F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 25

[Sithborg]

I think as US history has shown, manifest destiny leads to ethnic cleansing. That is what the Israeli expansion is going to lead to.

 

[Aximili86]

But the "manifest destiny" asserted by the government the Palestinian public's elected is literally, officially, documented-on-paper "get rid of the dirty Jews once and for all".

But that's okay, right? The guys they're fighting have bigger guns, the little guy doesn't have to be held to moral standards. It's not like they can actually pull it off or anything.

My, what a horrible way of looking at the world you have there.

 

[DeadPresident]

Yeah, you know, unless the Palestinian representatives go to the Israeli administration with a compromise.

Hamas and the PLO both tried the hard ball route and guilt tripping Western civilization into abandoning Israel - and it didn't work. They could have had a feasible solution but really, they're more interested in getting one over on the dirty Jews than they are in their own self-actualization. "No Jews in the Middle East" was their slogan, if the well-being of their people was the primary concern they would've signed the papers in 2000 and be building their country as we speak.

If what you say ends up coming to pass, it will be a tragedy, and it will be because at several key opportunities the Palestinian organizations chose that having nothing was better than just something. Now that opportunity has gone because Israelis elected a nationalist hawk that's got no time for compromises, Sharon and Barak look like saintly Democrats compared to Netanyahu.

It's ironic you mention US history, because going off how you defend the Palestinians' conduct I assume if Native Americans suddenly decided they wanted to take the USA back and started firing rockets into your neighborhood I'm sure you'd do the noble thing and just die for their cause, right? You wouldn't want your military to protect you (like it says in their job description), would you?

 

[Sithborg]

You do understand you are victim blaming? While the Palestinians are not totally innocent, that does not justify ethnic cleansing.

Anyway, Trump seems to be having a fit over the 1 year anniversary of the Mueller probe starting.

 

[Aximili86]

It's ironic you mention US history, because going off how you defend the Palestinians' conduct I assume if Native Americans suddenly decided they wanted to take the USA back and started firing rockets into your neighborhood I'm sure you'd do the noble thing and just die for their cause, right? You wouldn't want your military to protect you (like it says in their job description), would you?

*rolls* Awesome way of wording it, nice show.

It's actually worse than that though. It'd be like that situation, if the Europeans had inhabited the continental USA previously and the Grand Canyon was their prime historic/religious/cultural site going back 2000 years.

 

[Aximili86]

You do understand you are victim blaming? While the Palestinians are not totally innocent, that does not justify ethnic cleansing.

Anyway, Trump seems to be having a fit over the 1 year anniversary of the Mueller probe starting.

Nothing justifies ethnic cleansing.

So...why are you justifying it? The elected Hamas government literally wants to go all Hitler on anyone wearing a yarmulke. Officially as a matter of policy.

And again, Hamas isn't some ISIS/Daesh group ruling by force, the populace has decided they're their guys in UN-monitored elections.

But nah, the big mean Jews shouldn't stand fast when moves are made on them. That's oh-so-unreasonable.

 

[DeadPresident]

You do understand you are victim blaming? While the Palestinians are not totally innocent, that does not justify ethnic cleansing.

Anyway, Trump seems to be having a fit over the 1 year anniversary of the Mueller probe starting.

No, I'm not. If Arabs accepted the small number of Jews that initially came to the territories way back when this wouldn't be the situation some find themselves in. If I pick a fight with someone and they beat the **** out of me and I complain about losing a few teeth, is someone saying to me "Well maybe you shouldn't have picked a losing fight?" victim blaming? No, it isn't.

They decided to be hostile to a small and powerless group, who grew to become large and powerful, and now that the Israelis are doling out what they received from almost day one the Palestinians are understandably unhappy. The PLO and Hamas chose their people's position, and that position was to violently expel every Jew they could find, they shouldn't complain when they chose to fight and lost.

I don't blame Palestinians for how they're behaving, in their shoes I'd do the same, but as much as they blame Israel they should blame their past leaders who decided "No Jews in our lifetime" is the hill they wanted to die on.

 

[Aximili86]

Also food for thought, Sithborg - the Dome's under Israeli territory, but they let Muslims pray there (provided they have no militant history and can pass through the checkpoints).

Be honest, now - you think if the shoe were on the other foot, the Arabs would offer the same to the Jews? Really, now, let's not spin here.

This is complicated. This isn't "zomgz IDF shoots babies to make a point, what butchers".

 

[Lighthouse]

Take it to the Israel thread guys.

 

[Aximili86]

Given this was all kicked off due to Trump's embassy move, it seems pertinent.

 

[DeadPresident]

I'd like to, but that zealot Midnyte_Sun hangs around there clamoring for Israel to adopt any position that ensures its own destruction and completely absolving Palestinians of whatever they do.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You keep using weird false equivalences like this. Israel's conduct is unacceptable, but black American men aren't trying to move across a border into another country and they aren't using makeshift weapons to do so. They also don't support an organization that's trying to drive a certain demographic out of the USA.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44124556

Noam Lubell, a professor of international law at the University of Essex, said human rights law required a graduated approach to the use of force - starting with no force, on to minimal force, and reaching lethal force only in the context of imminent threats to life.

The law of armed conflict, he added, contained a different set of rules, some of which could allow in certain circumstances for direct recourse to lethal force against particular individuals, including combatants in wars and civilians directly participating in hostilities. However, it does not entitle security forces to open fire on civilians if they are only demonstrating.

Professor Lubell said that if the Israeli military was operating under the armed conflict model along the Gaza border, then it might argue it was only targeting individuals taking a direct part in hostilities.

But he added: "There would still need to be legal scrutiny to see how they have interpreted taking a direct part in hostilities - was it construed to include only individuals attempting to use weapons or explosives, or was it anyone coming near the fence? The latter would seem too broad of an interpretation to allow for direct lethal force."

And even if the law of armed conflict was applicable in this situation, while it might allow for lethal force against members of armed groups operating from within the crowd, as far as civilians taking part in a demonstration - including a "riot"- are concerned, the expectation is still that any force used towards them would be based on the law enforcement framework in international human rights law.

Additionally, if the armed groups are using the civilian crowds for cover, that could in itself be a violation of international law on their part. However, even if that is the case, it does not remove the civilian protection from demonstrators entitled to it.

Professor Lubell said there was also the question of whether, given that the protests did not come as a surprise, more could have been done by the Israeli military in advance to minimise the use of deadly force - something both international human rights law and the law of armed conflict require.

These recent events also cannot be divorced from the larger picture of the situation in Gaza, which itself raises many legal questions with regard to who has the power and obligations to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in the territory.

 

[Sithborg]

A nice reminder that, **** ICE.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...o-prove-that-dreamer-was-gang-affiliated.html

 

[DarthSkywalker]

ICE lie? I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

 

[Aximili86]

*Laughs* Good god, Darth.

You just love to ignore that that's exactly what went down.

No force when it was the initial protest. Skunk-water when it became thousands of people and fires being lit. Tear-gas when the thousands got rowdy & aggressive, and finally lethality on the small numbers of that crowd that made it to the fence despite Israel dropping leaflets over the prior days saying they're not standing for anyone attempting to actually cross that border.

They literally followed expected procedure to a tee. Not that you'll acknowledge it.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Buzzfeed - The Definitive Story Of How Trump’s Team Worked The Trump Moscow Deal During The Campaign
On the day of the third Republican presidential debate, Trump personally signed the letter of intent.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/anthonycormier/trump-moscow-micheal-cohen-felix-sater-campaign

 

[DarthSkywalker]

*Laughs* Good god, Darth.

You just love to ignore that that's exactly what went down.

No force when it was the initial protest. Skunk-water when it became thousands of people and fires being lit. Tear-gas when the thousands got rowdy & aggressive, and finally lethality on the small numbers of that crowd that made it to the fence despite Israel dropping leaflets over the prior days saying they're not standing for anyone attempting to actually cross that border.

They literally followed expected procedure to a tee. Not that you'll acknowledge it.

Making it to the fence is not a shooting offence. Crossing the fence is not a shooting offence. Neither is throwing Molotov cocktails or setting tires on fire a great distance from the soldiers. It is the last resort, to avoid actual imminent harm. You do realize that right?

Also, explain why everyone other then Israel and Trump's people, including the UN, is saying what they did was not okay?

 

[DeadPresident]

Buzzfeed - The Definitive Story Of How Trump’s Team Worked The Trump Moscow Deal During The Campaign
On the day of the third Republican presidential debate, Trump personally signed the letter of intent.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/anthonycormier/trump-moscow-micheal-cohen-felix-sater-campaign

Quite a bit of speculation, but by all accounts this is pretty big.

 

[Aximili86]

Making it to the fence is not a shooting offence. Crossing the fence is not a shooting offence. Neither is throwing Molotov cocktails or setting tires on fire. It is the last resort, to avoid actual imminent harm. You do realize that right?

Also, explain why everyone other then Israel and Trump's people, including the UN, is saying what they did was not okay?

The first part - of course it is. You act like this is some peacetime situation - nobody's getting shot walking up to the US-Canada border on foot and waving a sign. This isn't that. And frankly, playing ignorant on the "they've said they're prepared to use lethal force if we move on the fence? I didn't know that!" stuff given the days of very-public warnings isn't an excuse.

You see them as the big evil oppressive empire, demonstrators? You're entitled to it. But if that's how you feel, maybe running at their red-line (after fore-warning, to boot) doesn't make you the smartest cookie.

The second part - consensus is not a fact-based exercise. The UN's useless on the big stuff, Bill Clinton says he regrets not acting unilaterally in Rwanda in hindsight. Belgium & Norway & New Zealand consider Israel too heavy-handed? Fine. Nobody with a grasp on reality takes it seriously, coming from them. It's a hard thing to grasp for westerners who've never been there. I'm not remotely Jewish, but spending two years there was the most eye-opening experience imaginable. Yes, the Israelis are some gruff & tough MFers. Circumtances on the ground, you don't get a handle on from an article or the 3 minutes on the news bulletin simplifying it to a buzzword or three.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The first part - of course it is. You act like this is some peacetime situation - nobody's getting shot walking up to the US-Canada border on foot and waving a sign. This isn't that. And frankly, playing ignorant on the "they've said they're prepared to use lethal force if we move on the fence? I didn't know that!" stuff given the days of very-public warnings isn't an excuse.

You see them as the big evil oppressive empire, demonstrators? You're entitled to it. But if that's how you feel, maybe running at their red-line (after fore-warning, to boot) doesn't make you the smartest cookie.

The second part - consensus is not a fact-based exercise. The UN's useless on the big stuff, Bill Clinton says he regrets not acting unilaterally in Rwanda in hindsight. Belgium & Norway & New Zealand consider Israel too heavy-handed? Fine. Nobody with a grasp on reality takes it seriously, coming from them. It's a hard thing to grasp for westerners who've never been there. I'm not remotely Jewish, but spending two years there was the most eye-opening experience imaginable. Yes, the Israelis are some gruff & tough MFers. Circumtances on the ground, you don't get a handle on from an article or the 3 minutes on the news bulletin simplifying it to a buzzword or three.

International law says otherwise, but why pay attention to that when one is justifying a country committing murder.

 

[Sithborg]

Quite a bit of speculation, but by all accounts this is pretty big.

There is a reason Trump threw a hissy fit when Cohen was raided.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He is still losing his mind over it.

 

[DeadPresident]

There is a reason Trump threw a hissy fit when Cohen was raided.

It certainly paints a questionable picture of what Trump's associates were doing consorting with Russians during that specific period. This seems like a sanctioned release (by the FBI or DOJ probably) from Buzzfeed meant to get the public a step closer to condemning Trump.

So far it only looks really bad for Cohen and the other dimwits using Trump's name to try and get some cash, but I'm pretty sure there are conflicts of interest here that apply to Trump, too.

I'm sure in another month or two we're going to get something that builds on this. There's no smoking gun, but doubt I Cohen's stress was about what released in this story from Buzzfeed, I'm convinced the real bombshell is a few months away.

 

[Sithborg]

I mean, Cohen already force Trump to admit to a crime.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps...-form-released-by-ethics-office-live-updates/

 

[DeadPresident]

Unfortunately that's one of those things that'll just get ignored because it's not big enough to challenge a sitting president based on that alone - even though your average Joe might get a more serious punishment.

The best hope is that all of the smaller things pile up, or that there's still a watershed moment left to come from the Mueller investigation that sinks Trump.