The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[oldrider]

Published 3 months ago on October 2, 2019
By Makia Freeman

Last Updated on October 14, 2019

Israel, the Planned Home of the New World Order:- https://thefreedomarticles.com/israe...=feed&owa_sid= - Trump? - Making sense of it all? -

[pritch]

An advisor to Iran’s leader has posted a tweet linking to a Forbes article which lists all Trump properties. All of which It implies are suitable as targets.

Staying at a Trump property is more risky today, it used to be only bed bugs you had to worry about.

[TheDemonLord]

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.". Do you really think war mongers believe in God - I'm the one that is foolish - are you sure?

I'm sure there are those that fervently do, I'm also sure there are those that see it as a tool to achieve their end whilst thinking it's all bullshit. The end result however, is the same. I mean if you want to remove the veneer of religion, then fine - but I'd counter with it's still one of the oldest reason for conflict known to man: Us vs Them.

I do not need to explain it, because I never suggested that the violence only started when Israel came on the scene.
This is why I find it so difficult to converse with you, because you constantly intimate I have said something and then proceed to argue against it. I have told you before that you put words in my mouth, and you deny it. Why do you choose to communicate this way? To what end? Do you somehow feel the need to create a scenario then argue against it in order to feel you are walking away having gained the upper hand - by making a point that was not in question in the first place? Have a think about why you do this, and get back to me.

That's the line of logic that Katman was advancing (which when you said you kinda agree with Katman on Israel, I took that to mean, y'know, that you agree with it...) that Israel/The US is the cause (or significant cause) of all/the majority of problems in the Middle East.
Considering that was the part of Katman's argument that I was refuting, it seems fair on my part that since you said you agree with him, you also agree with that statement. Bearing in mind up until that post, all of the discourse had been between myself and Katman - so if you chime in after the points he has made, it's not entirely putting words in your mouth, now is it?

That all said however - let's try over:

If you want to differentiate exactly where you differentiate from that line of Logic (and where in the argument your 'kinda agree' lies) then sure. Or better yet - state what your position is, entirely separate from Katman.

I think I've been clear - there is plenty to be critical of Israel for, there's plenty to criticise the US for. There is also plenty to be critical of the other Middle Eastern countries for which is often omitted, either via Naivety or outright dishonesty. It's easy to make the US look bad for intervening in the Middle East, it gets a little more interesting when you weight it against the alternative - brutal dictatorships, Torture, Genocide etc.

[Katman]

That's the line of logic that Katman was advancing (which when you said you kinda agree with Katman on Israel, I took that to mean, y'know, that you agree with it...) that Israel/The US is the cause (or significant cause) of all/the majority of problems in the Middle East.
Considering that was the part of Katman's argument that I was refuting, it seems fair on my part that since you said you agree with him, you also agree with that statement. Bearing in mind up until that post, all of the discourse had been between myself and Katman - so if you chime in after the points he has made, it's not entirely putting words in your mouth, now is it?

And there you go again, arguing against something that hasn't been said.

[TheDemonLord]

And there you go again, arguing against something that hasn't been said.

Except you did say exactly that. Every time I brought up the historical violence - you'd counter with 'it's much worse today' and point to the involvement of the US and Israel.

Whereas I pointed out that the escalation of violence is more readily explained by advances in technology and population size (which you summarily ignored).

[Katman]

Except you did say exactly that. Every time I brought up the historical violence - you'd counter with 'it's much worse today' and point to the involvement of the US and Israel.

That's right - I said the scale of unrest is much worse today. And I gave the example of a number of countries that have virtually been destroyed in the space of 20 years. I certainly haven't argued that violence in the Middle East didn't exist before the creation of either Israel or America.

And I stand by my comments that the scale of unrest in the Middle East today is largely due to America acting on behalf of Israel to destabilize and weaken Israel's neighbours in order to make Israel's expansionist goals more easily achieved.

[TheDemonLord]

That's right - I said the scale of unrest is much worse today. And I gave the example of a number of countries that have virtually been destroyed in the space of 20 years. I certainly haven't argued that violence in the Middle East didn't exist before the creation of either Israel or America.

So, if you agree with my premise that they have always been violent towards each other and you agree (presumably) that technology has changed in the last 50-100 years or so, why this comment:

And I stand by my comments that the scale of unrest in the Middle East today is largely due to America acting on behalf of Israel to destabilize and weaken Israel's neighbours in order to make Israel's expansionist goals more easily achieved.

Since the above 2 factors alone: They've always been like that and now they can do it with a bigger bang explain your statement 'the scale of unrest is much worse today'.

Israel and America do not enter into that equation.

Now, I've said that one could agree that Israel and the US may have aggravated pre-existing issues, but to make the claim you have to agree that without US or Israel interference things would not be better.

In fact, there's quite a few people who have fled the region who say that fear of the Americans is what keeps them from devolving into all out tribal warfare.

[Katman]

Since the above 2 factors alone: They've always been like that and now they can do it with a bigger bang explain your statement 'the scale of unrest is much worse today'.

Well it clearly explains it in your eyes.

But here's the thing - not everyone sees things through your eyes.

[Katman]

Now, I've said that one could agree that Israel and the US may have aggravated pre-existing issues, but to make the claim you have to agree that without US or Israel interference things would not be better.

I don't have to agree to anything of the sort.

In fact, I'm quite confident in stating that without Israel and America's machiavellian machinations, the situation in the Middle East would be considerably better.

[TheDemonLord]

Well it clearly explains it in your eyes.

But here's the thing - not everyone sees things through your eyes.

Whilst that is partly true - your explanation needs a large number of ancillary and not reliably proven conjectures to come close to explaining it.

Mine doesn't.

Applying Occams Razor, it would put the explanation I put forth as being most likely to be correct.

I don't have to agree to anything of the sort.

In fact, I'm quite confident in stating that without Israel and America's machiavellian machinations, the situation in the Middle East would be considerably better.

Bull.
Shit.

And this is why I called you foolish, because to make that statement is to ignore literally the last 600 years of Middle Eastern history.

Unless of course you think having a number of warring Dictators with a penchant for Genocide, Torture, secret police and political repression is somehow 'better'.

Although I seem to remember you having already stated that, so....

[Katman]

Bull.
Shit.

And this is why I called you foolish, because to make that statement is to ignore literally the last 600 years of Middle Eastern history.

Unless of course you think having a number of warring Dictators with a penchant for Genocide, Torture, secret police and political repression is somehow 'better'.

Although I seem to remember you having already stated that, so....

While you're busy looking at a 600 year period of history, I'm looking more closely at the last 20 years.

And I'll repeat, I believe the scale of unrest in the Middle East is considerably worse today.

[TheDemonLord]

While you're busy looking at a 600 year period of history, I'm looking more closely at the last 20 years.

Yes, and seeing a Tree instead of the Forest in which it was planted and grew to maturity.

And I'll repeat, I believe the scale of unrest in the Middle East is considerably worse today.

Taking your belief as sincere:

Does that justify Brutal Dictators?

Yes/No?

Because you have a moral conundrum.

[Katman]

And while there's still obviously a great degree of unrest between factions of differing political and religious groups in the Middle East, it's an undeniable fact that entities like the CIA have poured plenty of fuel on the fire by funding one or the other side. (Or even both).

All in the name of destabilizing that country.

Because destabilized countries are less able to resist the expansion of another country which has empire building as their goal.

[TheDemonLord]

And while there's still obviously a great degree of unrest between factions of differing political and religious groups in the Middle East, it's an undeniable fact that entities like the CIA have poured plenty of fuel on the fire by funding one or the other side.

All in the name of destabilizing that country.

Because destabilized countries are less able to resist the expansion of another country which has empire building as their goal.

You can only pour Fuel on something that is already there.

And why no mention of Russia? They certainly had a lot of influence in the Middle East. Whose empire were they helping to build (if your line of conjecture is correct).

Then there is the Elephant in the room (that I'll re-frame for you):

Does 'Stability' justify Brutal Dictators who achieve that stability through torture, Murder and Oppression?

[Katman]

Does 'Stability' justify Brutal Dictators who achieve that stability through torture, Murder and Oppression?

I don't lay claim to knowing what it takes to control a country in the Middle East which has opposing factions.

But the term 'brutal dictator' is very dependent on how much you believe the narrative that the mainstream media is intent on spreading.