"The right to choose your own religion" - by my brother (1 Viewer)

[Martin]

thats very interesting, are you sure you want to stick with that kind of argument?

After much soul searching I'm gonna go with.. yes.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

thats very interesting, are you sure you want to stick with that kind of argument?

I actually agree with it.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

After much soul searching I'm gonna go with.. yes.

then you undermine the concept of legitimacy, if there cant be a legitimate reason to undertake and justify actions then no action is reprehensible since all reasons are equally legitimate. In other words you cant complain about anything ever

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Then tell the Palestinians to shut up.

 

[Martin]

then you undermine the concept of legitimacy, if there cant be a legitimate reason to undertake and justify actions then no action is reprehensible since all reasons are equally legitimate. In other words you cant complain about anything ever

No, I undermine the concept of "right" to land. There is no justification for land ownership other than "I saw it first" or more likely "I was stronger". Do you disagree?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

No, I undermine the concept of "right" to land. There is no justification for land ownership other than "I saw it first" or more likely "I was stronger". Do you disagree?

are we antiquity or modern times? coz if its the latter, israel bases its raison d'etre on a UN resolution, so legality is indeed a big deal.

 

[Enron]

then you undermine the concept of legitimacy, if there cant be a legitimate reason to undertake and justify actions then no action is reprehensible since all reasons are equally legitimate. In other words you cant complain about anything ever

Just cause everything is legitimate doesn't mean you can't complain about it. You live in America, you should know this.

 

[Martin]

are we antiquity or modern times? coz if its the latter, israel bases its raison d'etre on a UN resolution, so legality is indeed a big deal.

What fun. You ask me if I stand by what I said because you are about to bring doom. Then you say that you have and it follows from my position that nothing has meaning. You do not demonstrate this, merely announce it. And now you dodge the question and go to legalities.

I understand. Having a straight conversation where you actually demonstrably respond to the other person is so beneath you that you wouldn't do it, right?

 

[Fred]

This is void of logic. If someone has the "right" to claim a piece of land that currently belongs to noone, declaring himself ruler of the land to whose will all others must submit on that land, then anyone else has the "right" to take it from him by the same token.

If your logic is "I found it first therefore I deserve to have it", my logic is gonna be "I deserve to have it because I'm stronger than you". One is no more convincing than the other.

So by your logic, if the Palestinians take over Europe and call it Palestine and have Hamas rule the whole continent, hypothetically speaking, they wouldn't really have done much wrong.

Since we're at it, why not just go back to the middle ages, where stronger states conquer and occupy weaker states and create large empires.

Also going by your logic, if the French hadn't left North Africa or the British hadn't left India, they wouldn't have done anything wrong right?


I call bullshit. It was Palestinian territory under British mandate, it was promised to the Arabs if they helped Britain in the war, as soon as the war ended, the British decided to fuck the Palestinians over and hand it over to some Jews that had just migrated from Europe. Zionists are a bunch of thieves, and like i always say history has taught us that rarely does an occupation last forever.

 

[Enron]

So by your logic, if the Palestinians take over Europe and call it Palestine and have Hamas rule the whole continent, hypothetically speaking, they wouldn't really have done much wrong.

Since we're at it, why not just go back to the middle ages, where stronger states conquer and occupy weaker states and create large empires.

Also going by your logic, if the French hadn't left North Africa or the British hadn't left India, they wouldn't have done anything wrong right?


I call bullshit. It was Palestinian territory under British mandate, it was promised to the Arabs if they helped Britain in the war, as soon as the war ended, the British decided to fuck the Palestinians over and hand it over to some Jews that had just migrated from Europe. Zionists are a bunch of thieves, and like i always say history has taught us that rarely does an occupation last forever.

I don't think Martin is arguing right or wrong here. It's rather legitimacy of the claim on land. Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land that is Israel, as do the Israelis.

 

[Fred]

I don't think Martin is arguing right or wrong here. It's rather legitimacy of the claim on land. Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land that is Israel, as do the Israelis.

I know what Martin is arguing and i don't agree. If Italy was still occupying Libya to this day, would Italian citizens living on Libyan soil have an equal right to the land as Libyans?

thats some bullshit logic, we might as well let the British and French go back to colonizing the third world again, they'd certainly have the legitimate right to do so, if we listened to Martin.

 

[Martin]

So by your logic, if the Palestinians take over Europe and call it Palestine and have Hamas rule the whole continent, hypothetically speaking, they wouldn't really have done much wrong.

Since we're at it, why not just go back to the middle ages, where stronger states conquer and occupy weaker states and create large empires.

Also going by your logic, if the French hadn't left North Africa or the British hadn't left India, they wouldn't have done anything wrong right?


I call bullshit. It was Palestinian territory under British mandate, it was promised to the Arabs if they helped Britain in the war, as soon as the war ended, the British decided to fuck the Palestinians over and hand it over to some Jews that had just migrated from Europe. Zionists are a bunch of thieves, and like i always say history has taught us that rarely does an occupation last forever.

Dude, if the Palestinians had an agreement with the British, and that made their land ownership valid, then anyone else cutting a deal with the British for the same land has an equally valid claim, no?

 

[Enron]

I know what Martin is arguing and i don't agree. If Italy was still occupying Libya to this day, would Italian citizens living on Libyan soil have an equal right to the land as Libyans?

thats some bullshit logic, we might as well let the British and French go back to colonizing the third world again, they'd certainly have the legitimate right to do so, if we listened to Martin.

I live where I live because of that logic. Sure colonization isn't right, but if a long enough amount of time goes by and the general populous begins to look like that of the invader, it's difficult to say the invader has no claim to the land.

How many of today's national boundaries are because of this? Too many to count surely. Granted, that doesn't make it morally correct, but much of the world is not morally correct until enough time goes by that people forget who used to live where they do now.

 

[Martin]

I know what Martin is arguing and i don't agree. If Italy was still occupying Libya to this day, would Italian citizens living on Libyan soil have an equal right to the land as Libyans?

thats some bullshit logic, we might as well let the British and French go back to colonizing the third world again, they'd certainly have the legitimate right to do so, if we listened to Martin.

No, that's just hyperbole. Israel was a nation without a country. Britain and France are not.

 

[Fred]

Dude, if the Palestinians had an agreement with the British, and that made their land ownership valid, then anyone else cutting a deal with the British for the same land has an equally valid claim, no?

The Palestinians were living there. The British occupied their land, the British had no right to give the land to whoever they wanted to give it to, because it wasn't theirs in the first place to give.

I'll make it simple.

I stole your bike, the bike has been with me for a couple of months now, but now after facing a lot of pressure from people in the neighborhood, i decide that i can't keep it anymore. So i promise to give it back to you if you help me out with something. You agree to help me out, but when the time comes for me to give you your bike back, i double cross you and i give it to Aaron instead.

Does Aaron have a right to the bike??

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Just cause everything is legitimate doesn't mean you can't complain about it. You live in America, you should know this.

you can complain, but one cannot murk legitimate claim with the despotic and tyrannical

What fun. You ask me if I stand by what I said because you are about to bring doom. Then you say that you have and it follows from my position that nothing has meaning. You do not demonstrate this, merely announce it. And now you dodge the question and go to legalities.

I understand. Having a straight conversation where you actually demonstrably respond to the other person is so beneath you that you wouldn't do it, right?

i didnt bring gloom or doom i showed you the logical ramifications of your position, and it's all got to do with legal it is a legal question after all since we adhere to a legal system to settle disputes. As for the brevity, not to be confused with incompleteness, of my answers it is due to the fact that i am also working.

 

[Bjerknes]

The Chosen can have their decrepit "promised" land as long as they halt the siege on Gaza, stop building segregation walls, and stop expanding their territory into other Palestinian land. Take back the settlers, too.

 

[Fred]

I live where I live because of that logic. Sure colonization isn't right, but if a long enough amount of time goes by and the general populous begins to look like that of the invader, it's difficult to say the invader has no claim to the land.

How many of today's national boundaries are because of this? Too many to count surely. Granted, that doesn't make it morally correct, but much of the world is not morally correct until enough time goes by that people forget who used to live where they do now.

Yes, but that was centuries ago when the world was going by the logic "might is right" and strong peoples took over weaker peoples land all the time.

In the 20th century there was rules and regulations against this sort of thing, and nation's sovereignty was something that was protected by law.

So its not the same thing.

What the Europeans did to take over America from the Natives, is not acceptable right now, and would not be allowed if it were to happen right now.

No, that's just hyperbole. Israel was a nation without a country. Britain and France are not.

Ok then, Palestine is a nation without a country. If Hamas was strong enough to take over Poland, and it did that, would it be within its rights?

 

[Enron]

The Chosen can have their decrepit "promised" land as long as they halt the siege on Gaza, stop building segregation walls, and stop expanding their territory into other Palestinian land. Take back the settlers, too.

Or allow the settlers to be taxed by the Palestinian government. :eyebrows:

 

[Martin]

The Palestinians were living there. The British occupied their land, the British had no right to give the land to whoever they wanted to give it to, because it wasn't theirs in the first place to give.

I'll make it simple.

I stole your bike, the bike has been with me for a couple of months now, but now after facing a lot of pressure from people in the neighborhood, i decide that i can't keep it anymore. So i promise to give it back to you if you help me out with something. You agree to help me out, but when the time comes for me to give you your bike back, i double cross you and i give it to Aaron instead.

Does Aaron have a right to the bike??

You're missing the point. Here's a scenario for you.

It's 2200. Israel has long since conquered every bit of land that was once Palestine. Despite this, the nation of Palestine lives on, without a country. Through 200 years they have been able to maintain their national identity despite living in various countries around the world. They now turn to the UN, pleading that this piece of land where Israel now is "was promised to us by the holy lord ".

Now this may actually happen, it doesn't seem all that unlikely. And in your opinion the UN should tell them to gtfo, right?

Here's the key question. If I ask you in 2200: Does Palestine have the right to exist? What do you say?