Trump Urges Israel to Strike Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

[cjinchiangrai]

Escalation could lead to disaster and Trump is being irresponsible injecting himself into the situation.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, 300sd said:

I tend to agree with Trump. Perhaps no one noticed that recent video on a news outlet showing masses of Iranian's shouting "death to America." Israel will be doing the world a favour destroying Iran's nuclear capacity which the Biden admin has allowed to progress. A country that proves it's behind terrorism should never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

 A country that proves it's behind terrorism should never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. And would that also apply to Israel and/or the USA.

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

 

The designation of  Jerusalem as Israel's capital for some Islamic nations is that they refuse to recognize the  state of Israel. For others, it is linked to their positions on the final status of the Palestinian territories. Jerusalem has been documented as the capital of the Israelites since King David designated  it the  capital city of Israel in 1003 BC, 1613 years before the invention of Islam. Even in 1948, the modern state of Israel incluuded much of Jerusalem. West Jerusalem had been  controlled by  Jordan who refused access to the Jewish religious sites to the jew despite there being an agreement to do so. Had, Jordan not attacked Israel in 1967, the west Bank and West Jerusalem might still be  managed by Jordan.

 

 

Oh really 🤔 

[frank83628]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Well, it just shows there is one rules for one, and another set of rules for the other half. 

 

The charges we'll placed, but thats how it is. 

 

He have targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure, so how come you in your opinion should not be charged? 

no, it has been alleged by western reports and denied by the Russian side.  but you are right, 'rules for thee, not for me' 
Israel is allowed to do pretty much what ever it likes and nothing is done about because it has US backing. 

 

were they not just offered a UN resolution to the current situation but refused. seems like they don't want peace

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

no, it has been alleged by western reports and denied by the Russian side.  but you are right, 'rules for thee, not for me' 
Israel is allowed to do pretty much what ever it likes and nothing is done about because it has US backing. 

 

were they not just offered a UN resolution to the current situation but refused. seems like they don't want peace

Nicks Carters Russian brother?

[frank83628]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Nicks Carters Russian brother?

Nope, but yeah, i support Putin,  if thats what you mean, its quite clear by my posts. 

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Nope, but yeah, i support Putin,  if thats what you mean, its quite clear by my posts. 

Then you believe Russian media? Putin have not dropped bombs on civilians? 

[Nick Carter icp]

13 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Then you believe Russian media? Putin have not dropped bombs on civilians? 

 

   30 000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed/wounded  by Russian forces in the war

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   30 000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed/wounded  by Russian forces in the war

A little less than Gaza then, or same Sam. It will add up the next week's from Lebanon 

[Nick Carter icp]

30 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Nicks Carters Russian brother?

 

  Why did you say that ?

I don't recall ever mentioning the war in Russia before  . let alone supporting Russia 

[Nick Carter icp]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

A little less than Gaza then, or same Sam. It will add up the next week's from Lebanon 

 

  Nope, quite a bit more than in Gaza

[frank83628]

6 hours ago, Hummin said:

Then you believe Russian media? Putin have not dropped bombs on civilians? 

i don't believe he has purposely targeted them, no.  deaths are not good regardless, but i have said previously Boris Johnson, flew to Kiev in April 22 and put a stop to the arranged peace talks, the war could have been over nearly 2 years ago.

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

i don't believe he has purposely targeted them, no.  deaths are not good regardless, but i have said previously Boris Johnson, flew to Kiev in April 22 and put a stop to the arranged peace talks, the war could have been over nearly 2 years ago.

Peace talks? Putins demands do you mean? 

 

Just for the sale of good, can you post Putins demands? Does the original list of demands exists? 

 

 

[frank83628]

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Peace talks? Putins demands do you mean? 

 

Just for the sale of good, can you post Putins demands? Does the original list of demands exists? 

 

 

 

no, i dont know what was on offer, nobody got to find out due to Boris, even if i !spent time searching RT to find out, i am not allowed to post it here as nothing other than western links are accepted

[Patong2021]

9 hours ago, frank83628 said:

no, it has been alleged by western reports and denied by the Russian side.  but you are right, 'rules for thee, not for me' 
Israel is allowed to do pretty much what ever it likes and nothing is done about because it has US backing. 

 

were they not just offered a UN resolution to the current situation but refused. seems like they don't want peace

You mean like the resolution that recognized the State of Israel that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah accept? You do understand why they chant from the River to the Sea, don't you? It is because they do not accept the existence of the state of Israel. Both are pledged to the destruction of Israel. It is impossible to have peace with people who want you dead no matter what.

[Neeranam]

13 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

You mean like the resolution that recognized the State of Israel that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah accept? You do understand why they chant from the River to the Sea, don't you? It is because they do not accept the existence of the state of Israel. Both are pledged to the destruction of Israel. It is impossible to have peace with people who want you dead no matter what.

I suggest you read this interview of  a renowned US(Jewish) professor, maybe the leading expert on Israel/Palestine. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/17/university-protests-gaza-norman-finkelstein

 

I believe that a political slogan should be as clear and succinct as possible, to allow for no wiggle room that can be misinterpreted and exploited by the other side. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a slogan that gives the other side a lot of room to exploit. “What do you mean by Palestine will be free? Do you mean there is no room for Israel?”

 

There is public consciousness at this point that there’s something wrong with a state which privileges Jews. As B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, put it, there’s only one state from the river to the sea – meaning the West Bank, Israel and Gaza. There’s one state, and it is anchored in the principle of Jewish supremacy. However you cut it, Jews have more rights in that state. To that extent, I have no problem with saying, “We can’t countenance that.”

But as you already said, “Palestine will be free” can also mean something else. It can fit into what’s called the settler colonial framework, which basically says, “Settlers do not have legitimate rights to the land. The land belongs to those who are ‘Indigenous’ to it. And everybody else, at most, can live there on the sufferance of the Indigenous majority, or they have to pack up and leave.” And the reason that slogan is ambiguous is because the movement is ambiguous about what its goal is. And if you try to remove the ambiguity, you risk breaking up the movement.

So what do you do? You could limit yourself to simple demands, which everybody can agree on – namely, “permanent ceasefire”. During the war in Vietnam, there were two slogans at the end. One was “out now” – meaning “all the troops, out now”. It was a very simple slogan, and it united people. The other slogan was “sign the treaty” [to end the war].

Those slogans reduced the point of unity to the common denominator. Another possibility is to risk fragmentation by fighting it out. And a third is constructive ambiguity. Amend the slogan to: “From the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free.” It doesn’t endorse one state, it doesn’t endorse two states. It doesn’t say: “All Jews have to go.” It doesn’t say: “Jews can stay.” It just doesn’t imply: “We’re trying to get rid of Jews.” For me, the ideal slogan would actually be: “From the river to the sea, one person, one vote, Palestinians will be free.”

[Jingthing]

39 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I suggest you read this interview of  a renowned US(Jewish) professor, maybe the leading expert on Israel/Palestine. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/17/university-protests-gaza-norman-finkelstein

 

I believe that a political slogan should be as clear and succinct as possible, to allow for no wiggle room that can be misinterpreted and exploited by the other side. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a slogan that gives the other side a lot of room to exploit. “What do you mean by Palestine will be free? Do you mean there is no room for Israel?”

 

There is public consciousness at this point that there’s something wrong with a state which privileges Jews. As B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, put it, there’s only one state from the river to the sea – meaning the West Bank, Israel and Gaza. There’s one state, and it is anchored in the principle of Jewish supremacy. However you cut it, Jews have more rights in that state. To that extent, I have no problem with saying, “We can’t countenance that.”

But as you already said, “Palestine will be free” can also mean something else. It can fit into what’s called the settler colonial framework, which basically says, “Settlers do not have legitimate rights to the land. The land belongs to those who are ‘Indigenous’ to it. And everybody else, at most, can live there on the sufferance of the Indigenous majority, or they have to pack up and leave.” And the reason that slogan is ambiguous is because the movement is ambiguous about what its goal is. And if you try to remove the ambiguity, you risk breaking up the movement.

So what do you do? You could limit yourself to simple demands, which everybody can agree on – namely, “permanent ceasefire”. During the war in Vietnam, there were two slogans at the end. One was “out now” – meaning “all the troops, out now”. It was a very simple slogan, and it united people. The other slogan was “sign the treaty” [to end the war].

Those slogans reduced the point of unity to the common denominator. Another possibility is to risk fragmentation by fighting it out. And a third is constructive ambiguity. Amend the slogan to: “From the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free.” It doesn’t endorse one state, it doesn’t endorse two states. It doesn’t say: “All Jews have to go.” It doesn’t say: “Jews can stay.” It just doesn’t imply: “We’re trying to get rid of Jews.” For me, the ideal slogan would actually be: “From the river to the sea, one person, one vote, Palestinians will be free.”

Finklestein is a notorious self hating Jew.

[Jingthing]

I would like to see Iran's nuclear capabilities taken out but I don't pretend to understand the logistics or risks of doing that.

Edited 5 hours ago by Jingthing

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Finklestein is a notorious self hating Jew.

Please explain what you mean by this. 

Is it not allowed in Judaism to comment on Israeli atrocities? 

What do you think of Noam Chomsky? 

 

[Neeranam]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I would like to see Iran's nuclear capabilities taken out but I don't pretend to understand the logistics or risks of doing that.

Well that's hardly surprising.