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. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    I don't think it is very plausible that the UK can secretly hand over an asylum seeker to the Saudis and keep it quiet, no.

    I don't think it is probably that the UK would want to even if they thought there was a chance of getting away with it.
     
  2. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    Location: Cornwall

    Or allow to happen by inaction? Ie deliberately failing to take protective custody of said Saudi citizen?
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    In what way? What are you referring to now? This person is in the UK and wants to claim asylum?

    (you're still deflecting by the way)
     
  4. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    Location: Cornwall

    That's your stipulation not mine.

    Everything is a deflection to you because you are rigidly locked on to wanting me to say something I have never once claimed.

    Anyway let's say the events play out slightly differently.

    The Saudi agents travelling on the plane with her successfully apprehend her at the hotel and the media doesn't get wind of her plight (until much later if ever). Her asylum claim is never officially made. She might make a couple Facebook posts and telephone calls but that's it.

    A private chartered plane is arranged and Saudi agents are allowed to board with her and leave without interception. A few UK govt officials are aware at the highest level and take no action.

    All that has to happen in any of these hypothetical situations is that the UK govt is aware and chooses not to obstruct the treatment by the Saudis of their own citizens.

    I'm not saying the UK has to round them up and fly them back to Saudi on BA planes, screaming and kicking as they go, with the media taking photos and running headlines about our violation of human rights. That's precisely what I'm not saying.

    But the idea that the UK would always rigorously stand up for the rights of foreign nationals against an allied nation of which that person was a citizen... when there are clear and precedented cases of laws being outright ignored for the same nation's good relations...
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  5. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    I just wanted you to explain your position/claim. I think it is quite clear that you can't and that is because your claim is rather dubious and won't stand up to scrutiny.

    This is nonsense:

    You can't explain how that is plausible/realistic and so you've continually deflected further scrutiny and kept things vague.

    We have enough trouble deporting people yet you think it is plausible we'd secretly vanish some Saudi asylum seeker because they'd asked... with some handwaving reason of "because arms deals/oil" etc... Even if there was the desire to within some part of government it would be hard to see how it could be done in secret/without drawing attention.

    in b4 "oh no I'm not claiming that I'm claiming something different but I won't provide any clarity on what it is as it is such nonsense I don't even know where to start now"
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  6. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    Location: Cornwall

    You can't deport someone easily because they're in the system. As in, living in the UK. Totally different.

    If they aren't in the system, apart from a brief check in at the airport (plenty of people fly onwards to some other destination after landing at the UK temporarily)... then yes there might be opportunities.

    e: Ultimately all this come down to is your belief that the UK would never do such a thing.
     
  7. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    Whether the UK was the final destination or not if someone wanted to claim asylum at a uk airport then you’d be hard pressed to just dissapear them...

    This is just nonsense, and you’re not going to persuade me otherwise as you can’t even explain how it would work.

    It doesn’t just come down to belief that the UK govt would want to do such a thing, my assertion was that even if they did want to then it isn’t very plausible that they’d be able to either do it or keep it quiet.

    Even legally deporting asylum seekers has issues. A bunch of hippies making noise on a plane is enough to stop the deportation of an asylum seeker in the west.
     
  8. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,563

    Location: Cornwall

    If you say so. Clearly you know everything that is and isn't possible so why you even bother talking to mere mortals I have no idea.
     
  9. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    Well I was open to an explanation...
     
  10. ianh

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 12, 2007

    Posts: 4,254

    Location: Stoke & Saudi

    Foxeye and Dowie need to get their own thread so they can stop spamming this one with their argument!
     
  11. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,534

    Sorry, I was hoping it wouldn’t carry on and wanted him to cut to the chase/explain but I think it has concluded now. Or at least I’m certainly not going to pursue any further discussion of his claim.
     
  12. snips86x

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 14, 2012

    Posts: 15,526

    Location: Wiltshire

    Her parents have no rights, she's free to do as she pleases. I understand there a culture thing here, but they need to also understand, as kids grow up, their views on life will change and naturally push them towards wanting to experiment and explore, probably much against their parents/guardians wishes.

    Also, is there any country that the states haven't "invaded" (read miliraty presence but may as well be the same thing) lol
     
  13. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,029

    Location: Reading, UK

    Legally, by their laws, no she isn't.
    Among other things, she renounced Islam, which is illegal and punishable by death. She's a criminal.
    This isn't just The West not liking a culture, those are the laws of her country, same as getting the death sentence for murder and child abuse in, say, Texas... which is why she was trying to leave.

    Either we invade and 'bring democracy with extreme prejudice', or we leave other countries to get on with their own business, laws and things.
     
  14. h4rm0ny

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 25, 2011

    Posts: 5,475

    Location: Yorkshire and proud of it!

    Between invasion and acceptance, there are a multitude of options.
     
  15. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,029

    Location: Reading, UK

    All of them half-assed and tantamount to complicity. Yeah, publicly decry these evil people for their foul laws... but keep on buying their oil, eh.
    Just go all in and be done with it. Wars are always great fun when they're all over a pretty girl, anyway!!
     
  16. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,980

    Troy agrees.
     
  17. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,029

    Location: Reading, UK

    Reference recognised.
     
  18. wellsy

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 29, 2018

    Posts: 171

    Backwards middle east gonna be backwards.
     
  19. h4rm0ny

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 25, 2011

    Posts: 5,475

    Location: Yorkshire and proud of it!

    Stop selling them weapons, stop supplying strategic information and assistance in their war on Yemen, cut back on buying oil from them, exile Saudi citizens, block purchases of British assets, account freezes. That's just off the top of my head. None of them are "tantamount to complicity", all of them have significant impact for Saudi Arabia and all of them refute your idiotic assertion that the only choices are to either invade Saudi Arabia or accept everything they do to their citizens.
     
  20. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,029

    Location: Reading, UK

    And stuff up our economy?
    We get about £4 billion from selling our junk to them. They make only half of that back from selling us theirs.
    They buy most of their kit from America anyway...

    Again, they have plenty of other friends to get that from. We're about to leave all of ours.

    Some of us have to drive to work, you know... Not a problem for them, as they own the oil.
    All we'd do is drive the price of their oil up, making them richer and other countries upset with us.

    Oh, yeah, like that's not going to upset the Saudis.... Thought you wanted to avoid war?

    Err... kinda late for that, don't you think?
    They already have something like £60 billion invested in the UK. Most of my own company is owned by Kuwait, UAE and Saudi.

    We're like 8th or 9th behind several other countries with whom they do far more business. Do you really think us doing anything piddly like this will worry them?

    "Significant impact"??!!
    Yeah, why don't we throw a few economic sanctions at them too, or perhaps just spank their collective botty and tell them to go sit in the corner for twenty minutes? That'll show them, the rotters!!!
    We can't do any of that without stuffing ourselves over as well, hence complicity.

    You really think they'll give a flying ****? Or do you think they'll just find someone else to do business with?
    If they are breaking international laws or generally being nasty people, you don't simply stop being friends with them, Mister Chamberlain. You have to actually go and stop them from being nasty.

    I really don't like The Guardian, but they do occasionally get it right:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/24/britain-house-of-saud-jamal-khashoggi-murder