Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

Er, well...

The Kuwait response was to scrap all flights from New York to London.

We should have let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait back in the days 

Seriously

The implication here is pretty strongly that a few gassed Kurds would have been greatly preferable to Jews (as per the original flamebait) being unable to fly a specific airline. That's not advocating or supporting Saddamic genocide in a vacuum, but it is "supporting a noted genocidal dictator" and, as per the previous challenge(s), "advocating genocide."

Do you, and some others really, seriously think that I in any way supported the reign of Saddam Hussein there with that remark?

My orignial post was just the daily news from my newspaper. The line "We should have let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait" was added by me. I thought even the least bright light would recognize the sarcasm, but apparently there's people who think everything is flamebait or trolling, and start raging.

Tip: go get some advanced literature classes, they teach you about style forms like sarcasm, and art forms like satire. Or just gtfo and crawl back to 4chan or whatever gutter spawned you.

- sorry for the snappy post, just getting dead tired of some idiots here who scream flamebait at everything -

[Antioch]

The us boycotted and prevented travel from and to Cuba from its soil for years.

What would be the difference with this case?

[Shadowlord]

Preventing direct travel for most (but not all) people to/from a country, versus preventing travel for an entire country's citizens to/from anywhere else?

[martinuzz]

The us boycotted and prevented travel from and to Cuba from its soil for years.

What would be the difference with this case?

The US has always recognized Cuba as a state (at least, since it's independence in the early 1900s), and Cuban nationality, regardless of it's diplomatic relation to Cuba. It's refusal of Cuban travel was based off diplomatic embargo, which, however much it's merit or fairness can be debated, was in accordance with contemporary international law.

Kuwait however, fails to recognize Israel as a state, which is against UN convention, and refuses to recognize the nationality of it's citizens because according to them (or should I say, their Saudi overlords), they have no right to exist.

I find it odd that the title is "Kuwait Airlines" when frankly. What is the Airlines doing wrong? Should it break the law of its country?

Yeah, Kuwait Airlines isn't the problem. Kuwait is.

While I can agree with the sentiment, I do not agree with the statement. As long as Kuwait Airlines stricly flies inside Kuwait, yea, you're right. But when a airline flies over the airspace of a country where their Kuwait law is against the law, they'll have to comply with local law, not Kuwait law. If they can't because they will be prosecuted back in Kuwait, they should not fly in those countries. You can't have the cake, and eat it.

[lemon10]

The us boycotted and prevented travel from and to Cuba from its soil for years.

What would be the difference with this case?

I would assume because they are saying "We don't allow jews to travel" not "We don't allow israeli citizens to travel", in much the same way that saying "We don't allow Nigerian citizens to travel" would be much more acceptable than saying "We don't allow blacks to travel".
One's politically/nationally based while the other is religion/racial based, which is very different and not okay. That said, both are kind of messed up.

[IronyOwl]

Do you, and some others really, seriously think that I in any way supported the reign of Saddam Hussein there with that remark?

I didn't think you were necessarily 100% dead serious, but yes. "We should have left Saddam in there" is a relatively common actual opinion in my experience, so when somebody says "we should have left Saddam in there," I'm inclined to assume they meant that "we should have left Saddam in there." That means, by definition, that you are supporting him. It doesn't mean you like him, but it means you are supporting him.

What message was I supposed to have received?

My orignial post was just the daily news from my newspaper. The line "We should have let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait" was added by me. I thought even the least bright light would recognize the sarcasm, but apparently there's people who think everything is flamebait or trolling, and start raging.

Tip: go get some advanced literature classes, they teach you about style forms like sarcasm, and art forms like satire. Or just gtfo and crawl back to 4chan or whatever gutter spawned you.

- sorry for the snappy post, just getting dead tired of some idiots here who scream flamebait at everything -

Don't be a jerk, and especially don't be a jerk to some people because you don't like other people. It drags everyone and everything down.

I mentioned "original flamebait" because the original story, whether straight from your mouth or directly from the article, was wildly inaccurate in an inflammatory manner. What would you call that?

Sarcasm does not mean saying something and then kind of not meaning it sort of. Sarcasm means saying the opposite of what you mean in order to illustrate a point. "You should be dragged into the street and shot for dickishly suggesting I take a literature class to learn about sarcasm while misusing the term" is not sarcasm if you really lectured me on sarcasm in a dismissive manner while misusing the term and that's super dumb, but I don't want you shot. It's sarcasm if going protip: get lernt while not actually knowing what you're talking about yourself is no big deal, and rather than state this directly I see value in declaring an exaggerated argument to the contrary in order to display its flaws.

Therefore, "We should have let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait back in the days  " is sarcasm if and only if you approve of the current news and wish to illustrate this by noting the hypothetical that it would not have happened under the declared circumstances. If you're just angry about the current news and wish to exaggerate for effect, that's hyperbole.

Incidentally, the correct response to either being taken as serious is generally along the lines of "Er, sorry, I wasn't serious; is that actually a common argument?" rather than "WELL IT WAS OBVIOUS I WAS THE SARCASM BUT I GUESS NO BRAIN CELLS."

The US has always recognized Cuba as a state (at least, since it's independence in the early 1900s), and Cuban nationality, regardless of it's diplomatic relation to Cuba. It's refusal of Cuban travel was based off diplomatic embargo, which, however much it's merit or fairness can be debated, was in accordance with contemporary international law.

Kuwait however, fails to recognize Israel as a state, which is against UN convention, and refuses to recognize the nationality of it's citizens because according to them (or should I say, their Saudi overlords), they have no right to exist.

Defying UN convention is fairly common; notably, Isreal does it literally non-stop with regards to the disputed territories, and the US embargo of Cuba is I think decried by a soundly ignored UN resolution every year. It's a distinction, but not an especially meaningful one.

Normally I'd be more cautious about the non-existence thing, but in light of recent events I'm just going to go out on a limb and declare that neither Kuwait nor Saudi Overlords (officially) take issue with the existence of Israelis, but to the formal existence of their country on plundered land.

While I can agree with the sentiment, I do not agree with the statement. As long as Kuwait Airlines stricly flies inside Kuwait, yea, you're right. But when a airline flies over the airspace of a country where their Kuwait law is against the law, they'll have to comply with local law, not Kuwait law. If they can't because they will be prosecuted back in Kuwait, they should not fly in those countries. You can't have the cake, and eat it.

They aren't. That's why they canceled the flights; reconciling the local laws on each side of the flight was physically impossible, and they were unable to tell one or both parties to screw off. Kuwait Airlines isn't doing anything wrong, and certainly isn't trying to keep and eat any cake. They're acknowledging that political posturing has rendered some of the cake they had inaccessible.

I would assume because they are saying "We don't allow jews to travel" not "We don't allow israeli citizens to travel", in much the same way that saying "We don't allow Nigerian citizens to travel" would be much more acceptable than saying "We don't allow blacks to travel".
One's politically/nationally based while the other is religion/racial based, which is very different and not okay. That said, both are kind of messed up.

But they're not saying that we already went over this:

Seems weird to have a news thread without the actual news article.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/aviation/kuwait-airways-flight-israeli-passengers/
As far as I can tell the anti-Jewish element is entirely fabricated, the law is against doing business with Israelis.  The US has similar laws against North Koreans.

e: The airline's reaction seems like the only reasonable way to comply with the laws of both countries, I'm not sure what the alternative would be

[lemon10]

Oh, sorry I didn't read the article, and had assumed that the title of the thread was accurate.  Then yeah, there doesn't seem to be a real moral problem here.

[Leafsnail]

Do you, and some others really, seriously think that I in any way supported the reign of Saddam Hussein there with that remark?

My orignial post was just the daily news from my newspaper. The line "We should have let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait" was added by me. I thought even the least bright light would recognize the sarcasm, but apparently there's people who think everything is flamebait or trolling, and start raging.

Tip: go get some advanced literature classes, they teach you about style forms like sarcasm, and art forms like satire. Or just gtfo and crawl back to 4chan or whatever gutter spawned you.

- sorry for the snappy post, just getting dead tired of some idiots here who scream flamebait at everything -

Please modify the OP and thread title to be true.

[martinuzz]

I originally wanted to make the thread title end with "because they do not recognize the existence of Israel", but that was too long for the allowed number of characters for a thread title.

[Leafsnail]

Your quotation of "in our country, it is forbidden by law to do business with jews" is unsourced, and it does not appear on the internet anywhere else.  I cannot find any evidence at all in any news article to suggest that Kuwait Airlines has an anti-Jewish policy.  Please either source that claim or remove it from the OP so that no more people are misinformed.

[martinuzz]

Normally I'd be more cautious about the non-existence thing, but in light of recent events I'm just going to go out on a limb and declare that neither Kuwait nor Saudi Overlords (officially) take issue with the existence of Israelis, but to the formal existence of their country on plundered land.

There was a documentary on either the BBC or Belgian television about a year ago, from a journalist who had gone to Saudi Arabia to study their culture.
The thing that shocked him most, was that nearly all (state) mosques he visited called upon the people to hate Israel, and the jew, during public prayers, and reminds people that it's a muslim's duty to drive the people of Israel into the sea. You think Iran's Ayatollah is notorious for that? Nah, he just barely says it enough to keep the hardliners on his side of power. In Saudi Arabia, it's base indoctrination for everyone.

[Shadowlord]

[Citation needed]

[Leafsnail]

The unsourced and suspiciously unique quote is still in the OP.

If you want to make it more factual you could also say that Kuwait Airlines doesn't accept Israeli passports due to their country's laws.

[Flying Dice]

I was referring more to the OP, who expressed his regrets that Kuwait did not suffer under Saddam for longer as payback for the law that he made up. I don't feel strongly about the alt-history stuff one way or another.

Fair enough on that point, apologies for jumping the gun.

[IronyOwl]

I didn't think the thread title was a problem; flippant or approximating summations are pretty common. I do take issue with the OP either not being grounded in anything or being based off of some guy calling Jeff the receptionist to get a racist quote out of him, then not looking up what the actual legal issues and corporate responses are.

I also cannot think of a better title that actually fits. It's kind of a dense issue.

Normally I'd be more cautious about the non-existence thing, but in light of recent events I'm just going to go out on a limb and declare that neither Kuwait nor Saudi Overlords (officially) take issue with the existence of Israelis, but to the formal existence of their country on plundered land.

There was a documentary on either the BBC or Belgian television about a year ago, from a journalist who had gone to Saudi Arabia to study their culture.
The thing that shocked him most, was that nearly all (state) mosques he visited called upon the people to hate Israel, and the jew, during public prayers, and reminds people that it's a muslim's duty to drive the people of Israel into the sea. You think Iran's Ayatollah is notorious for that? Nah, he just barely says it enough to keep the hardliners on his side of power. In Saudi Arabia, it's base indoctrination for everyone.

Wouldn't particularly surprise me, but it's not hard to find things if you're looking for them. Pledge of Allegiance in the US and news scare stories come to mind as easy to find but not necessarily representative of a given thing.