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

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
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.

This was mentioned in the BBC article so they are hardly ignoring it. Does the fact that it is an Islamic country get them off the hook for having backward laws?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
@dowie

"If they could do so quietly". I think that clause says it all. In this case the media are crawling all over it, and there probably was never any scenario in which the Thais (or the UK if it had happened here) could have assisted discretely without getting its hands dirty.

The intention of the post was to talk about the "ethics" of the UK. I

Question: How can I possible be referring to "her" as in "this specific girl", when "this specific girl" landed in Thailand and not the UK?

"Her" in this case must refer to the general case. And that is why the "if they could do so quietly" - which means discretely and with (etc) deniability - clause is important.

Again, you are the one obsessing that the details must be identical. Which is very unlikely between two different incidents.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Question: How can I possible be referring to "her" as in "this specific girl", when "this specific girl" landed in Thailand and not the UK?

Because you literally referred to "her"... example she is fleeing Saudi but she lands in the UK when the Saudis try to stop her rather than Thailand and the Saudis want her back.

"Her" in this case must refer to the general case. And that is why the "if they could do so quietly" - which means discretely and with (etc) deniability - clause is important.

Again, you are the one obsessing that the details must be identical. Which is very unlikely between two different incidents.

I'm not obsessed that the details must be identical - I'm just trying to get you to cut to the chase and clarify your claim.... why is that so hard?

So the girl is now generic Saudi girl... OK so what? Same question still applies...

The "if they could do so quietly" is where it becomes rather dubious... how?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Clearly if it's not the same girl and it's not the same country then the circumstances are hypothetical.

Why do you want me to model an exact scenario for you to fact check? I don't have to do that.

There are many way the UK could turn a blind eye or provide some measure of assistance to the Saudis in recovering their citizens. But not if the existence of the girl, her plight, and her travel to the UK is public knowledge. Obviously.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Clearly if it's not the same girl and it's not the same country then the circumstances are hypothetical.

Why do you want me to model an exact scenario for you to fact check? I don't have to do that.

There are many way the UK could turn a blind eye or provide some measure of assistance to the Saudis in recovering their citizens. But not if the existence of the girl, her plight, and her travel to the UK is public knowledge. Obviously.

I just want you to clarify what you were claiming and have done for several posts now. You're just obviously backtracking and deflecting as the claim is complete guff.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32410420/

You've now changed to the UK turning a "blind eye" or providing "some measure of assistance"... when it was previously "the UK would probably have handed her over if they could do so quietly"
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
No I haven't backtracked in any way. From the beginning I said "if they could do so quietly". Clearly this is a hypothetical situation.

Anyway, as fun as this hasn't been, I need my beauty sleep.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
That's a big part of the problem, it isn't very plausible that the UK could just bypass all rules and quietly handover someone who wants to claim asylum here. Ergo the claim is guff and you don't seem to want to expand on it after multiple requests.

As for backtracking - it is right there in the quotes... you changed the claim, in a previous post you made it vaguer when asked for clarification. There is a good reason you can't discuss it any further and are deflecting... it just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Expand how, exactly? You want me to construct an exact hypothetical scenario so you can fact check it. But I'm not sure still if it has to be this girl, or another girl, or exactly what elements form this story should be in the hypothetical scenario (one suspects enough so that you can discredit it...)

But none of that is necessary for my argument :p I'm not going to construct an easily debunkable fiction just to give you the pleasure of debunking it... which is why you appear to be so annoyed :p
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
To paraphrase: "I'm not going to explain what I'm claiming or how it would work because it doesn't actually work or stand up to any scrutiny...."


I think that is clear by now - thats my point!
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
What do you want me to expand upon? You seem determined that I should claim something easily disprovable so that you can disprove it and feel jolly clever.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
What do you want me to expand upon? You seem determined that I should claim something easily disprovable so that you can disprove it and feel jolly clever.

This:

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

How is that plausible?

I think it is quite apparent that it isn't very realistic thus your reluctance to add any clarity to it and your continued deflection over several pages now.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Because in this hypothetical scenario it's now happening in the UK the circumstances are assumed to be somewhat different. It would need to be substantially different to meet the criteria "if they could do so quietly".

Clearly this does not describe the situation as it has played out in Thailand. "Her" does not refer to this specific girl and her unique circumstances.

Anything else?
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Because in this hypothetical scenario it's now happening in the UK the circumstances are assumed to be somewhat different. It would need to be substantially different to meet the criteria "if they could do so quietly".

Clearly this does not describe the situation as it has played out in Thailand. "Her" does not refer to this specific girl and her unique circumstances.

Anything else?

Yes, same question still.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
You want a minute by minute, or hour by hour breakdown of this hypothetical scenario so you can validate it? Lols.

I just don't think I need to for the point to stand.

If that's not good enough for you, so be it.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
I think the fact you're unable to provide any clarity illustrates that even you know the point doesn't stand. It isn't very plausible that the UK could just bypass all rules and quietly handover someone who wants to claim asylum here. That is why you're keeping it vague and deflecting.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I've provided clarity. I just haven't given you what you wanted, which was an easily disprovable hypothetical situation.

You've already stated that you don't believe the UK government is entirely bound by ethics (it isn't).

In that case there are a lot of potential situations wherein the UK government could allow a Saudi citizen to be removed form the UK for repatriation against their will.

For most people it was obvious that the last sentence there was always the crux of my point.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
You haven't provided clarity at all - you don't provide any further explanation of your claim beyond some handwaving argument that it is somehow different and magically fulfils some criteria that the UK would be able to keep it quiet.

It is both unrealistic that the UK would "probably" want to do this in the first place and very unrealistic that they'd be able to keep it quiet... ergo you've can't add anything other than deflection and more vagueness. You've done this over a whole bunch of posts now despite repeated requests to just cut to the chase and clarify what you were claiming

It is slightly amusing that you're readily admitting that you're not confident enough in your claim to provide a falsifiable claim - ergo you're deliberately keeping it vague and practically meaningless as to do otherwise just exposes it to scrutiny which it can't stand up to as it is nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
You haven't provided clarity at all - you don't provide any further explanation of your claim beyond some handwaving argument that it is somehow different and magically fulfils some criteria that the UK would be able to keep it quiet.

It is both unrealistic that the UK would "probably" want to do this in the first place and very unrealistic that they'd be able to keep it quiet... ergo you've can't add anything other than deflection and more vagueness.
Doesn't that depend what "it" is? How can you say they couldn't keep "it" quiet if we're not talking about the exact same situation as in Thailand? I'm not narrowing down on any specific situation because I don't need to.

As for motivation, the need to keep good relations with Saudi to keep the money and contracts flowing is powerful motivation.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Then your claim has no merit. You can't even give a basic overview of how it is in any way plausible.
Flipping that on its head, do you assert that there is no hypothetical situation - at all - where the UK could allow the repatriation of a Saudi citizen against their will, and be able to plausibly deny any involvement?

Would you claim that there is no circumstance where this is either possible or a probable outcome?
 
Back
Top Bottom