What I meant was that Kashmir was once part of a "muslim empire" and according to that religion, once moslim land allways moslim land. When muslim land becomes part of a non-muslim land it must be retaken.
So why do people hate Israel?
What I meant was that Kashmir was once part of a "muslim empire" and according to that religion, once moslim land allways moslim land. When muslim land becomes part of a non-muslim land it must be retaken.
This is ridiculous assumption on their part....before muslim invasion the whole subcontinent was hindu and India or more say "Bharat Varsh" real name of India, This doesn't mean we can claim Pakistan,Bangladesh,Afghanistan, Myanmar(Burma) as it was part of India before. If that the case the name Kashmir itself is named after hindu sage Kayshap.i.e kayshap+nir=kashmir so it naturally belonged to India.
Though I won't mind getting all of the subcontinent into India again.:wink:
Though I won't mind getting all of the subcontinent into India again.:wink:
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Thanks for the invitation
Two different things here: people and state (country)
True, the Arab Palestinians (or whatever they called themselves) lived there for generations. But some jews too. Jerusalem had almost always a jewish majority. There were also a lot of Arab immigrants, from 1870 to 1948 the Arabic population grew by 270%. If you want to evict the immigrated Jews, you also must evict the immigrated Arabs and other immigrants.
I am good with that let say everyone that can not trace an ancestor back beyond 1860 gets the bums rush back to where ever they came from, you ok with that?
And no "God is my cousin" will not be acceptable.
So what you are saying is that the foreign power occupying the region made laws shafting the inhabitants for the express purpose of shafting the inhabitants and you are ok with this because it is law?
If so you are really opening up a can of worms as you well know because there is a vast difference between ruling a territory (enacting and enforcing the law) and administering the law, as I recall the British mandate was only administrative.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
You may as well give up on trying to divert the cause to being a religious matter. This debate is about Palestine, not India and not all Palestinians are Muslim, so your analogies with the problems of India are totally false and off topic.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
I'm afraid that English is the only accepted language on this forum.
Could you please provide a translation.
Could you please provide a translation.
Last edited by a moderator:
RayManKiller3
Active member
I think your missing his point. He is saying that you can't cherry-pick your solutions. If you do one thing to one party it should hold the same for the other. It is his way of saying he is AGAINST it and you guys can't use that arguement because it is flawed.
If we were back during the Israeli terrorism days, then I would be against them, but that time is over and there is nothing we can do about it except express condemnation for it. At the moment the ones I see bringing pain to themselves are extreme muslims as well as the Palestinians. That make the conditions really hard to want to side with them.
And once again, I will state this: Israel was not created purely because of religion! There are many reasons the U.N felt that the Jews needed a state of their own. If you do not know why, then look up Jewish history. This quote holds barely any water. It is like you guys ignore the reason Israel was created and why it was created there.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Bullsh!t!, can you give me a date when it ended?
| Settlers Shooting Palestinians | |
If you are going to tell lies, at least do us the favour of telling lies that are not so easily disproved. I have already posted several other movies of the IDF killing Farmers whilst harvesting their criops but if need be I will gladly re post them for you.
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I cannot speak for Ray, but I think he is referring to the Stern Gang. We have the State of Israel, it is there even if we want it to be there or not, and we have the Palestinians. How can we (not really we here) reach a peace that satisfies both the state of Israel and the Palestinians?
senojekips
Active member
I don't think RayManKiller knows what he is referring to. Israeli terrorism continues to this day and is actively supported and sponsored by a number of Israeli state organisations including the IDF and Mossad. He was the one who made the comment about "cherry picking" solutions, so he can't reasonably cherry pick dates for terrorist activity.
Did we ask how can we reach a peace that satisfies both the Germans and the Allies in 1939?
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
To make a reference to WWII has several problems, if we shall compare, which is always problematic. you can compare an apple with a pear, but not to an orange. So what to do? You realize this is a totally a theoretical discussion, shall we erase Israel from the world?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Oh bollocks.
I am not cherry picking my solutions I am calling his bluff.
So you are saying terrorism is a legitimate means to an end?
Do you guys actually think about your posts or are you using www.suckuptoisrael.com/repetitiousidioticresponsestoallquestions.html?
And once again we come back to biblical mumbo jumbo but here is the problem my mother in law is Jewish, my wife is Catholic both however are American and what does that tell you?
It tells you that "Jewish" is a religion not a race therefore the UN had no reason to to produce a State for Jews as they all had States of their own.
Now here is the nifty thing I don't care that the UN decided to give Jews a state hell for all I care they can give everyone there own state what I care about is that they gave someone else's land away to make that state and then expected them to sit back and live with it.
Personally I think if they wanted to give them a state it should have been in England after all it was Britain's double dealing that started this mess, failing that perhaps what was Prussia since it was the Germans that made it worse and transport would have been cheap as most of Israel is made up of Germans, Poles and Russians anyway.
But no Britain had a chunk of dirt they didn't want and even though they had already offered it to the Arabs they figured there was more in it for them to give it to the Jews now here we are 70 years later trying to figure out how to fix this mess.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Can you re-post your link, please? It does not work
senojekips
Active member
You can also compare occupying forces as i did with Germany who occupied the countries that they over ran.
Yes, there is a valid comparison.
Israel was only a state made up from religious twaddle, it was placed in the land of another people, and yes, it can certainly be "un-made". It's being has no legal or moral justification. What would happen if the Methodists of the world claimed a state of their own in England and started pushing out people who already live there, murdering those who resisted them?
The whole concept of a religious "state" in a land belonging to someone else is false.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
No, its not a valid comparison. You cannot compare with the WWII, you need to learn to compare. I can compare, you cannot
senojekips
Active member
Denial alone, is the answer one gives when they have run out of facts and/or logic.
senojekips
Active member
That, is exactly what caused the problem,... people with thought processes like your grandma made arbitrary decisions without any consideration of the facts.
That is exactly the type of poorly informed decision that started this whole mess.
If that is the way she solves problems, she is obviously nowhere near as wise as you might imagine.
Last edited:
I would agree on that IF it is applied all over the world and not just one region, and IF all others agree. Have a look at the map below, and this is only a tiny part of the world. (Sorry that it is a big picture, the other was to small). Are you willing to send all those people back from where they came from?
The making of that law was part of the Palestine Mandate, which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.
ART. 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
another interesting law is this one, to demonstrate that the administration was not always jew/arab related.
ART. 21. The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nationals of all States Members of the League of Nations.
and this one, which stipulates the broad powers of the mandate.
ART. 24. The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.
Also, do not forget that the breakup of the Ottoman Empire resulted in about 40 new countries, including 22 Arab states. This means that millions of people got a new citizenship and countless new laws were issued.
My point SJ was that if the whole things a bloody mess and nobody can agree then the only workable solution is to deny the space to everyone.
Being the loudest or the most set in your viewpoint doesnt necessarily make you right.
Its always the most ignorant who shout their opinion loudest.
Being the loudest or the most set in your viewpoint doesnt necessarily make you right.
Its always the most ignorant who shout their opinion loudest.
senojekips
Active member
And the least informed who make the stupidest suggestions.
It's not even vaguely unworkable, it's just that no one can do anything constructive whilst the USA has the right of veto in the UN.