Sudan - Israel Normalize Relations

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero

Actually, Trump has described it as a type of end run around Palestine. Previous attempts to do this were based on an initial agreement between Palestine and Israel, which never happened. Trump decided to drop that requirement, and this is the result. Expectation is that Palestine will come around when enough other countries join.

I have no doubt that it will eventually form into a coalition against Iran/Iraq/Syria. But that's not the methodology used.

TheRedneck

And the key to that is that even the Arab countries are tired of the Palestinians. Not the Palestinian people, but the leadership, who never take yes for an answer. Palestinians have been offered their own country SIX times since 1948. Six times. Their leadership has turned it down every time, no matter how good the deal is.

Clinton, to his credit, got them a sweetheart deal in 2000. Israel basically met them 70/30. Israel gave them 70. They only wanted 30. The Arab leaders told Arafat take the deal, you'll never get a better one. Arafat walked away.

The Arabs are just sick of it. They are tired of ignoring their own economic and security interests to try to help the Palestinians, who seemingly don't want the help. They don't want a state. They don't want peace. They just want all those God damn Jews out of there! And that's never gonna happen, and until Palestine accepts that reality, it's impossible to make a deal with them. So why are we trying? When they join us in the real world, maybe we can do a deal. Until then, let's do deals with countries who aren't stuck in the 1920s.

originally posted by: face23785

The Arabs are just sick of it. They are tired of ignoring their own economic and security interests to try to help the Palestinians, who seemingly don't want the help. They don't want a state. They don't want peace. They just want all those God damn Jews out of there! And that's never gonna happen, and until Palestine accepts that reality, it's impossible to make a deal with them. So why are we trying? When they join us in the real world, maybe we can do a deal. Until then, let's do deals with countries who aren't stuck in the 1920s.

The Palestinians have been a pawn to Iran for a very long time, and hopefully as the countries there get tired of the Palestinians they get tired off Iran who need a regime change.

So, was talking to my mom about this..her husband has family in Sudan. Her impression, was Sudan was bullied into it, they didn't really want to sign. They did though, because of issues with Sudan being designated a terror spot. They needed that removed, and apparently this was the carrot.

In Sudan, they figure Israel is going to start exporting Palestinians to Sudan, and they don't want to import the trouble. I'm not sure how that would be done, so, I question that.

originally posted by: vonclod
So, was talking to my mom about this..her husband has family in Sudan. Her impression, was Sudan was bullied into it, they didn't really want to sign. They did though, because of issues with Sudan being designated a terror spot. They needed that removed, and apparently this was the carrot.

In Sudan, they figure Israel is going to start exporting Palestinians to Sudan, and they don't want to import the trouble. I'm not sure how that would be done, so, I question that.

What's your mom think about the new government in Sudan?

I'll wait while you google them and come up with something.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: vonclod
So, was talking to my mom about this..her husband has family in Sudan. Her impression, was Sudan was bullied into it, they didn't really want to sign. They did though, because of issues with Sudan being designated a terror spot. They needed that removed, and apparently this was the carrot.

In Sudan, they figure Israel is going to start exporting Palestinians to Sudan, and they don't want to import the trouble. I'm not sure how that would be done, so, I question that.

What's your mom think about the new government in Sudan?

I'll wait while you google them and come up with something.

nvm

a reply to: face23785

So you thought CNN was airing Trump propaganda that the government of Sudan hadn't agreed to? That's seriously why you were questioning this?

What I thought at the time of the first posts on this thread was exactly that, that Trump as a known liar could have just been tossing out election propaganda. Certainly you must know that by now, that I do not trust him to tell the truth?

My first action as I posted was to check for additional sources. At that time I found next to none that did not repeat the claim that Trump had said. However, upon hearing that Fox was airing it, I turned into CNN to see if this would be censored. The phone call was being aired on CNN. I turned it off.

Came back to the thread and found conformation that the Sudanese PM had confirmed it, negating my original supposition that Trump could be just pulling it out of thin air.

As for what you take as lies, I guess that certainly they could seem incoherent if they were taken as lies however if taken as being true thoughts, the coherency is understandable if one can understand the error of missing that prime piece of information from the original article, that the Sudanese PM was confirming it.

So, do I credit Trump and his administration for this? If all is as it is reported sure. If this brings more stability to that area then yes.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

What I thought at the time of the first posts on this thread was exactly that, that Trump as a known liar could have just been tossing out election propaganda. Certainly you must know that by now, that I do not trust him to tell the truth?

There's 90% of your problem. You look at everything through those orange-colored glasses. You see distorted information and suspicion where none is warranted.

In this case, I was watching the news when I posted, this being such a huge deal for Middle East peace. In essence, you extended the "liar" label beyond Trump to me, to Fox, to Netanyahu, and to quite a few others. We saw the truth; you couldn't. The story had to be a lie, because it was said by a "liar."

Donald Trump is a human. He's not perfect, but at this point in time he is accomplishing things we desperately needed. The ease with which a false story about Sudan in this instance could be proven made it all but impossible that there was nothing going on of importance. A phone call to the Sudan President would be all it took. And yet, you made the assumption immediately that it must be a lie since it concerned Trump accomplishing something good.

Wake up. Surely you can see the signs of indoctrination.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you are partly right. Right in that I am always cautious of taking everything that comes out of Trump at face value. And I admit that, as in this case this causes distortion in my perceptions. Here it distorted the very fact that the mention of the phone call including the Sudanese PM in the OP had slipped by my attention. Yep, I concede that my caution has to some degree occluded my vision.

However, thinking Trump a liar did not and has not extended to you as you suggest. To Netanyahu yes, in potential. To Fox certainly. But to you and others no. I never once doubted your honesty. Your faith in him yes, but never your honesty. And after those original posts, finding conformation of the original claim the consideration of it all possibly being a lie dropped away.

I do not recall having called any of it a lie. What I offered from my limited and occluded perception was that ''it might not be true. Should you want, you can go back and see that for yourself. In that first reply of mine you will find nothing more than an urge for caution of belief, based as admitted to a large degree on my missing that crucial information from the video you presented, as you will also find in our subsequent comments between us. Remember ''patience"?

If you are still with me, I will go on. You suggest that I might recognize signs of indoctrination...Oh man do I. I first began notice signs of indoctrination as a teenager and have found them present in our society from that time on. As a third year high school student needing a book to report on for English class, my uncle gave me a copy of ''The Hidden Pursuaders'' by Vance Packard. Henceforth I have studied the art of indoctrination in as many forms as I have been able to find.

All culture is based on indoctrination. Conscious and willful indoctrination. Corralling all the little babies and all the school children and all the adults who will work in the factories and farms and armies. It's about controlling aberrant consciousness. Aberrant in that it might run contrary to established norms and mores and present an example of aberrancy to be followed by subsequent aberrant types. I"ve been visiting ATS for 9 years Red. Do you really suppose that I might be unconsciously indoctrinated by the MSM after all that time? I can assure you, since Packards book I have been aware of the roll MSM plays in our society. As I said, I was about 16 when I read it and that was well over 55 years ago.

Just like Trump, I am not perfect. Unlike Trump I am not a liar.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think you are partly right.

A little self-reflection was all I was looking for.

It behooves everyone to step back and look at their own selves from time to time. That is healthy. No one is perfect.

However, thinking Trump a liar did not and has not extended to you as you suggest.

I don't suggest it happened with intent on your part. I suggest that it happened as an extension of that hatred (and yes, it does come across as hatred) for Trump. I see the mental connections happening as follows: Trump claims he has done something good - Trump is a liar - Trump is therefore lying and the story is likely false - verify - unable to verify through normal channels - deem occurrence as false - reports say it is true - reports must be lying - reporters (myself and others) must be lying.

The separation from reality comes with the second connection above: Trump is lying. Trump might be lying (as all humans lie from time to time), but your connection said he had to be lying. Things went askew from reality after that.

The difference between "must be lying" and "might be lying" is evident in that you refused to allow the benefit of the doubt, even when confronted with multiple unofficial reports.

All culture is based on indoctrination.

In one sense, yes it is. All culture celebrates itself and passes itself down. Some indoctrination, however, tries to supplement reality with perception, and it is this form of indoctrination that I speak of. Truth is truth; truth is that which is correct when compared with reality. Perception is not necessarily truth (actually is usually only partially truth at best).

When perception establishes itself at direct odds with reality, that is the indoctrination I speak of.

Just like Trump, I am not perfect. Unlike Trump I am not a liar.

Not perfect, true... none of us are perfect.

Not a liar, well, that's a different story, especially when compared to the statement "Trump is a liar." Donald Trump lies no more (or less) than anyone else... and that includes you.

Indoctrination check.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have to applaud you for the way you handle people. You are much more tactful than I ever manage to be.

We are the world, we are the children, our president 25 terms will make a better day.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Right here is where I think this all may have gotten off track.

I see the mental connections happening as follows: Trump claims he has done something good - Trump is a liar - Trump is therefore lying and the story is likely false - verify - unable to verify through normal channels - deem occurrence as false - reports say it is true - reports must be lying - reporters (myself and others) must be lying.

I find this mental connection cracked. Not cracked as in crazy cracked, rather cracked as in a false assumption in reasoning. I claim Trump is a liar. Yes. You say above that I then carry that on to a next step in reasoning that ''therefore the story is likely false''. No. Not likely, rather possibly. There are things he or other say that are likely false and that presumption can be based on the total ludicrousness of the claim. If, as in this case the claim is not ludicrous or unreasonable at first blush, then at least the possibility remains that it is untrue. In this case the claim was well within the scope of possibility, knowing the recent advances in peace overtures and Kushner's work in the area.

From that point, we step to the verification process. Verification, at first try fails does not automatically lead to deeming the occurrence false, rather holds in neutral judgments on it's veracity until further information becomes available from various sources. Not holding the whole occurrence as stated as a lie, rather holding it as a possible lie does not proceed directly to holding those who promote that specific understanding of the occurrence as liars, rather just holds them as people who do not question that it MAY be a lie.

To your final thoughts in your last reply, well, I disagree. Yes, lying is abundant. It is particularly abundant in politics. It's an easy thing to do. You suggest that Trump lies no more or less than anyone else. Hold up there partner.... that is a statement best saved for another time, however your assumption that to what ever degree Trump is or is not a liar can be compared to myself, well I have to completely disagree. Do I lie? Hardly at all. Only in cases of extreme conditions where being truthful could aid in sever trauma or unneeded discomfort. And when that need arises it causes great discomfort within myself. Believe it or not, lying is at the top of my ''do not ever do'' list. Believe it or not.

That hope for honesty in myself extends outward to my hope of honesty in others. I attempt to interpret what others here are saying as at LEAST, honest interpretations of reality. I hold that strongly in your, among other, cases.

One thing I am learning here is that while a person may not be lying, their exuberant belief can lead them to promoting what may be falsehoods due to believing what ever it is that is believed. That leads to another long conversation on the nature of the value of belief itself and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Cases can be made for both sides of that penny.

Anyway Red. I"m called to dinner. I hope we can continue on with our interchanges as respectfully as this one has, at least proved for me, been.

T

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think a lot of the disagreement here involves what is a "lie" and what is not. Allow me to give an example from today:

I went to a gun show. My wife wasn't feeling good, so she did not. As I left, she cautioned me, "Do not bring anything home from the show." I agreed (with one exception: a specific gun I a looking for that is pretty rare now) and left. While I was hobbling down the aisle, I spied something she had been wanting for a long time, and with Christmas getting close I decided to get it for her. I hid it in the car and came home. I walked in the door and held up both empty hands with the statement, "I didn't bring anything home."

Did I lie?

Yes, I did.

Did I lie to harm anyone? No, obviously not.

Did I lie to enrich myself? Well, maybe... I lied to facilitate something I wanted to do (and to not get yelled at, lol). But my intentions were good and reasonable, and thus I do not feel guilt over that lie.

Does that make me a "liar"? I don't think so.

Now, let's apply that to Trump. The big "lie" circulating now is that he downplayed the virus when it started. Was that a lie? Yes... it turned out to not be the truth. Did he lie to harm anyone? I don't think so. He was working with the same incomplete information as any other world leader at the time, and many of the "experts" (including Anthony Fauci) were saying the same thing, that the US was in no danger. So no, he likely knew there was a possibility of a pandemic at the time, but he didn't want to alarm anyone over something that hadn't happened and that he thought would not happen.

The difference? I am not considered a compulsive liar; Trump is.

That is the disconnect, and it stems from one source: the media. Even though I adamantly refuse to watch CNN (to avoid another broken TV, lol), I still see clips that Fox airs and I still see reports on here from them. The narrative is constant: Trump lies; look at all the times he lied; he's a known liar; he can't help but to lie; how can anyone believe such a liar?

The result is what we have historically referred to as "brainwashing": the constant repetition of a statement over and over, ad infinitum, to the point that it becomes perceived as the truth. It works quite well; I used the same tactic on myself some back during school. I would record myself reciting material over and over and set my sound system to continually loop the tape overnight while I slept. I would wake up and the information was burned into my mind. After a few nights, it was second nature.

Now imagine what would have happened had I done this after recording false or misleading information? It would have colored my attempts to build on information later, because I would have a deeply-set belief that a falsehood was truth.

I see it all the time with math students. Math is the easiest course in school, but over the years it has developed a reputation for being the hardest. A child hears about how hard and how scary math is from the day they walk into a kindergarten classroom. So when they get to the actual course, they believe in their hearts it is beyond them, too hard, something to be feared and avoided. As a result, they do poorly in math and then tell others how hard math is, perpetuating the lie. 90% of my job when I tutor is overcoming that built-in bias. I cannot cont the number of times I have had students look at me in amazement and say something to the effect of "but that's too easy!"

The power of suggestion is awesome and terrible.

All I am asking is that you take some time and examine that deeply-held belief. It's a hard thing to overcome constant reinforcement of incorrect ideals, and I do not expect anyone so conditioned to simply blink twice and change their outlook. It will take time. But it is also completely possible to overcome... I know. Many of my math students started out being described as "hopeless" in math, but turned out to be naturals at it once I broke through the programming.

Break through your programming.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

Yeah, calling someone you are conversing with a liar does not help the conversation.

a reply to: TheRedneck

To the disconnect.

Does the media emphasis that Trump lies? Yes they do. The question is though are they doing it to ''brainwash'' viewers or to inform them of those lies. So where his supporters will come down on the ''brainwashing'' side and his detractors will come down on the other, I can see that it is both.

It's too difficult to really talk between supporters and non supporters on a substantial level I think. Each side finds the easy avenue of debate by putting the blame on the media, when in reality I think that the blame needs to be put on each and everyone of us who have failed or not yet had the opportunity to establish the skill of dissemination, the ability to listen to all sources and parse what is true and what is not true for ourselves.

You cannot watch CNN without getting violent though I'm pretty sure you were just being hyperbolic about that. Likewise, I cannot watch FOX without projectile vomiting. Ye, that was hyperbole. The point here being that one is more tolerable to you while the other is more tolerable to me. But in the case of CNN, I honestly admit, not by much.

This is because I see both FOX and CNN as the same, just opposing colored jump suits on pundits. And while both outlets pound their own agendas out into the ether, one other thing they both have in common. Really have in common. Turn on FOX at any random moment or turn on CNN at any random moment and we will find the exact same thing on the screen.

Advertising. So while some still believe that the advertising pays those stations to bring product information to the viewers, I"m of the mind that thinks what is really going in is that those stations bring the consumers to the advertisers. That's a very small distinction I know but the ramifications of which way does it balance out are all important. Are we the viewers the recipients of product information or are we indeed the ''product'' that is brought to the advertising industry.
The advertising industry that spends billions of bucks every year and utilizes the best and brightest minds armed with the latest in psychological manipulative techniques to worm their way into our minds to sell their chia pets?

That gets me to think that both are the same. So how do we disentangle from either side. Do we even recognize that we should? I do, do you? I think you do.

And where does that leave us Red? I think it leads us to talking across a wide chasm where the easiest way to approach each other is by suggesting to the other that they need to ''WAKE UP'' or more patiently suggest that the other break through their programming.

To that I will point out that I have been around ATS for about 9 years. This place is a bastion of not only conservatism but now Trumpianism. I"m here to expose myself to a body of thought that runs contrary to my years of self construction. That would seem to me to be exactly what you are asking me do do, attempting to break though my programming. In my case though it's not the programming of CNN but rather the programming of my own self established within myself as a coherent perspective on life's realities. That and I am to old to go somewhere else where the user format is different and not as easily used as this site has provided.

Why are you here. Still here. Certainly you are not here to listen to the long list of members who repeat day after day the litany of conservative programming that goes on around here.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Does the media emphasis that Trump lies? Yes they do. The question is though are they doing it to ''brainwash'' viewers or to inform them of those lies. So where his supporters will come down on the ''brainwashing'' side and his detractors will come down on the other, I can see that it is both.

I doubt many will disagree that Fox is a Republican outlet while CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS/... are Democratic outlets. I point out that Fox has aired stories that are in opposition to Trump policies. Admittedly those are not the norm, but I have yet to hear of anyone on CNN etc. praising Trump for anything. That includes helping negotiate the normalizing of relations in the Middle East. That includes the initial travel ban on China. That includes sending a freakin' Navy hospital ship to New York.

Listen to Fox and you will get the impression that Trump is a wild card that a lot of people don't like, but who does more good than bad. Listen to CNN and Donald Trump is a compulsive liar, a sexual deviant, a racist bigot, and Lord only knows what else they have been saying the last few days.

Listen to Fox and Joe Biden is a demented deviant who raised a crackhead money launderer to do his dirty work. Listen to CNN and Joe Biden is a misunderstood saint whose only goal in life is to make the American people happy, safe, and healthy.

Unlike me literally throwing heavy objects through a TV screen (I will admit to literally having such desires), that is not hyperbole. Those are the impressions I get. In both cases, both are wrong and stretching the truth. But in both cases, Fox is a considerable amount closer to the truth than CNN et. al. I can watch Fox with a healthy dose of skepticism and get something akin to the truth... I cannot do so with CNN. They are too full of outright lies.

I understand you want to believe that both sides are equally complicit; that has been the norm for a very long time. However, that norm has changed. Both are complicit, but one has pulled themselves so far to the extreme that even those who try to "split the difference" are still leaning far, far to the left.

So while some still believe that the advertising pays those stations to bring product information to the viewers, I"m of the mind that thinks what is really going in is that those stations bring the consumers to the advertisers.

Of course both sides advertise. They each tailor their advertising to reach their audience. How would one go about changing that? Those news anchors and pundits on the editorial shows do not work for free. The recording equipment and transmission equipment does not spring into existence devoid of a price tag. All that takes money to pay for. The start-up costs were paid for by investors who invested in an expectation of making a profit on their money; they would not have invested otherwise. That means the station must profit to pay them back.

There are only three ways to pay for that: government funding, which means the station will be controlled by the government and will not be free to report the news as they wish; advertising; or charging viewers to watch. The first idea is how PBS is run, and PBS is simply a government funded clone of CNN. The second is what we have now. The last is economically unfeasible and will limit how much news any station can report on.

This place is a bastion of not only conservatism but now Trumpianism.

I have been here for over 13 years. ATS is neutral. Unlike Google, Facebook, or Twitter, ATS does not censor anyone. They have policies to encourage polite debate and protect themselves for legal issues, but anyone who follows those simple policies can post as much as they like of any political bent. ATS is neither for nor against Donald Trump.

You are talking about the members, and membership here is not limited to any political bias. No one in my 13 years has ever had problems with ATS that were based on ATS not liking a political position. Those members are a decent cross section of the general population. If anything, you are combating your indoctrination by exposing yourself to reality... not to conservatism. These are real people speaking their minds freely, not a manufactured bias enforced by a site.

Why are you here. Still here.

Because this is one place where I know I can speak my mind freely. There are precious few such places left.

Whether you believe that or not.

TheRedneck