1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by dowie, Jan 7, 2019.

  1. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,019

    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?
     
  2. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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.
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    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.

    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?
     
  4. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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.
     
  5. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    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"
     
  6. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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.
     
  7. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    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.
     
  8. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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
     
  9. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    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!
     
  10. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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.
     
  11. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    This:

    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.
     
  12. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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?
     
  13. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    Yes, same question still.
     
  14. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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.
     
  15. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    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.
     
  16. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    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.
     
  17. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    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
     
  18. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    Location: Cornwall

    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.
     
  19. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    Then your claim has no merit. You can't even give a basic overview of how it is in any way plausible.
     
  20. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    Location: Cornwall

    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?