as to viable alternatives.... dude... obsfugate and deflect. I said that there were alternatives existing between asking for an ICC investigation and an invasion. Please put no more time toward taxing your brain over it, because I didn’t really ask you to come up with one, but rather suggested that you ought to come up with one.

 

heres another just for you, because there are dozens of options... dozens.. but one more, anyway.... here ya go.... A Saudi military investigation into the men (hit squad, if you will) identified by the Turks.

 

scratch my sack... that sounds better than invading Saudi Arabia, doesn’t it?

 

and oh oh oh.... you think this will be anything other than a whitewash... how cute

 

lastly...more of your trade mark deflection, which does work on others, because they can’t be bothered.... Russia and China don’t get a free pass... I certainly did not mean to imply that, and your probably the only member who might infer that.... it is simply just acceptance that they will probably not act transparently, but rather autocratically, which we cannot influence.

 

GB and France are influenced by events, and are not making up excuses for the saudis.... that leaves one person who is.... Note... not one country... I’ve been watching republicans flip all afternoon, and it’s hilarious. (Don worry, I’m sure they’ll flop back)

 

It is disingenuous to make numerous posts criticizing Trump's agenda, character and policies - or pretty much anything to do with him, and then come up with some faux whine about him not being the  "leader of the free world". Even if one wasn't a regular poster on such topics, it would require living under a rock to bring this up.

 

Yes, it is rather silly blaming the US for your own countries leaders following the US. I don't know that there are actually "commitments" relating to "alliances and agreements" and such involved in this case, but you're welcome to enlighten me on this score. Was there a "commitment" by your own country's leaders to support Trump's policies no matter what they are and regardless of the issue in question? Kinda doubt that. But if so, then it's even more bizarre whining about Trump while having such leaders in place.

 

The World does pay attention to what the US does. Whether it follows the US quite as it used to, is an open question, which reading these topics, many seem to feel isn't the case. The US position is opposed on international forums, though, and it's not as if all countries (even allies) sing Trump's praises.

 

As for Trump's possible conflict of interest issues due to financial ties with SA - I did not "...pick on that, whilst ignoring..." anything. Rather, I commented on what was included in your post. Criticism on Trump's conflicts of interests features in many of my posts. The point made here was that, IMO, it is irrelevant as to the question of singling out the US. Still no forthcoming explanation on this score.

 

How is asking you what "viable alternatives" would these be an obfuscation? Or deflection? And why would I ought to come up with one? That's your argument, not mine. All the more so, when it isn't even clear what you're on about. IMO, the framework suggested - ranging between an ICC investigation and an invasion is irrelevant, unrealistic and even fails to present an axis of progression. 

 

There's nothing which supports your "viable alternatives" actually being "viable" or even relevant to your own point. The SA King throwing MBS under the bus (as previously suggested) being a "viable" option would require a more reasoned view, and one that is better anchored in Saudi politics and intrigue.

 

Shifting the blame to some scapegoat, or the Saudis conducting an independent "military" (why military?) investigation into matters are simply cover-up ops. I don't know that either supposed "viability" got a whole lot to do with what's being discussed, but regardless - neither is positioned between an ICC investigation and an invasion options. An ICC investigation would be of a much greater magnitude, and obviously, so would an imaginary invasion. How does a whitewash relate to that axis of options? And no, I've absolutely no idea where you got the notion that I see this as anything but a whitewash.

 

It is hardly a deflection to point out that you do go on about supposed US moves in the UNSC ("veto" and such), while ignoring or minimizing other permanent members' potential contributions. Considering the crux of my post was with regard to your singling out of the US for criticism, that's pretty much on-topic as it comes.

 

You can spin it any which way, but essentially, what your view amounts to is that Russia and China are beyond criticism, as it is pointless to engage in such. That's a free pass. Both countries have vested interests with regard to SA, and yet...they will do as they will and that's that. As for "we" being unable to influence that, well now....can "we" influence the three other permanent members' votes? Do tell. And does it even matter much? (it takes one veto...it's not a majority vote).

 

GB and France are not making excuses for the SA because they are not led by someone like Trump. On the other hand, they do the usual bit of expressing "concern" or even "outrage" while not doing a whole lot about it. That's how traditional diplomacy works. Mostly they seem to hope it will go away or be handled by others. Neither got any particular wish to confront SA, or to get on its black book. Not for the sake of a dead journalist, anyway. And not when it is far from clear whether there's wide international backing for such a move. That you try to paint them as anything more principled and heroic than that is rather amusing.

 

[Opl]

" Mashal Saad al-Bostani of the Saudi Royal Air Forces, who was named by pro-government Turkish media as one of 15 suspects in the alleged murder of Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi, has reportedly died in a car accident on return to the kingdom. "

http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/khashoggi-suspect-mashal-saad-al-bostani-reportedly-dead-in-car-crash-2018-10

[Morch]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

So there my faux question.... 

 

It was asked in response to your assertion that the saudis weren’t bound by the ICC, whereas I pointed out that the UN Security Council could refer a case to the ICC

 

How is it anything but a genuine question, which you refuse to address

 

lol... edit in... yer, it is kind of an “either/or” question.... either the UN can instigate ICC action, or they can not

 

Quoting your faux question and my response to it is irrelevant. Your point of reference, if you had any interest in anything but a pointless argument ought to have been the post your "question" dealt with. Instead you choose to present again your simplistic version of what was posted.

 

The Saudis are not "bound" by ICC decisions. The ICC could, under the right (and unlikely) circumstances, accept a case and commence an investigation. If the ICC finds SA guilty of misdeeds, then Saudi Arabia would still not be "bound" by such a verdict. Other countries (as in signatories) might be, in theory, "bound" to take action, but there's little way to actually enforce that sort of thing. In essence, what you're on about is irrelevant - it doesn't matter whether the UN(?) can "instigate ICC action" or not.

 

Its not even the first time we've discussed such matters, in length. You seem to hold a misguided view as to the ICC's authority, the way the UNSC works and the role it plays, or the relations between non-signatory nations and the international community.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

The Saudi Embassy people can claim diplomatic immunity and thus be immune from any prosecution 

 

I'm not that versed on protocol, but I do not think diplomatic immunity actually covers all crimes, or that it applies to all visiting officials. The consulate staff could be in the clear, but the team brought over to carry out the deed? Maybe not.

[fanjita]

It's hard to tell whether this is incompetence or that they just don't care.  Just a repeat of the Russians enjoying our cathedrals.  

[Morch]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

Yes.

 

100%

 

saudi citizen on Saudi soil, as well.... much like trump announcing US citizens, on anyone’s soil, will not be prosecuted by the ICC. ( backed by their security council veto against having a security council request made to the ICC, which Saudi, still a UN member, does not have)

 

so it devolved to ones international reputation... and ones concern about that reputation.

 

No, it isn't "much like" at all. Diplomatic immunity is part and parcel of international relations. If a country doesn't afford diplomatic immunity to foreign representatives, other countries may reconsider having a mission there. Signing up to the ICC is voluntary, and there are no straightforward consequences to not doing so.

 

Saudi Arabia may not be a permanent member of the UNSC, but I somehow doubt any of the permanent members is eager to pick a direct fight with them. Other than using it as an arena for posturing and/or embarrassing rivals, none got much reason to pursue this for anything more significant than point scoring. Since it takes only one dissenting voice, not much to worry about on SA's part. The would like to avoid it anyway, as it would make sweeping things under the rug and forgetting anything happened much harder.

[lannarebirth]

5 hours 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.

The thing about extreme wealth is, unless you are excessively leveraged or not diversified, no matter what happens, you win.

[bendejo]

12 hours ago, Berkshire said:

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. 

 

I have a relative in NY finance, he's been telling DT stories for years, even though he's been blessed with not having to deal with himself.  Everyone has known about daddy's $$$ for a long time, and since Fred died he has gone hat-in-hand to just about every financial institution in town.  At least Manafort went into the hinterland seeking small-town rubes, that story of the banker calling the Pentagon and announcing he was the new commander of the US Army is still ROTFL material.  Most of that stuff in the all-revealing article was already well-known, but the authors at least did the leg work and got it on the record.

 

But there is one instance where he made out: someone developed some property in Westchester (county north of NYC), and couldn't find any tenants.  He made a deal with DT to use his name on the place, paid him a million bucks.  And the rentals sold like hotcakes.  The old chestnut "no one ever went broke underestimating the American public."

On the other hand, I've been saying for years that the only sure way to make money from gambling is to own a casino.  Well, he proved me wrong.

 

Everyone still goes on about the pee tape, but I think what the Russians have on him is much deeper.  But it doesn't matter.  He can toss an infant into the air and catch it on the end of a bayonet right there at one of his love rallies, explain that the baby was a Democrat, and it wouldn't cost him a vote.

 

 

[Credo]

33 minutes ago, bendejo said:

<snipped>

Everyone still goes on about the pee tape, but I think what the Russians have on him is much deeper.  But it doesn't matter.  He can toss an infant into the air and catch it on the end of a bayonet right there at one of his love rallies, explain that the baby was a Democrat, and it wouldn't cost him a vote.

A nice story, but I think all the babies are Republicans.  ????

[Patriot1066]

On 10/17/2018 at 3:02 PM, bristolboy said:

Interesting? It's what one would expect from this in the bag for trump website. They raise tendentious and irrelevant issues whilst avoiding the obvious. The evidence massively and overwhelmingly establishes that the Crown Prince was behind this. Instead of evaluating the evidence, this article speculates about dark plots by the media and special interest groups. It paints a ridiculously exaggerated picture of Khsshoggi's past. 

I am not sure we can rely on any media to give us impartial news? He does look like he could have been considered an enemy of the state so was likely to have been assassinated, as states do do this kind of thing, I would suggest most have over the years including our own. Significantly, how incompetent were the hit squad, if it's true about his watch recording which seems doubtful unless it was a bug. I saw in the news they pulled his fingers off and cut him up alive, this seems an inconvenient way to kill someone as very very messy.

 

However, there is a bigger point here though that it seems Turkey has been bugging Embassy's? Which is a tad naughty.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Patriot1066 said:

I am not sure we can rely on any media to give us impartial news? He does look like he could have been considered an enemy of the state so was likely to have been assassinated, as states do do this kind of thing, I would suggest most have over the years including our own. Significantly, how incompetent were the hit squad, if it's true about his watch recording which seems doubtful unless it was a bug. I saw in the news they pulled his fingers off and cut him up alive, this seems an inconvenient way to kill someone as very very messy.

 

However, there is a bigger point here though that it seems Turkey has been bugging Embassy's? Which is a tad naughty.

The bigger point is a bug.

 

Got you.

[Nyezhov]

Its like Game of Thrones, live!

 

My question is: why the media frenzy in the USA? Duerte? Hohum. The Uigher Camps? Snore. Rohingas? Boring. Anyplace in Africa? Old news. Its not like this guy was a fighter for Freedom and Justice. And how DID he get a Green Card? And now Erdogan is a fighter for Truth and Justice?

[mtls2005]

4 minutes ago, ravip said:

An interesting article...

 

Like the Russians in Salisbury, these are just tourists,  popping in for a tour of Sultanahmet, which has minarets 64 m tall (citation needed). 

[Nyezhov]

29 minutes ago, ravip said:

An interesting article...

from where please?

[farcanell]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, it isn't "much like" at all. Diplomatic immunity is part and parcel of international relations. If a country doesn't afford diplomatic immunity to foreign representatives, other countries may reconsider having a mission there. Signing up to the ICC is voluntary, and there are no straightforward consequences to not doing so.

 

Saudi Arabia may not be a permanent member of the UNSC, but I somehow doubt any of the permanent members is eager to pick a direct fight with them. Other than using it as an arena for posturing and/or embarrassing rivals, none got much reason to pursue this for anything more significant than point scoring. Since it takes only one dissenting voice, not much to worry about on SA's part. The would like to avoid it anyway, as it would make sweeping things under the rug and forgetting anything happened much harder.

https://research.un.org/en/docs/law/courts

 

we have discussed this before... you are well aware that as a UN member country, members are expected to follow membership rules, which include security council ad hoc criminal tribunals, including or excluding the mechanism of the ICC, which (arguably) in itself, started as an ad hoc mechanism.

 

this includes crimes against humanity.... which the alleged torture and murder of khashoggi is.... regardless of where it occurred. 

 

Demanding answers, as I have repetively pointed out to you as being my standpoint, (whilst vehemently denying that the answer is invasion, ) is appropriate.

 

as you full well know, the ICC is a court of last resort... a court which the US does not recognize.... but as such, the use of this court can simply be avoided by a Saudi court or mechanism, dealing with the “rogue element” that seems to be in a ready state, waiting for the bus to trundle past.

 

As a final comment, seeing as you bring up the importance of diplomatic immunity and it’s sancrosact position in world politics...

Are you sure that the men being singled out as potential murders, have diplomatic immunity? (Opinion of fact, I’ll accept either )

 

 

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed.   An inflammatory post has also been removed.   Keep it civil or face a suspension.

 

[anon537687643]

The attitude by these states ! Russia to Saudi Arabia etc is “we can kill people who are critical of us” The time when states only murdered terrorists and other threats has moved on!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Its like Game of Thrones, live!

 

My question is: why the media frenzy in the USA? Duerte? Hohum. The Uigher Camps? Snore. Rohingas? Boring. Anyplace in Africa? Old news. Its not like this guy was a fighter for Freedom and Justice. And how DID he get a Green Card? And now Erdogan is a fighter for Truth and Justice?

Good question.

 

lets look at that....

????????????is the US making excuses and a shut ton of money from Duarte, the rohingas, the Uighur et al?.... that’s just a kick off point.

 

how did khashoggi get a green card?... well apparently the US has a standards test. If you have an Olympic gold medal, come on in... if your rich, come on in... maybe he has money.

 

was he a fighter for freedom and justice?... apparently so, but not in the mould of Che

 

but I absolutely love your point about erdogen being the new voice of freedom and justice.... a voice that for so many, for so long, lived in a (succession of) bodies in another country.... a voice that now embodies the epitomy of lies and deception..... I guess that voice has been silenced, leaving a void for the first seated, once the music has stopped (think keystone cops music when picturing that ????)

 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, farcanell said:

https://research.un.org/en/docs/law/courts

 

we have discussed this before... you are well aware that as a UN member country, members are expected to follow membership rules, which include security council ad hoc criminal tribunals, including or excluding the mechanism of the ICC, which (arguably) in itself, started as an ad hoc mechanism.

 

this includes crimes against humanity.... which the alleged torture and murder of khashoggi is.... regardless of where it occurred. 

 

Demanding answers, as I have repetively pointed out to you as being my standpoint, (whilst vehemently denying that the answer is invasion, ) is appropriate.

 

as you full well know, the ICC is a court of last resort... a court which the US does not recognize.... but as such, the use of this court can simply be avoided by a Saudi court or mechanism, dealing with the “rogue element” that seems to be in a ready state, waiting for the bus to trundle past.

 

As a final comment, seeing as you bring up the importance of diplomatic immunity and it’s sancrosact position in world politics...

Are you sure that the men being singled out as potential murders, have diplomatic immunity? (Opinion of fact, I’ll accept either )

 

 

 

The link provided doesn't seem to actually support your point of view. Not sure why you felt the need to include it in your post.

 

We have discussed this before and you keep applying certain interpretations which aren't based on a whole lot other than your own assertions.

 

The ICC is not a UNSC tribunal. It is not even a UN body, as such (consult the link you yourself provided). UN members who are not signatories do not face any direct consequences, and are not obliged to accept verdicts or authority of the ICC. It may be "expected", it might be that in some cases it is better to voluntarily comply - but a straightforward obligation? Don't think so.

 

While you may assert that the alleged torture and murder of Khashoggi is a "crime against humanity", I somehow doubt that's a legally well-founded point of view. The label is usually applied to a wider scope of illegal activities, and of greater magnitude. It could be claimed that the Khashoggi murder is an example of a general campaign of harassment and intimidation aimed at dissidents and journalists, but that would require a more general case to be appealed, and referencing past incidents - so doubtful its going to materialize.

 

So whether this is even a case for the ICC could be argued. The ICC does not normally deal with individual cases of a narrow scope, nor does it get involved when matters are dealt with (or satisfactory pretended to be dealt with) by local judicial authorities.

 

I didn't bring up the issue of diplomatic immunity but was commenting on views already posted regarding it. As posted elsewhere, I am not sure at all that diplomatic immunity applies to the "interrogation" team. It probably does with regard to the consulate staff, though I imagine there are certain limits to that as well. The point made was that it is not similar to countries signing up for the ICC thing.

 

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Despite your claims - no, I did  not bring up the issue of diplomatic immunity. I believe it was first mentioned on another poster's reply to you:

Quite correct..

my unreserved apologies... post 98 by another.