Trump
- Thread starter lsz
- Start date
Cliffycomeback
Reserve Grader
You are incapable of calling out Hamas aren't you?Some tunnel footage has been found to be fake AI generated.
Including shots from the Scottish maratime museum
Israel created fake 3D videos of 'Hamas tunnels' to justify attacks on Gaza hospitals: Report
The Israeli army used 3D images from video games, online assets, content creators, and even the Scottish Maritime Museumthecradle.co
Cliffycomeback
Reserve Grader
So you disagree that people will blame Israel.
On what grounds? Do you have some kind of precedent that supports your statement?
Because from where I'm standing Israel and the Jewish community are being blamed for everything by a lot of people, even the atrocities that started this whole war are Israel's fault. Al Jazeera is the main source of HAMAS propaganda and the many lies (mixed with some truth) has worked really well thus far. The hatred towards the Jewish community is almost unprecedented. But not according to you.
@Adz claims people won't blame Israel before going on his "tangerine twerp" rant. Decent humans would hope for peace, not sit there waiting for it to crumble in order to get more anti Trump ammunition.
It's pathetic!
Hi Cliffy, just as a bit of a counterexample,
Say Hamas posted a clip of Israeli forces driving tanks over Palestinian civilians (think Tiananmen Square) and that it was later found to be a fabricated clip. A pro-Israeli poster then replies saying “hey, this clip is actually not credible”.
Applied to this scenario, your stance was that the pro-Israeli poster should have still called out Israel on an event that was found to not transpire.
First of all, was that your stance originally or were you just venting a little at manlyfan76? If the former, do you still stand by that initial stance in the equivalent scenario above?
Last edited:
I know it is naive of me but you would love for this to not be used for political points from either side
Cliffycomeback
Reserve Grader
Cliffycomeback
Reserve Grader
Out of respect for people on here who may have family caught up in this, I'm going to pass on providing any further opinion on the whole HAMAS/Israel situation.
I do want to delve into this topic at another point, but can I first just get a sense of how you feel Jews in particular are being blamed - as opposed to the policies and tangible actions of the Israeli state and the broader Zionist settler movement
For now, let’s just assume it is true that Palestinians exist under apartheid. A scenario where the Israeli state does seek colonialist expansion and in the process commits war crimes against civilians, encourages illegal settlements, withholds food/water, etc.
In that scenario even if 99% of Al Jazeera’s content happened to be truthful, your argument is still applicable. They could be perceived as pro-Hamas simply because they criticise the state of Israel and try raise awareness of Palestinian struggles. FYI this is just an observation, it is not to say Al Jazeera content is or isn’t as you claim.
Last edited:
I was thinking more that some people would feel it was tending to lead a bit off topic from the Trump thread. If we put it back down for a bit that’s fine (ie. disregard the post I made a few minutes after)
Note: I personally think it is all highly relevant. Particularly given people are quick to praise Trump’s foreign diplomatic efforts. There is a problematic opinion of late that just because Trump said there is peace that this conflict is solved. This is far from the truth.
The US did similar in 1993 following the Oslo Accords. It is step 0. The US cannot step away now after re-assuming the position of mediator. If they do, it will be no different to the way Britain and the UN neglected the region in the 1940’s both before and after Zionist leaders declared Israel’s independence. At the time it was the (colonial) British Mandate for Palestine.
Last edited:
Nah not at all! Just hopeful something can be worked out
Oh well, at least the hostages have been released. Now, I'm sorry to say, normal business has now been resumed.
Not being smart, but perfectly serious: they come from the kids who grow up each generation watching first hand what happens to their families at the hands of Israeli soldiers (and settlers). Don't you think?
same as where do you think ISIS came from? the bitterness of survivors following the US led invasion of Iraq...no?
OMG thats is a crime against interpretative dance !!!!
This certainly was the case although I think it is fairly naive (may be too harsh a word) to pretend the situation has remained constant between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0. The government has effectively been purged; unqualified sycophants have been installed in all critical positions. If you disagree with that, then i'm all ears. Personally, I agree with the sentiments of B. Sanders that it has shifted to an oligarchic form of governance & society (can unpack full reasoning if curious). Aside from Trump & his inner circle, I also see media/algorithms as a key factor; for an example refer to @Isz's recent post.
I also view that DOGE served to dismantle bureaucracy, not efficiency - relevant but will hold off that for now.
When making an argument, i've started focusing on addressing ~ 1 point per post. If you don't mind, in a later one i'm keen to expand on the fascism / hysteria argument you raised above. If not interested, then you can skip past the remainder of this post:
It'd be good if you could expand at least a little on what meets the criteria for fascism (in your view).
We've obviously had the Nazi (Nationalist Socialist) party and Italian examples. Both are considered 'fascist', though the word was only employed by Mussolini's 'Republican Fascist Party'. Im particularly interested in the specific traits that allowed people to classify the Nazi ideology / movement as a 'fascist' one. Also, if you consider that the Nazi's were fascist from the start, how so? If the term was only appropriate after a particular event or series of events, why then?
Once we get that background out of the way I feel we'll be well positioned to start considering the case of the US. Considering the same criteria, we can better argue whether or not concerns of 'fascist ideology' are unfounded or justified. I don't disagree that prevalent use of the term requires media to propagate (historically newspapers/radio, now social media and digital news organisations)
Firstly, it is without one doubt, that regardless of Congress, and who holds what musical chair for the day, the strings are pulled, bought, and paid for by a corporate deep state. This has been the case for decades, and will continue to be so for many more. That's a fact, not opinion.
Regarding the word fascist being used so haphazardly when describing a sleazy New York businessman, one could take numerous snapshots of the man's words, actions, relationships, etc over the last half century, and any historian would find it impossible to justify such a description.
Trump's economic policies, while nationalist and protectionist, are rooted in neoliberal/hypercapitalist frameworks, promoting deregulation and tax cuts - literally the two most anti-fascist mechanisms one could possibly conceive. This focus on aggressive free-market capitalism is in great contrast to the traditional 'state above all' economic structure of historical fascism.
While often criticizing press outlets, he and his supporters have selectively championed causes related to free speech on university campuses and in opposition to what they perceive as government-guided censorship on the internet.
Classically liberal, his efforts to eliminate DEI mandates and other identity-based bureaucratic initiatives are a principled stand for individual merit and individual equality over what he portrays as collectivist/socialist identity politics. Yet when asked a while ago about his opinions on gay marriage, his answer included the analogy of how great it is for people to go to a restaurant and order whatever they're into from the menu (real fascist...not!). Basically, his appeal taps into an anti-elite, populist sentiment that is more individualistic and anti-state bureaucracy, rather than demanding total submission to a powerful, all-encompassing state.
And to all the alarmists freaking out that he will never leave office, Trump has always operated within the existing framework of a multi-party system, elections, and an established bureaucracy. Unlike classical fascist leaders who seized power via paramilitary force or coup, Trump initially won and continues to seek power through the prescribed constitutional mechanism of the American election system.
Finally, Trump lacks any true foundational ideology (like the specific tenets of ultranationalism, militarism, etc) that defined the historical fascist movements. His actions are driven more by personal self-interest not some dedicated fascist program. Populism, by definition, requires a large, energized base of popular support and is a feature of many democracies. His consistent rhetoric against the Washington "swamp" and the political establishment can be seen as reflecting a desire to make the political system more responsive to the voters - a democratic ideal.
Let me be clear, I am not a fan of the man. But there have been/and are far worse. The hysteria against him is feverishly exaggerated
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
24 | 19 | 5 | 148 | 44 |
|
24 | 17 | 7 | 212 | 40 |
|
24 | 16 | 8 | 120 | 38 |
|
24 | 15 | 9 | 172 | 36 |
|
24 | 15 | 9 | 109 | 36 |
|
24 | 14 | 10 | 21 | 34 |
|
24 | 13 | 10 | 107 | 33 |
|
24 | 13 | 11 | 132 | 32 |
|
24 | 12 | 12 | 125 | 30 |
|
24 | 12 | 12 | 21 | 30 |
|
24 | 10 | 14 | -76 | 26 |
|
24 | 9 | 14 | -146 | 25 |
|
24 | 9 | 15 | -135 | 24 |
|
24 | 9 | 15 | -181 | 24 |
|
24 | 8 | 16 | -130 | 22 |
|
24 | 6 | 18 | -199 | 18 |
|
24 | 6 | 18 | -300 | 18 |