|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 22 2017 03:46 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2017 03:39 Sermokala wrote:On December 22 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2017 03:34 Danglars wrote:On December 22 2017 02:40 IyMoon wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:On December 22 2017 02:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Get ready for a temper tantrum.
I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. What are you talking about? The whole world (minus 9 I guess) Think this is a horrible call. This does not strike me as anything but the world going 'hold your shit, thats a bad call' Okay, that the UN was so united against Israel and their historical claims on the city of Jerusalem. On December 22 2017 03:03 Amui wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. 6.57% of nations decided to vote with the US. 93.63% of nations thought that US was being retarded. But hey, chalk it up to polarization, rather than Trump being a colossal moron. Lol. You need to recount how the nations voted. This will absolutely diminish the UN. And just the phrasing to pretend they had the authority to declare the US's recognition "null and void?" Yeah, opposition, show your true stripes, sure. I've very proud of how Haley acquitted herself and Trump's decision in general. Any peace deal must include Israel's continued presence in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians must accept that if they ever want peace. Subjugation isn't peace. If they are to share, they must share as equals. You should let the Palestinians know that. Its not like they've ever shown any intent in shareing. Clearly... ![[image loading]](https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/1200-width/images/blogs/2010w10/PalestineIsraelMap580.jpg)
And think, some people look at this map an think "see? Palestinians can totally win this some day! Keep fighting! Israel isn't totally blatantly winning with no end in sight!"
|
On December 22 2017 04:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2017 03:46 TheDwf wrote:On December 22 2017 03:39 Sermokala wrote:On December 22 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2017 03:34 Danglars wrote:On December 22 2017 02:40 IyMoon wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. What are you talking about? The whole world (minus 9 I guess) Think this is a horrible call. This does not strike me as anything but the world going 'hold your shit, thats a bad call' Okay, that the UN was so united against Israel and their historical claims on the city of Jerusalem. On December 22 2017 03:03 Amui wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. 6.57% of nations decided to vote with the US. 93.63% of nations thought that US was being retarded. But hey, chalk it up to polarization, rather than Trump being a colossal moron. Lol. You need to recount how the nations voted. This will absolutely diminish the UN. And just the phrasing to pretend they had the authority to declare the US's recognition "null and void?" Yeah, opposition, show your true stripes, sure. https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/943874473266094081https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/943790490587226112I've very proud of how Haley acquitted herself and Trump's decision in general. Any peace deal must include Israel's continued presence in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians must accept that if they ever want peace. Subjugation isn't peace. If they are to share, they must share as equals. You should let the Palestinians know that. Its not like they've ever shown any intent in shareing. Clearly... And think, some people look at this map an think "see? Palestinians can totally win this some day! Keep fighting! Israel isn't totally blatantly winning with no end in sight!"
No, some people think the ethnic cleansing is atrocious and shouldn't be supported, others, not so much.
|
Seriously? Were back to this discussion?
sigh
|
a lot of might= right on the last page lol
|
On December 22 2017 03:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2017 03:42 kollin wrote:On December 22 2017 03:39 Sermokala wrote:On December 22 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2017 03:34 Danglars wrote:On December 22 2017 02:40 IyMoon wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. What are you talking about? The whole world (minus 9 I guess) Think this is a horrible call. This does not strike me as anything but the world going 'hold your shit, thats a bad call' Okay, that the UN was so united against Israel and their historical claims on the city of Jerusalem. On December 22 2017 03:03 Amui wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. 6.57% of nations decided to vote with the US. 93.63% of nations thought that US was being retarded. But hey, chalk it up to polarization, rather than Drumpf being a colossal moron. Lol. You need to recount how the nations voted. This will absolutely diminish the UN. And just the phrasing to pretend they had the authority to declare the US's recognition "null and void?" Yeah, opposition, show your true stripes, sure. https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/943874473266094081https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/943790490587226112I've very proud of how Haley acquitted herself and Drumpf's decision in general. Any peace deal must include Israel's continued presence in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians must accept that if they ever want peace. Subjugation isn't peace. If they are to share, they must share as equals. You should let the Palestinians know that. Its not like they've ever shown any intent in shareing. In fairness, why should they have done? Their country was suddenly chopped up and given away by British diplomats, it's not like they chose this. Pakistani's had their country chopped up and given away by British diplomats but they don't vote in politicians promising to throw the hindu people into the sea.
Incorrect and incomparable on many levels.
1)India was partitioned on the basis Muslim Majority provinces. All of the people were already living there, they just moved around+ Show Spoiler + (and yet it was bloody and aweful, I am talking train loads of migrants going both directions full of people slaughtered indiscriminately.)
2) The fact that a minority got its own country is still something India cannot get over because that feels like an insult to their pretense of being a secular country that is open and fair to all (sadly its not, especially with this government)
3) Finally There are very few Hindus in Pakistan for them to be a political tool for anything. Which is fortunate because minorities (in both countries India and Pakistan) are treated horribly. And I am sure someone would have found a way to do it in Pakistan if they could have, that is unfortunately a reality there that is a work in progress. A very long work.
If someone ferried a bunch of Hindus across the border to my hometown in Lahore, kicked my parents out of their house and move in, after 60+ years of that happening. I can certainly imagine wanting on some level, them being thrown into the Sea. At the very least I wouldnt disagree with anyone standing up for me saying it, when I feel like the rest of the world has abandoned me.
Thats not a particularly difficult scenario to Imagine, you can replace Lahore with guhh... I dono, Edison, New Jersey and Americans with Russians and its the same deal.
|
On December 22 2017 04:16 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2017 03:56 IgnE wrote:On December 22 2017 03:22 kollin wrote:On December 22 2017 03:21 IyMoon wrote:On December 22 2017 03:19 Introvert wrote:On December 22 2017 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
“For those who don’t have our backs, we are taking names” said Haley.
Yeah, that’s a good idea. Try to intimidate and bully into submission further sovereign nations with more empty threats, so that we are all sure of how awful you are.
If Trump and his court of morons wanted to make appear weak, isolated and impotent, they wouldn’t do otherwise. The resolution was condemning and trying to cancel the exercise of a sovereign nation's right. *** Also someone said something about undermining the aca in the tax bill. You can thank John Roberts, who said it was a tax. Sovereign nations have tons of rights that should never be executed. We have a right to go to war with people, does not mean we should Actually one of the most significant successes of the UN, and one that is also being eroded away, was that they made war illegal. yeah sure i mean if you listened to noam chomsky youd think there were a lot of international laws overseen by some kind of supreme sovereign id be interested in ur thoughts on this if you've got time to read: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/14/making-war-illegal-changed-the-world-but-its-becoming-too-easy-to-break-the-law
That was a good article. Thanks for linking it. It describes the movement from might is right (war is a good option) to the current economic sanction system that has replaced it in most cases. If it is right that we are slowly moving back towards an acceptance of war can be discussed, which is what makes it a great article.
|
On December 22 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2017 03:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 22 2017 03:42 kollin wrote:On December 22 2017 03:39 Sermokala wrote:On December 22 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2017 03:34 Danglars wrote:On December 22 2017 02:40 IyMoon wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. What are you talking about? The whole world (minus 9 I guess) Think this is a horrible call. This does not strike me as anything but the world going 'hold your shit, thats a bad call' Okay, that the UN was so united against Israel and their historical claims on the city of Jerusalem. On December 22 2017 03:03 Amui wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. 6.57% of nations decided to vote with the US. 93.63% of nations thought that US was being retarded. But hey, chalk it up to polarization, rather than Drumpf being a colossal moron. Lol. You need to recount how the nations voted. This will absolutely diminish the UN. And just the phrasing to pretend they had the authority to declare the US's recognition "null and void?" Yeah, opposition, show your true stripes, sure. https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/943874473266094081https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/943790490587226112I've very proud of how Haley acquitted herself and Drumpf's decision in general. Any peace deal must include Israel's continued presence in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians must accept that if they ever want peace. Subjugation isn't peace. If they are to share, they must share as equals. You should let the Palestinians know that. Its not like they've ever shown any intent in shareing. In fairness, why should they have done? Their country was suddenly chopped up and given away by British diplomats, it's not like they chose this. Pakistani's had their country chopped up and given away by British diplomats but they don't vote in politicians promising to throw the hindu people into the sea. On December 22 2017 03:44 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On December 22 2017 03:39 Sermokala wrote:On December 22 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2017 03:34 Danglars wrote:On December 22 2017 02:40 IyMoon wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. What are you talking about? The whole world (minus 9 I guess) Think this is a horrible call. This does not strike me as anything but the world going 'hold your shit, thats a bad call' Okay, that the UN was so united against Israel and their historical claims on the city of Jerusalem. On December 22 2017 03:03 Amui wrote:On December 22 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:I didn’t know the UN was quite that polarized. Let your true colors show, I guess. 6.57% of nations decided to vote with the US. 93.63% of nations thought that US was being retarded. But hey, chalk it up to polarization, rather than Drumpf being a colossal moron. Lol. You need to recount how the nations voted. This will absolutely diminish the UN. And just the phrasing to pretend they had the authority to declare the US's recognition "null and void?" Yeah, opposition, show your true stripes, sure. https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/943874473266094081https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/943790490587226112I've very proud of how Haley acquitted herself and Drumpf's decision in general. Any peace deal must include Israel's continued presence in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians must accept that if they ever want peace. Subjugation isn't peace. If they are to share, they must share as equals. You should let the Palestinians know that. Its not like they've ever shown any intent in shareing. *Isreal aggressively colonises vast swatches of Palestine* "Why won't you just learn to SHARE?!" Lordy. Do you have any evidence that the Palestinians have offered peace terms of any degree? I'm legitimatly curious beacuse I've never seen any and I would genuinely change my view of the issue if they ever had. Ignoring the significant persecution and discrimination against Hindus within Pakistan, India and Pakistan literally point nuclear weapons at each other constantly. There are fairly strong sentiments regarding the issue. Even ignoring THAT, what you are saying doesn't negate the fact that the Palestinians might have a completely legitimate grievance. 'Look, this particular population handled imperialism without kicking up a fuss, why can't they?'
Again I would like to point out that there are not enough Hindus in Pakistan to discriminate against, and our society is classist but not caste based so rich Hindus are actually quite alright but ofcourse they have their ceiling. And Sikhs we actually have a fantastic relationship with because the province they are isolated in are cultural the same.
Christians and "heretic brands of Islam" fare much much worse. Christians especially are treated like gutter trash. But yes all things considered it is indeed a terrible place to be a minority.
His argument holds no parallel for different reasons.
|
|
|
I was very pro Israel when I was younger, ten years or so ago. But after a certain point they became the aggressors, kicking the Palestinians when they were down. Realistically it's pretty obvious that Israel is going to win. They don't want peace at this point, not under any terms the Palestinians would accept at least.
The problem is and has always been a moral one. Isn't the situation in Palestine why the US generally stays quiet on ethnic cleansing in other places? The Israelis must be backed, but there's a degree of nose-holding that comes with it these days which many people aren't comfortable with.
In this regard, Trump openly backing the capital moving to Jerusalem is at least being honest. The US government is going to shed a single tear when the Palestinians are exterminated and then go on with business exactly the way it was before.
As much as the EU doesn't like what's going on, there's nothing it can do either. It's horrible and sad, but what's the alternative? Invade Israel?
|
On December 22 2017 07:10 iamthedave wrote:
I was very pro Israel when I was younger, ten years or so ago. But after a certain point they became the aggressors, kicking the Palestinians when they were down. Realistically it's pretty obvious that Israel is going to win. They don't want peace at this point, not under any terms the Palestinians would accept at least.
The problem is and has always been a moral one. Isn't the situation in Palestine why the US generally stays quiet on ethnic cleansing in other places? The Israelis must be backed, but there's a degree of nose-holding that comes with it these days which many people aren't comfortable with.
In this regard, Trump openly backing the capital moving to Jerusalem is at least being honest. The US government is going to shed a single tear when the Palestinians are exterminated and then go on with business exactly the way it was before.
As much as the EU doesn't like what's going on, there's nothing it can do either. It's horrible and sad, but what's the alternative? Invade Israel?
palestinians arent going to get exterimnated, they're in fact increasing in number quite rapidly (which given their dire economic situation leaves them even poorer and with even fewer jobs).
"going to win" is an odd phrase given the current state on the gruond. israel has already won the military conflict; the problem is there's no currently viable peace settlement.
The US does speak up some on ethnic cleansing in other places; they don't speak up a lot, but they do some. mostly it's that if you talk about it you kinda have to do somethin gabout it. and anything short of deploying troops won' work, and they don' want to deploy troops (noone does really)
The EU could do something if it truly wanted to, it just doesn' want to. there simply aren't any good solutions; anything would be very expensive to do, both monetarily and politically.
|
It amuses me that there is such Evangelical support for Israel, obvious reasons why but I wonder how the Israeli's feel about it. As the the Evangelicals believe in the end times happens in said area, but guess what has to happen to the Jews?
Die.
|
it's typical two faced contemporary antisemitism. The logic is that the Jews are tolerable as long as they're fighting off the Muslims on their turf, while they're supposed to stay out of the clean, evangelical American communities. This is the same kind of stuff that makes German AfD politicians argue in favour of zionism while they at the same time stat dogwhistling about the 'antagonism between Jew and Christian' at home.
|
On December 22 2017 08:56 Nyxisto wrote:
it's typical two faced contemporary antisemitism. The logic is that the Jews are tolerable as long as they're fighting off the Muslims on their turf, while they're supposed to stay out of the clean, evangelical American communities. This is the same kind of stuff that makes German AfD politicians argue in favour of zionism while they at the same time stat dogwhistling about the 'antagonism between Jew and Christian' at home.
It's how the ethnostate nuts get what they want while not having to advocate for genocide, or at least genocide people will notice. A nice little place for the Jews to go if they can get into power and push them out.
|
Crews removed two statues of Confederate leaders from parks in Memphis, Tennessee on Wednesday night, after the city sold them to a private entity.
The city council voted unanimously on Wednesday to sell two parks where the statues were located. Crews began working right away to remove a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a cavalry general. At the second park, a statue of the Confederate president Jefferson Davis was taken down.
The parks were sold to Greenspace for $1,000 each, the Commercial Appeal reported. Memphis’s chief legal officer, Bruce McMullen, said Greenspace could legally remove the statues, which the city was unable to do.
Live video from Health Sciences Park captured cheers as the statue of Forrest was lifted off its marble base and placed on a flatbed truck late on Wednesday. Police cordoned off the area around the statue. The statue of Davis was at Fourth Bluff Park.
McMullen said the statues would be stored in an undisclosed location. Memphis’s mayor, Jim Strickland, tweeted that the work in the parks complied with state law.
Earlier this month, the city filed a petition asking for judicial review of the Tennessee Historical Commission’s denial of a request to remove the Forrest statue.
“I commend Mayor Strickland and the City Council for finding a way to legally remove statues from an era that is not representative of Memphis today and have remained an affront to most of the citizens of Memphis,” US representative Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Memphis, said in a statement.
Cities have tried to remove Confederate monuments after the racially motivated massacre of nine people at a black church in South Carolina in 2015 and a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, this year.
Protesters have called for the removal of the Forrest statue, saying it represents racism and bigotry. City leaders have discussed ways to relocate the statue and move his remains, which are buried under the monument.
Forrest was a slave trader, Confederate general and Ku Klux Klan leader who became influential in the city’s growth after the civil war.
Supporters of keeping the statue in place say it represents an important part of history. The Sons of Confederate Veterans in Memphis has said such monuments do not represent white supremacy and it would be a mistake to remove them.
“It is a deliberate attempt to avoid the state law and the city is breaking the law,” Lee Millar, of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, told WREG-TV on Wednesday.
Source
|
On December 22 2017 09:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Crews removed two statues of Confederate leaders from parks in Memphis, Tennessee on Wednesday night, after the city sold them to a private entity.
The city council voted unanimously on Wednesday to sell two parks where the statues were located. Crews began working right away to remove a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a cavalry general. At the second park, a statue of the Confederate president Jefferson Davis was taken down.
The parks were sold to Greenspace for $1,000 each, the Commercial Appeal reported. Memphis’s chief legal officer, Bruce McMullen, said Greenspace could legally remove the statues, which the city was unable to do.
Live video from Health Sciences Park captured cheers as the statue of Forrest was lifted off its marble base and placed on a flatbed truck late on Wednesday. Police cordoned off the area around the statue. The statue of Davis was at Fourth Bluff Park.
McMullen said the statues would be stored in an undisclosed location. Memphis’s mayor, Jim Strickland, tweeted that the work in the parks complied with state law.
Earlier this month, the city filed a petition asking for judicial review of the Tennessee Historical Commission’s denial of a request to remove the Forrest statue.
“I commend Mayor Strickland and the City Council for finding a way to legally remove statues from an era that is not representative of Memphis today and have remained an affront to most of the citizens of Memphis,” US representative Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Memphis, said in a statement.
Cities have tried to remove Confederate monuments after the racially motivated massacre of nine people at a black church in South Carolina in 2015 and a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, this year.
Protesters have called for the removal of the Forrest statue, saying it represents racism and bigotry. City leaders have discussed ways to relocate the statue and move his remains, which are buried under the monument.
Forrest was a slave trader, Confederate general and Ku Klux Klan leader who became influential in the city’s growth after the civil war.
Supporters of keeping the statue in place say it represents an important part of history. The Sons of Confederate Veterans in Memphis has said such monuments do not represent white supremacy and it would be a mistake to remove them.
“It is a deliberate attempt to avoid the state law and the city is breaking the law,” Lee Millar, of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, told WREG-TV on Wednesday. Source
If they don't represent white supremacy, bigotry, or racism, what do they represent? Southern pride? Southern heritage? I want to know what they think it means. What important part of history?
|
On December 22 2017 09:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2017 09:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Crews removed two statues of Confederate leaders from parks in Memphis, Tennessee on Wednesday night, after the city sold them to a private entity.
The city council voted unanimously on Wednesday to sell two parks where the statues were located. Crews began working right away to remove a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a cavalry general. At the second park, a statue of the Confederate president Jefferson Davis was taken down.
The parks were sold to Greenspace for $1,000 each, the Commercial Appeal reported. Memphis’s chief legal officer, Bruce McMullen, said Greenspace could legally remove the statues, which the city was unable to do.
Live video from Health Sciences Park captured cheers as the statue of Forrest was lifted off its marble base and placed on a flatbed truck late on Wednesday. Police cordoned off the area around the statue. The statue of Davis was at Fourth Bluff Park.
McMullen said the statues would be stored in an undisclosed location. Memphis’s mayor, Jim Strickland, tweeted that the work in the parks complied with state law.
Earlier this month, the city filed a petition asking for judicial review of the Tennessee Historical Commission’s denial of a request to remove the Forrest statue.
“I commend Mayor Strickland and the City Council for finding a way to legally remove statues from an era that is not representative of Memphis today and have remained an affront to most of the citizens of Memphis,” US representative Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Memphis, said in a statement.
Cities have tried to remove Confederate monuments after the racially motivated massacre of nine people at a black church in South Carolina in 2015 and a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, this year.
Protesters have called for the removal of the Forrest statue, saying it represents racism and bigotry. City leaders have discussed ways to relocate the statue and move his remains, which are buried under the monument.
Forrest was a slave trader, Confederate general and Ku Klux Klan leader who became influential in the city’s growth after the civil war.
Supporters of keeping the statue in place say it represents an important part of history. The Sons of Confederate Veterans in Memphis has said such monuments do not represent white supremacy and it would be a mistake to remove them.
“It is a deliberate attempt to avoid the state law and the city is breaking the law,” Lee Millar, of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, told WREG-TV on Wednesday. Source If they don't represent white supremacy, bigotry, or racism, what do they represent? Southern pride? Southern heritage? I want to know what they think it means. What important part of history?
I think the idea is that if a time period is not labeled as shameful, the people participating in the time period in the shameful way must not be shameful. It is a way to prevent feeling shame for the past of either your family or your community. The funny thing is that trying to lie about points of shame is itself shameful.
|
|
|
So who cares if they can pay it? What can be more inmoral than the government showing up to loot the grave of the diseased? That tax should be completely deleted.
|
On December 22 2017 07:10 iamthedave wrote:
I was very pro Israel when I was younger, ten years or so ago. But after a certain point they became the aggressors, kicking the Palestinians when they were down. Realistically it's pretty obvious that Israel is going to win. They don't want peace at this point, not under any terms the Palestinians would accept at least.
The problem is and has always been a moral one. Isn't the situation in Palestine why the US generally stays quiet on ethnic cleansing in other places? The Israelis must be backed, but there's a degree of nose-holding that comes with it these days which many people aren't comfortable with.
In this regard, Trump openly backing the capital moving to Jerusalem is at least being honest. The US government is going to shed a single tear when the Palestinians are exterminated and then go on with business exactly the way it was before.
As much as the EU doesn't like what's going on, there's nothing it can do either. It's horrible and sad, but what's the alternative? Invade Israel?
I've seen the exact opposite over the years. Palestinians do not want peace. Their leaders have never recognized Israel's right to exist. They've committed to terrorism as their means of warfare, and rely on international sympathy after reprisals. The West Bank still funds the Martyrs Foundation. If you're a terrorist and you succeed in killing Israelis, your family gets a payout. Absolutely disgusting.
The Knesset is in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister's residence is in Jerusalem. The city has been its capital for years. They have documents going back millennia connecting them to the land. But some other countries think it's their job to say where Israel's capital lies and where the US puts its embassy. It's immoral and ridiculous to claim injury at saying their capital is their capital.
The Palestinians have voted for terrorism, pure and simple. They will not recognize Israel's claim to the land. Their friends and allies have launched wars to exterminate Israel. We just passed the fifty year anniversary of the Six-Day war. They do not want peace without Israel gone. They're not content to live peaceably until that outcome. In short, the Palestinians are cruisin for a bruisin.
How does this end? Not pretty for Palestinians. Israel remembers when it ceded the Gaza Strip, and their farmland became rocket launching areas and tunnel systems for terror attacks. Our embassy in their recognized capital is a fine addition to future peace talks. I only hope the Palestinians come to their senses before more bloodshed.
|
Let’s be honest here rich people all have their shit in trusts or foundations they barely pay the estate tax anyways with proper planning
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
