Yes, I'm going to go there.
What is President Trump's responsibility in the death of Jamal Khashoggi? Is he culpable? Is he responsible?
Let's remember a couple of things:
1. The media is the enemy of the people.
2. Trump has basically called journalists the lowest form of life on earth.
3. The Washington Post is part of the "fake" news media.
So, Khashoggi, by Trump's characterization, was the lowest form of life on earth and an enemy of the people.
And the Saudis quite possibly felt emboldened by these statements, taking Trump's statements literally, and got rid of somebody who was scum and the enemy of the people.
Why do we even care about this murder?
This man was an enemy of the people. He worked for the Washington Post. He was scum.
You know what Trump and most of his supporters are probably thinking?
Crankalicious, I believe to use the word "responsibility" is a misuse of the word. I think Trump may have created an atmosphere in which the Saudi Prince thought he could get away with offing a journalist who was a citizen of his own country residing in the U.S.A. He easily could if that journalist were practicing his craft in his own country. As others have pointed out, it is unsafe for any citizen of Saudi Arabia to criticize the Saudi regime in their own country, especially a journalist. However, Khashoggi was residing and working in the U.S.A. It would have been proper since he was in the U.S.A while violating his own country's law with his criticism, for the Saudis to have exercised the extradition process, but that's not how they work. Would Trump have refused the Saudi government extradition? Probably not, since he has a big bigly deal working between the U.S.A. and the Saudi govt., which he says he won't cancel. I think the Saudi prince saw Trump's attitude as an opportunity.
I think Trump's "responsibility" should be to take the problem to the United Nations. I certainly wouldn't want to see a world war started, as in the case of Duke Ferdinand, and have millions of people killed over the misbehavior of two countries' leaders. As Mr. Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."
But I do believe that Trump created the opportunity and the Saudi prince took it. I wouldn't call the opportunity a "cover." Nothing was covered here, including the Saudi's attempts to cover their own asses.
Can we all say what???? together?
I saw a dead armadillo yesterday. By your reasoning I should contact animal control to investigate Trump's involvement.
I realize the logic is escaping you, but Trump did not call Armadillos the "enemy of the people" and the lowest form of life. This is the President of the United States declaring the value of people who make up a certain profession.
It's useless. There is always an excuse. I'm with hardsun. Trump is the enemy of the people, and I'll add that his supporters are the lowest form of life.
No big deal, right?
Trump's hatred of the media may well have given the green light to the Saudi prince. He certainly had the motive because Khashoggi was critical of him, and he and Trump are working on a "Big Deal". Trump has already said he won't jeopardize that deal by penalizing the Saudis for Khashoggi's murder. We have laws in our country protecting the freedom of the press (much to Trump's horror) but Middle Eastern countries do not. In order to cause his death, they had to lure him out of a country that protected those rights.
Ok. So, is Trump responsible for all Saudi Arabian atrocities, or just this one, in a foreign embassy located in a foreign country.
Give me some other atrocities and I'll let you know. Did Trump refer to the subjects of any of these other atrocities as the lowest forms of life on earth and the enemy of the people?
Why is it so hard to believe that a foreign country might think that Trump would look the other way if they took out one of these scum?
Just trying to follow the logic. Do you think politicians who promoted world hijab day are responsible for emboldening people who practice FMG or carry out honor killings?
If you're trying to be the king/queen of false equivalency, you're doing a bang up job.
Attempting to follow your logic. If that is false equivalency, at what point are actions and words, which have no bearing on current events, responsible for the actions of others? What determines when they are, and aren't, responsible?
Edit. Would it be reasonable to assume you'd hold Eric Holder responsible if someone kicks a Republican?
The specific question is: what is Trump's responsibility?
And here is my logic. See if you can follow.
President Trump has called journalists and the media the "enemy of the people" and the lowest form of life on earth. Can we agree on that? If you want to gaslight me on that point, then there's no use debating, but you can actually go to many sources, both left-wing and right-wing, to verify those statements.
President Trump has said that certain outlets print "fake" news. His least liked newspapers are the New York Times and the Washington Post.
It therefore stands to reason that both of those organizations are the greatest enemies of the people and those that work for them the lowest of the low forms of life on earth? Agree?
Mr. Khashoggi was a journalist who worked for the Washington Post. Therefore, based on Trump's statements, he is one of the lowest forms of life on earth and an enemy of the people.
If you are both one of the lowest forms of life on earth and an enemy of the people, what is the value of your life?
The value of a human life is immeasurable. No matter the rhetoric. If someone murders Trump, could you be held partly responsible? You, like many, have attempted to portray him as somewhat callous and evil.
Your words cannot be used, in most cases, as being responsible for the actions of other adults. Why, him, specifically? I ask this because since you didn't answer my question about Holder, it appears to be implied that he would not be responsible either; by your logic.
Just heard that Saudia Arabia is going to say that his death was the result of "an interrogation gone wrong", an "interrogation" that was rooted in his criticism of some prince or another.
That makes Trump obviously responsible...as long as we assume he was wielding the tor...uh..."instruments of interrogation". Logic prevails!
I find it amazing that Trump supporters see no logical connection, particularly since Trump is pretty much excusing this action by Saudi Arabia.
Trump expressed his disdain for the media and journalists and Saudi Arabia took out somebody they didn't like. And now Trump is supporting Saudi Arabia.
LOL And I find it amazing the lengths Trump haters will go to "find" reasons to hate him. Trump doesn't control the Saudi govt or any of it's people. He is not responsible for a culture that has taken millenia to develop.
Blaming Trump for what the Saudi prince, or the Saudi govt., did is beyond comprehension. His disdain for the media certainly did not affect the actions over there; death to anyone questioning the government was a well-entrenched custom a thousand years ago and has not changed much. Go public with criticism and the price is your life, plain and simple, and it isn't because of Trump.
So the only real question becomes "Why are the haters so adamant that anything they don't like is because of Trump?" and the only realistic answer is because they hate. Not because there is any logical, reasonable train of thought.
The United States has a long history of foreign policy and the decisions of the United States affect the world. When the President of the United States basically says that he does not value the lives of journalists and that he sees them as enemies of the state, it provides cover for foreign governments.
This is EXACTLY what happened here.
I can cite numerous examples of the United States creating foreign policies that detour other nations from acting or behaving in certain ways, so to argue that the words of the POTUS do not have an impact is intellectual dishonesty at its most extreme.
"When the President of the United States basically says that he does not value the lives of journalists and that he sees them as enemies of the state, it provides cover for foreign governments."
And then, once you have proven that Trump supports murdering reporters, can you explain how a millenia old custom needs any "cover" from a foreign head of state?
Khashoggi knew he was in trouble. He did not expect to survive his stance against Saudi violence and oppressions. He openly acknowledged this fact. He knew exactly what he was doing and I imagine he would prefer to be considered more of a martyr to his cause than a victim of the Saudi government, much less of the American government.
His death is not the end of the story he wanted to tell. Perhaps he felt his death would tell the story better than anything else he could do, though. It's sad business no matter what the whole story is, which we may yet hear more about, or not–who would know the truth but those who were there?
The media's attempt to attack President Trump over Khashoggi's death because he will not let them cow him is only proving what people already know. They hate him and they've made it clear in as many ways as they dare. They hate him, but they try to demand he acknowledge them as responsible as well as superior, then hate him more when he refuses the demand. It's such a curious situation.
Lots to think about if we want to be honest...
Hating a person as opposed to hating a person's actions are two different things.
The blind inanity of hating people boggles the mind.
We do not know what other people are thinking; making assumptions about that always creates suspicion about the assumer.
Despising the media's hate-filled biased tactics is not the same as wanting them killed or refusing to protect them and their rights.
Media commentaries disguised as reporting have great power to motivate hate-filled people yet they are not called on the carpet for their words.
The media (including entertainment industry) could do so much good, but they persevere in divisiveness for the purpose of covering their own agenda.
Maybe the news media bares it's own larger share of responsibility for the manufacturing of such modern day hatred, political bias and even incited violence in this era of Trump hatred. I don't know this man's writings BUT to blame Trump ? Seriously ?
Now that you mention "incited violence"...
Trump about convicted Gianforte:
“Never wrestle him. Never. Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of…he’s my guy.
We endorsed Greg really early, but I heard that he had body slammed a reporter. And he was way up…and I said, ‘Oh, this is terrible, he’s going to lose the election.’ But then I said, ‘Well wait a minute, I know Montana pretty well, I think it might help him,’ and it did…He’s a great guy and a tough cookie."
I agree with you. I have said all along that if the news media ignored this stuff instead of sensationalizing it, we wouldn't be in this pickle. Nor would Trump have been elected. By the way, it is "bear" not "bares". Media is plural, medium is the singular and "bear" and "bare" are homonyms. The news media "bare" their asses often enough, so they "bear" some responsibility.
Conservatives mount a whisper campaign smearing Khashoggi in defense of Trump
In recent days, a cadre of conservative House Republicans allied with Trump has been privately exchanging articles from right-wing outlets that fuel suspicion of Khashoggi, highlighting his association with the Muslim Brotherhood in his youth and raising conspiratorial questions about his work decades ago as an embedded reporter covering Osama bin Laden, according to four GOP officials involved in the discussions who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Those aspersions — which many lawmakers have been wary of stating publicly because of the political risks of doing so — have begun to flare into public view as conservative media outlets have amplified the claims, which are aimed in part at protecting Trump as he works to preserve the U.S.-Saudi relationship and avoid confronting the Saudis on human rights.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos … ce2a7bb982
Democratic professors , hollywood and your media have incited more violence in the last two years than Pol- Pot did in the sixties and seventies ......but you want to blame Trump ?
In fact , no one in America has done more to incite division and violence in our culture than the news media itself for at least ten years . Those looking for someone to blame ? We all know that liberalism never blames the real perpetrators of violence , so why not blame the creators OF political violence , the messenger , the modern and intentionally warring news media ?
The US news media IS the catalyst for most rhetoric , ideological divide and violence pretty much anywhere in the world today but especially here in America . The last thing they have a right TO DO is to blame that on any country or leader today. The problem therein is , How can the media be held responsible for it's deliberate inciting of violence.....ever ?
by PrettyPanther 2 years ago
David Lapan@DaveLapanDC"Over 30+ years as a U.S. Marine, I defended our country against its true enemies. In 20+ years as a USMC, Pentagon and DHS spokesman, I dealt w/ the news media nearly every day. I know quite a bit about the press and know this -- they are NOT the enemy of the American...
by Deforest 9 years ago
Saudi Arabia ruled by the Saudi house, no need to say that it is a dictatorship, is aiming at acquiring the nuclear weapon. It is one if not the most extremist and fundamentalist muslim country in the world. Iran's president was democratically elected. It is not as radical as Saudi Arabia but for...
by IslandBites 2 years ago
The House Oversight and Reform Committee announced Tuesday they are launching an investigation into the Trump administration’s dealings with Saudi Arabia after several whistleblowers expressed concern about efforts to sell the kingdom nuclear technology.The announcement came in conjunction with the...
by OLYHOOCH 9 years ago
I don't care, WHO, wrote this. It DESERVES A RE-PRINT, for those of you that did not see it. WASHINGTON POST HITS OBAMA Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has a reputation for being extremely...
by Allen Donald 2 years ago
Here's the tweet:"So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and...
by ahorseback 4 years ago
Fake is fake and everybody knows the difference except the mainstream media .Any takers ? Even liberals must recognize the futility of the news media maintaining the plague of falsehoods.
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|