Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr. Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

You can file it where-ever you like but that doesn't mean it's untrue.

There is a dispute in the USA over whether a sitting POTUS can be indicted for crimes committed prior to taking office. If those crimes only become known after they have assumed power I don't personally see how they could, in all conscience, be ignored. Even if they were that doesn't stop impeachment, which is a political act and not a legal one.

I quite agree that minor indiscretions, poor judgements or other inconsequential matters can be postponed until after the term has ended but anything major ought not to be, especially if the country's security is thought to be compromised.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You will have heard the report today from the US security people contradicting Trump on 3 counts.

1. ISIS in Syria is defeated. Err, no it's not. Withdrawal more a matter of saving money and isolationism.

2. North Korea - everything in the garden is rosy. Err, no it's not. This is all about legacy building.

3. Iran is a nuclear threat. Err, no it's not. It is light years away from nuclear capability. It isn't difficult to work out why the US really give Iran a daily kick-in. They are state sponsors of terrorism - but only Hezbollah... they in turn threaten Israel... and this upsets the US Christian right who ALL vote.

Q: is reporting this bias?

So do you agree with this committee all of the time or only when it agrees with your views?

1. Isn't it obvious that ISIS won't be allowed to succeed in Syria by now? Haven't Russia made that very clear to you?

The only concerns the US should have is in loyalty to the Kurds in the north.....Trump apparently has now recognised this....but this was a conflict that the UK parliament ceded to Russia....so frankly what we think about US troop movements is moot.

2. Who cares.....What Trump does with North Korea can't be any worse than the contempt they treated Obama with.....As did Russia and as did China.

3. Iran will do whatever it can get away with.....It poses a significant threat to the west in the sponsoring of terrorism and threatens Israel at every available opportunity....with Syria being a major one.

I wouldn't criticise the question, 'why should we give a damn about Israel?' And to an extent I would agree.....However Israel is the only real democracy and non Islamic country in the region but even more importantly than that the US heavily back it....So not strengthening Iran means they are less likely to pose a threat to Israel and thus a wider war.

The idea that Iran wouldn't wish to become a nuclear state as about as sensible as predictions I heard a few years back about North Korea being many years from the bomb.

If Gaddafi and Hussain had pursued the bomb they would probably still be in power now......These states known that the nuclear bomb is the gun in the room that keeps the rats away.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Jan 2019 1.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think I've dealt with some of the points you make in my response to Penge, but the point I highlight needs clarifying. Jordan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Bangladesh - all technically Muslim countries (albeit with significant "other" minorities) but who are valued trading partners and offer no threat whatever to western democratic life.

I get relatively free democracy, but why is it important to you that Israel is not Muslim?

I'm talking about the middle east and western interests centred around the Israeli conflict...not really east Asian countries mixed in with others....but you did give me Jordan which is middle eastern.

Jordan is 95% Islamic [Link]

Ever wondered why that percentage is so high? That nineties percentage is common in most middle eastern countries.

Anyway you mentioned one of the main problems....democracy. That does not do well within an Islamic state.

Along with many other problems high percentage Islamic countries have widespread and often systemic persecution of non Islamic religions...With Jews not being able to even fly over some countries.

You gave me several non middle eastern countries....

Malaysia isn't middle eastern but it is 61.3% Islamic (which wasn't the case in the past) and as expected where Islam is the majority other religions suffer persecution.
[Link]

From the link:

'Conversely, the state banishes and sanctions non-Muslim proselytism, but encourages conversions to Islam and remunerates them in order to facilitate the reduction of the non-Muslim population within the nation. Among the new rights provided to converts, if they have a descent, they have the right to convert their children by force to Islam, without having to consider the approval of his spouse'

I could go on and focus upon, Singapore Indonesia and Bangladesh but my point was centred upon the middle east.

As for your question...'why is it important to you that Israel is not Muslim?'.....it's an interesting one.

On some levels it isn't....on others it is.....If we went down that route it's a whole different discussion....Do you want to talk about that or Syria?

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Jan 2019 2.01pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Mmmm....that lobby is the source of a lot of funding of politicians in both houses. I'm not anti Israel but I notice that politicians who aren't in support of Israel are pretty rare in the US.

I don't regard criticism of the Jewish lobby is anti Semitic. I don't regard criticism of Jews who hold one attitude towards immigration when it comes to the US but another one when it comes to Israel as anti Semitic.

Anti semitism is an intolerance of someone for being Jewish regardless of what views they have....I have noticed how quick many people are (I'm not referring to you) to regard any criticism as a form of racism to frighten and shut people up.

I would regard myself as for the existence of Israel but not particularly fond of the activist lobbies in the US and Europe.....But usually in favour of the significant minority of the western right wing voices in the Jewish community.

I think you are grouping a hell of a lot of people there....Obviously every group contains varying strength of feeling for various policies....from lukewarm to strong....I think to be fair you are talking about the activist wing of the evangelicals.

But in a generalised sense I wouldn't disagree as this policy is the end result.....However, this is also the position of the Jewish lobbies to an even more committed degree....Your appear to criticise one but not really the other.

On their support of Israel I can't say I consider Israel's opponents as more worthy.

Sure....correct.

There's a section to their activities in western and other countries....As too proof....I can only suggest that comes down to the balance of probabilities.....Who you believe and don't believe.......though personally I'm not thinking that a state which promotes regular 'death to America' chants and is known to sponsor terrorism is particular shy when it comes to opportunities which emerge.

[Link]

Yep....all done on the 'enemy of your enemy is your friend' basis....on both sides by the US and Saud.

Also I don't think it's right to say that Saudi doesn't get criticised.....but of course you are correct about the bias.....all done in self interest.

Your last paragraph echos the kind of thinking that Obama had as he entered his first term....Indeed he went palms open and appealed to Iran for a fresh start....That didn't work out well for him.

Now on the face of it there is something to be said for the neutral stance.....but I also think it's unrealistic. It has to be understood that the opposing positions that both countries hold is based upon decades of conflict. The cultural animus can't be undone with words......The US would have to abandon Israel and step back completely.

Essentially that would lead to Israel defending itself far more aggressively as it knew that its enemies no longer would fear US involvement......Nuclear war would be far more likely and if Israel lost you have the eventual slaughter of 15 million Jews.

As things stand....If I'm honest I don't see a way out without blood......But I think abandoning Israel would certainly lead to that blood being shed much sooner.

Also I'm European, so I have a bias towards Israel as it is a western facing democracy mostly filled by Jews from Europe......though I won't disagree with various criticisms.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Jan 2019 7.26pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Pew Research says evangelicals total 25%. [Link]

The research also says that 55% of evangelicals have conservative views. [Link]

The data does not support your claims on this.

PS Hamas - who ranked them no3 terrorists? Was it the US by chance? Is this the same Hamas that was duly elected through verified democratic process to govern? Once again, is "terrorist" an accurate term for a UN-sanctioned legitimate government? Obviously, they are far from angels, much of their activity probably does fall under the definition of "terrorism" and I would rather a secular, moderate liberal government in place. However, which Palestinian occupier of the Strip is going to vote for a government perceived as weak and who they would associate with the West that blindly supports their oppressor? Would you? No, this appears to be a label that neatly suits Israel and the US.

On which, $700M! Really? A drop in the Ocean compared to the money supplied to Israel by the US. Hardly fair given the rich oppresses and the poor are oppressed.

I have no easy solution for this complex conundrum and I want Israel to prosper in peace. However, the one source of this problem is the unbending support of the American Christian right for Israel. Less of that and maybe Israel can find a more intelligent solution that doesn't involve keeping their boot permanently on the Palestinian head. It is one of the primary causes of tension in the region; the other being the schism in which Iran plays only one part.

There is no such thing as the 'good guy' and the 'bad guy'. That kind of thinking isn't dealing with the harsh realities of the world.

Ultimately the real world is just a sophisticated version of the playground.....I find that a lot of nice left wing people are the type who rushed to the safety of the library during playtime...to avoid the reality.

Sure you can pretend you are apart from it and pick the obvious holes.....but like you realise...that won't save you from the bullet. Those who won't pick a side for themselves....It's just a matter of time before they get a side picked for them.

The Palestinian question is intractable, Israel will either exist or it won't. The Palestinians aren't going to live along side the Jews in peace so the Jews are slowly pushing them out.

The peace route died with Rabin.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2019 11.06am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)