This is another Iran moment in that he quite openly abandons American national interests to cater to Miriam Adelson and the rest of the lot that bribed him.
If we are the world hegemon, and Israel is a weaponized vassal, than that's precisely what you would do with it. Same way North Korea is used by China.
I would advocate for the whole region being left alone, but that's not US policy
North Korea, while not having a lobby in Peking let alone one as powerful as the Israel lobby, is very much an out of control vassal only kept around because they don't want America on their borders.
A Palestinian state is relatively unimportant to the US interests compared to a maximally favorable trade agreement with a neighbouring developed country that is orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than Palestine.
Compromising our neighborly trade negations to obtain concessions on Palestine is not in the best interests of US, but it is for the country that does actually neighbor Palestine
My issue with that is that nothing about our negotiations is going to genuinely endanger trade with Canada. However, if Canada insists on supporting terrorism in the ME, then it becomes our problem.
As cucked as the Canucks are, that they would just reverse their stance on Palestine for nothing in return seems the more extraordinary claim than they would try to extract at least some form of concession for their compliance. Given this is happening as part of the trade deal talks, trade terms seem a likely first target.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Iran is our enemy specifically because they have been conducting irregular warfare against the US since the shaw fell and they have shown literally no signs of stopping, ever. We made up with the Taliban faster than we made up with the Ayatollah. Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way, Iran comes back to the top. Piracy, assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Who is 'we'? You may not wanted it, because it stopped proliferation. But for people who think that fewer countries should have nukes, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is good. Netanyahu and Israel were continuously pressuring Trump to cancel the deal, and it didn't help that Trump went "OBAMA'S NAME IS ON IT, WORST EVER".
Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way
[Syria has entered the conversation.]
Piracy,
Like?
assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it
Jeez, bombing military targets? Did they bomb Fort Bragg? Where were those military targets? Perhaps in a place where you had no business being to begin with?
Where were those insurgencies? In neighboring countries that you had invaded? Yeah, those bastards, putting their country right in the middle of countries you wanted to invade. (In fact, there is very little evidence for this, and this was just the Bush administration deflecting from its disastrous policy in Iraq.)
Oh, and if you want to argue that 'supporting insurgencies' is a bad thing, guess who comes out as a really bad guy?
the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
Given the fact that the US coup'ed Iran's government in 1953, supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (then supplied him with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians, and provided him with diplomatic cover), and has had sanctions to try to wreck as much havoc as possible in Iran...
Who is the greater offender and who the greater victim?
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves. In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War. They were even placed under the command of non-US troops. They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country. The Americans pulled out any
Iran has basically been in a Cold War with the US since the Ayatollah came to power. Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians, and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
Didn't seem like it. The people who wanted it canceled, are the same people who at the time adamantly insisted that it would not lead to war, and who championed the war when it came.
Syria is operating at our behest.
No kidding. But you talked about the decline of Al Qaeda.
Piracy like around the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.
Iran did that? Give me an example.
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves.
Considering that the US government uses murderous insurgencies as an ordinary tool of statecraft, it can hardly cry "TERRISM" when someone else does it.
In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War
There is always a noble cover for raw Realpolitk, so I don't believe this for a moment. That said, American interests clearly weren't great or you wouldn't have cut and run.
Furthermore, admitting arguendo that it was Hezbollah and that Hezbollah was acting on Iran's behalf, this clearly didn't stop you from sending weapons to Iran later on in the very same decade, so you can hardly use this as a justification for another war decades later - like the US did for Iraq gassing the Kurds with American chemical weapons 15 years later.
They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country.
Take over the country? I haven't seen any evidence for that. I'll also point out that the bombing occurred in 1983. This was after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 - it only withdrew in 2000 or so.
Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians,
To use 'occupation' in this sense is to strip the word of its meaning. Also, even if he were, this has absolutely no bearing on whether actions by the US or Iran are more responsible for causing the enmity between the two countries.
and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
The Americans didn't want Iran to get a nuclear bomb, excluding the Obama admin. I don't see your complaint here.
The Houthis are an example of Iranian backed piracy. Why are you acting like forces operating on behalf of Iran have nothing to do with it? Same thing with Hezbollah and Lebanon.
I don't care that the US also promotes insurgencies, there's effectively a war with Iran.
I agree we shouldn't have sold weapons to Iran, just like we shouldn't have given them retarded amounts of money either. That doesn't make them good, or us not effectively in a permanent state of conflict with them.
It's not a stretch to call an Arab Islamist coup over the government, then slaughtering a horde of it's population, and then repressing them to keep the population in control is still within the allowable definition of an occupation.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
I'm completely unsurprised that you believe that, given the fact that you supported war with Iran and that you even, in 2025, supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there. You do seem to have a little penchant for supporting wars based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
Piffle. It was the USG and Europe that violated the deal, not Iran. Iran even continued to uphold it for years after Trump pulled out. Iran war supporters kept posting graphs of Iranian enrichment which showed very low levels on enrichment during the deal years. Anyone can easily discover this. Who do you think you're fooling?
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
After 10 years, they'd be three weeks from a nuclear weapon like they have been for the past 30 years?
supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there
Because there were. When Bush said it, Saddam hadn't sent them to Syria yet. The UN said there were even after the war was over.
550 tons of yellowcake wasn't found in a bakery, ok? It is the starting block for nuclear weapons. That's a part of a WMD PROGRAM which was banned by the treaty.
You also are mistaking "the sizzle" for the "steak" ok? You believe the selling points are important, they are not, they're just there to dazzle your eyes. The fact is: Saddam violated the Cease Fire treaty & thus it was legally "war on!" for everyone involved. That takes too much thinking though, so a buzzphrase was made. Do not mistake the map (sizzle, slogan) for the terrain (steak, reality), ok?
PFFT! How can other nations "violate the treat" but Iran didn't? Mental gymnastics! You should go to the Progressive Olympics! 😸
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions. Like Pakistan and India did.
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions.
They can already do that now, dumbass. And I think they will. They'll be right to, because it's the only way to avoid being bombed by the US and Israel.
But thanks for trying!
If you want to act smug, you should at least not fail so miserably.
Just ignore the findings of the UN? Of every intelligence agency anywhere? Go for it! YOU know better than people who actually found the proof.
So Iran allegedly followed ONE part of the deal? And that means they also followed ALL of the deal too? Like not testing mid- or long ranged missiles like they did a few weeks after signing it?
You failed to explain how other nations can violate it, but Iran didn't.
You failed to even look at the agreement, which forbade enrichment at Fordo for 15 years, lasting until 2030. Clearly that was violated, Iran bragged about it.
Branch of math? Like on a tree? Do you think I'm speaking Latin here? X means 10? Do I look Roman to you? Are you so unfamiliar with math that you don't know what X stands for? Retard.
Did you even look up the agreement? No! Because it hasn't ended yet, it covers various things for 10 to 15 years from 2016.
Now try actually addressing the issue. You're so predictable and boring, fyi.
The only nations suicidal enough to take in Palestinian refugees are white western nations, so anyone who cares about the survival of white western nations should support the creation of a Palestinian state in order to keep Palestinians in Palestine.
Since when have either Islamists or Communists ever done either? Segregating them out won't stop them from attacking. You'd need someone else to own the place, either Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan.
Palestinians are a Leftist Socialist movement. They are fighting to kill every jew because each jew is the bourgeoise. They will then kill every Arab and Muslim that gets in their way.
Oh please. This sub collectively ate crow when iran nonsense got defused in less 24 hours. Meanwhile I've seen nothing from this sub justifying giving some sand niggers credibility from a couple of dying nations.
Do you mean that ceasefire that nearly crumbled? As I said then, Iran's nuclear program isn't done. We'll be back at war with them eventually.
Meanwhile I've seen nothing from this sub justifying giving some sand niggers credibility from a couple of dying nations.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I'll highlight your use of "sand niggers" anyway. Zionist shills will engage in open racism like this to one audience while also playing the victim of racial discrimination to other audiences. They have a playbook for everyone and hope you don't notice that there are people who say "sand niggers" who have the same agenda as the ADL.
Defused? People like you think that because dropping bombs and killing people in Iran isn't a big deal to you in your life, you assume that it isn't a big deal to the victims. They were bombed and killed. Their families won't forgive, and they won't forget. You probably also don't understand that blowing people up causes animosity and hatred towards our people. Whites better wake up and get away from these semetic wars before the world takes its anger out on us.
If you think that driving 10 million 'refugees' into Europe is a good thing, you're an Israel First moron of the highest order.
You really shouldn't have a European river in your username when you're striving for our destruction. Name yourself after something American instead, like PeanutAllergy or Fentanyl.
And you sound like quite the terrorist yourself, by the way.
You were discussing Iran, genius. There aren't even 10 million Palestinians. You said that your Israel First politics are justified, because the Iranians are "sandniggers" and deserve to be murdered.
Well, even if you believe that, we don't deserve to be destroyed at the hands of 'refugees', OK?
How does everyone still have trouble seeing through this tactic? He doesn't care about that shit: he's throwing his weight around trying to get a more favorable deal.
He does tell it like it is. That doesn't mean he can't bullshit America's enemies, eh? It's called The Art Of The Deal you perhaps have heard of it? "Deal making" involves saying shit that isn't true to get what you want.
It also can involve threats which, if not heeded, must be carried out!
Tell your 8 year-old "no cookies before supper or no dessert for you" ok? Then watch them flagrantly eat cookies in front of your eyes. Now after supper, do they get cake or not? If you answer yes, I hope you have no children 🙁 seriously.
Thus with trade negotiations. Make demands and back them up.
Don't be an Obama, drawing "Red Lines" one after the other until simply giving the enemy everything they want.
It's Trump warning Canada about not doing something & the consequences. If he doesn't follow through he loses massive amounts of credibility & thus influence.
"Don't do that!" (Carney does that) "Oh well, here's your consequences!"
Hey, if you like Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran more than Israel? That's your bed, have a good rest in it!
No, I mean constantly saying shit he doesn't mean and pretending things he doesn't care about are non-negotiable conditions for a trade deal, right up until it stops being convenient for him and he abandons them.
I don't think he's serious when he makes not recognizing a Palestinian state a condition for a trade deal with Canada. Not that it matters, because our government will never actually do that. Within a week, they'll have denied they were ever even considering it and Trump will be taking credit for making them back down. It's not hard to make Mark Carney look weak, because he is.
The most obvious recent example is where he and Vance both said in April that they wanted US review of UK speech laws that might effect American companies to be included in any deal they signed with the UK, but it wasn't. They agreed a deal two months later and the Online Harms Act went into effect anyway.
And so? He's supposed to get 100% of everything or else he's a failure? Is 100% perfection the measure you use for every politician? For yourself? 🤔 I think not.
Canada: Were tough and going to take down Trump like we always said we would
Trump: New tariffs because it's Tuesday
Canada: It's Friday
Trump: Ooo, that's a new tariff for disagreeing with me.
He can be petty AND get results in business, and you think he wouldn't twist the knife a little to make Canada double down on getting involved in middle east politics?
Yes, supporting international terrorism is bad for the USA. Nations who do so are thus also bad for the USA.
Carney is just a WEF stooge, an idiot puppet who does what he's told.
This is just the visible part of an underlying problem. Canada's government hates Canadians, hates Americans and seeks to destroy Western Civilization. All while enriching themselves, of course.
They believe a Grave New Utopia [sic] will rise rom the ashes after 2/3 of the human race are gone. With themselves as absolute rulers, of course.
( meant to say "Brave" but the G works even better!)
This is another Iran moment in that he quite openly abandons American national interests to cater to Miriam Adelson and the rest of the lot that bribed him.
He is blatantly saying that all his economic policies thus far are for the sake of Israel above America.
It's crazy how blatant it's become. It was always there just under the surface, but I dont know how normies don't connect the dots at this point.
Arguably, being unable to connect dots is the definition of "normie."
How would a Palestinian state be in the interest of the US? Seems like at this point the best case scenario is that it grants Iran a proxy.
That's a fair point, but how is an Israeli state in the interest of the US?
It isn't, besides being a useful weapon to keep the ME unstable and forcing people to negotiate with us in order to keep them in check...
IF WE WOULD ONLY DO THAT
You're seriously advocating for Israel on the basis of their continued impediment to peace?
If we are the world hegemon, and Israel is a weaponized vassal, than that's precisely what you would do with it. Same way North Korea is used by China.
I would advocate for the whole region being left alone, but that's not US policy
North Korea, while not having a lobby in Peking let alone one as powerful as the Israel lobby, is very much an out of control vassal only kept around because they don't want America on their borders.
A Palestinian state is relatively unimportant to the US interests compared to a maximally favorable trade agreement with a neighbouring developed country that is orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than Palestine.
Compromising our neighborly trade negations to obtain concessions on Palestine is not in the best interests of US, but it is for the country that does actually neighbor Palestine
My issue with that is that nothing about our negotiations is going to genuinely endanger trade with Canada. However, if Canada insists on supporting terrorism in the ME, then it becomes our problem.
As cucked as the Canucks are, that they would just reverse their stance on Palestine for nothing in return seems the more extraordinary claim than they would try to extract at least some form of concession for their compliance. Given this is happening as part of the trade deal talks, trade terms seem a likely first target.
And why is Iran your enemy again? Trump tore up the Iran nuclear agreement because Israel wanted that.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Iran is our enemy specifically because they have been conducting irregular warfare against the US since the shaw fell and they have shown literally no signs of stopping, ever. We made up with the Taliban faster than we made up with the Ayatollah. Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way, Iran comes back to the top. Piracy, assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
Who is 'we'? You may not wanted it, because it stopped proliferation. But for people who think that fewer countries should have nukes, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is good. Netanyahu and Israel were continuously pressuring Trump to cancel the deal, and it didn't help that Trump went "OBAMA'S NAME IS ON IT, WORST EVER".
[Syria has entered the conversation.]
Like?
Jeez, bombing military targets? Did they bomb Fort Bragg? Where were those military targets? Perhaps in a place where you had no business being to begin with?
Where were those insurgencies? In neighboring countries that you had invaded? Yeah, those bastards, putting their country right in the middle of countries you wanted to invade. (In fact, there is very little evidence for this, and this was just the Bush administration deflecting from its disastrous policy in Iraq.)
Oh, and if you want to argue that 'supporting insurgencies' is a bad thing, guess who comes out as a really bad guy?
Given the fact that the US coup'ed Iran's government in 1953, supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (then supplied him with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians, and provided him with diplomatic cover), and has had sanctions to try to wreck as much havoc as possible in Iran...
Who is the greater offender and who the greater victim?
We, is "the Americans", for simplicity sake.
Syria is operating at our behest.
Piracy like around the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.
Insurgencies & military targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves. In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War. They were even placed under the command of non-US troops. They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country. The Americans pulled out any
Iran has basically been in a Cold War with the US since the Ayatollah came to power. Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians, and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
Didn't seem like it. The people who wanted it canceled, are the same people who at the time adamantly insisted that it would not lead to war, and who championed the war when it came.
No kidding. But you talked about the decline of Al Qaeda.
Iran did that? Give me an example.
Considering that the US government uses murderous insurgencies as an ordinary tool of statecraft, it can hardly cry "TERRISM" when someone else does it.
There is always a noble cover for raw Realpolitk, so I don't believe this for a moment. That said, American interests clearly weren't great or you wouldn't have cut and run.
Furthermore, admitting arguendo that it was Hezbollah and that Hezbollah was acting on Iran's behalf, this clearly didn't stop you from sending weapons to Iran later on in the very same decade, so you can hardly use this as a justification for another war decades later - like the US did for Iraq gassing the Kurds with American chemical weapons 15 years later.
Take over the country? I haven't seen any evidence for that. I'll also point out that the bombing occurred in 1983. This was after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 - it only withdrew in 2000 or so.
To use 'occupation' in this sense is to strip the word of its meaning. Also, even if he were, this has absolutely no bearing on whether actions by the US or Iran are more responsible for causing the enmity between the two countries.
Iran hasn't invaded a country in 250 years.
The Americans didn't want Iran to get a nuclear bomb, excluding the Obama admin. I don't see your complaint here.
The Houthis are an example of Iranian backed piracy. Why are you acting like forces operating on behalf of Iran have nothing to do with it? Same thing with Hezbollah and Lebanon.
I don't care that the US also promotes insurgencies, there's effectively a war with Iran.
I agree we shouldn't have sold weapons to Iran, just like we shouldn't have given them retarded amounts of money either. That doesn't make them good, or us not effectively in a permanent state of conflict with them.
It's not a stretch to call an Arab Islamist coup over the government, then slaughtering a horde of it's population, and then repressing them to keep the population in control is still within the allowable definition of an occupation.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
So Trump tore it up? TWICE? GOOD!
I'm completely unsurprised that you believe that, given the fact that you supported war with Iran and that you even, in 2025, supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there. You do seem to have a little penchant for supporting wars based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
Piffle. It was the USG and Europe that violated the deal, not Iran. Iran even continued to uphold it for years after Trump pulled out. Iran war supporters kept posting graphs of Iranian enrichment which showed very low levels on enrichment during the deal years. Anyone can easily discover this. Who do you think you're fooling?
After 10 years, they'd be three weeks from a nuclear weapon like they have been for the past 30 years?
Because there were. When Bush said it, Saddam hadn't sent them to Syria yet. The UN said there were even after the war was over.
550 tons of yellowcake wasn't found in a bakery, ok? It is the starting block for nuclear weapons. That's a part of a WMD PROGRAM which was banned by the treaty.
You also are mistaking "the sizzle" for the "steak" ok? You believe the selling points are important, they are not, they're just there to dazzle your eyes. The fact is: Saddam violated the Cease Fire treaty & thus it was legally "war on!" for everyone involved. That takes too much thinking though, so a buzzphrase was made. Do not mistake the map (sizzle, slogan) for the terrain (steak, reality), ok?
PFFT! How can other nations "violate the treat" but Iran didn't? Mental gymnastics! You should go to the Progressive Olympics! 😸
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions. Like Pakistan and India did.
But thanks for trying!
lol. I'm really glad you keep quadrupling down on that, because it shows how seriously you should be taken.
Let me explain to you. Iran did abide by its obligations under the treaty, and Europe and America didn't.
What branch of mathematics is that?
They can already do that now, dumbass. And I think they will. They'll be right to, because it's the only way to avoid being bombed by the US and Israel.
If you want to act smug, you should at least not fail so miserably.
Wow, you are a pedantic little cunt, eh?
Just ignore the findings of the UN? Of every intelligence agency anywhere? Go for it! YOU know better than people who actually found the proof.
So Iran allegedly followed ONE part of the deal? And that means they also followed ALL of the deal too? Like not testing mid- or long ranged missiles like they did a few weeks after signing it?
You failed to explain how other nations can violate it, but Iran didn't.
You failed to even look at the agreement, which forbade enrichment at Fordo for 15 years, lasting until 2030. Clearly that was violated, Iran bragged about it.
Branch of math? Like on a tree? Do you think I'm speaking Latin here? X means 10? Do I look Roman to you? Are you so unfamiliar with math that you don't know what X stands for? Retard.
Did you even look up the agreement? No! Because it hasn't ended yet, it covers various things for 10 to 15 years from 2016.
Now try actually addressing the issue. You're so predictable and boring, fyi.
It would keep the Palestinians over there.
The only nations suicidal enough to take in Palestinian refugees are white western nations, so anyone who cares about the survival of white western nations should support the creation of a Palestinian state in order to keep Palestinians in Palestine.
Having Jewish border czars force rapfugees into our communities is not suicide. We are being killed.
Since when have either Islamists or Communists ever done either? Segregating them out won't stop them from attacking. You'd need someone else to own the place, either Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan.
The Palestinians are trying to stay where they are. That's literally what they are fighting for.
ETA: Trump removed HTS as a designated terrorist organization. Terrorism is fine as long as you support Israel, it seems.
Palestinians are a Leftist Socialist movement. They are fighting to kill every jew because each jew is the bourgeoise. They will then kill every Arab and Muslim that gets in their way.
Jews started a fight with them, dummy.
"This guy over here picked a fight with me! Welp, better become a Race Communist! There's no other options."
Oh please. This sub collectively ate crow when iran nonsense got defused in less 24 hours. Meanwhile I've seen nothing from this sub justifying giving some sand niggers credibility from a couple of dying nations.
Do you mean that ceasefire that nearly crumbled? As I said then, Iran's nuclear program isn't done. We'll be back at war with them eventually.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I'll highlight your use of "sand niggers" anyway. Zionist shills will engage in open racism like this to one audience while also playing the victim of racial discrimination to other audiences. They have a playbook for everyone and hope you don't notice that there are people who say "sand niggers" who have the same agenda as the ADL.
That's an interesting way to put that people were relieved because things did not get even worse.
What?
Defused? People like you think that because dropping bombs and killing people in Iran isn't a big deal to you in your life, you assume that it isn't a big deal to the victims. They were bombed and killed. Their families won't forgive, and they won't forget. You probably also don't understand that blowing people up causes animosity and hatred towards our people. Whites better wake up and get away from these semetic wars before the world takes its anger out on us.
I do not care about the plight of terrorist. Fuck the sand niggers, and their sympathizers(which disappointingly this sub is)
If you think that driving 10 million 'refugees' into Europe is a good thing, you're an Israel First moron of the highest order.
You really shouldn't have a European river in your username when you're striving for our destruction. Name yourself after something American instead, like PeanutAllergy or Fentanyl.
And you sound like quite the terrorist yourself, by the way.
Oh you sweet summer child. Legalizing Palestine will not stop the flow of invade- i mean 'refugees' into the EU
And in quite fond of that name for a reason
You were discussing Iran, genius. There aren't even 10 million Palestinians. You said that your Israel First politics are justified, because the Iranians are "sandniggers" and deserve to be murdered.
Well, even if you believe that, we don't deserve to be destroyed at the hands of 'refugees', OK?
But you accidentally made a point. Israel indeed wants to push Palestinians into our lands. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-west-should-welcome-gaza-refugees-asylum-seekers-hamas-terrorism-displacement-5d2b5890
I think Israel Firsters should be required to take them. You'd do anything for Israel, right?
the sand niggers this time refers to the subject matter, Palestinians. And-
wow, you stoop that low to cite an OPINION piece...
Also 'everyone I disagree with is an idf shill.' What are you an sjw? Grow up.
"Trade deficits?"
No we're not, we don't even have any weapons.
Everyberg Singlestein Timeowitz
How does everyone still have trouble seeing through this tactic? He doesn't care about that shit: he's throwing his weight around trying to get a more favorable deal.
“Bending over for Israel at every turn is just more 4D chess!”
Yes, I'm defending Trump by pointing out that he routinely says shit he doesn't mean and then doesn't back it up with anything substantial.
I member when people would praise trump because he’s the only president to “tell it like it is”
He does tell it like it is. That doesn't mean he can't bullshit America's enemies, eh? It's called The Art Of The Deal you perhaps have heard of it? "Deal making" involves saying shit that isn't true to get what you want.
It also can involve threats which, if not heeded, must be carried out!
Tell your 8 year-old "no cookies before supper or no dessert for you" ok? Then watch them flagrantly eat cookies in front of your eyes. Now after supper, do they get cake or not? If you answer yes, I hope you have no children 🙁 seriously.
Thus with trade negotiations. Make demands and back them up.
Don't be an Obama, drawing "Red Lines" one after the other until simply giving the enemy everything they want.
He's bullshitting everyone though. He's either actively fucking the US by supporting Israel, or he's not telling it as it is, and both are shitty
I don't get your cookies analogy. It doesn't apply here.
It's Trump warning Canada about not doing something & the consequences. If he doesn't follow through he loses massive amounts of credibility & thus influence.
"Don't do that!" (Carney does that) "Oh well, here's your consequences!"
Hey, if you like Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran more than Israel? That's your bed, have a good rest in it!
Oh you like Israel? Classic another Jewish shill lol
Howard lutnick is on next to tell you how trump is a good goy!
Here comes the resident copium dispenser.
Yes, how dare I identify a pattern of behavior where Trump has done exactly this same thing a thousand times before?
By pattern of behavior that he has done thousands of times, do you mean doing shit for Jews and Israel?
No, I mean constantly saying shit he doesn't mean and pretending things he doesn't care about are non-negotiable conditions for a trade deal, right up until it stops being convenient for him and he abandons them.
There's zero reason to think he doesn't mean it when he shills for Israel. He does just about everything they want.
I don't think he's serious when he makes not recognizing a Palestinian state a condition for a trade deal with Canada. Not that it matters, because our government will never actually do that. Within a week, they'll have denied they were ever even considering it and Trump will be taking credit for making them back down. It's not hard to make Mark Carney look weak, because he is.
I do agree Canada won't recognize Palestine any time soon whether it's due to US pressure or not.
Give examples making your point non refutable, work in Cammy’s glorious posterior if possible.
The most obvious recent example is where he and Vance both said in April that they wanted US review of UK speech laws that might effect American companies to be included in any deal they signed with the UK, but it wasn't. They agreed a deal two months later and the Online Harms Act went into effect anyway.
They said that to fool Trump's base. Trump deceives his base all the time.
And so? He's supposed to get 100% of everything or else he's a failure? Is 100% perfection the measure you use for every politician? For yourself? 🤔 I think not.
Trump literally calls himself the most pro-Israel president. lol
All I know is, I don't have monuments in Tel'Aviv named after me. Don't think Clinton did, either. But I do know who does.
Turning Canada brown turned it against Israel.
Something something story of the golem.
Maybe. I know in the US, young Whites are anti-Israel so it's not really that causing it.
Canada: Were tough and going to take down Trump like we always said we would Trump: New tariffs because it's Tuesday Canada: It's Friday Trump: Ooo, that's a new tariff for disagreeing with me.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's more just to get more out of them in trade under the guise of this.
It shouldn't be relevant to a trade deal at all.
Yes that's right, but if it can be used as an EXCUSE to squeeze a rival for more out of a deal, are you saying you WOULDN'T try to?
Especially when they are, nonstop, backtalking you behind your back?
This doesn't make any sense. Getting a good trade deal for his country is all the excuse he needs.
Yes but remember, this is Trump...
He can be petty AND get results in business, and you think he wouldn't twist the knife a little to make Canada double down on getting involved in middle east politics?
I think it's far more likely that one of the most Philosemtic gentiles I've heard of is just continuing business as usual.
Yes, supporting international terrorism is bad for the USA. Nations who do so are thus also bad for the USA.
Carney is just a WEF stooge, an idiot puppet who does what he's told.
This is just the visible part of an underlying problem. Canada's government hates Canadians, hates Americans and seeks to destroy Western Civilization. All while enriching themselves, of course.
They believe a Grave New Utopia [sic] will rise rom the ashes after 2/3 of the human race are gone. With themselves as absolute rulers, of course.
( meant to say "Brave" but the G works even better!)