Trump takes sides in Arab rift, suggests support for isolation of Qatar

[Morch]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Of course is Israel supporting this, and one of the countries that pushed for this.

 

After all, as you said, it has just one aim: go after Iran.

 

Err..."of course" how? Any reference to Israel pushing for moves against Qatar?

Like the former poster, you seemed a bit behind related current events. There's been an ongoing worsening of already troublesome relations between Fatah and Hamas for quite some time. More accurately, since Trump made his general intention of pushing for a peace deal. Abbas needed to assert his leadership, in order to be counted as relevant, and increased pressure on Hamas by several ways. If anyone is the main beneficiary of Qatar cutting ties to Hamas it would be him. In Israel, while some endorse this development, others point to the danger of deepening economic crisis driving Hamas into yet another war. So overall, not as black and white as you guys portray.

 

I don't know that there is an aim of "going after Iran", and I never posted anything of the sort. Countering Iran's influence and reach is a more realistic objective. But for having such a coalition, if it is to include Israel, there needs to be a peace deal with the Palestinians. As things stand, Hamas is an obstacle to an agreement. Hence, applying pressure would be in the interest of multiple parties.

 

But again, Hamas is not the  main dish in this story. Other in certain posters eyes.

 

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm not the one who likened May to Trump in a thread about Trump taking sides.

" (and if you insist, May was recently doing the same ME rounds, looking for the same payoff)."

 

Ah, we're off to another twisting game. Read my post and the post I was replying to and try to figure out the context.

All very well to harangue Trump for trying to score deals with them evil Saudis, just worth bearing in mind most Western leaders with anything to offer try to do the same. That's all, the rest is you trying to pick a pointless argument.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, we're off to another twisting game. Read my post and the post I was replying to and try to figure out the context.

All very well to harangue Trump for trying to score deals with them evil Saudis, just worth bearing in mind most Western leaders with anything to offer try to do the same. That's all, the rest is you trying to pick a pointless argument.

Or taking a stand against false equivalencies.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Or taking a stand against false equivalencies.

 

You''re not taking a stand. You're engaged in argumentative silliness. Same old.

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You''re not taking a stand. You're engaged in argumentative silliness. Same old.

Either  which way  it  goes  it still  comes  down  to the  undeniable  a stirring  of a  pot ! 

If  that  is a  localized   issue  why  so  much  adding  to the  itch  by ...?

In Thailand  finger  pointing  is  reserved  for  confessed criminals.

But  in another  particular regime  finger  pointing  at   anybody seems  to  be a   habitual  distraction from  it's  sorry  self !

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Either  which way  it  goes  it still  comes  down  to the  undeniable  a stirring  of a  pot !  If  that  is a  localized   issue  why  so  much  adding  to the  itch  by ...?  In Thailand  finger  pointing  is  reserved  for  confessed criminals. But  in another  particular regime  finger  pointing  at   anybody seems  to  be a   habitual  distraction from  it's  sorry  self !

I'll pretend I get what you're on about.

[Dumbastheycome]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

I'll pretend I get what you're on about.

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Err..."of course" how? Any reference to Israel pushing for moves against Qatar?

Like the former poster, you seemed a bit behind related current events. There's been an ongoing worsening of already troublesome relations between Fatah and Hamas for quite some time. More accurately, since Trump made his general intention of pushing for a peace deal. Abbas needed to assert his leadership, in order to be counted as relevant, and increased pressure on Hamas by several ways. If anyone is the main beneficiary of Qatar cutting ties to Hamas it would be him. In Israel, while some endorse this development, others point to the danger of deepening economic crisis driving Hamas into yet another war. So overall, not as black and white as you guys portray.

 

I don't know that there is an aim of "going after Iran", and I never posted anything of the sort. Countering Iran's influence and reach is a more realistic objective. But for having such a coalition, if it is to include Israel, there needs to be a peace deal with the Palestinians. As things stand, Hamas is an obstacle to an agreement. Hence, applying pressure would be in the interest of multiple parties.

 

But again, Hamas is not the  main dish in this story. Other in certain posters eyes.

 

 

Of course, because as you said yourself this is against Iran, in this case via Qatar.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

Of course, because as you said yourself this is against Iran, in this case via Qatar.

 

I was talking about trying to set up a coalition aimed at countering Iran, not "going after Iran", as you put it. The former denotes a more defensive stance aimed at containment, the latter implies aggression. As for the current situation, I strongly doubt that it is solely to do with Qatar's perceived stand on relations with Iran. Similarly, didn't see a whole lot of support for your "of course" re Israel pushing this move. Carry on.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I was talking about trying to set up a coalition aimed at countering Iran, not "going after Iran", as you put it. The former denotes a more defensive stance aimed at containment, the latter implies aggression. As for the current situation, I strongly doubt that it is solely to do with Qatar's perceived stand on relations with Iran. Similarly, didn't see a whole lot of support for your "of course" re Israel pushing this move. Carry on.

Of course you don't, your feelings for Israel are blinding you.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Of course you don't, your feelings for Israel are blinding you.

 

And still you haven't provided anything to support your "of course". Whereas I actually outlined who benefits and in which way.

[dexterm]

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Mr. Sinister strikes again. One- track mind at work.

 

The US is aiming to form a coalition countering Iran. They'll make a whole lot of compromises and hold their noses. Such is the nature of international relations.

 

Elections (whether they are fair and free is another matter) do not necessarily say a whole lot about the nature of the regime in power. Doubt any poster, including yourself, would willingly live under those regimes praised. That's without pointing out that Qatar itself isn't actually on the list.

 

As for Al Jazeera being "honest", you'd have to be you to make such as assertion. Al Jazeera comes in two main versions, English and Arabic. Content is not always similar. Editorial intervention is an issue. Don't recall much criticism about Qatar. Maybe has to do with being owned and funded by.

 

Even if you insist making it about your pet obsession, no cigar. Or at least, only half a cigar. The party intent on tightening the screws on Hamas is the Fatah. May want to read about recent developments in the ongoing spat before spewing the usual nonsense.

 

 

 

So you are trying to blame this on Abbas and Fatah alone. What a joke. there are far more sinister and powerful foces at work, just as previously. This anti terrorism nonsense is just fodder for the sheeple.

 

Think of the scenario: Saudi Arabia and the other dictatorships who stand to gain capture Qatar, steal all their oil and gas,  guarantee supply to USA, allow USA to maintain a base there, silence Al Jazeera, isolate Hamas, support Fatah to another 20 odd years of fake peace negotiations while Israel swamps the whole of the West Bank with settlements.

 

All of which would please Israel very much.

 

And with a bit of luck, Iran may be drawn into the conflict too on some pretext such as US personnel getting killed in Qatar.

 

And we in the west would become involved in yet another war on Israel's behalf, probably as before without them risking a single medic to help out.

 

This is the real story behind the economic crisis unfolding in Qatar

"No Qataris flew the 9/11 planes into New York and Washington. All but four of the 19 killers were Saudi. Bin Laden was not a Qatari. He was a Saudi."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qatar-crisis-economy-diplomatic-links-torn-middle-east-russia-hacking-real-story-robert-fisk-a7778616.html

 

This is the aim of Donald Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia – and it isn't good for Shia communities
"The Sunni Saudis and the Gulf kings possess immense wealth, the only religion that Trump really respects, and they want to destroy Shia Iran, Syria, the Hezbollah and the Houthis – which is a simple ‘anti-terrorist’ story for the Americans"

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-iran-iraq-kurdish-population-shia-muslims-a7742276.html

 

...both articles well worth a read.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And still you haven't provided anything to support your "of course". Whereas I actually outlined who benefits and in which way.

Of course I did:

" Err..."of course" how? Any reference to Israel pushing for moves against Qatar? " was your question after I stated:

"Of course is Israel supporting this, and one of the countries that pushed for this.

 

After all, as you said, it has just one aim: go after Iran."

 

Why you ask for me to support the claim that Israel approves of this makes no sense at all when I stated this is all against Iran. Qatar is just the excuse. Unless you want to claim Israel does not go after Iran.

 

So your question only makes sense if you believe this is really aimed at Qatar, which would be extremely naive.

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, dexterm said:

So you are trying to blame this on Abbas and Fatah alone. What a joke. there are far more sinister and powerful foces at work, just as previously. This anti terrorism nonsense is just fodder for the sheeple.

 

Think of the scenario: Saudi Arabia and the other dictatorships who stand to gain capture Qatar, steal all their oil and gas,  guarantee supply to USA, allow USA to maintain a base there, silence Al Jazeera, isolate Hamas, support Fatah to another 20 odd years of fake peace negotiations while Israel swamps the whole of the West Bank with settlements.

 

All of which would please Israel very much.

 

And with a bit of luck, Iran may be drawn into the conflict too on some pretext such as US personnel getting killed in Qatar.

 

And we in the west would become involved in yet another war on Israel's behalf, probably as before without them risking a single medic to help out.

 

This is the real story behind the economic crisis unfolding in Qatar

"No Qataris flew the 9/11 planes into New York and Washington. All but four of the 19 killers were Saudi. Bin Laden was not a Qatari. He was a Saudi."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qatar-crisis-economy-diplomatic-links-torn-middle-east-russia-hacking-real-story-robert-fisk-a7778616.html

 

This is the aim of Donald Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia – and it isn't good for Shia communities
"The Sunni Saudis and the Gulf kings possess immense wealth, the only religion that Trump really respects, and they want to destroy Shia Iran, Syria, the Hezbollah and the Houthis – which is a simple ‘anti-terrorist’ story for the Americans"

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-iran-iraq-kurdish-population-shia-muslims-a7742276.html

 

...both articles well worth a read.

 

No, I did nothing of the sort. That's your spin.

What I did was point out that there are various elements at play here, and at least with regard to the Qatar-Hamas connection, one of the main beneficiaries Abbas. Also, I do not think that specific angle is a main ingredient in the current mess. 

 

Doubt that Saudi Arabia will "capture" Qatar. In all probability, that's just another one of your scaremongering "sinister" scenarios, which will remain in the confines of your imagination. Just like the other times when your predicted such things.

 

And sorry, not much inclined to treat all of Fisk's musings as gospel.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Of course I did:

" Err..."of course" how? Any reference to Israel pushing for moves against Qatar? " was your question after I stated:

"Of course is Israel supporting this, and one of the countries that pushed for this.

 

After all, as you said, it has just one aim: go after Iran."

 

Why you ask for me to support the claim that Israel approves of this makes no sense at all when I stated this is all against Iran. Qatar is just the excuse. Unless you want to claim Israel does not go after Iran.

 

So your question only makes sense if you believe this is really aimed at Qatar, which would be extremely naive.

 

Perhaps pay better attention to what's posted. I asked for reference with regard to the part alleging Israel pushing this move. You haven't provided any. As for "go after", it would depend how you mean - I don't think Israel is looking to start a war with Iran, even if it would like to see Iranian influence and involvement in the region curtailed.

 

 

[dexterm]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, I did nothing of the sort. That's your spin.

What I did was point out that there are various elements at play here, and at least with regard to the Qatar-Hamas connection, one of the main beneficiaries Abbas. Also, I do not think that specific angle is a main ingredient in the current mess. 

 

Doubt that Saudi Arabia will "capture" Qatar. In all probability, that's just another one of your scaremongering "sinister" scenarios, which will remain in the confines of your imagination. Just like the other times when your predicted such things.

 

And sorry, not much inclined to treat all of Fisk's musings as gospel.

 

 

 

 

>>Doubt that Saudi Arabia will "capture" Qatar. In all probability, that's just another one of your scaremongering "sinister" scenarios, which will remain in the confines of your imagination. Just like the other times when your predicted such things.

 

..they would probably install a pro Saudi regime instead. US approval of outright capture would revive memories of Bush Snr pervious forays leaping to the defense of embattled undemocratic nearby monarchies.

 

Let's hope I don't have to quote you on this being a figment of the imagination.

 

Yes, much easier to shoot the highly knowledgeable Fisk messenger, than address his critique.

[Thorgal]

 
I was talking about trying to set up a coalition aimed at countering Iran, not "going after Iran", as you put it. The former denotes a more defensive stance aimed at containment, the latter implies aggression. As for the current situation, I strongly doubt that it is solely to do with Qatar's perceived stand on relations with Iran. Similarly, didn't see a whole lot of support for your "of course" re Israel pushing this move. Carry on.

Israel tried several times in the past to portray Iran as the regional 'villain'.

Remember the Iranian nuclear proliferation deal which was accepted by arbitration, but rejected by Israel.

Since Trump's presidential election many Israel-first lobbyists in Washington have pushed the same agenda through Arabic satellite states as Suadi, UAE and others.

You can expect very soon a new release of the Iranian nuclear deal 2.0.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

>>Doubt that Saudi Arabia will "capture" Qatar. In all probability, that's just another one of your scaremongering "sinister" scenarios, which will remain in the confines of your imagination. Just like the other times when your predicted such things.

 

..they would probably install a pro Saudi regime instead. US approval of outright capture would revive memories of Bush Snr pervious forays leaping to the defense of embattled undemocratic nearby monarchies.

 

Let's hope I don't have to quote you on this being a figment of the imagination.

 

Yes, much easier to shoot the highly knowledgeable Fisk messenger, than address his critique.

 

Again, I doubt your "probably", or that things will be sorted in any such straightforward manner. Like I said, wouldn't be the first time you predict such scenarios. Not that you ever own up, though.

 

And we're not doing the Fisk thing again, sorry. I get it you adulate the man, probably due the echo chamber effect. Addressing a Fisk piece (sometimes known as Fisking) would go way beyond the scope of this topic, and would (as it did on past topics) result in some inane "I disagree" as response. Not wasting my time on your nonsense.

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Israel tried several times in the past to portray Iran as the regional 'villain'.

Remember the Iranian nuclear proliferation deal which was accepted by arbitration, but rejected by Israel.

Since Trump's presidential election many Israel-first lobbyists in Washington have pushed the same agenda through Arabic satellite states as Suadi, UAE and others.

You can expect very soon a new release of the Iranian nuclear deal 2.0.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Iran is seen as a destabilizing force by many of countries, both in and out of the ME. That you choose to make it solely about Israel doesn't point out to much other than your usual stance. Notably, this topic is not about Israel, even if the usual suspects try to spin it so.

 

And as with the post above, not much trust in your crystal ball predictions. Been there done that.

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran is seen as a destabilizing force by many of countries, both in and out of the ME. That you choose to make it solely about Israel doesn't point out to much other than your usual stance. Notably, this topic is not about Israel, even if the usual suspects try to spin it so.

 

And as with the post above, not much trust in your crystal ball predictions. Been there done that.

There are a several very powerful countries (mentioned above) trying to destabilize the situation in the Middle East to their advantage, which you fail to admit.

 

Time will tell who will win this proxy battle in Qatar.

 

Shame on Trump for involving the west in this. But that's par for the course for US administrations. And one wonders why the Middles East comes to visit us when our leaders attempt to interefere in their politcs.

[coulson]

So you are trying to blame this on Abbas and Fatah alone. What a joke. there are far more sinister and powerful foces at work, just as previously. This anti terrorism nonsense is just fodder for the sheeple.
 
Think of the scenario: Saudi Arabia and the other dictatorships who stand to gain capture Qatar, steal all their oil and gas,  guarantee supply to USA, allow USA to maintain a base there, silence Al Jazeera, isolate Hamas, support Fatah to another 20 odd years of fake peace negotiations while Israel swamps the whole of the West Bank with settlements.
 
All of which would please Israel very much.
 
And with a bit of luck, Iran may be drawn into the conflict too on some pretext such as US personnel getting killed in Qatar.
 
And we in the west would become involved in yet another war on Israel's behalf, probably as before without them risking a single medic to help out.
 
This is the real story behind the economic crisis unfolding in Qatar
"No Qataris flew the 9/11 planes into New York and Washington. All but four of the 19 killers were Saudi. Bin Laden was not a Qatari. He was a Saudi."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qatar-crisis-economy-diplomatic-links-torn-middle-east-russia-hacking-real-story-robert-fisk-a7778616.html
 
This is the aim of Donald Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia – and it isn't good for Shia communities
"The Sunni Saudis and the Gulf kings possess immense wealth, the only religion that Trump really respects, and they want to destroy Shia Iran, Syria, the Hezbollah and the Houthis – which is a simple ‘anti-terrorist’ story for the Americans"
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-iran-iraq-kurdish-population-shia-muslims-a7742276.html
 
...both articles well worth a read.

Both well worth a read but they got the throne deposing all wrong. Tammim was named the heir in 2003 and only stepped into the role in 2013. It was Hamad who ejected his father from the throne and also more likely that Hamad made that quib about retaining the US base in case Saudi ever got an urge. Hamad also had a different relationship with Saudi than Tammim, who helped reinstate ties with the new King Salaman of Saudi.

Their old men were not as amicable.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-king-and-qatar-emir-strengthen-ties-808958158

Separate note, media hacking aroung the time of the QNA breach wasnt just aimed at Qatar.

http://timesofoman.com/article/110392/World/GCC/Bahrain-foreign-minister's-Twitter-account-hacked

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

There are a several very powerful countries (mentioned above) trying to destabilize the situation in the Middle East to their advantage, which you fail to admit.

 

Time will tell who will win this proxy battle in Qatar.

 

Shame on Trump for involving the west in this. But that's par for the course for US administrations. And one wonders why the Middles East comes to visit us when our leaders attempt to interefere in their politcs.

 

I did not "fail to admit" anything. More nonsense and spin. It is a fact that Iran is considered a destabilizing element by many countries in and out of the ME. It doesn't mean other countries aren't seen as such by others. Obviously, from Iran's point of view things would look differently. Doubt  you didn't get that.

 

And that "time will tell" means very little when it comes to your posts. Can't recall you ever acknowledging similar past predictions which failed to materialize. 

 

What is "this", that Trump supposedly got "the West" involved in?

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I did not "fail to admit" anything. More nonsense and spin. It is a fact that Iran is considered a destabilizing element by many countries in and out of the ME. It doesn't mean other countries aren't seen as such by others. Obviously, from Iran's point of view things would look differently. Doubt  you didn't get that.

 

And that "time will tell" means very little when it comes to your posts. Can't recall you ever acknowledging similar past predictions which failed to materialize. 

 

What is "this", that Trump supposedly got "the West" involved in?

>>It is a fact that Iran is considered [weasel word!] a destabilizing element by many countries in and out of the ME
...Just depends who is doing the "considering", what evidence they have, and what vested interests they already have for their so called considerations.

 

>>What is "this", that Trump supposedly got "the West" involved in?
..perhaps you should reread the OP "Trump takes sides in Arab rift"

Edited June 10, 2017 by dexterm

[Thorgal]

>>It is a fact that Iran is considered [weasel word!] a destabilizing element by many countries in and out of the ME
...Just depends who is doing the "considering", what evidence they have, and what vested interests they already have for their so called considerations.
 
>>What is "this", that Trump supposedly got "the West" involved in?
..perhaps you should reread the OP "Trump takes sides in Arab rift"

Checkmate !


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

>>It is a fact that Iran is considered (weasel word!) a destabilizing element by many countries in and out of the ME
...Just depends who is doing the "considering", what evidence they have, and what vested interests they already have for their so called considerations.

 

>>What is "this", that Trump supposedly got "the West" involved in?
..perhaps you should reread the OP "Trump takes sides in Arab rift"

 

Considered is a weasel word? Only for weasels, I suspect.

Obviously it denotes a point of view - and like it or not, this point of view is shared among many countries. That this point of view denotes their point of view goes without saying. As for the nonsense demand for "evidence", stop trolling. Plenty of topics detailing Iranian activities in the ME even on these forums.

 

Headlines are no substitute for reality, but apparently their just fine in lieu of a coherent argument. Trump is as Trump does. Can't go on about him being a clueless buffoon and then play the angle that there's he's also Mr. Sinister. Pick one.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Checkmate !


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

I doubt you play. Or play well.

[dexterm]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Considered is a weasel word? Only for weasels, I suspect.

Obviously it denotes a point of view - and like it or not, this point of view is shared among many countries. That this point of view denotes their point of view goes without saying. As for the nonsense demand for "evidence", stop trolling. Plenty of topics detailing Iranian activities in the ME even on these forums.

 

Headlines are no substitute for reality, but apparently their just fine in lieu of a coherent argument. Trump is as Trump does. Can't go on about him being a clueless buffoon and then play the angle that there's he's also Mr. Sinister. Pick one.

>>Obviously it denotes a point of view - and like it or not, this point of view is shared among many countries. 
...and no doubt those countries would be on the list of those corrupt regimes supporting Saudi along with Trump taking sides in this rift. All points exactly as I said above to the powerful countries in the region (and arms contractors and oil interest outside) who stand to benefit most. This dispute aint simply about some anti terrorism fairy tale. The west's electorates are being led by the nose yet again. Gulf War Vers 3.0.

Trump could well be a clueless buffoon, played by the sinister forces influencing him.

Edited June 10, 2017 by dexterm

[Thorgal]

 

Iran is seen as a destabilizing force by many of countries, both in and out of the ME. That you choose to make it solely about Israel doesn't point out to much other than your usual stance. Notably, this topic is not about Israel, even if the usual suspects try to spin it so.

 

And as with the post above, not much trust in your crystal ball predictions. Been there done that.

 

Trump was sent by Wall Street to Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Vatican.

 

He came back with a mega arms deal from Saudi Arabia and a deal to insert Saudi Arabian petrodollars on the US stock markets in Wall Street.

 

Resulting in destabilising by isolating economically and military the ME region which is resulting in OP's Arabic rift.

 

Been there, done that ? Exactly. We've seen the same 'behind the curtain' rhetorics with Irak vs Iran...

 

No crystal ball visions in the game. It's pure Biblical and Khoranic eschatology.

 

Cheers !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

>>Obviously it denotes a point of view - and like it or not, this point of view is shared among many countries. 
...and no doubt those countries would be on the list of those corrupt regimes supporting Saudi along with Trump taking sides in this rift. All points exactly as I said above to the powerful countries in the region (and arms contractors and oil interest outside) who stand to benefit most. This dispute aint simply about some anti terrorism fairy tale. The west is being led by the nose yet again. Gulf War Vers 3.0.

Trump could well be a clueless buffoon, played by the sinister forces influencing him.

 

Talks about "weasel words", goes on about "corrupt regimes". No sale - that's just one of your broad brush terms. If it comes down to it, not as if the Iranian regime is a paragon of virtue and good governance. And besides, regimes being "corrupt" does not, by itself, detract from a point of view considering Iran a destabilizing element. It is not a zero sum thing.

 

Points exactly how? You make a whole lot of assertions, assumptions and predictions - nothing of substance. Tossing about words isn't much of an argument ("The West is being led by the nose yet again", "Gulf War Vers. 3.0"). Hyperbole at its worst.

 

And I never said anything this was simply about "anti-terrorism". Rather the opposite.

 

As for them sinister forces playing Trump, do tell. Considering a standing complaint against Trump is that he doesn't listen to advice and doesn't pay attention to briefings, this should be amusing.

 

[stevenl]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt you play. Or play well.

All the more embarrassing for you that he just won.