Random8145
Registered User
Had a feeling someone would comment about that. I agree wholeheartedly that Sky News is biased as all hell, but the links are not about any opinions of Biden but rather the video footage of him.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
War in Israel
- Thread starter Mirage
- Start date
- Status
How many videos has Sky News played where President Trump said similar things?
Earlier this week (I think it was), former President Trump was praising Viktor Orban, the President of Turkey. Did Sky News cover that?
Random8145
Registered User
I said Sky News is biased and was just using them to post some videos of Biden...?
I'll re-state my question: does Sky News air videos critical of Trump when he makes the same mistakes?
Random8145
Registered User
In terms of gaffes, I'd think no. But I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't had any problems with struggling to speak as far as I remember. During his presidency, the media's contention that the 25th Amendment should be invoked was not that he seemed to be in any mental decline but rather that he seemed too nuts/crazy to be president as they saw it.
Life in the echo chamber.
Random8145
Registered User
Not me. I remember the media's various attacks on Trump, I don't remember any headlines about him having difficulty talking. Instead it was always about what he said, not any difficulty saying it or creating a word salad.
Without going on too much of a tangent, the way that Biden gaffes is noticeably different from how Trump gaffed. Biden’s faults seem manifest in the stuttering, senile, and “word salad” type moments, while Trump’s speaking faults manifested moreso in ignorant, inflammatory and baseless comments.
Different types of failings.
BattlingTrain
SNA
Circling back to the war, do y'all think today is more significant than currently being reported? BBC and other news network have not been able to get in contact with any of their sources in Gaza for hours. The main ISP is reporting a complete outage. Not saying it's definitely the beginning of the ground assault, but a combined cyber attack and jamming of signals is what you'd expect to see if the assault were to begin.
But at the same time I haven't seen anything significant reported and in 2023 its hard to believe that no word would get out.
But at the same time I haven't seen anything significant reported and in 2023 its hard to believe that no word would get out.
I’m speaking in generalities here and I think you know that. If Trump was known for messing up in the same way Biden did, he would be regularly critiqued for it. He isn’t. Plenty of things wrong with Trump’s speeches and I wouldn’t point to him as any sort of example on “how to do public speaking”, But there is a noticeable difference in the way the two speak, and it goes beyond partisan bias and reporting (like the Daily show).
Average Monke
A primate with internet access
I need a reality check. Over the past few weeks I have been trying to rationalize why I feel the way I do about this conflict. From the bottom of my heart I feel for the Palestinian people who live in horrible conditions and can could see myself becoming radicalized if I were in their shoes. However, I see the main arguments in support of Palestine and characterization of Israel as hypocritical, dishonest, and borderline antisemitic.
Plenty who support Palestine argue Israel is occupies "stolen" land that was illegally taken from the Palestinians and further claim that Israel is committing genocide, thus rationalizing terrorism as anti-colonial resistance. My understanding of Israel/Palestine's history does not support this narrative.
I am not going to make a case for or against Zionism as that is beyond the scope of this post, but I will outline my understanding of how the borders become what they are today. I will also not
My understanding is that Jews, Arabs, and Christians all lived in the region of Palestine well before 1948. In my opinion, no group has more right to the land than any other as the land was owned individuals, not collectively by any one group. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948 claiming the land partitioned to them in Resolution 181 (yes, the Balfour Agreement blah blah blah). The Arab coalition rejects this claim, and launches a war against Israel the following day when the British leave. Israel is not erased and actually gains territory, which is how we get to the 1949 Armistice Lines. Egypt now controls Gaza and Jordan holds the West Bank. As far as I am concerned, those territories are absorbed into both respective nations. In my opinion, rejection to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation by the Arab Coalition (and the subsequent war) means there is no legitimacy for mandated boarders drawn by the UN. In other words, the Arabs breached the terms of the contract and thus the contract is void. Fine, the borders are established by blood instead of ink.
Fast forward to 1967, Israel takes preemptive action to respond to am imminent Arab invasion prompting the Six Day War. Israel gains Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Despite Israel striking the first blow, I would argue it was Arab aggression that incited this war so the territorial gains are legal.
Assuming this summary is broadly correct, and it very may not be, Israel has a legal claim both to Gaza and the West Bank. Israel relinquished Sinai for peace with Egypt and ended their occupation of Gaza in 2004. As I argued above, these territories were gained in war against nation states and are thus legitimate. Another note is that Jordan only formally ended their occupation of the West Bank in 1988, which was annexed in 1967. Technically, Egypt did not annex Gaza, but I don't think that really matters.
My point of all this is to say history suggest there is nothing illegal about Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank or anything else inside of Israel. They won it far and square. The genocide claim is equally ridiculous imo. Unlike Hamas, Israel is not trying to exterminate all Palestinians. Israel is willing to exchange territory for peace and has given Palestinians people opportunities to govern themselves, even as imperfect as it was. Arguable more so than any other nation, Israel has faced a constant existential threat, which is why they take their security to extreme levels. As American's I think it's very difficult to actually appreciate that so it is best not to judge them for something we have never experienced in our own lives.
I do not wish to dehumanize or dismiss the suffering of the Palestinians. Instead, I want to both explain and understand for myself why I disagree with the villainization of Israel and whether or not I should. Israel is very far innocent on a lot of issues, I will be the first to admit that, but I don't think there is any justification for cheering Hamas or preventing their eradication.
I am expecting a lot of replies regarding topics and details I omitted. I understand, and I will attempt to address them as they arise.
If I am drinking Bibi's kool aid please let me know.
Plenty who support Palestine argue Israel is occupies "stolen" land that was illegally taken from the Palestinians and further claim that Israel is committing genocide, thus rationalizing terrorism as anti-colonial resistance. My understanding of Israel/Palestine's history does not support this narrative.
I am not going to make a case for or against Zionism as that is beyond the scope of this post, but I will outline my understanding of how the borders become what they are today. I will also not
My understanding is that Jews, Arabs, and Christians all lived in the region of Palestine well before 1948. In my opinion, no group has more right to the land than any other as the land was owned individuals, not collectively by any one group. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948 claiming the land partitioned to them in Resolution 181 (yes, the Balfour Agreement blah blah blah). The Arab coalition rejects this claim, and launches a war against Israel the following day when the British leave. Israel is not erased and actually gains territory, which is how we get to the 1949 Armistice Lines. Egypt now controls Gaza and Jordan holds the West Bank. As far as I am concerned, those territories are absorbed into both respective nations. In my opinion, rejection to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation by the Arab Coalition (and the subsequent war) means there is no legitimacy for mandated boarders drawn by the UN. In other words, the Arabs breached the terms of the contract and thus the contract is void. Fine, the borders are established by blood instead of ink.
Fast forward to 1967, Israel takes preemptive action to respond to am imminent Arab invasion prompting the Six Day War. Israel gains Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Despite Israel striking the first blow, I would argue it was Arab aggression that incited this war so the territorial gains are legal.
Assuming this summary is broadly correct, and it very may not be, Israel has a legal claim both to Gaza and the West Bank. Israel relinquished Sinai for peace with Egypt and ended their occupation of Gaza in 2004. As I argued above, these territories were gained in war against nation states and are thus legitimate. Another note is that Jordan only formally ended their occupation of the West Bank in 1988, which was annexed in 1967. Technically, Egypt did not annex Gaza, but I don't think that really matters.
My point of all this is to say history suggest there is nothing illegal about Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank or anything else inside of Israel. They won it far and square. The genocide claim is equally ridiculous imo. Unlike Hamas, Israel is not trying to exterminate all Palestinians. Israel is willing to exchange territory for peace and has given Palestinians people opportunities to govern themselves, even as imperfect as it was. Arguable more so than any other nation, Israel has faced a constant existential threat, which is why they take their security to extreme levels. As American's I think it's very difficult to actually appreciate that so it is best not to judge them for something we have never experienced in our own lives.
I do not wish to dehumanize or dismiss the suffering of the Palestinians. Instead, I want to both explain and understand for myself why I disagree with the villainization of Israel and whether or not I should. Israel is very far innocent on a lot of issues, I will be the first to admit that, but I don't think there is any justification for cheering Hamas or preventing their eradication.
I am expecting a lot of replies regarding topics and details I omitted. I understand, and I will attempt to address them as they arise.
If I am drinking Bibi's kool aid please let me know.
I think multiple complex questions arise such as:
1. What is a nation supposed to do when it’s people have experienced multiple genocidal and extraction-level events throughout recorded history and how should it respond when faced with a group that once again wishes to exterminate them and rejects their peace offerings?
2. What is a reasonable expectation for a group of people who have been subjugated to military occupation and/or a terrorist regime in power?
I certainly don’t know a good answer to either.
- Status