My thoughts on Israel

[Maia]

Not to mention the fact that Zionists PURCHASD the land legally from Arab landownders. The landowners thought they would be able to just take it back again. They thought wrong. Jews emigrated there legally. Interesting that wokies are so keen for muslims to emigrate en masse to Europe, yet say that Jews had no right to emigrate to Israel.
I don't like the 'ancestral homeland' argument though. No other country has to justify its existence so why should Israel have to? They bought land. They emigrated. They won it after multiple attacks. They built a gorgeous country from nothing in a short space of time. Why does that ENRAGE people so much? They practically foam at the mouth with rage over it.

It would be like saying that if the Jews have no right to Israel, then the current inhabitants of the USA have no right to it, either. Or indeed anywhere in the world that has been colonised. One could even say that the English have no right to England, since the Anglo-Saxons took over the land in the 5th and 6th centuries.

Also, around half of the Jewish population of Israel are Arab Jews, descended from Jews expelled by the Arab countries in the 1940s.

Israel is a very good example of what a nation can achieve if its people work together with a common sense of purpose.

[accelafine]

Not to mention the fact that Zionists PURCHASD the land legally from Arab landownders. The landowners thought they would be able to just take it back again. They thought wrong. Jews emigrated there legally. Interesting that wokies are so keen for muslims to emigrate en masse to Europe, yet say that Jews had no right to emigrate to Israel.
I don't like the 'ancestral homeland' argument though. No other country has to justify its existence so why should Israel have to? They bought land. They emigrated. They won it after multiple attacks. They built a gorgeous country from nothing in a short space of time. Why does that ENRAGE people so much? They practically foam at the mouth with rage over it.

It would be like saying that if the Jews have no right to Israel, then the current inhabitants of the USA have no right to it, either. Or indeed anywhere in the world that has been colonised. One could even say that the English have no right to England, since the Anglo-Saxons took over the land in the 5th and 6th centuries.

Also, around half of the Jewish population of Israel are Arab Jews, descended from Jews expelled by the Arab countries in the 1940s.

Israel is a very good example of what a nation can achieve if its people work together with a common sense of purpose.

Yes. It's ridiculous. Every country has been 'colonised'. I don't think the American colonisers bothered to pay the earlier inhabitants for the land.
And the Irish are always banging on about being 'Celtic', but the Celts certainly didn't originate there so they must have 'colonised' whoever was there already. There have been people in Ireland for about ten thousand years-- long before the Celts.
There's just 'something' about Israel that makes people really angry. Gosh. I wonder what that could be

[Maia]

Not to mention the fact that Zionists PURCHASD the land legally from Arab landownders. The landowners thought they would be able to just take it back again. They thought wrong. Jews emigrated there legally. Interesting that wokies are so keen for muslims to emigrate en masse to Europe, yet say that Jews had no right to emigrate to Israel.
I don't like the 'ancestral homeland' argument though. No other country has to justify its existence so why should Israel have to? They bought land. They emigrated. They won it after multiple attacks. They built a gorgeous country from nothing in a short space of time. Why does that ENRAGE people so much? They practically foam at the mouth with rage over it.

It would be like saying that if the Jews have no right to Israel, then the current inhabitants of the USA have no right to it, either. Or indeed anywhere in the world that has been colonised. One could even say that the English have no right to England, since the Anglo-Saxons took over the land in the 5th and 6th centuries.

Also, around half of the Jewish population of Israel are Arab Jews, descended from Jews expelled by the Arab countries in the 1940s.

Israel is a very good example of what a nation can achieve if its people work together with a common sense of purpose.

Yes. It's ridiculous. Every country has been 'colonised'. I don't think the American colonisers bothered to pay the earlier inhabitants for the land.
And the Irish are always banging on about being 'Celtic', but the Celts certainly didn't originate there so they must have 'colonised' whoever was there already. There have been people in Ireland for about ten thousand years-- long before the Celts.
There's just 'something' about Israel that makes people really angry. Gosh. I wonder what that could be

I believe they often paid the Native Americans some worthless trinkets, and then made treaties, which they always broke. Since there is such a tiny number of Native Americans left, doesn't this count as a genocide? Unlike, say, in Israel, which has a 20% population of Arab Muslims. As you say, there must be some other reason why they hate Israel so much.

The Celts came to the British Isles around 700 BC, give or take a couple of centuries, bringing iron weapons with them, and conquering the previous inhabitants, who had built the stone circles and other megalithic monuments.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The wrongs of history are so enormous they cannot be undone. They cannot even be reset. We all stand on an Everest of corpses. For whom we must be grateful.

[Maia]

The wrongs of history are so enormous they cannot be undone. They cannot even be reset. We all stand on an Everest of corpses. For whom we must be grateful.

Very true. And the more one studies history, the more obvious it becomes.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The wrongs of history are so enormous they cannot be undone. They cannot even be reset. We all stand on an Everest of corpses. For whom we must be grateful.

Very true. And the more one studies history, the more obvious it becomes.

British oppression of Ireland started over 800 years ago. So it takes a while for things to quieten down, smooth out. There were at their worst for 30 years long up to 30 years ago. They still aren't smooth. So The Palestinian Question might take until 3000 AD. Or the next already deferred ice age more likely. Of course the extra 4 degrees will make that all moot in a century for three.

[Maia]

The wrongs of history are so enormous they cannot be undone. They cannot even be reset. We all stand on an Everest of corpses. For whom we must be grateful.

Very true. And the more one studies history, the more obvious it becomes.

British oppression of Ireland started over 800 years ago. So it takes a while for things to quieten down, smooth out. There were at their worst for 30 years long up to 30 years ago. They still aren't smooth. So The Palestinian Question might take until 3000 AD. Or the next already deferred ice age more likely. Of course the extra 4 degrees will make that all moot in a century for three.

I think it's always a good idea to research such narratives a little more deeply.

The Normans began their conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, after having conquered England in the previous century, so it was definitely not the British who did this. This followed around a thousand years of Irish raids and colonisation of Britain (especially areas of Scotland and Wales), when they would regularly capture Britons to take back to Ireland as slaves, the most famous of these being St. Patrick. Trying to put a stop to this activity was one of the reasons the Normans gave for entering Ireland.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Very true. And the more one studies history, the more obvious it becomes.

British oppression of Ireland started over 800 years ago. So it takes a while for things to quieten down, smooth out. There were at their worst for 30 years long up to 30 years ago. They still aren't smooth. So The Palestinian Question might take until 3000 AD. Or the next already deferred ice age more likely. Of course the extra 4 degrees will make that all moot in a century for three.

I think it's always a good idea to research such narratives a little more deeply.

The Normans began their conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, after having conquered England in the previous century, so it was definitely not the British who did this. This followed around a thousand years of Irish raids and colonisation of Britain (especially areas of Scotland and Wales), when they would regularly capture Britons to take back to Ireland as slaves, the most famous of these being St. Patrick. Trying to put a stop to this activity was one of the reasons the Normans gave for entering Ireland.

It was because the British English (Anglo-Saxon) Pope, (H)Adrian IV, ordered a Plantagenet French English British king, in Laudabiliter, to get him 'his' money from the Irish.

The Jewish invasion of Palestine a mere 80 years ago has even less legitimacy, apart from force majeur. A catastrophe born of a holocaust. What astounds me is the utter meaningless of the Ummah, of Muslim commonwealth. That Arab Sunni Islam couldn't give a flying fuck about Sunni Arab Palestinians. Iran's rabid antisemitism comes from the wrong, heretical, Islam. Born of Iran's abuse by Britain and America with the Shah, who was our son of a bitch, unlike the noble by comparison Mossadegh. Who was Stalin's. History eh? The Shah's evil Savak were allowed to operate in London by good socialist Wilson. What a world eh?

[accelafine]

The wrongs of history are so enormous they cannot be undone. They cannot even be reset. We all stand on an Everest of corpses. For whom we must be grateful.

Is that supposed to be 'deep'?

[accelafine]

British oppression of Ireland started over 800 years ago. So it takes a while for things to quieten down, smooth out. There were at their worst for 30 years long up to 30 years ago. They still aren't smooth. So The Palestinian Question might take until 3000 AD. Or the next already deferred ice age more likely. Of course the extra 4 degrees will make that all moot in a century for three.

I think it's always a good idea to research such narratives a little more deeply.

The Normans began their conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, after having conquered England in the previous century, so it was definitely not the British who did this. This followed around a thousand years of Irish raids and colonisation of Britain (especially areas of Scotland and Wales), when they would regularly capture Britons to take back to Ireland as slaves, the most famous of these being St. Patrick. Trying to put a stop to this activity was one of the reasons the Normans gave for entering Ireland.

It was because the British English (Anglo-Saxon) Pope, (H)Adrian IV, ordered a Plantagenet French English British king, in Laudabiliter, to get him 'his' money from the Irish.

The Jewish invasion of Palestine a mere 80 years ago has even less legitimacy, apart from force majeur. A catastrophe born of a holocaust. What astounds me is the utter meaningless of the Ummah, of Muslim commonwealth. That Arab Sunni Islam couldn't give a flying fuck about Sunni Arab Palestinians. Iran's rabid antisemitism comes from the wrong, heretical, Islam. Born of Iran's abuse by Britain and America with the Shah, who was our son of a bitch, unlike the noble by comparison Mossadegh. Who was Stalin's. History eh? The Shah's evil Savak were allowed to operate in London by good socialist Wilson. What a world eh?

Emigrating there legally was an 'invasion'? 'Interesting'. Maybe you should learn to write because you make about as much sense as Walker. What is it with the obsession of some posters on here to hide behind cowardly gibberish? Do they think it gives them an air of profundity?

[Maia]

British oppression of Ireland started over 800 years ago. So it takes a while for things to quieten down, smooth out. There were at their worst for 30 years long up to 30 years ago. They still aren't smooth. So The Palestinian Question might take until 3000 AD. Or the next already deferred ice age more likely. Of course the extra 4 degrees will make that all moot in a century for three.

I think it's always a good idea to research such narratives a little more deeply.

The Normans began their conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, after having conquered England in the previous century, so it was definitely not the British who did this. This followed around a thousand years of Irish raids and colonisation of Britain (especially areas of Scotland and Wales), when they would regularly capture Britons to take back to Ireland as slaves, the most famous of these being St. Patrick. Trying to put a stop to this activity was one of the reasons the Normans gave for entering Ireland.

It was because the British English (Anglo-Saxon) Pope, (H)Adrian IV, ordered a Plantagenet French English British king, in Laudabiliter, to get him 'his' money from the Irish.

The Jewish invasion of Palestine a mere 80 years ago has even less legitimacy, apart from force majeur. A catastrophe born of a holocaust. What astounds me is the utter meaningless of the Ummah, of Muslim commonwealth. That Arab Sunni Islam couldn't give a flying fuck about Sunni Arab Palestinians. Iran's rabid antisemitism comes from the wrong, heretical, Islam. Born of Iran's abuse by Britain and America with the Shah, who was our son of a bitch, unlike the noble by comparison Mossadegh. Who was Stalin's. History eh? The Shah's evil Savak were allowed to operate in London by good socialist Wilson. What a world eh?

There was nothing English about Henry II. He was French, ruled mainly from France, and was descended from the Normans who conquered England in 1066. If there were any actual English people involved in the Norman conquest of Ireland it was peasants conscripted as arrow fodder. You appear to be blaming the English for something that the people who had conquered them, the Normans, did.

As for whether Shia Islam is more wrong than Sunni, I wouldn't like to pass judgement, other than to say that both exhibit the very worst tendencies of monotheism for fanaticism, violence, and misogyny.

[accelafine]

British oppression of Ireland started over 800 years ago. So it takes a while for things to quieten down, smooth out. There were at their worst for 30 years long up to 30 years ago. They still aren't smooth. So The Palestinian Question might take until 3000 AD. Or the next already deferred ice age more likely. Of course the extra 4 degrees will make that all moot in a century for three.

I think it's always a good idea to research such narratives a little more deeply.

The Normans began their conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, after having conquered England in the previous century, so it was definitely not the British who did this. This followed around a thousand years of Irish raids and colonisation of Britain (especially areas of Scotland and Wales), when they would regularly capture Britons to take back to Ireland as slaves, the most famous of these being St. Patrick. Trying to put a stop to this activity was one of the reasons the Normans gave for entering Ireland.

It was because the British English (Anglo-Saxon) Pope, (H)Adrian IV, ordered a Plantagenet French English British king, in Laudabiliter, to get him 'his' money from the Irish.

The Jewish invasion of Palestine a mere 80 years ago has even less legitimacy, apart from force majeur. A catastrophe born of a holocaust. What astounds me is the utter meaningless of the Ummah, of Muslim commonwealth. That Arab Sunni Islam couldn't give a flying fuck about Sunni Arab Palestinians. Iran's rabid antisemitism comes from the wrong, heretical, Islam. Born of Iran's abuse by Britain and America with the Shah, who was our son of a bitch, unlike the noble by comparison Mossadegh. Who was Stalin's. History eh? The Shah's evil Savak were allowed to operate in London by good socialist Wilson. What a world eh?

You can stop embarrassing yourself now, old man. It must be exhausting wrting in gibberish. Take a nap. Btw, aren't you Australian? Your invasion of that land didn't go too well for the natives now did it? I wonder why there aren't 'Free the aboriginies' riots on uni campuses around the world...

[promethean75]

"Emigrating there legally was an 'invasion'?"

No. That's just rhetoric. It boils down to this. I already explained the impasse here when the Hamas airforce employed those model 7b light operations capable flying go-carts over the fence and into the rave.

It depends on what you consider a legitimate form of permission to take a territory. In Israel's case, a legitimate decision was made by a committee of countries to let the jews have a spot and call it Israel. On the other hand, a legitimate decision was made by a country not part of that committee to not allow the jews to have a spot and call it israel.

So, who's decision is more legitimate? Does the number of people who agree on a decision make it right... or is a decision right independently of how many people make it?

There was at one point a larger erf population calling themselves goddamn communists than erf populations calling themselves something else. When China and Russia and the little satellite goddamn communist states were around... he'll that's half the erf right there, hain't it?

I've concluded after the exchange between the historians Maia and Clarke that indeed it is all taken by force by somebody at some time. So he who has the power to defend a thing... to him, that thing belongs, and so shall he be the proprietor. Thrasymachus and Stirner were right all along.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"Emigrating there legally was an 'invasion'?"

No. That's just rhetoric. It boils down to this. I already explained the impasse here when the Hamas airforce employed those model 7b light operations capable flying go-carts over the fence and into the rave.

It depends on what you consider a legitimate form of permission to take a territory. In Israel's case, a legitimate decision was made by a committee of countries to let the jews have a spot and call it Israel. On the other hand, a legitimate decision was made by a country not part of that committee to not allow the jews to have a spot and call it israel.

So, who's decision is more legitimate? Does the number of people who agree on a decision make it right... or is a decision right independently of how many people make it?

There was at one point a larger erf population calling themselves goddamn communists than erf populations calling themselves something else. When China and Russia and the little satellite goddamn communist states were around... he'll that's half the erf right there, hain't it?

I've concluded after the exchange between the historians Maia and Clarke that indeed it is all taken by force by somebody at some time. So he who has the power to defend a thing... to him, that thing belongs, and so shall he be the proprietor. Thrasymachus and Stirner were right all along.

No that's just incomprehensible. Not even rhetoric. And no it was an invasion of another people's land. They were the 'legitimate' inhabitants, not that they needed legitimacy, just autonomy. independence. To be left alone. Not the successive occupiers and the UN who facilitated invasion and conquest, against the will of the people of the land, by force.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I think it's always a good idea to research such narratives a little more deeply.

The Normans began their conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, after having conquered England in the previous century, so it was definitely not the British who did this. This followed around a thousand years of Irish raids and colonisation of Britain (especially areas of Scotland and Wales), when they would regularly capture Britons to take back to Ireland as slaves, the most famous of these being St. Patrick. Trying to put a stop to this activity was one of the reasons the Normans gave for entering Ireland.

It was because the British English (Anglo-Saxon) Pope, (H)Adrian IV, ordered a Plantagenet French English British king, in Laudabiliter, to get him 'his' money from the Irish.

The Jewish invasion of Palestine a mere 80 years ago has even less legitimacy, apart from force majeur. A catastrophe born of a holocaust. What astounds me is the utter meaningless of the Ummah, of Muslim commonwealth. That Arab Sunni Islam couldn't give a flying fuck about Sunni Arab Palestinians. Iran's rabid antisemitism comes from the wrong, heretical, Islam. Born of Iran's abuse by Britain and America with the Shah, who was our son of a bitch, unlike the noble by comparison Mossadegh. Who was Stalin's. History eh? The Shah's evil Savak were allowed to operate in London by good socialist Wilson. What a world eh?

There was nothing English about Henry II. He was French, ruled mainly from France, and was descended from the Normans who conquered England in 1066. If there were any actual English people involved in the Norman conquest of Ireland it was peasants conscripted as arrow fodder. You appear to be blaming the English for something that the people who had conquered them, the Normans, did.

As for whether Shia Islam is more wrong than Sunni, I wouldn't like to pass judgement, other than to say that both exhibit the very worst tendencies of monotheism for fanaticism, violence, and misogyny.

Henry II had Norman, French and ANGLO-SAXON ancestors. He was King of ENGLAND. Nicholas Brakespear, aka Pope Adrian IV, was an Englishman of Anglo-Saxon (German) roots. The English are a British people. The Irish are not. The Brittonic Celtic Ancient Britons were not in the modern sense. So there has been British, predominantly English, English Norman led English Anglo-Saxon and maybe non-English Celtic Welsh and English Celtic Cornish and later Gaelic Celtic Scots (who, of course, aren't descended from the Ancient Britons) interference in Ireland for over eight hundred years. I call that British interference. Not Norman.

I'm not passing any judgement on Islam whatsoever. The Shia are heretic as far as the Sunni are concerned. Worst is normal by a billion and more.