2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

KingBrian2

Don't mean to be provocative but do we have a timeline on when President elect Trump will build the wall only the problem there is remarkable similar with the cartels.

TheOven

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Don't mean to be provocative but do we have a timeline on when President elect Trump will build the wall only the problem there is remarkable similar with the cartels.

Should be up by the 30th February.


Are we talking about the wall wall or the "wall"?

Igotadose

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Can you link me some of the European attacks you credit to Assad?/QUOTE]

here's one that his father tried to pull off, using an Irishwoman as a bomb mule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You want reliable facts about Syria don't go to the sectarian organizations that promote Jihad. People on here promoting the Muslim Brotherhood which assassinated President Sadat.

Sadat wasn't killed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Can you link me some of the European attacks you credit to Assad?

As for Saudi Arabia, they have been sending fundamentalist clerics to Pakistan for years, educating a whole generation of Afghan refugees. The ruling house of Saud is quite happy to let these nut jobs do their thing all over the middle east, as long as they are kept in power. A bit like Assad really. Except Assad is a secularist.

Its unfair to characterize a suspicion of Saudi motives ( at a state level) as being CT.

It's really not. And the Assad regime were responsible for the Nizar Hindawi attempt to blow up an El Al jet in Heathrow in '86, were sponsoring Abu Nidal around the period of the Rome and Vienna gun attacks, and the Syrian involvement in terrorist activities in Lebanon is a matter of record.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

It's really not. And the Assad regime were responsible for the Nizar Hindawi attempt to blow up an El Al jet in Heathrow in '86, were sponsoring Abu Nidal around the period of the Rome and Vienna gun attacks, and the Syrian involvement in terrorist activities in Lebanon is a matter of record.

Isreal were as involved in the El Al incident as anyone else. After the Lavon affair, I dont find the Mossad theory too far fetched. Hindawi himself claimed that he was operated by Mossad, as was his father before him ( in whose flat he had stored the explosives). An ambigious case.

Abu Nidal - the notorious US spy? I believe syria expelled anyone associated with him in 1987.

As for the last, I look forward to Lebanon's entry to the EU.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Isreal were as involved in the El Al incident as anyone else.

CT forum is that-away -->.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

After the Lavon affair, I dont find the Mossad theory too far fetched. Hindawi himself claimed that he was operated by Mossad, as was his father before him ( in whose flat he had stored the explosives). An ambigious case.

Not according to the judicial outcome. But feel free to buy into whatever CT's you like.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Abu Nidal - the notorious US spy? I believe syria expelled anyone associated with him in 1987.

Yep (though if you buy that U.S./Kuwaiti spy 'confession', I've a few bridges to sell you) , following on from their exposure on the back of the Hindawi case, and the pressure from Reagan following this and the Beirut Marine truck-bombing.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

As for the last, I look forward to Lebanon's entry to the EU.

Oh, how funny! International terrorism as I said. I really don't need to confirm to whatever arbitary frame you want to place on that. The internal terrorism of the Assad's is not in doubt either.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

No evidence that Saudi Arabia (as opposed to Saudi citizens) was responsible for 9/11, so repeating that claim really needs some sort of supporting links. Meanwhile there's ample evidence of the Assad regime (not some Syrian citizens mind, but the regime) sponsoring and initiating international terrorism over many years, including European attacks. Assad has bombed and gassed civilian targets repeatedly in Syria.

If you don't want to look to see, then there is no evidence...

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/finding-discussion-and-narrative-regarding-certain-sensitive-narrative-matters-saudi-arabia-911-11-a6999091.html

Rudy Giuliani says a Saudi prince gave him a cheque of $10 million in return for Rudy to deflect attention away from Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Rudy tore up the cheque and condemned Saudi Arabia instead...

Congress wants to allow the families of victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia.

Wanderer78

This administration looks like the master race, some lunatics being pulled out of the hat

Christy42

I am not sure why people are arguing that Saudi Arabia don't fund terrorism.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/hillary-confirms-saudi-arabia-qatar-are-funding-isis-leaked-email

Hillary says it too and she is in a position to be in the know. Granted why Saudi Arabia giving money to Hillary's foundation and her giving out about them is different to Trump giving out about them and being bailed out by them means Trump will be less favourable to them is beyond me.

I also don't think Rudi was ever offered that check given how quick he was to claim that the us never suffered successful Islamic terrorist attacks before Obama. (Which if you take the Taliban as not an Islamic organisation is an entirely meaningless statement like saying Chamberlain was better than Churchill as the Germans never bombed London under Chamberlain so I have to assume he counts them as Islamic terrorists and willfully forgot 9/11 or is just a moran and made a meaningless statement to attack Obama with)

Edit: I should point out that Saudi are involved in funding terrorism. I doubt they take an interest in individual operations including 9/11. They are more than happy to facilitate it from a distance. This also does not mean that other regimes in the region are not also horrific.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

If you don't want to look to see, then there is no evidence...

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/finding-discussion-and-narrative-regarding-certain-sensitive-narrative-matters-saudi-arabia-911-11-a6999091.html

Rudy Giuliani says a Saudi prince gave him a cheque of $10 million in return for Rudy to deflect attention away from Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Rudy tore up the cheque and condemned Saudi Arabia instead...

Congress wants to allow the families of victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia.

Not quite. Some congressmen are lobbying for a right for victim's families to sue, but that's not been passed by congress, and a right to sue doesn't imply that there's a case for winning that lawsuit. Guiliani claims a cheque of $7 million was sent by a prince, but he's notably not produced any evidence to back up this claim. Colour me skeptical. A whole lot of very little there. Meanwhile the 9/11 commission (a bi-partisan and comprehensive investigation without equal) were very clear that there was no evidence of Saudi state involvement in the 9/11 attack.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

CT forum is that-away -->.

Not CT at all. Can you explain his families links with Mossad in another way?

Not according to the judicial outcome. But feel free to buy into whatever CT's you like.

Not quite. The judicial process found on his guilt ( his association with the evidence) not his motives or otherwise.

Yep (though if you buy that U.S./Kuwaiti spy 'confession', I've a few bridges to sell you) , following on from their exposure on the back of the Hindawi case, and the pressure from Reagan following this and the Beirut Marine truck-bombing.

Reagan? It was following a personal mission from Carter.

Whether I buy it or not is immaterial. Its a narrative that is as plausible as your own, but coming from a more respected commentator.

Oh, how funny! International terrorism as I said. I really don't need to confirm to whatever arbitary frame you want to place on that. The internal terrorism of the Assad's is not in doubt either.

The point i was referring to was Syrian terror in Europe. I asked for European examples. The "Arbitrary Framing" was your own.

alastair wrote: »

initiating international terrorism over many years, including European attacks

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Not CT at all. Can you explain his families links with Mossad in another way?

Sure, there wasn't any. It's all banal CT stuff that claims this.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Not quite. The judicial process found on his guilt ( his association with the evidence) not his motives or otherwise.

Nonsense, the verdict on on the basis of the evidence presented, which made very clear that the operation was controlled by the Assad regime.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Reagan? It was following a personal mission from Carter.

It wasn't a 'personal mission'. Carter was sent by Reagan, to act as an intermediary.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Whether I buy it or not is immaterial. Its a narrative that is as plausible as your own, but coming from a more respected commentator.

You reckon Saddam's toturers were 'respected commentators'? Best of luck with that. The 'confession' makes about as much sense as his having been sent to Iraq on behalf of Santa Claus.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The point i was referring to was Syrian terror in Europe. I asked for European examples. The "Arbitrary Framing" was your own.

No, that would make it your own arbitary frame. What else would you call it?

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

[...]


No, that would make it your own arbitary frame. What else would you call it?

I even quoted your own framing. And you still deny it.

As for Carter:

Carter, who is on a five-nation, 16-day tour of North Africa and the Middle East, has emphasized that he is traveling as a private citizen and is not here as an emissary of the Reagan Administration.

LA Times archive

Please feel free to revise history as you feel it necessary to further your own one dimensional view of the world

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

You reckon Saddam's toturers were 'respected commentators'? Best of luck with that. The 'confession' makes about as much sense as his having been sent to Iraq on behalf of Santa Claus.

Are you calling Robert Fisk one of "Saddam's toturers"? Or are you just being obtuse?

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

Sure, there wasn't any. It's all banal CT stuff that claims this.

You are obsessed with CT. In the case of the Lavon affair, did you classify that as CT as well? And after 2005, did you still consider it CT?

However, it seems that claim, which came from Seales book on Assad, was backed up simply by "an interview with a high ranking Jordanian". In the absense of anything more concrete to support, I will cheerfully withdraw that claim.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I even quoted your own framing. And you still deny it.

You didn't.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

As for Carter:



LA Times archive

Please feel free to revise history as you feel it necessary to further your own one dimensional view of the world

Fraid not. Carter was sent to Syria by the Reagan administration, and briefed by the State Dept beforehand. The public separation between Carter and the administration was just optics. The briefing was confirmed by Robert Oakley, who passed on Pakistani information about the Abu Nidal attack on a pan am plane in Karachi. When Carter brought this up with Assad, it resulted in Assad purging Syrian Intelligence. Carter was an envoy, not a personal mission.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/tnrwr2.pdf

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Are you calling Robert Fisk one of "Saddam's toturers"? Or are you just being obtuse?

He's merely relating what the torturers claimed.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You are obsessed with CT. In the case of the Lavon affair, did you classify that as CT as well? And after 2005, did you still consider it CT?

However, it seems that claim, which came from Seales book on Assad, was backed up simply by "an interview with a high ranking Jordanian". In the absense of anything more concrete to support, I will cheerfully withdraw that claim.

If you insist on shilling for CT's that'll happen.

Igotadose

Any chance we can discuss the US Presidential election again? Or kill this thread?

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

He's merely relating what the torturers claimed.

Tortures is your word. And I will gladly take Fisks over yours any day.

As for the nonsense pdf you posted above in support of your Carter claim, can you cite something a bit more verifiable, perhaps the mans own memoirs? Instead of the draft of a partisan piece of fiction.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

If you insist on shilling for CT's that'll happen.

Again, do you believe the Lavon affair was merely a CT?

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

You didn't.

I wont engage you any further. Interested readers can use their "pg up" button to refute you.

marienbad

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I wont engage you any further. Interested readers can use their "pg up" button to refute you.

Hurrah , now that's over anything about those elections ? anyone ?

aloyisious

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Don't mean to be provocative but do we have a timeline on when President elect Trump will build the wall only the problem there is remarkable similar with the cartels.

This might help answer your question, it's from Al Jazeera (English-language) TV media.... It's dated 10th Nov 2016.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjm97Kj97nQAhWkK8AKHbF2AS8QFggvMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fblogs%2Famericas%2F2016%2F11%2Felection-donald-trump-president-161111055920724.html&usg=AFQjCNHEio1Uh-09BhKd97f_60SmQs3Bzg

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I wont engage you any further. Interested readers can use their "pg up" button to refute you.

Indeed they can. But there's nothing there to refute.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Tortures is your word. And I will gladly take Fisks over yours any day.

As for the nonsense pdf you posted above in support of your Carter claim, can you cite something a bit more verifiable, perhaps the mans own memoirs? Instead of the draft of a partisan piece of fiction.

It's neither nonsense or fiction.

Timothy Naftali is a Canadian-American historian and director of the Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Archives at New York University.[1] From 2007 to 2011 he directed the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. He was appointed when control of the Library was transferred from the Richard Nixon Foundation to the National Archives and Records Administration.[2][3] His biggest task at the library was to present a more objective and unbiased picture of the Watergate scandal—a task completed in March, 2011, when the Library's new Watergate gallery opened and received extensive news coverage.[3] Naftali left the Nixon Library later that year.[4] He is a regular CNN contributor.

Previously Naftali's area of focus was the history of counterterrorism and the Cold War.[5][6] Before taking the Nixon Library position, Naftali had been an associate professor at the University of Virginia, where he directed the Miller Center of Public Affairs' Presidential Recordings Program.[7] In the 1990s he taught at the University of Hawaii and Yale.[8] He has written four books, two of them co-authored with Alexander Fursenko on the Cuban Missile Crisis and Nikita Khrushchev.[9]

He served as a consultant to the 9/11 Commission, which commissioned him to write an unclassified history of American counterterrorism policy. This was later expanded into his well-received 2005 book Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism.[10][11][12]

The draft posted is a section of this book. It's a straightforward researched non-partisan history book, devoid of any fiction whatsoever.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

The draft posted is a section of this book

Does it appear in the book?

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Does it appear in the book?

Oh, you're back! :rolleyes:

Yes it does.

That's the non-fiction, non-partisan, no-nonsense, historical book, remember.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

Oh, you're back! :rolleyes:



That's the non-fiction, non-partisan, no-nonsense, historical book, remember.

Its at odds with all the contemporary reports. Carter makes no mention that he was doing the Reagan administration's bidding. Indeed, wasn't there a policy at the time of reduced interaction with Syria?

You book appears to make a simple statement, he does not back it up. No more than Seares and the Mossad link.

Mr.Micro

Wanderer78 wrote: »

This administration looks like the master race, some lunatics being pulled out of the hat

In keeping with the newly elected one, lol. It's going to be uncharted waters for some time. The media will certainly have plenty to report on, provided of course there is not a clamp down on free speech.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Its at odds with all the contemporary reports. Carter makes no mention that he was doing the Reagan administration's bidding. Indeed, wasn't there a policy at the time of reduced interaction with Syria?

You book appears to make a simple statement, he does not back it up. No more than Seares and the Mossad link.

It benefitted both sides to have deniability on the nature of the meetings. The writer does back it up - with referenced sources. Bit strange that - for a 'partisan fiction'.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Sadat wasn't killed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Don't know how you can determine that since they were opposed to the agreement Sadat reached with Israel. Yes the MB opposed a peace deal with Israel.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Don't know how you can determine that since they were opposed to the agreement Sadat reached with Israel. Yes the MB opposed a peace deal with Israel.

You don't know how I can determine that? Possibly something to do with the well-known group actually responsible for Sadat's killing? I never claimed the Muslim Brotherhood supported the Sadat peace deal, so have no idea what that has to do with anything. You said they killed Sadat. They didn't.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

You don't know how I can determine that? Possibly something to do with the well-known group actually responsible for Sadat's killing? I never claimed the Muslim Brotherhood supported the Sadat peace deal, so have no idea what that has to do with anything. You said they killed Sadat. They didn't.

We read the same lines but get complete different interpretations out of them. The line


"And we are different from the Muslim Brotherhood because sometimes they do not oppose the government".[9]


somehow makes these killers different to this organization even though the same people believe in the same content and inspired by the same personalities to go out and murder people based on a religious code.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We read the same lines but get complete different interpretations out of them.

Did you take note of the line that tells you who actually killed Sadat? Clue: it wasn't the Muslim Brotherhood. Stop posting fabrications.

B0jangles

Remember how it was an enormous deal that the Clinton Foundation got donations from the Saudis?

https://twitter.com/PostRoz/status/800694688844017664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I expect the posters who thought that was a huge problem will be just as furious about Trump's many direct business links to Saudi Arabia...

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Did you take note of the line that tells you who actually killed Sadat? Clue: it wasn't the Muslim Brotherhood. Stop posting fabrications.

If your familiar with Qutb you will know he was a leading intellectual within the Muslim Brotherhood and inspired such groups as Egyptian Jihad the group responsible for the assassination of Sadat and Al Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden. All these organizations are Islamists wanting a strict interpretation of Islam imposed on the country.

As I have said from the get go Syria like Egypt are secular states so the MB actively undermine efforts to produce peace with Israel or have a more secular society.

B0jangles

According to Argentinian reporters, Trump used his congrats call from the Argentinian president to ask him get a building permit for him in Buenos Aires.

Over the weekend, there were a flurry of stories about how Donald Trump and his family are already using the presidency to leverage his overseas businesses as well as his new DC hotel. Well, now there's more. This time in Argentina.

Here's the background.

For a number of years, Trump and his Argentine partners have been trying to build a major office building in Buenos Aires. The project has been held up by a series of complications tied to financing, importation of building materials and various permitting requirements.

According to a report out of Argentina, when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with the permitting issues that are currently holding up the project.

This comes from one of Argentina's most prominent journalists, Jorge Lanata, in a recent TV appearance. Lanata is quoted here in La Nacion, one of Argentina's most prestigious dailies. Said Lanata: “Macri called him. This still hasn’t emerged but Trump asked for them to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires, it wasn’t just a geopolitical chat."

Not even President yet and already abusing the office for personal gain.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1958082-revelan-que-trump-le-pidio-permiso-a-macri-para-hacer-una-torre

(Crossposting because I think it's quite important)

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

The writer does back it up - with referenced sources. Bit strange that - for a 'partisan fiction'.

He also says your buddy Abu Nidal died of "natural causes" in Baghdad

And an aircraft from the Vincennes shot down the Iranian airliner. :D

Not a man for detail is he?

InTheTrees

B0jangles wrote: »

According to Argentinian reporters, Trump used his congrats call from the Argentinian president to ask him get a building permit for him in Buenos Aires.

Republicans in congress aren't going to put up with that kind of corruption for long.

Apparently he's had his kids sitting in on policy meetings with his new cabinet which is open conflict of interest. His business is supposed to be in a blind trust.

Roll on impeachment!

B0jangles

Don't mind me, just carryin' the Homeland Security policy doc under my arm with the front readable to everyone there...

https://twitter.com/CJOnline/status/800766763545796608/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Overheal

Exploit the PATRIOT act to do what now?

PopePalpatine

Well, considering that it's closely followed by the phrase "illegal aliens" I won't be surprised if it means the NSA will be used to hunt down illegal immigrants.

Overheal

I suppose if you're a spanish speaking american you can expect less privacy

26000 Elephants

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, considering that it's closely followed by the phrase "illegal aliens" I won't be surprised if it means the NSA will be used to hunt down illegal immigrants.

But surely that wasn't the intent of the patriot act?... Oh wait....:)

ancapailldorcha

Raise the standard of posting please.

Stheno

B0jangles wrote: »

Don't mind me, just carryin' the Homeland Security policy doc under my arm with the front readable to everyone there...

https://twitter.com/CJOnline/status/800766763545796608/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Who was that?

brickmauser

Stheno wrote: »

Who was that?

Kris Kobach

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

If your familiar with Qutb you will know he was a leading intellectual within the Muslim Brotherhood and inspired such groups as Egyptian Jihad the group responsible for the assassination of Sadat and Al Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden. All these organizations are Islamists wanting a strict interpretation of Islam imposed on the country.

As I have said from the get go Syria like Egypt are secular states so the MB actively undermine efforts to produce peace with Israel or have a more secular society.

Any closer to admitting that the Muslim Brotherhood did not, in fact, kill Sadat? Or just going to be stick with dissembling?