The USA and Israel

[Age]

What. Is. Your. Evidence.

You assert but offer no evidence.

You don't remember that it was stolen from the Indians?

Who'd they swipe it from?

No one. They shared it with all other living things.

They were not so greedy, selfish, nor disillusioned to ever think or believe, 'This is mine nor ours'. Like following adult human beings have tended to do.

[Age]

Can you "henry quirk" really still not yet see that when you decide to 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property for whatever reason you have decided to, even under some sort of claimed 'defense', then this makes all of 'this' relative?

Can you, age, really not see that your assertions don't mean spit without some kind of foundation?

So, apparently you really, really still cannot yet see that when you 'decide' to 'take' from another, then that personal 'decision' of yours was based upon your very own personal 'subjective decision', which is obviously 'relative' to you, the individual observer, alone, and only.

Now, as to your answering your asked clarifying question here, and as I have informed you, and others numerous times already, previously, I make assertions and claims and, purposely, do not back them up and support them until someone seeks this out asks the specific questions, for clarity.

Show how it's relative.

If you ask, from a curiously interested perspective, in order to seek out, gain, and obtain actual clarity, then your request will be granted. Until then, I wait.

But, if you tell me what to do, exactly like you have here, then expect to wait.

But you claim that you can make the, relative or subjective, 'decision' about when and how you can and will 'take' another's life, liberty, and/or so-called property.

No, I don't.

Well who, or what, exactly, makes 'decisions' 'for you'?

For example, like; 'When to pull the trigger'?

If you aren't threatening my life, my liberty, my property, I have nuthin' to defend against and no call to defend myself.

Well we would hope not. Although you have spoken and written before, which exposed and revealed otherwise.

you have, continually, specifically claimed that you can 'defend' yours or another's so-called, absolute moral claim, to your or their life, liberty, or so-called property.

Yes. A very specific response (defense) to a very act (a violation of natural rights).

Which, when committed, is committed in and with the very act of being in absolute violation of what you call 'absolute moral rights'. So, to claim that you can, a person, make a personal, thus subjective or relative, decision, which goes against the very harped on about 'absolute moral rights' of a person, or person hood, then, as I have been continually pointing out and showing, if very, very hypocritical, and contradictory, to say the least.

So, there are, according to your 'logic' circumstances where you can declare another 'your property', which obviously you can use or direct as you see fit.

No, age.

So, either you can, or, you can not, 'in defense'.

you, obviously, cannot logically, legitimately, and Rightfully have 'it' both ways.

Unless you really, really believe or consider that you "henry quirk" can.

I can never morally, justly declare another my property.

But what happens if one 'touches' what you call 'your tooth pick', can you never ever morally nor justly bound them up, for a certain length of time, thus declaring 'them' 'your property', which you have just 'decided' what 'you' will do with 'them'?

I can't morally, justly murder them, slave them, rape them, steal from them, or defraud them.

But what about in your so-called 'defense' circumstances?

Also, let us not forget about what happens when one does not care or wants any or those things done here?

For example, if someone just goes to touch your claimed toothpick, and to so-call 'defend' this so-called 'property of yours' you can declare that one under arrest, and as such you can use or direct them to remain still even to the point of you being able to tie them up, right?

No, age.

Oh okay. Now we are finally getting somewhere. Previously you had declared that you had the right to kill another human being dead, for just 'touching your tooth pick', as you said.

I'm not a police officer.

But, if you were, then can you tie human beings up and thus treat 'them' as 'yours', in some particular way or another?

Also, one does not need to be a so-called "police officer" to, legally, do what I just said and wrote there.

I don't have voluntary dealings with police officers. I'm not an agent of the State or courts. I don't have voluntary dealings with such agents.

Okay. Completely off-topic, but attempts and deflection and detraction were common here, back in these 'olden days'.

But you can 'take' the so-called property, liberty, and life of another when you are so-called 'defending' life, liberty, or so-called property right?

You mean life, yes?

Why only 'life'?

Do you prefer to 'shoot dead' or 'take' 'the life' of another, than to just 'take' the liberty and/or property of another?

I may take that life yes, to defend my own, yes.

you have also said and written that you would 'shoot dead', take the lives', others, for other reasons as well.

The lesson: if one wants to preserve his life, don't trade it off by trying to violate the life, liberty, and property of another.

The real lesson here is although "Henry quirk" claims that your life is your own, and absolutely no one else's, "henry quirk" still makes 'the decision' of whether you will live, or, whether, and when, you will die. So, be very, very careful around the one known here as "henry quirk".

But if "dubious" or another touched your toothpick, for example, you can then beat them up, or take their liberty, and/or their life, correct?

Questions: when did toothpicks become your fetish?

When you said and wrote, something like, you would kill someone for just touching your tooth pick. And, when I questioned and challenged you further you said and wrote that you would even kill your and/or your partner if they did and you had not given them permission to.

That is; If I recall correctly.

So, since you started with the 'tooth pick' example, I have just continued on with it. As it seems very fitting here.

When did common sense abandon you?

What we can see here is another example of when one knows, but not necessarily consciously, that they are beginning to Truly fail and falter.

is there a difference between a life and a toothpick?

Well, according to you, 'your tooth pick, or tooth picks' were more important than even your called son and/or wife.

Are toothpicks and lives if equal value?

Well it has been you saying and claiming that you can 'shoot others dead' defending what you consider and call 'your property'. So, obviously, you have placed more value on what you Falsely and Wrong call 'your property' on the life of other human beings.

Can a woman, as she's attacked by a rapist defend herself?

Why do you continue to live in 'a world' where some women get attacked and raped?

And, why in 'that world', do some woman like, enjoy, want, and even love to be attacked and/or raped?

If the rapist isn't dissuaded by the woman fighting back, is she, in your view, permitted to kill the attacker to stop him?

When you stop using words Falsely and/or Wrongly, like you are here, then you will be much informed of how to understand, my answers, fully. Until then you will continue to keep misinterpreting and/or misunderstanding the actual questions that I am posing, and asking you here to clarify "henry quirk".

If a father comes from work to find his six year old daughter being raped, is his permitted, in your view, to intervene and stop the attack?

Does this so-called 'father' own this child?

Is he permitted to kill the rapist to stop the attack?

Obviously, to you, Yes that person can 'take' the life of another human being, even though you, very contradictory, state that 'that one's' life is their own.

But, to others, like I, 'we' say, 'That all depends', and considering we know, exactly, why what is happening and occurring is happening and occurring we do what it takes to prevent such things from happening and occurring, ever again.

I can ask more: let's start with these.

So, I asked you, first:
If "dubious" or another touched your toothpick, for example, you can then beat them up, or take their liberty, and/or their life, correct?

To which you, obviously, did not answer. Yet, you here imply that I should be answering your questions.

Which, by the way, are obviously a complete attempt and distraction and deflection away from the actual point/s that I have been showing, exposing, and revealing here in regards to your 'absolute moral rights' claim.

[Age]

You don't remember that it was stolen from the Indians?

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

Very, very good clarifying question.

[Age]

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

Oh, you were makin' a serious point.

And this another attempt of yours at deflection is not working.

Okay...

I didn't steal any land.

The actual question asked to you here "henry quirk" was, and still is:

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

Your clarity here, as always, would be much appreciated.

As I told skepdick, many moons back, in a similar conversation,

Which has absolutely nothing really to do with this discussion and especially with this question posed, and asked to you.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate challenge to my ownership of my plot.

Okay.

What do you mean by 'legitimate challenge'?

And, if you still really want to believe that tiny insignificant parcel of the earth is 'yours', then you are obviously not open to any real discussion here. As you continually prove so.

To date: no one has stepped up with a claim.

That is because we are now waiting for you to provide 'us' with what you claim is a 'legitimate claim'.

I can show others, very easily and very simply, how that parcel of earth is not 'yours'. But, because you are completely and utterly absolutely blind and death here, to this, then you would obviously not be able to see and hear it.

So, whatever the pedigree of my property (stolen multiple times, claimed multiple times, bought and sold multiple times) I traded fairly for it.

'Traded it', laughingly, 'fairly' from who, and for what, exactly?

And, what are you basing the word 'fairly' on here, exactly?

Do you wish to challenge my ownership,

I do not just wish, I am actually doing it.

or are you the legit proxy for someone who wants challenge? If so: offer your evidence.

[Age]

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

According to your profile description you come from Ukraine. Are you a Goth or a Hun? Or perhaps a Greek, who stole it from 'some people' and then the Romans stole it from the Greeks and then the Slavs came along and took possession of it and then something called the 'Kieven Rus' whatever that is, and then the Mongols then the Crimean Khanate then a bunch of others, then the Ottomans, then blah de blah blah.................

Are you not yet aware "vegetariantaxidermy" that you human beings, previously, never actually 'claimed' any part of earth as 'theirs', and just lived life, with earth instead?

If no, well then this is what happened, and as such, 'we' do not have to go to far back at all to see and learn that only in the very relative tiny little fraction of 'the past' you human beings came to think or believe that earth was something that you 'things' could 'own' and thus have 'stolen' from you.

[Age]

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

Oh, you were makin' a serious point.

Okay...

I didn't steal any land. As I told skepdick, many moons back, in a similar conversation, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate challenge to my ownership of my plot. To date: no one has stepped up with a claim. So, whatever the pedigree of my property (stolen multiple times, claimed multiple times, bought and sold multiple times) I traded fairly for it.

Do you wish to challenge my ownership, or are you the legit proxy for someone who wants challenge? If so: offer your evidence.

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.

Thank you. Some things are just so blatantly plainly obvious, it was not expected that posters in a philosophy forum would need to be informed of nor have to be explained this.

What they had was interminable inter-tribal warfare over broad swaths of territory.

And, you know this how, exactly?

And, how long was this going on for, exactly?

Also, was there trading, swapping, and/nor sharing going on as well?

And, if so, then how long was this going on for, exactly?

Most of them were nomadic, sitting on a piece of land so long as it met their needs, then, when it ran out of what they wanted, moving on to another place, sometimes at the expense of displacing other tribes, and sometimes just occupying land that was open to them.

1. Who were, supposedly, not 'nomadic', exactly?

2. Well 'nomadic' or not human beings are not just going to 'sit around' if their 'needs' are not being met.

3. Do not all human beings keep moving, until they find and get what they want?

4. Yes, some of these adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were absolute perfect examples of displacing others, and even whole tribes of them. In fact there were even a couple of wars still going on, (I know its hard to believe), but they were both, prime examples of groups of human beings wanting to completely and utterly displace another group of human beings, just so the former group can grab and obtain more of just what they wanted, only.

The whole of North America was open, in that sense. What need had they of deeds, titles and land contracts? Where would such even have been recognized? They had few permanent settlements, no central governments, and their technology was so primitive that they didn't have the wheel.

Yet they lived in a far more advanced, or civilized, way, than these people did, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

Why would they have land titles?

So there's no sense in talking as if the land was "theirs," and somebody came and stole it from them. They sustained any "claim" they had to it only by squatting and force;

Wow this is an extremely hilarious claim, especially considering 'the group' that 'this one' thinks or believes that it belongs to, and the very things that they have done to displace others, by squatting on lands and forcing and killing of other human beings.

and they were eventually forced out by a civilization more advanced than their own,

Here is another example of how these people, back then, in those very olden days, Truly believed that they were more civilized and more advanced than the ones that actually lived in peace and harmony with earth, and with others.

The people, in the days when this was being written, very rarely could manage to live together in just one family home of about only a handful of them, without the seemingly continual bickering, arguing, and fighting among themselves, let alone what was seen in public places where there so-called "leaders" used to congregate. These very 'olden day' people could not even get along, peacefully and in harmony, with the ones that they claimed they loved. So, you could imagine how they were with and to the ones that they said they disliked or hated. Usually those of just different theological religions or with just views and perspectives of theirs.

one in which land ownership was an established concept.

An 'established concept' never ever means nor makes the 'concept', itself, good, Right, nor even remotely true.

So-called 'land ownership' is as a False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect concept as one could obtain and have, as one could ever get.

But, these people, back then, actually believed that 'they' 'owned' parts of earth. And, to prove this irrefutably True just watch and observe the way "henry quirk" and others write and speak here.

It's sad that they got such a bad end of the stick; but they weren't hesitant, themselves, about taking land from other tribes when they found it advantageous to do so.

And, you, supposedly, know this how, exactly?

Also, what can be clearly seen here is an attempt at trying to defend one's own absolute Wrong doing. That is; If it continually tells itself that others did the same, back then, then it is okay and all right for 'me' and 'us' to be doing it 'now'.

Which could not be more absurd and more Truly illogical, even if one wanted it to be.

So the whole critique that you "owe your land back to the Indians" is nonsense.

And, the whole claim that 'they' were 'taking lands', from others, is absolute nonsense as well.

[Age]

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.

In the legal sense, you're right. But me & age (and phyllo, I guess) are debating the moral claim.

But there is no 'moral' claim to 'land/earth', itself.

I'm told, age, I'm a thief becuz my plot was, at some point, stolen (no doubt multiple times) from others.

When did 'I' ever say, 'you are a thief', "henry quirk"?

For 'me' to say that 'you are a thief', would go completely against what I have actually said, stated, and claimed for a couple of reasons.

I contend I am not a thief and my plot was traded for fairly.

And, you can believe this till the day you so-call 'die' "henry quirk". But it will never actually help you.

And, as I say, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any legitimate *challenge to my ownership of my plot.

Okay.

But, you, once again here, have shown your complete inability to accept absolutely any thing, other than what you believe is absolutely true, already.

But do not feel to alone here, lots of you adult human beings did this, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

To date: no one has stepped up with a claim.

To date: you have shown your complete inability to even just recognize any thing, other than, of course, what you 'currently' believe is absolutely true, right, and correct.

But, again, this was a very common practice of the adult population, in those 'olden days'.

The onus is on age (and phyllo, if he's in on this mess).




*a moral challenge

What 'the take' is from 'this' here is; "henry quirk" has made 'a claim' on a parcel of earth, which if absolutely anyone treads, and "henry quirk" so relatively chooses to, you will be shot dead. Even though it was previously claimed by said 'killer/murder', 'you, previously, had an absolute moral claim to your, as it was, 'yours alone'.

Now, obviously some can see the complete and utter hypocrisy and contradiction here, while others obviously still cannot.

[Age]

there were hundreds of tribes with their own languages and tribal laws, understanding, lands, farming and hunting grounds

not all were nomadic

to claim all "Indians" did this or lived uniformly is an illustration of ignorance

-Imp

Thank you.

[Age]

Do watch The Killers of Flower Moon if u can. Great fuckin movie. So a big oil reserve is struck on federally protected Osage land so they get all the money, etc. Then the white man moves in and conspires to marry into the Osage families to get rights to the fortune... then sets'ta killin off all the goddamn injuns one by one assassination style. DiCaprio and De Niro are in it.

Yes, some of these adult human beings, back then, really were infatuate with guns, weapons, and violence towards each other.

In one particular country a fair amount of their whole movie industry revolved around the shooting and/or the killing of each other, for entertained of all things. But then, by and through a man made up law, a lot of the adults in that country believed that they had a right to, again, 'own' a gun, and to shoot dead other human beings, because ...[of a lot of reasons].

[Age]

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership.

In the legal sense, you're right. But me & age (and phyllo, I guess) are debating the moral claim.

Well, fair enough...but you can't do somebody dirt by camping on a piece of ground they didn't even claim to own, so it's hard to see what the moral issue can even be. As you say, you can't be made responsible how many people did what to whom on that patch of ground; they may not have done anything bad at all, and even if they did, what's that got to do with you?

Talk about be 'deceived' and 'tricked' and 'fooled' into some thing, which was never even been discussed, let alone debated, anyway.

[Age]

Aboriginal North Americans HAD no conception of land ownership. What they had was interminable inter-tribal warfare over broad swaths of territory.

Doesn't that qualify as having a concept of land ownership?

I wouldn't say so. It's just butting heads over resources, really. The idea of owning a particular patch of dirt, especially one that had no resources they wanted on it, never seems to have occurred to them; nor does the idea that the other tribe "owned" the land on which they were taking over. It seems to have been all about getting for the tribe what the tribe needs right now...and there was no formality for the exchange of territory.

Heck, they didn't even have maps. They didn't have surveyors, or geographers, or deeds and titles, or even a sense of how much of the stuff was "out there." They were pretty darn primitive.

This one seems to never tire of judging, nor of being 'condescending' of, others. But, this is just the result of being raised up a so-called "christian", and having being 'deceived' that it was okay and all right for 'us' to 'take' from others, because 'they' were not as civilized and/nor as advanced as 'we' are.

But, if only they knew.

How could they claim any particular piece of land when they had no concept of land except what they were presently using?

But 'they' did not even have the Truly absurd 'concept', 'land that we are presently using', at all.

That was, of course, until human beings became Truly greedy beings.

[Age]

you can't do somebody dirt by camping on a piece of ground they didn't even claim to own, so it's hard to see what the moral issue can even be.

Trappers and such often trekked out into the territories and wintered in unclaimed (as far as they knew) areas. They'd build rough shelters -- far more substantial than lean-to's -- where they'd hunker down for winter's worst. No one authorized their use of the land or trees or game. And, across years, these same trappers would habitually use the same hunker-down camps again and again.

I'd say these folks had a moral claim to those camps. In the same way all nomadic peoples, as they trudged back and forth over the same areas, year after year, had a claim to those familiar areas.

My point is: even though all these nomads had, to my mind, legit moral claims, none of those claims has diddly to do with someone living and using some part of that land today, even if the land was ultimately stolen from them.

And, what you claim in what you class 'today', has so-called 'diddly' to what 'we' 'now' know and understand.

See, if you still want to believe that you have a so-called 'legit moral claim' to some parcel of earth, back when this was being written, none of your claims has so-called 'diddly' to do with 'us' living 'today'

your Truly backwards, irrational, absurd, nonsensical, and illogical claims here "henry quirk" have just about absolutely nothing at all to do with what was uncovered and discovered to be the actual irrefutable Truth of things. Except, of course, you are showing and proving, first hand and irrefutably, just how Truly foolish some people were at actually thinking, seeing, and believing things, back then, in 'the day' when this was being written.

If the so-called 'nomads' had, to you, 'legit moral claims', to land, which was taken from them, and this has so-called 'diddly' to do with 'you', living and using the lands of earth, anytime afterwards, then this shows just how empathetic you really are.

Their beef, or the beef of their ancestors, lies with the original thieves or their ancestors.

Yes, how much empathy you really have is shining through very brightly here.

Someone who fairly transacted for a plot today -- even if that plot was stolen from a former moral claimant -- is blameless.

So, even if 'an uprising', for example, comes to be and so-called 'steals' 'that plot' back, or again, which you say and claim here 'you own', and then is 'fairly transacted' to another, then this other received 'that plot' legitimately or blamelessly, correct?

And, if no, then why not?

As I say: I didn't steal my plot, even if it has been stolen multiple times in the past.

And, as I just pointed out and showed, the new so-called 'owner' did not steal it either.

In some countries, even back in the days when this was being written, just having the possession of 'stolen goods' was an 'offence', no matter how they were obtained. But, "henry quirk" obviously believes absolutely otherwise. That is; "henry quirk" believes, absolutely, that no matter what is 'stolen' nor even how many times 'it' was stolen, as long as "henry quirk" has passed over pieces of paper or plastic with numbers on them, or send some digits through a computer to anyone else, 'that thing' is now, supposedly, 'owned' by "henry quirk" as was obtained 'legitimately' and so also has a so-called 'legit moral claim' to.

The absurdity here is growing more and more with each new post of "henry quirks" here.

[Age]

I have yet to understand what the fucked up parasites in office (there are plenty of those for sure) would have had to gain by forcing a pandemic on the world.

Ask yourself who did well during and after.

Pharmaceutical companies for one thing. But also many others. Whereas I despise most corporations as crooks, it doesn't follow that the ones who profited most were responsible for the outbreak. In short, those who did well doesn't tell you who or what caused it. There are always those who do well in a crisis.

Yours is the amoralist/moral subjectivist response. You believe morality is just a social/communal construct. You say morality is just individual or collective opinion. Slavery, or any other atrocity, to you, can only be judged thru the lens of time and place. For you, there is no absolute moral claim a man has to himself.

I must be an absolutely horrid person because in a more or less kind of fashion, your right. Does that mean that I'm not shocked by the things that were going on in whatever time and place you care to mention? History provides endless examples that if there were an absolute moral claim as you insist, that claim is absolutely without effect, hardly a consideration in its prescriptions and proscriptions or what morality in all its contexts determines as moral.

It's plain. You see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as an evidence of morality's subjectiveness. I see the persistence of slavery, murder, rape, theft as the violations of individuals' absolute moral claims to their lives, liberties, and properties.

Mostly classified as immoral, murder, rape, and theft are the least condoned, being inherently inimical to the order of most advanced societies. Without question, slavery, by comparison, has always been of great economic value. Any study on the history of economics cannot avoid the subject of slavery in having subsisted so long and still active in various ways without naming it as such.

Did I misjudge you? I was certain you were an atheist, a materialist, a determinist. Those categories are almost always part & parcel to the moral subjectivism you espouse.

...certainly not a determinist! Why is it that theists, even deists, so often insist that a non-belief in god (for very good reason) makes a person bad, somehow defunct in righteousness and good will, a moral cripple? I never could figure out such a perverse, illogical attitude!

It is because the ones who insist this here would, literally, be going out and doing Wrong and/or bad things if they had not been instructed by God,

1. In what to choose from.

2. If they did not fear the consequences of what they have misinterpreted would happen to them at or after so-called 'death'.

These people, literally, cannot think 'on their own' nor 'for themselves', so they believe and insist that others cannot as well.

Personally, I believe that the morality of a person who strives to do good, who filters his impulses based on conscience, is superior to one who must be told by scriptural mandate how one must behave or in how good and evil is to be judged.

The same goes for being a materialist, since the underpinnings of our collective spiritual experiences begin in the material. Where do you think they derive from? For me, the process by which the advancement happens amounts to a reification of a far greater mystery which nature itself is responsible for. God conceptions are its most common derivative among an abundance of experiences which don't require any god to initialize a sense of the sacred.

Are we only physical?

As mentioned, whatever we are or become begins in the physical.

But: natural rights (the absolute moral claim a person has to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property) is/are immutable.

Whether it is or not in principle, its immutability has been consistently and successfully challenged throughout the ages. Morality, in practice, has been as much subject to expediency as any of its definitions of right and wrong.

Man, any man, every man, anywhere or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property.
Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.

Nicely put! An ideal, or its understanding, can be fixed forever in its purity which is more of a philosophic prototype than any practiced in just about all societies that never considered themselves immoral by enslaving others. I don't recall any civilization in which hierarchies were absent.

What you describe seems to be more of an instinct that one's existence in its separation from all others belongs wholly to itself which has never been acceptable to a collective and its decision-making apparatus; at best it allows a sense of freedom in self-ownership but only within defined limits which each society based on time and place decides for itself.

What you've provided is a theme the variations of which may end up very different from each other, especially the one which started the sequence, each variation inflecting the prior one. I think of it as typecasting a supposed immutability into a different version of itself which escapes the center of self by merging into the circumference of a collective.

The upshot is you may in principle claim an inviolable intrinsic right to self ownership, etc., but in practice it never materialized in any period from ancient to modern...except to say that in recent times, primarily in the West, the circumference has once again, gradually shifted a little closer to its center from previous times.

It becomes questionable if that trend doesn't reverse itself, especially with a dictator loving Donald Trump managing a second term. It doesn't bode well for the country, its people or the planet having a President who admires the Putin and Kim Jong Un types while disparaging people like John McCain as losers! All the rights which accrue to them invariably get subtracted from those they rule. Except for the most extreme cases, many seem to have no objection to such an outcome.

History is the greatest crime story ever told proclaiming its moral defects from the first moment that history was written not least in its sacred texts, the bible itself being an outstanding example when god decides on a Chosen People as if it had no part in the unchosen ones! Such a scenario doesn't even amount to a gross perversion of morality; it amounts to farce. For a human to adequately justify such a god requires more brains than god itself actually possessed.

[phyllo]

Who'd they swipe it from?

Does that make a difference?

Are you saying that if the Indians stole it from someone then it was okay to steal it from them?

According to your profile description you come from Ukraine. Are you a Goth or a Hun? Or perhaps a Greek, who stole it from 'some people' and then the Romans stole it from the Greeks and then the Slavs came along and took possession of it and then something called the 'Kieven Rus' whatever that is, and then the Mongols then the Crimean Khanate then a bunch of others, then the Ottomans, then blah de blah blah.................

I don't deny that land has been stolen, conquered, traded hands.

I'm interested to see how HQ would reconcile his ideas on natural property rights with the fact that he is sitting on land stolen from the Indians.

And then there is IC's interesting reaction :

So the whole critique that you "owe your land back to the Indians" is nonsense.

So he thinks that the Indians shouldn't get their land back but he also seems to think that the Jews should get all their land in Palestine back. Apparently that's not nonsense.

This relates directly to Israel.

Israel is slowly taking more and more Palestinian land. Pushing the Palestinians out in a way that is similar to that happened to North American Indians. Eventually the Indians ended up with very little. And they became second-class citizens in their own land.

[phyllo]

Today's news.

Looks like Israel intends to keep Gaza and the West Bank occupied, even if/when Hamas is eliminated.

Benjamin Netanyahu has said he told the US he opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, declaring that Israel must be “capable of saying no to our friends”.

In a televised broadcast on Thursday, the Israeli prime minister said he had rejected Joe Biden’s call for a two-state solution in the region, adding that Tel Aviv must have “security control” on all territory west of the Jordan river.

His remarks appeared to knock back plans to tie Palestinian statehood to a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, which would be brokered by the United States.

Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, told Mr Netanyahu on a visit to Israel last week that the US hoped to see a pathway to an internationally-recognised Palestinian state.

The message was repeated by Jake Sullivan, Mr Biden’s national security adviser, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.

However, in his address, Mr Netanyahu rejected the idea and suggested he would stand up to the US’s plans for the region, despite Washington’s backing for Israel since Hamas’s terror attacks on Oct 7 last year.

“In any future arrangement… Israel needs security control of all territory west of the Jordan,” he said. “This collides with the idea of sovereignty. What can you do?”

He added: “The prime minister needs to be capable of saying no to our friends.”

https://news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-tells- ... 12100.html