Jamal Khashoggi

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:55 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:03 am
xouper wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:16 pm
Doctor X wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:07 pm
No, they did not.

The individual may stamp his feet as much as he wants trying to remake reality according to his imagination, but such terpsichorean tantrums neither change nor dismiss the facts repeatedly stated.

--J.D.
Yes, 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.
No. You are just being stubborn because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

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.
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.

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. :wink:

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21999
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1428 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:30 am

xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:55 am
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.
First of all, you are missing the larger point. How they may wish to define an enemy doesn't change the objective reality. Think about the position you are arguing for. That we should simply accept whatever self-serving rationale they come up with as a matter of convenience. By that logic, should we simply accept Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide, or Japanese denial of various war crimes during and prior to World War 2? Just because it would be convenient for them if everyone just accepted a version of history that is more palatable to them? No. This is why we must defend objective facts, and preserve history from those who would whitewash it to suit their preferences.
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".
Again, I am under no obligation to meekly accept a lie just because it is convenient for them. He was no more an "enemy of the state" than any other journalist or pundit who disagrees with the actions of his government.
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.
Evidence?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 14102
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 364 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by WildCat » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:07 am

Mr. Khashoggi’s first claim to fame was his acquaintance with Osama bin Laden. Mr. Khashoggi had spent time in Jidda, Bin Laden’s hometown, and, like Bin Laden, he came from a prominent nonroyal family. Mr. Khashoggi’s grandfather was a doctor who had treated Saudi Arabia’s first king. His uncle was Adnan Khashoggi, a famous arms dealer, although Jamal Khashoggi did not benefit from his uncle’s wealth.

Mr. Khashoggi studied at Indiana State University and returned to Saudi Arabia to report for an English-language newspaper. Several of his friends say that early on Mr. Khashoggi also joined the Muslim Brotherhood.

Although he later stopped attending meetings of the Brotherhood, he remained conversant in its conservative, Islamist and often anti-Western rhetoric, which he could deploy or hide depending on whom he was seeking to befriend.

...Years later, after American commandos killed Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011, Mr. Khashoggi mourned his old acquaintance and what he had become.
“I collapsed crying a while ago, heartbroken for you Abu Abdullah,” Mr. Khashoggi wrote on Twitter, using Bin Laden’s nickname. “You were beautiful and brave in those beautiful days in Afghanistan, before you surrendered to hatred and passion.”

...When a military coup in Algeria in 1992 dashed the hopes of an Islamist political party to win control of the Parliament there, Mr. Khashoggi quietly teamed up with an Islamist friend in London to start an organization called “The Friends of Democracy in Algeria.”

...By the time he reached his 50s, Mr. Khashoggi’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood was ambiguous. Several Muslim Brothers said this week that they always felt he was with them. Many of his secular friends would not have believed it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/14/worl ... rabia.html

Just because he wrote columns doesn't make him any better than anyone else, or immunize him from the politics he involved himself in. He was an Islamist, with all that entails. He wasn't Ghandi. And Saudi Arabia isn't and never has been tolerant of opposition.

Again, why is this the business of the USA? This is a country that still executes women for witchcraft, and people get the vapors because of this guy? He played a dangerous game, and lost.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:17 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:30 am
xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:55 am
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.
First of all, you are missing the larger point. How they may wish to define an enemy doesn't change the objective reality. Think about the position you are arguing for. That we should simply accept whatever self-serving rationale they come up with as a matter of convenience.
How do you know that the Saudi position is a self-serving rationale they come up with as a matter of convenience?

Seems to me you are missing the larger point here, that as a sovereign nation, the Saudis are not bound by your ethical standards, no matter how much you think they should. Who died and made you the world's arbiter of right and wrong?

Look, I am as disturbed by Khashoggi's murder as you are. I do not condone what they did nor do I defend it, nor do I argue that nothing should be done about it. I am simply pointing out that those in the media who condemn this — and rightly so — should also condemn any government ordered assassination that was done without due process, including those perpetrated by the US. That is my main point here, the selective outrage.

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:30 am
. . . He was no more an "enemy of the state" than any other journalist or pundit who disagrees with the actions of his government.
That is factually incorrect.

Khashoggi was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood which is considered a terrorist organization by the Saudis and several other countries.

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:30 am
xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:55 am
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.
Evidence?
Seriously?

May I suggest you do more research before you continue to argue from a position of ignorance lack of relevant knowledge. :wink:

In any case, welcome to the "Club of the Stubborn". 8)

Image

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67871
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3471 times
Been thanked: 2196 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Doctor X » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:18 am

St. Sean never, ever, ever, advocated the overthrow of the Obama Administration. . . .

Really, this is too easy.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:25 am

Doctor X wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:18 am
St. Sean never, ever, ever, advocated the overthrow of the Obama Administration. . . .

Really, this is too easy.

--J.D.
Image

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21999
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1428 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:39 am

xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:17 am
How do you know that the Saudi position is a self-serving rationale they come up with as a matter of convenience?

Seems to me you are missing the larger point here, that as a sovereign nation, the Saudis are not bound by your ethical standards, no matter how much you think they should. Who died and made you the world's arbiter of right and wrong?

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:30 am
. . . He was no more an "enemy of the state" than any other journalist or pundit who disagrees with the actions of his government.
That is factually incorrect.

Khashoggi was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood which is considered a terrorist organization by the Saudis and several other countries.
I need to pause here to point out another flaw in your position:

Even the Saudis aren't making this argument. Remember, 11 men are now on trial for Kashoggi's murder, 5 facing the death penalty. In Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia indicts 11, seeks death penalty for 5, in Jamal Khashoggi's murder (Fox News)

So the Saudis themselves are calling it a "murder" and charging those who carried it out with a crime! They are not claiming that it was a justified killing.

They aren't trying to claim that what they did is no different from killing al-Awlaki. Were the people in charge of that drone later charged with murder, and did Obama disavow any knowledge of it and claim that it was carried out by "rogue actors" acting on their own initiative without approval from the top? No.

But that is now how the Saudis are trying to explain this to the world. Their position is "yes it happened, and yes it was a murder, and illegal" but the Crown Prince didn't know anything about it.

You are arguing for a position that even the Saudis are not bold enough to argue for.



Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:30 am
xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:55 am
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.
Evidence?
Seriously?

May I suggest you do more research before you continue to argue from a position of ignorance lack of relevant knowledge. :wink:

In any case, welcome to the "Club of the Stubborn". 8)

Image
[/quote]

Evasion noted.

Hint: There are lots of UK citizens who think the monarchy should be abolished. They are called "republicans". Is this treason? To think that the monarchy should be abolished? Even to argue for the same?

So I asked for evidence, and you failed to provide any.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 14102
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 364 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by WildCat » Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:36 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:39 am
Even the Saudis aren't making this argument. Remember, 11 men are now on trial for Kashoggi's murder, 5 facing the death penalty. In Saudi Arabia.
Their crime is getting caught and causing problems for the regime. Just like the mafia will kill the sloppy hitman, it's not that they are offended by the murder.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:03 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:39 am
xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:17 am
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:30 am
. . . He was no more an "enemy of the state" than any other journalist or pundit who disagrees with the actions of his government.
That is factually incorrect.

Khashoggi was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood which is considered a terrorist organization by the Saudis and several other countries.
I need to pause here to point out another flaw in your position:

Even the Saudis aren't making this argument. Remember, 11 men are now on trial for Kashoggi's murder, 5 facing the death penalty. In Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia indicts 11, seeks death penalty for 5, in Jamal Khashoggi's murder (Fox News)

So the Saudis themselves are calling it a "murder" and charging those who carried it out with a crime! They are not claiming that it was a justified killing.

They aren't trying to claim that what they did is no different from killing al-Awlaki. Were the people in charge of that drone later charged with murder, and did Obama disavow any knowledge of it and claim that it was carried out by "rogue actors" acting on their own initiative without approval from the top? No.

But that is now how the Saudis are trying to explain this to the world. Their position is "yes it happened, and yes it was a murder, and illegal" but the Crown Prince didn't know anything about it.

You are arguing for a position that even the Saudis are not bold enough to argue for.
That's an interesting (but irrelevant) point.

Before they killed Khashoggi, their position was that he was an enemy of the state. He was not the only person in recent years they have tried to lure into a Saudi embassy to be "handled".

Keep in mind that initially they denied there was a murder. They have changed their story several times. That is not evidence of any flaw in my position. But it is evidence of their deceit and obvious attempt at PR damage control.

Secondly, the CIA does not seem to be fooled by their current cover story. If the CIA is right, then the Saudis current denial is not a flaw in my position.

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:39 am
Evasion noted.

Hint: There are lots of UK citizens who think the monarchy should be abolished. They are called "republicans". Is this treason? To think that the monarchy should be abolished? Even to argue for the same?

So I asked for evidence, and you failed to provide any.
Two of us have already mentioned he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. You are free to research that detail yourself, if you are interested to find the truth. I am not your research assistant.

I had assumed the post by Wildcat was sufficient to get you started in that direction and that's why I didn't post more.

I do not insist that you take my word for it, so feel free to ignore my observation and continue on in your ignorance. I don't care one way or the other.

I am not here to persuade you to change your mind. I am merely here to run my mouth — and occasionally punch back when falsely accused — same as some others here. I don't mind that you persist in arguing about this, but it does take the teeth out of your accusation that I'm the stubborn one here. :wink:

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:39 am
Hint: There are lots of UK citizens who think the monarchy should be abolished. They are called "republicans". Is this treason? To think that the monarchy should be abolished? Even to argue for the same?
If you are asking my personal opinion, then no that's not treason.

But we are not talking about my opinion. Or even yours. We are talking about the opinion of the Saudis.

My point was that the Saudis considered Khashoggi an enemy. That fact is not refuted by your opinion that they are not justified in making that determination. As I've said more than once, they (as a sovereign state) are not bound by your personal ethics and preferences. My position is not invalidated merely because you disagree with how the Saudis operate.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21999
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1428 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:32 am

xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:03 am
That's an interesting (but irrelevant) point.
Hardly.
Before they killed Khashoggi, their position was that he was an enemy of the state.
Well, then the men who killed him should be given medals, not put on trial.

I see that you would rather twist yourself into pretzels than admit that you were wrong. Well, I'm satisfied that I've won the argument here even if you refuse to admit it.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:44 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:32 am
xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:03 am
That's an interesting (but irrelevant) point.
Hardly.
Before they killed Khashoggi, their position was that he was an enemy of the state.
Well, then the men who killed him should be given medals, not put on trial.

I see that you would rather twist yourself into pretzels than admit that you were wrong. Well, I'm satisfied that I've won the argument here even if you refuse to admit it.
Image

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67871
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3471 times
Been thanked: 2196 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Doctor X » Tue Nov 27, 2018 8:36 am

Image

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:05 am

:roll:

Why am I not surprised you both have chosen to take the conversation into the gutter. Apparently that's what happens when you can't make your case on the merits.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67871
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3471 times
Been thanked: 2196 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Doctor X » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:05 am

First.



--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22241
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by gnome » Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:28 pm

xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:03 am
But we are not talking about my opinion. Or even yours. We are talking about the opinion of the Saudis.

My point was that the Saudis considered Khashoggi an enemy. That fact is not refuted by your opinion that they are not justified in making that determination. As I've said more than once, they (as a sovereign state) are not bound by your personal ethics and preferences. My position is not invalidated merely because you disagree with how the Saudis operate.
They are not bound by our ethics and preferences, but aren't we? I think it is fair to say that our foreign policy has a significant impact on the country. Which is not to say that we should close up the embassy and go home every time they do something we don't approve of, but certainly that is not the only policy option besides shrugging "whatevs, it's their country."
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:40 am

gnome wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:28 pm
xouper wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:03 am
But we are not talking about my opinion. Or even yours. We are talking about the opinion of the Saudis.

My point was that the Saudis considered Khashoggi an enemy. That fact is not refuted by your opinion that they are not justified in making that determination. As I've said more than once, they (as a sovereign state) are not bound by your personal ethics and preferences. My position is not invalidated merely because you disagree with how the Saudis operate.
They are not bound by our ethics and preferences, but aren't we? I think it is fair to say that our foreign policy has a significant impact on the country. Which is not to say that we should close up the embassy and go home every time they do something we don't approve of, but certainly that is not the only policy option besides shrugging "whatevs, it's their country."
Yes, I agree with that. Perhaps I could have made that more clear in some of my previous posts.

(That is a separate issue from — and does not contradict — the issue I was primarily interested in running my mouth about commenting on, which is the apparent double standard by many in the media.)

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67871
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3471 times
Been thanked: 2196 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Doctor X » Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:17 am

It is really, really, important you do not rush and lose the actual feel of the triplets.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:57 am

It's a shame that there are some here who choose to heckle instead of adding something of value to the conversation.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67871
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3471 times
Been thanked: 2196 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by Doctor X » Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:02 am

It comes from a lack of coordinated independence.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8968
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Jamal Khashoggi

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:07 am

Doctor X wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:02 am
It comes from a lack of coordinated independence.

--J.D.
:bigthumb: That's almost as good as Steve Martin's Non-Comformist Oath.