I had a realization....at some point, the Trump chumps are going to claim letting the pandemic hit us worse than anywhere else was intentional and goading police into intolerable racist violence daily was intentional...Both super smart ideas by a genius. They're both campaign promises being kept, because with America a dumpster fire, Mexico is far more likely to build that wall and pay for it.
Remember when a $70 billion dollar useless and ecologically apocalyptic "wall" that he insisted America wouldn't pay for but did was an unthinkable waste of taxpayer money? Too bad we won't have an accounting of his last year in office on election day, I bet he's added at least $7-8 trillion to the debt this year so far, and we're only 1/2 way through the year. Of course, he'll lie and claim it only went up $1.5 trillion (keeping most off the books like the Iraq war under Bush) and only that much because of the depression he caused, the one he blames on Barak like he's still the active president....oh, how we all wish that were true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/cia-veterans-who-monitored-crackdowns-abroad-see-troubling-parallels-in-trump-handling-of-protests/20
20/06/02/7ab210b8-a4f6-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

A taste....
Other former CIA and national security officials rendered similarly troubled verdicts.

Marc Polymeropoulos, who formerly ran CIA operations in Europe and Asia, was among several former agency officials who recoiled at images of Trump hoisting a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington after authorities fired rubber bullets and tear gas to clear the president’s path of protesters.

“It reminded me of what I reported on for years in the third world,” Polymeropoulos said on Twitter. Referring to the despotic leaders of Iraq, Syria and Libya, he said: “Saddam. Bashar. Qaddafi. They all did this.”

TL:DW- but Pence is now claiming all the "don't worry, everything's fine, it will just go away, it's not as bad as the average flu and flu shots are protection" talk from Trump was merely optimism....so hundreds of thousands - millions of Americans will die because Trump was optimistic, and based his administration's actions on his optimistic and ignorant pie in the sky high hopes, not the reality he was being told from all sides back in 2019.
Odd, when Clinton based her actions/inactions on an optimistic estimate of the safety of our embassy based on actual intelligence reports, 99% of Republicans wanted her in prison until her public execution because her decisions cost American lives.

Who's optimism cost more American lives? To date, it's Clinton 4-Trump 5500 (expected to rise to a minimum of 100000-250000 in the coming weeks). Trump's optimism is going to be more deadly to America than 9-11, the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war combined...10-25 times more dead by the most optimistic predictions based on 100% compliance with social distancing and no surprises.
Trump's incompetence has now risen to the level of being the deadliest man in America ever by far. If he's a wartime president like he's labeled himself, these are war crimes. String him up, string him up, string him up......

That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

What nonsense. No media outside Iran is glorifying him, they're denouncing his assassination.

Where is her outrage for the tens-hundreds of thousands we killed in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc?

People in Iran are happy, they're giving out cookies in the street....do we not know that people in Iran are not free, that they're tortured for disagreeing with the government...they're so happy.....oh yeah, and they all love Trump. *facepalm

Sounds like a female Bob....lies, exaggeration, self contradiction, complete blindness to and disbelief of massive opposition, and a nice pat on the back for idiot Trump for making international assassination of world leaders and anyone near them acceptable again. Turnabout is fair play, Trump.

Turkey and other countries including the USA see the PKK (Kurdish workers party) as a terrorist group after they tried to form their own Kurdish state. Turkey thinks all Kurds are PKK or have ties to PKK.

The US has been adamant that not all Kurds are linked to the PKK. Specifically the YPG and YPJ which are male and female militia groups respectively. YPG and YPJ are predominantly Kurdish but have lots of ex US and UK military, among others, volunteering with them because of their fight against ISIS and work to bring order to and stabilize parts of Iraq and Syria.

There are many good docos about the YPG and a few about the YPJ.

This Saudi Arabia shit is totally bonkers. Is it more sucking up to his beloved totalitarian regimes? Is it a step towards war with Iran? They're (the country from which came most of) the fuckers that attacked us on 9/11! They straight-up brutally murdered a critical journalist, who lived in the US and worked for a US newspaper! They're ideologically closer to ISIS than Iraq's former government was! I mean... what the fuck? It's like he's trying his hardest to piss off even the Republicans at this point, just to see what it'll take...

Third? Did you forget Russia and Italy?

Russia, Australia, Ukraine, England, Italy

We're up to 5 that we know for certain, and probably a dozen more they've hidden so far. It's naive to think he hasn't asked Netanyahu and the crowned Prince of Saudi Arabia for personal favors too....and probable he's pressured Turkey, Iraq, and pretty much any other country receiving military aid. I mean, after taking >$5 billion from the military for his fence (imagine if Obama had done that to pay for the ACA), he needs to make every military dollar do double duty.

Comparing post-Saddam Iraq to the current state of the US is more than a bit disingenuous. There's no 1:1 comparison here, or anything even remotely close.

Saddam took control of an oil rich nation of 30+ million people using violence and torture. He had them record his clinching moment on video, where you can still watch him drag out a visibly broken man(well agreed to have been broken through torture, Saddam deliberately flaunted this), and has the man read out a list of names of co-conspirators. Sure, Saddam undoubtedly wrote the list himself, but he was already powerful and feared enough it didn't matter and this evidence was enough. The co-conspirators were hauled out for execution, and the others in the room were fearful/relieved enough that when they were ordered to perform the executions themselves they did.

Saddam then ruled Iraq for another 24 years before he was forcibly removed by foreign powers, not any manner of domestic uprising.

Don't tell me that nobody else in Iraq wanted the job for that quarter century, instead Saddam's brutal methods were successful in keeping his hold on power throughout that time. None of that makes his methods 'right', but to declare that the methods are ineffective is just silly. Doubly so if you observe his hold on power wasn't removed by crowds of peaceful protesters rising up removing him in a bloodless coup, but rather through the use of more force and violence than Saddam could muster in return.

Actually no, I responded to what you said, which could be taken to mean many things.
I said I thought you meant the current state of Iraq when you said "blaming Sr. for Iraq"...and reading this it seems I was correct.
Imo, the current state or the region is mostly due to jr, not Sr.
Many people still blame Sr for the current state there. I disagree with that theory. That's all.

Sr hardly had a war in Iraq, his barely crossed the border and was mainly in Kuwait if memory serves. They chased the Iraqis out and bombed the shit out of them as they ran.
Kuwait was considered a sovereign nation, not a province of Iraq. Saddam invaded it. Sr never tried to remove Saddam, except from Kuwait. Since he understood the problem of creating a power vacuum there, I think leaving Saddam in power was smart with no feasible plan to replace him, even though it was clearly inhumane....and we have evidence now to support that. Iraq is absolutely worse off today than it was under Saddam, no matter which group you belong to.

Fortunately, all the WMD talk was pure fabricated fantasy...we never had evidence he continued those programs after the first gulf war/Kuwait. If he had had them, Bush Jr might have started ww3 by attacking him, knowing he would use them on his neighbors like he had before. Remember, it was Jr's administration's plan to convince the public he had wmds, so it's no surprise he also had people saying they're too dangerous to attack while he had many more saying he's too dangerous to leave in power....the same people claiming he was involved in 9/11, which was asinine.

I try and choose my words carefully, it looks like you are still responding to what you think I must mean, rather than what I said. You say you thought I meant jr and the recent war in Iraq when I reference Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. I was in fact referencing no particular Iraq war, but the overall condition Iraq is in(as per the video and my own earlier reference to same. Maybe some room to misunderstand that, but my full quot if you can read it carefully this time:
“blaming Bush Sr. for Iraq, rather than Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait.”
I did specifically name Bush Sr, which At the least should rule out thinking I’m discussing anything done by Jr.

As for Sr’s war in Iraq, Kuwait was a province of the Iraqi state when Senior came in to liberate it. He also stopped short of removing Saddam, which was imo a mistake for Iraqi’s and the one thing I’d agree would be a fair accusation against him re the overall consition of Iraq today. It left Saddam time for another genocide against the Shia Iraqi’s that had risen up thinking Senior was serious about standing with them. Public opinion though was too much against it and so American forces stopped short of removing Saddam and followed popular opinion. Saddam’s WMD programs where dismantled(which he very much had then) and northern Iraq’s airspace remained occupied by Anerican forces right through until jr’s war. Saddam also continually decieved, obstructed and kicked out the UN inspectors in Iraq there to confirm his full and continued disarmament. Enough so that before jr’s war one of the most vocal anti-war inspectors cited Saddam’s almost certain possession and use of chemical weapons as a reason risking an invasion was too dangerous...

No sir.

I'm addressing his comment about the invasion of Iraq happening because of "Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait." when that's absolutely not how the invasion was sold to us by W. That's only partially how Desert Shield was sold by Sr. (Keeping in mind the gassing had happened years earlier), but that didn't remove or even target Saddam and barely went into Iraq, so clearly wasn't designed to remove him from power or stop his atrocities, just to stop his expansion into our allies territories.

The invasion of Iraq and direct targeting of Saddam was by W, not Sr. and are what led to the current state of the region far more than any result of Desert Storm...what I thought he meant by "blaming Sr. for Iraq"....I read that as 'blaming Sr. for the current state of Iraq and the region'.
I may have misunderstood what he meant by "blaming Sr for Iraq", but I can tell the difference between bushes.

Stopped watching at "The never ending killing fields of Iraq".

Now, if the speaker goes on to accuse Bush Sr. for failing to remove Saddam after having Liberated Kuwait, I judged too quickly. I'm pretty confident though that this is just more of the revisionist history garbage blaming Bush Sr. for Iraq, rather than Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait.

I mean, if you want to rail against American exceptionalism, at least have the decency to blame the presidents prior to Bush(Carter and Reagan) who supported Saddam after the Iranian revolution, rather than the American president who finally took the right side against one of the most brutal tyrants and dictators of his time.

Not exactly.
They have actual evidence that many Kremlin tied agents were involved.
True, they haven't released any evidence proving Putin's personal involvement....yet.... but it's not a bit believable that this enormous government project was done behind his back. He IS personally involved with what his government is doing.

Granted, Mueller did seem to tow the Republican party line building up to Iraq, not with outright lies but by cherry picking reports and minimizing uncertainty but mostly by not correcting Bush, Rice, and Powell, which makes it even less likely he would turn 180 degrees to now outright lie and create evidence out of nothing to oppose his own chosen party, especially knowing it will come out eventually.

Also, it bears noting Mueller didn't have a part in creating any of the multiple reports, both public and classified, accusing Russia of interference, those came from numerous agencies and internal investigations by the businesses involved (like Facebook) AND from our allies intelligence agencies.

Odd, I haven't seen Mueller using any language about Russia, he's not doing interviews or releasing press statements, only indictments that in many cases are followed quickly with guilty pleas, what language exactly are you referring to?

"Witch hunt"....ahhh....so you've tipped your hand, indicating no amount of evidence will ever be enough to convince you because you believe Trump, even when he contradicts himself....except when he tells you there was clear Russian governmental interference, because he finished that sentence by saying "and others", which under a red hat means it doesn't matter, pay no attention to the Vlad behind the curtain....no collusion, no collusion, no collusion...la-la-la-la-la.

Odd, for a witch hunt, they have a whole bunch of convictions and people admitting to witchcraft. That's just not how witch hunts work.