FBI opens investigation into killing of Shireen Abu Akleh

[CountValentine]

So, let's sum this up.
CV - Killings of US citizen abroad should be investigated even if it is not SOP.
Everyone else - Killings of US citizens abroad should only be investigated if it is shown to be SOP.

That brings us to this:

Here is the insane part of this twisted logic. Using this insane twisted logic the US should have never investigated the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and just accepted the Saudi's version.

[TimT]

is not an independent investigation.

[yelped]

@CV, why are you ignoring what's in plain sight? As Lurker said, zoom out, please.

[EliJelly]

Dedicated thread with 10 pages of this nonsense.

[yelped]

Dedicated thread with 10 pages of this nonsense.

Aka <insert Chaim Hamster Wheel GIF>.

[TimT]

Dedicated thread with 10 pages of this nonsense.

And with that, welcome to JS.

[Lurker]

So, let's sum this up.
CV - Killings of US citizen abroad should be investigated even if it is not SOP.
Everyone else - Killings of US citizens abroad should only be investigated if it is shown to be SOP.

That brings us to this:

1) Just want to make sure I'm clear on this... your official stance is that we should investigate all killings of US citizens abroad, even though it is contrary to US and international policy?

2) Your Jamal Khashoggi reference is way off. We weren't investigating his murder. We were investigating his disappearance. And we started that investigation less than 10 days after he went missing. The main reason we started investigating was because there was a jurisdictional issue. The Saudis said he left the consulate and was in Turkey, but the Turks said he was still in the embassy and therefore on Saudi soil, outside of their jurisdiction. This is apples and oranges.

[Lurker]

Not disagreeing, just giving a source.

[CountValentine]

@CV, why are you ignoring what's in plain sight? As Lurker said, zoom out, please.

What's in plain sight? I can see this issue be divisive and even one side but 99/1?   

[Lurker]

What's in plain sight? I can see this issue be divisive and even one side but 99/1?   

With the 99 in line with US policy? Come on, man.

[CountValentine]

1) Just want to make sure I'm clear on this...

My position is 100% clear. No red herrings or pretzels. So go ahead with your gotcha questions.

I can see this issue be divisive and even one side but 99/1?   

The whole thread on one side (except one) on an issue that can go either way.

That is like asking who is going to win the Superbowl and 99 out of 100 pick one team. 

[Yehuda57]

Investigating a killing by Saudis, an authoritarian regime that quite obviously murdered the guy even without an investigation, is analogous to a democratic ally that investigated a killing in a war zone with the cooperation of the Americans?

Is that a joke?

And the US investigation that took place happened with the Saudis? The US can investigate this one the same way without Israeli cooperation. Have at it.

You keep ignoring the fact that the US not investigating these deaths until this one particular case, and even then, only after months of silence, proves it is a political stunt. The fact that you are for all deaths being investigated has no bearing on that. This is a political stunt whether you are in favor of such investigations or not.

[CountValentine]

With the 99 in line with US policy? Come on, man.

That is how you read US policy.
It is impossible to get 99/1 on this issue unless there is bias. This is no cut and dry issue.

[Lurker]

That is like asking who is going to win between the Chiefs and the Bears and I'm the only one in 100 who picks the Bears 

FTFY

[Lurker]

That is how you read US policy.

How do you read it?

[CountValentine]

You keep ignoring the fact that the US not investigating these deaths until this one particular case, and even then, only after months of silence, proves it is a political stunt. The fact that you are for all deaths being investigated has no bearing on that. This is a political stunt whether you are in favor of such investigations or not.

You claim a political stunt. There has been pressure from the family and congress to conduct an investigation.
It makes perfect sense to wait until after the US mid-terms to launch this.

[CountValentine]

How do you read it?

It does matter how I read it. You and others tell me to zoom out. This is not a cut and dry issue. Here it is 99/1.
Maybe you all need to zoom out?

[Lurker]

It does matter how I read it. You and others tell me to zoom out. This is not a cut and dry issue. Here it is 99/1.
Maybe you all need to zoom out?

Way to avoid answering...

[CountValentine]

Way to avoid answering...

What is the point of answering anything when you won't acknowledge the elephant in the room. Why on an issue that is not cut and dry is it 99/1?
Do you really believe if this question was asked to the general public, it would be anywhere 99/1?

[Lurker]

What is the point of answering anything when you won't acknowledge the elephant in the room. Why on an issue that is not cut and dry is it 99/1?
Do you really believe if this question was asked to the general public, it would be anywhere 99/1?

More deflection with vague theoretical and unanswerable questions... You want to change the ratio? Explain how you read US policy and maybe some of us will see things your way. Or just continue to brush me off without making your case. That will definitely get us to see the elephant.