Israel's nuclear weapons may have started as a deterrent against another Holocaust, but they have now morphed into an instrument serving the aggressive and expansionist Middle Eastern country.
The u.s. has a huge presence in South Korea and has repeatedly threatened north Korea, remember trumps “fire and fury” comment.
Gonna need a source on that tunnels claim, I can see them sending experts to help them build them for a fee, because they have no money, but I don’t think they’re going to finance anything, because again they have no money.
Is it not known that the US is biased about its state of Israel? Getting a source from the US is like asking North Korean if Kim Jung Un is the greatest and expecting a answer otherwise
This is from 2014? With sources from the earlier 2000s? If the US can be as openly bias at it is now, what’s preventing them from pushing a narrative earlier on?
What is wrong with saying the US is synonymous to federal court? The experts are using evidence from a period that has been proven to be controversial so why would I not question a source provided from that period.
You’re questioning my age and knowledge level while I’m trying to understand your perspective; you sound like you’re lacking EQ but it is alright, all that preaching for a sovereign nation that is a systemic disaster will get you where you want to be.
The u.s. has a huge presence in South Korea and has repeatedly threatened north Korea, remember trumps “fire and fury” comment.
Gonna need a source on that tunnels claim, I can see them sending experts to help them build them for a fee, because they have no money, but I don’t think they’re going to finance anything, because again they have no money.
You’re correct, sending experts to help for fees.
Further reading: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv0483-54
Is it not known that the US is biased about its state of Israel? Getting a source from the US is like asking North Korean if Kim Jung Un is the greatest and expecting a answer otherwise
It was a federal court hearing with submission of evidence by adversary parties. Testimony from experts. Read a book.
This is from 2014? With sources from the earlier 2000s? If the US can be as openly bias at it is now, what’s preventing them from pushing a narrative earlier on?
“The US.” It’s a judicial decision. Based on expert testimony. Seriously, how old are you? How far did you go in school?
What is wrong with saying the US is synonymous to federal court? The experts are using evidence from a period that has been proven to be controversial so why would I not question a source provided from that period.
You’re questioning my age and knowledge level while I’m trying to understand your perspective; you sound like you’re lacking EQ but it is alright, all that preaching for a sovereign nation that is a systemic disaster will get you where you want to be.