ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

What does human rights have to do with this? The guy was murdered. The allegation was Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved. Saudi Arabia arrested a bunch of people over the killing. Saudis admitted Saudi officials was involved but insisted the Crown Prince was not involved nor responsible for his death. Don't believe Them? There is nothing they could do.

In a way, it is reckless western accusations without substantial proof. You need more than that to accuse someone. That is the controversy.

I claimed that there was a human right violated and some people are claiming that there is no such human right.

Not really, there is a treaty around it so it "exists".

But it existing and it being enforced are two different things.

America isn't going to war with turkey over a human rights violation for various reasons.

Your claim is that trump doesn't care about human rights because he did not act upon an infringement of a treaty.

My claim is this happens all the time and isn't as straight forward as your making it out to be.
You seem to have very little sense of geo-politics and claim your qaulified to judge trump for his innactive response to the situation.

You think Turkey is a stable country which plays by the human rights charter? To me that is proof enough of why your incapable of understanding the situation.
If you fail to understand what has been going on in Turkey for the past fourty years and why both America and the EU are so forgiving to that country despite it's current political unrest and past then you can't possibly understand the motives for keeping silent and not taking action against them.

Peace,

-Boem-

Political unrest in Turkey is not related to this topic I was discussing.

Sorry Boem, my assertion was that there was a human right to life in almost the whole world. I never argued that the level of violation of that human right was equal around the world. You are making up false stories about what I ever said about the current state of Turkey. My assertion was that there was a human right to life in almost the whole world and that this human right applied in Turkey. I pointed to the article of the constitution of Turkey that spelled out that right.

My implied claim is that when the President of the USA does not stand up for human rights, does not at least pay lip service to this basic human right then the chance of these human rights being violated in the future goes way up in many parts of the world. The President seems totally uninterested in this traditional US presidential role.

It is beyond the pale to claim that the right to life is not a human right. The only place I can think of where it might not be is that island where a group of humans live that have never been contacted by modern men. A kid trying to do missionary work went there illegally a few months ago and the natives killed him. I'm not sure that life would be considered a human right on that island or not? I don't know.

Perhaps the issue here is that maybe there is not an awareness that murdering someone is by definition a violation of the victim's human right to life?

^I think you fail to realize what the implications of calling out erdogan would imply.

For starters he would revoke air-space for american fighter jets and probably close down the american bases on turkey soil.



Maybe that picture provokes some thoughts given the current conflict and war as to why the EU and America want to remain on good therms with turkey irrelevant of a moral guideline paper.

You don't seem to realise him calling out another nation in the current
geo-political climate could cause far more suffering and casualty's. Hell even infringements on human rights and not only the one to life.

Your basing your judgements of his actions on a very narrow worldview on what you believe to be morally correct without nuance for actual reality on the ground.

Does the political climate in turkey and it's geographical location have anything to do with how an american president should behave?
Absolutely, but it's not a one-dimensional space in which to orient yourself in.

Maybe you didn't feel the unrest when Poetin and trump where calling echother out and playing a bit of global "bluff poker", but it sure felt tangible in europe.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Sorry Boem, my assertion was that there was a human right to life in almost the whole world. I never argued that the level of violation of that human right was equal around the world. You are making up false stories about what I ever said about the current state of Turkey. My assertion was that there was a human right to life in almost the whole world and that this human right applied in Turkey. I pointed to the article of the constitution of Turkey that spelled out that right.

This also fascinates me.

Turkey is turning into an authoritarian country and has proven so by recent history and infringements on both the charter of human rights(UN) and it's own constitution.

Yet you maintain those rules are still being applied there. that's just not compatibale with facts.
(you realise he shut down internet platforms like twitter, wikipedia etc like China? He had to stop because of pressure from the EU but he still did it for a long period i think two years if memory serves)

You seem to think infringements on the constitution happening there in the past history are irrelevant when claiming it is written down and therefore acted out.

I don't remember but did Obama voice concerns about the basic constitution and violation of the charter of human rights when 3500 lawyers/judges/politicians where put into prison on a nation scale without trial in the 2016 coup in turkey?

I'll see based on your response if you actually did some research.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit :


This is an interesting interview, guy lives in america btw.

Boem, you are so far out in left field I really don't understand. You are talking about stuff that I never mentioned. You keep claiming nonsense like

"

Yet you maintain those rules are still being applied there.

I have explicitly stated many times that I did not say that! Yet you continue claiming I said stuff I didn't say. Now you'll probably say it again. Why, I have no clue? It is truly baffling. It has happened so many times in this conversation I can only assume that you are doing it on purpose.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Boem, you are so far out in left field I really don't understand. You are talking about stuff that I never mentioned. You keep claiming nonsense like

"

Yet you maintain those rules are still being applied there.

I have explicitly stated many times that I did not say that! Yet you continue claiming I said stuff I didn't say. Now you'll probably say it again. Why, I have no clue? It is truly baffling. It has happened so many times in this conversation I can only assume that you are doing it on purpose.

If a nation does not subscribe to the human rights charter or follows it's own constitution (which turkey has proven in recent history it does not) then the citizens of that nation are not protected by those treaty's.

As such they don't have "the basic human rights" described in those treaty's.

The treaty's only hold up when all participants both enact and enforce them.

1) turkey doesn't enact them across the board as evident by recent history and visible infringements on them made publicly available across the world.

2) the UN/EU or any other global organisations are not enforcing them within turkey.(most likely to remain in allegiance with them for political/warfare reasons)

Maybe you wish for every person to fall under the human rights charter and it being enforced globally?

My effort has been to show why 2) happens and why it makes the charter
"just a piece of paper".

Because in the absence of enforcing rules, the rules don't mater.

My efforts have also been to demonstrate that what trump did might have actually been the correct course of action viewed from a geo-political viewpoint which might only be apparent if you know that stuff.

And i say "might", because i am more about nuance then actually going "yes/no".
I don't believe there was any one correct action to take, casualty's will occur anyway given the situation.

I thought maybe knowing about Turkey was pertinent if you want to judge a persons decision to condemn or lack there-off in relation to that country and human rights.

Because obviously, trump didn't make his choice alone.
I assume he was urged to keep quiet or condemn based on people aware of the situation there and the relevance to america in that part of the world.

But again, nuance, instead of judgements based on one viewpoint.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit :

Maybe i should post a tl;dr of why it would be hypocritical and immoral for any american president to now wave the "humans right card" towards turkey after helping destabilize the region and helping the current "president" into power?

Would that suffice as to why the current american president not doing such an action might be waranted?(irrelevant if its trump or any other random statesmen from america)

Notice how i used "president" and how turkey is no longer a democratic nation?
Yeah, that's a thing and it's recent and america was an enabler in the process.


Wanna go into iraq and syrie with me and america's participation?

Visit me on the left field bro, the world is massive and grand over here.

You still haven't explained why you're even bringing up what Turkey recognizes as human rights. What does that have to do with Trump not having a stronger response to the situation? You keep bringing up a point that has no relevance to what was being discussed.

The point is that when human rights violations occurs, they should be condemned.

Saudi Arabia killed Khashoggi not Turkey. Just because human rights are violated it does NOT mean that those human rights don't exist. (Which I've said for the umpteenth time.)

Just a reminder, I was arguing that the human right to life existed for Khashoggi and that right was violated. I was told by someone (now I forgot who) that that human right did not exist. I responded to them (in a sarcastic manner as you pointed out) and you protected the ridiculous position that human rights do not exist. You are both wrong, plan and simple. Just because a human right is violated, it does not mean that it does not exist.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Saudi Arabia killed Khashoggi not Turkey. Just because human rights are violated it does NOT mean that those human rights don't exist. (Which I've said for the umpteenth time.)

Just a reminder, I was arguing that the human right to life existed for Khashoggi and that right was violated. I was told by someone (now I forgot who) that that human right did not exist. I responded to them (in a sarcastic manner as you pointed out) and you protected the ridiculous position that human rights do not exist. You are both wrong, plan and simple. Just because a human right is violated, it does not mean that it does not exist.

US has its own serious human rights problems, which are too numerous to mention, which include torture, mistreatment of prisoners and disregard for civilian casualties. Human rights exist, so does violations of human rights. Violations exist in many part of the world.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Saudi Arabia killed Khashoggi not Turkey. Just because human rights are violated it does NOT mean that those human rights don't exist. (Which I've said for the umpteenth time.)

Just a reminder, I was arguing that the human right to life existed for Khashoggi and that right was violated. I was told by someone (now I forgot who) that that human right did not exist. I responded to them (in a sarcastic manner as you pointed out) and you protected the ridiculous position that human rights do not exist. You are both wrong, plan and simple. Just because a human right is violated, it does not mean that it does not exist.

US has its own serious human rights problems, which are too numerous to mention, which include torture, mistreatment of prisoners and disregard for civilian casualties. Human rights exist, so does violations of human rights. Violations exist in many part of the world.

Very true, which is why it is important for the President of the USA to at least pay lip service to human rights and to try to do more than that whenever possible.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

You still haven't explained why you're even bringing up what Turkey recognizes as human rights. What does that have to do with Trump not having a stronger response to the situation? You keep bringing up a point that has no relevance to what was being discussed.

The point is that when human rights violations occurs, they should be condemned.

Do you realise the hypocrisy and immorality of america condemning human rights violations in that geographical area?

I am assuming both of you are american? Do you have any concept of the historical warfare and role america played in the midle east let's say from 1900+- till now?

You realise it was america that brought chemical warfare to the region right? A direct violation of a plentitude of treaty's around warfare.
With an endless list of civilian bombings carried out by midle eastern forces using american weapons and financial backing dating back to 1955(and probably more unknown or unreported)

I guess it all rolls over fine if your oblivious to your own history.

You guys hardly grasp the relation of iran/iraq/syrie/saudie arabia and turkey and the roll you guys played in setting up that region since the late 1900.

It feels really weird discussing this with you guys and you guys dismissing the situation there going "but what about protecting the human rights!".

America didn't care about human rights when going to that region, they never have and probably never will.
They have had political and economical motivation behind every power-play they enacted in that region.

And have put a knife in the back of the people locally supporting them on a multitude of occasions.(most recently the kurds)

"America a lightning beacon for hope" right. I guess when you live in America that makes somewhat sense, but when your on the wrong end of america's agenda not so much.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

You still haven't explained why you're even bringing up what Turkey recognizes as human rights. What does that have to do with Trump not having a stronger response to the situation? You keep bringing up a point that has no relevance to what was being discussed.

The point is that when human rights violations occurs, they should be condemned.

Do you realise the hypocrisy and immorality of america condemning human rights violations in that geographical area?

I am assuming both of you are american? Do you have any concept of the historical warfare and role america played in the midle east let's say from 1900+- till now?

You realise it was america that brought chemical warfare to the region right? A direct violation of a plentitude of treaty's around warfare.
With an endless list of civilian bombings carried out by midle eastern forces using american weapons and financial backing dating back to 1955(and probably more unknown or unreported)

I guess it all rolls over fine if your oblivious to your own history.

You guys hardly grasp the relation of iran/iraq/syrie/saudie arabia and turkey and the roll you guys played in setting up that region since the late 1900.

It feels really weird discussing this with you guys and you guys dismissing the situation there going "but what about protecting the human rights!".

America didn't care about human rights when going to that region, they never have and probably never will.
They have had political and economical motivation behind every power-play they enacted in that region.

And have put a knife in the back of the people locally supporting them on a multitude of occasions.(most recently the kurds)

"America a lightning beacon for hope" right. I guess when you live in America that makes somewhat sense, but when your on the wrong end of america's agenda not so much.

Peace,

-Boem-

Yes, I'm an American. Where are you?

Are you still arguing that there is no such thing as a human right to life? If not what are you arguing?