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

[dowie]

It seems the Saudis aren't content with just cutting up a Washington Post Journalist in their Turkish Consulate building, now they've after an 18 year old Saudi girl who is seemingly barricading herself in a hotel room in Bangkok as the Saudis want to return her to her family.... who seemingly want to kill her in an "honour killing"

Saw it breaking last night on Maajid Nawaz's Facebook page - The Daily Fail surprisingly seemed to be one of the first outlets to report on this story though it is now getting global attention:

#SaveRahaf is the hashtag on twitter/facebook

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-trying-flee-family-amid-fears-kill-her.html

edit - guardian link for those who don't like the Daily Fail:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...held-bangkok-fears-will-be-killed-repatriated

the tl;dr seems to be:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 year old Saudi woman with an abusive family escapes her family on board a Kuwaiti Airline's flight to Bangkok

she apparently has an Australian visa and intends to claim asylum there

grounds for asylum - she's given up Isalm/is an apostate and is rather frightened of her father

upon arrival in Bangkok her passport has been confiscated by the Saudis

she has video footage confirming this on twitter, video also confirms she has money

she was due to be put on a Kuwaiti Airlines flight back to Kuwait this morning, seemingly she's avoided this and has barricaded herself in a hotel room

Thai authorities seem to be unhelpful at best at the moment - she's trying to get contact with the UNHCR

Saudi Embassy in Bangkok is doing the usual bare faced lies - pretending that it is all a standard immigration admin issue and that she doesn't have a Thai visa, has no return ticket etc..etc.. which ignores that she doesn't need one to transit to Australia

Her cousin has already made it clear that they intend to kill her when they get her back to the gulf.

Various Saudis on twitter are calling for her death

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[dowie]

It isn't clear she can, I guess perhaps the chances have increased a bit now that she managed to avoid getting taken away on the flight this morning. But the Thai officials have clearly been complicit in this so far with the Saudi official from the Embassy being able to meet her as she got off the plane and confiscate her passport etc.. then Thailand playing along with the Saudi narrative etc..etc..

 

[dowie]

She's not out of the woods yet, the UNHCR seemed to suggest earlier she was under their protection, though conflicting reports now indicate she's in Thai police custody and has been taken "somewhere safe".

In other developments her father (a regional governor in Saudi Arabia so by all accounts quite a powerful figure there) is apparently on his way to Thailand now. Hopefully though with the amount of media attention this has generated the Thai authorities won't now want to lose face and deport her.

It seems the passport wasn't actually confiscated form her directly by a Saudi official when she arrived in Bangkok but rather it was a security manager from Kuwait Airlines who took her passport, ostensibly to help with some visa issue or something, and handed it to the Saudis.... this is all to set up the pretence that it is all a simple immigration issue and that Thailand would have been simply following their laws in sending her back. (According to her own account she actually did have a return flight and hotel reservation etc.. regardless) The Guardian seems to have confirmed that her story re: having a tourist visa for Australia checks out ergo the Thais are, as expected, bare faced liars who have been complicit in this charade until it got so much press attention.

Unfortunately Thailand is currently a military dictatorship at the moment, they're also not a signatory of the 1951 refugee convention so claiming asylum there is unfortunately not relevant, she's basically like any other immigrant.

The Thais are still coming out with some line about how she didn't have the proper documents and so that is why they were due to deport her etc.. Slightly amusingly the Thais are also being summoned to meet the Saudis to explain why they didn't deport her....

The Saudi Embassy is still being rather comical on twitter with their explanation which is about as credible as "yeah he left the consulate, he definitely wasn't murdered" and various Saudis are playing along with the official line that it is a simple immigration issue etc... some Saudis are trying to excuse the real narrative too and coming out with a load of stuff along the lines of "well what about the rights of her family" etc.. just a completely different and rather broken mindset/culture among some of them.

What i don't understand is why don't they move to another country and then denounce their religion while in the clear?

Presumably that was her intention before this happened.

Thailand will likely play along with Saudi Arabia, but there's hope if we can get enough publicity on this that they wont. I'm reminded of the case of that Saudi girl who managed to escape with the help of a Western specialist and was then betrayed by the Indian government which allowed Saudi forces to storm her boat in their waters and drag her back to Saudi. She's been seen once since, in still photographs, where she looks drugged. Which is believable because they drugged her before.

That was a Princess from Dubai, she wasn't seen or heard from since then until recently when there was some rather awkward press footage shot with some former Irish politician or President or something who now works for the UN.... and sadly this Irish woman just went along with the "yeah she's fine, nothing to see here guys" line from the UAE. She also has a sister who managed to flee to London and was briefly living in Elephant and Castle but was later kidnapped by the UAE in the early 00s - not clear how they then got her out of the country. The police did investigate it over here in spite of the ruler of Dubai trying to get it all covered up.

It is a bit sad that various other countries are happy to be complicit in this sort of thing - a similar case occurred last year too in the Philippines, another Saudi women trying to flee was kidnapped and brought back to Saudi by her uncles - there is a good chance she is now dead. Seemingly tying her up in duck tape and getting her through an international airport in the Philippines in full view of other passengers wasn't an issue for officials there, the pilot/airline didn't care either as it was a Saudi airline:

https://twitter.com/Moudhi90/status/853467748520931328

I do wonder how often this will happen in future, social media seems to have helped with this sort of thing a lot, so far some of the cases have been from quite well off women from powerful families (couple of princesses, the daughter of a regional governor), if female members of the elite are desperate for freedom to avoid a forced marriage and a lifetime of being treated as a child/property under strict Islamic rules then **** knows what it must be like for women even further down the food chain. There do seem to be feminist movements growing over there thanks to social media, there are women's rights activists currently locked up now for things like campaigning against the female driving ban etc.. I guess cases like this could be on the increase as more women want their independence. Unlike some feminists in the west who seem to be more preoccupied with arguments over identity politics and apparent pay gaps these women have a real struggle to deal with.

So far it seems that Thailand, India and the Philippines aren't exactly safe for stop overs for anyone fleeing - or at least they'd better have changed flights and got themselves clear of those countries (or got themselves a load of publicity) lest the gulf state they're fleeing from can likely get them back.

 

[dowie]

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.

No they wouldn't, we do actually have some laws here regarding asylum claims etc...

 

[dowie]

If you have enough power the laws don't apply.

OK do you have any examples of similar cases happening here?

Why was the ruler of Dubai not able to stop an investigation into the kidnapping of his daughter? Why are Saudi dissidents allowed to live in London at the moment?

 

[dowie]

If the dissidents don't agitate i'm sure SA doesn't care too much, we literally rolled out adverts showing how good MBS was while he was plotting to dismember a Journo.

There is appearing to be doing something and actually doing something.

That is completely missing the point - I'm well aware we cost up to these gulf state regimens - highlighting that we cosy up to them doesn't imply that we'd just illegally ship off someone trying to claim asylum and ignore due process etc...

That is getting into conspiracy theory territory or just showing blind ignorance to the way the world works... as

Doesn't have to be similar to this case. I'm sure the UK has more than once turned a blind eye to Saudi operations in the name of good relations.

As said above, the UK wants to present one face to their people at home, but you better believe they want to give the Saudis whatever they want if it can be kept quiet.

Well it does actually, you made a claim that we'd do something and that claim is rather bold and has no precedent. That we cost up to the regime isn't evidence to support that it would be likely or even necessarily possible for us to act in the way the Thai authorities have done.

It would cause a complete **** storm, a British Airways or other civilian carrier employee able to go and confiscate a passport at the gate then UK border officials all being persuaded to go along with the charade and then UK police being persuaded to monitor her in a hotel and hotel staff being told to comply etc..etc.. it requires rather a lot of actors and in a country where there isn't rampant corruption, laws are better enforced, authority comes with accountability, the likes of the police etc.. do have watchdogs and frankly individual police officers or border officials generally aren't in the habit of just blindly following orders to break the law etc.. then it isn't too feasible.

 

[dowie]

I distinctly remember saying they would do it if they could guarantee nobody finding out about it.

Which implies a certain amount of dis-similarity to this case, no?

OK give an example then...

In fact explain how your scenario even works?

At some level it will still rely on a bunch of actors all being happy to act illegally. It seems very detached from reality.

I appreciate that once things get into the public domain the UK likes to act like a law-abiding country that loves 'ooman rights and all that jazz.

But we do also like a good bit of Guantanamo torture, covering up evidence of corruption, and giving foreign govts what they want in return for money. It's undeniable.

Again you're just throwing in unrelated stuff as CT types do in the other threads "X seems plausible because Y happened and Y was a dishonest/bad thing ergo we can make any other dubious claims involving dishonesty and just cite Y as our evidence that they're plausible because Y involved bad stuff"

I mean people die in police custody sometimes, sometimes officers have covered for each other etc.. but there is still an audit trail, some evidence a possible investigation etc.. etc.. they can't very easily cover up the fact the person was there or get rid of the body etc..etc..

 

[dowie]

I love how you say "The UK is a law-abiding country committed to human rights" then completely ignore the fact that we've already done stuff completely counter to this position.

Like dropping investigations into bribery and corruption at the request of the Saudis Like our involvement in Guantanamo.

Nice straw man - I've not ignored that at all, I've pointed out that quoting unrelated bad things is a flawed argument though. Try using the quote function too.

Sure, it's all CT stuff. The UK govt is totally committed to human rights and would never turn a blind eye or ease the recovery by the Saudis of their own citizens against their will. Could be as simple as allowing a chartered flight to come in and leave again unmolested despite knowing it might be the "recovery" of a stray Saudi citizen.

OK fine I'll be in the room with the CT nuts. I don't believe our govt is beyond doing frankly awful things if they calculate they won't ever be exposed.

I never claimed our government hasn't done bad things, I'm pointing out that what you're saying is just not grounded in reality.

The idea that the UK could get a load of independent actors together to get a passport of an 18 year old girl arriving on a civilian flight, somehow together cover up her arrival, keep her hidden somewhere and then get her out of the country all because the Saudi's want her back is silliness. It makes some assumptions of people and how they behave that is so detached from reality and perhaps borderline autistic, which is perhaps why is seems in line with CT type thinking.

 

[dowie]

How is the UK in its past dealings with Saudi bending/braking the law a straw man, exactly? That's mind-boggling.

That isn't what I've said - ironically you've now just replied to me calling out a straw man with another straw man.

You pretending that I've ignored the UK doing unethical things when I've directly acknowledged them - that is a straw man argument. Making up a quote/attempting to paraphrase rather than using the quote function is dubious too.

Not being funny but this is getting taken way off topic now - especially if you're going to throw in replies like that and I then end up having to re-explain a previous post that you didn't bother reading.

I'm not sure there is much more to say on this silliness tbh...

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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..

 

[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?

 

[dowie]

This is getting boring now.

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

 

[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?

 

[dowie]

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?

 

[dowie]

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"

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

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!