The Cursed Pit of Wretched Political Adulation

#1
Ah... you can always be relied upon to play the straight man, David.
I like the Trump administration a lot. I think he is doing everything possible to contain NK and Iran without going to war with them. This is very hard, and he could have used a war to boost his popularity with many of his critics - he resisted that temptation, even in the early days when his presidency still seemed a bit insecure.

Some time back, there was much talk here on the forum that many politicians may have ended up being blackmailed to do things they would not otherwise have done. This was scoffed at as being extreme - but does it really look so wild as we see the Epstein scandal unravel? Does President Obama's willingness to do a deal with President Putin, really match up with the actions of his team in later years - attacks (explicit or otherwise) on Syria and Libya - and destabilisation of The Ukraine - why did he veer away from his earlier peaceful policies? I cheered for Obama when he first got in, just as I cheered for Trump more recently, but Obama changed.

This ability to control the actions of US presidents, may well have contributed to the West's seeming wanton desire to attack and wreck the Middle East and other places. Look back at the absurd history over the last 50 years or so.

So getting back to my original point, I would say that heads of state like Trump may be about the best you can get, but nobody would claim he is akin to a god, and as below so above - reality may be controlled by multiple intelligent entities, with varying morality and large but finite abilities to control our physical reality. A god who needs to throw out multiple designs to see which will work, doesn't sound infinitely knowledgeable to me.

David
 
#2
This ability to control the actions of US presidents, may well have contributed to the West's seeming wanton desire to attack and wreck the Middle East and other places. Look back at the absurd history over the last 50 years or so.
If he was to be truly America first and stood up to Israel I may have some sympathy for your views, but he might as well be Israel’s President. He has done nothing but kiss their Zionist backsides from the moment he won the election.
 
#3
A nice guy who fits comfortably into police society would not have what it takes to stand up to the hardball tactics that other countries use against the US and that Democrats use against Trump and the conservatives who vote for him.

Conservatives support Trump despite his rough edges because he fights for the policies we prefer and doesn't cave in to sanctimonious political correctness.
 
#4
If he was to be truly America first and stood up to Israel I may have some sympathy for your views, but he might as well be Israel’s President. He has done nothing but kiss their Zionist backsides from the moment he won the election.
Steve,

Could you please be a little more specific, what do you think Trump has done that constitutes kissing their Zionist backsides?

Thanks
 
#5
Steve,

Could you please be a little more specific, what do you think Trump has done that constitutes kissing their Zionist backsides?

Thanks
Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem.
The ban on Muslims.
The withdrawal of aid to Palestine.
Etc etc

Why David’s post doesn’t quite make sense to me.

“Why Trump moving the US embassy to Jerusalem infuriates the Middle East and enflames geopolitics”


https://www.businessinsider.com/why...=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop

Interestingly enough, I found this recent article, which shows how muddled we’ve become.

“Oh, don’t get me wrong. Trump has said and done many things that are in the interests of the current Israeli government — and have been widely appreciated by the Israeli public. To deny that would be to deny the obvious.

(My bolding)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/opinion/israel-omar-tlaib-netanyahu.html
 
#6
Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem.
The ban on Muslims.
The withdrawal of aid to Palestine.
Etc etc

Why David’s post doesn’t quite make sense to me.

“Why Trump moving the US embassy to Jerusalem infuriates the Middle East and enflames geopolitics”


https://www.businessinsider.com/why...=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop

Interestingly enough, I found this recent article, which shows how muddled we’ve become.
“Oh, don’t get me wrong. Trump has said and done many things that are in the interests of the current Israeli government — and have been widely appreciated by the Israeli public. To deny that would be to deny the obvious.

(My bolding)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/opinion/israel-omar-tlaib-netanyahu.html

In China, they have their capitol in Beijing. Is Trump kissing their behinds by having the US embassy in the capital of China? Trump is not kissing anyone's behind putting the US embassy in Jerusalem. The previous presidents were kissing behinds by refusing to do what we do in every other country in the world: Have an embassy in the capitol of the country.

What does the ban on entry from terrorist producing countries have to do with Israel? Trump is doing to protect US lives.

Palestinians terrorists have murdered US citizens. The Palestinian Authority encourages them (praises them as heroes in elementary school curriculum) and pays benefits to the families of terrorists. Why should the US support that? And aid money ends up in the Swiss bank accounts of the corrupt officials not the people it is intended for.

Israel is one of the US's closest most loyal allies in the world. I don't see why the US should not reciprocate as long as it doesn't harm US interests. Why would any country want to be an ally of the US if the US didn't reciprocate?

What else?
 
#8
In China, they have their capitol in Beijing.
But Jim, is Beijing a politically contested region? Jerusalem is violently contested, including in the eyes of the United Nations and the international community generally. So, in what way is this an even remotely comparable situation?

What does the ban on entry from terrorist producing countries have to do with Israel?
Israel has enemies. Trump's punishment of Israel's enemies in this way satisfies Israel. (To personify a state).

Palestinians terrorists have murdered US citizens.
Jim, why do Palestinians become militants in the first place? It is obviously not in a vacuum, and there are obviously causal factors. Could the fact that Zionists have forced them off their land, stolen it, and forced them into an apartheid rivaling that of South Africa have anything to do with it? Is that perhaps a question worth contemplating?

I guess there’s nothing else Jim.
Ah, Steve. You know so much better than to cede the discussion like that.
 
#9
I like the Trump administration a lot. I think he is doing everything possible to contain NK and Iran without going to war with them. This is very hard, and he could have used a war to boost his popularity with many of his critics - he resisted that temptation, even in the early days when his presidency still seemed a bit insecure.
David, after reading or listening to around 25 books on Trump and American politics since Dec 2018 I think I can conclude that:
  • Trump really does not understand economics at all. He constantly misunderstands that a tariff is paid by the exporting nation rather than by the importing nation's customers.He didn't understand how a casino worked (see Trumped).
  • He has no cogent idea of geopolitics. He is guided by a collection of somewhat erratic folk whose views should worry us - in that they seem to be idiosyncratic and somewhat extreme.
  • He has met with Putin several times without any other US person present - no note taker or translator. So the only people who have records of what was said are the Russians. That's unprecedented for a US president interacting with the chief US adversary. There are all kinds of problems with this.
  • Trump seeks policy changes at home and abroad that are favourable to Russia. Now this might be a valid geopolitical strategy, but given the private audiences with Putin, preferring Putin's assurance over US security services (Helsinki news briefing), having a lot of Russians but his properties for sometimes way over market value, and the fact that so many of his election campaign team had Russian connections - there is an absolutely valid concern about whether the Russians have him by the balls.
  • Trump has exhibited dreadful business acumen as evidenced by 6 [?] bankruptcies. He has managed to wrangle deals that enrich him personally while hurting investors. When he says he is a great deal maker he is - but only in terms of profiting himself. He has a formula, developed under Stone's influence, that is insanely effective, brilliant even. But its not moral.
  • Trump has legitimately identified flaws in US policy. He is not alone in that. The problem is that his solutions are horrible. For example the 'trade war' with China has benefited some businesses, but damaged others. Soy bean farmers are loyal to Trump while their businesses are being destroyed. China has stopped buying US soy beans, and now buying from Brazil. Its too early to assess the long term damage, but there are reports that farms will fold - and if they do the flow impact will damage already hurting economies.
  • Trump chronically misrepresents the truth. For example he claims the Wall is being built. It isn't. There's something like 64 miles of replacement wall that is 'technically' new wall. But it is a programmed piece of work to replace inadequate wall in poor condition. There is something like 140 odd miles of new wall scheduled, but not yet started. And there's a Go Fund Me wall of 1200 meters built on private land. Mexico is paying for nothing.
  • Its not that Trump is wrong on everything. He has identified weaknesses and flaws in policy and has proposed bold action to address them. But that action seems to be ill-advised.
  • There is an absolutely massive bias against Trump. But its not the conspiracy of 'fake news' that he [by his own admission] set up to ensure that criticism of him would not be believed by his base. That admission is on YouTube. That bias is based on what he does and says - and is recorded doing so - constantly. It is what is edited out of Fox news shows but splashed all over CNN and MSNBC and others.
  • CNN and MSNBC are clearly biased against Trump. But Fox is plainly biased for Trump. CNN and MSNBC show video of Trump doing dumb things and Fox shows Trump doing good things. Each channel has made an editorial decision based upon an assessment of market share they can win and sustain. Fox has 8 of the top 10 news shows on US cable television. That sounds good for Trump but when you factor in age groups and the fact that many young people get their news from other sources, including the late night comedy and comment shows - the media is, overall, not only anti-Trump but scornful.
  • The scorn is based on many factors - the 2018 book, the Dangerous Case of Donald Trump was re-issued in 2018 with an additional 13 chapters by leading US experts in mental health expressing a common view that Trump is not fit for office. You have a book dedicated to instances of Trump cheating at golf - which are legion. Add to this the long list of analyses of his business practices - one bad business decision after another, and examinations of the political climate in which he operates [the extent of Russian meddling in the US and elsewhere, the extent of cybercrime against which the US was not prepared, and still is not.] and what you have is a compelling case that Trump should not be POTUS.
  • The Trump apologists have crafted a campaign of condemning in media that is not Fox as 'fake news' to ensure that his base is not exposed to any contract story. Recently he said that Fox news was not doing it for him any more - no longer loyal - and a new 24/7 organ for his "movement" [Conway just yesterday]. "Movement"? No longer the Republican Party, now a Trumpian 'movement'.
  • My housemate is pro Trump and we have blistering arguments. But when I challenge her to put up evidence to back ups her claims she cannot. And when she challenges me to do the same she declines to look at what I offer because it is 'fake news' and ergo lies. Surely you can see the trap?
  • I am opposed to Trump after 25 books, and god knows how many podcasts and YouTube videos. Trump fascinates me. I have been a political junkie for decades. But these days I find Australian politics miserable and pathetic and I become deeply angry when I look too closely. US politics satisfies my love of politics - and I am not emotionally invested. I find English politics just lunatic and beyond sensible engagement since the catastrophe of Brexit manifested (a Russian assisted fiasco some say with apparent good reason)
  • Trump, as a man, is not impressive, Quite apart from the grabbing women by the pussy video he also claimed that the New York social scene was his "Vietnam" because of the risk of getting a STD [its on YouTube]. So a man who ducked serving in Vietnam on account of 'bone spurs' then equates shagging his way through the community of New York socialites with serving in Vietnam. Trump routinely failed to pay his workers. There's a famous case of a paint supplier who was paid a fraction of the $30K amount owing on grounds that Mr Trump felt he'd paid enough. The paint supplier was wise to this lurk and took him to court. That cost Trump an additional $100k.
  • Not only didi Trump hire undocumented workers in his golf courses and resorts, but continued to do so after the became President- until it became evident that wasn't good move - so he sacked them all. There are court cases about that. There was an investigation by a YouTube show into whether Trump stocked US products in his golf course shops [he did not despite there being US products - most came from China] or purchased US goods for his hotel rooms - no. Most of the good were made in China.
  • My housemate says Trump is a humanitarian who does good things. I say show me the evidence. Tax cuts? Corporations are buying back shares rather than increasing wages and many people who once got refunds are now getting bills - so no, not tax cuts? The economy? That was growing under Obama as his recovery policies [flawed as they work] were biting after the 2008 crash. The economy has continued to improved under Trump - but he is not responsible for that improvement - only for not screwing it up - until now.
  • I am supposed to be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, according to my housemate. She watches YouTube as the sole source of information about Trump. I admit to her that my sources may be biased, as much as her sources are biased. But, the biased sources I rely on deliver evidence by the truck load, after truck load. We get to see Trump behaving well and badly. She has not seen Trump behaving badly, because that video is not shown. She refuses to watch Shepard Smith on Fox - possibly the most balance guy on cable news.
  • Trump is a complex phenomenon. He merits being studied with care.
 
#10
But Jim, is Beijing a politically contested region? Jerusalem is violently contested, including in the eyes of the United Nations and the international community generally. So, in what way is this an even remotely comparable situation?
Trump is not president of the UN he is president of the US.

In 1995 the US Congress passed a law recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel and allocated funds to move the US embassy to Jerusalem by 1999. The issue I was replying to was about kissing behinds. Trump is not kissing behinds he is following the will of the US Congress and US law. The other presidents who kept the embassy in Tel Aviv were kissing behinds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the post-Republican Revolution 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37).[3] The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.​
The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city. Its purpose was to set aside funds for the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from its location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, by May 31, 1999.​
Israel has enemies. Trump's punishment of Israel's enemies in this way satisfies Israel. (To personify a state).
The ban on entry from terrorist producing countries was to protect US citizens from terrorists not to help Israel or punish any other country.

Jim, why do Palestinians become militants in the first place? It is obviously not in a vacuum, and there are obviously causal factors. Could the fact that Zionists have forced them off their land, stolen it, and forced them into an apartheid rivaling that of South Africa have anything to do with it? Is that perhaps a question worth contemplating?
The point I was replying to is about Trump allegedly kissing Isreali behinds. It makes no sense to financially support Palestinian leaders who want to kill US citizens and steal money intended for the Palestinian population. Trump is acting in US interests and cutting out wasteful and foolish spending of US tax payer money.

Israel didn't force anyone off their land. Those Arabs who remained in Israel during the war of independence kept their land are now Israeli citizens and can vote in the most democratic country in the region. Those who abandoned their land because they did not want to live with in the same country with Jews ... abandoned their land. They were not forced off their land.

The Palestinian's problems are due to the failure of their leadership to come to reasonable terms with Israel. If they wanted peace they could become an independent country. But the leadership of the Palestinians is making too much money off their "oppressed by Isreal" racket for them to give it up. If foreign aid wold dry up, if European leaders would stop kissing certain non-Israeli behinds the Palestinian leadership would have no choice but to make a reasonable deal that would benefit the Palestinian people.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/04/was-arafat-the-problem.html
"One thing nearly all pundits seem to agree on is that Yasser Arafat’s rejection of the land-for-peace offer made by Ehud Barak at Camp David in the summer of 2000 was indefensible. "

Ah, Steve. You know so much better than to cede the discussion like that.
 
Last edited:
#11
David, after reading or listening to around 25 books on Trump and American politics since Dec 2018 I think I can conclude that:
How many of those books were by Trump, Trump supporters, or US conservatives?
  • Trump really does not understand economics at all. He constantly misunderstands that a tariff is paid by the exporting nation rather than by the importing nation's customers.He didn't understand how a casino worked (see Trumped).
  • He has no cogent idea of geopolitics. He is guided by a collection of somewhat erratic folk whose views should worry us - in that they seem to be idiosyncratic and somewhat extreme.
  • He has met with Putin several times without any other US person present - no note taker or translator. So the only people who have records of what was said are the Russians. That's unprecedented for a US president interacting with the chief US adversary. There are all kinds of problems with this.
  • Trump seeks policy changes at home and abroad that are favourable to Russia. Now this might be a valid geopolitical strategy, but given the private audiences with Putin, preferring Putin's assurance over US security services (Helsinki news briefing), having a lot of Russians but his properties for sometimes way over market value, and the fact that so many of his election campaign team had Russian connections - there is an absolutely valid concern about whether the Russians have him by the balls.
  • Trump has exhibited dreadful business acumen as evidenced by 6 [?] bankruptcies. He has managed to wrangle deals that enrich him personally while hurting investors. When he says he is a great deal maker he is - but only in terms of profiting himself. He has a formula, developed under Stone's influence, that is insanely effective, brilliant even. But its not moral.
  • Trump has legitimately identified flaws in US policy. He is not alone in that. The problem is that his solutions are horrible. For example the 'trade war' with China has benefited some businesses, but damaged others. Soy bean farmers are loyal to Trump while their businesses are being destroyed. China has stopped buying US soy beans, and now buying from Brazil. Its too early to assess the long term damage, but there are reports that farms will fold - and if they do the flow impact will damage already hurting economies.
  • Trump chronically misrepresents the truth. For example he claims the Wall is being built. It isn't. There's something like 64 miles of replacement wall that is 'technically' new wall. But it is a programmed piece of work to replace inadequate wall in poor condition. There is something like 140 odd miles of new wall scheduled, but not yet started. And there's a Go Fund Me wall of 1200 meters built on private land. Mexico is paying for nothing.
  • Its not that Trump is wrong on everything. He has identified weaknesses and flaws in policy and has proposed bold action to address them. But that action seems to be ill-advised.
  • There is an absolutely massive bias against Trump. But its not the conspiracy of 'fake news' that he [by his own admission] set up to ensure that criticism of him would not be believed by his base. That admission is on YouTube. That bias is based on what he does and says - and is recorded doing so - constantly. It is what is edited out of Fox news shows but splashed all over CNN and MSNBC and others.
  • CNN and MSNBC are clearly biased against Trump. But Fox is plainly biased for Trump. CNN and MSNBC show video of Trump doing dumb things and Fox shows Trump doing good things. Each channel has made an editorial decision based upon an assessment of market share they can win and sustain. Fox has 8 of the top 10 news shows on US cable television. That sounds good for Trump but when you factor in age groups and the fact that many young people get their news from other sources, including the late night comedy and comment shows - the media is, overall, not only anti-Trump but scornful.
  • The scorn is based on many factors - the 2018 book, the Dangerous Case of Donald Trump was re-issued in 2018 with an additional 13 chapters by leading US experts in mental health expressing a common view that Trump is not fit for office. You have a book dedicated to instances of Trump cheating at golf - which are legion. Add to this the long list of analyses of his business practices - one bad business decision after another, and examinations of the political climate in which he operates [the extent of Russian meddling in the US and elsewhere, the extent of cybercrime against which the US was not prepared, and still is not.] and what you have is a compelling case that Trump should not be POTUS.
  • The Trump apologists have crafted a campaign of condemning in media that is not Fox as 'fake news' to ensure that his base is not exposed to any contract story. Recently he said that Fox news was not doing it for him any more - no longer loyal - and a new 24/7 organ for his "movement" [Conway just yesterday]. "Movement"? No longer the Republican Party, now a Trumpian 'movement'.
  • My housemate is pro Trump and we have blistering arguments. But when I challenge her to put up evidence to back ups her claims she cannot. And when she challenges me to do the same she declines to look at what I offer because it is 'fake news' and ergo lies. Surely you can see the trap?
  • I am opposed to Trump after 25 books, and god knows how many podcasts and YouTube videos. Trump fascinates me. I have been a political junkie for decades. But these days I find Australian politics miserable and pathetic and I become deeply angry when I look too closely. US politics satisfies my love of politics - and I am not emotionally invested. I find English politics just lunatic and beyond sensible engagement since the catastrophe of Brexit manifested (a Russian assisted fiasco some say with apparent good reason)
  • Trump, as a man, is not impressive, Quite apart from the grabbing women by the pussy video he also claimed that the New York social scene was his "Vietnam" because of the risk of getting a STD [its on YouTube]. So a man who ducked serving in Vietnam on account of 'bone spurs' then equates shagging his way through the community of New York socialites with serving in Vietnam. Trump routinely failed to pay his workers. There's a famous case of a paint supplier who was paid a fraction of the $30K amount owing on grounds that Mr Trump felt he'd paid enough. The paint supplier was wise to this lurk and took him to court. That cost Trump an additional $100k.
  • Not only didi Trump hire undocumented workers in his golf courses and resorts, but continued to do so after the became President- until it became evident that wasn't good move - so he sacked them all. There are court cases about that. There was an investigation by a YouTube show into whether Trump stocked US products in his golf course shops [he did not despite there being US products - most came from China] or purchased US goods for his hotel rooms - no. Most of the good were made in China.
  • My housemate says Trump is a humanitarian who does good things. I say show me the evidence. Tax cuts? Corporations are buying back shares rather than increasing wages and many people who once got refunds are now getting bills - so no, not tax cuts? The economy? That was growing under Obama as his recovery policies [flawed as they work] were biting after the 2008 crash. The economy has continued to improved under Trump - but he is not responsible for that improvement - only for not screwing it up - until now.
  • I am supposed to be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, according to my housemate. She watches YouTube as the sole source of information about Trump. I admit to her that my sources may be biased, as much as her sources are biased. But, the biased sources I rely on deliver evidence by the truck load, after truck load. We get to see Trump behaving well and badly. She has not seen Trump behaving badly, because that video is not shown. She refuses to watch Shepard Smith on Fox - possibly the most balance guy on cable news.
  • Trump is a complex phenomenon. He merits being studied with care.
 
#13
In 1995 the US Congress passed a law recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel
The US Congress got it badly wrong. Almost the entire international community is opposed to it on this issue. US presidents have, until Trump, recognised as much. (By the way, I think you mean "capital", not "capitol").

The ban on entry from terrorist producing countries was to protect US citizens from terrorists not to help Israel or punish any other country.
It was a political stunt which had very few if any beneficial effects and plenty of drawbacks, but in any case, fewer countries would have been more pleased with that stunt than Israel.

Israel didn't force anyone off their land.
On that, you're either badly misinformed or deliberately disingenuous, so perhaps Steve is right, and there is no point to this discussion.
 
#14
The US Congress got it badly wrong. Almost the entire international community is opposed to it on this issue. US presidents have, until Trump, recognised as much. (By the way, I think you mean "capital", not "capitol").



It was a political stunt which had very few if any beneficial effects and plenty of drawbacks, but in any case, fewer countries would have been more pleased with that stunt than Israel.



On that, you're either badly misinformed or deliberately disingenuous, so perhaps Steve is right, and there is no point to this discussion.
Laird,
You are not getting it right either. The history is far more complicated.

When Israel was forming, even before WW2, shrewd Arab sheiks began to purchase parcels of land from other Arabs. They then packaged the parcels and sold them to the newly arrived Jews at huge profits. The sheiks screwed their own people. Of course, being shrewd, the sheiks then diverted the animosity over lost land from themselves and onto the Jews.

Arabs are 0 sum game players. That's how they do business. Their entire history has been sheiks and tribes screwing each other. Before you go screaming "racism!" at me, know that I am 1/2 Middle Eastern (my father learned to speak English in second grade - I use a nom d'internet and my real last name is middle Eastern - I am not a Jew). Arab morality is not the same as your Christian based system.

It's a different culture and you would do well to understand it better before you go taking sides in intricate conflicts that are not your own. There are no heroes or victims in this saga - other than the Jews who are looking for security in a world that has hated them and killed them for a long long time.

I'm not saying that everything Israel does is kosher, but their side must be understood. If Arabs were given what they want - and what you think they deserve - they would drive the Jews out into the cold uncertain world again.

The Arabs' main problem here is that their pride is wounded. It's a pride/honor based culture. Nothing short of revenge will satisfy them. Their material position could be remedied in a year by other Arab countries and by their own efforts and international aid if not for the issue of wounded pride.
 
#15
The history is far more complicated.
The history is laid out pretty well in The Zionist Story. (you need to sign in to YouTube to watch it).

There are no heroes or victims in this saga
If you prefer different words then: there are oppressors and the oppressed; open-air prisoners and their wardens; thieves and those from whom have been stolen; the massacred and those who massacred them.
 
#16
Arabs are 0 sum game players. That's how they do business. Their entire history has been sheiks and tribes screwing each other. Before you go screaming "racism!" at me, know that I am 1/2 Middle Eastern (my father learned to speak English in second grade - I use a nom d'internet and my real last name is middle Eastern - I am not a Jew). Arab morality is not the same as your Christian based system.
I find that very interesting, and perhaps the others should take a bit more notice of what you have said.

My views on Israel have evolved over time - I was (rightly) extremely opposed to Iraq-2 and marched in a demo that included Palestinians - I even carried one of their flags for a short distance.

My views about Muslim countries generally changed after the spate of attacks in the UK and Western Europe. Here were countries offering to take in refugees, and suffering atrocities in response.

I now feel that Israel probably did purchase its land, as Eric says, but was then faced by a continuing war in which the rules were something like this:

1) When Israel wins, they are condemned by many countries and encouraged to reach a peace agreement, which is quite impossible to reach. When they returned control of some of the territories to the Palestinias, they were plagued with suicide attacks in Israel proper.

2) If ever the lose, they will be pushed out of the Middle East at the point of a gun.

3) The Palestinians tell everyone that they can't make peace with Israel if Jerusalem becomes the capital of Israel. The trouble is, they never make peace with Israel anyway - because at heart they want them out of the Middle East. After many years of this stalemate, I think it was reasonable for President Trump to give the Israelis the green light to make Jerusalem their
David, after reading or listening to around 25 books on Trump and American politics since Dec 2018 I think I can conclude that:
You could probably read many more books that explain in confident detail why materialism is valid!
Trump seeks policy changes at home and abroad that are favourable to Russia. Now this might be a valid geopolitical strategy, but given the private audiences with Putin, preferring Putin's assurance over US security services (Helsinki news briefing), having a lot of Russians but his properties for sometimes way over market value, and the fact that so many of his election campaign team had Russian connections - there is an absolutely valid concern about whether the Russians have him by the balls
What is invalid, and which I think lies at the core of this, is what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex. There is a huge reluctance to forgoe all the incredibly lucrative arms contracts and the scope for arogant posturing by generals. They probably do not want a nuclear war with Russia, but they are willing to go far more close to that disaster than most people would wish to do. As a result, post Soviet Russia has been turned into an enemy of the West, which it does not wish to be.

David
 
#17
The history is laid out pretty well in The Zionist Story. (you need to sign in to YouTube to watch it).

If you prefer different words then: there are oppressors and the oppressed; open-air prisoners and their wardens; thieves and those from whom have been stolen; the massacred and those who massacred them.
I would prefer if you didn't think that reading a single slanted piece makes you understand everything. Anyone can read something about anything written with a political position. So what if you read The Zionist Story? There are hundreds of books and articles that counter that. You're just selectively electing to believe the story that confirms you world view, in which the main story is oppressors and oppressed. How juvenile and unworldly.
 
#18
The history is laid out pretty well in The Zionist Story. (you need to sign in to YouTube to watch it).
No need to sign in to YouTube, just use Russian search engine Yandex - to be precise, its part Yandex Video:

https://yandex.ru/portal/video?redi...m_channel=1550142789&stream_active=storefront

You should just copy the YouTube address of the restricted video (in this case,
) into the search bar of Yandex Video:

https://yandex.ru/video/search?text=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufLAitMq3zI&path=vh&suggest_reqid=15121240497799711134639531070644

And here is the restricted video, available to anyone.

It is important to know this method in the time of intensifying censorship.

P.S. Oh, as I see, the video appeared here, fully available, after I simply copy-pasted its address without using an "Insert link" option. Yet another way to circumvent censorship.
 
#19
My views about Muslim countries generally changed after the spate of attacks in the UK and Western Europe. Here were countries offering to take in refugees, and suffering atrocities in response.
I really think you should ask yourself how we Brits might act if our country were to be unfairly attacked, the infrastructure bombed to hell, basically a place of relative order being turned into hell on earth. If the very countries that were the ones bombing us offered a few of us refuge, do you not think for a minute that there might be those among us who preferred to take what revenge they could on those countries?

Your knowledge of Zionist history doesn’t appear to be at all up to speed. You seem to have been somewhat persuaded by a post by Eric as “I now feel that Israel probably did purchase its land, as Eric says, but was then faced by a continuing war in which the rules were something like this:”

Really persuasive stuff when balanced against people like Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, Miko Peled and many others. All Jewish, many Israeli born but just couldn’t stand to see what their countrymen were doing to the Palestinians. It’s much more likely that the Palestinians were unceremoniously kicked out of their homes with no compensation and many were murdered. In the past as well as we see today - with little or no mention in the western press.

Read Miko Peled’s book, The General’s Son, to see how his mind was changed. The son of a famous Israeli general who’s own sister lost a daughter to a terrorist suicide bomb, but like his sister and her husband, knew that the real blame lay with their own people.

The history is clear. Despite what the Zionists might say, and it isn’t pretty. Watch the film which Laird posted about. It’s by a Jew btw. Obviously a lying self hating one!

And that’s before even mentioning the insane religious ideas which they use to stir up the Christian Right wing Americans and others.

It’s extremely complicated and rather sad on all sides, but what’s happening has been clear as daylight.
 
#20
I really think you should ask yourself how we Brits might act if our country were to be unfairly attacked, the infrastructure bombed to hell, basically a place of relative order being turned into hell on earth. If the very countries that were the ones bombing us offered a few of us refuge, do you not think for a minute that there might be those among us who preferred to take what revenge they could on those countries?
Remember that there have been bomb attacks in many countries - not just US/UK.
Your knowledge of Zionist history doesn’t appear to be at all up to speed. You seem to have been somewhat persuaded by a post by Eric as “I now feel that Israel probably did purchase its land, as Eric says, but was then faced by a continuing war in which the rules were something like this:”
I have heard this account in various forms many times.
Really persuasive stuff when balanced against people like Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, Miko Peled and many others. All Jewish, many Israeli born but just couldn’t stand to see what their countrymen were doing to the Palestinians. It’s much more likely that the Palestinians were unceremoniously kicked out of their homes with no compensation and many were murdered. In the past as well as we see today - with little or no mention in the western press.

Read Miko Peled’s book, The General’s Son, to see how his mind was changed. The son of a famous Israeli general who’s own sister lost a daughter to a terrorist suicide bomb, but like his sister and her husband, knew that the real blame lay with their own people.

The history is clear. Despite what the Zionists might say, and it isn’t pretty. Watch the film which Laird posted about. It’s by a Jew btw. Obviously a lying self hating one!

And that’s before even mentioning the insane religious ideas which they use to stir up the Christian Right wing Americans and others.

It’s extremely complicated and rather sad on all sides, but what’s happening has been clear as daylight.
It is certainly sad, and there is blame on all sides. WWII created winners and losers, and you can never right all the wrongs done. However, if one side simply will not accept anything less than the annihilation of their opponents, ultimately they need to be dealt with.

Remember that Obama, Jimmy Carter, and others have tried to bring peace to that region, and it seems impossible.

David
 
Top