[quote]Gregus wrote:
I said no such thing. Merely underlying that ISRAEL is INDEED an occupying state. Pure and simple. Antisemitic or not. That’s a fact disguised by clever arguments.
[/quote]
And if the Navajo took over the American Southwest again, they would also be an occupying force then as well? Thanks for clearing that up for me. . . [/quote]
And if they did, would you accept their “right” to occupy you or would you fight them tooth and nail?
What if you could not win because China supports them?
[/quote]
I don’t know what is the Romansh folks came and tried to kick your Bavarian/Aleman ass out of Austria? It was their turf first, before your ilk so rudely conquered it and forced them into the mountains? I am still not over this! This is Romansh territory…Get out you fucking invader!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
6. The Muslim religion is the invader/parasite of the land, not the Jewish descendants returning to their homeland. It’s the equivalent of returning lands to the native Americans.[/quote]
Last I checked, the Jews conquered Israel from yet another pre-existing civilization.
The creation of the state was basically pandering to a fairy tale.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
she listed Poland and Germany because they are the two places she most strongly associates them with and not because they are countries where many were killed. [/quote]
Oh, so you know what she thinks and why she thinks the way she does? Psychic?
[/quote]
I said “I wouldn’t be surprised if” before I said that. There’s a reason why the “she” isn’t capitalized. Learn to read. I bet all you see is “BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ANTISEMITIC SENTIMENTS ANTISEMITIC SENTIMENTS ANTISEMITIC SENTIMENTS BLAH BLAH BLAH.”
Do you really think she wanted her words to be taken as “send them back to German death camps” considering the likely consequences?
And really, I love IrishSteel’s logic. Yeah you’d really just give your land back to the Indians/Natives and get up and leave the country because they were there first. Fuck that. Are you going to give blacks zillions of dollars as reparations for slavery? Oh wait, you already do that. Seriously though, it’s pretty ridiculous. Let’s give each black person descended from slaves millions of dollars because who knows how much better their standard of living would be if their ancestors hadn’t been enslaved. Let’s give money to black people at random because record keeping isn’t infallible.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
she listed Poland and Germany because they are the two places she most strongly associates them with and not because they are countries where many were killed. [/quote]
Oh, so you know what she thinks and why she thinks the way she does? Psychic?
[/quote]
I said “I wouldn’t be surprised if” before I said that. There’s a reason why the “she” isn’t capitalized. Learn to read. I bet all you see is “BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ANTISEMITIC SENTIMENTS ANTISEMITIC SENTIMENTS ANTISEMITIC SENTIMENTS BLAH BLAH BLAH.”[/quote]
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
Do you really think she wanted her words to be taken as “send them back to German death camps” considering the likely consequences?[/quote]
It’s just like telling a black man to go back to Tenessee or Alabama…think about it. She used a VERY poor choice of words that will be taken by Jewish folks as being no worse that Nazi propaganda.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
6. The Muslim religion is the invader/parasite of the land, not the Jewish descendants returning to their homeland. It’s the equivalent of returning lands to the native Americans.[/quote]
Last I checked, the Jews conquered Israel from yet another pre-existing civilization.
The creation of the state was basically pandering to a fairy tale.[/quote]
Sooo, let me get your reasoning straight here . . . Israel conquered the land from a previous pre-existing civilization - this is fact.
But reestablishing the nation of Israel (that was a historical fact) is pandering to a fairy tale . . . so Israel didn’t previously conquer the land from a previous civilization . . . but you said . . . Oh right, circular reasoning!
Alrighty then - I’ll leave you to sit and spin to your heart’s content . . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
6. The Muslim religion is the invader/parasite of the land, not the Jewish descendants returning to their homeland. It’s the equivalent of returning lands to the native Americans.[/quote]
Last I checked, the Jews conquered Israel from yet another pre-existing civilization.
The creation of the state was basically pandering to a fairy tale.[/quote]
so you are accepting the biblical history?
Every place on earth has had wars and migrations. Who gets to decide at what point “true” ownership is? Israel has both the oldest historical claim to the area and (probably the most important fact) current control of the area. Can anyone justify picking an instance from somewhere in the middle of known history to determine “rightful” occupiers?
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
The Muslims are natives. They’ve lived there long enough to count as such.[/quote]
2 points - First Islam is a religion not a national identity.
Second, possession is the basis for claiming rights to the land? So if Israel can hold on to the territory for another couple of hundred years - that makes them legitimate?
So in your equation, might makes right . . . interesting . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
6. The Muslim religion is the invader/parasite of the land, not the Jewish descendants returning to their homeland. It’s the equivalent of returning lands to the native Americans.[/quote]
Last I checked, the Jews conquered Israel from yet another pre-existing civilization.
The creation of the state was basically pandering to a fairy tale.[/quote]
Sooo, let me get your reasoning straight here . . . Israel conquered the land from a previous pre-existing civilization - this is fact.
But reestablishing the nation of Israel (that was a historical fact) is pandering to a fairy tale . . . so Israel didn’t previously conquer the land from a previous civilization . . . but you said . . . Oh right, circular reasoning!
Alrighty then - I’ll leave you to sit and spin to your heart’s content . . . .[/quote]
That wasn’t what I was saying.
The part about pandering to a fairy tale is simply the reasoning behind the acceptance of Israel in the first place - idiots who think the land belongs to the Jews because of some imaginary covenant with an imaginary God.
However, I’m not going to espouse some bullshit about “giving the land back”, there are people living there who have known no other home. Taking that away from them would be just as wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, you should stop making unfounded assumptions about my posts, or any other posts for that matter.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
Do you really think she wanted her words to be taken as “send them back to German death camps” considering the likely consequences?[/quote]
It’s just like telling a black man to go back to Tenessee or Alabama…think about it. She used a VERY poor choice of words that will be taken by Jewish folks as being no worse that Nazi propaganda.
Why are you defending Helen again???
[/quote]
I’m not saying her choice of words wasn’t bad I’m just saying I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t intend them to be taken the way you took them. I’m not really trying to defend her. Maybe she has a history of saying questionable shit. I don’t care. I don’t normally pay attention to the old crone.
Regardless of how prejudiced someone is you’d think they’d want to keep their views under wraps unless they make a living peddling them.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
The Muslims are natives. They’ve lived there long enough to count as such.[/quote]
2 points - First Islam is a religion not a national identity.
Second, possession is the basis for claiming rights to the land? So if Israel can hold on to the territory for another couple of hundred years - that makes them legitimate?
So in your equation, might makes right . . . interesting . . . [/quote]
I think the Israelis have shown they can keep control of the land. Was it the 6 day war or 7 day war, I never can keep those straight. The Israelis kicked the living crap out of the Arab nations that came up against their borders. Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, and there probably others. The Israelis took possession of more land, and what did they do. They gave it back when they signed a peace treaty with the surrounding countries. The others broke the treaties first, so should the Israelis have the right to take the land back. Israelis have taken possession of the land and have held it militarily. If the Arabs are able to take the land then more power to them. Israel has every right to defend themselves.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
6. The Muslim religion is the invader/parasite of the land, not the Jewish descendants returning to their homeland. It’s the equivalent of returning lands to the native Americans.[/quote]
Last I checked, the Jews conquered Israel from yet another pre-existing civilization.
The creation of the state was basically pandering to a fairy tale.[/quote]
Sooo, let me get your reasoning straight here . . . Israel conquered the land from a previous pre-existing civilization - this is fact.
But reestablishing the nation of Israel (that was a historical fact) is pandering to a fairy tale . . . so Israel didn’t previously conquer the land from a previous civilization . . . but you said . . . Oh right, circular reasoning!
Alrighty then - I’ll leave you to sit and spin to your heart’s content . . . .[/quote]
That wasn’t what I was saying.
The part about pandering to a fairy tale is simply the reasoning behind the acceptance of Israel in the first place - idiots who think the land belongs to the Jews because of some imaginary covenant with an imaginary God.
However, I’m not going to espouse some bullshit about “giving the land back”, there are people living there who have known no other home. Taking that away from them would be just as wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, you should stop making unfounded assumptions about my posts, or any other posts for that matter.[/quote]
You should get the fuck out of New Zealand. That land belongs to the Polynesians. Your invading ass took their land! That land is Polynesian territory, go back to England you land thief.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I said no such thing. Merely underlying that ISRAEL is INDEED an occupying state. Pure and simple. Antisemitic or not. That’s a fact disguised by clever arguments.
[/quote]
And if the Navajo took over the American Southwest again, they would also be an occupying force then as well? Thanks for clearing that up for me. . . [/quote]
And if they did, would you accept their “right” to occupy you or would you fight them tooth and nail?
What if you could not win because China supports them?
[/quote]
Oh, this is classic! Navajo Joe done waded back into a Navajo discussion.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
The Muslims are natives. They’ve lived there long enough to count as such.[/quote]
2 points - First Islam is a religion not a national identity.
Second, possession is the basis for claiming rights to the land? So if Israel can hold on to the territory for another couple of hundred years - that makes them legitimate?
So in your equation, might makes right . . . interesting . . . [/quote]
I think the Israelis have shown they can keep control of the land. Was it the 6 day war or 7 day war, I never can keep those straight. The Israelis kicked the living crap out of the Arab nations that came up against their borders. Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, and there probably others. The Israelis took possession of more land, and what did they do. They gave it back when they signed a peace treaty with the surrounding countries. The others broke the treaties first, so should the Israelis have the right to take the land back. Israelis have taken possession of the land and have held it militarily. If the Arabs are able to take the land then more power to them. Israel has every right to defend themselves.[/quote]
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I said no such thing. Merely underlying that ISRAEL is INDEED an occupying state. Pure and simple. Antisemitic or not. That’s a fact disguised by clever arguments.
[/quote]
And if the Navajo took over the American Southwest again, they would also be an occupying force then as well? Thanks for clearing that up for me. . . [/quote]
And if they did, would you accept their “right” to occupy you or would you fight them tooth and nail?
What if you could not win because China supports them?
[/quote]
Oh, this is classic! Navajo Joe done waded back into a Navajo discussion.
(Doc, don’t miss this)[/quote]
Get out of Montana you invader![/quote]
If you really were for “freeing” the land you’d acknowledge we all need to go back to africa and give back all the invaded land to the native wildlife.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
Do you really think she wanted her words to be taken as “send them back to German death camps” considering the likely consequences?[/quote]
It’s just like telling a black man to go back to Tenessee or Alabama…think about it. She used a VERY poor choice of words that will be taken by Jewish folks as being no worse that Nazi propaganda.
Why are you defending Helen again???
[/quote]
I’m not saying her choice of words wasn’t bad I’m just saying I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t intend them to be taken the way you took them. I’m not really trying to defend her. Maybe she has a history of saying questionable shit. I don’t care. I don’t normally pay attention to the old crone.
Regardless of how prejudiced someone is you’d think they’d want to keep their views under wraps unless they make a living peddling them.[/quote]
I am not a big fan of Helen’s, and she does hate Jews, and by no means is she right. I will not fight for what she said, but I will fight for her right to say it. This country has gotten away from the idea of freedom of speech. We have the right to say what we want, but you better have some good proof before you say it. Helen spoke her beliefs instead of stating facts. If it was her idea to retire, I have no problem with that, but if pressure was put on her by other people then I do have a problem with that. At least we knew where she stood.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
The Muslims are natives. They’ve lived there long enough to count as such.[/quote]
2 points - First Islam is a religion not a national identity.
Second, possession is the basis for claiming rights to the land? So if Israel can hold on to the territory for another couple of hundred years - that makes them legitimate?
So in your equation, might makes right . . . interesting . . . [/quote]
You’re the one with an interesting view. Mine is just boring everyday logic. Would you really be alright with aboriginals kicking you off your land because they owned it first? Should all the governments of the world empty their coffers paying reparations to everything that moves for past transgressions? They’d be doing a disservice to their current citizens that weren’t involved in the acts. Your reasoning is the type of stuff that creates endless blood feuds and conflicts. If your great great great great grandfather killed mine I wouldn’t expect you to cough up some money to make up for the act assuming he never paid for it in any way. I wouldn’t feel I have a right to kill you for some good ol’ eye for an eye justice.
As for the national identity thing, actually, I believe a lot of them see it that way.
[quote]nothingclever wrote:
The Muslims are natives. They’ve lived there long enough to count as such.[/quote]
2 points - First Islam is a religion not a national identity.
Second, possession is the basis for claiming rights to the land? So if Israel can hold on to the territory for another couple of hundred years - that makes them legitimate?
So in your equation, might makes right . . . interesting . . . [/quote]
You’re the one with an interesting view. Mine is just boring everyday logic. Would you really be alright with aboriginals kicking you off your land because they owned it first? Should all the governments of the world empty their coffers paying reparations to everything that moves for past transgressions? They’d be doing a disservice to their current citizens that weren’t involved in the acts. Your reasoning is the type of stuff that creates endless blood feuds and conflicts. If your great great great great grandfather killed mine I wouldn’t expect you to cough up some money to make up for the act assuming he never paid for it in any way. I wouldn’t feel I have a right to kill you for some good ol’ eye for an eye justice.
As for the national identity thing, actually, I believe a lot of them see it that way. [/quote]
This is so stupid it’s ridiculous. You spend all this time defending the right of the current inhabitants. THE ISRAELIS ARE THE CURRENT INHABITANTS. All of this hypothetical defense you are employing applies to the Israelis. If it was wrong to kick out the Arabs who had invaded, it’s now just as wrong to kick out the Israelis. How can you be so blind to the hypocrisy of you views. Do you just hate the Israelis that much?