Remove this Banner Ad

We have a right...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Contra Mundum said:
Spears and Boomerangs vs. Spears and Boomerangs

Not Spears and Boomerangs vs. Guns and Tall Ships.
Click to expand...

So what are you saying, that it is ok to invade someone elses country as long as they use the same weapons.:confused:

Can't say I have ever heard this before - full marks for originality:thumbsu:

On the basis of your logic a 300 year old blood fued is morally justified. Even murder can be justified on your argument - can't see it meself
Click to expand...

What?? I am saying the aboriginals that occupied the land had no more moral right to ownership than the english invaders, because they had obtained ownership by the same method.

I don't see what this has to do with murder and blood fueds.:confused:
 
Flag Man said:
There is some aspect of a duality of sovereignty.

You guys should check out Mabo.

A ticking timebomb.;)

Hopefully someone runs with it some day.
Click to expand...

Gary Foley reckoned the UN should have put in peace keepers after the Mabo decision "until the sovereignty question was decided" !!!!!!!!!
 
MSR273 said:
What?? I am saying the aboriginals that occupied the land had no more moral right to ownership than the english invaders, because they had obtained ownership by the same method.

I don't see what this has to do with murder and blood fueds.:confused:
Click to expand...

So if Indonesia invades Australia and colonises it, this is all acceptable because that's how the Europeans did it? It's legitimately obtained land?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

GuruJane said:
To repeat. Your reduction of Jewish history is risible.
Click to expand...
And I find your complete dismissal of the civil rights of the Palestinian people over the land they occupied for centuries contemptible and disgusting.

However if you wish to descend to the lowest common denominator in this debate, then I'll not bother descending there with you. If I'm going to troll randomly, I'll go to the footy boards.
 
Contra Mundum said:
Gary Foley reckoned the UN should have put in peace keepers after the Mabo decision "until the sovereignty question was decided" !!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Someone with perception and independent thought processes.;)

I bet you feel all alone in this forum.:D
 
just maybe said:
So if Indonesia invades Australia and colonises it, this is all acceptable because that's how the Europeans did it? It's legitimately obtained land?
Click to expand...

Stricly speaking, there is really no such thing as legitimately obtained land. Every bit of land in the world has at some point been obtained through violence and slaughter.

Our ancestors invaded Australia, and stole the land for ourselves. How can we bleat and whine if it is then invaded and stolen from us.

What are we supposed to say, that now that we have stolen the land we want, no-one else is allowed to because it is not right.

If our opponents are powerful enough, they will take our land and everything else they want and then set up a system which legitimises their ownership. Just like the european nations did.

Aint international law great. :D
 
GuruJane said:
Can you show me historical evidence of where the gypsies have kept a continuous religious and cultural association with Moldavia for nearly 4000 years and a yearning for return expressed in their Saturday prayers for the last 2000 years?

If you can, then of course one could agree that the gypsies of Moldavia have a legitimate claim to a homeland or a state there.
Click to expand...

The Roma, Laps, Basques, Kurds, Innuit and others have shown a far greater commitment and continous involvement with a territory than the Jews have.

As for expressing a yearning for return thats a bit rich. It was barely mentioned or agitated for until the beginning of the 20th century.

It clear that the Jewish claim is extremely tenuous and far inferior to that of many others who have maintained a far closer connection with their homeland and are more culturally and linguisticly homogenous.

Those who persist with such claims simply demean themselves and their cause. Rather than persist with such obvious nonsense they would be better off claiming their right based on occupation.
 
MSR273 said:
Stricly speaking, there is really no such thing as legitimately obtained land. Every bit of land in the world has at some point been obtained through violence and slaughter.

Our ancestors invaded Australia, and stole the land for ourselves. How can we bleat and whine if it is then invaded and stolen from us.

What are we supposed to say, that now that we have stolen the land we want, no-one else is allowed to because it is not right.

If our opponents are powerful enough, they will take our land and everything else they want and then set up a system which legitimises their ownership. Just like the european nations did.

Aint international law great. :D
Click to expand...

The world moves on. Obviously you still like to live in the Middle Ages.

Idiot.
 
just maybe said:
The world moves on. Obviously you still like to live in the Middle Ages.

Idiot.
Click to expand...

Yeh right, as proven by your Arab mates I suppose.

Another useless one line snipe from you. Well done.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

evo said:
Perceptive yes,independent no.

Robert Manne vets all his work before submission to bigfooty.;)
Click to expand...

Robert Manne - he is too much of a soft c-o-c-k - you know it is my Lord and Fuehrer Phillip Adams!
 
GuruJane said:
Oh, come off it!
Click to expand...
how long did the 'original' isreal last?

and how long did the subsequent divided kingdoms last?

israel was carved out, and divided about 2 generations later, then occupied by the romans and then the first scattering.

they sung about it more than they actually occupied it.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

dan warna said:
how long did the 'original' isreal last?

and how long did the subsequent divided kingdoms last?

israel was carved out, and divided about 2 generations later, then occupied by the romans and then the first scattering.

they sung about it more than they actually occupied it.
Click to expand...

You're another one who doesn't have the first idea of jewish history!

Pity because without knowing it no-one can possibly understand how and why Israel came into being again in 1947 and instead can only frame it in white colonial terms or see it simply as a product of the holocaust.

To quote revisionist Israeli historian Benny Morris:

Zionism - the drive for the return of the Jews to, and sovereigniy in, Eretz Israel - was rooted in age-old millenarian impulses and values of Jewish religious tradition and in the flourishing nationalist ideologies of nineteenth centuryy Europe. ....

... the mid and late nineteenth century saw the rapid secularisation of the millenium-Zionist goal amid an increasingly secularised Jewish population.

.... ever since the Jews exile from the land at the start of the first millenium AD the idea or vsion of return had been closely bound up with the cosmic, messianic theme of collective redemption and salvation. The religious energy generated by this idea over centuries was transmuted during the decades of Zionist fulfillment into that potent political force that swept all before it...

There is no understanding Zionist behaviour in Palestine or the development of the Arab-Zionist conflict without comprehending the messianic roots and European background and propellants of Zionism's emergence.

The Jews age old religious vision was secularised and politicised in the 19th century and the power of this proved to be an unstoppable force.
 
CoggaRules said:
and Celtic, take it from me, this is indeed an insult, when it is put upon you by someone who is the head of N-F-I. ;)
Click to expand...

yeah well what else do expect from someone who is a staunch supporter of a facist government ?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

We have a right...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top