Jblood

" Makes no sense if one sees it all through Russian propaganda goggles. The US got leverage with some factions, not all. Nothing by way to total control. If a ceasefire and safe evacuation routes are agreed upon there are quite a few ways of conveying the message to the local populace - it's only difficult to grasp if one really tries not to. "

Whatever Kerry and his gang did before the last ceasefire worked really damn well for putting the ceasefire in place inititally. Who are you trying to fool here? If they can exercise such high level of control over all of the factions which has already been demonstrated that US does, it's pretty obvious that US is a bit more than just sleeping in bed with all those factions. And I repeat ALL of them. Maybe you need goggles, but it's actually just elementary logic.

13 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Although it's off topic, think you will find US is negotiating with Russia, not the myriad factions, to facilitate safe passage for 'rebel' withdrawal to facilitate humanitarian support for civilians, though unlikely to succeed with a lasting solution.  In Syria currently US is primary focused on supporting Kurdish fighting groups and some other minorities to retake Raqqa.

This makes no sense at all. They are negotiating the exit route, once they are done with it who's going to send the map of the route to the Rebels and make sure they put ceasefire in place?... I would assume it's not mr. Lavrov who speaks to them on regular basis.

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Do even know who are the many groups fighting in Aleppo and their tribal / political / Imam allegiances. Provided below is a link that is likely out of date as alliances are constantly shifting, but let us know which ones are actively being controlled by the US, with creditable references.

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=us+supported+rebels+fighting+aleppo&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=_WRGWLCoN8Xu8wfg2qmIDg#q=battle+of+aleppo+combatants

 

Since Kerry is conducting the negotiations you should direct that question to him. I would assume most of them US controls, otherwise what's the point of the negotiation?

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You are aware of who's doing the most killing?  It's not the rebels.  And also not Syria. You give the US too much credit.  They are definitely not in control of the rebels. LOL

 

You also saw that China and Russia vetoed the UNSC resolution for a ceasefire?  Seems like trolling to me.  What is this, the 5th UNSC resolution they've vetoed? Place the blame properly.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-has-killed-more-civilians-than-isis-kg7wfsw8w

 

Since Lavrov has to meet with Kerri to negotiate the Rebel withdrawal from Aleppo then not only US has total control over them but Kerri must be their commander in chief... LOL. Again why deliberately prolong the senseless slaughter in a war which was decided a month or 2 ago. Seems US is only interested in mounting casualties on both sides, because that's all it does.

Countries like US would do much help by putting pressure on the Rebels (terrorists) to stop fighting the senseless and futile war in Aleppo which they lost at least a month ago. Instead they are encouraging the senseless slaughter which only drives up the dead count but doesn't change the outcome of the war by providing diplomatic support for the terrorists thus being fully responsible for the mounting civilians casualties and while at the same time trolling and pretending at the UN meetings like they have some sympathetic feelings for the Civilians, which as we all know is a pile of nonsense... :)

It's probably not my business but. Maybe it's got something to do with your wife - she did the talking and you weren't there. The reason she gave - orange t-shirt sounds ridiculous, perhaps she's trying to hide something. Maybe she revealed some info about you that you wouldn't have done yourself, perhaps by mistake. She as a Thai wouldn't have a clue as to the Visa requirements for a Farang or the restrictions, or the fact that they got a lot stricter recently.

50 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Using a blanket statement like Western Media can't be trusted makes your post not worth reading.  You've got some good arguments, but that kind of blanket statement ruins it.

 

Plus, do you really believe everything people say during an interview?  Especially one like Assad?  I guarantee I sure don't!  Regardless of who they are or their nationality! LOL

 

If you don't like Western Media, give us a source you trust.  Read this article.  These guys are pretty accurate.  Hopefully, it will change your mind.

 

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/09/21/aleppo-un-aid-analysis/

.

 

 

Pretty conclusive evidence

That Assad interview is probably the best piece of evidence we have about that conflict so far than from any source of media. You have the key "suspect" and who also happens to be the key and most informed witness in that whole conflict giving his testimony to an impartial or actually probably biased against Assad media. Nobody knows more than Assad does. Any digital media can be easily manipulated, manufactured, photoshopped and so on. I doubt that any of the evidence meets the criteria of collection of forensic evidence during a crime investigation for example. But since we are at war with Western Countries clearly physically and financially backing the "rebels", then pretty much all western media sources particularly those linked to the government and the establishment should be dismissed as pure propaganda and source of disinformation. It's just common sense. It's something which shouldn't require explanation.

I can only see that Assad's body language tells me he's probably telling the truth. I didn't notice any body language which would indicate he's lying at any instance during the interview. And it was more of an interrogation - he was asked the same question something like 7 times. And each time he answered using different wording and added further information to his argument, which usually doesn't happen when a person is lying.

The problem is  that the Western Media can't be trusted at all on this and many other issues. I provided a link with Assad interview where he clearly explains that there's no logic in either Syrian or Russian forces in targeting hospitals or civilians. He says the consequence of such actions would only further ferment unrest - it's like shooting yourself in the foot. I think the problem here is that the Western Media is highly exaggerating the scale and the intensity of the war in Syria and it's straight out lying that either Syria or Russia are deliberately targeting hospitals or civilians. I'm pretty sure the western media is lying about everything else as well.

According to Assad himself he's not fighting his people but rather the foreign Al-Qaida network and foreign armed and terrorists. You can listen to the whole Assad interview with Danish TV and western Danish reporter who isn't trying to side with Assad:

Assad doesn't strike me as some deranged lunatic dictator as always described in the Western Media. I think what you see here in the interview is the exact opposite.

As for Syria itself. Its borders were rather porous even before this conflict started. Those officers who defected probably provided full picture of what Assad and his near circle is about... There's been no secret about it for a while now.

You can't deny that a huge proportion of population in Syria still supports Assad. If that wasn't the case his war would have ended 4 years ago. A large number of population, local elites, clergy and the army are still very loyal to Assad. Assad's personal safety wasn't even threatened in the whole period though he was in the middle of the fighting the whole time. In 4 years not even an assassination attempt or a coup attempt... it can only mean that his people are very loyal to him.

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Unfortunately, Trump is turning his back on many campaign promises.  Many.  As for top of the list, there are other countries out there doing much more in the fight against IS than Russia.

Sure. That's why both leaders made these statements, to make it clear that if Trump backtracks on something his foreign policy in regards to Russia, Syria, Middle East etc is going to be unchanged. That's why he put emphasis at the rally about this, my guess to make sure Putin and others hear him.

Trump is possibly backtracking on some domestic issues like challenging the establishment and so on - it's offtopic, this has little in direct to do with the foreign policy. My guess is it's a juggling exercise for Trump at the moment. He's trying to bring change while having lack of support and problems at home.

Right. So far this echoes what Trump said at a rally just a day ago as well. That America will not work to overthrow or depose any governments, will not wage wars, will learn from its mistakes and work forward with its allies towards mutual stability and security in the fight against extremism. And also that US will ally with any country willing to fight ISIS - that makes Russia at the moment on top of that list. Trump and Putin haven't yet met but these guys are already talking to each other. 

Everything is going exactly as I predicted.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Actually, dude, we do know.

 

How do you know - is it a requirement to list one's religion while voting? Or is this information based on opinion Polls? Just tell us what the source is with the actual numbers and data. I for one would be curious what the actual break-down of the "Jewish" vote is and how they calculated it.

Since Jewish is a religion so I think if they don't care about Israel's interests or about its existential problems, and they don't care about the status of Jerusalem, then my guess is maybe they are not even really Jewish :)

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Dude, you're confusing American Jews with Israeli Jews. NOT the same. 

Not too bad a list though if you're talking about Israel.

Please read the O.P. It's about AMERICAN Jews. AMERICANS! Not Israelis.

American Jews OVERWHELMINGLY oppose trump.

 

Duh. 

Overwhelmingly? Probably, but we don't really know do we... I don't really know. I think a lot of them support Republicans because traditionally Republicans have always been a pro-Israel party. But then I heard the reports they all vote Democrat for some reason. Israelis hated Obama, at least most of the Right Wing Israelis didn't like him because he wanted to push through the Two-state solution and that was cancelled at the last minute. Now Trump promised to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital - that's a big change from Obama's policy and good news for Israel. So I don't know why US Jews are allegedly against Trump - logic suggests they should be for him and not against him.

I think Trump is sort of a US version of Netanyahu. You can draw a lot of parallels:

1 )Netanyahu is Israel centric, Trump is US centric

2) Netanyahu doesn't like the Palestinians, Trump doesn't like the illegal Mexicans

3) Netanyahu built the wall in Jerusalem and near areas to keep Palestinians out. Trump wants to do the same to keep the Mexicans out

4) Netanyahu Loves Putin, Trump also Loves Putin

5) Netanyahu doesn't like the Europeans, Trump also doesn't like the Europeans

6) Netanyahu has a good relationship with Russia, Trump also wants a good relationship with Russia

7) Netanyahu doesn't like Muslims. Trump also doesn't like Muslims - in fact he was talking about not allowing any new Muslims in the country -  I think Netanyahu gave him that idea/

8) Netanyahu's Daughter is Jewish and married to a Jew. Trump's daughter is also Jewish and married to a Jew. They are both about the same age.

I don't know what's going on with the US Jews or if the reports are true but to me it looks like the US-Israel relationship is going to be the best ever, Trump-Netanyahu are going to be the best pals, and they will both visit their friend Putin on regular basis, at least 4 times a year :)

About the US Jews. Trump's daughter and his first Child and his favourite Child Ivanka is Jewish. She converted either before or after she married some rich Jew in New York. In a way I see him as pro-Jewish and at least definitely pro-Israel, his connections with the Jewish networks in New York are probably pretty deep and go back many years.

We need to know who drew the Swastika - it's more like it was some liberal trying to taunt the Trump supporters, for the most part this "fascist" image of Trump is a complete lie created by the media which totally contradicts all the facts about him. I don't know why the MSM would try to deliberately misinform or confuse the public in this way. If there is some kind of a reaction and an increase in hate crime out there - it's not Trump who is creating it. It's the anti-Trump media which is creating all of that mess in the first place by continually misinforming the public about true Trump's intentions or who he is.

28 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Frederic provided bunk houses for miners during the gold rush and flipped properties, sometimes the very next day for huge profits, he was described as "mining the miners", nothing that anyone would describe as "working his ass off".

 

His son, Fred, Donalds father, was a property tycoon, you dispute this because he only amassed about 300 hundred million in today's money, which is a tycoon by most peoples reckoning, particularly so when you consider that at one point he had 27,000 apartments, the truth being he was one of America's biggest ever property tycoons.

 

What "any upper-middle class person can afford" is not what anyone normal calls humble, and comparing this to a family that is estimated to be worth 340 billion dollars is just plain ridiculous.  How about comparing it to the average American family income, where we will see that Donalds school is far from a humble beginning as it cost 60% of that, and as he had three siblings, they would have needed 2.4 times the national average family income just for their schooling.  Get in touch with reality.

 

And the success was not exactly from building, the family fortune really came from profiteering off the Federal Housing Administration, buying cheap land, renting it to themselves for far more than they paid so that if their project failed and they had to default on the loan, the FHA would owe millions thus preventing their risky and at times unprofitable projects from being bankrupted.  They also loaned far more than projects cost to build and put the cost of repayments onto their tenants, something that thousands of these tenants sued them for.   Considering the amount of times they have been prosecuted, sued and bankrupted I find it incredible that anyone could admire this crooked family.

 

As for Donald, he would be worth more if he had of just held on to the properties his dad handed over to him, but of course he wanted to do all his vanity projects and he managed to lose half the money, he is still worth 3.4 billion but the 27,000 apartments would be worth over 5 billion by now.  Donald is less of a builder and more of a vain fool.

 

As for your closing statement, I did not claim that a president must have a humble beginning, it was just that you claimed he did, and you did also use Rockefeller's to demonstrate what is not humble, which is more than a little silly.

 

I don't even know how much your argument is worth, probably not a lot, I don't have time to examine it in detail. Just over some word I used - "humble". I'm not the one who needs a reality check. The reality was announced a few days ago, I don't know if you missed it :) You see that's the *reality*, so welcome to reality :)

I get some sense that a lot of "liberals" are living in some kind of a utopian cocoon and don't understand the country they are living in.

2 points: Trump isn't a fascist, and he's not as incompetent as a lot of "experts" claimed, the same "experts" who said he would never win the election. While I know that Trump IS the president that kind of brings into question the quality of expertise of "experts" on your side of the argument :) While losing 100% of all your predictions, and still calling the guy who won the campaign against all odds - a vain fool, sounds like some of you guys might  be just a bit bitter and disappointed, it's totally understood that nobody feels good about being 100% wrong.

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

"This guy is a Brooklyn New York native with humble origins"

 

He grew up on Jamaica Estates, Queens, only 10 miles from Brooklyn, he went to a $30,000 school and was the son of a property tycoon worth hundreds of millions, exactly how does that equate to anything humble?

By that I meant. He's 3d generation American. His grandparents came with nothing and some of them I believe settled in Brooklyn and then worked their ass for their way up. His family history is typical American success story when hard work earns you the rewards. Hundred million dollars is hardly a tycoon, that just a poor turned wealthy American family. Any upper middle class family in NY could probably afford that school. That's pretty humble compared to something like a 5th generation Rockefeller - the mega billionaires and monopolists who are known to have earned their wealth in a not exactly so honest ways. That's totally different actually. So he comes from a family who succeeded in building successful construction business - so what's the problem, basically the guy is a builder and not a talker :) Like he has to be from a beat down unsuccessful poor family just to qualify to be the president - that's a little silly.

Not an American. The people have spoken despite all the MSM propaganda - they still elected this guy - of course he's the one to lead the country.

Trump is not racist, not a fascist, and not many things he's being accused of. It was obvious to me since I did some background research about this guy since I first heard about him. I'm a little bit mesmerized by some people's ignorance. This guy is a Brooklyn New York native with humble origins - he grew up in probably one of the most Cosmopolitan areas in all of US - but the media was trying to present him like some Fascist redneck from Alabama - you gotta be kidding me :) You're talking about two completely different things here.

Is he a genius? Maybe he is - he won the election didn't he, exactly as he said he would. I analyzed some of his statements for which he was heavily criticized but this guy is a pro - he knows America, he knows how to work the crowd. Not all of his statements should be taken so literally - he exaggerated his statements because that's the only effective way of communicating with the public. Nobody is going to hear you, if nobody is listening. He made sure that the whole world was listening to him since day one. He beat the "Democrats" or the establishment with his simple smart approach, perfectly calculated moves and much better strategy and tactics. He really outplayed them despite far fewer resources available to him.

let's see what he's actually going to do when he becomes president. So far he looks like a pretty capable and straightforward guy.

"If you say the West has zero democracy, then you must not understand democracy. It's not perfect, but it's the closest we've got. "

There are a couple of countries where they have democracy - Switzerland and maybe Iceland - countries that you can hardly see on the map. But Democracy in a country like USA - are you joking? The thing that you have there is probably like 95% match to Plutocracy and 0% match to Democracy - i.e. the vast majority of the demos have no involvement in any of the decision making in the country either internally or externally. Any reasonably educated American who has at least held a white collar job or ran a business in America should know that they have nothing anything even similar to Democracy... It can be described as Plutocracy, Oligarchy, and at the moment also a Military dictatorship - the Pentagon and your security agencies have powers that nobody in the country has any control over... And what your country is heading to at the moment is a Tyrrany.

Oh and btw, just because you got yourself a selfie in front of the St. Basil Cathedral in Moscow, doesn't exactly make you an expert on Russia either :)

"Russia isn't a communist country now.  So I guess there was a change.  Sadly, they've got a long way to go with regards to being democratic. "

Sadly the West has absolute Zero Democracy, and even more sadly even though Russia isn't Communist anymore, America and EU surely are.. lol

"They've got a long way to go"... lol, yeah it's a totally long way to go to a total Zero Democracy, as it is in the West.

The last time I saw and was a victim of violence myself was when I was returning to Bangkok from Koh Larn having spent a night on the island. A British expat threatened to kill me because I wouldn't move from a pedestrian island( traffic is not allowed there) as I was waiting in the middle of the road trying to safely cross the road. He later drove the mororcycle into me and hit me and my luggage and drove off while screaming profanities at me... I have never seen such level of violence in my whole life and the sheer stupidity of it was kind of disturbing - so now Pattaya is a permanent no go zone for me. I didn't even spend a minute in Pattaya, it happened as I was trying to cross the road to the Pattaya Bus station as I was returning from the Pattaya Pier by taxi.

Prior to that I had a few altercations with mostly only foreigners - I had one Scott from Glasgow who tried to get into fight with me over a very minor dispute - he only notified me that he had a problem by literally charging me and challenging me to a fight. Since I didn't accept the challenge and quitely told him to get lost - no violence actually took place. I have to give this guy some credit, 15 minutes later he approached me and aplogized, I guess it finally sunk to him what an idiot he was for behaving that way.

There was one more serious incident with British and French expats, again, loss of face, people just go ballistic over minor issues these days, violence seems to be the only thing on the mind of too many expats these days, not a lot of people are willing to just talk it out anymore.

I had one altercation with a Thai, but I did make him lose face big time I guess, even though I caught him doing something kind of nasty - I should have contacted the authorities instead of trying to explain what he did wrong to the Thai directly, he was high on drugs and alcohol at the time, challenged me to a fight, I didn't budge, so he gave up eventually. No violence took place. I only had to endure about 40 minutes of unspeakable verbal abuse from the Thai in my direction - he didn't take it well that I was trying to lecture him...

There was also one small incident in Samut Prakan, a dog slightly bit me once, but the teeth didn't penetrate the skin, so it was no big deal I guess. Also there was one kid in the neighbourhood who tried to cut me off at the local Tesco Express, I wouldn't let him. So a couple of days later I saw this kid fingering me and shouting "Hey f u Farang"... I was a little surprised by all of it, but didn't think much of it cause I guess it was just a kid.

I signed up long before this whole incident happened - i have only one account. And these are my genuine feelings about this.

If they vow to return - I hope the Thai Authorities inform us well in advance of their arrival so we can put the country on high alert, for safety reasons, especially after what we've seen what these people are capable of - hit first and think later...

I personally would not feel safe to go out in public knowing that people like this are still roaming the public areas somewhere out there... They should have been slapped with assault and hooliganism charges and never allowed to return...

The justice system failed completely in this case...

And all those who disagree can always move to Wales where they can spend more quality time with these people. Apart from the obvious personal safety reasons - I don't see any reason to be anywhere around where these people are, I don't see what I could possibly discuss with them, after they demonstrated what they are capable of and what they are all about... There's really nothing to talk about.

The reason the family was attacked is actually because of the Dad + Son, coming around and then attacking the guy in black shirt. The Dad gave him a sucker punch while the son was restraining him from behind by holding back both of his arms... This is where it all got very serious... never mind the woman... she could continue slapping them all around and I think nothing would happen - it was the Two British men who started the more serious part of this brawl. When the Thai guy in black shirt managed to free himself from the tight grip of the son holding him back - you can see the Dad( who sucker punched him) quickly retreating and hiding behind his woman...

That's when the Thai guy in black shirt came around and knocked the Dad to the ground ( which in his case was a retaliation to this Brit's sucker punch a few moments earlier - a cowardly act if you ask me), and you can see what happened next... It was actually only one Thai guy who brought all 3 of them to the ground... it wasn't 6 guys as the various articles implied... While he shouldn't have brought the woman down, I'd say he was agitated and out of control due to being restrained and sucker punched by the 2 Brits just a few moments earlier... Plus the woman after seeing her husband go down started slowly moving in his direction and he also had the son to worry about on his left flank, so he knocked both of them out... And the son seeing his mother obviously moving in close proximity to the Thai guy in black shirt - had plenty of opportunity to jump in front of her and shield her, but he did nothing of the sort... in fact both Men put the woman in jeopardy by running back to hide behind her on top of so many other things they did wrong in this whole situation, completely failing to protect the woman and acting like completely children out of fear of losing face or whatever else...

My camp would first of all get and use some brains when going in public in Thailand. My camp would send MEN to fight battles instead of choosing to hide behind a skirt of a 70 y.o. grandmother, while utilizing it to their advantage to start their own carnage - i.e. it was the Dad who threw the first sucker puncher on a completely restrained at the time Thai man.

Since it was the British Men who chose to use their grannie as a human shield in their attack against Thai people, then why do they complain that she in the end came in the line of fire? The British troops didn't mind killing thousands of women and children in the middle East when the arabs were using them as human shields. Then why do they complain that this happens when they themselves are using the same tactic?