I will applaud Trump on this...

[Thanato]

Im going to say that Russia has done the majority of the heavy lifting in Syria when it comes to degrading DAESH.

[Only_]

1 hour ago, Thanato said:

Im going to say that Russia has done the majority of the heavy lifting in Syria when it comes to degrading DAESH.

And Iran, despite what the Trump crowd is going to say, has propped up both the Iraqi and Syrian Army with their Shi'a militiamen who did a lot of the heavy lifting. Some of their top army generals have died on the battlefronts. They deserve no less than full credit for ISIS' defeat.

Edited December 11, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[godnodog]

Joc the first link shows nothing regarding Donald Trump, I mean nothing, the 2nd was about the use of one bomb used for a specific target of underground complex.

Please provide a link to your claims about Trump's success with some apecifics.

All you are doing is "propaganda" with undeserved praise.

The newsweek does give some insight of his decision to leave military decisions to rhe military or like its common known Trump policy "Ididnt know what they were doing, therefor I am not eesponsible", buth then YOU DECIDED TO IGNORE the, in my opinion unnecessary umless you are busy with the Kardashians drying paint wall, article conclusion:

Quote

Conclusion

President Trump’s claim that he “changed the rules of engagement” appears to have some support among military figures, who have expressed appreciation of greater leeway and authority in directing anti-ISIS operations. But Trump failed to recognize that he is building upon foundations established long before he came to office and, perhaps most pertinently, failed to recognize the overwhelming contribution made by local forces in ousting ISIS from its former capital.

 

And I will not reply any further unless you can provide some serious info, wich I would actually apreciate.

Edited December 11, 2017 by godnodog

[+joc]

4 hours ago, godnodog said:

Joc the first link shows nothing regarding Donald Trump, I mean nothing, the 2nd was about the use of one bomb used for a specific target of underground complex.

Please provide a link to your claims about Trump's success with some apecifics.

All you are doing is "propaganda" with undeserved praise.

The newsweek does give some insight of his decision to leave military decisions to rhe military or like its common known Trump policy "Ididnt know what they were doing, therefor I am not eesponsible", buth then YOU DECIDED TO IGNORE the, in my opinion unnecessary umless you are busy with the Kardashians drying paint wall, article conclusion:

 

And I will not reply any further unless you can provide some serious info, wich I would actually apreciate.

Whatever

[Sir Smoke aLot]

22 hours ago, joc said:

Blah, Blah, Blah....

ISIS began to decline and decline very rapidly when Trump began doing as he promised he would...Bombing the **** out of them.

Reality is different. 

 

22 hours ago, joc said:

Have you forgot the MOAB?  Do you have any idea what that did to ISIS?  Virtually destroyed the Higher Archy of Networkers living in tunnels underground.  Kind of like what W did to Osama...yeah...would OBAMA have ever dropped a MOAB?  No.

Trump keeps his promises!   Get used to it!   Making America  Great Again!

Have you seen Palmyra and how isis retook that city, in time of SAA operation to liberate Aleppo, check that.

If one aspect of making America great again is to destroy public opinion about the US than fine, you should applaud Trump as if he is doing some divine patriotic thing here. But if we follow such logic than we would distort values by replacing that which is right with wrong.

Regarding Israel and Palestine issue i have to add one bit of information which i didn't provide in my earlier post. Trump did what many before planned to do, especially Obama but Obama wasn't brave ( or stupid ) enough to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Jewish state ( alto he referred to it as such ).

[edit] to add, important notice - who gave Oscar to terrorists? That was the product of the game which politicians played and most disturbing little evidence which shows just how wide spread and unethical corruption has became.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Sir Smoke aLot

[Sir Smoke aLot]

19 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

What "Palestinian reconciliation" ? There IS no "Palestinian reconciliation". There never has been. 

Because Palestinians never existed either? They are '' scatters '' as you described them on many occasions so it's perfectly fine for you to deny them any right and most essential one - right to self determination.

There is an idea for reconciliation and no one other than Palestinians them self has the right to deny that. We can't speak for Palestinians that why i mention their official policy. There is reconciliation indeed. Basic idea is to unite and become one strong voice against oppression and apartheid which are products from military rule in occupied territory.

There are also many legal ways of fighting Israel and Israel knows that very well now. For Palestinians the first step towards making those legal means into weapon against oppression is reconciliation. That's not hard to understand.

 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Because Palestinians never existed either? They are '' scatters '' as you described them on many occasions.......

Huh ? When did I use that term ? I don't even know what it means ?

As for " their official policy", I can only refer to their constitution. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

I'd particularly draw peoples attention to articles 19, 20 and 22 (the destruction of the State of Israel), article 21 (the refusal to compromise or seek any settlement that does not incorporate the complete destruction of Israel), and the earlier article 9 (armed violence is the preferred strategic solution)

Not much space for reconciliation, is there ?

[ExpandMyMind]

2 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Because Palestinians never existed either? They are '' scatters '' as you described them on many occasions so it's perfectly fine for you to deny them any right and most essential one - right to self determination.

I think you mean 'squatters' and I believe it was Ravenhawk in another thread who used that term, along with other members adopting it afterwards. But I haven't seen Roof use it.

[ExpandMyMind]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Huh ? When did I use that term ? I don't even know what it means ?

As for " their official policy", I can only refer to their constitution. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

I'd particularly draw peoples attention to articles 19, 20 and 22 (the destruction of the State of Israel), article 21 (the refusal to compromise or seek any settlement that does not incorporate the complete destruction of Israel), and the earlier article 9 (armed violence is the preferred strategic solution)

Not much space for reconciliation, is there ?

We know that Israel's own Constitution in reality is the Bible. Tell me, what does that say about their thousands of years old right to the land of Palestine?

Quote

"You can read it in a very fine book - it's called the Bible," he said.

Plenty of room for reconciliation there.

But it's an absolute disgrace, of course, to expect the Palestinians to act differently, when it's their actual land that's been stolen from them.

Once again, using the same logic the Israelis themselves employ exposes logical fallacies in their claims.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Huh ? When did I use that term ? I don't even know what it means ?

My mistake.

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

As for " their official policy", I can only refer to their constitution. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

I'd particularly draw peoples attention to articles 19, 20 and 22 (the destruction of the State of Israel), article 21 (the refusal to compromise or seek any settlement that does not incorporate the complete destruction of Israel), and the earlier article 9 (armed violence is the preferred strategic solution)

Not much space for reconciliation, is there ?

We are talking about one aspect of their policy, the one which is relevant to the topic.

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I think you mean 'squatters' and I believe it was Ravenhawk in another thread who used that term, along with other members adopting it afterwards. But I haven't seen Roof use it.

Yeah i misspelled it thanks.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

6 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

But it's an absolute disgrace, of course, to expect the Palestinians to act differently, when it's their actual land that's been stolen from them.

It's simple really, how do Palestinians and most of Arabs feel after this decision? Decision about Jerusalem came shortly after Hamas turned border crossing is Gaza to PA, as part of reconciliation deal.  

Most importantly, if USA and Israel are prepared to take what is holiest and most sacred to Palestinians then what can oppressed people expect in next 5 years? There are still Palestinian civilians living in Jerusalem for generations and colonial aggressors simply disregard their existence.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

I get impression that reconciliation is seen as to have something to do with peace deal with Israel. Just to explain that if needed, it is deal between Palestinian factions, mainly Fatah and Hamas. Deal which is almost implemented on every level. Real concern is that history is repeating itself yet again.

[odas]

Isis was beaten by russia, iran, Irak(mostly). Trump had nothing to do with it.

[Only_]

14 hours ago, joc said:

 

I never said he Started the decline...there were a lot of things done when Obama was President...

What I said is true...ISIS began to decline and decline very rapidly when Trump began doing as he promised he would...Bombing the **** out of them.

No, they started to decline very rapidly at the end of Obama's reign. When Russia jumped in to intervene in Syria. Trump did nothing but pursue the policy shift already started under the Obama administration, to stop arming the so-called ''moderate'' rebels and instead give full support to Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria and an Iraqi Army boosted with Shi'a militias in Iraq, who proved to be much more effective force overall.

Edited December 11, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[ExpandMyMind]

13 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I get impression that reconciliation is seen as to have something to do with peace deal with Israel. Just to explain that if needed, it is deal between Palestinian factions, mainly Fatah and Hamas. Deal which is almost implemented on every level. Real concern is that history is repeating itself yet again.

Israel don't like it when Hamas and Fatah get along. That's why they and the US engineered the attempted coup in 2007.

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Israel don't like it when Hamas and Fatah get along. That's why they and the US engineered the attempted coup in 2007.

there is a reason for that. The HAMAS constitution is even more blood-curdling (or at least... explicit) than the PLO's. They are deemed a terrorist organisation by many countries. Their recent reconciliation with FATAH .... suggesting that they will ultimately be part of the Palestinian Authority... is hardly a sign of reconciliation as far as peace with Israel is concerned. 

As far as a "coup" is concerned; HAMAS was legitimately voted as the majority party in the PA, at which point most of the world pulled their funding of the PA, being unwilling to stomach a HAMAS-controlled organisation. In turn, FATAH then kicked HAMAS out in order to secure their funding stream. ('cos the PA is not financially self-sufficient. Their entire economy relies on US/EU funding).

On an interesting side-note; the Middle East countries - despite some of them being collossally wealthy - don't contribute that much to the lovely lovely Palestinians. Only about 22% of foreign aid comes from them. You'd almost think they don't WANT the Palestinian Authority to succeed  

Edited December 11, 2017 by RoofGardener

[ExpandMyMind]

22 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

there is a reason for that. The HAMAS constitution is even more blood-curdling (or at least... explicit) than the PLO's. They are deemed a terrorist organisation by many countries. Their recent reconciliation with FATAH .... suggesting that they will ultimately be part of the Palestinian Authority... is hardly a sign of reconciliation as far as peace with Israel is concerned. 

As far as a "coup" is concerned; HAMAS was legitimately voted as the majority party in the PA, at which point most of the world pulled their funding of the PA, being unwilling to stomach a HAMAS-controlled organisation. In turn, FATAH then kicked HAMAS out in order to secure their funding stream. ('cos the PA is not financially self-sufficient. Their entire economy relies on US/EU funding).

On an interesting side-note; the Middle East countries - despite some of them being collossally wealthy - don't contribute that much to the lovely lovely Palestinians. Only about 22% of foreign aid comes from them. You'd almost think they don't WANT the Palestinian Authority to succeed  

They were still the democratically elected representatives of the area. I've spent an incredible time exposing my own country's regime changing policies, it would be hypocritical for me to ignore this one. And Israel will have to come to the table with Hamas eventually. That's the only way to resolve these types of conflicts. 

Eventually they will. Eventually they'll have better leadership.

It was an attempted coup and Fatah was funded heavily by the US since basically the moment Hamas came into power. It doesn't matter now though, since they have recently reconciled.

Considering that there are only 22 Arab countries in the World and a total of 195 countries, I'd say having 22% of all foreign aid come from them is still a strong show of support. 

I'm not sure why you've kept pushing the narrative of 'Arabs must not truly support the Palestinians'. You've said it a few times over the last few days and it doesn't really hold any water.

[+joc]

8 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Regarding Israel and Palestine issue i have to add one bit of information which i didn't provide in my earlier post. Trump did what many before planned to do, especially Obama but Obama wasn't brave ( or stupid ) enough to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Jewish state ( alto he referred to it as such ).

Trump did it!

Obama never planned too...that my friend is ridiculously funny! So which was Obama...a coward..or stupid? Let's just say he was both.

[+joc]

4 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

No, they started to decline very rapidly at the end of Obama's reign. When Russia jumped in to intervene in Syria. Trump did nothing but pursue the policy shift already started under the Obama administration, to stop arming the so-called ''moderate'' rebels and instead give full support to Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria and an Iraqi Army boosted with Shi'a militias in Iraq, who proved to be much more effective force overall.

Trump did nothing...oh..but he gave full support to the Kurds...and several months later..Raqqa fell. Hmmm...and you seem to forget that Russia fully backed the Syrian regime..and that ISIS was a thorn in the side of that regime.

[Dark_Grey]

Worth a read.

NatReview - Did Trump Beat ISIS?

Moral of the story is this: Trump didn't personally defeat ISIS any more than Obama killed Osama Bin Laden. But if history is going to remember Obama as the victor, then it's only fair Trump gets credit for victories under his Administration.

Quote

Did Trump entirely reinvent the war against ISIS? No, he didn’t, and his liberal detractors have spent the year correctly pointing out that the coalition war plans implemented this year were conceived by Obama’s Pentagon. But try as they might to deprive Trump of credit, there’s no way to pretend that the coalition didn’t have better success with those plans this year than they had in the previous two. In January, ISIS controlled 23,300 square miles. Today it holds onto about 9,300 square miles.

Trump’s role in the transformation is not insignificant.

It is unfair to U.S. and coalition troops to claim, as Trump does, that they didn’t “fight to win” until he arrived in the Oval Office. But as the Times admits, there was one significant difference. In the spring, Trump loosened the rules of engagement to allow commanders in the field more authority in day-to-day decisions about fighting the enemy. Under Obama, the White House micromanaged the conflict in a manner that calls to mind the way President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fought the Vietnam War with similar dismal results.

 

[AnchorSteam]

On 12/10/2017 at 8:04 AM, joc said:

.....

You know...before Trump announced he was running for President...no one had anything bad to say about him...no one called him a racist, no one called him a homophobe....but now, if Trump farts..The Press will tell  you to hate him for it...and what is really really sad...is that you all listen to, and believe, and obey the Press.  Unbelievable!

It is rather unfortunate that there are people who would denigrate or even sabotage a war effort against the very worst people on Earth for the sake of Domestic politics, isn't it?

 

And now---

 

You proved your point, and guess who does not like it?

Sorry, but moving the Goalposts ain't gonna cut it with anyone except the lunatic fringe. 

On 12/10/2017 at 8:04 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

You're just posting individual events. I could do that with operations carried out by the last administration.

Edited December 12, 2017 by AnchorSteam

[Only_]

7 hours ago, joc said:

Trump did nothing...oh..but he gave full support to the Kurds...and several months later..Raqqa fell. Hmmm...and you seem to forget that Russia fully backed the Syrian regime..and that ISIS was a thorn in the side of that regime.

Trump almost derailed the whole effort against ISIS, by attacking Assad's forces over a (most likely false-flag) attack. Putin seems to have been wise enough not to reply to the childish provocation of a president who needed to prove himself at home. They have stayed on course along with the Syrian Army to clear the areas surrounding Raqqa, such as Deir Ezzor, which helped the Kurds to advance on the Caliphate...

Edited December 12, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[Sir Smoke aLot]

11 hours ago, joc said:

Trump did it!

Obama never planned too...that my friend is ridiculously funny! So which was Obama...a coward..or stupid? Let's just say he was both.

I believe that Obama did a lot to make it possible. As i said, he did refer to Jerusalem as capital of Jewish state which must remain undivided, disregarding the negative outcome of such wording.

However, i would not undermine the effort put by other officials within the US government.

Trump almost derailed the whole effort against ISIS, by attacking Assad's forces over a (most likely false-flag) attack. Putin seems to have been wise enough not to reply to the childish provocation of a president who needed to prove himself at home. They have stayed on course along with the Syrian Army to clear the areas surrounding Raqqa, such as Deir Ezzor, which helped the Kurds to advance on the Caliphate...

It seems that today Trump administration has agreed to see Assad remain in power till the end of his current term. Hopefully official confirmation will be released soon.

Contrary to every prior accusation of Syrian government and crazy demonizing lies made directly against president Assad, US government has accepted, as they once described, '' the butcher of Syria ''. Fun fact - Assad has won elections in 2014 with large support from his people. Even so, USA politicians believe that they can choose Syrian government instead of Syrian people. 

America had long term strategies which mostly worked out in it's favor before but that seems to be changing too. Especially since 2015 and Russian intervention ( on Assad's call ) in Syria.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Sir Smoke aLot

[Sir Smoke aLot]

13 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

On an interesting side-note; the Middle East countries - despite some of them being collossally wealthy - don't contribute that much to the lovely lovely Palestinians.

Hamas was completely isolated for years as result of immoral propaganda and political pressure which had one goal - to deny Palestinian people right for any kind of resistance, especially armed.

Another reason is that Arab Spring was total catastrophe for Palestinians, Hamas especially. Since, even Qatar, considered as sort of founder of Hamas, has distanced from it and also Egypt, because of Hamas's support for Muslim Brotherhood. Syria, which is one of major supporters of legitimate resistance groups, is war thorn and Iran was almost isolated as result of 'war on terror'. Not bright future was seen for Palestine after such unfolding of events...

But, fortunately, Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut highway is fully operating now and Iran's influence in the region has grown greatly and now that is good sign for Palestinians.

[RoofGardener]

15 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They were still the democratically elected representatives of the area. I've spent an incredible time exposing my own country's regime changing policies, it would be hypocritical for me to ignore this one. And Israel will have to come to the table with Hamas eventually. That's the only way to resolve these types of conflicts. 

Eventually they will. Eventually they'll have better leadership.

It was an attempted coup and Fatah was funded heavily by the US since basically the moment Hamas came into power. It doesn't matter now though, since they have recently reconciled.

Considering that there are only 22 Arab countries in the World and a total of 195 countries, I'd say having 22% of all foreign aid come from them is still a strong show of support. 

I'm not sure why you've kept pushing the narrative of 'Arabs must not truly support the Palestinians'. You've said it a few times over the last few days and it doesn't really hold any water.

Hmm.. it's an interesting debate in and of itself. HAMAS was the choice of the Palestinian electorate... by quite a reasonable margin as I recall. I think they certainly won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council (their Parliament). However, to blame the subsequent schism between HAMAS and FATAH on the US (or other foreign nations) is unduly simplistic, and masks the truth in my opinion. HAMAS formally refused to endorse nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements (to quote the Wikipedia article).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict#2006_elections_and_Hamas-government

Foreign aid (mostly from the US and the EU) was predicated on the concept of the Oslo accords. When HAMAS indicated it would not be bound by either the letter of the accords, or by the spirit (including the Declaration of Principles), then the aid donors pulled out. In addition, HAMAS's platform invalidated the basis upon which the Palestinian Legislative Council was formed.(which was tied up with the Oslo agreement).

I don't think the US - or anyone else - worked to "overthrow" HAMAS... or to enforce "regime change" in any meaningful interpretation of that term. They simply refused to fund an organisation that had been taken over (albeit democratically) by an organisation dedicated to genocide.

There are indeed only 22 Arab countries in the world (actually, I didn't realise the number was that high), but they are immediate neighbours, and CLAIM to support the Palestinians. In that context, their 22% of funding seems decidedly lukewarm. And it is a sum in decline.

I'm not "pushing" a "narrative" of "Arabs must not truly support the Palestinians". To be honest, I can't even remember how that came up.... and I'm too lazy to scroll up to find out

However, to expect International support for (let alone Israeli negotiations with) a FATAH-HAMAS coalition government (outside of the OIC block) is unrealistic, unless HAMAS changes beyond all recognition. (and tears up its current charter)