Saudi Arabia again - Saudi girl facing possible death in Bangkok Airport

[dowie]

A straw man is anything you don't personally agree with, apparently, so whatever.

Nope, do you not understand that claiming I've ignored something when I specifically acknowledged it isn't particularly constructive?

None of that resembles anything I actually said.

I'm simply laying out what would need to be achieved - you made this claim remember:

Let's not kid ourselves here... the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly without gaining any unwanted media attention.

Perhaps, instead of highlighting that the UK has done some bad things and pretending that I've not acknowledged those bad things you could instead expand on your claim then and lay out how you think the UK could hand over an 18 year old Saudi girl arriving on a civilian flight against her will and keep it quiet then?

Are you going to claim that it doesn't involve concealing her arrival?


Could you perhaps just cut to the chase and lay out your argument as it would save a fair few posts/save cluttering up the thread?

 

[Minusorange]

Except the fact is that the US removed two regimes that the saudis wanted to keep, but don't let that stop you from posting more of your stupid tripe though.

Was I talking about US ? Did we not use their airfields when we went after Iraq & Afghanistan in the Kangaroo war ? You think if needed they won't allow us to use them again ?

 

[FoxEye]

@dowie You're obsessed that the circumstances have to be exactly the same. I'm not. That's the difference. Even down to that she has to be 18 years old lol.

When when you narrow it down that much, I guess no country has ever done this before (to our knowledge). That doesn't prove much tho does it...

Open up the question (less specifics, more "morale of the story") - has the UK ever aided Saudi commit human rights violations when it was obvious that they could do so without anyone finding out about it? I'd say more than likely.

 

[deuse]

Not being funny but this is getting taken way off topic now -
...

Yes because that's what you normally do

 

[dowie]

@dowie You're obsessed that the circumstances have to be exactly the same. I'm not. That's the difference. Even down to that she has to be 18 years old lol.

She can be 27 if you like... that doesn't matter - does it affect your argument in some way if the age changes?

"the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly without gaining any unwanted media attention."

That was your claim, you've made a bunch of replies now sidestepping it or throwing in stuff about how the UK has done some unrelated bad thing.

When when you narrow it down that much, I guess no country has ever done this before (to our knowledge). That doesn't prove much tho does it...

What??? Of course they have - you've clearly not read the thread - there was a very similar case just last year in the Philippines again involving a Saudi girl this has already been mentioned in the thread.

Open up the question (less specifics, more "morale of the story") - has the UK ever aided Saudi commit human rights violations when it was obvious that they could do so without anyone finding out about it? I'd say more than likely.

LOL that is a completely different claim now - nice backtracking... you could cite say UK involvement in Yemen etc... Just to be clear I'm not disputing a vague general claim that the UK has or might in future do something unethical.

Your claim was that the UK would probably have handed over this girl - that just isn't realistic and that is what I'm disputing.

Again, I have to ask, are you going to actually cut to the chase and lay out your claim? Or am I going to have another post to reply to where you want to quibble over something irrelevant like her age or you decide to again point out that the UK has done something bad that is completely unrelated.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Unsurprisingly it's not reported out here, the only people who know about it (other than ex-pats) are those who read twitter and, as mentioned above a few times, Saudi culture is totally and utterly "family over individual" based to the exclusion of all else so the general response is less about her welfare and more about "how could she do this to her family". Culturally they don't/can't understand why all the fuss is being made "considering the amount disrespect she has brought upon her family/tribe with her actions".

The culture is starting, slowly, to change in less obvious ways, especially with the youth who all have access to the web and therefore access to a wider amount of info but as the core principals of family and faith are still absolutely driven into them from birth so it'll be a long while (multiple generations) before we could expect any "enlightening" to occur.

See, I also consider family hugely important. But to me, that means looking after each other and trusting each other. Not sacrificing members of it for the sake of your reputation.

 

[FoxEye]

@dowie No that's just how you interpreted what I said. Despite me saying several times that the specifics could/would be different. And then you saying, "No the circumstances must be exactly the same or you're wrong and living in a fantasy land."

I swear you just want an argument most of the time. I think, over the course of all my posts, it was pretty clear what I was driving at.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Why are there a load of blank posts in this thread? Who had a hissy fit and deleted all their posts / got Modded and were removed?

 

[dowie]

@dowie No that's just how you interpreted what I said. Despite me saying several times that the specifics could/would be different. And then you saying, "No the circumstances must be exactly the same or you're wrong and living in a fantasy land."

I swear you just want an argument most of the time. I think, over the course of all my posts, it was pretty clear what I was driving at.

Another straw man quote... nice one. You're not being clear at all, clarity is what I'm asking for here, instead of quoting back and forth with some pointless arguments about how the UK has done X or Y unrelated thing why not just clarify what you're claiming - this was your claim:

Let's not kid ourselves here... the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly without gaining any unwanted media attention.

So what specifics are different for your claim to be realistic? Seemingly you don't actually mean what you posted but are claiming something else that you haven't laid out yet. It would save rather a lot of posts if you could just explain the scenario whereby the UK would have handed over this girl or why your claim is realistic?

 

[FoxEye]

So what specifics are different for your claim to be realistic? Seemingly you don't actually mean what you posted but are claiming something else that you haven't laid out yet. It would save rather a lot of posts if you could just explain the scenario whereby the UK would have handed over this girl or why your claim is realistic?

I like how you're completely ignorant to the fact that you yourself keep changing the goalposts.

First you told me, very precisely, to explain a situation where the UK returns an 18 year old girl to Saudi who arrived on a civilian airline in exactly the same manner as this case.

I said that problem was so narrowly defined I couldn't find any other examples of this happening by/in any other country.

You then say, "Nonsense it happened in the Philippines." Completely ignoring that you were then loosening the very specific criteria you'd asked me to satisfy, because the two girls were different ages. Then in the same post you change your mind and say she can be any age. So now I don't know which of your criteria are going to be kept and which discarded

You make a completely bizarre demand and then counter with something that's nowhere near the original criteria.

And whatever I say which doesn't satisfy the exact demands you have set for "proof", is simply answered with, "Not the same at all. Straw man."

It is silly arguing with you. I agree. You're inconsistent as much as anyone else in this place.

e: Here is what I was saying, for reference.

I'm fairly sure the UK would turn a blind or, or even assist the Saudis, in repatriating one of their citizens against their will, if the UK was certain it could keep its involvement secret. Esp if there was some arms contract up for renewal.

There, happy now?

 

[dowie]

I like how you're completely ignorant to the fact that you yourself keep changing the goalposts.

I've been pretty consistent in asking you to provide some clarity instead of replying with pointless posts that provide none.

Honestly it is just clogging up the thread now and yet here we are again, another reply and you're still evasive.

First you told me, very precisely, to explain a situation where the UK returns an 18 year old girl to Saudi who arrived on a civilian airline in exactly the same manner as this case.

I've simply asked you to explain your claim - she is 18 you referred to her and made a claim that the UK would have deported her if it had been able to do so quietly... if apparently not referring to her then just explain what you're referring to? Does her age matter to your claim? I've asked this already.

What are you claiming?

I said that problem was so narrowly defined I couldn't find any other examples of this happening by/in any other country.

You then say, "Nonsense it happened in the Philippines." Completely ignoring that you were then loosening the very specific criteria you'd asked me to satisfy, because the two girls were different ages. Then in the same post you change your mind and say she can be any age. So now I don't know which of your criteria are going to be kept and which discarded

Yes a woman arrived in the Philippines and was also fleeing to claim asylum in Australia and was deported back to Saudi at the airport.

You make a completely bizarre demand and then counter with something that's nowhere near the original criteria.

And whatever I say which doesn't satisfy the exact demands you have set for "proof", is simply answered with, "Not the same at all. Straw man."

It is silly arguing with you. I agree. You're inconsistent as much as anyone else in this place.

I'm not sure how asking you to explain/clarify what you're claiming is a bizarre demand?

I've highlighted that, based on what you've posted, the claim is silly - you've then objected that apparently you don't mean the same scenario but mean something different... but then won't expand on what you're then even claiming.

I've asked several times now for you to just get to the point and clarify what you're actually claiming in that case... yet you won't, which isn't surprising as it likely doesn't come across as particularly plausible. Thus you've been deflecting to pointing out that the UK did X unrelated thing and X was bad etc..

 

[FoxEye]

It's completely plausible. Use your imagination. If a girl comes to the UK and contacts the media and claims asylum and everybody gets to read about it, then sure there's not much the UK can do but pretend to be precious about human rights.

But there are plenty of things the UK govt could do to assist the Saudis in similar objectives (that being repatriation of Saudis citizens against their will).

Frankly half the time the UK doesn't even care about its own citizens' human rights (esp the disabled...) let alone some Saudi girl.

 

[dowie]

It's completely plausible. Use your imagination. If a girl comes to the UK and contacts the media and claims asylum and everybody gets to read about it, then sure there's not much the UK can do but pretend to be precious about human rights.

But there are plenty of things the UK govt could do to assist the Saudis in similar objectives (that being repatriation of Saudis citizens against their will).

How? What are you actually claiming is plausible?

This was your claim:

Let's not kid ourselves here... the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly without gaining any unwanted media attention.

That doesn't sound very realistic. Apparently now you're not claiming that it relates to this girl arriving on a commercial flight? If so then could you just... clarify what you're claiming?

I think I have asked a few times now.... why not just cut to the chase and explain your position?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Why are there a load of blank posts in this thread? Who had a hissy fit and deleted all their posts / got Modded and were removed?

Oh, I am a doofus. I have them on Ignore. I've only ever used it on one person (this one) and forgot that I had.

 

[FoxEye]

I think I have asked a few times now.... why not just cut to the chase and explain your position?

e: Here is what I was saying, for reference.

I'm fairly sure the UK would turn a blind or, or even assist the Saudis, in repatriating one of their citizens against their will, if the UK was certain it could keep its involvement secret. Esp if there was some arms contract up for renewal.

There, happy now?

This is getting boring now.

 

[FoxEye]

Oh, I am a doofus. I have them on Ignore. I've only ever used it on one person (this one) and forgot that I had.

Bet it was me and doubly bet it was the "incel" thread

 

[dowie]

This is getting boring now.

So no clarity at all on the previous claim then. Just repeating a slightly vaguer version of it.

 

[mmj_uk]

Corporate media are all just focusing on the abusive family aspect, bad bad Saudi Arabia and men oppressing wimmin, no mention of WHY the family locked in her in a room or want to 'honour kill' her - renouncing Islam. Why blame the Saudi government? they're an Islamic country with Islamic culture and Sharia laws at the state level. We can't expect them to adhere to Christian principles.

 

[FoxEye]

So no clarity at all not he previous claim then. Just repeating a slightly vaguer version of it.

Well what you want from me is not only fluid but a bit ridiculous. You want an 18 year old girl (this 18 year old girl?) landing in the UK, but everything else being the same... oh wait, now you don't mind how old she is... but everything else must be exactly the same...

And it's clearly not solvable and doesn't need to be solvable. The point was clearly the the UK govt isn't angellic and is also happy to violate human rights. But you're obsessed with this precise scenario as if solving it/failing to solve it wrt the UK govt will prove anything at all.

Also I've given you complete clarity as to what I was saying. How can you say this isn't clarity? I explained - clearly - what I was saying since my first post. So now you're the arbiter of what constitutes a clear position? Unbelievable.

 

[dowie]

Well what you want from me is not only fluid but a bit ridiculous. You want an 18 year old girl (this 18 year old girl?) landing in the UK, but everything else being the same... oh wait, now you don't mind how old she is... but everything else must be exactly the same...

No I just asked you to clarify your claim - instead you made it more vague.

This was your claim:

"the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly"

Who are you referring to there? Why are you going off on some tangent about me specifying an 18 year old girl? You referred to her, she is 18... if "her" refers to someone else then please clarify? Is the age important to your claim? You've mentioned it a few times now?

And it's clearly not solvable and doesn't need to be solvable. The point was clearly the the UK govt isn't angellic and is also happy to violate human rights. But you're obsessed with this precise scenario as if solving it/failing to solve it wrt the UK govt will prove anything at all.

The thread is about this scenario??? You claimed "the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly" then you seemingly decided that claim wasn't about this scenario... in which case why not also clarify what it is referring to?

If your point is completely unrelated to the thread at all and you just want to back track and claim the UK has done unethical things before then fine... not sure what relevance that has to the thread... however your initial claim, the one I objected to is the one quoted in italics above.


As I've requested a few times now - with respect to the claim you made:

Could you perhaps just cut to the chase and lay out your argument as it would save a fair few posts/save cluttering up the thread?