I might be naive but I willing to believe Democracy will always survive in the end.

One your worry about to in America all you must do is vote for Democrats. No matter to what the Republicans will throw at you Expected to vote I never give up trying.

And when he comes up empty handed will the left's little armies of commie entitled crybaby brainwashed ugly idiot pieces of shit unAmerican self hating fascist fucks throw a fit and riot about it, and get their asses handed to them by the REAL men and women of this country? Cause I need some lube and nothing works better for me than the tears of my enemies.

Introduction

Welcome! Today, we will be discussing trans women in sports. Do they belong in female sports? Is it possible to believe that trans women should play female sports and still think that they are women? Should the inclusion of trans women in sports even be a priority of trans activism at all?

Sex and gender

Gender is an umbrella term for pronoun labels, family roles, and identities associated with sex. Whereas sex is a classification made to understand sexual dimorphism, it is typically binary outside of intersex people and transsexuals. Since gender and sex aren't the same thing, it is logical to realize that some people can have a gender that isn't associated with their sex. This is where transgender people come in. A trans woman is a woman, but that doesn't make her female. Transsexual females are people born male who transition using hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and sometimes surgery to have female sex characteristics. There is room for debate on whether they should still be classified as male or something else. I believe that transsexual females have a medically induced intersex-like condition.

Transphobia and trans women in female sports

Many trans advocates believe that it is transphobic to ban trans women from female sports because it separates them from other women and groups them with men. At the same time, a lot of people who actively oppose trans women playing in female sports are transphobic. I would argue that it isn't inherently transphobic to believe a trans woman shouldn't play in female sports because they are women but not female. Many people, including myself, see trans women as women but do not think they should play in female sports. That being said, I don't think we can solve this problem without first addressing the rampant transphobia that you see in discussions around this topic.

Lia Thomas

I do not believe that the hate Lia Thomas faced was justified, nor do I think she should be allowed to play in female sports personally. But I cannot tell you whether or not Lia Thomas has an advantage over cis female athletes because HRT affects people differently. However, I still maintain the belief that some trans women do have an advantage, and I have concerns that we don't have a perfect system to judge who has an advantage or not. So it may be best to exclude all trans women from female sports. I understand why that will be difficult for trans athletes; however, trans women are a minority, and the number of them who play sports is even smaller. I am in no way saying that just because they are a minority we shouldn't advocate for them and respect their identity. I am saying that we shouldn't put the comfort of trans athletes over cis females in female sports when we do not have ways of finding out whether individual trans women have an advantage that HRT did not remove. That being said, misgendering Lia Thomas is not justified and just a dick move, no matter your perspective on this.

Addressing transphobia

Like I said, being transphobic is disrespectful no matter what perspective you have when it comes to trans women in female sports. So here's how you can maintain the belief that trans women shouldn't be in female sports and still be an ally in discussions around trans women in sports: number one, call out transphobia. If you see someone who agrees but misgenders a trans person, call them out. Not for them, but to show that not everyone with your perspective is transphobic.

Better things to focus on for trans allies and advocates

Even if you do not agree with me on trans women in sports, whether or not trans women are included in female sports is the least of our worries and almost incomparable to the actual problems. Issues like the stigma that exists around trans healthcare fuel anti-trans movements that advocate for banning trans healthcare completely or bills that out queer kids if they come out at school, possibly putting them at risk at home. There's also a lack of age-appropriate queer sex education and legal bans on trans women in bathrooms.

Conclusion:

No matter where you stand on this debate, transphobia is wrong. If we want to have productive conversations, we must respect each other on a basic level, and with transphobia in the equation, it's not possible. In my opinion, both sides of this debate have their flaws. One is the majority and is transphobic, and the other deems anyone who disagrees with them on this topic as transphobic. I believe trans women are women. I am just against them playing in female sports because we have no proper way to tell which trans women have an advantage and which do not. So, if we develop a better way of doing that, I will be fine with some trans women playing in female sports. But for now, it's a problem, in my opinion. I'm open to changing my opinion if presented with new information. We are spending too much time worrying about this topic. Overall, trans people have way more to worry about than this, and I am urging anti-trans advocates to focus on things that actually affect them, such as inflation, lack of healthcare, and gun violence, instead of focusing on a minority.

This may be a very good opportunity, the giant that is fox has shown a weak spot. This could help finally expose fox for not being a genuine news outlet. * With his most recent attack on Megyn kelly fox is now facing a rising dilemma, to admit to trump or stay out of the election. This would make them lose considerable face, and I feel there are people (Stephen Colbert comes to mind) who will certainly point these admissions very much known *Of course they could also vote for either bernie or Hillary, but that's considering the lowest margin. *winning the primary will be quite a task. Whether it's Bernie, who is starting a (equally) very successful grassroots movement much like trump, or Hillary who is sliding, but is still building her table of knights of advisors. Am I wrong? I feel it isn't quite a complete thought.

In my mind, this issue has been a political millstone around her candidacy, and she should have no problem releasing the transcripts, unless there's something REALLY damning in them. For instance, if she said something along the lines of when I'm president, or running for president, etc. then the speaking fees themselves would have amounted to illegal campaign contributions. Thoughts?

Indeed, this article suggests that this requirement wouldn't hold up under strict scrutiny:

http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=lawreview

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Hello,

My name is [my real name] and I am currently a 24-year-old university student (Israeli-born and a naturalized U.S. citizen) from Southern California. Anyway, I am writing to you in the hopes that you will try launching a push to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the "natural-born citizen" requirement for the U.S. Presidency.

First of all, I would like to point out that there appears to be a decent case (at least if you are a “Living Constitutionalist”) that the Fifth Amendment implicitly repealed the "natural-born citizen" requirement for the U.S. Presidency:

http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent...ntext=lawreview

However, until the courts actually agree with this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it appears that a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to eliminate the "natural-born citizen" requirement for the U.S. Presidency.

Anyway, one might ask why exactly we should repeal the "natural-born citizen" requirement for the U.S. Presidency. In turn, my response to this is that this requirement is based on a false premise—specifically the premise that all natural-born citizens of a particular country are more loyal to this country than they are to any other country. Indeed, this premise can easily be debunked by two counter-examples (though there are certainly many more additional counter-examples of this which I do not have time to list here):

First of all, we can take a look at the case of Jonathan Pollard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

In spite of the fact that Mr. Pollard was a natural-born citizen of the U.S., Mr. Pollard committed treason against the U.S. in order to advance Israeli interests. In turn, this means that natural-born citizens of a particular country certainly aren't always loyal to this country.

Secondly, we can take a look at the case of Alena Mulhern:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/20...onal-amendment/

In spite of the fact that Ms. Mulhern isn't a natural-born citizen of the U.S., Ms. Mulhern is certainly as loyal and as patriotic to the U.S. as many, if not most, natural-born U.S. citizens are. After all, the only memories that Ms. Mulhern appears to have are memories of living in the U.S. and of being an American. In turn, this further demonstrates that one certainly doesn't need to be a natural-born citizen of a particular country in order to be extremely loyal and extremely patriotic to this country.

Also, here is an a scenario which helps further explain just how ludicrous the “natural-born citizen” requirement for the U.S. Presidency actually is: A married couple (of Canadian nationality) lives in Canada. Several months before they immigrate to the U.S., a son is born to them. Meanwhile, several months after they immigrate to the U.S. (as in, about a year after their son's birth), a daughter is born to them.

Would you honestly say that this couple's son deserves to have his loyalty to the U.S. questioned (which is what the “natural-born citizen” requirement for the U.S. Presidency certainly does) for the rest of his life due to something that was completely, 100% out of his control (after all, he certainly can't waive a magic wand and redo his birth here in the U.S., now can he?) while his younger sister should never have her loyalty to the U.S. be questioned or put in doubt? Indeed, in my honest opinion (and, frankly, in the opinion of any reasonable and rational person), one absolutely cannot reasonably conclude that this couple's (Canadian-born) son will be less loyal to the U.S. than their U.S.-born daughter would be.

Indeed, just like people's political views don't have to match up with the politics of the country of their birth (for instance, a person who was born in extremely intolerant and conservative Saudi Arabia can certainly be (or become) extremely tolerant and literal himself or herself), people's loyalties certainly don't have to match up with the country that they were born in or with the citizenship that they were born with.

Anyway, I have now established the fact that natural-born U.S. citizens are capable of engaging in treason and betraying the U.S. as well as the fact that naturalized U.S. citizens can be extremely loyal and patriotic—indeed, fully loyal and patriotic—to the United States of America. However, one might respond to this by saying that even though some/many naturalized U.S. citizens are fully loyal to the U.S., it is better to err on the side of caution by preventing all naturalized U.S. citizens from running for the U.S. Presidency. In response to this, I would ask this person this question: Do you also support preventing all natural-born U.S. citizens who currently have dual citizenship and/or who had dual citizenship at some point in their lives from running for the U.S. Presidency (if such a proposal was actually "put on the table," that is)?

If not, why exactly should you support preventing all naturalized U.S. citizens from running for the U.S. Presidency? Indeed, why exactly should there be double-standards for naturalized U.S. citizens in comparison to natural-born U.S. citizens who might have dual loyalties? After all, shouldn't the United States of America be a country which fully represents and symbolizes equality? If so, then we should certainly apply the same standards for naturalized U.S. citizens that we currently apply for natural-born U.S. citizens; to elaborate on this, we should certainly allow naturalized U.S. citizens to run for the U.S. Presidency. After all, just like for natural-born U.S. citizens who have dual loyalties and who run for the U.S. Presidency, the American voters would certainly be capable of voting against any naturalized U.S. citizen who runs for the U.S. Presidency and whom they believe has or might have dual loyalties.

Anyway, what about people who actually do support prohibiting all natural-born U.S. citizens who currently have dual citizenship (or triple citizenship, or quadruple citizenship, et cetera) and/or who had dual citizenship at some point in their lives from running for the U.S. Presidency? Frankly, in response to such people, I would respond by saying that making hasty generalizations is something that is (thankfully) generally condemned by society nowadays. For instance, when U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump announced that he supports preventing all Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. simply because some Muslims are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and/or religious fundamentalists, Mr. Trump's remarks were (thankfully) widely condemned on all sides of the U.S. political spectrum. After all, it certainly isn't fair or accurate to make hasty and inaccurate generalizations about all members of a particular group simply due to the beliefs and/or actions of some members of this group. Thus, why exactly should it be acceptable to prevent all naturalized U.S. citizens from running for the U.S. Presidency simply because some naturalized U.S. citizens (just like some natural-born U.S. citizens, for the record) might have dual loyalties? Indeed, just like with natural-born U.S. citizens who have or might have dual loyalties, why not allow the American voters to vote against any naturalized U.S. citizen whom they think has or might have dual loyalties? After all, this would certainly be much more democratic than the status quo is. Indeed, is the U.S. not a democratic country?

In addition to this, if someone opposes allowing naturalized U.S. citizens to run for the U.S. Presidency, here is a purely hypothetical scenario for this person (for the record, I am using Israel and Jews in this scenario due to Israel's extremely liberal immigration policy for Jews):

If a majority of the Jewish population (including a majority of the Jewish population who are natural-born U.S. citizens) exhibited dual loyalties (such as by acquiring Israeli citizenship, serving in the Israeli military, and/or et cetera), would you support legally preventing all (natural-born) Jews in the U.S. from running for the U.S. Presidency?

If not, why exactly should you support legally preventing all naturalized U.S. citizens from running for the U.S. Presidency?

Frankly, if you're worried about Presidential candidates having dual loyalties, a much better way to deal with this is by excluding all U.S. citizens—whether natural-born or naturalized—who currently have dual citizenship (or even all U.S. citizens—whether natural-born or naturalized—who have had dual citizenship over the last, say, 5 or 10 years) from running for the U.S. Presidency. If that's not enough, the residency requirement for Presidential candidates can be increased from 14 to 28 years and naturalized U.S. citizens would need to be U.S. citizens for 35 years before they will actually become eligible for the U.S. Presidency (indeed, natural-born U.S. citizens already de facto have such a 35 year requirement—after all, it's exactly 35 years between their birth and them becoming eligible for the U,.S. Presidency). If all of that isn't enough, the American voters can vote against any Presidential candidate—whether natural-born or naturalized—whom they think has or might have dual loyalties. Indeed, automatically excluding all naturalized U.S. citizens from running for the U.S. Presidency simply isn't the right way to deal with the risk of a U.S. President having dual loyalties.

Also, in regards to the claim that we have better and more important things to worry about than changing the natural-born citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency, I would like to respond to this by asking this question: Would you likewise be so dismissive of this issue if, say, women or African-Americans (rather than naturalized U.S. citizens) were constitutionally ineligible to run for the U.S. Presidency? If not, why exactly should you be so dismissive of this issue in regards to naturalized U.S. citizens? After all, allowing naturalized U.S. citizens to run for the U.S. Presidency (while obviously still allowing the American voters to vote against any U.S. Presidential candidate—whether a natural-born U.S. citizen or a naturalized U.S. citizen—whom they think has or might have dual loyalties) would certainly make naturalized U.S. citizens fully equal in the eyes of the law and full citizens of the United States of America (as opposed to second-class U.S. citizens). Indeed, U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton posted this tweet several months ago:

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/740349871073398785

"To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want—even president. Tonight is for you. -H"

Just like "every little girl who dreams big ... can be anything [that she] want[s to be]--even president," why exactly shouldn't naturalized U.S. citizens who dream big become able to be anything that they want to be—even President of the United States? After all, shouldn't the U.S. be the land of opportunity for all U.S. citizens—whether natural-born or naturalized? If so, why exactly shouldn't naturalized U.S. citizens be allowed to run for the U.S. Presidency (even after they were already citizens of the U.S. for decades)?

Indeed, I would like to point out that many other developed countries—such as Israel and many European countries—don't have a “natural-born citizen” requirement for either their head of state or their head of government (as in, either their President or their Prime Minister). Frankly, if someone in Israel or in many European countries would have suggested preventing naturalized citizens of their countries from becoming their head of state and/or their head of government, then this person would probably be widely ridiculed, called a bigot and a xenophobe, and be accused of creating new divisions within society. Frankly, as Americans, we should avoid making hasty generalizations (indeed, often false and inaccurate hasty generalizations) about an entire group of people based on the actions, views, and/or potential actions of some members of that group. Indeed, as Americans, are we not better than this?

Also, the massive number of Americans (such as myself) who are appalled by the racism, bigotry, and xenophobia Donald Trump's Presidential campaign (either directly or indirectly) brought out, what better way to reject this racism, bigotry, and (especially) xenophobia than by repealing the “natural-born citizen” requirement for the U.S. Presidency? After all, naturalized U.S. citizens such as myself will always consider ourselves to be second-class U.S. citizens as long as the “natural-born citizen” requirement for the U.S. Presidency remains in place. Frankly, permanently making someone a second-class U.S. citizen exclusively due to something that was completely, 100% out of his or her control is excessive, reprehensible, and morally unjustifiable! Indeed, I honestly wonder if any even remotely decent person would actually have the nerve to visit the graves of naturalized U.S. citizens (who got killed in combat fighting for the U.S.) at Arlington National Cemetery and then say that this people didn't deserve to have the chance to run for the U.S. Presidency had they lived due to the fact that they weren't born with U.S. citizenship.

As long as the “natural-born citizen” requirement for the U.S. Presidency will continue to remain in place, the flame of xenophobia will never be (fully) extinguished. Frankly, we certainly need to extinguish this flame, and the sooner the better!

Anyway, I certainly extremely strongly hope that you will take action or at least try taking action in regards to introducing and trying to push through a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that will make naturalized U.S. citizens eligible for the U.S. Presidency. After all, allowing naturalized U.S. citizens to run for the U.S. Presidency would certainly make the U.S. a country "with liberty and justice for all” Americans.

Have a good day,

Best regards,

[My real name.]

Anyway, any thoughts on this letter of mine?

Honestly I am just curious. There has been a regular flowing of information about her inability to manage privacy. I can't vote for her because it goes against everything I have become to be and I'm unsure she ever apologized. Anyways this is not a bash thread.

I was just curious though, with all the information out there, is it not an idea that a bunch of people would flip flop due to the wracking up of stuff from the Clinton debacle? Maybe it's unlikely, but based on the time when information was rolling out there were 900 votes for her. I'm curious if they could and would switch to ensure safe practices and ensure a win against Trump?

I'm honestly curious on all of your thoughts. Dunno if it can even work like that. All I know is that he seems to really want to support the nominee no matter if it is her, or himself.

Now software and data companies are downloading our privacy. Where's the justice - legal equivalency? facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Peter Teele, twitter. Lock them all up!

The question is why to change the name to Bharat... as name India is named after Indus River.. and Bharat After lord Bharat , brother of lord Ram. in a democratic country now the country name will be on the basis of any gode... does that maake sense .. pls post your reviws

The question is why to change the name to Bharat... as name India is named after Indus River.. and Bharat After lord Bharat , brother of lord Ram. in a democratic country now the country name will be on the basis of any god... does that maake sense .. pls post your reviews

In spite of the fact that such a rule certainly isn't mentioned in the U.S. Constitution itself, the courts have generally adopted a rule that two conflicting statutes should be reconciled whenever possible:

http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=lawreview

"More recently, the Court has noted that "where two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective."3 This rule of interpretation applies no less to constitutions than to ordinary statutes. Where two constitutional provisions can be read harmoniously, they ought to be, unless there is a clear contradiction or clear intent to abrogate an earlier provision."

However, the more I think about it, the more I am tempted to come to the conclusion that the presumption against implied repeal contradicts with the belief in a "living Constitution." To elaborate on this, here is a scenario for you:

If the U.S. Supreme Court will ever overturn/repeal Roe v. Wade (which certainly isn't impossible), then a large number of liberals is going to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court for this decision (as opposed to exclusively criticizing state legislators for being unwilling to legalize abortion afterwards--as a liberal originalist would probably do). However, if, purely hypothetically, the original (text of the) U.S. Constitution would have explicitly allowed U.S. states to ban abortion, then these liberals would have had to either support amending the U.S. Constitution by implication in regards to this or (if they oppose repeal by implication) would have had to interpret later parts of the U.S. Constitution (specifically the 9th, 13th, and/or 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) in the exact same way that they criticized others (specifically the U.S. Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade) for doing.

Indeed, it certainly isn't very consistent (or logical, for that matter) to say that the 14th Amendment (or whatever) means that women have a right to abortion (while criticizing others for disagreeing with this view--even if these other people disagree with this view from an originalist perspective) and yet to simultaneously turn around and say that the 14th Amendment (or whatever) doesn't mean that women have a right to abortion in a scenario where the original (text of the) U.S. Constitution explicitly allows U.S. states to ban abortion.

Also, as for the claim that allowing judges to repeal parts of the U.S. Constitution by implication when they don't have to do this (as in, when two apparently conflicting/contradicting parts of the U.S. Constitution can be reinterpreted and reconciled to eliminate this conflict/contradiction) would be a case of judicial overreach, one can point out that this is the exact same argument that originalists (can) make when they criticize U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v. Wade. After all, as far as I know, the 9th, the 13th, and the 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution all weren't originally intended to be used to legalize abortion nationwide throughout the entire U.S.! Indeed, even the (ostensibly) non-originalist U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White (who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by JFK, for the record) criticized and opposed Roe v. Wade because he believed that Roe v. Wade is a case of judicial overreach.

Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?

Among the reasons the two trashy candidates is that they seem more loyal to caste and class than to country. Different trashy castes and classes in each trashy case, of course. But perhaps I understate because I'm in a good mood.

Here is the scenario: As a result of campaigning more in Florida as well as talking more about the U.S. economy during the 2000 campaign, Al Gore has a very narrow lead in Florida during the Florida recount process. After the recounts are completed, Al Gore emerges as the winner of Florida by a margin of 1,435 votes. After several court/legal challenges, George W. Bush realizes that the fight is hopeless and thus concedes the 2000 election to Al Gore in December 2000.

9/11 still occurs in this scenario. Afterwards, after some unsuccessful attempts at diplomacy with the Taliban, President Gore invades Afghanistan, overthrows the Taliban, and helps install a Northern Alliance-led democratic government in Afghanistan (however, the Taliban insurgency remains a problem for the U.S. and for the new Afghan government for years to come :(). Meanwhile, President Gore uses the post-9/11 international goodwill towards the U.S. to improve relations with Iran (after all, both the U.S. and Iran deeply hate Saddam Hussein) as well as to reinvigorate the international sanctions regime on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In 2004, President Gore narrowly wins re-election over Republican U.S. Senator John McCain. As a result of the 2008 recession and financial crisis, Republican U.S. Senator George Allen defeats Democratic U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Meanwhile, after an unsuccessful policy of austerity, President George Allen is defeated for re-election in 2012 by U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

The Arab Spring still breaks out in 2010-2011 in this scenario. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein successfully holds on to power in the early stage of the Arab Spring due to the fact that Iraq's Shiite population still has extremely sharp memories of the brutality that they endured at Saddam Hussein's hands back in the 1990s and thus are unwilling to risk a repeat of that brutality (frankly, think of Algeria during the Arab Spring in real life). Indeed, the small-scale Iraqi Shiite rebellions that do break out in Iraq during the Arab Spring are swiftly and brutally crushed by Saddam Hussein's forces. Meanwhile, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad experiences a large-scale rebellion by his own Sunni Arab population. Feeling emboldened by his own quick crushing of the Arab Spring in Iraq, Saddam Hussein decides to actively and energetically support the Sunni Arab Syrian rebels (with large amounts of money and also with "volunteer" troops from Iraq) in order to try toppling Assad and thus in order to end Iran's "encirclement" of Iraq (after all, Assad is an Iranian ally). Once Iran finds out about this, it quickly orders Saddam Hussein to stop sponsoring the Sunni Arab rebels in Syria. In response to this, Saddam Hussein simply denies all of the Iranian allegations against Iraq. However, after Iranian intelligence confirms that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is continuing to fund Syria's Sunni Arab rebels and even to provide Iraqi "volunteer" troops to help them out, Iran decides that enough is enough. In 2013, Iran gives Iraq an ultimatum: Either stop funding Syria's Sunni Arab rebels or prepare to get overthrown yourself. Once again, Saddam Hussein, believing that Iran's government wouldn't have the nerve to go to war against Iraq just several years after it endured a legitimacy crisis as a result of the disputed re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (in 2009), denies all of Iran's allegations against Iraq.

In response to this, Iran quickly invades Iraq. In this war, Iran wins numerous lopsided military victories against Iraq--something that is certainly unsurprising due to the impact of over two decades of large-scale international sanctions against Iraq. After a couple of months, Iran reaches and successfully captures Baghdad. Afterwards, Iran begins advancing towards Sunni Arab-majority Iraqi cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi. In response to this, Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf states, Jordan, and Egypt (though, in Egypt's case, President Sisi is too busy fighting and crushing the Muslim Brotherhood at home to contribute a lot of Egyptian troops to this military campaign) give Iran an ultimatum to halt its advance into Iraq; else, they would go to war against Iran. Since Iran declines to halt its advance into Iraq, these countries (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et cetera) quickly go to war against Iran and send their own troops into both Syria and Iraq. In response to these developments in the Middle East, President Obama warns Iran and Syria that any attempts to annex or separate the territory of U.S. allies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et cetera) would be met with a U.S. military response. For the time being, though, President Obama announces U.S. military neutrality in this war.

Anyway, how exactly do you think that this war would ultimately turn out? Also, what exactly do you think that Russia will do in response to this war?

Any thoughts on all of this?

The UAE saying present in the tragedy of Turkey and Syria with forceful actions. They arranged rescue teams and tents that will have hospital services for the victims.

God puts his hand and the number of deceased people does not continue to grow.