If widespread violence breaks out in the Middle East how much blame falls on Trump?

[Puffnstuff]

So strapping explosives onto one's self and entering a busy market or bus and killing everyone is okay? No matter what reasoning you use I support the Israeli's position on this one.

 

[master_shake_]

So you would expect the same reaction from say... Jews? Would the Jewish people rise up violently in similar circumstances?

my point was muslim is not a race.

 

[IronWing]

So strapping explosives onto one's self and entering a busy market or bus and killing everyone is okay? No matter what reasoning you use I support the Israeli's position on this one.

Maybe the US taxpayers can give the Pals some warplanes and make it all clean and tidy.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Maybe the US taxpayers can give the Pals some warplanes and make it all clean and tidy.

Now, now we can't go making the Israel/Palestine conflict a fair fight.

 

[shortylickens]

What does it matter?
Whatever happens he'll blame it all on Hillary.

 

[HomerJS]

Are Alabamans firing Qassam rockets over the border into Georgia because an embassy got built in Atlanta? Again, anger is one thing, violence is another. I don't think American foreign policy should cater to the hurt feelings or "anger" of Palestinians about an embassy. If you're going to excuse away Palestinian violence over a building then you're honestly as much an impediment to peace as any other factor.

Palestinians and Israelis are killing each other.

 

[bshole]

What does it matter?
Whatever happens he'll blame it all on Hillary.

Conservative talk radio was blaming it on Bill this morning....

 

[realibrad]

Now, now we can't go making the Israel/Palestine conflict a fair fight.

And it should not be. Palestine has a nasty habit of firing weapons at Israel. Israel has a massive military when compared to Palestine. If Israel wanted to, they could wipe out Palestine in a day. One side shows some military restraint, the other does not.

People complained when Israel went into Gaza, but they seem to have forgotten the thousands of rockets, mortars and all the people hurt/killed by those attacks on Israeli civilians.

 

[realibrad]

Palestinians and Israelis are killing each other.

Is this the both sides argument that people on the left always complain about? Far more attacks are done against Israeli civilians than on Palestinian civilians.

 

[bshole]

And it should not be. Palestine has a nasty habit of firing weapons at Israel. Israel has a massive military when compared to Palestine. If Israel wanted to, they could wipe out Palestine in a day. One side shows some military restraint, the other does not.

People complained when Israel went into Gaza, but they seem to have forgotten the thousands of rockets, mortars and all the people hurt/killed by those attacks on Israeli civilians.

Sure they could. They could also have themselves a little genocide. What do you think the consequences to Israel from the international community might be if they did either?

Don't pretend that Israel is not butchering the Palestinians out of any sense of morality. It is strictly pragmatic.

 

[351Cleveland]

So Clinton deliberately not signing it indicates his support? Don't be ridiculous, if he supported it he would have signed it, and he wouldn't waived its central provision repeatedly. It was passed by veto proof majorities in a Republican controlled Congress. So in reality, Republicans in Congress were primarily to blame for this being enacted with some complicity from congressional Democrats.



Congress has no power to state US foreign policy. That passage is irrelevant and/or unconstitutional.



So first, as we covered it isn't policy as Congress doesn't set policy. The person who does though, is the president. This argument that not signing the waiver isn't an action is absurd pedantry and I'm very sure you know it. Trump made a conscious decision to change US foreign policy and has even stated as much. Why you're trying to argue something that even TRUMP isn't dishonest enough to argue is ridiculous.

So yes, he made a choice to change US policy so he is partially responsible for the results. This is so obvious I don't know why this even needs to be argued.

No... I based my "President Clinton Supported it" on an article I read here: http://time.com/5049019/jerusalem-embassy-history/

As Trump did, President Bill Clinton also came into office calling for the embassy to eventually be moved to Jerusalem, even as he actively worked to kill Dole’s bill.

So that is what I based that statement on. Oh and President Clinton appears to be talking about of both side of his face on that one. President Trump, for all of his numerous flaws, at least is doing what he promised.

As far as the policy, the passage may be irrelevant, but the actions laid out in the law are not and support that passage. No President or Congress has seen fit to change or challenge the law.

And as far as responsibility, you too seem to think that Muslims are not capable of rationally governing their passions and emotions. Why does everyone seem to side with what they admit are the first ones to employ violence in these circumstances?

 

[351Cleveland]

Sure they could. They could also have themselves a little genocide. What do you think the consequences to Israel from the international community might be if they did either?

Don't pretend that Israel is not butchering the Palestinians out of any sense of morality. It is strictly pragmatic.

So your rebuttal is basically that the Israelis WANT to butcher the Palestinians the same way that the Palestinians WANT to butcher the Israelis... but that the Israelis are smart enough not to?

Wow... between that and the whole concept of Muslims defaulting to violence, people around here really don't think much of Muslims.

 

[bshole]

So your rebuttal is basically that the Israelis WANT to butcher the Palestinians the same way that the Palestinians WANT to butcher the Israelis... but that the Israelis are smart enough not to?

Wow... between that and the whole concept of Muslims defaulting to violence, people around here really don't think much of Muslims.

Nothing in my post inferred a thing about Muslims. Improve your reading or improve your honesty.

 

[351Cleveland]

my point was muslim is not a race.

Well, that is certainly a worthy point. How about instead of calling it racism, we call it bigotry?

Point being, a lot of people are making an assumption about the Muslim response. That assumption is that they will be violent. I want to know if they would make that same assumption about any other religions. If not, then they are displaying bigotry towards the Muslims.

 

[pcgeek11]

Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians as much as it belongs to the Israelis.

I'm pretty sure that Israel took possession when Jordan attacked Israel during the six day war.

So no. If you get attacked and you take land defending yourself it is yours.

 

[fskimospy]

No... I based my "President Clinton Supported it" on an article I read here: http://time.com/5049019/jerusalem-embassy-history/

So they supported it 'in principle' and then actively moved to prevent it from happening. In my book we call that 'not supporting'. That's like Trump saying he didn't support cuts to Medicaid and then supporting bills that cut Medicaid. Which do you believe, the statement or the action?

So that is what I based that statement on. Oh and President Clinton appears to be talking about of both side of his face on that one. President Trump, for all of his numerous flaws, at least is doing what he promised.

Following through on promises to do stupid things gains you no points in my book.

As far as the policy, the passage may be irrelevant, but the actions laid out in the law are not and support that passage. No President or Congress has seen fit to change or challenge the law.

And as far as responsibility, you too seem to think that Muslims are not capable of rationally governing their passions and emotions. Why does everyone seem to side with what they admit are the first ones to employ violence in these circumstances?

Every president until now has seen fit to purposefully render the law ineffective. If you can already effectively nullify the law without having to go through trying to repeal it that just makes rational sense.

As for the rest I have no interest in engaging in a pretty obvious troll attempt.

 

[realibrad]

Sure they could. They could also have themselves a little genocide. What do you think the consequences to Israel from the international community might be if they did either?

Don't pretend that Israel is not butchering the Palestinians out of any sense of morality. It is strictly pragmatic.

But answer this, if Palestine had the ability, what would it do? Also, do you believe that Israel wants to wipe out the people in Palestine, or simply remove them? I am not pretending that Israel is not committing genocide because I do not believe they want to kill all of the people. Its also not about morality as ultimately I do not think it would further what they want. Israel wants the land in the land. I'm not defending Israel and their actions, but I do not believe that the only thing holding back genocide is the fear of governments getting involved. Israel could do far more than what it is doing now. If you question that, look at what many other countries around the world do which does not invoke international response.

 

[pcgeek11]

Problem wasn't your facts. It was this conclusion:



Which is a stupid one. Of course what Trump is doing matters. If it inflames anti-Israel and anti-US opinion on the Arab side, and undermines our credibility as a mediator in their eyes, it will only make the peace process harder.

That was my opinion, a conclusion hasn't been reached yet.
I think your opinion is stupid also, but I was polite enough not to say so.

 

[351Cleveland]

Nothing in my post inferred a thing about Muslims. Improve your reading or improve your honesty.

Fair enough. I read your statement as a extension of the post you were replying to. Since you didn't refute the "Palestinians are attaching Israel" portions of the post, I took it to mean you conceded the point.

Point stands though. Palestinians are routinely the aggressors in these situations. To infer otherwise is not supported by the facts. Only one side has a goal of wiping out the other... and it isn't the side with the means to do it. At the end of the day, the question still stands. Do you believe Palestinians (or Muslims) attack and Israelis do not because they aren't pragmatic? And by pragmatic, I mean the ability to deal with things sensibly and realistically.

It's fine. I don't need an answer. I have everything I need from this thread.

Thanks!

 

[pcgeek11]

I was not disputing his facts; I was appalled by his attitude about its potential consequences.

"The area has always been war torn. And probably always will be". "This Trump declaration makes no difference in the least." How utterly hopeless and cynical.

Hence the "Baghdad Bob" reference.

OK what kind of progress has been made over the last 40 years with the exception of minor and temporary.

You are welcome to be appalled as much as you want, reality is often appalling.

 

[woolfe9998]

That was my opinion, a conclusion hasn't been reached yet.

Well, there is already rioting and violence over it, a result which was extremely easy to predict. The notion this is decision is a nothingburger is already belied by the facts. Whether there are longer term consequences, I would agree that we don't know yet.

I think your opinion is stupid also, but I was polite enough not to say so.

Yet you just did.

 

[pcgeek11]

Maybe the US taxpayers can give the Pals some warplanes and make it all clean and tidy.

LOL, Riiiight.

 

[pcgeek11]

Well, there is already rioting and violence over it, a result which was extremely easy to predict. The notion this is decision is a nothingburger is already belied by the facts. Whether there are longer term consequences, I would agree that we don't know yet.



Yet you just did.

I was speaking in past tense. Can't you tell the difference? Then YOU forced my hand. Don't be obtuse.

 

[woolfe9998]

I was speaking in past tense. Can't you tell the difference? Then YOU forced my hand. Don't be obtuse.

What past tense? I expressed no opinion in this thread until I replied to your post, in which I said your opinion was stupid. Then you replied to mine with a "right back at you." Evidence of classy restraint on your part not found.

 

[IronWing]

I'm pretty sure that Israel took possession when Jordan attacked Israel during the six day war.

So no. If you get attacked and you take land defending yourself it is yours.

That's silly and a gross distortion of history.