[One Degree]

So you believe humans are biological computers that will all come to the same conclusions and you know what those conclusions are from ‘learning’. Anyone who does not come to these conclusions simply needs his programming debugged. We are programmed by mathematical logic and therefore can only be understood on that basis.
Is that your position?

NONSENSE -
Your 'thesis' on what makes humans tick' is what needs 'debugging', or should we say, 'debunking'?

We are all different in our personal or world views, some things are common to all of us, how we react when confronted by such events, brings out the worst or best in people, depending on their views & experience.

In your case, trolling seems to be the default response & I do not intend to indulge you in that form of posting.

When you post coherent messages, people will engage with your views or opinions, otherwise you are whistling in the wind. [/quote]

Please don’t attribute your quote to me.
Instead of babbling, start with the debunking. I simply asked if that is your view. This seems to me what a person is alluding to when the say all answers are to be found from our current knowledge of logic. If this is not your position, then what justifies your belief logic supplies not only the answer but the one answer?

Edit: @Nonsense Sorry, it is apparently the quote function screwing up.
Edit 2: Apparently my iPad, but I am getting some garbaged up quotes.

[Stormsmith]

One Degree wrote:
Everyone pretty well accepts the reasoning behind non interference as explained in Star Trek for example, but when we label it ‘human rights’ we give ourselves a pass for interfering. Our interference in the natural growth of different cultures has destroyed an extremely important experiment that could have shown us all a better way. 
An experiment is pretty worthless if you contaminate all the options except one.

Also, bear in mind the Turks claim to have a recording

[Rancid]

Also, bear in mind the Turks claim to have a recording

They should post that shit on youtube.

[anarchist23]

They should post that shit on youtube.

Possibly, Erdoğan the President of Turkey could be bluffing as to make the Saudis admit to what they did.

[center-img]http://i66.tinypic.com/2z4h91c.jpg[/center-img]

[One Degree]

It kind of boggled my mind no one was even questioning the source of the information. I think that was what really triggered my defense of the Saudis. It takes so little to condemn without even asking obvious questions.

[Beren]

The most obvious question to ask here is whether who has seen Khashoggi since he entered the consulate. Nobody and not any camera saw him leaving the place. Despite all the Machiavellian shit the US should be really bothered by a reckless and obviously psychotic Saudi crown prince that's supposed to be king once.

[anarchist23]

These two photos, one of Jamal Khashoggis son having to shake the hand of the man who no doubt organised his fathers death and the other photo of his father and fathers fiancé are deeply disturbing.
Fuck the Saudi royalty, hope they die a slow and painful death.


[center-img]http://i64.tinypic.com/k0m53c.jpg[/center-img]


[center-img]http://i64.tinypic.com/315xra0.jpg[/center-img]

[skinster]

Blaming Saudis for Corrupting Otherwise Human Rights–Loving US
As FAIR has noted for years, one of the primary ideological functions of US corporate media is to maintain the mythology that the US is a noble protector of democracy and arbiter of human rights. When material facts—like wars of aggression, massive spying regimes, the funding and arming right-wing militias and the propping up of dictators—get in the way of this mythology the response by most pundits is to wave away these inconsistencies (FAIR.org, 2/1/09), ignore them altogether (FAIR.org, 8/31/18) or spin them as Things That Are Actually Good (FAIR.org, 5/31/18).

There is, however, another underappreciated trope used to prop up this mythology: that the US political class does bad things, not because bad things serve US imperial interests, but because they’re corrupted by sinister foreign actors.

As more information about Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s brazen murder at the hands of the Saudi government comes to light, some in the US press are positioning Saudi Arabia as having “corrupted” Washington—as Khashoggi’s own editor lamented on Twitter last week. It’s a reassuring narrative, and one that will likely grow increasingly popular in the coming weeks: The Saudis have “corrupted,” “played” or “captured” an otherwise benevolent, values-based US government.

While it’s refreshing that some are starting to challenge the United States’ grotesque alliance with the Saudi theocratic monarchy, it’s important to note that it’s not a product of a foreign boogeyman, but core to the US imperial project. Historically, the US hasn’t embraced despotic regimes despite their oppressive nature, but precisely because of it.

NBC (10/17/18): “Longstanding economic and security ties with Saudi Arabia have forced the US to tolerate a lot of questionable Saudi behavior.”

In a report on why Khashoggi’s killing was unlikely to fundamentally alter the US/Saudi relationship, NBC News (10/17/18) casually threw out this highly contestable claim:

Adam Coogle, a Middle East researcher with Human Rights Watch, said the longstanding economic and security ties with Saudi Arabia have forced the US to tolerate a lot of questionable Saudi behavior.

It’s difficult to tell if the words spoken are those of Coogle or NBC reporters Rachel Elbaum, Yuliya Talmazan and Dan De Luce, but the reader is left with the same net effect: Due to “economic and security ties” somehow outside of its control, the most powerful country in the history of the world is “forced” to “tolerate” what’s called “questionable” behavior—a phrase that sweeps together the wholesale destruction of Yemen, the beheading of dissidents, the disappearing of women drivers and the brutal murder of Khashoggi. (In the case of Yemen, to “tolerate” means, among many other forms of active support, providing targeting instructions for a vicious airstrike campaign.)

Can one imagine NBC News or a Human Rights Watch researcher ever saying, “The longstanding economic and security ties Russia has with Syria have forced Putin to tolerate a lot of questionable behavior from Assad”? It’s an agency-free, blameless construction, reserved only for the United States. Similar to how the US never chooses to go to war, but is constantly “stumbling” into it (FAIR.org, 6/22/17), Washington always means well, but can’t help engaging in large-scale, highly sophisticated mechanized violence.

Vox’s Matt Yglesias (10/19/18) joined the revisionism, writing, “The realities of Cold War politics got us involved in deep, long-term cooperation with a Saudi state that is not otherwise a natural partner for the United States.” Never mind that the US/Saudi partnership predates the Cold War by about 15 years, the idea that dictators or sectarian regimes in the Middle East aren’t “natural partners of the United States”—especially during the Cold War—is a total fiction.

Vox (3/21/16): Saudi Arabia’s “authoritarian government, ultra-conservative values, and extremist-promoting foreign policy would seem like an unusual passion project for American foreign policy professionals.”

The trope of foreign corruption of the innocent empire, of course, predates Khashoggi’s death. Vox’s Max Fisher (3/21/16) insisted in March 2016 that Saudi Arabia has “captured” Washington, and this was the reason “we” had strayed from “our values.”

The article treated the US/Saudi alliance as some kind of mystery, rather than the logical outgrowth of a cynical empire that is not motivated by human rights but uses them for branding. “America’s foreign policy establishment has aligned itself with an ultra-conservative dictatorship that often acts counter to US values,” Fisher insisted. What “values” are those? He never really explained, but went on:

What explains the Washington consensus in favor of Wahhabist autocrats who often act counter to American values and interests? Some in the Obama administration, based on what they told the Atlantic (and on my own conversations with administration officials), seem to believe the answer is money: that Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Arab states have purchased loyalty and influence.

Obama administration officials who back Saudi crimes and sell them billions in arms aren’t to blame; it’s some nebulous Saudi lobby, Obama administration officials insist, with money that somehow they are powerless to resist.

Clearly Saudi money—like pro-Israel money—has influence around the margins (or else, one assumes, they wouldn’t spend it), but the idea that the US wouldn’t be backing violent dictatorships if it wasn’t corrupted by some sinister foreign actor has no historical or empirical basis. US backing of Saudi Arabia predates its current public relations machine by decades, a machine that exists largely to influence the scope and depth of the US/Saudi alliance, not the fact of it.

Fisher even vaguely acknowledges this (“no one is ordered by foreign funders to express a certain viewpoint. Rather, they described a subtler role, in which money amplifies preexisting norms and habits that favor a pro-Saudi consensus”), but this undercuts his thesis entirely—that Saudi Arabia somehow undermines America’s “values” rather than manifests them. But Fisher doesn’t appear to earnestly be trying to understand the nature of this alliance; he appears to be tasked, instead, with ameliorating cognitive dissonance, with preserving US human rights mythology by treating it as a foreign-contrived anomaly, rather than a natural extension of a largely violent and arbitrary global empire. Then comes the kicker:

US still provides direct support for Saudi actions that undermine the regional stability America desires, for example by backing the Yemen war against Americans’ better judgment.

What Americans? Where? The Obama White House at the time, as Fisher notes in the next paragraph, backed the war entirely. So who are these mysterious Americans whose “judgment” is against the Yemen war? He never says. These good, wholesome Americans who believe in US “values” are somehow never in charge, but are nonetheless always being corrupted by dastardly foreign actors.
https://fair.org/home/blaming-saudis-fo ... MDT2NiKH58

It kind of boggled my mind no one was even questioning the source of the information. I think that was what really triggered my defense of the Saudis. It takes so little to condemn without even asking obvious questions.

Your defence of the Saudis is weird, since they've admitted to the murder, despite blaming it on "rogue" agents.

[One Degree]

@skinster
I never said they were innocent. I said it was none of our business other than saying we did not approve.

[skinster]

But it is the West's business, since both our countries are allies with ISIS-in-govt-form, and all care about PR.

[Nonsense]

NONSENSE -
Your 'thesis' on what makes humans tick' is what needs 'debugging', or should we say, 'debunking'?

We are all different in our personal or world views, some things are common to all of us, how we react when confronted by such events, brings out the worst or best in people, depending on their views & experience.

In your case, trolling seems to be the default response & I do not intend to indulge you in that form of posting.

When you post coherent messages, people will engage with your views or opinions, otherwise you are whistling in the wind.

Please don’t attribute your quote to me.
Instead of babbling, start with the debunking. I simply asked if that is your view. This seems to me what a person is alluding to when the say all answers are to be found from our current knowledge of logic. If this is not your position, then what justifies your belief logic supplies not only the answer but the one answer?

Edit: @Nonsense Sorry, it is apparently the quote function screwing up.
Edit 2: Apparently my iPad, but I am getting some garbaged up quotes.[/quote]


Nonsense - ^

[Hindsite]

This is fucked up to the nth degree.
First they order the killing of your father and now they want to shake your hand.

At this point, we have not been informed exactly who ordered the killing. Both the King and MBS have denied having anything to do with the killing. It is reported that punitive actions have already begun against some Saudi officials while the interrogation of others continue.

[anarchist23]

Erdoğan the President of Turkey is a hypocrite to the nth degree.
It's not as if Turkey has freedom of expression, far from it.
Many journalists in Turkey are being persecuted and kept in jail all over the country.
Below is an extensive list of the prisoners, past and present.

According to advocacy group Sweden-based Stockholm Center for Freedom that tracks cases of prosecutions of Turkish journalists, Turkey has 245 journalists locked up behind bars as of January 24, 2018. An additional 140 journalists face outstanding arrest warrants. Number of journalists behind bars is 191 as of Jan. 28, 2017. 231 journalists have been arrested after July 15, 2016 alone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _in_Turkey

Fuck the Saudi royalty, hope they die a slow and painful death.

[center-img]http://i65.tinypic.com/312w8cl.jpg[/center-img]

[Rancid]

Have we found out "who done it" yet?

[skinster]

Erdoğan the President of Turkey is a hypocrite to the nth degree.
It's not as if Turkey has freedom of expression, far from it.
Many journalists in Turkey are being persecuted and kept in jail all over the country.

Indeed. They killed her after she exposed the UN using its vehicles to smuggle weapons into Syria via Turkey. This was brushed under the carpet.

[anarchist23]

Jamal Khashoggis son having to shake the hand of the man who no doubt organised his fathers death.

[center-img]http://i64.tinypic.com/k0m53c.jpg[/center-img]

Some good news today.

Khashoggi's son leaves Saudi Arabia

Salah bin Jamal Khashoggi, a dual US-Saudi citizen, had his passport blocked last year because officials wanted to lure his dissident father home, it was reported.

Today his travel ban was lifted and he flew to Washington DC with his family, Human Rights Watch was told by a friend.

'Salah and his family are on a plane to DC now,' said Sarah Leah Whitson, the group's executive director for the Middle East and North Africa.

There was no immediate comment from Saudi officials but Ms Whitson said the family were apparently allowed to leave after a travel ban on Salah was lifted.

[jimjam]

Perhaps those that do not depend on the Saudis for help in getting to the truth of the matter are lacking common sense.

Could not agree more. I never go anywhere without my bone saw. Just common sense.

[Hindsite]

Could not agree more. I never go anywhere without my bone saw. Just common sense.

To solve the murder, that bone saw needs to be recovered.
That is, if the bone saw rumor is true.

[anarchist23]

The son of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and family were used as bait to lure Jamal Khashoggi back to Saudia Arabia.
How fucked up is that?

The son of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi left Saudi Arabia after having earlier been prevented from leaving the country by a travel ban.
Salah Khashoggi and his family arrived in Washington on Thursday on a flight from Saudi Arabia, according to two sources close to the family, the Reuters news agency reported.
He and his family joined his mother and his three siblings in the US capital, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Several hours after their arrival, a deputy spokesman for the US State Department said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Saudi leaders in Riyadh earlier this month that "he wanted Salah Khashoggi returned to the United States".
"We are pleased that is the case," spokesman Robert Palladino said.
Khashoggi, a dual US-Saudi citizen, had his passport restricted by the kingdom earlier this year.
Salah is the eldest son of Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed by a Saudi hit squad after entering his country's consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/son- ... 1805999611

[Sivad]

PAUL JAY: Let me get a dire potential warning about the future. You know, Gore Vidal used to have a joke that USA stood for United States of Amnesia. Well, let’s not forget 9/11. Senator Bob Graham, who was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who co-chaired the congressional investigation into the events of the 9/11 attacks, said many times, and even specifically said on the Real News in several interviews- and you can look them up- that the 9/11 attacks were facilitated, financed, and supported by the Saudi government. He says- Graham says- he thinks right up and including the king. That the highest levels of the Saudi government participated in the 9/11- helped facilitate, I should say- and we know that almost, I think all of, the hijackers, the majority of them all came from Saudi Arabia.

BEN NORTON: 15 of the 19.

PAUL JAY: Graham also says in explicit words on The Real News that Cheney-Bush knew it was coming, and didn’t stop it. The potential- now, even Donald Trump, before he’s elected, he’s asked about 9/11. He says, oh, you want to know who’s behind 9/11? He says, the Saudis. There’s video of Trump saying this.

So how come nobody cares about that? Because the Saudis can play in dirty games that help and facilitate what sections of the American foreign policy elites, sections of the CIA, what they want. So let’s be wary and not forget what happened. Because if these guys really want to go after Iran, then the possibility of some other false flag attack, and the possibility of blaming this on the Iranians, and once again, you know, some involvement of the Saudis, because they’re the experts at this- let’s not forget how often the Saudis have threatened terror attacks. They threatened Tony Blair with a terror attack on London because they were doing a Parliamentary inquiry into bribery in an arms sale. Bandar, who was the Saudi ambassador to the United States, that according to Graham’s congressional investigation was involved in the 9/11 attacks, Bandar threatened Putin before the Olympics with a terrorist attack. And these are the guys who know how to do this.

BEN NORTON: Yeah, and most recently there was an almost unbelievable incident a few months ago on Twitter in response to Canada’s criticism of Saudi Arabia imprisoning human rights activists. On a [KSA] infographic account in Saudi Arabia, they posted an image of a plane flying toward buildings in, I believe it was Toronto, in Canada. And then they immediately took it down and apologized. But the message said something like ‘Don’t mess with Saudi Arabia.’ Almost unbelievable.

PAUL JAY: So this kind of idea that the Saudis are so horrible, and here you have these democratic Americans that would like to influence them for the better and all this, it’s completely hypocritical and deceptive. The Saudis are in power, as Trump said, because of the United States. They are these degenerate human rights violators, and they’re there because the United States allows it. And they become very useful for U.S. foreign policy, whether it’s Afghanistan or other acts of using al-Qaeda and terrorism, with sections of the American elites, and this section that’s in power now in Washington. You know, John Bolton’s been a thread for a lot of this, the worst of this stuff.

So let’s not forget this history. And people need to demand an end to this kind of foreign policy. If you want a final sentence, the American empire ain’t good for Americans.