Originally Posted by tkdyo
I believe my statement went completely unheeded. From your talk, it is now ok for the palestinians to kick the jews out because they were there first, yet when the jews way back when were there first, they had to remain in exile when they were taken out. Ill say it again from my last post. Double standard
First of all being jewish is not a race, the people who got kicked out of Palestine 2000 + years ago are not the same people who came to Palestine from Eastern Europe in 1882.
Secound. The incident in which you site happend 2000 fucken years ago. Seriously, If we organized the world by what happend 2000 years ago then the Turkys would have to go back to their ancient ancestral grazing lands the British would have to go back to England and oh ya the Scottish remember them? they are ogirinally from Ireland lets send all the scottish back to Ireland while were at it. What happend 2000 years ago is of no consequence to what is happening today and is for all intenceive purpouses its irrevelant.
But the examples i site, like the one with turks can't be applied to jews because the jews unlike the turks are not a race they are a relegion so the homeland of most european jews is Russia, Poland or wherever they might come from because jews from a myriad of places just like christians because christians have no set country they are a relegion. A christain can come from China, South Africa or even Antartica for all i car.
And dont tell me the Jews are a race, that was a myth propaged by the Nazies so they could justify further persecution of the jews.
Let me use an example to help you understand. We have a group of people who have a long history in Europe. They are the Roma people, you know them by their vernacular name The Gypsies.
The Gypsies have their origins in Northern India beleive it or not but more then a thouand years ago they made a Trek across mountains and deserts to eventually come to Europe. Historians theorize they were slaves.
Eventually they settled around the Mediterean Basin in Egypt, Algeria and the mediterean countries of Europe not ot mention countries like Romania and Bulgaria. They adpoted the local relegion of the countries but stayed sepearte and kept their language and culture.
Now tell me to do the gypsie peole have the right to go all the way from Europe to Rajistan in India to kick out the 50 million or so people there because 1000+ years ago there ancestors lived there?
The situation with the Palestinians and the jews is much more recent and therefore fixable.
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Dragonoverlord, I was trying to point out that it's ridiculous to attach an ethnicity to a land, the land belongs to whoever can keep it.
Or else, why would an Arab majority (around Israel, to top it off, not in Israel) overule the fact that Jews were there first? Before Europeens colonized the Americas, Native Americans held a majority. They don't anymore because they were exterminated and conquered. So now the United States "belongs" to the descendents of the colonialists because there are more of them? Have you seen how many Asians there are in Vancouver? Does it belong to the Chinese?
And lastly, I think it takes a socially backwards place like the Middle-East to not want to cooperate with Israel on the grounds of religion and ethnicity. They have the most minute spot of land, and it's not like it's illegal for Arabs to live there. They're the most advanced nation in the region and neighboring countries could benefit greatly from interaction with them. The worst part is that Israel has both the capability and the opportunity to wipe its neighbors off the map and expand, yet all they care about is there little piece of land. It's not like they'll get aggresive if they're left alone.
And don't say it's impossible for Israel to coexist with its neighbors on the grounds of religion and language. The 750 000 people who live across the river from me have a different language and religion than the 250 000 that live on this side, and we don't try to ethnically cleanse each other.
There were jews in the region as a majority 2000 + years ago but they abandoned the area, in my other post on this page i explained how the fact jews lived in the region 2000 + years ago does not extend ownership of the land to the present day.
I also explained on the other page how the situation with the native americans in North America and the one with the Palestinians is only comparable to the extent that colonial scum from Europe settled there land. Read my post if you need to.
Canada is a pluralist society and is not ethnocentric in nature. I explaiend several time that the whole situation in the area is ethnocentric. The UN Started it if i can play the blame game.......They gave European jews who had been in the middle east for LESS then a generation a swath of land with 700 000 arabs on it to make a JEWISH state. Does that not strike you as rascist?
The way Israel was created was extremely 1 sided agains the majority arabs who lived on what was to be a jewish state. This injustice is the root problem, giving land to european immigrants when there is already people living on it.
As far as im concerned Israel is the last vestige of colonialsm on this planet and had better be wiped out.
Remember who attached ethnicity to the land in the first place IT WAS THE JEWS IT WAS THE UN IT WAS THE UNITED KINGDOM
THE WEST STARTED THIS, THE PALESTINIANS WILL FINISH IT!
Originally Posted by Howie
In all wars there have been incidents where civilians have been attacked. More prevalent after world war I. The Germans bombing us, us bombing Germany, Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
After WWII has the civilized nations and their commanders targeted civilians purposely?
Is the United states targeting civilians in Iraq?
The rational behind a suicide bomber is what?
Just this question. Take into account the word rational. Use it into context with that of a suicide bomber and please give me an answer.
I don't give two shits if you think the United states is rational, the tootsie tribe in Africa or the NRA for that matter.
The rational behind a suicide bomber is that if you have a guy with an Ak 47 who is being occupied by a guy with a humvee and body armour and with a better weapon plus a turet on the humvee lets say and lets say he can call in airstrikes to.
The rational is that is not a fair fight, and that the playing field needs to be evend up to compensate for the huge advantage the guy in the Humvee has over the guy being occupied.
|
|
Bookmarks