Originally posted by FalconPaunch!
That is when the jihads happened and took part of the Roman empire. Constantinople, Albania, Iberia to name a few others, then came the crusades, then a few other things happened, but my point was Israel was created by international law in 1948. At what point did Palestine legally become a country or peacefully purchased those lands? Not the Muslims who freely live in Israel, the ones in Palestine who are still at war with a country they invaded.You're now being evasive because not only have I destroyed your point, you know I'm right.
The idea that you've destroyed anything with your low IQ and right wing talking points is hilarious. You didn't even know about the illegal settlements (because your right wing youtubers and ex-muslims didn't mention that part did they?!)
The fact that you can't distinguish between an indigenous group of people (a race) and their religion shows that when you're doing your Islamophobic schtick it's just a front for your racism. You also don't get how stupid you sound when you say s*** like "oh Palestine was never legally a state". Yeah great justification for ethnic cleansing you d*** head.
Also funny how you pick and choose when International Law applies. You have no moral compass and you have no coherent argument. So just Gtfo.
Get this thread shut down. You're not learning a thing, and you're certainly not educating anyone on anything Lmao
Originally posted by FalconPaunch!
Ad hominem attacks on your part because you have no rebuttal.❌
You don't even know what point you're making. You're just repeating right wing talking points but with no coherency at all. Explains why you couldn't give a direct rebuttal to anything I said.
I lost patience with you when you responded to a full (and clearly wasted) rebuttal with "Romans were there before Mohamad was born... derp I'm being so clever with that one"
Originally posted by Darth ThorI'm not as egotistical as you, go **** yourself. You thought you were being clever by saying it was run by Muslims before Israel was established, like I'm a moron who doesn't know that. So I played your game and went back to Roman times, and now you're butthurt because it's a useless argument. The current situation is, the united nations have decreed Israel as an independent multi-cultural, multi-ethnical, multi-religious state for all of humanity back in 1948, and a few people from Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon were like, "no screw you."
You don't even know what point you're making. You're just repeating right wing talking points but with no coherency at all. Explains why you couldn't give a direct rebuttal to anything I said.I lost patience with you when you responded to a full (and clearly wasted) rebuttal with "Romans were there before Mohamad was born... derp I'm being so clever with that one"
That's the situation. I believe they can and should live in those places, but only if they recognise Israel as a state and abide by Israeli law, as that was the agreement.
Originally posted by FalconPaunch!
I'm not as egotistical as you, go **** yourself. You thought you were being clever by saying it was run by Muslims before Israel was established, like I'm a moron who doesn't know that. So I played your game and went back to Roman times, and now you're butthurt because it's a useless argument. The current situation is, the united nations have decreed Israel as an independent multi-cultural, multi-ethnical, multi-religious state for all of humanity back in 1948, and a few people from Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon were like, "no screw you."That's the situation. I believe they can and should live in those places, but only if they recognise Israel as a state and abide by Israeli law, as that was the agreement.
Firstly you are a moron.
Secondly do you have any idea how many UN Resolutions Israel is in breach of? Like I said you pick and choose International Law at the whim of your right wing buddies you're completely brain washed by.
Like them the ONLY part of International Law you accept when it comes to Israel is it's formation. Which was very sketchy and immoral in the first place.
Quote me where I said "it was run by Muslims before Israel was established" - hint - you can't because I never said that. It's your Islamophobic brain which interpreted my words that way.
Again you have no clue what point you're making here. Because you're thick.
Originally posted by Darth ThorCan't even use a comma properly, but call me a moron, okay.
Firstly you are a moron.Secondly do you have any idea how many UN Resolutions Israel is in breach of? Like I said you pick and choose International Law at the whim of your right wing buddies you're completely brain washed by.
Like them the ONLY part of International Law you accept when it comes to Israel is it's formation. Which was very sketchy and immoral in the first place.
Quote me where I said "it was run by Muslims before Israel was established" - hint - you can't because I never said that. It's your Islamophobic brain which interpreted my words that way.
Again you have no clue what point you're making here. Because you're thick.
I'm sure there are a lot. Yet, it's in the hands of the UN which is a US institution! Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority.
Sketchy and immoral, how?
I'm asking the question here, buddy.
He edited his original statement calling the establishment of Israel sketchy and immoral.
My point was, if you want to bring up the control before Israel, the Ottomans, before it was Roman. We could go back even further to Akkadian days, but let's focus on modern law instead, yeah? The UN, which was created by the US, and has more weapons than everyone else combined... I know, it's a paradox, but they're in charge!
Originally posted by FalconPaunch!
Sketchy and immoral, how?I'm asking the question here, buddy.
Because the British just gave it to them. Duh.
Would you think it's completely fine if the Arab league got together and gave the UK to the Japanese?
You keep saying oh it's recognised under International LAW, but you've never asked under what Basis did Israel have the right to be formed. What International standards allow this kind of formation? It would be completely illegal under current laws. They literally just have the loophole that it was formed right at the start of the Geneva convention and current laws starting to be formed.
Either way Israel certainly doesn't have the right to exist occupy and operate the way it has been doing for the past few decades.
Originally posted by FalconPaunch!
He edited his original statement calling the establishment of Israel sketchy and immoral.
I left that in there actually.
Originally posted by FalconPaunch!
My point was, if you want to bring up the control before Israel, the Ottomans, before it was Roman. We could go back even further to Akkadian days, but let's focus on modern law instead, yeah? The UN, which was created by the US, and has more weapons than everyone else combined... I know, it's a paradox, but they're in charge!
Okay at least now you're talking about race and communities which were there at one point or another. Instead of just randomly red herring religion into the argument in no coherent way.
Your only issue going back in history is that Palestinians are still refugees today. So still directly oppressed by the formation of Israel.
If your point is that Might makes Right then JUST SAY THAT. Don't beat around the bush.
FYI if you do want to make this about the history of these religions in the area, well guess who brought Jews back to that region after Romans and Christians kicked them out? Caliph Umar. One of Muhammad's close companions.
Originally posted by Darth ThorIf we don't have a choice and lost a war, sure. It's like that old Eddie Izzard joke, "cake or death?" I'll pick cake thanks.
Because the British just gave it to them. Duh.Would you think it's completely fine if the Arab league got together and gave the UK to the Japanese?
You keep saying oh it's recognised under International LAW, but you've never asked under what Basis did Israel have the right to be formed. What International standards allow this kind of formation? It would be completely illegal under current laws. They literally just have the loophole that it was formed right at the start of the Geneva convention and current laws starting to be formed.I said the UN, which is a US establishment by Woodrow Wilson after WW1 and was part of the reason why he got the nobel peace prize. Is the Geneva convention something more credible toward world peace?
Either way Israel certainly doesn't have the right to exist occupy and operate the way it has been doing for the past few decades.Learn to use commas.
Also, what would your idea be for the state of Israel and Palestine?
Originally posted by Darth ThorNo, you left out the part about Israel being "sketchy and immoral." Scared, much?
I left that in there actually.Okay at least now you're talking about race and communities which were there at one point or another. Instead of just randomly red herring religion into the argument in no coherent way.
Your only issue going back in history is that Palestinians are still refugees today. So still directly oppressed by the formation of Israel.
If your point is that Might makes Right then JUST SAY THAT. Don't beat around the bush.
FYI if you do want to make this about the history of these religions in the area, well guess who brought Jews back to that region after Romans and Christians kicked them out? Caliph Umar. One of Muhammad's close companions.
You're bringing race into this and have been doing this whole time. It's not my fault you're brown!
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Firstly you are a moron.Secondly do you have any idea how many UN Resolutions Israel is in breach of? Like I said you pick and choose International Law at the whim of your right wing buddies you're completely brain washed by.
Like them the ONLY part of International Law you accept when it comes to Israel is it's formation. Which was very sketchy and immoral in the first place.
Quote me where I said "it was run by Muslims before Israel was established" - hint - you can't because I never said that. It's your Islamophobic brain which interpreted my words that way.
Again you have no clue what point you're making here. Because you're thick.
Not sure about the UK, but in the US most bigoted Rightist tend to conflate Islam with race, making no real distinction, where a Muslim is just another word for someone with brown skin, Arabic features and 'speaks funny' to them.
Their crippling levels of bigotry makes them too stupid to realize that Islam is just a religion and that Muslims live in all parts of the world and come from virtually every background, with the majority being Asians, not Arabs, as you know.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a similar situation you're facing here. Just some food for thought.
Originally posted by RobtardIn the UK. a brown person is usually Hindi, Sikh or Muslim, but some are also Christian. There is a specific type of Muslim that is Afghani/Pakistani thanks to 9/11, which is quite a threat to a lot of people in the UK. However, it's quite clear to distinguish who is and/or isn't a threat to humanity.
Not sure about the UK, but in the US most bigoted Rightist tend to conflate Islam with race, making no real distinction, where a Muslim is just another word for someone with brown skin, Arabic features and 'speaks funny' to them.Their crippling levels of bigotry makes them too stupid to realize that Islam is just a religion and that Muslims live in all parts of the world and come from virtually every background, with the majority being Asians, not Arabs, as you know.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a similar situation you're facing here. Just some food for thought.
I can tell the difference between a brown person who is nice and friendly and a brown person who is a rude bell end who follows a bullshit religion.
For the sake of equality, I can tell the difference between some white idiot like Kent Hovind and a smart man like Aron Ra who informs me about dinosaurs.
YouTube video Interesting perspective.
Hmm, I usually don't involve myself in political or religious discussion, as those are often quagmires and minefields. But I will say this, every side in any particular argument can have it's bad apples along with the good. I believe that each individual should be judged only by their own individual actions and words, rather than simply lumping them in together as a whole and just saying the whole is bad. Because a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire of group blaming that way. Not every Muslim is a bad person, just as not every Muslim is good. The same can be said for Israeli people, or Australians like me, or Americans. We all got our good and bad apples. Would I like to be judged for the crimes of Ned Kelly for example? F@ck no I wouldn't - the dude was a bank robbing train heisting cop killing gang leader. I'm certain most Muslims wouldn't want to be judged for the terroristic acts of Osama Bin Laden. I'm certain most Americans wouldn't want to be judged for the crimes of John Wayne Gacy, a serial child murderer.
And that's why I believe that individuals shouldn't be judged by guilt by association, especially an incredibly loose association like religious faith or nationality, where you may never meet literal millions of members of that same group. It's unrealistic and unfair to judge someone for the crimes someone else did just because they come form a similar part of the world, the color of their skin, or the religious faith they believe in.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroYeah, it's like calling all catholics Hitler.
Hmm, I usually don't involve myself in political or religious discussion, as those are often quagmires and minefields. But I will say this, every side in any particular argument can have it's bad apples along with the good. I believe that each individual should be judged only by their own individual actions and words, rather than simply lumping them in together as a whole and just saying the whole is bad. Because a lot of innocent people get caught in the crossfire of group blaming that way. Not every Muslim is a bad person, just as not every Muslim is good. The same can be said for Israeli people, or Australians like me, or Americans. We all got our good and bad apples. Would I like to be judged for the crimes of Ned Kelly for example? F@ck no I wouldn't - the dude was a bank robbing train heisting cop killing gang leader. I'm certain most Muslims wouldn't want to be judged for the terroristic acts of Osama Bin Laden. I'm certain most Americans wouldn't want to be judged for the crimes of John Wayne Gacy, a serial child murderer.And that's why I believe that individuals shouldn't be judged by guilt by association, especially an incredibly loose association like religious faith or nationality, where you may never meet literal millions of members of that same group. It's unrealistic and unfair to judge someone for the crimes someone else did just because they come form a similar part of the world, the color of their skin, or the religious faith they believe in.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure about the UK, but in the US most bigoted Rightist tend to conflate Islam with race, making no real distinction, where a Muslim is just another word for someone with brown skin, Arabic features and 'speaks funny' to them.Their crippling levels of bigotry makes them too stupid to realize that Islam is just a religion and that Muslims live in all parts of the world and come from virtually every background, with the majority being Asians, not Arabs, as you know.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a similar situation you're facing here. Just some food for thought.
The brain washed fodder like a Falcon won't even realise when they are conflating the two. However the people who start these tactics (like a Tommy Robinson) do it by design.
It's a way to hide their racism by claiming "oh I just hate Islam as an ideology", and then go on to target Pakistani Groomers/Pedophiles only (not bothered about white ones) and support killing of Palestinians, Iraqis e.t.c.
End goal they would be happy for just "muslims" to be deported and just "muslims" to be occupied through Imperialism, because that would cover Pakistani's, Arabs, Somalians e.t.c.