Here is the part of Trump’s UN speech they should have laughed loudest at

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

But they didn’t laugh at this part. I guess sometimes irony is just too painful to bear . . . .

(AP Photo/Richard Drew)

Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death, and destruction. They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.

The Iranian people are rightly outraged that their leaders have embezzled billions of dollars from Iran’s treasury, seized valuable portions of the economy . . . . all to line their own pockets and send their proxies to wage war. Not good. —

(From Politico)


The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

6 thoughts on “Here is the part of Trump’s UN speech they should have laughed loudest at”

  1. I agree with John Z. that Trump is a distraction to us. The mass media, owned by the elite corporatocracy, use him as a puppet to draw attention away from the atrocities that the US military industrial complex commits around the world. I hope that we can enlist enough support in Australia to demand that our government distance itself from the 5 EYES alliance with the US, UK, Canada and NZ and ally with the BRICS nations of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. When enough people discover the obscure truth behind the manipulation of WWs 1 and 2, and how the resultant Balfour Declaration sealed the future of Zionism at the expense of the Palestinians then we may stand up to the US and UK financial control of a huge proportion of the world’s wealth.

  2. Trump is an invention of the media. Whenever any president or administration did anything he was their go-to guy for comment. The rest will be history.

  3. In relation to Iran (and also to Palestine) also listened to Benjamin Netanyahu’s (BN) July UN speech at


    I offer some comments that I preface with my strong belief that the issues raised are not religious but economic. You may ignore my references to Palestine problem, that’s up to you, but I think it parallels the Iran issue so is relevant to assessing the reality and validity of Iran’s so called threat that Trump tries to present.

    BN said that only Israel opposed Iran’s nuclear deal. I ask why did nearly 200 other countries support the so alleged “fundamental lie” and “furtherance of Iran’s campaign of carnage and conquest throughout the Middle East………… threatening Israel’s future and very survival” ? Isn’t that an insult to the intelligence of and inferring the gullibility of 200 countries ? Come on really, 200 to one ?

    About his so called exposure of secret atomic warehouses in Tehran, we should rather defer to the International Atomic Energy Agency. When after 911 the US did not accept their clean reports on Iraq, the US and UK flagrantly went alone anyway to attack Iraq. It seems that BN thinks we will fall for a similar gambit. After 911 I have little confidence in so called US peace initiatives.

    Israel sees itself as the one who is threatened and harps on the statement Ahmadinejad made that Israel must be “wiped off the map”. But did he really mean to tell the world that Iran was declaring war on Israel ? Rather I think it was an assertion that Israel has no right to exist, which in my view is an understandable position.

    BN pleads for universal support for opposing Iran as a threat to the peace and security of the world. Let him meet with Ahmadinejad on neutral territory and have a public debate in the UN.

    BN infers that comparing Zionism to racism is invalid. Well Israel airlifting Ethiopian Jews to Israel is damning isn’t it ? BN tramples over that fact, and he even drags up the old “anti-semitism” card. To me that’s a misnomer based on an invalid appeal by people with a persecution complex. No one can deny that the Jews have been persecuted for 3,000 years but that’s not a valid reason now for Jews to be racist.

    Who is denying the holocaust ? BN said Palestinian President Abbas does. This deserves careful investigation and is starting to worry me more than ever. Could Abbas’ point be that wealthy Zionist leaders who engineered Israel’s reformation in Palestine were willing to sacrifice millions to Hitler’s psychopathic machine ?

    My studies in Christian origins have taken me to the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans and their final ban on Jews going to the city for worship after the next wave of Jewish rebellion in 132 AD. Thereafter what became know as Zionism in an anti-Jewish world has survived over 1,500 years through Muslim and European empires to the point of Theodore Herzl’s master plan at the turn of last century. Then it wove through WW1 and WW2 which in my view were linked with the Zionist plans that have brought us the modern state of Israel via the Balfour Declaration.

    I think that we must have another look at Abbas’ views. While I haven’t seen all sides of the argument, I will :


    “The Jewish and Democratic State of Israel” based on Abraham, Sara, Isaac, Joshua, David etc. is an appeal based on mythology as scholars know that these characters are fiction; BN’s thinking only encourages the Muslims to honour Allah even more. Not very tactful by BN. Nor to refer to “rebuilding our ancient and eternal capital Jerusalem”.

    BN refers to “the establishment of a Jewish State” appealing to the original League of Nations and UN resolutions supporting it, but that is one sided if he does not agree to go back to the 1967 or original borders then proposed. He treats it like an open authority to expand the Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinian state which was granted equal authority.


    BN harps on the first UN resolution but ignores all their subsequent ones. That’s what I call the thin edge of the wedge and indicates that Israel did not deserve the original bequest, bargained by deception in my view.

    BN’s “the collective right of the Jewish people to exercise self-determination” is pure apartheid thinking. BN then spruiks about how Arabs have the same individual rights as Jews in Israel. How can these two ideals co-exist ? Is this not a subtle way of saying we’ll try to ignore the Arabs til they disappear or convert to Judaism ? And how are individual Arab rights be upheld when settlers annex Palestinian properties ? And how is it that an immigrating or even a visiting Jew has more rights than an immigrating Arab whose home is bulldozed ?

    About a year ago, with a majority vote of only 64/120 in the Knesset Israel adopted a law called “The Nation State Law of the Jewish People”. What does that tell you about the controversy within the secular leadership of Israel ? It’s not the Captain America, black and white, good versus evil that BN spruiks. Does this law not promote the exact opposite of the equality principle which BN claims Israel has, delegitimising Palestinians’ rights to self-determination ?

    In my view only a one state solution will work : communism. It’s a rich vs poor problem. The US policy that might makes right is the biggest problem e.g. sanctions. Dialogue is essential, based on honour. Have a debate in the UN and abide by it. You want Assange to abide by the law ? His issues cut across borders too.

    BN’s talk was unfair and fantasy and I’d be happy to discuss it in the context of Trump’s and others’ speeches in the UN.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading