Dozens killed in Gaza as US Embassy opens in Jerusalem

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Well it seems not

Mitt Romney calls pastor who delivered blessing at Jerusalem embassy opening 'religious bigot

www.politico.com...

The evangelical pastor delivering a blessing at Monday’s opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem is a “religious bigot” who is unworthy of such an honorary role, Utah Senate hopeful Mitt Romney wrote on Twitter Sunday night. “Robert Jeffress says ‘you can’t be saved by being a Jew,’ and ‘Mormonism is a heresy from the pit of hell,’” Romney, who is Mormon, wrote on Twitter Sunday night. “He’s said the same about Islam. Such a religious bigot should not be giving the prayer that opens the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.”

He's a F'n Mormon!

Can't even drink caffeine!

I hate that I wasted toilet paper on his house.

Jeffery's is right.

FU Romney, who should give the address? You?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Crap. You put me on the bottom of the page. My timing was dreadful.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: jaymp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Quite the contrary. Israel is being illegally occupied, and has been so off and on since 597 BC.

I look forward to the eventual destruction of the perversion that is Dome of the Rock, and the restoration of the temple mount. We're not quite there yet, but one day at a time.

That ought to be an exciting day!

lol.

Talk about losing their minds!

Well they still have the kabbalah and Paris.

Some interesting responses you have a right to shoot unarmed women and children in the head as a chosen one and call it defence,its all in an unassailable reference you see despite the fact for 1900 years Jerusalem wasn't the capital of a God damn thing,the USA is not a fair broker unfortunately the Palestinians better find a Che Guevera or Tom Collins theres only one thing now that will get them to a negotiating table

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
a reply to: mightmight

Except that Jews have been living there for the past 3000 years

Along with everyone else who's ever lived.

Actually the people who where living there 3000 years ago besides the Jews - lets call them Canaanites - have long since disappeared. Only the Jewis people can trace their lineage back that far, managing to preserve their history, culture, customs, language, religion throughout the millenia. This is why they can concievable claim to have a state in their ancestoral homeland. If the Canaanite from 3000 years ago where still around as a people they could too.

In fact, even the Palestinians have a claim to the land at this point. Nothing wrong with selfidentifying as a people only recently. The right of people to self determination is a universal right that can not be negated IMO. But so is the right to self defense and thus we have conflict between Israelis/Jews and Palestinians/Arabs fighting over some land that in reality is way to small to house them both anyway.

originally posted by: toms54
Can you imagine if ANY other country in the world behaved this way? The outcry would be deafening. It would be the biggest humanitarian crime in history. The UN would get involved. Probably the Hague court.

What if Trump decided to deal with that caravan like this. Do you think "We warned you" would fly as an excuse?

If Israel is justified, maybe the US should start building illegal settlements in Mexico.

Aren't the mexicans doing it here already for 100 yrs?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I think Romney is vying for un deserved time, like most in their clear lack of prestige.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Willtell

Fadi Abu Salah was 29 years old. First they took his land, then they took his legs, today they took his life

Should a quit while he was a head.

originally posted by: Phage
Anyone know how it was in the interest of the American people to move the embassy to Jerusalem?

MAGA how?

Congress approved it in 95'.

Must be legit.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

That wasn't my question.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Crap. You put me on the bottom of the page. My timing was dreadful.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry, dude.

lol.

a reply to: burgerbuddy
No worries.
You redeemed yourself. Sort of. But you didn't answer the question.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That wasn't my question.

Yeah but that's the legal part of your question.

Trump saved about 1 bill by moving there too.

What the hell is the problem?

Besides forcing something on a state?

Maybe the pali's should move to Seattle.

Or San Fran. Join the other homeless and free drugs.






ETA; the americans that give a crap wanted it as with many peoples around the world.

It was ok'd by congress yrs ago.

Trump made it so.

Hope that answered your question.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Trump saved about 1 bill by moving there too.

How so? Lower rent?

What the hell is the problem?

Really? You don't see a problem?

ETA; the americans that give a crap wanted it as with many peoples around the world.

I think only a certain "type" of American wanted it. But who cares what people around the world want? Right?
America first?
I asked how it helps the people of America.


Anyone else?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Trump saved about 1 bill by moving there too.

How so? Lower rent?

What the hell is the problem?

Really? You don't see a problem?

ETA; the americans that give a crap wanted it as with many peoples around the world.

I think only a certain "type" of American was in favor of it. But who cares what people around the world want?

I asked how it helps the people of America.


Anyone else?

Not really, saved money.

Is it their friggin embassy?

They can put them in the gaza or west bank if they want.

Americans want it in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

Like we do with all other countries.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Not really, saved money.

Again, how does it save money? Lower rent?

Is it their friggin embassy?

No. It's the US embassy.

They can put them in the gaza or west bank if they want.

Who can put who on the West Bank? What does that have to do with the location of the US Embassy?

Americans want it in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

I'm an American. I don't.

Like we do with all other countries.

Are all other countries in the same situation? One size fits all? Ok, fair enough.

How does it benefit the people of America?

Anyone?

originally posted by: Phage
I asked how it helps the people of America.
Anyone else?

He already told you. It was not a good precedent for the President to ignore decisions of Congress for decades. If anything itstrengthens the rule of law and the legislative branch in America.
But as with most foreign policy decisions, it does not directly benefit the American People. Doesnt mean its wrong though, there are many good reasons for the move.

Stand up for an ally. Sticking it do islamic terroists. Finally showing some balls again. Getting an issue of the table.Moving past the deadlock, forcing the Palestinian leadership to accept reality. etc.

a reply to: mightmight

It was not a good precedent for the President to ignore decisions of Congress for decades.

No president ignored the law. The law empowered the president the power to waiver. It took specific action to do so. That is not ignoring, that is acting.

Getting an issue of the table.Moving past the deadlock, forcing the Palestinian leadership to accept reality. etc.

Removing a bargaining point does not encourage negotiation. Here's a decisive president for you:

“I’m very happy with the one that both parties like,” Trump continued. “I can live with either one. I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two. But honestly, if Bibi, and if the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best.”

Do you think that this move makes the Palestinians are happy? This is a big step toward negotiations?

Sticking it do islamic terroists.

There it is. Palestinians are terrorists. Screw 'em all.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Phage
No president ignored the law. The law empowered the president the power to waiver. It took specific action to do so. That is not ignoring, that is acting.

Thats splitting hairs. The provision should never been in there and was certainly not intended to be used to drag out this issue for two decades.

Removing a bargaining point does not encourage negotiation.
Do you think that this move makes the Palestinians are happy?

No but i dont obsess over some rumblings Trump made either.
Removing a bargaining point can make an excellent encouragement for negotiatons. Sometimes you need to force the issue. We'll see what happens when a) Abbas finally steps down or dies in office and b) the Trump Admin presents its peace plan. Not every move can be judged right away.

There it is.

Sure. Whats wrong with sticking it to islamic terrorists?

a reply to: mightmight

The provision should never been in there and was certainly not intended to be used to drag out this issue for two decades.

Congress put it there. Can Congress be wrong about something?

Removing a bargaining point can make an excellent encouragement for negotiatons.

I disagree. Not when it is a primary point.

Sure. Whats wrong with sticking it to islamic terrorists?

Start with, all Palistinians are not Islamic terrorists. Then go here:
en.wikipedia.org...