Murray said:
Zionists led their people back to their ancestral lands and gave them a safe haven from persecution.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
We have a right...
- Thread starter ^Eagle^
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Zionists led their people back to their ancestral lands and gave them a safe haven from persecution.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Yeah.Bob's a bit of a flip flopper.Contra Mundum said:
I was reading recently that he counts Freddy Hayek as one of his influences,so he can't be all bad.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #128
MSR273 said:
All that needed to be said to your stupid comment was 'The world moves on'. Nothing more.
Quoting practice from the Middle Ages as precedent for now just shows how backward you are.
- Banned
- #129
just maybe said:
The middle ages. Hmmm, so Iraq didn't try to annex Kuwait then, and China hasn't invaded Tibet I suppose.
Iraq got pushed out because it was weak. China retains Tibet because it is strong.
Do you think for one moment that your toilet paper international law would stop landgrabs if the western countries disbanded their armies.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #130
MSR273 said:
Tibet was traditionally part of China. Iraq got beaten back out of Kuwait by a coalition of nations.
Try again please.
- Banned
- #131
just maybe said:
So you agree with the Chinese invasion of Tibet, interesting.
What does it matter if it was a coalition. The point is, if the opposition is strong enough, they will take what they want and create the law to justify it, jsut like we did with the aborigines. This has been proven many times throughout history. Remeber a little event called the second world war. That certainly wasn't in the middle ages.
Neither was the cold war which saw Russia take control of many countries. Your toilet paper is useless without a lot of weapons to back it up.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #132
MSR273 said:So you agree with the Chinese invasion of Tibet, interesting.
No. I never said that. But it is an unusual situation.
A country tried to invade another and got stopped.
The only country that could get away with it these days is the US. For obvious reasons.
Your attempts to bring up occasional exceptions to the 'countries aren't invaded these days' hypothesis are the exceptions that prove the rule - they are taken down quickly, and it doesn't occur with anywhere NEAR the scale of the Middle Ages.
Russia did so through political influence, not military invasion.
MSR273 said:
Not to mention one or two nukes in the wings.
Oh dearie me ... this is getting ludicrous.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #135
MSR273 said:
Answer me this question MSR: did Russia invade those states?
- Banned
- #136
just maybe said:
Hmmm, kind of depends on your viewpoint. It could be argued that they liberated the countries from the NAZIs.
But once there, they stuck around and controlled the countries through military force. Kind of like if you called the police to evict some trespassers.Then they stay, take over your house, turn you into their servants and threaten to shoot you if you object.
I would call it an invasion. They certainly took control through military force - good enough for me.
East Germany though was an invasion no matter how you look at it, as was their invasion of the Baltic states prior to world war Two, and their invasion of Poland in combination with the Germans at the start of the war.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #137
MSR273 said:
The answer is no, there was no invasion.
Sure, once they came under the Iron Curtain uprisings were put down through force, but the USSR was not created through invasion.
Invasion is not just stretching it, its wrong.
- Banned
- #138
just maybe said:
You really are confused now aren't you. The countries that Russia "liberated" during the second world war did not form part of the USSR. They still maintained their separate entities even though under USSR control.
The USSR consisted of other states invaded by Russia.
Either way it is not important.
Russia still used military force to steal countries. I understand that you as a lawyer like to argue over semantics.
http://www.johndclare.net/Russ7_USSR.htm
As the Bolsheviks began to win the Civil War, they also began to re-conquer the states surrounding Russia. In the Ukraine, the Bolsheviks allied themselves with a Ukrainian socialist party called the Borotbists, and took over the government. In Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, huge Bolshevik armies simply advanced and conquered the country.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #139
MSR273 said:You really are confused now aren't you. The countries that Russia "liberated" during the second world war did not form part of the USSR. They still maintained their separate entities even though under USSR control.
The USSR consisted of other states invaded by Russia.
Either way it is not important.
Russia still used military force to steal countries. I understand that you as a lawyer like to argue over semantics.
http://www.johndclare.net/Russ7_USSR.htm
As the Bolsheviks began to win the Civil War, they also began to re-conquer the states surrounding Russia. In the Ukraine, the Bolsheviks allied themselves with a Ukrainian socialist party called the Borotbists, and took over the government. In Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, huge Bolshevik armies simply advanced and conquered the country.
Well done, you've managed to discuss incidents occurring after the First World War in an attempt to back up your point about events after the Second World War.
And I'M the confused one? Oh dear.
GuruJane said:
How can you possibly argue those people dont have a greater claim to a homeland than the Jews?
They are far more ethnically homogenous than Jews are and all live in close geographic proximity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basques
The origin of the Basque people is shrouded in mystery. Whatever their origins, it is widely believed that the Basques have occupied a single region of Europe longer than any other identifiable ethnic group.
You simply can not make a coherent argument for this "jews are one people and have one home" argument. Can you really expect people to believe that Sephardic, Ashkenazi and Ethiopian Jews are all the same people?
You see Jane, where a lot of people have a problem with Zionism is that it completely ignores the civil rights and liberties of the residents in Palestine. It declares Palestine to be the right of the Jews, and completely ignores the rights of the (then) vast majority population of Palestine.
I actually don't really care why the Jews wanted Palestine. No matter how you dress it up, for them to get a state in Palestine - where they were at most a tiny minority at sub five percent of the population in the early Zionist days - required them to replace the actual residents of the land.
Religion I discount entirely (plus I can't find anything that says religious Zionism pre-dates 1948 - prior to that it was almost entirely a secular movement, and thus the civil and thus secular rights of the residents of Palestine overrules the rights of the Zionists). Cultural links, while they would be a valid argument against a competing group over unoccupied land, are irrelevant in my opinion against actual tenancy in the land....
The whole Zionist argument for validity would have required that the land remain vacant land; this is clearly not true, and the Jewish occupation of the land had been succeeded for centuries. So you might tell everyone that they don't have a sense of Jewish history - I tell you that is totally irrelevant as the fact remains, and always will remain, that the Jews were virtually non-present in Palestine, so to create the Jewish homeland there could only be done at the expense of the actual residents of the land. So it remains totally unfair.
I actually don't really care why the Jews wanted Palestine. No matter how you dress it up, for them to get a state in Palestine - where they were at most a tiny minority at sub five percent of the population in the early Zionist days - required them to replace the actual residents of the land.
Religion I discount entirely (plus I can't find anything that says religious Zionism pre-dates 1948 - prior to that it was almost entirely a secular movement, and thus the civil and thus secular rights of the residents of Palestine overrules the rights of the Zionists). Cultural links, while they would be a valid argument against a competing group over unoccupied land, are irrelevant in my opinion against actual tenancy in the land....
The whole Zionist argument for validity would have required that the land remain vacant land; this is clearly not true, and the Jewish occupation of the land had been succeeded for centuries. So you might tell everyone that they don't have a sense of Jewish history - I tell you that is totally irrelevant as the fact remains, and always will remain, that the Jews were virtually non-present in Palestine, so to create the Jewish homeland there could only be done at the expense of the actual residents of the land. So it remains totally unfair.
- Banned
- #142
just maybe said:
I can see you are confused and I am trying to help you. But you are the one who brought up the formation of the USSR which occured pre WWII, to which I replied. This is what you said.
You obviously know very litte about this topic. Stick to regurgitating Hamas propaganda. You know that topic very well
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #143
MSR273 said:
No it isn't. Another strawman argument from a pathetic debater. I never mentioned pre-WWII whatsoever.
You obviously know very litte about this topic. Stick to regurgitating Hamas propaganda. You know that topic very well
You obviously know very little about anything, but it doesn't stop you.
- Banned
- #144
just maybe said:
Let me remind you or my original statement
"Neither was the cold war which saw Russia take control of many countries. Your toilet paper is useless without a lot of weapons to back it up."
You are the confused one who brought up invasion - silly girl.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #145
MSR273 said:
I said there was no invasion - and I'm still correct. You're still an ignorant fool who has no clue about international law - or anything else for that matter.
medusala said:
The last time I looked the Basques were Spanish and lived in Spain with the full rights of Spanish citizens.
I lived in Spain for several years and I can assure you there is no widespread support for ETA among the bulk of the Basques. Quite the reverse.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #148
MSR273 said:This is lame JM. Ya got in over your head here - silly girl
Typical MSR, when confronted on any topic he recoils to either broken record statements or attempts to belittle the opposition. Once again simply displaying the lack of knowledge you have on all subjects.
- Mar 28, 2005
- 15,983
- 8
- Other Teams
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #150
MSR273 said:Give it up JM, I am beginning to pity you
This coming from the guy who called Palestinian deaths 'Hamas propaganda', then conspicuously disappeared after hard evidence was provided of the numbers, refused to admit his mistake and instead tried to claim it as proof that Palestinians were idiots?
Oh, MSR, you really are shameless.