Originally posted by Robtard
Want your head? Being a bit dramatic aren't you.So continue to poke, consequences be damned.
Any previous President could have done it as easy as Trump, it's their executive privilege. They didn't, after listening to the experts.
Not from the videos I have seen. But yeah, it was a bit much. I'm sorry.
When the consequences are the same either way.
Or they just didn't
Originally posted by socool8520
Okay. I just realize that my open-mindedness of other people's culture doesn't seem to be shared by those extremists that literally want my head.Yeah, except it's already biting. Has been for an extremely long time. lol It's not like this was the stick.
So you say or it could be they just didn't get it done and this was their excuse after the fact.
It's basically you and me who feel this way. I don't want anyone dead, I also don't want to kowtow to terrorist garbage. We decided this back in 1995. Every president since then promised it. They failed. It has not been 2 years, but 22. It was time. The Islamic radicals will react like they always do when they feel slighted or see an opportunity to spread the violence and destruction of their ideology.
I say f*ck those people. Islam needs to change, not us. The deaths are on the hands over people who instigate violence over this. Not Trump, not us.
Originally posted by Surtur
And yet we still have seen murder and violence. There is no real peace to speak of.It's the terrorists breaking the eggs. If they're gonna murder innocent people these are not folk who deserve to be negotiated with in the first place. They don't want peace. They just hate Israel.
It's a two way street, Surt. Israel has a right to exist and defend herself, but when you bulldoze the houses of regular people eeking out an existence, you can't really claim moral superiority.
And some in Israel just hate Palestians, they don't want peace, they want them all irradiated.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's a two way street, Surt. Israel has a right to exist and defend herself, but when you bulldoze the houses of regular people eeking out an existence, you can't really claim moral superiority.And some in Israel just hate Palestians, they don't want peace, they want them all irradiated.
It is a two way street, but it does not seem to be portrayed that way. Israel, to me, often seems portrayed as the bad guy.
Originally posted by socool8520
Yeah, I just really don't see how it has done any more harm then they were already going to do. If it wasn't this as an excuse, it would have been something else.
Bingo. It's why I'm amazed to see this recent terrorist attack in NY blamed on Trump. Well no I guess I'm not amazed, people get crazy over Trump. We just had an attack there in the last month or two where people died. But no, it's Jerusalem now that is going to be the cause of every terror attack now.
It just reminds me of Charlie Hebdo. How some said they just shouldn't have done what they had done. But I'm tired of the idea of avoiding doing something merely to spare the feelings of Islamic radicals.
Originally posted by Robtard
Well, as long as you're admitting your willing to put the lives of thousands of innocent Palestinians at risk because of your feelings, guess that's something. It's stupid and pathetic, but it's something.
I am saying it is my opinion that Israel seems to be portrayed as the bad guy lol.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b098gp5q
My Father's Israel
'Arguments still rage today about Israel's actions and destiny - an argument within Israeli society, within the international community and among individuals. This programme reveals, in one dramatic story, the roots of that argument, and how it reverberated so strongly across a family's life'
Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017 – review | Books
'Ian Black opens his excellent new history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Enemies and Neighbours, with a note on terminology titled Language Matters. He points out that in colloquial Arabic used by the Palestinians, Israelis are still often called “Yahud” – Jews. On the other hand, while until 1948, the year of Israel’s establishment, the term “Palestinians” usually referred to all inhabitants of Palestine, including Jews, it only gradually came to be used to describe one side in the conflict. Only in recent decades have Israelis started to differentiate their next-door neighbours from the rest of the neighbourhood, calling them “Palestinians” instead of the more amorphous “Arabs”. Words matter. They are the building blocks of the contradicting narratives each side has continued telling themselves, and the world.'
'Enemies and Neighbours will not make easy reading for partisans on either side. Narratives are meticulously broken down and reshaped by inconvenient facts. Black uses an array of sources highlighting how, from the start of the Zionist initiative, neither its ideologues nor the majority of the early Jewish settlers had any interest in building a nation together with the native population. While he chooses not to take a clear position in the historical debate over whether the Palestinian displacement of 1948 was premeditated ethnic cleansing, he does describe how in many places the banishment of communities and the destruction of their villages was intentional. His account of the second-class status of Israeli-Palestinian citizens and of daily life for the millions who have lived under Israeli military rule since the six-day war of 1967 is detailed and harrowing.'
'Unlike previous histories of the conflict, this pays less attention to the diplomatic affairs of the world powers that played a role in the region and in Arab-Israeli relations. For some readers, this will feel like a drawback, but its relentless focus on Israelis and Palestinians, to the near exclusion of other players, is one of its strengths.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2007/11/2008525185042679346.html
Q: What were you trying to do with Palestine?
'I don't really know what I was trying to do, but I think my impetus for going was that I felt the American media had really misportrayed the situation [between Israel and the Palestinians] and I was really shocked by that.'
'I grew up thinking of Palestinians as terrorists, and it took a lot of time, and reading the right things, to understand the power dynamic in the Middle East was not what I had thought it was.'
Originally posted by Robtard
"Follow-through" for its own sake is a very stupid policy. Other presidents have wanted to do it, but reneged when they were educated on the matter and the ramifications that would come with it. Pros Vs Cons, so to speak.Like if you promised your daughter a pony when she was 4 and then didn't actually get her one because you did some research and realized having a pony in an apartment is a bad idea. Does this mean you're a shit for not fulfilling a promise? No. It means you looked at the bigger picture and made the smart move after the fact.
It is almost like "staying the course" after you have been presented with information you did not have previously that continuing on this course would be disastrous is bad or something. Weird.
Saying that this attack was politically motivated doesn't invalidate it as an Islamic attack because Islam is deeply involved in politics. As far as Islam is concerned, America isn't innocent, it's a country of kuffar just like the rest of the rest of the west, and ISIS (and other Jihadist organisations) view "criminal America" as the "real terrorists", the best way to understand why these attacks happen is to understand how Islam understands itself. Wagdi Ghoneim explains it pretty well:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/politics/haley-un-jerusalem/index.html
128 countries voted against the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at United Nations