>>6032922

I don't think I follow. What are you citing when you say 'federal jurisdiction' will be applied to another state's (Syria's) sovereign territory? Why aren't we using the international bodies we created for adjudicating those issues? I don't see it.

All I see so far is POTUS and his subordinates falsely claiming opposition to Zionism is somehow antisemitism, which is deleterious to say the least, and doesn't help the supposed cause (rooting out the proxies of the elite), and rewarding an aggressor by sanctioning their provocations and subsequent theft of territory.

What am I missing?

>>6033052

That's the proclamation, but that's all it is. There's no 'federal jurisdiction' over land in another nation.

Frankly, the failure to point out that Israel started the fighting in '69 just serves to confuse people further. The notion that states can steal territory (today, not 200 yes ago) isn't supported by many, and the proclamation that 'Israel is in danger' is a weak justification - one that can be turned around on other aggressors in the future, mind you.

I don't see how his signing that statement provides him any jurisdiction to pursue future actions against Israel, which was the insinuation made.

>>6033123

If he wanted to wrest control of that proxy, there are several ways to do it, and none of them involve trying to grant them territory that doesn't belong to them.

He also could've correctly noted the influence their money has here, instead of hiding behind the stupid assertion that people who criticize that proxy state are 'antisemitic'. It was stupid. I'm sure it's lost him support among many, just like it was stupid to appoint that war criminal Abrams and breathe life into the CIA regime change op in Venezuela.

Just plain tone deaf, and no good explanations that don't suggest he's doing just as any other establishment pawn would.

>>6033148

'Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer' does not mean appointing them to positions of influence all over your administration so they can obstruct you constantly. That's just stupid.

Is the friend of my enemy now my friend, too? Bc Israel is a proxy state created by the European aristocracy to further their goal of fomenting conflicts and keeping others down.

You don't harm your foes by giving them handouts, and there's no sense to the claim that it's anything else. POTUS could've said plainly that it was taken in aggression, and must be returned. Not doing so just gives away the hand.

Telling Americans that criticizing an apartheid state is somehow 'antisemitic' is just plain stupid, and made him look foolish (and the same as many of his predecessors).

>>6033308

Sorry, I'm trying. I don't see how falsely claiming GH belongs to Israel bc they started a conflict and took it could have any benefit if the goal is to challenge the aristocracy's control.

Assuming Israel is to some degree found responsible for manipulating policies here, or for atrocities in the ME, how does supporting their false claim to land facilitate anything?

It might make us look foolish, as would his dismissal of Omar's comments, which were clearly on point from her perspective as a congressperson, but looking foolish isn't the goal, is it?

Why, given what we see, are we assuming anyone is going to be challenging elites' proxies. I only see us supporting them, even when it makes us look like fools.

>>6033416

Please don't quote scripture to me unless your intention is to suggest you be been hopelessly indoctrinated. Religion is the bastion of weak minds. People would be better off keeping those thoughts to themselves.

>>6033467

The source you're quoting has actually typed out citations to scripture several times before - something that would only be done to rope in dullards.

The same source regularly quotes Reagan, a guy who did everything he could to further elites' ploys.

Sigh all you like, but the reference was made to Psalms. Keep that garbage amongst the simple-minded friends you have. It has no place in rational analyses.

>>6033396

This was the comment

>>6033416

This was the reply (nonsense)

>>6033453

This was my reply regarding the nonsense

>>6033467

Your sigh

>>6033515

My reply

Who are these people who quote one comment by Q while ignoring his use of scripture in posts, and totally ignoring the original comment?

Seriously, stop quoting scripture. We look like fools

>>6033558

Oh, "it's about rule of law"? Is that so? It's not about getting the indoctrinated to easily accept a narrative by quoting nonsense they already subscribe to?

Is fomenting regime change using CIA tools about "rule of law"?

How long ago did you leave reality?

>>6033667

Ugh. Quoting scripture only points out how indoctrinated people are. It doesn't support an argument. It's propaganda.

How do so many people not get that?