American Election 2024

[SoundOfSilence]

4 minutes ago, NeoScota said:

Sorry I sometimes write a sentence incomplete/skewhiff due to brain issues lol... but point still remains, there are no hostages alive.

 

There may be some. But I get your point.

 

4 minutes ago, NeoScota said:

 

Those of any allied nation who were released were shot at by IDF. Even their own. 

 

Very true.

 

4 minutes ago, NeoScota said:

 

Those on the inside job 10/7 were gunned down by IDF and hamas is a funded organisation of Is-nae-real.

 

Ah, the Hannibal directive.

 

4 minutes ago, NeoScota said:

 

No hostages left

 

I would wager some are still alive.

 

But I could be wrong.

[lobster]

5 hours ago, NeoScota said:

Sorry I sometimes write a sentence incomplete/skewhiff due to brain issues lol... but point still remains, there are no hostages alive.

 

Those of any allied nation who were released were shot at by IDF. Even their own. 

 

Those on the inside job 10/7 were gunned down by IDF and hamas is a funded organisation of Is-nae-real.

 

No hostages left

I suspect there are some left, there is no point having hostages if you dont a) keep them in captivity and b) alive, in not sure there will be any alive at the end of the conflict or if they are alive that they will be returned other than dead

[lobster]

On 1/9/2025 at 7:56 AM, SoundOfSilence said:

 

That is what opinion polls are for. To cut through the speculation of you and me.

 

Poll: Majority of Russians Would Oppose Returning Land Even if Putin Decides To Return it as Part of Peace Deal | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

 

 

 

I'll take that as an opinion.

 

 

I think it will be Trump who will be faced with the prospect of selling the secession of Ukrainian land.

 

And he has already started. By classifying the conflict as one that should never have happened. Which is correct.

 

This is entirely the West's fault. And at least a million Ukrainians have died because of it. It has wiped out an entire generation. Maybe two.

 

And I'm sick of seeing psychopaths like Lyndsay Graham banging on about how great it was not to spill American blood. Using another country's citizens as cannon fodder. Pure evil.

 

 

Then they won't sell it at all.

 

 

I'd be surprised if Trump goes down that road.

 

He's a businessman. He's anti-war. He's hardly likely to take a country by force.

 

But this is just speculation on the part of both of us.

 

 

That may well be correct.

 

I have seen conflicting reports.

 

 

It isn't clear at all.

 

Unless enlarging the graphic of Greenland on your latest coat of arms counts.

He doesnt need to use force, just say I'm in charge,  what you going to do about it ? The answer to which is moan and complain.

 

But I think it will be achieved by economic pressure resulting in a " power sharing "agreement which allows Denmark and the EU an out with pride. Its effectively power sharing now, just Denmark owns the mineral rights and America pays for the defence

 

An argument its about strategic defence rather than mineral rights us a non starter,  when they can install any amount of military personnel on there as things stand 

Edited January 10 by lobster

[NeoScota]

1 hour ago, lobster said:

I suspect there are some left, there is no point having hostages if you dont a) keep them in captivity and b) alive, in not sure there will be any alive at the end of the conflict or if they are alive that they will be returned other than dead

The hostages that were released were flung in mental institutions prohibited from speaking about their experience.

[lobster]

1 minute ago, NeoScota said:

The hostages that were released were flung in mental institutions prohibited from speaking about their experience.

You really dont know that !

[SoundOfSilence]

1 hour ago, lobster said:

He doesnt need to use force, just say I'm in charge,  what you going to do about it ?

 

That would be the threat of violence then ...

 

1 hour ago, lobster said:

An argument its about strategic defence rather than mineral rights us a non starter,  when they can install any amount of military personnel on there as things stand 

 

If you reread my post, you'll note that I used the words 'strategic importance' not 'strategic defence'.

 

Not only has the engine started, but it has roared into life and is now leading the race.

 

It's all about shipping.

 

Sorry Rock. I know you have an aversion to maps, but this one is necessary. It shows the shipping lanes passing through the Artic Circle.

 

 

By using these routes ships can save several days of travel time and savings on fuel. The routes are vital for Maritime commerce.

 

Therefore, Greenland is of strategic importance because of its exclusive economic zone which extends into the Arctic.

[NeoScota]

11 minutes ago, lobster said:

You really dont know that !

I read about it, others were covering it. 

 

But then you keep on trolling for your shekels

[lobster]

15 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

 

That would be the threat of violence then ...

 

 

If you reread my post, you'll note that I used the words 'strategic importance' not 'strategic defence'.

 

Not only has the engine started, but it has roared into life and is now leading the race.

 

It's all about shipping.

 

Sorry Rock. I know you have an aversion to maps, but this one is necessary. It shows the shipping lanes passing through the Artic Circle.

 

 

By using these routes ships can save several days of travel time and savings on fuel. The routes are vital for Maritime commerce.

 

Therefore, Greenland is of strategic importance because of its exclusive economic zone which extends into the Arctic.

He used the term defence, they can defend those shipping lanes using the troops already stationed there, there is no need to take ownership to do so. I'm not sure who they are defending them from however ,  unless the inuits have turned pirate. They could themselves block the lanes to attack russian commerce. But they still dont need to own greenland to do so

Edited January 10 by lobster

[SoundOfSilence]

2 minutes ago, lobster said:

He used the term defence, they can defend those shipping lanes using the troops already stationed there, there is no need to take ownership to do so. I'm not sure who they are defending them from however ,  unless the inuits have turned pirate

 

I think he used the term national security.

 

The ability to engage in commerce and ship goods at competitive prices is vital to national security.

 

Just ask Netanyahu. The Houthis have wreaked havoc on Israel's economy by shutting down shipping.

 

If you don't own it you don't control it. If America has an EEZ then it will be recognized under International law, as well as America's right to exclude.  

[lobster]

5 minutes ago, NeoScota said:

I read about it, others were covering it. 

 

But then you keep on trolling for your shekels

A few post back you said the Israeli had murdered them all, now your say they locked them in mental institutions,  did you read both if those in the same article,  ? Didnt it not occur to you they cant both be true

[lobster]

Just now, SoundOfSilence said:

 

I think he used the term national security.

 

The ability to engage in commerce and ship goods at competitive prices is vital to national security.

 

Just ask Netanyahu. The Houthis have wreaked havoc on Israel's economy by shutting down shipping.

 

If you don't own it you don't control it. If America has an EEZ then it will be recognized under International law, as well as America's right to exclude.  

If they own it,  they dont control international waters, it's a nonsense argument anything they wish to do with those shipping lanes, they can do now with the military they already have stationed there 

[SoundOfSilence]

1 minute ago, lobster said:

If they own it,  they dont control international waters, it's a nonsense argument anything they wish to do with those shipping lanes, they can do now with the military they already have stationed there 

 

I suggest you go and research Exclusive Economic Zones.

 

You see Rock, Trump is a strategic thinker, he looks ahead.

 

I assume he doesn't want to be in the situation where, if he falls out with the EU, America is excluded from these shipping routes.

 

And it is quite possible America could fall out with the EU. Trump is signaling he is going to give peace between Russia and Ukraine a shot but if he is unable to broker a deal he is walking away.

 

That means it will then be Europe's problem.

 

And there will be a lot of angry little EU apparatchiks seeking revenge. 

[lobster]

Just now, SoundOfSilence said:

 

I suggest you go and research Exclusive Economic Zones.

 

You see Rock, Trump is a strategic thinker, he looks ahead.

 

I assume he doesn't want to be in the situation where, if he falls out with the EU, America is excluded from these shipping routes.

 

And it is quite possible America could fall out with the EU. Trump is signaling he is going to give peace between Russia and Ukraine a shot but if he is unable to broker a deal he is walking away.

 

That means it will then be Europe's problem.

 

And there will be a lot of angry little EU apparatchiks seeking revenge. 

How on earth could the EU exclude him from international waters, I mean legally,  never mind he would blow them out of the water of they tried

[SoundOfSilence]

3 minutes ago, lobster said:

How on earth could the EU exclude him from international waters, I mean legally,  never mind he would blow them out of the water of they tried

They wouldn't. They would exclude them from their EEZ.

 

Here, I've done your research for you.

 

The disappearing right to navigational freedom in the exclusive economic zone - ScienceDirect 

 

Here are America's current EEZs.

 

If these EEZs are extrapolated onto Greenland it will extend to shipping lanes.

 

[lobster]

29 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

They wouldn't. They would exclude them from their EEZ.

 

Here, I've done your research for you.

 

The disappearing right to navigational freedom in the exclusive economic zone - ScienceDirect 

 

Here are America's current EEZs.

 

If these EEZs are extrapolated onto Greenland it will extend to shipping lanes.

 

To humour you, I've read it, and it confirms what I know and what I said to be true, those rules do not allow you to excluded  either cargo ships or military ships from your zone , they are solely concerned with resources contained within the area

 

So again, what law would the EU use to excluded American trade or military ships from those waters? 

Edited January 10 by lobster

[SoundOfSilence]

2 minutes ago, lobster said:

To humour you, I've read it, and it confirms what I know and what I said to be true, those rules do not allow you to excluded  either cargo ships or military ships from your zone , they are solely concerned with resources contained within the area

 

So again, what law would the EU use to excluded American ships from those waters? 

From the article you read:

 

"Ships carrying ultrahazardous nuclear cargoes have been told by many countries to avoid their EEZs, and these ships have in fact picked routes designed to avoid most EEZs."

 

"Security concerns have increased dramatically during the past 2 years, and it has become almost commonplace for the major maritime and military powers to assert the right to stop and board merchant vessels to look for suspect cargoes in all parts of the oceans."

 

"Perhaps the most potent provision in favor of coastal state authority is Article 220 (3)–(6) of the Law of the Sea Convention, which authorizes coastal states to obtain the identification of and to conduct a search of commercial cargo vessels in its EEZ that are suspected of violating the pollution regulations of the coastal state. "

 

"Even military vessels, which have immunity from seizure, must nonetheless respect the many rules that have been established to protect the marine environment and the security of coastal populations." 

 

"A new norm of customary international law appears to have emerged that allows coastal states to regulate navigation through their EEZ based on the nature of the ship and its cargo."

 

[lobster]

1 minute ago, SoundOfSilence said:

From the article you read:

 

"Ships carrying ultrahazardous nuclear cargoes have been told by many countries to avoid their EEZs, and these ships have in fact picked routes designed to avoid most EEZs."

 

"Security concerns have increased dramatically during the past 2 years, and it has become almost commonplace for the major maritime and military powers to assert the right to stop and board merchant vessels to look for suspect cargoes in all parts of the oceans."

 

"Perhaps the most potent provision in favor of coastal state authority is Article 220 (3)–(6) of the Law of the Sea Convention, which authorizes coastal states to obtain the identification of and to conduct a search of commercial cargo vessels in its EEZ that are suspected of violating the pollution regulations of the coastal state. "

 

"Even military vessels, which have immunity from seizure, must nonetheless respect the many rules that have been established to protect the marine environment and the security of coastal populations." 

 

"A new norm of customary international law appears to have emerged that allows coastal states to regulate navigation through their EEZ based on the nature of the ship and its cargo."

 

I read it, I know what it says, that's how I know you cant excluded either cargo or military ships from your zone.

 

And that is clearly what you said the EU could do to American shipping

 

Are we going to go on for a while with you pretending it says what it doesnt ?

[SoundOfSilence]

21 minutes ago, lobster said:

I read it, I know what it says, that's how I know you cant excluded either cargo or military ships from your zone.

 

And that is clearly what you said the EU could do to American shipping

 

Are we going to go on for a while with you pretending it says what it doesnt ?

 

Let's see. You first claimed that "An argument its about strategic defence rather than mineral rights us a non starter,"

 

Before going on to claim "He used the term defence,"

 

One can only conclude that your beef is with Trump and his use the term defence. Your words, not his. That his claim of defence is a non-starter.

 

Though you did provide a helpful insight. According to military strategist Rock Lobster, Trump already has sufficient defences in the region. 

 

Unlike you Rock, I relied on what Trump actually said.

 

""We need Greenland for national security purposes," Trump said Tuesday. "I'm talking about protecting the free world. You look at — you don't even need binoculars — you look outside. You have China ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We're not letting that happen. We're not letting it happen."

 

You'll note, he expressly referred to shipping.

 

Therefore, Rock, it would seem that your beef is with Trump and not me.

 

All I am doing is pointing out Trump's statement that the region is of strategic importance and explaining why Trump may feel that way. 

 

I suspect having its nuclear fleet being forced to take the long route may be a little irksome to the US navy. 

 

Also, the US may be keen to avoid having its commercial vessels stopped and searched by embittered EU bureaucrats.

 

 

[lobster]

11 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

 

Let's see. You first claimed that "An argument its about strategic defence rather than mineral rights us a non starter,"

 

Before going on to claim "He used the term defence,"

 

One can only conclude that your beef is with Trump and his use the term defence. Your words, not his. That his claim of defence is a non-starter.

 

Though you did provide a helpful insight. According to military strategist Rock Lobster, Trump already has sufficient defences in the region. 

 

Unlike you Rock, I relied on what Trump actually said.

 

""We need Greenland for national security purposes," Trump said Tuesday. "I'm talking about protecting the free world. You look at — you don't even need binoculars — you look outside. You have China ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We're not letting that happen. We're not letting it happen."

 

You'll note, he expressly referred to shipping.

 

Therefore, Rock, it would seem that your beef is with Trump and not me.

 

All I am doing is pointing out Trump's statement that the region is of strategic importance and explaining why Trump may feel that way. 

 

I suspect having its nuclear fleet being forced to take the long route may be a little irksome to the US navy. 

 

Also, the US may be keen to avoid having its commercial vessels stopped and searched by embittered EU bureaucrats.

 

 

I havent got a beef with either you or trump, apart from the minor irritation you both say daft things you cant back up and then try and change the subject.

 

You were wrong about shipping and the economic zone, I know that, you know that, I cant be bother watching you trying to squirm your way out.

 

Trump is lying, not for the first time, he can protect those sea lanes just as he is now, what he cant do is exploit the vast mineral wealth of greenland and surrounding sea. Both of those are facts. No matter how much you want to quibble. 

Edited January 10 by lobster

[SoundOfSilence]

7 minutes ago, lobster said:

I havent got a beef with either you or trump,

 

That's nice.

 

7 minutes ago, lobster said:

apart from

 

Oh, so you do have a beef. Oh dear!

 

7 minutes ago, lobster said:

the minor irritation you both say daft things you cant back up and then try and change the subject.

 

I think you can get ointment for that.

 

As for daft things and changing the subject. Projection 101.

 

7 minutes ago, lobster said:

 

You were wrong about shipping and the economic zone, I know that, you know that, I cant be bother watching you trying to squirm your way out.

 

Cool. So, I'm correct now.

 

What made you change your mind, Rock?

 

7 minutes ago, lobster said:

 

Trump is lying, not for the first time, he can protect those sea lanes just as he is now, what he cant do is exploit the vast mineral wealth of greenland and surrounding sea. Both of those are facts. No matter how much you want to quibble. 

 

Perhaps you should email Trump.

 

I am sure he would find your points of view interesting.

[lobster]

13 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

 

That's nice.

 

 

Oh, so you do have a beef. Oh dear!

 

 

I think you can get ointment for that.

 

As for daft things and changing the subject. Projection 101.

 

 

Cool. So, I'm correct now.

 

What made you change your mind, Rock?

 

 

Perhaps you should email Trump.

 

I am sure he would find your points of view interesting.

Why should I bother telling trump he is lying ? Do you think he doesnt know ?

[SoundOfSilence]

Netanyahu is now unlikely to attend Trump's inauguration.

 

For one, the little genocider hasn't been invited. Plus, he is probably butt hurt over Trump reposting Professor Jeffrey Sachs' savaging of the war criminal.

 

Netanyahu unlikely to attend Trump inauguration, hasn't had official invite, aide says | The Times of Israel

 

I bet Trump will be devastated. 

 

Meanwhile, it's not just land that Netanyahu is out to steal, but also water. If it's not nailed down the Israelis will steal it.

 

Water theft persists as Israel grabs 40 percent of Syrias vital water resources 

 

"Israeli forces swiftly expanded beyond the occupied Golan Heights, seizing the buffer zone and Mount Hermon—a pivotal peak that straddles the borders of Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.

 

Yet this incursion was only the beginning. On Thursday, Syrian media reported that Israeli occupation forces captured the Al-Mantara Dam, the lifeline for Quneitra and its surrounding areas.

 

...

 

With the occupation of Al-Mantara Dam, the most significant dam in southern Syria, experts say nearly 40 percent of Syria's water resources are now under the illegal control of the Israeli regime."

 

I wonder how the West's new best friend, head chopper Abu Mohammad Al-Jolson, will react to this violation?

 

Water is quite a valuable resource when you live in a desert.

 

Will he wage holy war in Allah's cause, so his camels don't go thirsty?

 

Or will he rollover and have his belly tickled by his paymasters?

 

[lobster]

20 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

Netanyahu is now unlikely to attend Trump's inauguration.

 

For one, the little genocider hasn't been invited. Plus, he is probably butt hurt over Trump reposting Professor Jeffrey Sachs' savaging of the war criminal.

 

Netanyahu unlikely to attend Trump inauguration, hasn't had official invite, aide says | The Times of Israel

 

I bet Trump will be devastated. 

 

Meanwhile, it's not just land that Netanyahu is out to steal, but also water. If it's not nailed down the Israelis will steal it.

 

Water theft persists as Israel grabs 40 percent of Syrias vital water resources 

 

"Israeli forces swiftly expanded beyond the occupied Golan Heights, seizing the buffer zone and Mount Hermon—a pivotal peak that straddles the borders of Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.

 

Yet this incursion was only the beginning. On Thursday, Syrian media reported that Israeli occupation forces captured the Al-Mantara Dam, the lifeline for Quneitra and its surrounding areas.

 

...

 

With the occupation of Al-Mantara Dam, the most significant dam in southern Syria, experts say nearly 40 percent of Syria's water resources are now under the illegal control of the Israeli regime."

 

I wonder how the West's new best friend, head chopper Abu Mohammad Al-Jolson, will react to this violation?

 

Water is quite a valuable resource when you live in a desert.

 

Will he wage holy war in Allah's cause, so his camels don't go thirsty?

 

Or will he rollover and have his belly tickled by his paymasters?

 

I'm always a but suspicious when a text says " experts say " with out naming at least one of the experts, or even saying what they might be experts in. 

 

Is there even such a thing as an expert in stolen water ?

 

Have the experts suggested how they will get the water back to Israel ?  in buckets ?

Edited January 11 by lobster

[SoundOfSilence]

5 minutes ago, lobster said:

I'm always a but suspicious when a text says " experts say " with out naming at least one of the experts, or even saying what they might be experts in. 

 

Really?

 

Yet you have no hesitation when it comes to making up the law and Ukrainian towns.

 

5 minutes ago, lobster said:

 

Is there even such a thing as an expert in stolen water ?

 

The expertise was the percentage of total Syrian water represented by the water captured by the Al-Mantara Dam. A mathematician could work that out. There are formulae. 

 

The article wasn't implying forensic analysts capable of identifying where the water came from by analyzing the molecules.

 

5 minutes ago, lobster said:

 

Have the experts suggested how they will get the water back to Israel ?  in buckets ?

 

Ever heard of a pipeline?

[SoundOfSilence]

Megyn Kelly (trained lawyer) weighed in on the Trump business records case.

 

Megyn Exposes the Sham Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York Business Records Case – Megyn Kelly

 

"This was a stupid business records case in which Trump wrote down ‘legal expenses’ for money he gave to a lawyer to make a nasty complainant go away. It sounds like a legal expense to me. "

 

"Mark my words: It is going to be thrown out on appeal."

 

She's absolutely correct.

 

Of interest, Trump was allowed to make oral representations during sentencing including:

 

"They talked about business records and the business records were extremely accurately counted. I had nothing to do with them anyway. That was done by an accountant."

 

One of the elements of the offence is "intent to defraud". This requires knowledge aforethought. 

 

Given Trump did not prepare the records, but left it to his accountant, he could not possibly have had the requisite mens rea.

 

His accountant clearly thought the accounting entry accurately reflected the transaction.