Lars Vilks gets the muslim free speech treatment [Archive]

markabilly

12th May 2010, 01:59

The Religion did not attack him, surely that was people. Just because they 'claim' to act in the name of that religion.

And why is it so surprising that a man, who set out to provoke the kind of people who would be provoked by what he did, succeeded in provoking them.

All this proves is that people are predictable.
yeah just like the beleivers in Nazism did not attack jews or other minorities. Yeah, right.
No it proves that there are many elements in the moslem faith, both as to its leaders as well as to its principles, that make it no different than other so called faiths that seek to impose their will on others through whatever means necessary and are far more hypocrtical than those good ole fashion Baptists......

yeah, overall more like good old fashion nazis

Too bad the little jerks can not gather together as the great rev jimmie jones did with his flock, and serve them all, a good cold glass of kool aid with that little special herb......

meanwhile anybody got a lead on a good dog lawyer?

Mark in Oshawa

12th May 2010, 05:07

Not all Muslims would assault a man like this, but enough evidently do take insult over the most innocent of "insults" to Islam. When I see the abuse Catholics, Christians and Jew's take from modern media, it just proves how shallow and venal people are when they know the religion actually is civilized. Let them take a run at Islam the way they make jokes about the Catholic priests or Rabbi's being whatever.....

Eki

12th May 2010, 06:15

Bob Riebe

12th May 2010, 06:21

People from other religions are not that tolerant of free speech either. Recently the biggest newspaper in Finland published a cartoon that had a nazi-soldier buying soap. The soap wrapper said "free range Jew soap". It caused such an outrage that the cartoonist had to apologize and the newspaper removed the cartoon from their website.
That is analogous to what happened to the person physically attacked how?

Physical violence verses indignant letters are not even close to the same except to liberals.

ShiftingGears

12th May 2010, 09:59

You have to be freaking retarded to get violent over something as stupid as that. Either that or on an ice trip.
However I am guessing this person was the former.

Mark in Oshawa

12th May 2010, 19:53

People from other religions are not that tolerant of free speech either. Recently the biggest newspaper in Finland published a cartoon that had a nazi-soldier buying soap. The soap wrapper said "free range Jew soap". It caused such an outrage that the cartoonist had to apologize and the newspaper removed the cartoon from their website.

Jews write letters to the editors, Muslims threaten and murder the offenders. Just figured you should pay attention to the difference...you and your moral equivalency theory being proved wrong again...

Eki

12th May 2010, 19:57

Jews write letters to the editors, Muslims threaten and murder the offenders. Just figured you should pay attention to the difference...you and your moral equivalency theory being proved wrong again...
I wish the Jews would write letters to the editors in Gaza and Lebanon instead of what they've been doing. They aren't as peaceful as you like to believe.

Mark in Oshawa

12th May 2010, 20:02

I wish the Jews would write letters to the editors in Gaza and Lebanon instead of what they've been doing. They aren't as peaceful as you like to believe.

You calling all Jews racist killers Eki? I believe you just did.

I guess in Gaza and Lebanon, the Arab Palestinians are just all peaceful right????????????? Eki...you are an insult to rational thought.
\
Basically, you lost the last argument, so you divert the topic...

Eki

12th May 2010, 20:18

You calling all Jews racist killers Eki? I believe you just did.

No, just the ones in Israel, at least a lot of them. BTW, according to similar "logic", you called all Muslims violent lunatics.

Mark in Oshawa

12th May 2010, 21:00

No, just the ones in Israel, at least a lot of them. BTW, according to similar "logic", you called all Muslims violent lunatics.

No I was very clear to point out that RADICAL Islam are violent lunatics....and I am still waiting for the radical Jew's to mow down a Imam in New York or any other place outside of Israel for posting a cartoon they didn't agree with.

At least the Isreali's go after people launching weaponry at them, for radical Islam to make you a target, all you need to do is make a cartoon of Allah....because even if you are complimentry to Islam, you are an infidel who "mocked" Mohammed and you can be killed.

Eki

12th May 2010, 21:11

At least the Isreali's go after people launching weaponry at them,
Not just them, but also the innocent civilians nearby, international military observers, charity organizations and anyone else who happens to be in the neighborhood.

According to similar logic, at least Hamas and Hezbollah go after people launching weaponry at them.

Rani

12th May 2010, 21:19

No, just the ones in Israel, at least a lot of them.
As a wise man said (and still does):
"I look forward to killing you soon."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_a_Ninja

*This is a joke, I don't actually want to kill eki. I am not a killer nor a ninja. Am an Israeli though.

Mark in Oshawa

12th May 2010, 21:54

Not just them, but also the innocent civilians nearby, international military observers, charity organizations and anyone else who happens to be in the neighborhood.

According to similar logic, at least Hamas and Hezbollah go after people launching weaponry at them.
Sure Eki, so rationalize how strapping bombs on a mentally disabled teen and telling her she will be going to a better place if she blows herself up in a checkpoint full of Israeli soldiers is logical?

See you don't want your argument's countered with reality or facts do you?

Last I looked, Israeli's were not asked to donate a teen to the cause of a suicide....

Eki

12th May 2010, 22:04

Sure Eki, so rationalize how strapping bombs on a mentally disabled teen and telling her she will be going to a better place if she blows herself up in a checkpoint full of Israeli soldiers is logical?

See you don't want your argument's countered with reality or facts do you?

Last I looked, Israeli's were not asked to donate a teen to the cause of a suicide....
Look again. Israel Defense Forces conscript 18 year olds. They are still teens, aren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces

Rani

12th May 2010, 22:43

Look again. Israel Defense Forces conscript 18 year olds. They are still teens, aren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces

You seem to have gotten things a bit mixed up. I'll try and explain it to you in a way you could relate to:

Conscripting to the army is like when you went to Niinisalo and fired a 122H63 cannon. That is being a soldier.

Suicide (as in the way Mark was talking about) is what you'd be doing if you were to climb into the barrel of the cannon (I know 122 mm is pretty tight but go along) with the other seven crewmen (and preferably some young children as well) unwillingly tagged along.
After everybody is snug inside you'd be asking someone to fire a shell.
If you were good at suicide bombing, you'd be kicking all the soldiers out and making more room for children and other innocent people in the barrel.

That is suicide bombing.

Do you see the subtle difference now?

Mark in Oshawa

12th May 2010, 22:44

Look again. Israel Defense Forces conscript 18 year olds. They are still teens, aren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces

It isn't the same, and you just are trying to hide the fact you are wrong. It is ok Eki, we are used to you being wrong...

Eki

13th May 2010, 07:37

You seem to have gotten things a bit mixed up. I'll try and explain it to you in a way you could relate to:

Conscripting to the army is like when you went to Niinisalo and fired a 122H63 cannon. That is being a soldier.

Suicide (as in the way Mark was talking about) is what you'd be doing if you were to climb into the barrel of the cannon (I know 122 mm is pretty tight but go along) with the other seven crewmen (and preferably some young children as well) unwillingly tagged along.
After everybody is snug inside you'd be asking someone to fire a shell.
If you were good at suicide bombing, you'd be kicking all the soldiers out and making more room for children and other innocent people in the barrel.

That is suicide bombing.

Do you see the subtle difference now?
We are lucky we have some advanced technology now. In the Winter War, our soldiers destroyed Soviet tanks by Molotov Cocktails and satchel charges they placed on the decks of tanks and tried to take cover before they exploded. Sometimes they stopped the tanks by throwing logs or iron bars into their tracks. Many of them died. You could call them suicide bombers.

For those who don't know what a satchel charge is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satchel_charge

Iceman778

13th May 2010, 11:25

may be but you should say is it possible

Mark in Oshawa

13th May 2010, 15:57

We are lucky we have some advanced technology now. In the Winter War, our soldiers destroyed Soviet tanks by Molotov Cocktails and satchel charges they placed on the decks of tanks and tried to take cover before they exploded. Sometimes they stopped the tanks by throwing logs or iron bars into their tracks. Many of them died. You could call them suicide bombers.

For those who don't know what a satchel charge is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satchel_charge

Eki...they did so knowing the risks. The brave heros of Palestine love putting bombs on mentally challenged kids and convincing them this is a good thing. Again, you have a problem staying on topic.

Eki

13th May 2010, 16:33

Eki...they did so knowing the risks. The brave heros of Palestine love putting bombs on mentally challenged kids and convincing them this is a good thing. Again, you have a problem staying on topic.
Come on. If they've put a bomb on a mentally challenged kid once, you think they do it constantly and love doing it. I'm sure most of the suicide bombers know what they're doing. Many of them seem to be widows trying to revenge the death of their husbands.

Iceman778

13th May 2010, 16:36

thanks for this link its really good

Mark in Oshawa

13th May 2010, 16:39

Come on. If they've put a bomb on a mentally challenged kid once, you think they do it constantly and love doing it. I'm sure most of the suicide bombers know what they're doing. Many of them seem to be widows trying to revenge the death of their husbands.
No..the widows don't. The fact is Eki that there was a few kids that were sent in by their PARENTS to be martyr's. I also find it funny how you can hate the Isreali's for defending their nation but see nothing wrong with the Finn's defending themselves against the Russians in the Winter War. I guess it always comes back to whose ox is being gored eh?

Eki

13th May 2010, 16:56

No..the widows don't. The fact is Eki that there was a few kids that were sent in by their PARENTS to be martyr's. I also find it funny how you can hate the Isreali's for defending their nation but see nothing wrong with the Finn's defending themselves against the Russians in the Winter War. I guess it always comes back to whose ox is being gored eh?
It's funny how you can hate the Palestinians for defending their homeland but see nothing wrong when Jewish colonialists from Europe and North America have robbed it from them and try to rob more.

Mark in Oshawa

13th May 2010, 17:12

It's funny how you can hate the Palestinians for defending their homeland but see nothing wrong when Jewish colonialists from Europe and North America have robbed it from them and try to rob more.

I don't HATE the Palestinians. What I hate is this fiction they are the 100% total innocents in any of this. The bald, cold truth is Arab's live as CITIZENS in Israel. They are PALESTINIANS who didn't succumb to the HATE of the Arab world who told all those people in Gaza and the West Bank to NOT go in with Isreal, that THEIR armies would wipe the Jews off the face of the map. That was 1947....and we saw how well that worked.

The reality is, and you wont acknowledge it is the Jew's have as much right o be in Israel as the Arabs, and THEY will admit they have no problem getting a long in peace with Arab nations, and will trade with them, but they will NOT accept having their markets as bomb targets, their town's showered with rockets and having people figure they are something to be wiped out. Israel has the military muscle to push all the Palestinians off Gaza, and the West Bank, and hasn't done so. They told the Palestinian authority they would with draw from Gaza ENTIRELY...including their settlers, in exchange to live in a peaceful co-existence. It wasn't one WEEK after the Israeli Army pulled out that Hamas was lobbing rockets across the border.......so there is your peaceful, innocent Palestinians creating a problem for themselves. What part of "we will leave you alone if you leave us alone" did they not understand?

Hamas has no interest in peace....never has, and neither has Hezbollah. The reality is, a democracy with values, human rights for women and the rule of law isn't good in a the Arab midst because at some point, some clever Arab will figure out that it is his owner leadership that has sold him a bill of goods. Israel has the worst land in the area, and has made the most modern and progressive society. So for you to knock THEM for that is just childish, stupid, and naive...

chuck34

13th May 2010, 17:54

It's funny how you can hate the Palestinians for defending their homeland ...

When was the last time there was a nation called Palestine?

Easy Drifter

13th May 2010, 18:29

Eki has, of course and as usual, gone completely off topic to mount one of his favourite hobby horses. His hatred of the Israeli nation and people. :(

Bob Riebe

13th May 2010, 18:37

It's funny how you can hate the Palestinians for defending their homeland but see nothing wrong when Jewish colonialists from Europe and North America have robbed it from them and try to rob more.
WHat about the "palestinians" home-land in Jordan off of which they were all removed.
Why don't they fight for that, they are as banished from that as they are from the Israeli part.
Please explain your hypocrisy.

Eki

13th May 2010, 19:25

When was the last time there was a nation called Palestine?
There can be homelands without independent nations. When was the last time there was a nation called Apache, Cheynne, Tibet, Kurdistan, etc.? Even Australian aboriginals had a homeland before Europeans came, although Australian of European origin considered them part of the flora and fauna until 1960s. Palestine was before Israel. And there are still Palestinians living in the land that used to be called Palestine before American and European Jews came.

Eki

13th May 2010, 19:31

WHat about the "palestinians" home-land in Jordan off of which they were all removed.
Why don't they fight for that, they are as banished from that as they are from the Israeli part.
Please explain your hypocrisy.
Ask them, because I don't know. Actually I don't even know what you're talking about. There are lots of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and as far as I know, Jordan has never been their homeland, they've been just refugees there.

markabilly

13th May 2010, 20:13

Eki has, of course and as usual, gone completely off topic to mount one of his favourite hobby horses. His hatred of the Israeli nation and people. :(
and none of the folk involved were even Jewish or Israeli supporters

in memory of Theo van Gogh

http://bibleprobe.com/muhammed-cartoon6.jpg

http://bibleprobe.com/muhammed-cartoon14.jpg

YES Sir, them there two good reasons to go kill somebody.....

markabilly

13th May 2010, 20:21

And one just for eki, standing up...or more like sticking his neck out...

http://bibleprobe.com/radical-islam.gif

Bob Riebe

13th May 2010, 20:44

Ask them, because I don't know. Actually I don't even know what you're talking about. There are lots of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and as far as I know, Jordan has never been their homeland, they've been just refugees there.

Good Lord boy, get an education, you DO not know much period.

http://palestinefacts.org/images/map_mandate_overview.jpg

Eki

13th May 2010, 21:03

Good Lord boy, get an education, you DO not know much period.

http://palestinefacts.org/images/map_mandate_overview.jpg
I've got an education, thank you. Palestine just wasn't one of the subjects, it was more about control and measurement engineering.

Your map looks weird. Or not impartial anyway, it says something funny like "The Jewish National Home". What the f*** is that? There's never been a country called "The Jewish National Home". Where are the "Muslim National Home" and the "Christian National Home"?

chuck34

13th May 2010, 21:09

There can be homelands without independent nations. When was the last time there was a nation called Apache, Cheynne, Tibet, Kurdistan, etc.? Even Australian aboriginals had a homeland before Europeans came, although Australian of European origin considered them part of the flora and fauna until 1960s. Palestine was before Israel. And there are still Palestinians living in the land that used to be called Palestine before American and European Jews came.

Good Lord Eki. How many times do we have to go over this? Was the land comprising current Israel a nation called Palestine prior to 1948? When was the last time that land was a nation called Palestine? Prior to 1948 were there no Jews living in that land?

Why exactly do you believe that the "Palestinians" have a more legitimate claim to that land than the Jews?

Eki

13th May 2010, 21:19

Why exactly do you believe that the "Palestinians" have a more legitimate claim to that land than the Jews?
They lived there. They didn't move there from Europe and America like most of the Jews in Israel.

It's funny that Bob doesn't seem to like immigrants who move to the US, but he sees nothing wrong in that the land of the Palestinians was overwhelmed by immigrants. Most of the Jews in Israel are 1st to 3rd generation immigrants.

chuck34

13th May 2010, 21:40

They lived there. They didn't move there from Europe and America like most of the Jews in Israel.

It's funny that Bob doesn't seem to like immigrants who move to the US, but he sees nothing wrong in that the land of the Palestinians was overwhelmed by immigrants. Most of the Jews in Israel are 1st to 3rd generation immigrants.

It's funny that you don't seem to like Jews legally immigrating to Israel, but see nothing wrong with illegal immigration into the US.

Rani

13th May 2010, 23:20

They lived there. They didn't move there from Europe and America like most of the Jews in Israel.

It's funny that Bob doesn't seem to like immigrants who move to the US, but he sees nothing wrong in that the land of the Palestinians was overwhelmed by immigrants. Most of the Jews in Israel are 1st to 3rd generation immigrants.
Eki I would like to remind you of the fact that evidence states my fore fathers (these guys - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) lived in this land about 2000 years before The Prophet Muhammad (That would be him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) was born and about 1350 before Jesus was.

Bob Riebe

14th May 2010, 00:22

Good Lord Eki. How many times do we have to go over this? Was the land comprising current Israel a nation called Palestine prior to 1948? When was the last time that land was a nation called Palestine? Prior to 1948 were there no Jews living in that land?

Why exactly do you believe that the "Palestinians" have a more legitimate claim to that land than the Jews?
Actually the people who used the term Palestine as there no such thing as the country of, palestine were the British, there is was no such thing as palestine, it was simply a part of the Ottoman Empire, before the Brits did that.
It is odd as how the King of Jordan told the so called "palestinians", who by the way was Yassar Arafat's group, there was no official palestinian people infrastructure before he made one, to get out and stay out, whilst controlling the majority of "palestine" but "palestinians" only bitch about the small part the Jews have.
Hypocritical little **** aren't they.

Bob Riebe

14th May 2010, 00:38

I've got an education, thank you. Palestine just wasn't one of the subjects, it was more about control and measurement engineering.

Your map looks weird. Or not impartial anyway, it says something funny like "The Jewish National Home". What the f*** is that? There's never been a country called "The Jewish National Home". Where are the "Muslim National Home" and the "Christian National Home"?
Educate your self as to the history of the Jews and others in this semitic region before you embarrass your self more.

chuck34

14th May 2010, 00:46

Actually the people who used the term Palestine as there no such thing as the country of, palestine were the British, there is was no such thing as palestine, it was simply a part of the Ottoman Empire, before the Brits did that.
It is odd as how the King of Jordan told the so called "palestinians", who by the way was Yassar Arafat's group, there was no official palestinian people infrastructure before he made one, to get out and stay out, whilst controlling the majority of "palestine" but "palestinians" only bitch about the small part the Jews have.
Hypocritical little **** aren't they.

It seems that it doesn't matter how many times we go over the history of the region, Eki will keep on insisting that the Palis are the only people with any claim to that region, and that the Jews are some sort of invaders

Easy Drifter

14th May 2010, 01:40

I am sure you have all noticed how Eki supports the UN and their Resolutions when they are anti Israel or anti NATO/US.
However if their Resolutions or other actions, such as the creation of Israel, do not suit his purposes the UN is either ignored or condemed.
I sometimes wonder if Eki would deny the Holocaust.

14th May 2010, 05:56

Zstar Electronic Co.Ltd, Sell fire cards for DS/NDSL/NDSi, also have Wii, DSiLL, NDSi, NDSL, PSP2000, PSP3000, PS2, PS3, PSP go, PSP, Xbox360 accessories, all kinds of phones are available
http://www.zstar.hk
http://www.tigersupermall.com

Eki

14th May 2010, 06:00

Eki I would like to remind you of the fact that evidence states my fore fathers (these guys - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) lived in this land about 2000 years before The Prophet Muhammad (That would be him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) was born and about 1350 before Jesus was.
Yes, but they left and were away for hundreds of years. It's much too late for their descendants to claim the land is theirs. Just like it's too late for the Americans claim back the lands in Europe and elsewhere that their ancestors left hundreds of years ago.

Bob Riebe

14th May 2010, 06:04

Yes, but they left and were away for hundreds of years. It's much too late for their descendants to claim the land is theirs.
The Brits, who got it when the Turks were defeated in war gave the Jews back their historical homeland, which had been from them centuries before by war conquest.
So it seems you pick and choose which "invading" armies are ok, and which are not by your personal rhetoric.
Hypocrisy.

Eki

14th May 2010, 06:05

It's funny that you don't seem to like Jews legally immigrating to Israel, but see nothing wrong with illegal immigration into the US.
Yes, because they made the laws. It's like illegal immigrants in the US were allowed to make the US immigration laws.

Bob Riebe

14th May 2010, 06:17

Yes, because they made the laws. It's like illegal immigrants in the US were allowed to make the US immigration laws.
Defend that point with proof Eki.
The "palestinians" never owned the land and have ALWAYS been subservient to what ever people controlled it, they have the right to nothing.

Easy Drifter

14th May 2010, 06:20

Israelis make the laws in their country same as US citizens make the laws in their Country, or Cdns. do in Canada. Same as in Finland I believe. Finland accepts Israel as a Country.
Israel is a Country wether you, in your anti semetic beliefs, accept it or not.
The fact that you refuse to accept Israel as a Country just shows your hypocrsisy. The United Nations and most of the world accept Israel as a Country.
The only people that do not are a few Arab Countries (most accept Israel now) and a bunch of terrorists that you support Eki.

Rollo

14th May 2010, 06:43

The "palestinians" never owned the land and have ALWAYS been subservient to what ever people controlled it, they have the right to nothing.

Sura 5:20-21
Recall that Moses said to his people (the Jews), “O my people, remember GOD’s blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people.
“O my people, enter the holy land (Israel) that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers.”

The Qu'ran of all things states that the land belongs to the Jews. I wonder if Eki is claiming that the Palestinians are "above" the teachings of their own scripture.

Depending on which way you look at it, there were between five or six Aliyahs (return migrations) of Jews between 1882 and 1948, quite apart from Balfour, or the UN declaration.

Mark in Oshawa

14th May 2010, 06:53

The other point Eki keeps missing is the Jews will live with Arabs quite happily as long as the Arab's agree that the Jews have a right to be there and have Isreal. The Arabs haven't agreed except for Egypt, and now Jordan, who both are tired of losing wars and territory to the Israeli's. Sometimes peace DOES come from the barrel of a gun....

Eki

14th May 2010, 07:12

The Qu'ran of all things states that the land belongs to the Jews. I wonder if Eki is claiming that the Palestinians are "above" the teachings of their own scripture.

I don't care about scriptures, be they Quran, Bible and whatever the Jews are reading. This is year 2010, those scriptures were written a long time ago. Maybe it's time to update them.

Eki

14th May 2010, 07:33

The other point Eki keeps missing is the Jews will live with Arabs quite happily as long as the Arab's agree that the Jews have a right to be there and have Isreal.
That's easy to say. It's like squatters telling the homeowner "Hey, what's the problem? We are happy to live here with you, as long as you agree that we have the right to be here, put our name on the mailbox, paint our graffiti on the walls and have a wild BBQ party in your living room".

Eki

14th May 2010, 07:40

So it seems you pick and choose which "invading" armies are ok, and which are not by your personal rhetoric.
Hypocrisy.
Isn't that what you do? You seem to think that the US invasions to Iraq and Afghanistan are OK, do you also think all invasions are OK, be they Hitler invading Poland, Stalin invading Estonia or Saddam invading Kuwait?

Eki

14th May 2010, 07:41

Israelis make the laws in their country same as US citizens make the laws in their Country, or Cdns. do in Canada. Same as in Finland I believe.
If illegal immigrants made the laws, they wouldn't be illegal for long.

Rani

14th May 2010, 09:07

That's easy to say. It's like squatters telling the homeowner "Hey, what's the problem? We are happy to live here with you, as long as you agree that we have the right to be here,
NO, it's like someone who had been expelled from his home due to political reasons would come back and find that someone else is living there and was willing to compromise with him in order to coexist.

Concerning the other part
put our name on the mailbox, paint our graffiti on the walls and have a wild BBQ party in your living room".
I'd say it's more like moving the stones, sand and camels aside in order to renovate the place and make it to a modern democratic country with a functioning economy.

Bob Riebe

14th May 2010, 09:10

I don't care about scriptures, be they Quran, Bible and whatever the Jews are reading. This is year 2010, those scriptures were written a long time ago. Maybe it's time to update them.
It is obvious you do not care about history as you are making up your own anyway.

Easy Drifter

14th May 2010, 09:19

True about illegal immigrants Eki.
However, Citizens of a Country are not illegal immigrants.
As long as you refuse to admit that Israel is a legal Country you will keep up your totally illogical comments in the face of the facts.
You have also totally hijacked this discussion into areas that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual original topic just to advance your agenda of anti semitism.
As you so aptly pointed out it is 2010 so maybe it is time you accepted the fact that Israel exists as a Country.

Eki

14th May 2010, 09:23

NO, it's like someone who had been expelled from his home due to political reasons would come back and find that someone else is living there and was willing to compromise with him in order to coexist.

Concerning the other part
I'd say it's more like moving the stones, sand and camels aside in order to renovate the place and make it to a modern democratic country with a functioning economy.
That's your way of looking at it. I'm not sure if the Palestinians agree. Maybe they'd prefer living in a backwards undemocratic country with a dysfunctional economy that they run by themselves and call whatever they like it to be called.

Besides, their idea of democracy might be different from yours. At least I don't consider Israel very democratic. Yes, there is a majority rule, but the means to achieve majority position were dubious and minorities are not treated well.

Rani

14th May 2010, 10:47

That's your way of looking at it. I'm not sure if the Palestinians agree. Maybe they'd prefer living in a backwards undemocratic country with a dysfunctional economy

What a rational argument!

If they were to prefer it that way they'd move to one of our neighboring countries (about a 2 hours drive from most arab population centers) and join their brothers of similar national background. There they can enjoy governments which are totally undemocratic and the economies are as difunctional as they get (although they have vast resources at their disposal - we only have people).
They choose to stay in this 'undemocraic' country where their population is given a fair representation in paliament and also given retirement benefits if it chooses to spy and help Hizbuallah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azmi_Bishara

I am suddenly reminded of that caricature with the muslim hacking of the westerner's head...

markabilly

14th May 2010, 11:08

This conversation has gotten so boring but speaking of scriptures and the Prophet, did you know he signed a marrriage contract to marry a six year old girl and then married/bedded her when she was nine years old?

Aisha was her name
of course some try to claim she was much much older, like 10 or so.....but the writings of those times puts her at 9

But they were real close in age, he being a mere 54 or 55

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

reminds me of somethng about the difference between Micheal Jackson and the prophet...one prefferred boys and had nine gold records

Eki

14th May 2010, 11:30

If they were to prefer it that way they'd move to one of our neighboring countries (about a 2 hours drive from most arab population centers) and join their brothers of similar national background. There they can enjoy governments which are totally undemocratic and the economies are as difunctional as they get (although they have vast resources at their disposal - we only have people).

It's not the same. They don't consider them their homelands. Similarly, you could ask why do so many Jews insist to move to Israel and Jerusalem, why don't they move for example to Arizona? There'll be desert too, but not so many rockets and rock throwers.

Rani

14th May 2010, 12:04

Similarly, you could ask why do so many Jews insist to move to Israel and Jerusalem, why don't they move for example to Arizona?
Easy. The beach here is only a half hour drive away. It's a lot farther if you live in Arizona. BTW Jerusalem isn't in the desert it's in a more mountainous region. Beer Sheva is in the Negev desert.

Eki

14th May 2010, 12:13

markabilly

14th May 2010, 12:14

Easy. The beach here is only a half hour drive away. It's a lot farther if you live in Arizona. BTW Jerusalem isn't in the desert it's in a more mountainous region. Beer Sheva is in the Negev desert.
:D

more in memory of Theo van Gogh:

The prophet Mohammed heard one of his wives was leaving him, so he rushed home where he found her on the carpet in front of his tent. He sat down beside her and said, “Why are you leaving me, wife?”
I heard one of the other wives say that you are a pedophile!” she answered.
Mohammed thinks for a minute and responds, “That’s a mighty big word for a 6-year old....”

Rani

14th May 2010, 12:34

California then. You can find desert, beaches, vineyards, orange farms and mountains within a short drive there too.
The Hummus is lousy and so is the traffic.

chuck34

14th May 2010, 12:36

Yes, because they made the laws. It's like illegal immigrants in the US were allowed to make the US immigration laws.

So when exactly was it that it was illegal for Jews to immigrate to the Mid-East?

Eki

14th May 2010, 13:46

So when exactly was it that it was illegal for Jews to immigrate to the Mid-East?
When exactly was it that it was illegal for example for Mexicans to move to the US? Never, I guess?

The difference and the problem is that Israel takes in all Jews who want to come, the more the better. That's how they got their majority. They don't take in as many Muslim Arabs who want to come, the less the better, I'm sure. The US only take as many Mexicans they want to take, not as many as want to come. They also pick and choose, which Mexicans they want.

It would be nice if ten million Muslims from the neighboring countries could freely move to Israel and get a citizenship. Then Israel could be dismantled democratically without bloodshed.

chuck34

14th May 2010, 13:59

When exactly was it that it was illegal for example for Mexicans to move to the US? Never, I guess?

The difference and the problem is that Israel takes in all Jews who want to come, the more the better. That's how they got their majority. They don't take in as many Muslim Arabs who want to come, the less the better, I'm sure. The US only take as many Mexicans they want to take, not as many as want to come. They also pick and choose, which Mexicans they want.

It would be nice if ten million Muslims from the neighboring countries could freely move to Israel and get a citizenship. Then Israel could be dismantled democratically without bloodshed.

So your answer to my question is that it was NEVER illegal for Jews to move to the region. Thanks for, almost, answering my question.

Now for the other BS you spewed in that post. It is actually illegal for Mexicans (or anyone else for that matter) to just walk right accross our boarders and start living, working, using our service that they don't pay into, etc. There is a legal way for people to immigrate into this country (or any other for that matter). Perhaps that process is too difficult, but that isn't really the point.

Can I just jump in a boat, drive it over to Finland, show up at a business, and start working without telling your government that I'm there?

Eki

14th May 2010, 14:06

Can I just jump in a boat, drive it over to Finland, show up at a business, and start working without telling your government that I'm there?
No, but we don't screen by religion and ethnicity like Israel does. If you need an asylum, you're welcome regardless of your ethnicity or religion. If you don't need an asylum, we'll send you home regardless of your religion and ethnicity. If you want to work here, we check if we need your skills and if somebody wants to hire you, again your religion or ethnicity don't matter. If we can find enough laborers in our own country or nobody wants to hire you, we'll send you home regardless of your religion or ethnicity.

chuck34

14th May 2010, 14:09

No, but we don't screen by religion and ethnicity like Israel does.

How about Iran, do they allow any Christian or Jew to immigrate there that wants to?

chuck34

14th May 2010, 14:11

No, but we don't screen by religion and ethnicity like Israel does. If you need an asylum, you're welcome regardless of your ethnicity or religion. If you want to work here, we check if we need your skills and if somebody wants to hire you, again your religion or ethnicity don't matter.

So if we do the same thing here in the US (screen for skills, etc) you condemn us? I knew you were full of hypocracy, but this takes the cake. You do realize that your arguments are all over the place don't you?

Eki

14th May 2010, 14:14

So if we do the same thing here in the US (screen for skills, etc) you condemn us?
No, I condemned Israel's immigration policy not yours.

Eki

14th May 2010, 14:15

How about Iran, do they allow any Christian or Jew to immigrate there that wants to?
I don't know. What has it got to do with what Israel does? Most likely they won't let any Muslim to immigrate at will either.

Easy Drifter

14th May 2010, 14:29

What had this thread to do with Israel before you highjacked it Eki?
For the master of Highjacking and bringing items into a thread that have nothing to do with it that is rich coming from you Eki.

Rollo

14th May 2010, 14:29

No, I condemned Israel's immigration policy not yours.

May I remind you that you live in a country which had as a stated policy, the denial of all Jewish peoples the right to own property until 1917.

No, but we don't screen by religion and ethnicity like Israel does. If you need an asylum, you're welcome regardless of your ethnicity or religion. If you don't need an asylum, we'll send you home regardless of your religion and ethnicity.

http://www.jchelsinki.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:a-short-history-of-the-finnish-jewry-&catid=35:community

No, historically until 1917 which was between the Second and Third Aliyahs, Finland was part of the reasons why Jews returned to Israel.
Furthermore, by siding with the Germans in WW2 Finland also actually CAUSED Jews to return to Israel.

Sorry, but if you want to play that card, then you must admit that your country was complicit in the most horrible evils of the 20th Century.

Where else do you suggest that they should have gone? Your country along with the rest of the Eastern Europe didn't help the situation at all. Of course they were going to flee to Israel and the land of opportunity, the USA.

Rani

14th May 2010, 14:54

http://www.jchelsinki.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:a-short-history-of-the-finnish-jewry-&catid=35:community

No, historically until 1917 which was between the Second and Third Aliyahs, Finland was part of the reasons why Jews returned to Israel.
Furthermore, by siding with the Germans in WW2 Finland also actually CAUSED Jews to return to Israel.

Sorry, but if you want to play that card, then you must admit that your country was complicit in the most horrible evils of the 20th Century.

Where else do you suggest that they should have gone? Your country along with the rest of the Eastern Europe didn't help the situation at all. Of course they were going to flee to Israel and the land of opportunity, the USA.
This is very interesting. I always viewed Finland as more of a progressive country than say, Poland but this piece shows Finland in a whole different light.

chuck34

14th May 2010, 15:15

No, I condemned Israel's immigration policy not yours.

It's funny that Bob doesn't seem to like immigrants who move to the US, but he sees nothing wrong in that the land of the Palestinians was overwhelmed by immigrants.

Seems like a shot at the debate we are having over illegal immigration over here.

When exactly was it that it was illegal for example for Mexicans to move to the US? Never, I guess?

Shows your lack of understanding of our immigration issues.

chuck34

14th May 2010, 15:16

I don't know. What has it got to do with what Israel does? Most likely they won't let any Muslim to immigrate at will either.

You were condemning Israel's religion bases immigration policies. Just wondering if you were consistent on that point.

Eki

14th May 2010, 15:47

May I remind you that you live in a country which had as a stated policy, the denial of all Jewish peoples the right to own property until 1917.

[url]http://www.jchelsinki.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:a-short-history-of-the-finnish-jewry-&catid=35:community

No, historically until 1917 which was between the Second and Third Aliyahs, Finland was part of the reasons why Jews returned to Israel.
Furthermore, by siding with the Germans in WW2 Finland also actually CAUSED Jews to return to Israel.

Sorry, but if you want to play that card, then you must admit that your country was complicit in the most horrible evils of the 20th Century.

So? There was no Finland until 1917, according to the logic some use about Palestine here. Besides, we're talking about 2010 and the 21st century, not 1917 or 1947 or the 20th century. Jews have been moving to Israel until recently, and it still continues, as far as I know.

Where else do you suggest that they should have gone? Your country along with the rest of the Eastern Europe didn't help the situation at all. Of course they were going to flee to Israel and the land of opportunity, the USA.
I'd recommend the US then. Like I said, less rockets and rocks launched at them there. Even in Europe there'd be less rockets and rocks.

Eki

14th May 2010, 15:49

You were condemning Israel's religion bases immigration policies. Just wondering if you were consistent on that point.
I don't know if Iran has religion based immigration policies. Maybe they don't, maybe they do.

Eki

14th May 2010, 15:57

May I remind you that you live in a country which had as a stated policy, the denial of all Jewish peoples the right to own property until 1917.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=1507&TTL=Finland's_Tarnished_Holocaust_Record

No, historically until 1917 which was between the Second and Third Aliyahs, Finland was part of the reasons why Jews returned to Israel.
Furthermore, by siding with the Germans in WW2 Finland also actually CAUSED Jews to return to Israel.

Sorry, but if you want to play that card, then you must admit that your country was complicit in the most horrible evils of the 20th Century.

Where else do you suggest that they should have gone? Your country along with the rest of the Eastern Europe didn't help the situation at all. Of course they were going to flee to Israel and the land of opportunity, the USA.
At least there was no reason for Finnish Jews to emigrate:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=1507&TTL=Finland's_Tarnished_Holocaust_Record[

"When the Finns fought together with the Germans, the latter did not touch the Jews who served in the Finnish army. There was an unwritten agreement about that. The Germans knew that in the Scandinavian countries, when one is a citizen, one belongs. The Finns treated the Jews who were of their nationality equally during the war. The Jewish soldiers found themselves in a position where they were fighting on the side of Germany, even if they did not fight together with the Germans. A film titled David documents the experiences of these soldiers.8 The refugees, however, were unsafe; this was even worse if one was a Russian POW.

"It seems that in the latter half of 1942, the Germans began insisting that Finnish Jews be handed over to them. The Finns, in order not to do so, replied that they would raise the matter in parliament, which they did not convene for a few months.

"These were bloody wars. At the time Finland had a population of slightly over four million, and as mentioned, ninety thousand of its soldiers were killed. Jews served in all these wars. On a personal note, my father fought on the Finnish side, against my husband's father, who was from Leningrad."

Rani

14th May 2010, 16:01

I'd recommend the US then. Like I said, less rockets and rocks launched at them there. Even in Europe there'd be less rockets and rocks.

Rocks and Rockets being fired at you aren't the only reasons for choosing where to reside. In the US fruit and vegetables taste way worse than here. Also, since so much land is privately owned you are pretty much confined to parks when wheeling, mountain biking or camping. Here most of the land is public so one can pretty much go anywhere and explore.

The US does have its own merits though.

At least there was no reason for Finnish Jews to emigrate
Having to fight with an army that has a mission to exterminate your brothers and sisters seems justifyable enough for me. Where were finnish human rights groups when Finland decided to help the Nazis?

Eki

14th May 2010, 16:09

I think that the main reason why Finns before 1917 were reluctant to let Jews own property in Finland was not because they were Jews, but because they were Russian and Polish, namely former soldiers of the Russian military. Western Jews seem to have been OK:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=1507&TTL=Finland's_Tarnished_Holocaust_Record

"The first Jews came to Finland during the nineteenth century. One often hears that these were so-called cantonists, young Jewish boys forcefully conscripted to military service at an early age and, starting when they were eighteen, made to serve twenty-five years in the army. These boys had to be stripped of their religious and national identity. That only pertains, however, to a few of the early Finnish Jews. Most were soldiers, drafted during the reign of Tsar Nikolai I, who were based in Finland and in 1858, as discharged soldiers, were allowed to stay in Finland. They were known as ‘Nikolai's soldiers.'

"In 1917, the Finnish parliament declared independence. Lenin and his government, who by then were in power in the Soviet Union, announced their agreement. Thus on 6 December 1917, the Republic of Finland was born. One of the first things the Finnish parliament decided was to give the Jews citizenship. It was the penultimate country in Europe-before Romania-to do so. The Finns claim they were not independent before, and hence could not have given the Jews citizenship. The truth is rather different. Already in the nineteenth century, there were bitter debates on the issue and hard-line positions against granting the Jews citizenship. Opponents said they did not want Polish or Russian Jews but would accept Western ones.

Eki

14th May 2010, 16:12

Where were finnish human rights groups when Finland decided to help the Nazis?
Mostly in the fronts fighting the Soviets, like other Finnish citizens were (including Finnish Jews), I'd guess. Politically active communists were in prison or underground, though.

Rani

14th May 2010, 16:32

Eki

14th May 2010, 16:39

Where does it say western jews had the right to own property ?

BTW arabs are permitted to own property in Israel (as are jews) although there are plenty of reasons for being reluctant (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3870198,00.html) on the part of legislators.
Here it says that even the opponents of granting the Jews citizenship would have accepted Western Jews to become citizens. I guess only citizens were allowed to own property in Finland:

Already in the nineteenth century, there were bitter debates on the issue and hard-line positions against granting the Jews citizenship. Opponents said they did not want Polish or Russian Jews but would accept Western ones.

Can non-citizen Arabs own property in Israel?

There have recently been debates here on should Russians be allowed to own land and property in Finland like they are now. There was a documentary on how Russian individuals have bought land and property near Finnish military, naval and air force bases. Some believe they are used for spying.

Eki

14th May 2010, 17:10

Thanks for the link, Rani. Algazi and Snitz spoke wise words. Wish there were more people like them.

Easy Drifter

14th May 2010, 19:41

What many people forget is that most, if not all western countries, would not allow immigration of Jewish refugees from Nazism, or other persecution prior to and during WW2.
Sadly that included Canada who actually turned away a ship full of refugees.
It even applied after the war when the horrors of the concentration camps became known.
The Western democracies have nothing to be proud of.
Israel was their only hope and efforts were made to stop even that.

Eki

14th May 2010, 21:11

It even applied after the war when the horrors of the concentration camps became known.

After the war there was no need for asylum, except for the Nazis, of whom many emigrated to South America. And some sissies in Finland like Lauri Törni (aka Larry Thorn) who fled to the US because they believed that the Soviet Union might be interested in them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_T%C3%B6rni

Easy Drifter

14th May 2010, 22:46

There were thousands of people who were totally displaced with nothing left, not just Jewish people.
Canada accepted within a few years tens of thousands of refugees and immigrants from all over Europe. Many were our former enemies from Italy and Germany.
There were a couple of young Italian refugee twin brothers who emigrated to the US by the names of Aldo and Mario Andretti, with their family.
But Jewish immigrants were still not generally accepted by the west. Many survivors of the concentration camps did not want to return to their old country where there was nothing left and in many many cases they had been betrayed by their neighbors.
Eki you are so wrong.
Either you really do not know or you are just showing more of your anti semetic feelings.

Rani

14th May 2010, 23:17

Many survivors of the concentration camps did not want to return to their old country where there was nothing left and in many many cases they had been betrayed by their neighbors.
Eki you are so wrong.
Either you really do not know or you are just showing more of your anti semetic feelings.
+1

This country had to be established this way or the other.

ShiftingGears

15th May 2010, 01:04

markabilly

15th May 2010, 01:28

I bet you in 100 years this Israel/Palestine conflict will still be going. Both sides are guilty.

Anyway when discussing topics like some guy getting touchy when someone is depicted with a dogs body, I think it's important not to pidgeonhole an entire culture/religion based on one event.
or one pedophile who, as the great prophet, has set the example over the years, a tradition that continues to this very day, for the rape of children through these arranged marriages....
So let's see, we got the bomb suicides, the killing of cartoonists (do any of you even know who Van Gogh is) and the child raping.....of course no one ever talks about the horrible abuse many young girls suffer, to say nothing about the chopping off the head when those girls get out of line.

No, the news media only hesitantly talks about the attacks on people for saying jokes, and even then, they are too scared to say much.

So the rape of children goes on, all in the name of this so called religion.

So I paint real broad, and say ban this religion of infidels and run them to they drop. How is that for freedom of religion and speech, practiced Islam style :rotflmao:

Of course one can say, well I know some moslems and they are not like that. Well I have known a few nazis (one was a former ss officer)and some good old Klan boys, and they were all very nice....can not imagine why anyone would ever say such horrble things, one should not paint with too broad a brush.

Yeah, right :rolleyes:

Indeed the current practices of the Islam religion reminds me very much of the nazi tactics in prewar germany, and hell I aint even jewish and don't have any friends who are jews (or at least that I have not become aware of that fact)

Indeed, I don't even care about Isareal, one way or the other, but atleast they ain't being hypocrites and marrying and bedding children of 6 to 10 years of age

Rani

15th May 2010, 01:33

Rollo

15th May 2010, 01:42

So? There was no Finland until 1917, according to the logic some use about Palestine here. Besides, we're talking about 2010 and the 21st century, not 1917 or 1947 or the 20th century. Jews have been moving to Israel until recently, and it still continues, as far as I know.

There is no basis on which to understand the present unless you understand the past. The modern return to Israel starts as early as 1492 with the Alhambra Decree which expelled Jews from Spain.

I'd recommend the US then. Like I said, less rockets and rocks launched at them there. Even in Europe there'd be less rockets and rocks.

Even in Europe? Really? Do you have substantial proof of this? There have been many many anti-Jewish pogroms resulting in mass death.

ShiftingGears

15th May 2010, 03:35

or one pedophile who, as the great prophet, has set the example over the years, a tradition that continues to this very day, for the rape of children through these arranged marriages....
So let's see, we got the bomb suicides, the killing of cartoonists (do any of you even know who Van Gogh is) and the child raping.....of course no one ever talks about the horrible abuse many young girls suffer, to say nothing about the chopping off the head when those girls get out of line.

No, the news media only hesitantly talks about the attacks on people for saying jokes, and even then, they are too scared to say much.

So the rape of children goes on, all in the name of this so called religion.

So I paint real broad, and say ban this religion of infidels and run them to they drop. How is that for freedom of religion and speech, practiced Islam style :rotflmao:

Of course one can say, well I know some moslems and they are not like that. Well I have known a few nazis (one was a former ss officer)and some good old Klan boys, and they were all very nice....can not imagine why anyone would ever say such horrble things, one should not paint with too broad a brush.

Yeah, right :rolleyes:

Indeed the current practices of the Islam religion reminds me very much of the nazi tactics in prewar germany, and hell I aint even jewish and don't have any friends who are jews (or at least that I have not become aware of that fact)

Indeed, I don't even care about Isareal, one way or the other, but atleast they ain't being hypocrites and marrying and bedding children of 6 to 10 years of age

I am not going to deny that the Middle East is a cesspit, but people doing things in the name of religion is much, much different to following what their religion says.

The bible doesn't excuse pedophilia, doesn't stop high ranking priests doing it. The Koran does not excuse female circumcision either. Lets not even go into the amount of stupid **** that the Old Testament says good people should do.

The problem, as always, is morons taking too much notice to something that is a book that says lots of things that can't be verified.

markabilly

15th May 2010, 13:55

I am not going to deny that the Middle East is a cesspit, but people doing things in the name of religion is much, much different to following what their religion says.

The bible doesn't excuse pedophilia, doesn't stop high ranking priests doing it. The Koran does not excuse female circumcision either. Lets not even go into the amount of stupid **** that the Old Testament says good people should do.

The problem, as always, is morons taking too much notice to something that is a book that says lots of things that can't be verified.
the problem I have with Islam, is if they were actively stomping out this sort of thing, and making life intolerable for those POS, that would be one thing.
But they are not, sort of like all those good germans who stood around and did nothing in the 1930's

So I paint them all with a very broad brush, including the little POS they call the president of Iran and Eki's little buds as well

Eki

15th May 2010, 14:16

the problem I have with Islam, is if they were actively stomping out this sort of thing, and making life intolerable for those POS, that would be one thing.
But they are not, sort of like all those good germans who stood around and did nothing in the 1930's

So I paint them all with a very broad brush, including the little POS they call the president of Iran and Eki's little buds as well
I see your point. I used to wonder how could Americans vote in power something like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and then stand around and do nothing. I almost blamed all Americans for them, but still tried to remind myself that they are not all that bad.

Easy Drifter

15th May 2010, 14:47

Eki

15th May 2010, 17:15

Turning an anti-muslim thread into Bush bashing after it turned anti-Iran Ahmadinejad bashing. Easy.

Easy Drifter

15th May 2010, 17:36

Yes it would be most unusual if you didn't hijack a thread to suit your own purposes no matter wether they are the least bit relevant or not.

airshifter

16th May 2010, 00:49

Turning an anti-muslim thread into Bush bashing after it turned anti-Iran Ahmadinejad bashing. Easy.

If you would follow along Eki, you would see that nobody bashed all Muslims at all. The Iran pokes came after suggesting that the rest of Islam should at least attempt to reel in the radical factions of Islam.

Camelopard

16th May 2010, 00:49

Yes it would be most unusual if you didn't hijack a thread to suit your own purposes no matter wether they are the least bit relevant or not.

And it would be very unusual for you not to get on your soap box about Eki, at least Wade (if he actually exists!) has taken a bit of a back seat from your ranting and raving of late.......... It really does get tedious, one major reason why I don't visit here very much anymore.

Camelopard

16th May 2010, 00:56

Eki has done it again.
Managed to turn another thread to Bush bashing when he has absolutely no connection with the thread.
What a one track (and narrow gauge at that) mind.
Actually two track.
He got into his anti Israel, anti semetic mode earlier.

I find it interesting that one immediately becomes anti-semetic when one dares to question israel and their actions.

As for the comment about a one track mind, making personal attacks is no way to win an arguement. Please enlighten me as to when Eki has made any personal insulting remarks aimed at anyone on this forum.

As they say, "play the ball, not the man"...............

One more thing, ed, have you ever been to the middle east? have you ever been to the west bank, israel or been to any palestinian refugee camps?

markabilly

16th May 2010, 06:50

And it would be very unusual for you not to get on your soap box about Eki, at least Wade (if he actually exists!) has taken a bit of a back seat from your ranting and raving of late.......... It really does get tedious, one major reason why I don't visit here very much anymore.
Easy has a major and obvious point.......As to not visiting here, well bye bye, and the Prophet Pedophile be praised.

markabilly

16th May 2010, 06:57

I find it interesting that one immediately becomes anti-semetic when one dares to question israel and their actions.

As for the comment about a one track mind, making personal attacks is no way to win an arguement. Please enlighten me as to when Eki has made any personal insulting remarks aimed at anyone on this forum.

As they say, "play the ball, not the man"...............

One more thing, ed, have you ever been to the middle east? have you ever been to the west bank, israel or been to any palestinian refugee camps?
Oh you mean he should not follow your example of engaging in personal insults

BTW thread not about anything but a bunch of ignorant, racist, bigoted people who kill cartoonists and so on, all in the name of the great Prophet Pedophile that your little buddy hijacked with his usual rants

I thought you packed up and went bye, bye.......must be following the example of the great prophet as well as the president of iran....

Camelopard

16th May 2010, 08:14

Oh you mean he should not follow your example of engaging in personal insults................

Yep, I will admit to flinging insults at certain people on here, one in particular, however I was told to 'pull my head in', so I have been trying to do that......

I have also been trying hard not to let people wind me up so much.

Anyway, I come from a good God fearing Christian background where the mantra is "do as I say, not as I do". :p

Eki

16th May 2010, 20:23

BTW thread not about anything but a bunch of ignorant, racist, bigoted people who kill cartoonists and so on, all in the name of the great Prophet Pedophile that your little buddy hijacked with his usual rants

Well, you could also say those cartoonists are ignorant, racist and bigoted people too. There is no need to mock anyone's religion.

Bob Riebe

16th May 2010, 21:40

Well, you could also say those cartoonists are ignorant, racist and bigoted people too. There is no need to mock anyone's religion.
Ah Eki it is brilliant for you to show the love you have for people that murder women and children by the hundreds in the name of their religion, and the spite you have for others that fight to stop the murdering of women and children in the homeland of their religion.

Brilliant!

Eki

17th May 2010, 06:06

Ah Eki it is brilliant for you to show the love you have for people that murder women and children by the hundreds in the name of their religion, and the spite you have for others that fight to stop the murdering of women and children in the homeland of their religion.

Brilliant!
Christians and Jews do it too. Or are you for example saying that Jews don't move to Israel because of their religion? Israelis have probably killed more women and children in Gaza and Lebanon than Palestinians have. Ditto to coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, although it's not in the name of their religion, but their political beliefs and revenge.

Rani

17th May 2010, 11:19

Christians and Jews do it too. Or are you for example saying that Jews don't move to Israel because of their religion? Israelis have probably killed more women and children in Gaza and Lebanon than Palestinians have. Ditto to coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, although it's not in the name of their religion, but their political beliefs and revenge.
Does stopping 8 years worth of Qassam rockets showering into civilian centers fall under "political beliefs" or "revenge"?

Eki

17th May 2010, 13:23

Does stopping 8 years worth of Qassam rockets showering into civilian centers fall under "political beliefs" or "revenge"?
Has it stopped? Besides, those Qassam rockets usually seem to fall into desert and rarely kill or injure anybody.

Bob Riebe

17th May 2010, 15:26

Christians and Jews do it too. Or are you for example saying that Jews don't move to Israel because of their religion? Israelis have probably killed more women and children in Gaza and Lebanon than Palestinians have. Ditto to coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, although it's not in the name of their religion, but their political beliefs and revenge.
You are using a tool of foolish constraints to reach that conclusion, you are rationalizing, which further highlights your seeming hared for Jews.

Mark in Oshawa

17th May 2010, 16:45

Has it stopped? Besides, those Qassam rockets usually seem to fall into desert and rarely kill or injure anybody.

Eki thinks the Palestinians should be bonus points for being lousy at aiming the rockets....I guess intention means little to him...

Easy Drifter

17th May 2010, 16:47

That the Qassam rockets often miss their intended target justifies their use?

Eki

17th May 2010, 19:04

That the Qassam rockets often miss their intended target justifies their use?
No, but their use doesn't justify killing Palestinian civilians and ruining their homes and infrastructure. Especially when it doesn't stop the shooting of Qassam rockets.

Easy Drifter

17th May 2010, 19:57

So it is ok to fire rockets into Israel that if they were on target would kill and maim people and destroy infrastructure but it is not ok for Israel to retaliate.
Yeah right!

Eki

17th May 2010, 20:03

So it is ok to fire rockets into Israel that if they were on target would kill and maim people and destroy infrastructure but it is not ok for Israel to retaliate.
Yeah right!
But they aren't on target. Action and reaction should be proportionate. The more Israel kills and maims Palestinian civilians and destroys their infrastructure, the more they give the Palestinians reasons to retaliate.

Camelopard

17th May 2010, 20:38

Their response has always been disproportionate, take this as a recent example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/14/israeli-settler-accused-killing-palestinian

I'm fairly sure most of you won't go to the web page, so I'll quote some interesting parts here.

"...one settler stopped his car and opened fire on the Palestinians, although some accounts said the dead child was not one of the group of stone throwers..."
"We knew that he had been working on his family's agricultural field, and we found him there under an olive tree – lying on his stomach, with a bullet wound in his back."

"Last month a mosque in a Palestinian village near Nablus was vandalised, apparently by settlers. Earlier two settlers from Yitzhar, a rightwing settlement in the area, were injured by rocks thrown by Palestinians. In March two Palestinian teenagers were shot dead by Israeli troops in the village of Iraq Burin, also near Nablus, after a demonstration against a nearby settlement."

I'm sure there will a thorough investigation and the settler responsible will be caught, tried and sentenced appropriately....................... oh look there is a flying pig!

More information here:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018697844

"A Palestinian child who was in the vicinity of some other youth who had been throwing rocks at a settler's car in the occupied West Bank was shot in the back and killed by an Israeli settler on Friday, while another child was shot in the head."

"Ayssar Yasser al-Zaben, 16, from the Ramallah area of Mazra ash Sharqiya, died at the scene."

"According to reports, Zaben had not been throwing stones.

"Another youth, an unidentified 17-year-old boy, was hospitalized in critical condition with a gunshot wound to his head. The rock-throwing youth were reportedly taking part in an almost weekly demonstration over Israeli settlers trying to take over a Palestinian well near Nablus."

Eki

17th May 2010, 21:02

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/14/israeli-settler-accused-killing-palestinian

The main reason why Palestinian kids are throwing rocks:

In recent months there has been an increase in tensions between settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank as the international community, led by the US, has tried to rein in Israel's settlement construction. Nearly 500,000 settlers live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, even though settlement on occupied land is against international law.

And shooting them only adds to their rage and gives them more reasons.

Would you like half a million illegal immigrants in your neighborhood?

Easy Drifter

17th May 2010, 22:41

True we only have about 100,000 and the US has far more.

Bob Riebe

18th May 2010, 00:14

Eki

18th May 2010, 05:57

True we only have about 100,000 and the US has far more.
In your hometown, or just in the whole country? Canada and USA are much larger than West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Rollo

18th May 2010, 06:19

Would you like half a million illegal immigrants in your neighborhood?

Tell me again how a unilaterally declared territory has precedence over a UN Sanctioned agreement?

Action and reaction should be proportionate. The more Israel kills and maims Palestinian civilians and destroys their infrastructure, the more they give the Palestinians reasons to retaliate.

Action and recaction should be NIL. Everyone in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza should just stop fighting each other. Everyone should also be given full rights in the one unified country.

OK, we know that will never happen. So then. Stop trying to justify death.

Eki

18th May 2010, 07:35

Tell me again how a unilaterally declared territory has precedence over a UN Sanctioned agreement?

OK. Here it was:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/14/israeli-settler-accused-killing-palestinian

settlement on occupied land is against international law.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018697844

Palestinians are also trying to get Israel to leave the occupied West Bank, which Israel seized during the 1967 war. Under international law, it is illegal for an occupying nation to create settlements in land it has seized during a war, and international law also requires the conquering nation to give the land back at some point.

Against law = illegal

Rollo

18th May 2010, 07:59

Sorry, but The 1967 war is irrelevant. Palestine unilaterally declared itself in 1988. It does not follow.

Are you suggesting that the land belongs to Jordan now? What exactly are you saying, and can you do so within the logic of history?

Eki

18th May 2010, 08:17

Rollo

18th May 2010, 10:21

Eki

18th May 2010, 10:55

Then it must belong to the Ottoman Empire then? But we have a logical problem. The Ottoman Empire was a beaten and thwarted power in 1923. Currently it does not exist.

Now what?
Remember you need to clarify what you are saying, and do it within the logic of history.
That international law was written after 1923, actually after 1947, otherwise Russia for example should return the areas it took from Finland and settled with its own citizens, so it doesn't apply to the Ottoman Empire or Russia. But it was written before 1967, so it applies to Israel and to the territories it occupies (so called Occupied Territories).

Easy Drifter

18th May 2010, 12:19

So Iraq would have had to give back Kuwait without being invaded in the first Gulf war and Argentina give back to the Falklands to the UK without the UK recapturing them.
Sure Eki sure. :rolleyes:

Eki

18th May 2010, 12:37

So Iraq would have had to give back Kuwait without being invaded in the first Gulf war and Argentina give back to the Falklands to the UK without the UK recapturing them.
Sure Eki sure. :rolleyes:
They should have, if they had obeyed the international law, but they most likely wouldn't have done it. Just like Israel won't give back the Occupied Territories without the Palestinians and their allies fighting for it.

Rollo

18th May 2010, 12:38

But it was written before 1967, so it applies to Israel and to the territories it occupies (so called Occupied Territories).

Right then, so you are suggesting that the land belongs to Jordan now? Because Palestine didn't exist as a separate nation in 1967. Palestine unilaterally declared itself in 1988.

So then, the first question stands again:
Tell me again how a unilaterally declared territory has precedence over a UN Sanctioned agreement?

You didn't answer this before, so we followed the events based on your logic and have come back to the same point.

markabilly

18th May 2010, 12:43

They should have, if they had obeyed the international law, but they most likely wouldn't have done it. Just like Israel won't give back the Occupied Territories without the Palestinians and their allies fighting for it.
so that clearly justifies killing cartoonists for making fun of the prophet pedo :up:

chuck34

18th May 2010, 12:43

Eki

18th May 2010, 12:49

So Eki when exactly in history does everything stop, in your opinion? 1917, 1948, 1967, or when?

I'm just wondering because apparently in your twisted little world NOTHING can ever change.
No, that's your world, where you think Jews have an automatic right to move to Israel, just because their ancestors lived there thousands or at least hundreds of years ago. Or Rollo's world, where it should belong to the Ottoman Empire, because they lived there 1923. In my world people are just expected to obey the current laws and not some old scriptures that talk about a "promised land" and they shouldn't have any special treatment because someone tried to exterminate them almost 70 years ago.

markabilly

18th May 2010, 13:01

No, that's your world, where you think Jews have an automatic right to move to Israel, just because their ancestors lived there thousands or at least hundreds of years ago. Or Rollo's world, where it should belong to the Ottoman Empire, because they lived there 1923. In my world people are just expected to obey the current laws and not some old scriptures that talk about a "promised land" and they shouldn't have any special treatment because someone tried to exterminate them almost 70 years ago.
yeah eki, you go boy, and tell him to be whacking those nasty cartoonists....

Eki

18th May 2010, 13:14

As such I'm just wondering if you should be part of Sweden or a part of Russia.
I'd prefer Sweden. Someone has suggested that Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland should unite like in the Kalmar Union (1397–1523). I think it might actually be a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

Rollo

18th May 2010, 13:52

Or Rollo's world, where it should belong to the Ottoman Empire, because they lived there 1923.

No.

My world view on the is that the Jews belong there because it was given to them, based on a promise (namely Balfour), both because of their cultural heritage and because of historical events.

And somehow, you also have forgotten that the majority of Jews living there weren't post WW2 Europeans, but decendents of pre-WW2 diaspora returning, ex-Yemenite Jews and their decendents and the nearly 1 million Jews who returned from Arabic countries.

Most Jews in Arab lands eventually immigrated to the modern State of Israel, and by 2003 they and their offspring, (including those of mixed linage) comprised 3,136,436 people, or about 61% of Israel's Jewish population.

Sorry, but you have severely failed to grasp history.

chuck34

18th May 2010, 14:06

obey the current laws

And by CURRENT law. Who has control of the region you will find on most maps marked as Israel?

Eki

18th May 2010, 14:31

And by CURRENT law. Who has control of the region you will find on most maps marked as Israel?
Jews, but they control the Occupied Territories illegally (= against the international law).

Eki

18th May 2010, 14:41

And somehow, you also have forgotten that the majority of Jews living there weren't post WW2 Europeans, but decendents of pre-WW2 diaspora returning, ex-Yemenite Jews and their decendents and the nearly 1 million Jews who returned from Arabic countries.

In 1948, 65% of the Jews and Non-Arabs in Israel were foreign born. And still today they are about 35%. So, most Jews in Israel are either foreign born or 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants:

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000857.html

Of the country's Jewish and non-Arab population , 65 percent were born in Israel. In 1948, only 35 percent of Jews were born in the country.

The Jews and non-Arabs who were not born in Israel number 1,930,000; those who came from the former Soviet Union comprise the largest foreign-born group in Israel. In addition to the 950,000 that came from the former USSR, 157,000 people living in Israel were born in Morocco, 110,000 are from Romania, and 77,000 are originally North American, 70,000 from Iraq, 70,000 from Ethiopia and 64,000 from Poland. Three million people have immigrated to Israel since 1948, more than one million of them since 1990.

In any other modern country you would call that an immigration problem.

Easy Drifter

18th May 2010, 15:34

Rani

18th May 2010, 15:41

No, that's your world, where you think Jews have an automatic right to move to Israel, just because their ancestors lived there thousands or at least hundreds of years ago. Or Rollo's world, where it should belong to the Ottoman Empire, because they lived there 1923. In my world people are just expected to obey the current laws and not some old scriptures that talk about a "promised land" and they shouldn't have any special treatment because someone tried to exterminate them almost 70 years ago.
I have a question for you then. Say your neighbour forces you to live in exile and I come and start living in your home. How much time has to pass before I 'legally' own your house?
How long before I can call you an immigrant trying to force me out of MY (your) home?

chuck34

18th May 2010, 15:51

Jews, but they control the Occupied Territories illegally (= against the international law).

Now we're getting somewhere. At least you have now conceeded Israel's right to exist. I think that may be a first.

So who controls the Occupied Territories?

Eki

18th May 2010, 16:23

WOW I never realized Canada had such a major immigration problem.
Either that or we are not a modern country.
We accept up to 1/4 of a million legal immigrants every year.
So since 1990 about 5 million immigrants.
And that does not count the illegals.
Look at the percentages, not the total numbers. Besides, Canada has about 4 to 5 times more people and about 400 to 500 times larger area. So, based on population, you should accept over 1 million immigrants yearly and based on area, over 100 million. Would that be a problem to you?

Eki

18th May 2010, 16:26

Now we're getting somewhere. At least you have now conceeded Israel's right to exist. I think that may be a first.
Legal right, but not moral right. There's a difference.

So who controls the Occupied Territories?
Israel, as an occupier against the international law.

Bob Riebe

18th May 2010, 16:29

No, that's your world, where you think Jews have an automatic right to move to Israel, just because their ancestors lived there thousands or at least hundreds of years ago. Or Rollo's world, where it should belong to the Ottoman Empire, because they lived there 1923. In my world people are just expected to obey the current laws and not some old scriptures that talk about a "promised land" and they shouldn't have any special treatment because someone tried to exterminate them almost 70 years ago.
So then by your standard if history does not matter, then whom ever controls it owns it.
International law is a farce with people who have legal standings telling people who do live there what is proper.
Anyone who lets an outsider control their lives is a sheep being led to slaughter.

Eki

18th May 2010, 16:30

I'd prefer Sweden. Someone has suggested that Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland should unite like in the Kalmar Union (1397–1523). I think it might actually be a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union
Maybe we should make it a Lutheran Nation and let all Lutherans immigrate freely and push aside others from their way. Then we could annex areas around Wurttemberg in Germany to it. It is our Holy Land after all.

chuck34

18th May 2010, 17:51

Legal right, but not moral right. There's a difference.

So who has a moral right to that land, and why?

Israel, as an occupier against the international law.

So if Israel is an occupier, then who's land is it that they are occuping?

Easy Drifter

18th May 2010, 18:18

There was nothing said about percentages of immigration to population or to land mass by you Eki. You made a flat statement as to numbers.
Please explain why Israel has no moral right to exist as a country.
There nas never been, as far as I know, a Palestine country.

Eki

18th May 2010, 19:15

So who has a moral right to that land, and why?
Those who lived there before 1947 before the recent immigration wave and their descendants.

So if Israel is an occupier, then who's land is it that they are occuping?
Egypt's, Syria's and Jordan's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. They consist of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and much of the Golan Heights and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. Israel also occupied part of southern Lebanon between 1982 and 2000. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242 following the war in 1967, which called for "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles: ... Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict ... Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

Eki

18th May 2010, 19:26

Eki

18th May 2010, 19:32

Eki

18th May 2010, 19:34

Eki

18th May 2010, 20:11

There was nothing said about percentages of immigration to population or to land mass by you Eki. You made a flat statement as to numbers.

Like the link and the quotation said, in 1948 65% of Non-Arabs in Israel were foreign born, today they are 35%. In Canada that would mean that in 1948, about 8 million of Non-Indians and Non-Inuits were foreign born (Canada had about 12 million people in 1948) and now about 11 million (Canada has about 34 million people).

The population of Israel has grown from about 800,000 in 1948 to the current about 7.5 million. That's about ten times growth. At that rate there should be more than 100 million people in Canada instead of 34 million and about 40 million in Finland instead of 5 million. The only place where I can imagine Finland could have found that many immigrants is Russia, so here would be about 35 million Russian born against 5 million Finns. I don't like that scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

Eki

18th May 2010, 20:29

chuck34

18th May 2010, 20:42

Those who lived there before 1947 before the recent immigration wave and their descendants.

So the Jews that lived there before '47 and their decendents are ok?

Egypt's, Syria's and Jordan's:

Do they want it? Are you sure they have the rights?

Seems no one really controls the West Bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Legal_status
"the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation—thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some, Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."

Following the Oslo Accords, Israel handed over control to the PLO. Then in 2005, it dropped all claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
"Pursuant to the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1993"
"As agreement remained elusive, Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, saying it was no longer the occupying power there"

Eki

18th May 2010, 20:57

So the Jews that lived there before '47 and their decendents are ok?

Yes.

Eki

18th May 2010, 21:03

So the Jews that lived there before '47 and their decendents are ok?

Yes.

Eki

18th May 2010, 21:06

So the Jews that lived there before '47 and their decendents are ok?

Yes. The UN with the help of the UK screwed it up in 1947, and we can still see the consequences.

Eki

18th May 2010, 21:12

So the Jews that lived there before '47 and their decendents are ok?

Yes. The UN with the help of the UK screwed it up in 1947, and we can still see the consequences.

chuck34

19th May 2010, 12:36

Eki

19th May 2010, 21:14

Eki, not sure if you know this but you're posting like 4 times in a row. Not sure what's up with that.

So your position is that everything was hunky-dory in the Mid-East prior to 1947? Is that seriously what you are suggesting?

The Forums started to act up on me. Thanks to Koz here I found a way around it:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138368

I don't know about hunky-dory, but at least there wasn't over-population. The Jewish immigrants in Israel like people to believe that they bought their land and homes from the Palestinians/Arabs who lived there before them. Yes, they paid some nominal sum, but they don't like to tell that in many cases they intimidated people to sell and created problems to those who didn't want to sell. Their goal was to create all-Jewish neighborhoods by chasing away the Palestinians/Arabs.

Rollo

19th May 2010, 21:33

In any other modern country you would call that an immigration problem.

So should they have stayed in the predominantly Arabic nations they came from, and still suffer persecution? Do you think that's "right" that they were negated from owning lands and property in the countries that they were previously living in?

Basically what you've just said is that that's acceptable.

Eki

19th May 2010, 21:43

So should they have stayed in the predominantly Arabic nations they came from, and still suffer persecution?
The US, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Ukraine, Poland, etc. are not predominantly Arabic.

Israel should have had its immigration policy based on need and not on religion. Like in the 1960 Australia paid the relocation of Finnish construction workers and some others who wanted to immigrate to Australia. Nowadays it's almost impossible for a Finn to immigrate to Australia, if he/she is not under 35 years with a university degree. You don't need an asylum and they don't need you in their workforce, so they don't take you.

Eki

19th May 2010, 22:09

Israel should employ their Palestinians before they take in more people from abroad:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/econ.html

The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.1%, while the Palestinian unemployment rate in the West Bank is 16.3% and 41.3% in Gaza.

“[A] recent World Bank study predicts that, if the current situation continues throughout 2006, this may be the worst year in the Palestinian economic history. The average Palestinian’s personal income will fall by 40%, and 67% of the population will fall into poverty.”

- A. David Craig, World Bank

Rollo

20th May 2010, 00:02

The US, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Ukraine, Poland, etc. are not predominantly Arabic.

So? Migration to Israel does not predominantly come from these sources:

http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm
In 1948 there were over 856.,000 Jews living in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa. By 1976, most of the Jewish communities in these countries had disappeared, leaving behind a few thousand Jews, scattered over a number of cities in the region.

During the two-year period from 1955 to 1957, the percentage of Jews from Arab countries arriving in Israel rose to 69%. In 1955 this group represented 92% of all immigrants.

Credible peer reviewed statistics, states that most Jews from the disapora who returned to Israel post 1948 came from Arabic countries.

Again: Should they have stayed in the predominantly Arabic nations they came from, and still suffer persecution? Do you think that's "right" that they were negated from owning lands and property in the countries that they were previously living in?

Do you have a direct answer?

Camelopard

20th May 2010, 00:20

So? Migration to Israel does not predominantly come from these sources:

http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm
In 1948 there were over 856.,000 Jews living in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa. By 1976, most of the Jewish communities in these countries had disappeared, leaving behind a few thousand Jews, scattered over a number of cities in the region.

During the two-year period from 1955 to 1957, the percentage of Jews from Arab countries arriving in Israel rose to 69%. In 1955 this group represented 92% of all immigrants.

Credible peer reviewed statistics, states that most Jews from the disapora who returned to Israel post 1948 came from Arabic countries.

Again: Should they have stayed in the predominantly Arabic nations they came from, and still suffer persecution? Do you think that's "right" that they were negated from owning lands and property in the countries that they were previously living in?

Do you have a direct answer?

Do you have any direct evidence that they were suffering persecution in Arabic countries prior to 1947?

Rollo

20th May 2010, 01:47

Do you have any direct evidence that they were suffering persecution in Arabic countries prior to 1947?

The Farhud pogrom which was exacted in Iraq in 1941, saw c.350 Jews killed, the synagogue destroyed and about $3 million in property damage of Jewish owned properties.

There was a planned deportation of Jews from East Thrace (in Turkey) which failed and resulted anti-Jewish pogrom in 1934.

In Yemen in 1919, the Zaydi enforced a statute in which if attacked with stones or fists by a Muslim, a Jew was not allowed to defend themselves.

I could provide links to all sorts of things, but are you going to read them? Probably not.

Eki

20th May 2010, 05:53

The Farhud pogrom which was exacted in Iraq in 1941, saw c.350 Jews killed, the synagogue destroyed and about $3 million in property damage of Jewish owned properties.

There was a planned deportation of Jews from East Thrace (in Turkey) which failed and resulted anti-Jewish pogrom in 1934.

In Yemen in 1919, the Zaydi enforced a statute in which if attacked with stones or fists by a Muslim, a Jew was not allowed to defend themselves.

I could provide links to all sorts of things, but are you going to read them? Probably not.
Why are you talking about "ancient" history when we are talking about more recent immigration? There have not been many Jews left in the Arab countries who have emigrated to Israel. The 800,000 you mentioned are only fraction of the Jews currently in Israel. Most Jews who have emigrated to Israel have been and are from the US and Europe, especially from Eastern Europe in the last two decades. The ones from the US seem to be most militant of them.

chuck34

20th May 2010, 12:46

Eki, so now you're against immigration of Jews to Israel? Why? Are you also against immigration of more Arabs there? You point out that unemployment is high in the "Arab" areas, especially when compared to the rest of the country. So wouldn't the logical follow-on be that it is the Arabs that there are too many of? Or perhaps it's just that the economies in the "Palestinian" controled areas is so badly managed that that is the reason for the unemployment. What is Israel supposed to do about a badly managed economy in areas that they aren't trying to control (Gaza) or have a very limited role in (West Bank). And those are also the areas in which YOU are always railing against Israeli "interference".

For consistency's sake Eki, just admit that you hate Jews, oppose anything they do, and don't think that Israel should be a country. That way your arguments will at least have some consistency to them. Instead of trying to jump through all kinds of hoops to try and make some sort of sence.

Eki

20th May 2010, 12:49

Eki, so now you're against immigration of Jews to Israel? Why? Are you also against immigration of more Arabs there?
Yes, if they make the living of those who already live there more difficult. I don't care about religion or ethnicity. I just want fair and sensible immigration policy based on practicality and need that doesn't favor or discriminate against anyone based on religion or ethnicity.

Eki

20th May 2010, 13:00

You point out that unemployment is high in the "Arab" areas, especially when compared to the rest of the country. So wouldn't the logical follow-on be that it is the Arabs that there are too many of?
Yes, that's because the Jews have squeezed the Arabs out of their homes into small barren areas that don't support that many people. Just like European immigrants in the US squeezed the Native Americans into reservations built on land the European settlers didn't want.

Furthermore, Israelis often forbid Palestinians working in Israel to enter Israel and their workplace claiming they're a "security risk", especially if you're an under 40 year old male. Some even want to build a wall around the Palestinians.

For consistency's sake Eki, just admit that you hate Jews,
Hate Jews? I don't hate the Jews, I don't even know any Jews. I'm not even sure if I have ever met a Jew. They don't affect my life in any way, so why would I hate them?

Next you'll probably claim that I hate Europeans because I said they squeezed the Native Americans into reservations.

Eki

20th May 2010, 13:24

For consistency's sake Eki, just admit that you hate Jews,
Why don't you just admit that you hate the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Muslims in general?

There seems to be only 14% Muslims in Israel, but 98.7% in Gaza:

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

Do you think that's by accident and not because of segregation?

chuck34

20th May 2010, 17:05

Yes, if they make the living of those who already live there more difficult. I don't care about religion or ethnicity. I just want fair and sensible immigration policy based on practicality and need that doesn't favor or discriminate against anyone based on religion or ethnicity.

So now no one can live anywhere they want, they can only move if they are "needed"? And who, pray tell, decides if someone is needed or not?

chuck34

20th May 2010, 17:09

Yes, that's because the Jews have squeezed the Arabs out of their homes into small barren areas that don't support that many people. Just like European immigrants in the US squeezed the Native Americans into reservations built on land the European settlers didn't want.

Have there been any forced relocations of Arabs? And why do they go to "small barren" areas, why not other Arab nations? How was the economy of the region prior to it being a Jewish State?

Furthermore, Israelis often forbid Palestinians working in Israel to enter Israel and their workplace claiming they're a "security risk", especially if you're an under 40 year old male. Some even want to build a wall around the Palestinians.

Perhaps if they would stop blowing up busses and the like, those extreme measures wouldn't be necessary.

Hate Jews? I don't hate the Jews, I don't even know any Jews. I'm not even sure if I have ever met a Jew. They don't affect my life in any way, so why would I hate them?

The fact that you seem to believe everything they do is wrong, and that the "Palistinians" can do no wrong sure seems to point to hatred to me.

chuck34

20th May 2010, 17:12

Why don't you just admit that you hate the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Muslims in general?

Show me where I have a pattern of ALWAYS opposing what Arabs do (as you do with Israelis).

There seems to be only 14% Muslims in Israel, but 98.7% in Gaza:

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm

Do you think that's by accident and not because of segregation?

Neither accident nor segregation. I would put it down more to choice. Why don't they move to other Arab nations around them, if they are so "un-fairly" treated in Israel?

Eki

20th May 2010, 17:30

So now no one can live anywhere they want, they can only move if they are "needed"?
It's reality already everywhere. For example not everybody can move to the US even if they'd want to. That's why there are illegal immigrants. Have you heard about illegal immigrants in the US?

And who, pray tell, decides if someone is needed or not?
Here the immigration officials do.

Eki

20th May 2010, 17:36

Neither accident nor segregation. I would put it down more to choice.
So Palestinians choose to live in refugee camps and ruined neighborhoods? Gimme a break :rolleyes:

Why don't they move to other Arab nations around them, if they are so "un-fairly" treated in Israel?[
Probably for similar reasons why Jews don't move to the US instead of living in Israel if they don't want Qassam rockets launched at their proximity.

If I tried to move to your house, would you just move away and let me have the house, or would you resist?

chuck34

20th May 2010, 17:43

It's reality already everywhere. For example not everybody can move to the US even if they'd want to. That's why there are illegal immigrants. Have you heard about illegal immigrants in the US?

This is a seperate issue. If you want to discuss US immigration policy, then start a new thread. However, I would agree that the US policy could probably be "opened" up a bit. But that is no excuse for people to break the law to get here.

On a related note, how many of those Jews immigrating to Israel are illegal?

Here the immigration officials do.

Immigration officials also make the decisions in Israel. It's just that you don't happen to like their reasoning for allowing certain people in or not. In their minds there is a "need" for more Jews in the region. But you're ok with that aren't you because that is the "official's" decision?

chuck34

20th May 2010, 17:46

So Palestinians choose to live in refugee camps and ruined neighborhoods? Gimme a break :rolleyes:

But who is forcing them to stay in refugee camps? Who ruined their neighborhoods?

Probably for similar reasons why Jews don't move to the US instead of living in Israel if they don't want Qassam rockets launched at their proximity.

So you're back to taking up the position that it is ok for Qassam rockets to be launched at Jews?

If I tried to move to your house, would you just move away and let me have the house, or would you resist?

Completely false logic. Who's "house" was it FIRST?

Brown, Jon Brow

20th May 2010, 17:51

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm

Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube because of its "growing sacrilegious content".

Access to the social network Facebook has also been barred as part of a crackdown on websites seen to be hosting un-Islamic content.

Some Muslims need to learn that Islam should not be immune to scrutiny and ridicule. All religion and beliefs experience it and Islam is not special.

Eki

20th May 2010, 17:58

But who is forcing them to stay in refugee camps? Who ruined their neighborhoods?
Israel.

So you're back to taking up the position that it is ok for Qassam rockets to be launched at Jews?
If you insist having the position, that it's OK for Israel to oppress the Palestinians.

Who's "house" was it FIRST?
Exactly. Israeli immigrant Jews have chased away native Palestinians from homes and land where they lived first. I once saw an interview of an old Palestinian lady who told that a Jewish gang is harassing and pressuring her to sell her home and that many had already given up and moved away.

chuck34

20th May 2010, 18:19

Israel.

Show me where Israel is not allowing people to emmigrate.

If you insist having the position, that it's OK for Israel to oppress the Palestinians.

I NEVER said that it is ok for Israel to oppress the Palestinians. You and I probably have different definitions on "oppression" though. Even if I would agree with you that they are being oppressed, does that give them the right to fire rockets? Ever hear of a couple guys named Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr? Do you have any idea of their teachings and/or impact on societies?

Exactly. Israeli immigrant Jews have chased away native Palestinians from homes and land where they lived first. I once saw an interview of an old Palestinian lady who told that a Jewish gang is harassing and pressuring her to sell her home and that many had already given up and moved away.

But who lived there before the Palestinians? I'll ask once again (although I'm sure you will fail to answer again) when was the last time there was a country called Palestine?

Eki

20th May 2010, 18:53

Show me where Israel is not allowing people to emmigrate.
?
Are you really that thick? I've never said Israel does not allow people to emmigrate, I have said they try to FORCE Palestinians to emigrate and leave their homes so that immigrant Jews can move into the vacated property and land instead.

Eki

20th May 2010, 18:56

But who lived there before the Palestinians?
Who lived in your house before you? Apparently they are welcome to return and throw you out.

Eki

20th May 2010, 19:01

Ever hear of a couple guys named Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr? Do you have any idea of their teachings and/or impact on societies?

Have you ever heard that Israelis used to level homes of Palestinian families with bulldozers in retaliation of Palestinian suicide bomb attacks? The attackers were already dead, so the Israelis went after their families. Is that what Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr would have done?

Eki

20th May 2010, 19:10

You and I probably have different definitions on "oppression" though.
I guess you have the typical American definition of "oppression". You think that "oppression" is when someone you don't like treats badly someone you don't really give a damn about and restricts their freedom, say like Saddam Hussein "oppressing" the rebelling Shiite and Kurds or the Taliban "oppressing" whoever folks live in Afghanistan, but when Israel does the same to the Palestinians, it's OK and not "oppression".

chuck34

20th May 2010, 20:02

Are you really that thick? I've never said Israel does not allow people to emmigrate, I have said they try to FORCE Palestinians to emigrate and leave their homes so that immigrant Jews can move into the vacated property and land instead.

So I'll ask my question again, since you are too thick to understand.

Why are they in refugee camps? Who is FORCING them to stay there? Why aren't they in other Arab countries?

chuck34

20th May 2010, 20:04

Who lived in your house before you? Apparently they are welcome to return and throw you out.

You just don't get it do you? You seem to think that the Palestinians were there first. That is false.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There are two legitimate claims to be made on land, who is there now, and who was there first. "Palestinians" can make neither claim.

chuck34

20th May 2010, 20:06

retaliation of Palestinian suicide bomb attacks?

But I thought the Palestinians were all peace and light?

chuck34

20th May 2010, 20:12

I guess you have the typical American definition of "oppression". You think that "oppression" is when someone you don't like treats badly someone you don't really give a damn about and restricts their freedom, say like Saddam Hussein "oppressing" the rebelling Shiite and Kurds or the Taliban "oppressing" whoever folks live in Afghanistan, but when Israel does the same to the Palestinians, it's OK and not "oppression".

No oppression is oppression. But you'll never see it.

You go on thinking that the "Palestinians" are the rightful owners of that region, even though International law says otherwise, as well as most countries in the world. You go on thinking that the Israelis are the big bad wolf and the the "Palestinians" are all peace loving and wonderful. You go on through your life without seeing that the "Palestinians" are the aggressors. You keep on living in your hole.

This is getting very redundant and stupid. I'm sick of arguing with someone who has to twist himself into a pretzel to make his logic not seem so twisted.

Eki

20th May 2010, 20:34

You go on thinking that the Israelis are the big bad wolf and the the "Palestinians" are all peace loving and wonderful.
No, they both have their faults, but the Israelis are stronger and have the upper hand. The Palestinians are the underdogs. You could say that the Israelis are the big bad wolf and the Palestinians are a small misbehaving poodle.

Eki

21st May 2010, 12:28

Now that the US has apologized the Native Americans, Israel could apologize the Palestinians and try to make amends:

Senator Sam Brownback reads apology to American Indians
Share: by Rhonda J Mangus | May 19, 2010 at 05:06 pm

United States Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) read a congressional resolution on Wednesday apologizing for "ill-conceived policies" and acts of violence against American Indians.

Bob Riebe

23rd May 2010, 02:35

So Palestinians choose to live in refugee camps and ruined neighborhoods? Gimme a break :rolleyes:

Yes they do ( although more so, they follow supposed leader who do. Of course if the leaders did not keep them there they could not give them lies and damned lies to keep them pissed-off) and if you would actually try to educate your self, you would not make so many asinine statements from ignorance.

Bob Riebe

23rd May 2010, 02:36

Now that the US has apologized the Native Americans, Israel could apologize the Palestinians and try to make amends:

Why the Jews had the land before the Muslims, they have nothing to apologize for.
They got THEIR land back.

Camelopard

23rd May 2010, 05:31

So the Jews got "their" land back, please tell me if you think Judaism is a religion or if Jews are a race of people?

Bob Riebe

23rd May 2010, 07:18

So the Jews got "their" land back, please tell me if you think Judaism is a religion or if Jews are a race of people?
The term--Jew-- comes from the tribe of Judah.
Race-- they are just a bunch of white boys.
Religion-- The Jewish religion is named after them.
God gave them the land, they pissed it away, but now they have it back.

Rani

23rd May 2010, 09:04

So the Jews got "their" land back, please tell me if you think Judaism is a religion or if Jews are a race of people?
Judaism is a religion but also a nationality.Some have called it a race but I don't agree with those guys.

Eki

23rd May 2010, 09:54

Why the Jews had the land before the Muslims, they have nothing to apologize for.
They got THEIR land back.
Not the same Jews got. Those Jews who were there before the Muslims have been dead for centuries. In the same way, you don't have the right to your ancestral land in Germany anymore. You or your ancestors left, they lost their place. Does make sense, doesn't it?

Eki

23rd May 2010, 09:58

The term--Jew-- comes from the tribe of Judah.
Race-- they are just a bunch of white boys.
Religion-- The Jewish religion is named after them.
God gave them the land, they pissed it away, but now they have it back.
These Ethiopian Jews don't look like a "bunch of white boys" to me:

http://www.jewishweb.co.za/images/ilanOssendryver-book.jpg

Rani

23rd May 2010, 10:00

Not the same Jews got. Those Jews who were there before the Muslims have been dead for centuries. In the same way, you don't have the right to your ancestral land in Germany anymore. You or your ancestors left, they lost their place. Does make sense, doesn't it?
Leaving and being deported forcefully isn't the same. If you choose somewhere better to live and desert your homeland you only have yourself to blaim. BTW Jews have been living here continuously since those times, albeit at smaller numbers.

Eki

23rd May 2010, 10:00

Judaism is a religion but also a nationality.Some have called it a race but I don't agree with those guys.
To me it doesn't matter, because I consider racial, ethnic and religious discrimination all unacceptable.

airshifter

24th May 2010, 01:15

To me it doesn't matter, because I consider racial, ethnic and religious discrimination all unacceptable.

So why is it always you bringing up that the Jews don't deserve to live in Israel? Regardless of the chain of events leading up to it, the current country of Israel is occupied by mostly Jewish people, living there legally. It shouldn't matter where they were born, how old they are, or if their ancestors lived in what is now Israel. They are legal residents.

Your argument seems to be that history should be changed, but only that history that supports your bias, views, and discrimination against certian inhabitants in certain countries.

Bob Riebe

24th May 2010, 04:28

Bob Riebe

24th May 2010, 04:40

These Ethiopian Jews don't look like a "bunch of white boys" to me:
There were twelve tribes of Israel, and those from of Judah were the most loyal to God, but as the twelve tribes are said, by some any way, to include all three races-- they -- if they are loyal to the God of Israel can still be of the Jewish Faith; whereas the Bible say that in the last days they will be saved by the hairs of their chinny-chin-chins simply because of the covenant God made with the Jews.

There is no such thing as a white race except among politicians using it to divide and separate, but as Caucasians would be the "white" race, skin color or not, unless they are from a racially mixed marriage, people with dark skin from the near east are as much white boys as are Swedes.

Camelopard

24th May 2010, 04:55

That statement is ignorantly stupid.

Pray tell why this is the case?

I can trace part of my family tree back to a small village called East Harling in Norfolk from the very early 1700's.

These ancestors were Quakers, who at the time were a persecuted religious minority and as such emmigrated to many parts of the world so they could practise religious freedom.

So by using your logic, I should be able to return and claim what is perhaps rightfully mine....... Best get in quick then hadn't I!

Bob Riebe

24th May 2010, 09:18

Pray tell why this is the case?

I can trace part of my family tree back to a small village called East Harling in Norfolk from the very early 1700's.

These ancestors were Quakers, who at the time were a persecuted religious minority and as such emmigrated to many parts of the world so they could practise religious freedom.

So by using your logic, I should be able to return and claim what is perhaps rightfully mine....... Best get in quick then hadn't I!
Vacuous rhetoric in the mode of -- oranges are round; therefore all round things are oranges.

One thing you are not employing is logic as your statement is not related, in any manner, to the one by Eki that was ignorant in the greatest degree, although your knowledge of why the Jews put claim to their land seems to equal Eki's.

Camelopard

24th May 2010, 09:58

Tazio

24th May 2010, 10:30

I was just about to make a thread on this subject.

The religion of peace strikes violently once again!

1fg8KRTXDRU

mRnIXnBcAAo&feature=player_embedded

Sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry! :dozey:

Eki

24th May 2010, 11:00

So why is it always you bringing up that the Jews don't deserve to live in Israel?
I always bring up that foreign born Jews shouldn't automatically have the right to move to Israel and take space (which is very limited in Israel) from the native born (usually Arabs and Palestinians) and send them to refugee camps and reservations.

If I condemned the slavery of Africans and the dirty deeds done to Native Americans, you'd probably claim that I hate Europeans and think they don't have the right to live in America :rolleyes:

Eki

24th May 2010, 11:13

There is no such thing as a white race except among politicians using it to divide and separate, but as Caucasians would be the "white" race, skin color or not, unless they are from a racially mixed marriage, people with dark skin from the near east are as much white boys as are Swedes.
Yes, as white as the Swedish runner Mustafa Mohamed here (second from the right):

http://www.friidrott.se/bilder/7051.jpg

Rani

24th May 2010, 12:04

I must say radical islam will have a field trip in Sweden if all security forces there are as frightened as those guys in the university. Pretty funny stuff.

markabilly

24th May 2010, 13:09

see what happen when you want to have a draw a cartoon day??????
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/pakistans-banning-of-facebook-and-youtube-augurs-broader-crackdown/19487077

nothing like Islamic freedom of speech, as long as it praises the prophet properly...

Bob Riebe

24th May 2010, 18:22

You still haven't explained why you regard Eki's post as ignorant.

I'm curious to know who this 'God' was that gave them 'their' land, you want to enlighten me?

Also without getting too personal, do you believe in creationism?IF you want a thread on religion, or theology, start one.

Eki creates his own world, ignorant of the real one seemingly by choice.

There is not your truth and my truth, there is only the truth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an asinine fool.

Why God did what he did-- read the Bible.

The only people that act in a obtuse manner, to a greater degree than Eki's make believe rhetoric, are those who make the Bible say what they want and ignore what they do not like.

Bob Riebe

24th May 2010, 18:25

Yes, as white as the Swedish runner Mustafa Mohamed here (second from the right):

http://www.friidrott.se/bilder/7051.jpg
So you know he is a Caucasian?
If he is, yup, he is just another white boy.

Of course one of the most vile forms of prejudice, is one based on skin color.
You seem to separate by skin color, which would be close to being one in that category.

Bob Riebe

24th May 2010, 18:34

I always bring up that foreign born Jews shouldn't automatically have the right to move to Israel and take space (which is very limited in Israel) from the native born (usually Arabs and Palestinians) and send them to refugee camps and reservations.

If I condemned the slavery of Africans and the dirty deeds done to Native Americans, you'd probably claim that I hate Europeans and think they don't have the right to live in America :rolleyes:

It is odd, the former is thesame attitude American Indians took when they finally hit casino jack-pot.
They decided that any Indian who got tired of reservation poverty and left the reservation for a decent job, should ostracized and denied any of the casino profits by many tribes, because they dared to leave and join U.S. society as whole rather than stay in misery and pee and moan about how bad they had it.

So you are saying any Jews who had left-- lost the right to their homeland because someone, at some point in time was forced to leave, or dared to leave looking for better for their own.
Brilliant!

Eki

24th May 2010, 19:04

So you know he is a Caucasian?
If he is, yup, he is just another white boy.

No, I don't know. Do you really know Ethiopians are Caucasian?

Are these Chinese Jews Caucasian too?

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln270/Judaism/Kaifeng%20Jews.jpg

Bob Riebe

24th May 2010, 20:10

No, I don't know. Do you really know Ethiopians are Caucasian?

Are these Chinese Jews Caucasian too?

You are babbling nonsense, try reading what I wrote, before you make obtuse posts.

Eki

24th May 2010, 21:53

It is odd, the former is thesame attitude American Indians took when they finally hit casino jack-pot.
They decided that any Indian who got tired of reservation poverty and left the reservation for a decent job, should ostracized and denied any of the casino profits by many tribes, because they dared to leave and join U.S. society as whole rather than stay in misery and pee and moan about how bad they had it.

So you are saying any Jews who had left-- lost the right to their homeland because someone, at some point in time was forced to leave, or dared to leave looking for better for their own.
Brilliant!
I wonder to whom Texas really belongs, Spain, France, Mexico or someone else. Can you enlighten me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

Colonization
Main articles: French colonization of Texas, Spanish Texas, and Mexican Texas

Texas in 1718, Guillaume de L'Isle map, approximate state area highlighted, northern areas indefinite
The first historical document related to Texas was a map of the Gulf Coast, created in 1519 by Spanish explorer Alonso Álvarez de Pineda.[23][24] Nine years later, shipwrecked Spanish explorer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and his cohort became the first Europeans in Texas.[25][26] European powers ignored Texas until accidentally settling there in 1685. Miscalculations by René Robert Cavelier de La Salle resulted in his establishing the colony of Fort Saint Louis at Matagorda Bay rather than along the Mississippi River.[27] The colony lasted only four years before succumbing to harsh conditions and hostile natives.[28]
In 1690 Spanish authorities, concerned that France posed competitive threat, constructed several missions in East Texas.[29] After Native American resistance, the Spanish missionaries returned to Mexico.[30] When France began settling Louisiana, mostly in the southern part of the state, in 1716 Spanish authorities responded by founding a new series of missions in East Texas.[31][32] Two years later, they created San Antonio as the first Spanish civilian settlement in Texas.[33]
Hostile native tribes and distance from nearby Spanish colonies discouraged settlers from moving to Texas. It was one of New Spain's least populated provinces.[34] In 1749, the Spanish peace treaty with the Lipan Apache[35] angered many tribes, including the Comanche, Tonkawa, and Hasinai.[36] The Comanche signed a treaty with Spain in 1785[37] and later helped to defeat the Lipan Apache and Karankawa tribes.[38][39] With more numerous missions being established, priests led a peaceful conversion of most tribes. By the end of the 1700s only a few nomadic tribes had not converted to Christianity.[40]
When the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803, American authorities insisted that the agreement also included Texas. The boundary between New Spain and the United States was finally set at the Sabine River in 1819.[41] Eager for new land, many United States settlers refused to recognize the agreement. Several filibusters raised armies to invade Texas.[42] In 1821, the Mexican War of Independence included the Texas territory, which became part of Mexico.[43] Due to its low population, Mexico made the area part of the state of Coahuila y Tejas.[44]

Stephen F. Austin was the first American empresario given permission to operate a colony within Mexican Texas.
Hoping that more settlers would reduce the near-constant Comanche raids, Mexican Texas liberalized its immigration policies to permit immigrants from outside Mexico and Spain.[45] Under the Mexican immigration system, large swathes of land were allotted to empresarios, who recruited settlers from the United States, Europe, and the Mexican interior. The first grant, to Moses Austin, was passed to his son Stephen F. Austin after his death.
Austin's settlers, the Old Three Hundred, made places along the Brazos River in 1822.[46] Twenty-three other empresarios brought settlers to the state, the majority of whom were from the United States.[46][47] The population of Texas grew rapidly. In 1825, Texas had a population of approximately 3,500, with most of Mexican descent.[48] By 1834, Texas had grown to approximately 37,800 people, with only 7,800 of Mexican descent.[49]
Many immigrants openly flouted Mexican law, especially the prohibition against slavery. Combined with United States' attempts to purchase Texas, Mexican authorities decided in 1830 to prohibit continued immigration from the United States.[50] New laws also called for the enforcement of customs duties angering both native Mexican citizens (Tejanos) and recent immigrants.[51]
The Anahuac Disturbances in 1832 were the first open revolt against Mexican rule and they coincided with a revolt in Mexico against the nation's president.[52] Texians sided with the federalists against the current government and drove all Mexican soldiers out of East Texas.[53] They took advantage of the lack of oversight to agitate for more political freedom. Texians met at the Convention of 1832 to discuss requesting independent statehood, among other issues.[54] The following year, Texians reiterated their demands at the Convention of 1833.

anthonyvop

24th May 2010, 23:14

I wonder to whom Texas really belongs, Spain, France, Mexico or someone else. Can you enlighten me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

Texas belongs to Texans.

chuck34

25th May 2010, 01:23

I wonder to whom Texas really belongs, Spain, France, Mexico or someone else. Can you enlighten me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

You really are that dense aren't you? Land claims go to either those that hold the land currently, or held it first.

So clearly it's the property of the United States currently. If the Native Americans really wanted to make some sort of claim to it, I suppose they could have some standing. But I don't see too many tribes out there demanding their land back.

markabilly

25th May 2010, 01:45

Texas belongs to Texans.
and the texicans screwed up a few years later and joined the union

airshifter

25th May 2010, 03:05

Camelopard

25th May 2010, 03:07

IF you want a thread on religion, or theology, start one.

Eki creates his own world, ignorant of the real one seemingly by choice.

There is not your truth and my truth, there is only the truth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an asinine fool.

Why God did what he did-- read the Bible.

The only people that act in a obtuse manner, to a greater degree than Eki's make believe rhetoric, are those who make the Bible say what they want and ignore what they do not like.

How do you know I haven't read the Bible? Just because it is in the Bible or any other holy book does not make it true..........

You still haven't answered the question(s)..... Why is Eki's post ignorant? Just because you don't agree with it? Seems I can quote back to you about make believe, I guess you believe in the tooth fairy as well....... :p

So are you a creationist?

Bob Riebe

25th May 2010, 04:23

How do you know I haven't read the Bible? Just because it is in the Bible or any other holy book does not make it true..........

You still haven't answered the question(s)..... Why is Eki's post ignorant? Just because you don't agree with it? Seems I can quote back to you about make believe, I guess you believe in the tooth fairy as well....... :p
So are you a creationist?

I answered it, you do not like the answer.

You are babbling also, do you have a point?

As to why he chooses to be seemingly ignorant, ask Eki.

The thread is not about me, try again.

Eki

25th May 2010, 06:03

Your crazy comparisons ignore one thing... Israel can do as it wishes in Israel. Just like any other nation can within international laws.
Well, I guess we can then at least agree that Israel shouldn't build settlements on the Occupied Territories, because it is against international laws.

Eki

25th May 2010, 06:06

You really are that dense aren't you? Land claims go to either those that hold the land currently, or held it first.

Which ones? The current ones or the first ones?

You have asked me when there was a nation called Palestine. Let me ask when there was a nation called Jews?

Eki

25th May 2010, 06:25

A similar mistake to Israel happened in smaller scale in Finland with the Ingrian Finns. At least Finland tries to limit the consequences by stopping the remigration. Israel should do the same with the Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrian_Finns#Present_day

After the collapse of the Soviet Union about 25,000 Ingrians and their family members from Russia and Estonia have moved to Finland[6], where they are eligible for automatic residence permit in the Finnish Law of Return. In 2010 the Finnish government decided to stop the remigration and new residence seeking Ingrians will be treated similar way than any other foreigners. There are still about 15,000 people in the remigration queue.[6]
The number of people who declared their nationality as Finnish in the 2002 Russian census was 34,000 (down from 47,000 in 1989 (RSFSR).
As many Ingrian Finns, including mixed families, who moved to Finland did not speak another language than Russian and in many cases identify themselves as Russians,[7] mostly the younger generation, there are social integration problems similar to those of any other migrant groups in Europe, to such an extent that there is a political debate in Finland as to the maintenance of the Finnish Law of Return. On the contrary, native Finnish-speakers easily assimilate to mainstream Finnish culture, leaving little trace of original Ingrian traditions.

Bob Riebe

25th May 2010, 08:13

Which ones? The current ones or the first ones?

You have asked me when there was a nation called Palestine. Let me ask when there was a nation called Jews?
Look up where the name Israel came from.

Eki

25th May 2010, 09:12

Look up where the name Israel came from.
So what? What does that got to do with Jews? Finland was founded by Lutherans, but it doesn't mean that every Lutheran in the world is automatically a Finn.

Rani

25th May 2010, 11:35

So what? What does that got to do with Jews? Finland was founded by Lutherans, but it doesn't mean that every Lutheran in the world is automatically a Finn.

Why is it so hard for you to see that Israel is unique in some respects?
True, no other country is considered a homeland for the jewish nation, but why does that mean there shouldn't be one ? Why should there be a homeland for finns by the same logic?

Israel is the only country ever to ressurect a dead language. By your logic should I be speaking yiddish instead of hebrew?
Israel is endemmic in some respects.

History created the circumstances which made this country a reality. If you like, you can blaim 20th century europe and especially the people of the Axis Powers and those who joined them (such as Finland) for helping bringing forth this latest incarnation of Israel. WW2 didn't create zionism (it was started by Herzl in the 19th century) but helped it along oddly.

Daniel

25th May 2010, 11:44

Rani

25th May 2010, 11:54

Very good points Rani. Whilst I don't believe there should have been a Jewish state in the first place, it's there now and that's that. It would just be nice if people could play together properly....
I (obviously) disagree. I think jews having a country of their own (however torn with wars) is a better option than the historic cycle of getting kicked out-settling somewhere else-settling in-getting kicked out (or exterminated).

As for it being nice if people could get along, it would indeed be nice. Maybe in the future, I never lose hope. If not for me than for my children...

chuck34

25th May 2010, 12:43

Which ones? The current ones or the first ones?

Which ones!?!?!? Can you really be that dumb? I said either the people there currently have control, or the people that were there first. Since the people that were there first are not making any current legitimate claims, Texas belongs to the United States. You really have no grasp of logic do you? Oh wait I don't need to ask that question ...

You have asked me when there was a nation called Palestine. Let me ask when there was a nation called Jews?

This has got to be by FAR FAR FAR the stupidest thing to ever be typed on this forum. And that is saying something. I'm not going to put you on ignore Eki, because then I'd miss all the fun. But don't expect too many responses from me. Someone that has that little knowlege of the world around them, I don't really need to waste my time on. Have fun.

markabilly

25th May 2010, 13:01

. Since the people that were there first are not making any current legitimate claims, Texas belongs to the United States. .
no it don't......just ask the Texas Republicans (those true members of the Republic of Texas --and not those yankee carpetbaggers)and they will tell you that the annexation of Texas by the United States was illegal and that Texas remains an independent nation under illegal occupation

Bob Riebe

25th May 2010, 16:08

So what? What does that got to do with Jews? Finland was founded by Lutherans, but it doesn't mean that every Lutheran in the world is automatically a Finn.
Your replies amount to a broken record based either on either vacuous ignorance, or hatred for the Jews.

Your would have done well in the deep South of the USA in the segregation days.

Eki

25th May 2010, 17:12

Why is it so hard for you to see that Israel is unique in some respects?
True, no other country is considered a homeland for the jewish nation, but why does that mean there shouldn't be one ? Why should there be a homeland for finns by the same logic?

Israel is the only country ever to ressurect a dead language. By your logic should I be speaking yiddish instead of hebrew?
Israel is endemmic in some respects.

History created the circumstances which made this country a reality. If you like, you can blaim 20th century europe and especially the people of the Axis Powers and those who joined them (such as Finland) for helping bringing forth this latest incarnation of Israel. WW2 didn't create zionism (it was started by Herzl in the 19th century) but helped it along oddly.
I think the world doesn't need a Jewish nation anymore than it needs an Islamic nation. Heck, they could even annex Vatican to Italy and teach them to speak Italian instead of Latin.

If your native language was Yiddish and not Hebrew, then you IMO should speak Yiddish. If it was for example English, you should IMO speak English. Resurrecting dead languages is artificial like Dr Frankenstein resurrecting his monster.

I don't think there's any more reason to resurrect Hebrew than to resurrect Old English/Anglo-Saxon.

Eki

25th May 2010, 17:25

Your replies amount to a broken record based either on either vacuous ignorance, or hatred for the Jews.

Your would have done well in the deep South of the USA in the segregation days.
Funny, because to me it seems that you're the one who supports the segregation in Israel and think that only a "bunch of white boys" should be allowed to live there.

Bob Riebe

25th May 2010, 17:54

Funny, because to me it seems that you're the one who supports the segregation in Israel and think that only a "bunch of white boys" should be allowed to live there.
The muslims are white boys too, so they can live there if they stop murdering people,or letting there rulers murder people.

Eki

25th May 2010, 18:04

The muslims are white boys too, so they can live there if they stop murdering people,or letting there rulers murder people.
Yes, they can live there as second class citizens like the colored boys in the deep South of the USA in the segregation days.

anthonyvop

25th May 2010, 18:39

Yes, they can live there as second class citizens like the colored boys in the deep South of the USA in the segregation days.

That is it.

It is official.

You are a Racists, idiot.

Daniel

25th May 2010, 19:08

That is it.

It is official.

You are a Racists, idiot.
You are Borat and I claim my £5

You are a racists! Jagshemash!
http://www.phillyist.com/attachments/philly_jill/rsz_borat2.jpg

Chenquieh.

Rollo

25th May 2010, 21:48

I think the world doesn't need a Jewish nation anymore than it needs an Islamic nation. Heck, they could even annex Vatican to Italy and teach them to speak Italian instead of Latin.

Do you have a problem with the existance of Jordan? or Iran? or Saudi Arabia? or Pakistan?

And if that's the case, just why do you advocate the existance of Palestine as a sovereign state?

Mark in Oshawa

25th May 2010, 22:14

Do you have a problem with the existance of Jordan? or Iran? or Saudi Arabia? or Pakistan?

And if that's the case, just why do you advocate the existance of Palestine as a sovereign state?

He has no problem with dictators, thugs and villians, because he wastes no time condemning THEIR actions while going to great length's to attacking leaders of Western states because they are not of his political stripe.

Rollo, you know his answer as well as I do.....he will ignore the reality and keep on his little tirade. IT is the reason I have ignored this thread for about the last week....

harsha

26th May 2010, 05:19

Silence !!!! I Kill you :D :D

Eki

26th May 2010, 06:34

Do you have a problem with the existance of Jordan? or Iran? or Saudi Arabia? or Pakistan?

No, because they have formed naturally mostly by natives and have not "imported" people based on religion. And they are nation states, not Islamic nations. Their nationality is Pakistani, etc and not Muslim. They don't let in just any Muslim, just because he/she is a Muslim. The State Church of Finland is Lutheran and about 80% of Finns are Lutheran and the President of Finland is the head of the Lutheran church even while she's not a member of that church, but Finland is not a Lutheran nation. We don't let in just any Lutheran and our passports don't say our nationality is Lutheran.

For example, a very peculiar detail about Israel is while for example in the US the President has to be native born, in Israel seven of the nine Presidents have been foreign born:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Israel

The influx of Jewish immigrants in Israel has been so fast that you could almost talk about an invasion.

And if that's the case, just why do you advocate the existance of Palestine as a sovereign state?
Palestinians are natives there (except those who are refugees and should be let to return).

Rollo

26th May 2010, 07:58

No, because they have formed naturally mostly by natives and have not "imported" people based on religion. And they are nation states, not Islamic nations. Their nationality is Pakistani, etc and not Muslim. They don't let in just any Muslim, just because he/she is a Muslim.

Do you honestly think that the "Islamic Republic of Iran" or the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", or maybe the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan who claim to be decended from prophet Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah, or perhaps the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who have the Shahada (There is no god other than Allah and Muhammad is his messenger) written on their flag, are not Islamic States?

How much bloody more open do you want them to be about it?

And as for your other comment, places like Mecca and Medina will in fact keep you OUT if you are not a Muslim.

The influx of Jewish immigrants in Israel has been so fast that you could almost talk about an invasion.

Of course, the rest of the Arabic states kicked them OUT, once the nation state of Israel was formed. Where else do you expect them to go?

For example, a very peculiar detail about Israel is while for example in the US the President has to be native born, in Israel seven of the nine Presidents have been foreign born

And the point of this is what? To prove that democracy works?

The point is that Elvis is probably dead, because even if he did fake his own death, you'd have to admit that dying whilst on the lav is a pretty difficult thing to fake. At some point you'd run out of newspaper to read.