Exactly this. Like what's going to be in his next post, "Liar, liar pants on fire." or "I know you are but what am I?" "Nah-nah nah-nah-nah." He simply must be right, at any cost. If that's his entire purpose in posting, there's obviously no point to any of it.
Israel , America or palestine is terriost ?
Exactly this. Like what's going to be in his next post, "Liar, liar pants on fire." or "I know you are but what am I?" "Nah-nah nah-nah-nah." He simply must be right, at any cost. If that's his entire purpose in posting, there's obviously no point to any of it.
senojekips
Active member
You'd better have another look at that, and a bit of a re-think before you answer again.
Your own answer contradicts itself. You admit to settlements in the West Bank then you say you have no settlements on Palestinian territory. You see,... this is how you back yourself into a corner when you lie all the time.
It can't share a border with Israel if it is, as you claim, Israeli territory.
Do you have a retarded chimp telling you all this crap, or is it all your own work?
Last edited:
what i ment is that this land is considered as an occupied territory by idiots like you, but i consider it as an israeli land which havent been annexed yet.
senojekips
Active member
It is occupied territory as defined under international Law,... end of story.
What you "think" means nothing. It can never be annexed and so long as Israel controls it, it will be regarded as Occupied territory. Your problem is, that you are talking about "what you think", I am talking about the Facts as defined by International Law.
Israel Law Resource Centre said:
Last edited:
You overlooked the Oslo accords. An accord can be valid or invalid. Israel is a sovereign country that can make accords with any other nation or group. So if the Oslo accords are are invalid it is because of the PA who is not authorised to make such accords because they do not have control over the subject (land).
If the Oslo accords are vallid (and they are!) then your above accusation is invalid.
senojekips
Active member
No they are not valid, as they can be shown (easily) to have been negotiated under duress. Accords do not overrule International law any more than a private agreement between individuals overrules the law of the land. It is a basic tenet of Common Law upon which all laws are formulated.
Last edited:
ScarabVenom
Active member
Man's words define his personality. You should know that the way you described those 2 countries is offensive.
Spike I have honestly lost track of this thread but I doubt the argument has progressed far from where it was a few pages ago. I know you feel extremely strongly about this subject - but at the same time you are talking about Cartmans country. Of course he will support it and calling him an fwit will do nothing to change it.
It wasnt so long ago that Europeans in Australia decided the locals were undesirables and did something about it. Israels methods are as humane as possible in comparison.
I think Monty is the most impartial commentor on this subject and his two state answer really is the only solution.
Anyway i just felt like putting in my two cents. No offense meant.
It wasnt so long ago that Europeans in Australia decided the locals were undesirables and did something about it. Israels methods are as humane as possible in comparison.
I think Monty is the most impartial commentor on this subject and his two state answer really is the only solution.
Anyway i just felt like putting in my two cents. No offense meant.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
That I appear the impartial one in this discussion alone should scare you but the reality is that I am far closer to agreeing with Spike than anyone else my preference for the two state option is solely a pragmatic one and in no way does justice to the Palestinians.
As for Cartman's country well it seems even VD has conceded that it is Muslim land and I am prepared to bet that A) Cartmans only connection to the region is a religious one and B) That he is probably entitled to a passport from else where and further to this his comments about the annexing of land are precisely the reason peace has not been achieved fortunately it is that attitude that is leading to people realising the real problems in the region.
senojekips
Active member
The fact remains that Cartman (and others) support a Nazi inspired regime, a fact that is admitted and alluded to by Holocaust survivors.
I treat him just as I would have treated supporters of Nuremburg laws in pre WWII Nazi Germany. It is because there were not enough people who knew about it, or were willing to speak up, that these laws ended up seeing over 6 million Jews murdered in the death camps*. OK so the Israelis haven't gone that far yet, but they are certainly not giving up their Lebensraum policies that are the cause of 99% of all Islamic Global Terror we see today You really need to do some historical research, and take a serious look at the matter.
As for Australia's record, other than trying to right the wrongs, neither I nor any one else can do anything about the past, but it might pay you to remember that it was first made a capital offence to murder blacks in Australia in 1832. The first men were hung in 1838 for the Myall Creek massacre.
Other than the fact that all of this took place 180 years ago and our laws and policies have changed since then, there is no comparison between what a supposedly modern nation has been doing for the last 64 years and what went on here over 150 years ago.
If you can't see that, I'm wasting my time with you, as you are not prepared to base your feelings on the facts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*A fact that World Jewry have never let us forget, and here we see them doing much the same thing, and again people like yourself can't be bothered doing a single thing to make the perpetrators aware that we do know what is going on, and that it is not going to be forgotten.
Last edited:
You both misunderstand me. My post was in no way about right or wrong, it was simply that to move forward we often must try to ignore the past, or at least approach past events in a legal way.
A two state solution moving forward is the best hope for the region.
Spike I am aware your events happened a long time ago - as did ours. I dont know what your point in pointing that out is though, were people less human then? Were their decisions somehow less consciously made or were they left with no choice?
There is no need to start questioning my intelligence as you very quickly do with others. If you can present facts in a logical unemotional way then I am only too happy to read and evaluate them in my mind.
A two state solution moving forward is the best hope for the region.
Spike I am aware your events happened a long time ago - as did ours. I dont know what your point in pointing that out is though, were people less human then? Were their decisions somehow less consciously made or were they left with no choice?
There is no need to start questioning my intelligence as you very quickly do with others. If you can present facts in a logical unemotional way then I am only too happy to read and evaluate them in my mind.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think the difference between then and now is that 200+ years ago colonialism was an exercise in racial superiority and while it was never the plan to create problems for indigenous people it was believed that the "Christian/Western/White" way of life and culture was what everyone wanted and as such it was simply transplanted over existing cultures.
Now we have yet another European colonisation process going on in Palestine and we still have our daily dose of VD telling us that "it is best for a region that was basically unused, look at how productive the land is" and we have the likes of Cartman who are merrily claiming racial superiority justifies what they are doing ironic given that 70 years ago his own people had to rescued from a nation claiming exactly the same thing.
senojekips
Active member
The point being that none of what happened back then was "illegal". In fact, colonisation was the great buzzword of the time, and much of what transpired was considered by the colonisers to be what was best for all concerned. We now have the advantage of nearly 200 years of hindsite and fortunately we have (slowly) learned a few things,... and Laws have been put in place such that it should never happen again, yet here we are 200 years later, sitting idly by, whilst the modern day equivalent takes place in violation of nearly every law in the book, both legal and moral.
Other than the above, this exercise in absolute bastardry has dragged most of the Western world into ongoing Global Terrorism which is costing Trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of our young men and women's lives. All to support a rogue state that in any other circumstance we would have invaded and pacified.
I question the intelligence of anyone who would be either so ignorant of the facts, or just plain arrogant, as to not see what is going on about them for whatever reason. Sixty years ago our forefathers saved what was left of European Jewry, now we look like condemning our children and grandchildren to a world of terror merely because we were to bloody apathetic to stop those very same people from visiting the policies of the Nazis on another thoroughly undeserving people.
Israel is no more than a Zionist Lebensraum, and the Israelis are using the same policies and means to achieve it.
Last edited:
Whitewashing what happened with the term 'colonialism', is every bit as blind to the reality as Cartman turning a blind eye to the 'true' goings on in Israel.
Colonialism was the excuse but doesnt justify the reasoning or the methodology- as prominent historical sources noted.
Oh please- not illegal Spike? I didnt intend on getting dragged into this argument but what happened in australia and new zealand to a lesser extent was illegal, unethical and overall immoral by european standards of the time. It is nothing more then shameful and yet both our nations flat out refuse to acknowledge it. (Insert insult to your mental capacity for hypocricy of your choice here).
Just because it happened recently doesnt make the situation any different.
Colonialism was the excuse but doesnt justify the reasoning or the methodology- as prominent historical sources noted.
Oh please- not illegal Spike? I didnt intend on getting dragged into this argument but what happened in australia and new zealand to a lesser extent was illegal, unethical and overall immoral by european standards of the time. It is nothing more then shameful and yet both our nations flat out refuse to acknowledge it. (Insert insult to your mental capacity for hypocricy of your choice here).
Just because it happened recently doesnt make the situation any different.
senojekips
Active member
"Oh Please-,".... You don't want to understand do you?, and you wonder why I tend to get short with idiots like Cartman.
How the fcuk do you think I can affect, or be held responsible for what happened 150 years before my birth? Or even less, change the accepted meaning of the term "Colonialism". Especially seeing that I don't agree with what happened anyway. On the other hand think how lucky our native people were to be colonised by the Brits, just have a look at what happened in places colonised by the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and more recently the Indonesians, as colonisers the Brits were comparatively civilised. Had it not been the Brits, do you honestly think that no one else would have moved in?
If you can find me any reference anywhere stating that there were laws in place to make colonisation illegal at that time please do so, but in the meantime consider yourself lumped in with the other idiots. In fact I defy you to find any credible reference stating that colonisation was even considered "immoral" at the time, as virtually every noted maritime nation was doing it.
I can certainly find an internationally recognised conventions, that in the eyes of our forefathers made it both legal and acceptable at that time, read up on Terra Nullius (Terra nullius (
Oh,.. is that correct? I fully realise you don't have a clue on this subject and that you are just making this up as you go along, but if you care to Google some info you will find that Australia has not only acknowledged it, but we have written this acknowledgement into Federal law 20 years ago, although it's legal status was very shaky back as far as 1827.
Tell the truth, you are just p!ssed off at the fact that I won't suffer thugs, liars and idiots gladly, as you present no credible sources for what you say and are just trying to divert the debate into side issues having absolutely no bearing on the debate, your ridiculous statement above being a prime example.^^^^
Last edited:
"Oh Please-,".... You don't want to understand do you?, and you wonder why I tend to get short with idiots like Cartman.
How the fcuk do you think I can affect, or be held responsible for what happened 150 years before my birth? Or even less, change the accepted meaning of the term "Colonialism". Especially seeing that I don't agree with what happened anyway. On the other hand think how lucky our native people were to be colonised by the Brits, just have a look at what happened in places colonised by the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and more recently the Indonesians, as colonisers the Brits were comparatively civilised. Had it not been the Brits, do you honestly think that no one else would have moved in?
If you can find me any reference anywhere stating that there were laws in place to make colonisation illegal at that time please do so, but in the meantime consider yourself lumped in with the other idiots. In fact I defy you to find any credible reference stating that colonisation was even considered "immoral" at the time, as virtually every noted maritime nation was doing it.
I can certainly find an internationally recognised conventions, that in the eyes of our forefathers made it both legal and acceptable at that time, read up on Terra Nullius (Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",) and it's interpretation at that time. - This has since been overturned in Australia and a number of other places.
Oh,.. is that correct? I fully realise you don't have a clue on this subject and that you are just making this up as you go along, but if you care to Google some info you will find that Australia has not only acknowledged it, but we have written this acknowledgement into Federal law 20 years ago, although it's legal status was very shaky back as far as 1827.
Tell the truth, you are just p!ssed off at the fact that I won't suffer thugs, liars and idiots gladly, as you present no credible sources for what you say and are just trying to divert the debate into side issues having absolutely no bearing on the debate, your ridiculous statement above being a prime example.^^^^
its interesting how you call him idiot so fast just because he doesnt think like you or got his facts a little wrong. you can keep thinking how our soldiers shoot innocent civilians and farmers and butchering children just for fun, and why dont you add rape palestinain goats, stealing their food, poisoning their water, pissing in their houses, crapping on their wives all while they are cutting gaza out of the continnent and driving them into the sea. the only thing ive learned about you from all your posts is that the palestinians piss on you, and you call it rain.
ive grown tired of arguing with you and your friends, you are just a bunch of righteous, hypocrites whiners. im sorry VDKMS or any other that stood by israel side in this post or any other, its seriously annoying to keep arguing about the same things over and over again.
spike, if you ever come to israel, i would be happy to show you how amazingly nice your palestinians are.
take care, i wont be entering this pointless discussions any time soon.
senojekips
Active member
I don't add that, because I don't have to, anyone who cares to look on YouTube can see the video evidence for themselves.
I'll bet that once they knew my views they would probably offer me the best hospitality they could afford, and once they new who you were, they might kick your arse and send you home with a bloody nose,... and I'd gladly cheer them on.
Last edited:
Spike,
What am I supposed to be understanding? I understand that after WW2 the Jews had a haven created for them and that since then as their population has grown they have occupied more land. It's the same old story that's repeated itself a hundred times before in a hundred different places.
Saying they are nazis is ridiculous as any people could be shown to have undertaken aggressive expansion when need be. When a demographic in society grows there is no problems, but add race and religion and suddenly its a powder keg. I would say the Israelis have made an effort to minimize civilian casualties all along the way while living beside people who would kill them given the choice.
You describe Aboriginals as 'Lucky'. That means you are rationalizing what happened in a way which makes it compatible with your image of your ancestors and justifies their actions. We have seen these thought processes exactly on the other side of this argument.
The fact is that while colonialism was encouraged, it was always intended to be in a way which worked in with the indigenous people to everyone's mutual benefit. Instead they were steamrolled when they refused to move and cut off from their food supplies. In some cases what happened amounts to extermination. Find me the justification for that.
As always happens the history books up until recently took a very eurocentric view which glossed over the more regrettable details, however people definitely recorded it at the time if you make the effort to look. Hell I have seen documentaries made about whites rounding up whole tribes of Aborigines about which the people who reported it clearly showed a moral compass which saw these happenings as illegal and unethical. A quick google search would probably find me multiple sources on this.
Try discussing early colonization in public - the average person knows next to nothing about the truth and care very little to know more. They hide behind jokes and racism to justify their forebears actions - I hear an echo of it in how you claim the aboriginals were 'lucky' to be colonized by the British. I totally reject that it has been acknowledged by society as fact.
This isn't the subject of the debate, though it is relevant to the debate, as any history is relevant to current events. Just as you defend it when it is Australia, Cartman will defend Israel. There really isn't any point in you continuing to say the same things more and more aggressively.
Here we have an example of just another regrettable part of human existence. I think the Palestinians are destined to be pushed out and hopefully they can find refuge in other middle eastern countries. The only hope for them is to legitimize their country and borders through some kind of two state agreement. Unfortunately that was tried here once upon a time and failed as well.
There, I think I have responded to everything.
What am I supposed to be understanding? I understand that after WW2 the Jews had a haven created for them and that since then as their population has grown they have occupied more land. It's the same old story that's repeated itself a hundred times before in a hundred different places.
Saying they are nazis is ridiculous as any people could be shown to have undertaken aggressive expansion when need be. When a demographic in society grows there is no problems, but add race and religion and suddenly its a powder keg. I would say the Israelis have made an effort to minimize civilian casualties all along the way while living beside people who would kill them given the choice.
You describe Aboriginals as 'Lucky'. That means you are rationalizing what happened in a way which makes it compatible with your image of your ancestors and justifies their actions. We have seen these thought processes exactly on the other side of this argument.
The fact is that while colonialism was encouraged, it was always intended to be in a way which worked in with the indigenous people to everyone's mutual benefit. Instead they were steamrolled when they refused to move and cut off from their food supplies. In some cases what happened amounts to extermination. Find me the justification for that.
As always happens the history books up until recently took a very eurocentric view which glossed over the more regrettable details, however people definitely recorded it at the time if you make the effort to look. Hell I have seen documentaries made about whites rounding up whole tribes of Aborigines about which the people who reported it clearly showed a moral compass which saw these happenings as illegal and unethical. A quick google search would probably find me multiple sources on this.
Try discussing early colonization in public - the average person knows next to nothing about the truth and care very little to know more. They hide behind jokes and racism to justify their forebears actions - I hear an echo of it in how you claim the aboriginals were 'lucky' to be colonized by the British. I totally reject that it has been acknowledged by society as fact.
This isn't the subject of the debate, though it is relevant to the debate, as any history is relevant to current events. Just as you defend it when it is Australia, Cartman will defend Israel. There really isn't any point in you continuing to say the same things more and more aggressively.
Here we have an example of just another regrettable part of human existence. I think the Palestinians are destined to be pushed out and hopefully they can find refuge in other middle eastern countries. The only hope for them is to legitimize their country and borders through some kind of two state agreement. Unfortunately that was tried here once upon a time and failed as well.
There, I think I have responded to everything.
senojekips
Active member
I thought that the answer to that would have been pretty obvious, Every time I answer your previous post you come back with some side issue completely disregarding the answer I gave. This question above being a typical example.
They had a safe haven, the Allies ensured that by defeating the Germans, they all owned land and homes in Europe and there was no reason why they could not have returned to them as the Bogey man was gone. But no, instead they chose to go and occupy the homeland of another people, a people who were willing to fight them far more than any remaining group in Europe. Logic alone tells us that this was not a well thought decision and that it was in fact based on the Jewish myth that their god had promised them this land 2000 odd years ago. Hardly a legitimate reason to steal the land of another people and harass, beat and murder those who resisted.
Not at all ridiculous, in fact many Jews including holocaust survivors agree with me. So, based on your thoughts, should Australia ever outgrow it's resources we should just take over NZ and push you all out onto places where you are not wanted as you are deemed to be "destined to be pushed out". I know you'll have some stupid answer, as you jump from lie to lie, like a cat on hot coals.
.(deleted)
.(deleted)
. (deleted)..... Whoa,... I just read your last paragraph again.
Destined?.... And I must say that in view of your previous comments about how evil Australian's were for mistreating our Aboriginals in the long distant past, for you to turn around and say this off the cuff as if it is of no consequence, all I can say is that the absolute stupidity of your reply must have temporarily paralysed my thought processes. Had I seen this earlier and had it registered, I would never have bothered even answering this post. Especially after the stupidity of your previous post where you so ably demonstrated you complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
So,... I think that I've had quite enough of your Trolling, y'know what they say,... "Never attempt to reason with an idiot as they merely reduce the debate to their own level and then beat you with their experience"
Bye bye,....
Last edited:
You forget that the accords were drafted by a bunch of international lawyers on both sides. The accords also stipulate that the PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Confirmed in a letter from Arafat to Rabin.
Are you saying that the acceptance of UNC resolutions is not valid????
Or the relinquishing of llegally occupied land by Israel to the PLO. I guess that's not valid either????
No international rules were violated and the accords were not made under duress. That's something you made up. Or are you accusing Norwegian Foreign Minister Johan Jorgen Holst (who also got a writing from Arafat about the acceptance) of pressure upon the PLO?
BTW, UNC resolution 242 talks about a negotiated border. Just to let you know.
Muslim land (according to Islam) is all the land once conquered by muslim armies. I never said they are right, because there is no such thing as muslim land in my point of view. Just as there is no Christian or Hindoe or whatever religion land. I have stated from in the beginning that land belongs to a state and to people who have the ownership of it.
Muslim land is just a religious meaning about land and that's what they are fighting for. Did you already read the Hamas covenant? It's written into it.
BTW Israel is not annexing land but occupies it legally because of a defensive war.
The PA is closer to a Nazi regime than Israel is. The killing of a Jew is not a capital offence, worse, the PA are encouraging it. They even get paid more for being in a Israeli prison for murdering Jews than the hardworking Palestinians. Who's the Nazi here?
-----------------------------
Jews immigrating in the Ottoman Empire : legal
Jews immigrating in th Palestinian Mandate : legal
Founding of Israel : legal
Jews expelled from Arab countries : illegal
Expelled Jews immigrating in Israel : legal
Israel occupying enemy territory after defensive war : legal
Oslo accords : legal
Giving the Palestinians their first ever responsibility over their own people : legal
Firing rockets at civilian towns : war crime
Retaliation because of attack : legal