Stuart Galbraith Posted February 6 Posted February 6 47 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: She didn't. She just clarified a topic people were too hyped about and didn't bother reading the details. No, they listened to his actual statements. Maybe its just he didnt understand what he was proposing? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-gaza-strip-plan-take-over-move-palestinians-ownership In a shock announcement, Trump said the US will “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The US president said he envisioned a “long-term” US ownership of the territory after all Palestinians were moved elsewhere. He did not explain how and under what authority the US can take over the land of Gaza. “We will own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” he said. He said the US would “level” destroyed buildings and “create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.” The US president called Gaza a “symbol of death and destruction” and that the only reason people want to go back there is because they have nowhere else to go. The 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza should move to neighbouring countries with “humanitarian hearts” and “great wealth”, Trump said. Earlier he had called for Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states to take in Palestinians. He said they could be split up across a number of separate sites. Forced displacement of the population would probably be a violation of international law and would be fiercely opposed not only in the region but also by Washington’s western allies. Some human rights advocates liken the idea to ethnic cleansing. He went on to say that Gaza could become “the Riviera of the Middle East” where “the world’s people” could live there, echoing the previous sentiments of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who said Gaza had very valuable “waterfront property”. Trump gave a vague answer when asked a question on whether he supported a two-state solution. Asked if his view that Palestinians should be relocated from Gaza was a sign that he was against the two-state policy that has been the foreign policy approach of the United States for decades, Trump said no. “It doesn’t mean anything about a two-state or one state or any other state. It means that we want to have, we want to give people a chance at life,” he said. “They have never had a chance at life because the Gaza Strip has been a hellhole for people living there. It’s been horrible.” Trump claimed high-level support among unnamed leaders he had spoken to. “This is not a decision made lightly,” he said, adding that “everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land.” He said the move would bring “great stability to that part of the Middle East”. Trump did not rule out sending US troops to secure Gaza. “As far as Gaza is concerned, we’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that,” he said. On Trump’s idea of taking over Gaza, Netanyahu said the US president “sees a different future for Gaza”, adding: “I think it’s something that could change history.”
Mighty_Zuk Posted February 6 Posted February 6 15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: No, they listened to his actual statements. Maybe its just he didnt understand what he was proposing? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-gaza-strip-plan-take-over-move-palestinians-ownership In a shock announcement, Trump said the US will “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The US president said he envisioned a “long-term” US ownership of the territory after all Palestinians were moved elsewhere. He did not explain how and under what authority the US can take over the land of Gaza. “We will own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” he said. He said the US would “level” destroyed buildings and “create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.” The US president called Gaza a “symbol of death and destruction” and that the only reason people want to go back there is because they have nowhere else to go. The 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza should move to neighbouring countries with “humanitarian hearts” and “great wealth”, Trump said. Earlier he had called for Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states to take in Palestinians. He said they could be split up across a number of separate sites. Forced displacement of the population would probably be a violation of international law and would be fiercely opposed not only in the region but also by Washington’s western allies. Some human rights advocates liken the idea to ethnic cleansing. He went on to say that Gaza could become “the Riviera of the Middle East” where “the world’s people” could live there, echoing the previous sentiments of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who said Gaza had very valuable “waterfront property”. Trump gave a vague answer when asked a question on whether he supported a two-state solution. Asked if his view that Palestinians should be relocated from Gaza was a sign that he was against the two-state policy that has been the foreign policy approach of the United States for decades, Trump said no. “It doesn’t mean anything about a two-state or one state or any other state. It means that we want to have, we want to give people a chance at life,” he said. “They have never had a chance at life because the Gaza Strip has been a hellhole for people living there. It’s been horrible.” Trump claimed high-level support among unnamed leaders he had spoken to. “This is not a decision made lightly,” he said, adding that “everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land.” He said the move would bring “great stability to that part of the Middle East”. Trump did not rule out sending US troops to secure Gaza. “As far as Gaza is concerned, we’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that,” he said. On Trump’s idea of taking over Gaza, Netanyahu said the US president “sees a different future for Gaza”, adding: “I think it’s something that could change history.” Not ruling out something and doing something are two very different things. As POTUS he's right to not disclose all details of a proposed strategy. I wouldn't expect of Biden to be talkative either. It's been sufficiently clear for me that no US troops would be sent, or that such option would either be very unlikely or on a much lower scale than one might consider. In a sense, Biden also sent US troops to Gaza.
Stuart Galbraith Posted February 6 Posted February 6 (edited) He didnt rule out sending American troops, until the American people and congress shit a collective brick, and suddenly its 'well of course we werent going to send troops.' That was after being invited to clarify 24 hours earlier to clarify exactly what he meant. So why wait 24 hours before clarifying? Could it possibly be he overcommitted, recognised what he proposed was absolutely hated, then pretended that was exactly what he meant all along? As said, it was NOT sufficiently clear to American posters here that is what he meant. Go back a few pages. They hang on every word he says, and they thought they had signed up for more endless wars in the sandbox. I can understand my misunderstanding it, but if True Red Republicans that hang on his every word thought that was what he was talking about, he has a significant communication problem. Or, more likely, that was precisely what he did mean, until he saw what a bad reception it had. You know, sooner or later this guy is going to commit to a course of action he cant backpeddle or get his Tanknet militia to explain away as 'a negotiating tactic.' You have 4 more years of this shit, and sooner or later he isnt going to pull his fat out the fire in time. Good luck with that. Edited February 6 by Stuart Galbraith
LeeWalls Posted February 6 Posted February 6 I wouldn't take Trump too literally on this one. He's a born carnival barker, and talking a whole lot of shit is a big part of his schtick. It's a misdirection by sheer volume of bullshit but there's also an element of why not give the tree a shake and see what falls out. While hardly infallible, it's proven surprisingly effective overall.
futon Posted February 6 Posted February 6 (edited) I think it could be said that China/DPRK didn't take Trump's rhetoric in 2017 as genuine until there were B-1s, B-2s, and the rest drilling around Korea and three US carriers in the Sea of Japan. The path towards it could very well be there. With the new SecDef aim to restore a warrior spirit, it's utilization already has a possibility. One thing different about Gaza compared to , say, Iraq is that Iraq bordered Iran so fighters and their equipment can cross easily. But Gaza is entirely surrounded by Israel. So infiltrations would be harder. Trump had been saying that if the hosteges were not fully out by his inarguration, then there would be hell for Hamas. Well, not all hosteges are out. He seems to be giving it more time but US soldiers in Gaza has de facto been put on the table even if first reponse to the idea is reserved. But its something that Hamas has to think about. If all the hosteges are not released soon, the idea of US soldiers going into Gaza may get mentioned again. And that becomes a de facto ultimatum that if the Palistanians don't concede, then they risk losing Gaza as their land entirely via the mentioned massive relocation project. It's all a terrible thing. But it is a point that this problem with Gaza has been going for decades with a prospect of going for more decades. While Iran has been stunned and its proxy forces largely depleted, it may be seen as an opportunity. But still hard to be confident in thinking about this. Edited February 6 by futon
futon Posted February 6 Posted February 6 58 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: No, they listened to his actual statements. Maybe its just he didnt understand what he was proposing? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/05/donald-trump-gaza-strip-plan-take-over-move-palestinians-ownership In a shock announcement, Trump said the US will “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The US president said he envisioned a “long-term” US ownership of the territory after all Palestinians were moved elsewhere. He did not explain how and under what authority the US can take over the land of Gaza. “We will own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” he said. He said the US would “level” destroyed buildings and “create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.” The US president called Gaza a “symbol of death and destruction” and that the only reason people want to go back there is because they have nowhere else to go. The 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza should move to neighbouring countries with “humanitarian hearts” and “great wealth”, Trump said. Earlier he had called for Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states to take in Palestinians. He said they could be split up across a number of separate sites. Forced displacement of the population would probably be a violation of international law and would be fiercely opposed not only in the region but also by Washington’s western allies. Some human rights advocates liken the idea to ethnic cleansing. He went on to say that Gaza could become “the Riviera of the Middle East” where “the world’s people” could live there, echoing the previous sentiments of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who said Gaza had very valuable “waterfront property”. Trump gave a vague answer when asked a question on whether he supported a two-state solution. Asked if his view that Palestinians should be relocated from Gaza was a sign that he was against the two-state policy that has been the foreign policy approach of the United States for decades, Trump said no. “It doesn’t mean anything about a two-state or one state or any other state. It means that we want to have, we want to give people a chance at life,” he said. “They have never had a chance at life because the Gaza Strip has been a hellhole for people living there. It’s been horrible.” Trump claimed high-level support among unnamed leaders he had spoken to. “This is not a decision made lightly,” he said, adding that “everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land.” He said the move would bring “great stability to that part of the Middle East”. Trump did not rule out sending US troops to secure Gaza. “As far as Gaza is concerned, we’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that,” he said. On Trump’s idea of taking over Gaza, Netanyahu said the US president “sees a different future for Gaza”, adding: “I think it’s something that could change history.” It was quite a press conference with Trump and Netanyahu. The main one with them at the podiums was 40 mins and the other of them in the sitting room about 15-20 mins. There's no reolacement to actually watching the whole thing with some press conferences. The Afghan lady's question, her accent complimented as beautiful, but just entirely passed with a chuckle by everyone.
Stargrunt6 Posted February 6 Posted February 6 5 hours ago, 17thfabn said: Everybody wondered what happened to Matthew Lesko. Little did we know that he has been director of USAID for the past 30 years. Bruh, it all adds up I whined about taxes all this time. Why didn't I get it back???
DKTanker Posted February 6 Posted February 6 4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: She didn't. She just clarified a topic people were too hyped about and didn't bother reading the details. She attempted to clarify a topic of which Trump had used hyperbolic language to describe, leading people with the idea that Trump would be sending in the military to remove the civilian population, destroy the remains of Hamas, and then raze and cleanse the entire zone so he could build Trumplandia.
Mighty_Zuk Posted February 6 Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, DKTanker said: She attempted to clarify a topic of which Trump had used hyperbolic language to describe, leading people with the idea that Trump would be sending in the military to remove the civilian population, destroy the remains of Hamas, and then raze and cleanse the entire zone so he could build Trumplandia. Yeah maybe but then, it's been 15 years of war in Gaza involving a lot of IDF troops and 0 American troops so it's reasonable to assume the IDF is not some American militia.
Ivanhoe Posted February 6 Posted February 6 Quote OCCRP does not operate like a normal investigative journalism organization in that its goals appear to include interfering in foreign political matters, including elections, aimed at regime change. Sullivan told NDR that his organization had “probably been responsible for five or six countries changing over from one government to another government… and getting prime ministers indicted or thrown out.” As such, it appears that CIA, USAID, and OCCRP were all involved in the impeachment of President Trump in ways similar to the regime change operations that all three organizations engage in abroad. The difference is that it is highly illegal and even treasonous for CIA, USAID, and its contractors and intermediaries, known as “cut-outs,” to interfere in US politics this way. https://www.public.news/p/both-usaid-and-the-cia-were-behind I'm expecting deafening silence from the folks who always badmouth the US for inflicting regime change on developing nations. I am increasingly skeptical that the CIA is a net positive at this point.
Ivanhoe Posted February 6 Posted February 6 I've just read the current DOGEpocalypse referred to as the Great Enema.
Mike1158 Posted February 6 Posted February 6 I wonder just how much US money would go to Israel in exchange. When I was watching Trumpster and Netan yahoo on the creep creep cee news, I got the feeling that The Israeli minister was saying to himself, "Thank god there is someone who makes even less sense than I do".
Ivanhoe Posted February 6 Posted February 6 #winning https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/usaid-and-the-media-in-a-time-of-monsters.php Quote Already, though, the new administration’s approach to USAID has had sharp consequences all over the world—after taking office, Trump signed an order freezing virtually all American aid spending for ninety days, grinding dependent humanitarian operations to an immediate halt across a dizzying array of different project areas. Journalists have been among those affected: according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the aid freeze appears to have put a hold on $268 million that was earmarked to fund “independent media and the free flow of information” this year. In the recent past, USAID had boasted of supporting more than six thousand journalists, around seven hundred independent newsrooms, and nearly three hundred media-focused civil society groups in thirty or so countries—and yet, RSF notes, the full impact of the freeze is hard to measure, since many recipients are “hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks.” Bolding mine. Isn't government-funded news what is ordinarily called "propaganda?" Or is this one of those things, "It's not propaganda when we do it."
rmgill Posted February 6 Posted February 6 7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Lets go back 12 months in an alternative universe. Biden decides to initiate Tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. Mexico he pulls them off after 12 hours. Canada he pulls them off after a day when he seemingly realises that Canada doesnt have a functioning Government. Then he does the same with China, when China retaliates with its own sanctions and the stock market starts dipping. Then he says he has a good old chinwag with Netanyahu, says he is going to rebuild Gaza, deport the Gazan people and that Gaza will then belong to the US. There will be hotels, it will be the Riviera of the middle east, beautiful. Then less than 12 hours later clarifies that no, the US wont be putting any troops in to defend its territory, Gaza wont be rebuilt with US funds, and the relocation of Palestinians will be purely temporary. Now if Biden had a week like that, you wouldnt be saying 'cunning negotiation technique'. You would be saying 'That stupid old fart is senile.' But its Trump so 'Brilliant negotiation technique Orange Messiah!' Who is he negotiating with here, himself? God? Or, as I think, he is just making shit up as he goes along? 1 Biden couldn’t because he has dementia. He could not get through such a speech. 2. Biden wouldn’t because he was doing the opposite of what Trump is doing. 3. Biden’s family had a vested interest in the old monetary schemes and influence sales. So he would not be pushed that direction by his handlers. 4. Obama has a vested interest in the old schemes. So he would not push his influence in that direction. Why don’t you sit down, rest your fingers and watch what’s happening? You assert idiotic things, ignored plain facts for years, and don’t understand basic realities.
rmgill Posted February 6 Posted February 6 6 hours ago, LeeWalls said: I wouldn't take Trump too literally on this one. He's a born carnival barker, and talking a whole lot of shit is a big part of his schtick. It's a misdirection by sheer volume of bullshit but there's also an element of why not give the tree a shake and see what falls out. While hardly infallible, it's proven surprisingly effective overall. Ironic given the USAID funding directions.
Ivanhoe Posted February 6 Posted February 6 With all that's going on in DC right now, this action might not even trigger anyone;
Ivanhoe Posted February 6 Posted February 6 How are fake subscribers used to increase perceived market value before M&A not felony fraud?
Sinistar Posted February 6 Posted February 6 (edited) as far as movies go the neurotic one you are seeing in 'real life' as the one to go by would not quite work if you actually paid to see it on the big screen in the theater imagine if they did this sort of thing in the klingon empire or agent 007 were a woke feminist the show is compromised the audience deserves a refund for this hack screenwriting ‘There’s A Culture Of Corruption’: Former USAID Director Spills Agency’s Abuse And Waste That He Says Runs Deep Quote "...I get there in February, and we have what’s called a privilege walk as part of the orientation where you are given an identity, and I was a Scandinavian woman. And so when they read these, they read lines like, you know, I get discriminated against because of government services or people don’t look how I look,” Moyar told Watters. “So you took a step forward if it applied and if it didn’t. And so I ended up near the front, and the indigenous woman with, you know, unwanted pregnancy and the male prostitute were at the other end, and then we talked about our privileges.” Edited February 6 by Sinistar
Sinistar Posted February 6 Posted February 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, JWB said: Elon got punkd: i am not a fan of these kinds of snipets since i do not know what the original context was or the claims being made but it is a published fact that ukraine has been receiving funds and services through usaid and the sudden cuts under the trump administration is causing ripples now in ukraine it might not be in this person's particular case but to make the leap from there that therefore there was none is unwarranted and that is often how this sort of discourse flies i might say something that you will find that rich people tend not to live in the ghetto someone says: " i know so and so or such and such who lives in the ghetto who is rich and so therefore the whole point has been rebutted" and so they take their own case or some incidental example as if that were to be the entire truth in itself or they say "you cannot make generalizations" never fails Edited February 6 by Sinistar
bojan Posted February 6 Posted February 6 3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said: ...I'm expecting deafening silence from the folks who always badmouth the US for inflicting regime change on developing nations... Most of those who really criticize US for "humanitarian" interventionist politics and "supporting democratic movement in countries" know fully well what that both US parties do that and that it is really choice between smallpox and bubonic plague when it comes to who sits in WH and who will inflict more suffering and pain all around the world.
bojan Posted February 6 Posted February 6 1 hour ago, JWB said: Elon got punkd: And why should anyone trust a word of that highly overpaid clown?
rmgill Posted February 6 Posted February 6 52 minutes ago, bojan said: Most of those who really criticize US for "humanitarian" interventionist politics and "supporting democratic movement in countries" know fully well what that both US parties do that and that it is really choice between smallpox and bubonic plague when it comes to who sits in WH and who will inflict more suffering and pain all around the world. Wait, you're not going to be persuaded to join the US coalition by well funded transgender art dance project in Minsk?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now