Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
I guess that your definition of what a war is is different from mine.
By your definition of war, what happened at Bondi Beach the other day would qualify as war.
The hunting of Jews in your country would certainly qualify as war then.
I haven't forgotten about you. Just wanted to mull over how best to respond and things like holidays took precedence.
First, I'd say attacking boats with citizens of a country within that country's territorial waters is an act of war. The main reason the response wasn't for Venezuela to attack back probably is that huge disparity in military strength. They need to be pragmatic when so outnumbered and outgunned. Or maybe they don't think war is a good thing, unlike your Department of War, which attacked them.
A republican president invaded Afghanistan when it wasn't even their government that attacked the United States. The subsequent occupation was horribly mismanaged and Biden's withdrawal was a shambles, but I digress.
Was the Bondi Beach attack an act of war? Imo, basically yes. But, nuance warning for the absolutists in the crowd, the concept of war has changed greatly since WWII, or maybe even before that. People like to think that war is nicely restricted to State vs State, with a formal declaration of war and playing (mostly) by some formalized rules. Rules like not shooting helpless people in the water while they cling to the boat you blew away.
War is far more nebulous than that quaint, "Let's declare war" time. The Islamic extremists very much play the long game (not all Islamic people, of course, like the Islamic guy who got shot after taking the gun away from one of the attackers. Don't know if that story made it to your news sources.) The attack at Bondi may have had support by some countries, but it was not carried out by them. A response is required, but that response needs to be settling in for a potentially equally long term. I mean are you going to bomb some other country? Who? The Saudi friends of trump?
Imo, the ultimate hope is to build a strong, just, and equitable economic relationship where it is in the interests of all parties to cooperate. Maybe like the relationship between the US and Canada before trump. Hey, I can dream.
Well, what his your definition of war then? Why isn't the US attacking Venezuela war?
âI don't know if you read or saw, but they (Venezuela) have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from. Two nights ago we knocked that outâ
Case 1:16-cv-04642-RA, a civil lawsuit filed by "Jane Doe" (later identified as Katie Johnson) against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein alleging sexual abuse, wasvoluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff on September 16, 2016, meaning it ended without a judgment on the merits, but the allegations remain part of court records. The lawsuit, brought in the SDNY, claimed Trump sexually assaulted her as a minor, with claims resurfacing amidst Epstein's fallout and new document releases, though evidence remains disputed and the plaintiff's identity protected.
It is an allegation only. Never went to trial. While very damning on face value, has never been tried, proven and ruled upon as a real incident.
While you are willing to take it as a proven fact, I can not.
Edit : Let's take this a step further. The case against Omar marrying her brother to allow him to enter the country and gain citizenship since we have recently discussed it. I presented documents and you said that it did not matter as it was just an allegation and was unproven. The same applies here with the case you brought up with Trump. Allegations, yes. Unproven as was was your defense of Omar. A double standard on your part ?
You predictably fail to mention that Katie Johnson withdrew the case because she and members of her family received death threats. She still holds to her story in more recent interviews.
I'm willing to listen if anyone can tell me why buying a presidential pardon is making the nation - particularly the hard workers barely getting by - greater than it was. It doesn't sound like something an honest man would do, but - as the kids like to say - change my mind.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Dec 27, 2025 - 1:58pm
I'm willing to listen if anyone can tell me why buying a presidential pardon is making the nation - particularly the hard workers barely getting by - greater than it was. It doesn't sound like something an honest man would do, but - as the kids like to say - change my mind.
Funny cuz in the same way, the good people of this country elected Trump, yet you do have a problem with that and that is not fine with you.
A) Despite him only de facto representing MAGA voters, he is de jure mine to complain about.
And then you go on to complain about MY ability to read or comprehend and belch out this...
So you want to make it about me. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no proof, just a pile of allegations, but that is proof enough for you. So much for due process.
No, I think that you killed Epstein because you wanted him dead.
I guess that you do not listen to yourself or read what you write.
... and still you put yourself in a position of defending a baby raper on technicalities rather than being able to bring yourself to say "he obviously isn't a baby raper." You're really at the same point as the rest of us: we assume it's true but aren't sure the current (or any former) justice system will be able to make anything stick. You hope he's "exonerated" and I hope he's found guilty and castrated (as so many MAGAs propose for other baby rapers); others here are somewhere in between as far as what they think should happen to him but I hear nobody saying it's clearly not true that he's a baby raper.
If you truly believe Trump's not a baby raper, then you should be pushing for him to stand trial and get this slam-dunk case over with.
