Sorry, but you do not get to say how the Saudis define "enemy". And that is the major flaw in your argument. The Saudis are under no legal or ethical obligation to use your criteria for who is or is not an enemy of the state. I fully get that you see a difference between "peaceful" dissent and actively taking up arms. So what.Anaxagoras wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:03 amNo. You are just being stubborn because you don't want to admit you're wrong.xouper wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:16 pmYes, they did.
You may stamp your feet as much as you want trying to remake reality according to your imagination, but such puerile tantrums neither change nor dismiss the facts repeatedly stated.
Fact: Khassoghi was assassinated because he was deemed by someone in the Saudi government to be an enemy of the Saudi government.
You do not get to change that fact by reframing it as something else.
The difference is as big as the difference between murdering someone in cold blood and killing someone in self-defense. And you (they) can't change facts by merely "declaring" someone an enemy.
He was a journalist who was mildly critical of the Saudi regime, not a terrorist. This would be like if Obama had Sean Hannity murdered, or Trump killed Jim Acosta because he hurt his feelings. Nobody would see that as remotely similar to killing bin Laden or al-Awlaki. The difference is between peaceful disagreement through the exercise of speech and taking up arms and actively trying to kill people. When you do the latter, then we (our elected officials) have the right and responsibility to take action to protect us.
The fact remains that the Saudi's considered Khashoggi an enemy of the state. The Saudis have the same right and responsibility to take action to protect their government. That fact does not change merely because you disagree with the Saudis actions or how they define an "enemy".
The details and methods of the assassinations may be different, but the fact remains, both governments assassinated someone they declared to be an enemy without any due process. You can rail all you want about the differences in circumstances (such as where and how), but the fact remains it was an assassination ordered by a head of state without due process.
Furthermore, your comparison of Khashoggi to Hannity is patently ridiculous. It is a matter of record that Khashoggi has advocated the overthrow of the Saudi government. Hannity has done no such thing. Some people consider the power of the pen can be just as "dangerous" as taking up arms. Else there would be no such thing as blasphemy laws.
Look, I do not condone what the Saudis did and I am not trying to defend them. But I also do not condone what Obama did. My point is that it is hypocritical to condemn one and not the other. I get that you do not agree, but that does not make me wrong. It merely means we do not agree.
As for accusing me of being stubborn in holding to my opinions, may I suggest you look in the mirror. If you continue to argue with me about this, then you are no less stubborn than I am.