[Beren]

Exactly and your ‘knife’ shows you want to enforce your superiority even though you recognize it for what it is.

I don't want to enforce anything, it's just totally nonsensical to me.

[One Degree]

I don't want to enforce anything, it's just totally nonsensical to me.

I don’t believe it is nonsensical to you. You are too much of a thinker for that. You fully understand why we should not interfere with the Sentinelese, but to apply that to the Saudis is to disavow what you have accepted as ‘right’.
I don’t think we should not tell others our version of ‘right’ but when we bring any type of punishment or coercion into it then we are admitting we see them as inferiors to be controlled by force.

[QatzelOk]

Or maybe I just shouldn't read yours since they're all the same or some random performances like this one comparing Gaddafi's fall to the holocaust.

They're very comparable. Both are mass scale atrocities that were part of the banksters-arms dealers "Great Game." A lot of lives were ruined "by us" (as part of a Great Game of corporate tyranny) in North Africa recently.

And they're relevant to this thread because they reveal the everyday hypocricy of the Western propaganda-consumer. We can't judge events or international behavior, except as fans of one of the teams (strategic interests) involved.

Not being able to see "your own team's" atrocities is exactly what this thread is about.

[Beren]

They're very comparable.

With the same effort you could compare melons with lemons too, they have similar names at least.

[QatzelOk]

With the same effort you could compare melons with lemons too, they have similar names at least.

The reason you can't see the similarity (between the Holocaust and all the killing the West does in defenseless countries) is that one affects white-skinned Euro-merchants who have been interloping for centuries, and the other affects browner skinned people with socialist and localist tendencies.

Millions are suffering and dying now because rich merchants from Europe and the USA can never get enough stuff to fill their hungry-ghost bellies. This was behind the Holocaust and both WWs as well.

According to Great-Game merchant-class values, "other races" like Arabs are supposed to be controlled by backwards tyrants put into power and funded by Euro-merchants.

Just like the current "regime" in Saudi Arabia is. Classic merchant imperialism local tyranny.

[Beren]

The reason you can't see the similarity between the Holocaust and

Gaddafi's toppling and murder is that they're hardly similar. Maybe the Holocaust wasn't the worst genocide ever, but it was rather special, no matter how hard you try to prove it wasn't. You should argue it didn't even happen rather than trying to prove how similar to any contemporary event it was.

[skinster]

[Hindsite]

“King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” Trump said in a lengthy statement.

“In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran,” Trump said. “The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region. It is our paramount goal to fully eliminate the threat of terrorism throughout the world!”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed Trump's remarks at a press conference Tuesday afternoon, where he said "it's a mean, nasty world out there."

"It is the president's obligation, and indeed the State Department's duty as well, to ensure that we adopt policies that further America's national security," he said.

Trump has been hesitant in calling for action against the Saudi government, citing in particular the damage it could do to the U.S. if the relationship with the kingdom is damaged. In his statement, he said that Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars fighting Islamic terrorism, and that the Saudis have agreed to invest $450 billion in the United States: "This is a record amount of money," he said.

"If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries - and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!" he said.

The Treasury announced last Thursday that it was slapping sanctions on 17 Saudi government officials, who it says were part of the planning and execution of the operation that led to Khashoggi’s death. The sanctions mean that any property or interests in property of the officials in the U.S. are blocked, while Americans are prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

"The crime against Jamal Khashoggi was a terrible one, and one that our country does not condone. Indeed, we have taken strong action against those already known to have participated in the murder," Trump's statement said, citing the sanctions.

The sanctions are in addition to travel bans placed on the same officials. Members of Congress have called for further action.

Trump said in his statement Tuesday that while he understands that members of Congress may “like to go in a different direction” he said that he would only proceed if ideas “are consistent with the absolute security and safety of America.”

“As President of the United States I intend to ensure that, in a very dangerous world, America is pursuing its national interests and vigorously contesting countries that wish to do us harm,” he said. “Very simply it is called America First!”

The Saudis say they have 21 people in custody, and the country's top prosecutor said he would seek the death penalty for five of them. Earlier Thursday, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had nothing to do with Khashoggi's death.

"Absolutely, his royal highness the crown prince has nothing to do with this issue," he told reporters.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... e-he-didnt

[Albert]

Here is a good article from 1979 criticising Carter administration and handling of the Iran and Nicaragua crisis. The author also touches on long established US policy of intervention.

Dictatorships & Double Standards

...The pattern is familiar enough: an established autocracy with a record of friendship with the U.S. is attacked by insurgents, some of whose leaders have long ties to the Communist movement, and most of whose arms are of Soviet, Chinese, or Czechoslovak origin. The "Marxist" presence is ignored and/or minimized by American officials and by the elite media on the ground that U.S. sup- port for the dictator gives the rebels little choice but to seek aid "elsewhere." Violence spreads and American officials wonder aloud about the viability of a regime that "lacks the support of its own people." The absence of an opposition party is deplored and civil-rights violations are reviewed. Liberal columnists question the morality of continuing aid to a "rightist dictatorship" and provide assurances concerning the essential moderation of some insurgent leaders who "hope" for some sign that the U.S. will remember its own revolutionary origins. Requests for help from the beleaguered autocrat go unheeded, and the argument is increasingly voiced that ties should be established with rebel leaders "before it is too late." The President, delaying U.S. aid, appoints a special emissary who confirms the deterioration of the government position and its diminished capacity to control the situation and recommends various measures for "strengthening" and "liberalizing" the regime, all of which involve diluting its power.

The emissary's recommendations are presented in the context of a growing clamor for American disengagement on grounds that continued involvement confirms our status as an agent of imperialism, racism, and reaction; is inconsistent with support for human rights; alienates us from the "forces of democracy"; and threatens to put the U.S. once more on the side of history's "losers." This chorus is supplemented daily by interviews with returning missionaries and "reasonable" rebels.

As the situation worsens, the President assures the world that the U.S. desires only that the "people choose their own form of government"; he blocks delivery of all arms to the government and undertakes negotiations to establish a "broadly based" coalition headed by a "moderate" critic of the regime who, once elevated, will move quickly to seek a "political" settlement to the conflict. Should the incumbent autocrat prove resistant to American demands that he step aside, he will be readily overwhelmed by the military strength of his opponents, whose patrons will have continued to provide sophisticated arms and advisers at the same time the U.S. cuts off military sales. Should the incumbent be so demoralized as to agree to yield power, he will be replaced by a "moderate" of American selection. Only after the insurgents have refused the proffered political solution and anarchy has spread throughout the nation will it be noticed that the new head of government has no significant following, no experience at governing, and no talent for leadership. By then, military commanders, no longer bound by loyalty to the chief of state, will depose the faltering "moderate" in favor of a fanatic of their own choosing.

In either case, the U.S. will have been led by its own misunderstanding of the situation to assist actively in deposing an erstwhile friend and ally and installing a government hostile to American interests and policies in the world. At best we will have lost access to friendly territory. At worst the Soviets will have gained a new base. And everywhere our friends will have noted that the U.S. cannot be counted on in times of difficulty and our enemies will have observed that American support provides no security against the forward march of history.


No particular crisis conforms exactly with the sequence of events described above; there are always variations on the theme. In Iran, for example, the Carter administration--and the President himself--offered the ruler support for a longer time, though by December 1978 the President was acknowledging that he did not know if the Shah would survive, adding that the U.S. would not get "directly involved." Neither did the U.S. ever call publicly for the Shah's resignation. However, the President's special emissary, George Ball, "reportedly concluded that the Shah cannot hope to maintain total power and must now bargain with a moderate segment of the opposition . . ." and was "known to have discussed various alternatives that would effectively ease the Shah out of total power" (Washington Post, December 15, 1978). There is, furthermore, not much doubt that the U.S. assisted the Shah's departure and helped arrange the succession of Bakhtiar. In Iran, the Carter administration's commitment to nonintervention proved stronger than strategic considerations or national pride. What the rest of the world regarded as a stinging American defeat, the U.S. government saw as a matter to be settled by Iranians. "We personally prefer that the Shah maintain a major role in the government," the President acknowledged, "but that is a decision for the Iranian people to make."

....

Although most governments in the world are, as they always have been, autocracies of one kind or another, no idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances. This notion is belied by an enormous body of evidence based on the experience of dozens of countries which have attempted with more or less (usually less) success to move from autocratic to democratic government. Many of the wisest political scientists of this and previous centuries agree that democratic institutions are especially difficult to establish and maintain-because they make heavy demands on all portions of a population and because they depend on complex social, cultural, and economic conditions.

Two or three decades ago, when Marxism enjoyed its greatest prestige among American intellectuals, it was the economic prerequisites of democracy that were emphasized by social scientists. Democracy, they argued, could function only in relatively rich societies with an advanced economy, a substantial middle class, and a literate population, but it could be expected to emerge more or less automatically whenever these conditions prevailed. Today, this picture seems grossly over-simplified. While it surely helps to have an economy strong enough to provide decent levels of well-being for all, and "open" enough to provide mobility and encourage achievement, a pluralistic society and the right kind of political culture--and time--are even more essential.

In his essay on Representative Government, John Stuart Mill identified three fundamental conditions which the Carter administration would do well to ponder. These are: "One, that the people should be willing to receive it [representative government]; two, that they should be willing and able to do what is necessary for its preservation; three, that they should be willing and able to fulfill the duties and discharge the functions which it imposes on them."

Fulfilling the duties and discharging the functions of representative government make heavy demands on leaders and citizens, demands for participation and restraint, for consensus and compromise. It is not necessary for all citizens to be avidly interested in politics or well-informed about public affairs--although far more widespread interest and mobilization are needed than in autocracies. What is necessary is that a substantial number of citizens think of themselves as participants in society's decision-making and not simply as subjects bound by its laws. Moreover, leaders of all major sectors of the society must agree to pursue power only by legal means, must eschew (at least in principle) violence, theft, and fraud, and must accept defeat when necessary. They must also be skilled at finding and creating common ground among diverse points of view and interests, and correlatively willing to compromise on all but the most basic values.

In addition to an appropriate political culture, democratic government requires institutions strong enough to channel and contain conflict. Voluntary, non-official institutions are needed to articulate and aggregate diverse interests and opinions present in the society. Otherwise, the formal governmental institutions will not be able to translate popular demands into public policy.

In the relatively few places where they exist, democratic governments have come into being slowly, after extended prior experience with more limited forms of participation during which leaders have reluctantly grown accustomed to tolerating dissent and opposition, opponents have accepted the notion that they may defeat but not destroy incumbents, and people have become aware of government's effects on their lives and of their own possible effects on government. Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse. American history gives no better grounds for believing that democracy comes easily, quickly, or for the asking. A war of independence, an unsuccessful constitution, a civil war, a long process of gradual enfranchisement marked our progress toward constitutional democratic government. The French path was still more difficult. Terror, dictatorship, monarchy, instability, and incompetence followed on the revolution that was to usher in a millennium of brotherhood. Only in the 20th century did the democratic principle finally gain wide acceptance in France and not until after World War II were the principles of order and democracy, popular sovereignty and authority, finally reconciled in institutions strong enough to contain conflicting currents of public opinion.

..... more in the link

[skinster]

The Netherlands is also to be added to this list of countries that's stopping selling weapons to the Saudis and UAE.

[QatzelOk]

Gaddafi's toppling and murder is that they're hardly similar. Maybe the Holocaust wasn't the worst genocide ever, but it was rather special, no matter how hard you try to prove it wasn't. You should argue it didn't even happen rather than trying to prove how similar to any contemporary event it was.

I see what you're saying here, Beren. And it's important to say it.

You're saying that the only atrocities that you're willing to recognize are the officially mandated ones. That this is as far as you can go with your empathy, without risking losing your perceived social status.

Who could blame you for limiting your empathy to those that are most lucrative to yourself.

That's what our elite do regarding murderous and backwards dictators too. They only recognize the atrocities of those groups that will prove most lucrative for them to "recognize."

The current mayhem in North Africa and the Middle East isn't really happening or important, in your mind, because the powers that be have branded these atrocities as "important efforts to do good in the world." And it's easier to go along with the official playlist.

democratic institutions are especially difficult to establish

Superman constantly "establishes democratic institutions" when he fights unequivocally bad guys in comics and on TV. It seems that the Pentagon-CIA-Arms Industry are having a hard time keeping their capes clean for the American cartoon public?

Maybe forcing other people to imitate our institutions is a really bad idea, and maybe this isn't even the real reason for any of the West's military conquests/atrocities?

[Beren]

Sure @QatzelOk, Albert brought up Gaddafi here and then you bravely made a comparison between Libya and the Holocaust, and now I'm being trolled and bashed just because I don't agree with that. And all this happens in a Khashoggi thread, so it must be completely on-topic. Anything else tonight?

[QatzelOk]

Sure @QatzelOk, Albert brought up Gaddafi here and then you bravely made a comparison between Libya and the Holocaust, and now I'm being trolled and bashed just because I don't agree with that. And all this happens in a Khashoggi thread, so it must be completely on-topic. Anything else tonight?

Your cutesy little "A Day in the Life of Me" angle doesn't impress me or distract from the fact that you have, in the last few pages of this thread, inadvertantly revealed and deconstructed the manufactured racism of the Elite and the media they control. Just by expressing your own, tired opinions.

Good night and thanks!

[Beren]

Good night and thanks!

Would you be so thankful too if I suggested you do some introspection to figure out whether how you don't go anywhere with your trolling and "agenda" even on PoFo? Sure, it must be the liberal media, but there's a US president that only needs to tweet or shout out loud 'FAKE NEWS!' in the air to convince millions of people. Maybe you should try that too rather than investing so much in your own tired textual performances.

[Hindsite]

All those with some intelligence and ability to think for themselves can see for themselves the Fake news coming from CNN and other liberal news outlets. It is just nice to see someone, like President Trump, calling out the biased and misleading coverage of political news by the left-leaning media as Fake news for a change. HalleluYah

[Patrickov]

All those with some intelligence and ability to think for themselves can see for themselves the Fake news coming from CNN and other liberal news outlets. It is just nice to see someone, like President Trump, calling out the biased and misleading coverage of political news by the left-leaning media as Fake news for a change. HalleluYah

I think Trump should also disclose whatever truth he gets. Despite appreciating him a lot on making the Chinese Commies panic, I am pretty much offended by the fact that he effectively blamed every one of us on Khashoggi's death. Does he expect us to have done something to stop this from happening?

[Rancid]

I agree with Trump. It was some rogue agents. The royal family had nothing to do with this. All of you are full of lies.

Let's get business moving as usual.

[Beren]

That would be a great story. The Crown Prince's brother (and ambassador to the US) assures Khashoggi it's safe for him to go to the consulate in Istanbul, then some rogue agents just kill him there. It wouldn't be embarrassing at all!

[QatzelOk]

It is just nice to see someone, like President Trump, calling out the biased and misleading coverage of political news by the left-leaning media as Fake

Our mass media is a car and oil salesman, and is entirely owned by the 1%. It's as leftwing as Milton Friedman crossed with Joe McArthy.

If Trump doesn't always get good coverage, it's because he's not a dictator yet. He still needs buy-in from other oligarchs to get his lies out there.

[The Sabbaticus]

The Saudis hack apart a Saudi expatriate journalist in one of the most journalist-hostile countries in the world. Erdogan - the personification of anti-journalism - becomes the champion of a slain Saudi journalist. Not at all ironic or lacking credibility.