Dickie 240 Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 What really happened when Trump visited the Western Wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairy In Boots 607 Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 4 hours ago, Kowabunga said: Can you give an explanation on why the Government of the US should break relations with Saudi Arabia (not the UK, not the EU: the United States of America, and not on moral grounds nor on a "lack of shared values" but on short-term direct geopolitical interest)? Because of Saudi Arabia sponsoring radical Islam the whole globe over, the fact that they're committing what looks like war crimes in Yemen. It's in the best interest of the Globe if the Saudi family hold as little influence as possible. trump has just taken his 30 pieces of Silver for the American jobs ticket. To many swing voters I'd bet this is a huge betrayal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,187 Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 15 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said: Because of Saudi Arabia sponsoring radical Islam the whole globe over, the fact that they're committing what looks like war crimes in Yemen. It's in the best interest of the Globe if the Saudi family hold as little influence as possible. trump has just taken his 30 pieces of Silver for the American jobs ticket. To many swing voters I'd bet this is a huge betrayal Agree with you on all counts! Which is weird in the politics forum. I do think the West is in a shit spot with the Saudis. They have the world's #1 oio reserve and have the world's oil prices by the balls. We perhaps would not have cozied up to them so much after 1979... but the #2 oil reserve nation (Iran) stopped being friendly with us. Obviously they aren't the only producers of oil in the world. But the Saudis have enormous sway in changing global oil prices. Look what happened after sanctions were lifted on Iran and Iranian crude oil could be exported to the west again recently - Saudi Arabia dropped prices heavily. Personally, my wallet enjoyed that because it was noticably cheaper. But oil aside, they are major supporters of terror. Arguably (I'd say its definite) the biggest state sponsors of terror and are definitely the biggest proponents of the dangerous Wahhabist ideology. Ironically they were never on Trump's ban, despite most of the September 11 terrorists being Saudis. And it's probably because he wants their oil money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowabunga 313 Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 15 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said: Because of Saudi Arabia sponsoring radical Islam the whole globe over Do you really think islamic terrorism currently is a geopolitical threat to the US (again, not the UK, not the EU: the USA). Given its paltry muslim population, and therefore the small chances for it to becoming a significant radicalised force within that is going to tear the country apart anytime soon, tactically speaking islamic terrorist violence in the USA of these days (muslim turds sacrificing themselves in sketchy low-cost plans) is business as usual, in a culture of violence. 15 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said: the fact that they're committing what looks like war crimes in Yemen. It's in the best interest of the Globe if the Saudi family hold as little influence as possible. Why should the US state department (America First) should worry about righting some wrong by a third party in a desertic shithole (particularly if there is nothing to gain, but to lose, to competing powers)? I am not taking about the globe. I am talking about direct US interests, which sorry, it is not the globe. If we are talking about a post-neoliberal "multipolar" world of spheres of influence why the fuck are you going on moral about geopolitics. What I get from you, is that you defend the US to become world police in a way it suits your moral compass even at the detriment of its interests. That is not how geopolitics works. What I think is the US and European interest don't allign. You may criticise european and american relations with Saudi Arabia from a european POV based on self-interest (or from a naïf moral standpoint), but not necessarily from a US perspective, because the world as it is and has been has worked nicely for the US interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God is Haaland 618 Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/866994040205709315/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bild.de%2F Omg. He writes like a retarded, 14-yo ghetto girl on facebook. What's Trump's mental age? 6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panflute 670 Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Trump's trip to Israel and Saudi-Arabia proves that he has fully succumbed to, as he put it, "the false song of globalism". He has by now turned into an even more masculine version of Hillary Clinton. This was always a risk, but it is sad to see it become reality. Now I can only comfort myself with the thought that nothing lasts forever, and the Saud family is inevitably hung at one point, which is an event that I hope to behold in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairy In Boots 607 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 On 22/05/2017 at 1:55 PM, Dr. Gonzo said: The people believing the Seth Rodgers shit, which has 0 credible sources backing it, and then refusing to acknowledge the ongoing FBI investigation are totally lost to me. Trump is a fraud who's only role in the white house is to be an idiot to cause chaos, which seems to be the general theme of right wing populism. Assange is the source I give credibility to. He's effectively confirmed that Rich was the leak 15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Agree with you on all counts! Which is weird in the politics forum. I do think the West is in a shit spot with the Saudis. They have the world's #1 oio reserve and have the world's oil prices by the balls. We perhaps would not have cozied up to them so much after 1979... but the #2 oil reserve nation (Iran) stopped being friendly with us. Obviously they aren't the only producers of oil in the world. But the Saudis have enormous sway in changing global oil prices. Look what happened after sanctions were lifted on Iran and Iranian crude oil could be exported to the west again recently - Saudi Arabia dropped prices heavily. Personally, my wallet enjoyed that because it was noticably cheaper. But oil aside, they are major supporters of terror. Arguably (I'd say its definite) the biggest state sponsors of terror and are definitely the biggest proponents of the dangerous Wahhabist ideology. Ironically they were never on Trump's ban, despite most of the September 11 terrorists being Saudis. And it's probably because he wants their oil money. Yep it's a betrayal, rethoric to please the voter base and policy to please corporations. Disappointing 15 hours ago, Kowabunga said: Do you really think islamic terrorism currently is a geopolitical threat to the US (again, not the UK, not the EU: the USA). Given its paltry muslim population, and therefore the small chances for it to becoming a significant radicalised force within that is going to tear the country apart anytime soon, tactically speaking islamic terrorist violence in the USA of these days (muslim turds sacrificing themselves in sketchy low-cost plans) is business as usual, in a culture of violence. Why should the US state department (America First) should worry about righting some wrong by a third party in a desertic shithole (particularly if there is nothing to gain, but to lose, to competing powers)? I am not taking about the globe. I am talking about direct US interests, which sorry, it is not the globe. If we are talking about a post-neoliberal "multipolar" world of spheres of influence why the fuck are you going on moral about geopolitics. What I get from you, is that you defend the US to become world police in a way it suits your moral compass even at the detriment of its interests. That is not how geopolitics works. What I think is the US and European interest don't allign. You may criticise european and american relations with Saudi Arabia from a european POV based on self-interest (or from a naïf moral standpoint), but not necessarily from a US perspective, because the world as it is and has been has worked nicely for the US interests. It's a domestic threat to the US they've already had a few incidents. In terms of geopolitical threat yes it can impact the US's operations in certain countries, for example they ran out of Libya. Assad' father employed suicide bombers to force US out of Syria but we all know how that's turned out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,187 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 11 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said: Assange is the source I give credibility to. He's effectively confirmed that Rich was the leak But that flies against Rich's family on the matter. Furthermore, it goes against the person quoted to have said he found evidence Rich contacted WikiLeaks (he had to go on record to say he never saw any evidence of any contact with WikiLeaks). The story was broken by Fox News, who have since retracted it, and Assange gave his vigorous support... to a story was retracted. If you watch what the Senate/House Democrats and Republicans, that's the left and the right, in their intelligence committees and whether they think WikiLeaks/Assange is a credible source... and it's unequivocally a "no." They go further and more scathing than that. As far as Trump betraying his voters... I felt that was obvious when campaigning, the man was so clearly full of shit... Aside from this Saudi stuff, his "lean" government is going to gut policies that primarily benefit Trump voters. The healthcare plan will hurt his voters as well. He doesn't care about the people who got him into the presidency, he's going to use the position to create tax cuts for himself, his family, and his friends - and he's going to act corrupt because he's going to act like the CEO of a business operation that is not publicly traded, that is what he knows. It shouldn't be a surprise when you consider he worships a kleptocrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry 1,437 Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 15 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said: Yep it's a betrayal, rethoric to please the voter base and policy to please corporations. Sadly for the voters this is exactly true. At least clinton would have appointed judges aligned with turning back Citizens United. that could have given some hope of a future reduction of influence of the wealthy in politics. With the supreme court set to be locked away to the conservatives for another generation things are only going to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Saudi Arabia holds so much US debt, so many stocks and shares and so many US dollars in reserves that what goes on there can crash the US economy or at the very least give it a very painful kick in the balls. Western foreign policy is to sit tight and wait for the day that the Saudi's start dropping their western assets, western debt and western currency reserves, which will come when they feel the squeeze of declining oil production. Politicians have levered up on Saudi and Gulf state money for quick economic wins with their electorate. We've even let these human rights abusers own shares in our banks to prevent them from going under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 he's such a tosser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry 1,437 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 He looks like a toad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserker 1,332 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 4 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said: he's such a tosser That face at the end, such an idol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artful Dodger 1,831 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 4 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said: he's such a tosser David Brent...'stop trying to worm into someone else's photo!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairy In Boots 607 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 On 24/05/2017 at 7:31 PM, Dr. Gonzo said: But that flies against Rich's family on the matter. Furthermore, it goes against the person quoted to have said he found evidence Rich contacted WikiLeaks (he had to go on record to say he never saw any evidence of any contact with WikiLeaks). The story was broken by Fox News, who have since retracted it, and Assange gave his vigorous support... to a story was retracted. If you watch what the Senate/House Democrats and Republicans, that's the left and the right, in their intelligence committees and whether they think WikiLeaks/Assange is a credible source... and it's unequivocally a "no." They go further and more scathing than that. As far as Trump betraying his voters... I felt that was obvious when campaigning, the man was so clearly full of shit... Aside from this Saudi stuff, his "lean" government is going to gut policies that primarily benefit Trump voters. The healthcare plan will hurt his voters as well. He doesn't care about the people who got him into the presidency, he's going to use the position to create tax cuts for himself, his family, and his friends - and he's going to act corrupt because he's going to act like the CEO of a business operation that is not publicly traded, that is what he knows. It shouldn't be a surprise when you consider he worships a kleptocrat. We'll see there's more to run on this Fox's retraction was because of legal action. That doesn't mean that there's nothing to it,Wikileaks offering reward money suggests there's something to it. Time will tell. On 25/05/2017 at 8:23 AM, HoneyNUFC said: Saudi Arabia holds so much US debt, so many stocks and shares and so many US dollars in reserves that what goes on there can crash the US economy or at the very least give it a very painful kick in the balls. Western foreign policy is to sit tight and wait for the day that the Saudi's start dropping their western assets, western debt and western currency reserves, which will come when they feel the squeeze of declining oil production. Politicians have levered up on Saudi and Gulf state money for quick economic wins with their electorate. We've even let these human rights abusers own shares in our banks to prevent them from going under. I know the motivation for doing it but it's a fairly blatant betrayal given the rethoric going in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 More like a con than a betrayal. His biographer from the 80s and 90s did warn that he was a pathological liar who would make things up to get what he wanted. The alt right and their readership wouldn't hear it. Though they recognised some times when he was being outlandish to get coverage they failed to recognise when it was them who were being played. He doesn't need the alt right anymore and won't need them in the next election either. He will be judged on his work not on his potential. He probably won't continue because he seems to be cognitively slow either through age or drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,187 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 8 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said: We'll see there's more to run on this Fox's retraction was because of legal action. That doesn't mean that there's nothing to it,Wikileaks offering reward money suggests there's something to it. Time will tell. WikiLeaks is offering money because they've been called out on their bullshit and they're trying to save face. Acting like there might be a possibility and saying "hey pay for evidence of this" allows the people who believe WikiLeaks to hold onto some hope that they may still be legit. Fox's retraction was based on their slander, which yeah, is a legal action - but people sue for slander when things aren't true... They were faced with a legal dilemma because they published something that wasn't true and their key source was refuting what they published. WikiLeaks obviously doesn't have to give a fuck about US libel laws, as they're: 1.) not journalists, 2.) already probably in violation of several laws. In other news, Kushner is a key person of interest in the FBI investigation, having requested that they have a secret backchannel with the Kremlin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairy In Boots 607 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: WikiLeaks is offering money because they've been called out on their bullshit and they're trying to save face. Acting like there might be a possibility and saying "hey pay for evidence of this" allows the people who believe WikiLeaks to hold onto some hope that they may still be legit. Fox's retraction was based on their slander, which yeah, is a legal action - but people sue for slander when things aren't true... They were faced with a legal dilemma because they published something that wasn't true and their key source was refuting what they published. WikiLeaks obviously doesn't have to give a fuck about US libel laws, as they're: 1.) not journalists, 2.) already probably in violation of several laws. In other news, Kushner is a key person of interest in the FBI investigation, having requested that they have a secret backchannel with the Kremlin. I find it fascinating how people have ditched wikileaks because they attacked the Clinton machine. They were the darlings when they attacked the politicians that people liked now they attack others they're "full of shit". That doesn't mean that I think Assange is a lovely bloke he's an Aussie and they're 60% cunt by default Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,187 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 On 5/27/2017 at 0:46 PM, Fairy In Boots said: I find it fascinating how people have ditched wikileaks because they attacked the Clinton machine. They were the darlings when they attacked the politicians that people liked now they attack others they're "full of shit". That doesn't mean that I think Assange is a lovely bloke he's an Aussie and they're 60% cunt by default That's a simplistic way of explaining it - and as is often the case in complicated situations, the simplest answers are not always correct. Let's review a brief timeline: October 26, 2010 - WikiLeaks says they're ready to drop a bombshell on Russia: November 1, 2010 - Russia's FSB to WikiLeaks: "We can destroy you." https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks-we-could-destroy-you/ January 20, 2011 - Assange gets Russian visa https://www.rt.com/news/assange-wikileaks-russian-visa/ January 25, 2011 - Assange gets Russian TV show https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/25/wikileaks-julian-assange-russian-tv April 6, 2016 - WikiLeaks accuses Panama Papers of being released by the US to make Putin look bad (note: it didn't just make Putin look bad, it made several world leaders including David Cameron look like the corrupt evil fuckers they are) In response to these questions being directly posed to Assange, he maintained that he is not on friendly relations with any country. However, given his precarious situation and the relationship he does in fact share with Russias (and the facts are there above), I think it's fair to say that Russia's conduct has been more friendly towards Assange since they threatened him after he said he would drop a bombshell. And let's be real, a bombshell on Putin would likely be pretty bad - probably worse than most. But there's real evidence that Assange and WikiLeaks are not to be trusted considering the position he's in, the fact that Russia did indeed make a threat, and now WikiLeaks has gone against what it said it would do in October of 2010... there's enough to make a person reasonably suspicious of Assange/WikiLeaks (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat) I think there's also something to be said about whistleblowers like Snowden or the John Doe behind the Panama Papers in giving information to reporters, rather than making wholesale leaks in one big infodump like WikiLeaks has done in the past. It allows for vetting and ensuring the facts are being accurately reported... which is something you'd expect of actual journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Covfefe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Tommy 12,615 Posted May 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panflute 670 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I see the bugmen of Twitter have had a field day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry 1,437 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 On 2017-5-31 at 6:57 PM, HoneyNUFC said: Covfefe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,187 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 2 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said: I'm unsurprised if he worked with the Russians to push Brexit. He's basically a Trump that can form coherent sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.