Israel

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

This is like the opposite of what you suggested, so I don't really know what you were hoping to gain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant Which strangely contrasts this, something they air on their state television

[Aerion Brightflame]

And there have been jews living in Isreal for longer than the 1800's, this isn't a rabbit hole you're gonna win through Shard

 

It's also been Muslim terratory for about 800 of the last 1000 years, most of those consequtively.

 

Muslims have every right to feel that the land of Isreal is there's, because for a very long period of time, it was. It hasn't been Jewish owned for maybe 2000 or more years? There were a handful of brief kingdoms post the fall of the Roman empire, but they didn't last very long.

 

The issue of 'whose land is it rightfully' is a complex issue. Even if you want to argue 'It's the land of the followers of Abraham' Islam has a claim on it through that metric.

 

Partisan, but there's proof

There's a f***ing video tom...but here http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/sermons.html

 

I don't really care if there's a video or not; I care that you tried to say that 'attacking the source is a sign of desperation' when it's a very common point in arguments because sources are the foundation of a lot of arguments.

 

The specific case is irrelevant compared to the logic you seemed to be beholden to there. Even a video isn't absolute proof, unless one can verify it's autheticity. We've had enough stories where events get misapropriated in videos recently to not blindly believe them.

[Wahrheit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant Which strangely contrasts this, something they air on their state television

Hamas and PNA are different groups?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hamas and PNA are different groups?

They're airing in on state television, if they disagreed with that view point, would they do so?

[vla1ne]

all i'm reading here is that the US needs to develop alternative energy as soon as possible so that we can all leave that hellhole behind. a morals dissonance is a clear signal that you should not be associating with said culture for any extended periods of time (and especially not letting them run into your own country freely). the only things we're there for are oil and religious catharsis, and the only thing we're gonna get from them if this keeps up is hatred. we are not the peacekeepers of the world.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

all i'm reading here is that the US needs to develop alternative energy as soon as possible so that we can all leave that hellhole behind. a morals dissonance is a clear signal that you should not be associating with said culture for any extended periods of time (and especially not letting them run into your own country freely). the only things we're there for are oil and religious catharsis, and the only thing we're gonna get from them if this keeps up is hatred. we are not the peacekeepers of the world.

You sounded like the president there for a bit

[vla1ne]

You sounded like the president there for a bit

if i ever make it to the white house, there will be something undeniably wrong with this country. many of my views are literal sandpaper to most people's ears, and i actually do have to put in effort to make many of them even the least bit human sounding. i cannot do that irl, and i often get into very deep sheet for it.

 

but seriously, the place has done nothing but drain our money, kill our citizens, and churn out problems for the world over. leaving there is the top option in my book.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

if i ever make it to the white house, there will be something undeniably wrong with this country. many of my views are literal sandpaper to most people's ears, and i actually do have to put in effort to make many of them even the least bit human sounding. i cannot do that irl, and i often get into very deep sheet for it.

 

but seriously, the place has done nothing but drain our money, kill our citizens, and churn out problems for the world over. leaving there is the top option in my book.

I meant you sounded like Trump in a fair bit of that bit on Israel

[vla1ne]

I meant you sounded like Trump in a fair bit of that bit on Israel

we agree there (me and trump), got my issues with him, but i cannot say that his views on the middle east are much different than mine so far as i know.

[Resident Fascist]

all i'm reading here is that the US needs to develop alternative energy as soon as possible so that we can all leave that hellhole behind. a morals dissonance is a clear signal that you should not be associating with said culture for any extended periods of time (and especially not letting them run into your own country freely). the only things we're there for are oil and religious catharsis, and the only thing we're gonna get from them if this keeps up is hatred. we are not the peacekeepers of the world.

What, so the US shows up, fucks everything up for profit, and then leaves without sorting out the problem? I'm sorry but everything happening in the Middle East right now is totally the fault of Western powers. Also, this is nothing to do with religion.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What, so the US shows up, fucks everything up for profit, and then leaves without sorting out the problem? I'm sorry but everything happening in the Middle East right now is totally the fault of Western powers. Also, this is nothing to do with religion.

Only if you think Saddam throwing people into meat-grinders for entertainment and w/o due process is "nothing"

 

Also wasn't it Russia that created problems by first invading Afghanistan, or further back, the middle east itself when the Ottoman empire sided with the central powers. 

 

The point being, there's hardly a world where you can unilaterally push this on the west and be accurate 

[vla1ne]

What, so the US shows up, f***s everything up for profit, and then leaves without sorting out the problem? I'm sorry but everything happening in the Middle East right now is totally the fault of Western powers. Also, this is nothing to do with religion.

i'd say about half of it's the fault of western powers, the other half is definitely religion. nobody told them to behead the gays, unless WBC has connections with isis. and even then, raping the women seems like a stretch never heard of america teaching people how to rape 

 

in either case, it's about time we leave. really, we should have left a long time ago, if not ignored the place entirely.  

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/trump-freezes-obamas-221000000-parting-gift-to-the-palestinians

https://worldisraelnews.com/state-department-freezes-obamas-221m-gift-palestinians/

 

 

President Trump puts an end to this bullshit. Shipment frozen. Maybe we can send this money to Chicago South Side instead to fix that up

[Resident Fascist]

Only if you think Saddam throwing people into meat-grinders for entertainment and w/o due process is "nothing"

 

Also wasn't it Russia that created problems by first invading Afghanistan, or further back, the middle east itself when the Ottoman empire sided with the central powers. 

 

The point being, there's hardly a world where you can unilaterally push this on the west and be accurate 

 

[vla1ne]

which is why i propose leaving as soon as possible. at this point, we clearly haven't done them any favors, so i say just leave, let them sort themselves out, and never speak to each other again. we've already tried rebuilding and rooting out the problem, and our government clearly sucks at doing that, s instead of driving them to ruin, let's just leave the car. 

[Resident Fascist]

which is why i propose leaving as soon as possible. at this point, we clearly haven't done them any favors, so i say just leave, let them sort themselves out, and never speak to each other again. we've already tried rebuilding and rooting out the problem, and our government clearly sucks at doing that, s instead of driving them to ruin, let's just leave the car. 

 

So your solution is to funk everything up and then leave? 

[vla1ne]

So your solution is to f*** everything up and then leave? 

no, everything was funked up before i saw the situation, and from what i can see, everything's only gonna get worse the longer we involve ourselves. so instead of wasting our money and their time, we would be better off leaving.

[Resident Fascist]

no, everything was funked up before i saw the situation, and from what i can see, everything's only gonna get worse the longer we involve ourselves. so instead of wasting our money and their time, we would be better off leaving.

 

No, you need to clean up. That's the only way the Middle East is ever going to not want America to burn. A lot of the conflict comes from America's backing of Israel. I find it pretty backwards to support a state that's been engaged in actions of genocide for the past 60 years, is quite clearly apartheid, and has aggressively attacked neighbouring countries on numerous occasions, simply because they hold a popularity contest to see who gets to run the country next. While the two state solution is an ideal end result for both parties, neither party actually wants it. Regrettably, the only way I see this ending is the destruction of one side. Israel has only survived as long as it has due to propping up from Western powers. There isn't a moral answer to the solution. If America wanted to end the conflict as soon as possible, it would quit backing Israel, and instead back the Arab states, it wouldn't take long for a joint US-Arab League invasion to fully occupy all of Israel. Ideally you don't want groups like Hamas and Hezbollah doing the occupation, as they deliberately attack civilians. More like, the Saudi Army and maybe Iran, if you could get them on board to work with the US. Of course, then you have the opposite problem. Had Israel collapsed within years of it's founding, it's Jewish population would have likely fled and dispersed throughout the Middle East, but now that several generations of Israeli families exist, Israel feels like it has a right to the land. Ironically, collapsing Israel would displace the Jews that displaced the Palestinians, which solves nothing. 

 

 If America (and the West) wants to actually make progress in the Middle East, backing stable governments is a good start, even if they aren't ideally as liberal as you'd like, a conservative regime is better than no regime at all, see: Afghanistan. You cannot just install a democratic system and leave, that doesn't work. Backing rebel groups only serves to weaken stable governments, like what happened in Syria. Assad might not be a brilliant leader, but he could keep the country stable. Democratic process can be installed later, even if I don't feel it is the right of the US to install governments in foreign nations, especially not ones that are Pro-US. The US would be a far more respectable entity if it actually seemed as if it was acting on the purpose of world peace, instead of world peace* *under the US's very specific conditions that don't really work in the majority of political systems that have remained stable for years. 

 

 Democracy isn't the only way to run a country, and trying to force Democracy on other countries only results in weak governments who break under rebel groups and are replaced by radical movements. The only way to truly end terrorism is to solve the source of it, you can't just bomb your way to it. All bombing ever does is weaken the country further, and supply the rebels with a suitable scapegoat for propaganda purposes. Very little of the conflict in the Middle East has anything to do with religion, it's just a very easy scapegoat to use, especially when the US seems all too obliged to provide a boogeyman. Someone needs to take the blame, and work towards fixing the problem, or this will never actually end.  

 

 Ironically, America criticises the Middle East for not being open to change, yet refuses to allow any other country to live in a way they deem "non-American".

[vla1ne]

No, you need to clean up. That's the only way the Middle East is ever going to not want America to burn. A lot of the conflict comes from America's backing of Israel. I find it pretty backwards to support a state that's been engaged in actions of genocide for the past 60 years, is quite clearly apartheid, and has aggressively attacked neighbouring countries on numerous occasions, simply because they hold a popularity contest to see who gets to run the country next. While the two state solution is an ideal end result for both parties, neither party actually wants it. Regrettably, the only way I see this ending is the destruction of one side. Israel has only survived as long as it has due to propping up from Western powers. There isn't a moral answer to the solution. If America wanted to end the conflict as soon as possible, it would quit backing Israel, and instead back the Arab states, it wouldn't take long for a joint US-Arab League invasion to fully occupy all of Israel. Ideally you don't want groups like Hamas and Hezbollah doing the occupation, as they deliberately attack civilians. More like, the Saudi Army and maybe Iran, if you could get them on board to work with the US. Of course, then you have the opposite problem. Had Israel collapsed within years of it's founding, it's Jewish population would have likely fled and dispersed throughout the Middle East, but now that several generations of Israeli families exist, Israel feels like it has a right to the land. Ironically, collapsing Israel would displace the Jews that displaced the Palestinians, which solves nothing. 

 

 If America (and the West) wants to actually make progress in the Middle East, backing stable governments is a good start, even if they aren't ideally as liberal as you'd like, a conservative regime is better than no regime at all, see: Afghanistan. You cannot just install a democratic system and leave, that doesn't work. Backing rebel groups only serves to weaken stable governments, like what happened in Syria. Assad might not be a brilliant leader, but he could keep the country stable. Democratic process can be installed later, even if I don't feel it is the right of the US to install governments in foreign nations, especially not ones that are Pro-US. The US would be a far more respectable entity if it actually seemed as if it was acting on the purpose of world peace, instead of world peace* *under the US's very specific conditions that don't really work in the majority of political systems that have remained stable for years. 

 

 Democracy isn't the only way to run a country, and trying to force Democracy on other countries only results in weak governments who break under rebel groups and are replaced by radical movements. The only way to truly end terrorism is to solve the source of it, you can't just bomb your way to it. All bombing ever does is weaken the country further, and supply the rebels with a suitable scapegoat for propaganda purposes. Very little of the conflict in the Middle East has anything to do with religion, it's just a very easy scapegoat to use, especially when the US seems all too obliged to provide a boogeyman. Someone needs to take the blame, and work towards fixing the problem, or this will never actually end.  

 

 Ironically, America criticises the Middle East for not being open to change, yet refuses to allow any other country to live in a way they deem "non-American".

no. i can and would, just leave. the middle east is going to want america to burn regardless and i honestly do not care if they do, so long as we both go our separate ways. i held no say in the policies that damaged them, and hold no interest in mending any bonds that once existed. i want to leave them alone. i don't want to harm them, nor do i wish to help them. let one side die if it must, but keep america's hands out of it from here on. no, backing the arab states would do us no favors either. we share values with no area in the region at this point, and i value american lives over any life in the middle east. you want to help fix them, then let your country do so. my country, no matter what it has done in the past, needs to pull it's damn hand back, for better or worse.

 

and there's you answer. i don't. i do not care about stabilizing, or making progress in the middle east. america is not the peacekeeper of the world, and we need to stop acting like we are. we also need to stop acting like saviors when we destroy regions. i don't care if the middle east does or does not make progress, so long as america stops wasting its time screwing things up over there. we're wasting our money, our lives, and their lives, the longer we participate.

 

i agree there. and that's yet again, why i wish to leave. whether or not america's there, they'll come up with a system some way or another. they already have one really, and even if it's not ours, we are better off leaving them to it.

 

i am very open to live and let live. i might not like how the middle east does things, but so long as they keep it over there, i could care less. which is, again, why i say leave. let them sort it out themselves, and stop attacking them. they'll balance out eventually. and even if they hate us, let them start the fight with us, instead of jumping into country relations. the smoke'll clear out eventually.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

no. i can and would, just leave. the middle east is going to want america to burn regardless and i honestly do not care if they do, so long as we both go our separate ways. i held no say in the policies that damaged them, and hold no interest in mending any bonds that once existed. i want to leave them alone. i don't want to harm them, nor do i wish to help them. let one side die if it must, but keep america's hands out of it from here on. no, backing the arab states would do us no favors either. we share values with no area in the region at this point, and i value american lives over any life in the middle east. you want to help fix them, then let your country do so. my country, no matter what it has done in the past, needs to pull it's damn hand back, for better or worse.

 

and there's you answer. i don't. i do not care about stabilizing, or making progress in the middle east. america is not the peacekeeper of the world, and we need to stop acting like we are. we also need to stop acting like saviors when we destroy regions. i don't care if the middle east does or does not make progress, so long as america stops wasting its time screwing things up over there. we're wasting our money, our lives, and their lives, the longer we participate.

 

i agree there. and that's yet again, why i wish to leave. whether or not america's there, they'll come up with a system some way or another. they already have one really, and even if it's not ours, we are better off leaving them to it.

 

i am very open to live and let live. i might not like how the middle east does things, but so long as they keep it over there, i could care less. which is, again, why i say leave. let them sort it out themselves, and stop attacking them. they'll balance out eventually. and even if they hate us, let them start the fight with us, instead of jumping into country relations. the smoke'll clear out eventually.

This, they're learning

 

This is the current Egyptian President and Trump/Putin ally

 

As chief-of-staff the Egyptian Armed Forces, Sisi intervened on July 3, 2013, in response to earlier mass protests on June 30 and deposed Morsi. He dissolved the Muslim Brotherhood-backed constitution of 2012, and proposed, along with leading opposition and religious figures, a new political road map, which included the voting for a new constitution, and new parliamentary and presidential elections.

[epicmemesbro]

In my opinion, it is best to avoid claiming being so quick to judge something as anti-Semitic, as it is no different from pulling the race card instinctively as a defense mechanism from further inquiry of any controversial situation. Even more so because in these types of situations as Zionists tend to use this tactic to guilt trip individuals and civic, or economic entities into yielding in their favor.