Trump to recognise Jerusalem

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, CrimsonKing said:

As i said earlier,i don't really care one way or the other...meh 

As i also said earlier,he's now only the 4th president to give that exact speech...again meh

I now await the "it's because,well "BROWN PEOPLE!"...again meh

I amended my post to say that I was talking trash just for the sport of it  I probably should just leave it be. 

[bee]

1 hour ago, .ZZ. said:

 

 

you know --- this could be one of Trump's greatest Tweets * ... exposing the hypocrisy and lack of bravery of his predecessors -
revealing their empty promises - 

people are always moaning about him using Twitter to speak directly to the People of the US and the World --

but I think he is doing a great job with it overall -

* although the re tweet of the golf ball knocking Hillary over is up there with the best of them...
 

[CrimsonKing]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I amended my post to say that I was talking trash just for the sport of it  I probably should just leave it be. 

No biggie bro  

[ExpandMyMind]

Sorry about the spam of replies there, @Setton, but I've been reading these replies and have been unable to post until today, so it all kinda just came spilling out.

On the subject of the topic: I believe Farmer had it right. This is Trump pandering to his fundamentalist Christian base (he will need their support and even more than that the support of their elected officials in the coming months). Those Christians will see this as Trump helping to fulfil their doomsday prophesy regarding 'God's chosen people'. He will have been lifted so high in their eyes that he could probably even openly support a paedophile for office and they would go out and vote for the guy. A crazy scenario that could never happen, of course.

Wait ...

But, while ultimately meaningless, this will have ramifications far beyond either what Trump realises, or likely cares about. 

The international community has been clear on this subject since the aftermath of the Six-Day War. All land that Israel has occupied since that war is not recognised as Israeli land and they must withdraw.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.^[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.^[2]

The preamble ^[3] refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security".

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."^[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Voting summary	15 voted for None voted against None abstained

 

(That video is short but it and other of his are worth watching).

The entire world votes on 'The Peaceful Resolution of the Palestine Conflict' every year and the results generally go something like this:

Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled 'Peaceful resolution of the Palestine conflict.' Every year, the vote is the same. The whole world on one side - the whole world on one side - and on the other side, the United States, Israel, and usually Palau, Nauru, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

- Dr. Normal Finkelstein

All this recent action does is completely delegitimize the US' ability to mediate this conflict in any way, though anyone who can see that the US has been the only country standing in the way of the resolution (pun intended) of this conflict can see that they were never appropriate mediators. Until, of course, Obama's refusal to veto the recent resolution - which makes the settlements, by definition, a war crime.

[bee]

21 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Between Sunni and Shia.  I’m not sure of the rosters of sides yet.  But I keep hearing about how such a good ally Israel can be.  Like somebody is trying to sell the idea.  I think the Sunni world wants to remove all Shia influence from their realm.  I think Trump has offered help if Saudi Arabia and Egypt with clean up their act and reform Islam, which I think el-Sisi and Salman want then Trump will aid in their quest.  One price is to eliminate Hamas and destroy the Palestinian culture (not the people).  Disperse this den of hatred.  Then sweep up into Lebanon and take out Hezbollah and free that nation.  Then offer Assad an ultimatum to remove him, then chase the Shia militias out of Iraq.  At the same time, clear Yemen of Shia influence there.  Once Assad is out, Russia will have no reason to stand with Iran.  And I’m not sure where Turkey will stand?  If a deal could be made with Erdogan over the Kurds then I’m sure that he won’t join Iran.

 

 

yikes ... 

all that to weaken and ... get rid of Iran... (shia?)

I have no idea if you're right about all that but it's an impressive analysis  

Don't you think though that when Islam is united and 'as one' that is the day the West et al needs to really worry -
ie a Sunni lead Islamic State could become a fully armed super power...? 

 

 

[RAyMO]

2 minutes ago, bee said:

Don't you think though that when Islam is united and 'as one' that is the day the West et al needs to really worry -
ie a Sunni lead Islamic State could become a fully armed super power...

MAD

[bee]

1 minute ago, RAyMO said:

MAD

are you agreeing with me ?

 

[RAyMO]

Just now, bee said:

are you agreeing with me ?

I don't know - am I? (sorry wrong thread).

I was suggesting that if we get to a stage where we have a " Sunni lead Islamic State [which] become a fully armed [nuclear] super power" that we would have have to rely on the Mutually Assured Destruction concept.

[bee]

2 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I don't know - am I? (sorry wrong thread).

I was suggesting that if we get to a stage where we have a " Sunni lead Islamic State [which] become a fully armed [nuclear] super power" that we would have have to rely on the Mutually Assured Destruction concept.

ok - I wasn't sure if you were shouting that I was mad - or referring to the Mutually Assured Destruction thing - 

To be honest I don't think the MAD thing would stop an Islamic nuclear attack* - as martyrdom is part of their MO isn't it..?

'We love death more than you love life' I think that's what Osama Bin Laden said ... 

* although I have doubts about the possibilities of a major nuclear attack anywhere - but that's another story and one that
really p***** people off big time -- (when I've brought it up before ) 

PS - re the bolded above --- have you been hitting the Christmas Bailey's Cream supply early lol -

 

[RAyMO]

5 minutes ago, bee said:

To be honest I don't think the MAD thing would stop an Islamic nuclear attack* - as martyrdom is part of their MO isn't it..?

Hmm I haven't had a drink for 15 years or so - but perhaps I need one because I am about to agree with you!

You could be very right, which, for more reasons than 1 is very scary

Edited December 8, 2017 by RAyMO

[bee]

1 minute ago, RAyMO said:

Hmm I haven't had a drink for 15 years or so - but perhaps I need one because I am about to agree with you!

You could be very right, which, for more reasons than 1 is very scary

hoorah  -
(or not really hoorah because it would all be more than a bit grim - if the martyrdom deluxe happened)  

[seeder]

news is saying Israel starts bombing Gaza....again....as those in Gaza, bomb Israel...

[ExpandMyMind]

49 minutes ago, bee said:

To be honest I don't think the MAD thing would stop an Islamic nuclear attack* - as martyrdom is part of their MO isn't it..?

 

I doubt it. You find with these extremist leaders that they manipulate vulnerable idiots to do their dirty work. They don't have the balls to follow their own preachings. It's 'do as I say', not 'do as I do'.

Pakistan is a fairly decent example to look at. Mad works for them and they live on one of the most hotly contested borders in the world.

[bee]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I doubt it. You find with these extremist leaders that they manipulate vulnerable idiots to do their dirty work. They don't have the balls to follow their own preachings. It's 'do as I say', not 'do as I do'.

 

maybe... maybe not - the hypothetical situation could be very unpredictable especially where alpha male pride is concerned - 

leaders who stood in the way of 'teaching the West the ultimate lesson' could be ousted - beheaded, crucified -
hung drawn and quartered - heads on poles all over the place - etc etc ---

Pakistan is a fairly decent example to look at. Mad works for them and they live on one of the most hotly contested borders in the world.

well -- I'm not going to go on about it but that could indicate that to get a significant nuclear detonation and chain reaction going
might not be as easy as what people are lead to believe --- OR --- the MAD thing worked...  

 

[ExpandMyMind]

17 minutes ago, bee said:

 

maybe... maybe not - the hypothetical situation could be very unpredictable especially where alpha male pride is concerned - 

leaders who stood in the way of 'teaching the West the ultimate lesson' could be ousted - beheaded, crucified -
hung drawn and quartered - heads on poles all over the place - etc etc ---

 

 

well -- I'm not going to go on about it but that could indicate that to get a significant nuclear detonation and chain reaction going
might not be as easy as what people are lead to believe --- OR --- the MAD thing worked...  

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any other country, Muslim or otherwise, should be allowed to develop nukes. And there is always a chance that some suicidal Islamic nutjob might end up in power and lose the plot, not matter how likely or unlikely.

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any other country, Muslim or otherwise, should be allowed to develop nukes. And there is always a chance that some suicidal Islamic nutjob might end up in power and lose the plot, not matter how likely or unlikely.

Yeah the Pakistan situation is not cool at all :

Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans 

Quote

•  

 

Pakistan is taking nuclear paranoia to a horrifying new low. And it's making the world a vastly more dangerous place in the process.

Freaked out about the insecurity of its nuclear arsenal, the Pakistani military's Strategic Plans Division has begun carting the nukes around in clandestine ways. That might make some sense on the surface: no military wants to let others know exactly where its most powerful weapons are at any given moment. But Pakistan is going to an extreme.

The nukes travel "in civilian-style vehicles without noticeable defenses, in the regular flow of traffic," according to a blockbuster story on the U.S.-Pakistan relationship in The Atlantic. Marc Ambinder and Jeffrey Goldberg write that tactical nuclear weapons travel down the streets in "vans with a modest security profile." Somewhere on a highway around, say, Karachi, is the world's most dangerous 1-800-FLOWERS truck.

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Farmer77

[SHaYap]

5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

But, while ultimately meaningless, this will have ramifications far beyond either what Trump realises, or likely cares about. 

THe Ultimate abso-blomingly truth ... does not care to have a clue is what this is ...

~

[kartikg]

10 hours ago, odas said:

You are retracting. You said that palestinian christians cheer for Palestine because they are afraid of their neihhbours. So why are they doing it in other countries outside Palestine?

Also. the person whose nick is ravenh. if possible not to convers with me as he is on my ignor list like so many others have done it already.

All I am saying is that it's their opinion, some Christians would be in favor of Palestine and some in favor of Israel, but those living in Palestine in favor of Israel would be risking their well being if they were to express their opinions 

[kartikg]

9 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Luckily your incorrect opinion has no bearing on the reality of the situation. How comical that you describe the indigenous population as 'squatters' and the aggressive invasion force the rightful owners. Your logic is entirely backwards.

This as been talked about here for years over multiple threads and it's pretty much clear that Palestine do not have legal grounds for the land. Discussing this would further derail the topic from Jerusalem to something else. Even if Israel is occupying that's how it was back in those days, war to occupy land, either way I don't see legal grounds for Palestine land. 

[ExpandMyMind]

56 minutes ago, kartikg said:

This as been talked about here for years over multiple threads and it's pretty much clear that Palestine do not have legal grounds for the land. Discussing this would further derail the topic from Jerusalem to something else. Even if Israel is occupying that's how it was back in those days, war to occupy land, either way I don't see legal grounds for Palestine land. 

See my reply to Ravenhawk. Not only does this right not exist, the right to self determination - which is actually defined in international law - supercedes any other claim to land. 

The 'right of conquest' simply did not exist during the creation of Israel - and certainly not in '67. 

It must have been discussed while I was on a break, because I've spent hundreds of hours debunking such claims on this very forum.

Edited December 9, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[kartikg]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

See my reply to Ravenhawk. Not only does this right not exist, the right to self determination, which is actually defined in international law, supercedes any other claim to land. 

The 'right of conquest' simply did not exist during the creation of Israel - and certainly not in '67.

It must have been discussed while I was on a break, because I've spent hundreds of hours debunking such claims on this very forum.

May be you are right or maybe not, I don't see Israelis being ousted from the land not at least without bloodshed. 

[ExpandMyMind]

30 minutes ago, kartikg said:

May be you are right or maybe not, I don't see Israelis being ousted from the land not at least without bloodshed. 

Oh, no, I'm definitely correct. I'm not agreeing to disagree with someone denying documented history which, if they had their way, would see an entire group if people completely thrown under the bus. Documented history that can be confirmed with a 10 second Google search - Google 'Nuremberg, right of conquest' and 'right to self determination'.

No, I can't abide by that at all.

And they could easily be forced back to the Armistice Lines if the resolutions against them were enforced. They would leave within a year and peace could finally be on the cards.

Edited December 9, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[Space Commander Travis]

Can we trust that this idea of his has finally put to bed that old calumny that was thrown around during the election campaign and afterwards towards the Trump of "anti-Semitism" , at least?

[RoofGardener]

13 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Sorry about the spam of replies there, @Setton, but I've been reading these replies and have been unable to post until today, so it all kinda just came spilling out.

On the subject of the topic: I believe Farmer had it right. This is Trump pandering to his fundamentalist Christian base (he will need their support and even more than that the support of their elected officials in the coming months). Those Christians will see this as Trump helping to fulfil their doomsday prophesy regarding 'God's chosen people'. He will have been lifted so high in their eyes that he could probably even openly support a paedophile for office and they would go out and vote for the guy. A crazy scenario that could never happen, of course.

Wait ...

But, while ultimately meaningless, this will have ramifications far beyond either what Trump realises, or likely cares about. 

The international community has been clear on this subject since the aftermath of the Six-Day War. All land that Israel has occupied since that war is not recognised as Israeli land and they must withdraw.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.^[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.^[2]

The preamble ^[3] refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security".

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."^[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Voting summary	15 voted for None voted against None abstained

 

(That video is short but it and other of his are worth watching).

The entire world votes on 'The Peaceful Resolution of the Palestine Conflict' every year and the results generally go something like this:

Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled 'Peaceful resolution of the Palestine conflict.' Every year, the vote is the same. The whole world on one side - the whole world on one side - and on the other side, the United States, Israel, and usually Palau, Nauru, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

- Dr. Normal Finkelstein

All this recent action does is completely delegitimize the US' ability to mediate this conflict in any way, though anyone who can see that the US has been the only country standing in the way of the resolution (pun intended) of this conflict can see that they were never appropriate mediators. Until, of course, Obama's refusal to veto the recent resolution - which makes the settlements, by definition, a war crime.

I don't think that is accurate, ExpandMyMind ? 

The US is not ".. the only country standing in the way of the resolution". 

Israel has withdrawn from all territory occupied during the '67 war, where that territory was taken from countries or entities that have acknowledged the principle of article (ii) of the resolution. (Jordan and Egypt). The two remaining are Syria (the Golan Heights) and the PLO (The West Bank). Syria has never cancelled its state of war with Israel, and the PLO (in defiance of their commitments in the Oslo Accords) is still constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel as a state. Accordingly, Israel is NOT obliged to withdraw from those territories under the terms of the Resolution. 

Well, that last bit is debatable, but if Israel WAS to withdraw, then the Resolution would STILL not be fulfilled due to the intransigence and belligerence of Syria and the PLO. So it seems odd to characterise Israel - let alone President Trump - as being the ones standing in the way of peace ? (or at least, standing in the way of Res242). 

[Farmer77]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Can we trust that this idea of his has finally put to bed that old calumny that was thrown around during the election campaign and afterwards towards the Trump of "anti-Semitism" , at least?

Of course because we know he actually loves Jewish people, or at least he loves the stereotype that they're good with money:

Quote

“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks,” John O’Donnell, a former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump saying to him in his 1991 book. In May 1997, Trump was asked about his comment during an interview with Playboy, and he confirmed that “the stuff” O’Donnell wrote about him were “probably true.”

 Helluva guy !