This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Israel, Honourable Defender or Aggressor?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not sure you realizing what you're saying...yes, you are very much going to be displacing Americans. Why do we owe them anything?
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Zoltas
I'm not sure you realizing what you're saying...yes, you are very much going to be displacing Americans. Why do we owe them anything?
He's saying you owe them something by getting involved in their business in the first place. The 'protector of people unable to protect themselves' just decided, 'Hey, these people lived here a thousand years ago, we hereby declare this their land.We'll give it a name as well'
Israel is not a country, they were wrongfully put back into an area that
used
to be their homeland.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not sure you realizing what you're saying...yes, you are very much going to be displacing Americans. Why do we owe them anything?
He's saying you owe them something by getting involved in their business in the first place. The 'protector of people unable to protect themselves' just decided, 'Hey, these people lived here a thousand years ago, we hereby declare this their land.We'll give it a name as well'
Israel is not a country, they were wrongfully put back into an area that
used
to be their homeland.
YES, WE WERE WRONG.
That's the point.
So how does now doing that to American land instead of Palestinian land, solve anything?
I never said anything about displacing americans the americans who live there can stay only they will now be in the Israel state rather then the previous state they were in, yes it is a big change for the american occupants there but its for the greater good of peace.
And no the USA did not owe the hebrews anything if anything they owed america for saving them from the Nazi's but America wished to help them but they ended up creating more problems in the proccess.
And taking American land won't do that? You realize that peole (Americans) own that farmland, right? You're taking away their land.
Post by
Zoltas
YES, WE WERE WRONG.
That's the point.
So how does now doing that to American land instead of Palestinian land, solve anything?
Because, if they were left alone, the Israelites would have stayed where they were, the Palestinians would have lived in Palestine, and the Americans' wouldn't have had to worry about it.
But
, because they did, because they
chose
to get involved in where the Israelites lived, then they should have gave them space in America, rather than pushing them into somewhere completely different. Which they had no right to do.
Also, away from, that. If the Israelites had of moved to America, imo I think there could not have been as much violence as there has been with the whole Israel/Palestine 'war'.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
YES, WE WERE WRONG.
That's the point.
So how does now doing that to American land instead of Palestinian land, solve anything?
Because, if they were left alone, the Israelites would have stayed where they were, the Palestinians would have lived in Palestine, and the Americans' wouldn't have had to worry about it.
But
, because they did, because they
chose
to get involved in where the Israelites lived, then they should have gave them space in America, rather than pushing them into somewhere completely different. Which they had no right to do.
Also, away from, that. If the Israelites had of moved to America, imo I think there could not have been as much violence as there has been with the whole Israel/Palestine 'war'.
You're saying that instead of doing bad thing X, we should have done bad thing Y. I'm saying we should have done nothing at all. Nation forming is not our place. I'm all for opening our borders to refugees, not giving away land.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm slowly coming up to speed with what happened yesterday.
Just as a comparison though, consider some of the following situations.
1) What would happen in Afghanistan, when vehicles with white flags carrying aid for prisoners move towards checkpoints or bases and
disobey the military's orders to stop, turn around
?
2) If an aid worker ignored requests from customs officers and proceeded to walk straight to the exit of an airport,
ignoring the protocols for entering the country
, what would happen?
In the case of (1) - I don't see what Israel has done is much different to what American forces would do in a similar situation in Afghanistan. In the case of (2), this would apply anywhere in the world - Israel has just as much right as any other country in the world to protect its borders. That it ended in violence is unfortunate, but I would not be surprised if it were the aid ships who instigated it when they were boarded, and I don't believe that there should be a presumption that Israel instigated it.
Post by
MyTie
The population of American is preaty much made up of immigrants
An immigrant is someone not born here, but moved here. Are you sure about this? Are you sure that most people in America were born somewhere else?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The population of American is preaty much made up of immigrants
An immigrant is someone not born here, but moved here. Are you sure about this? Are you sure that most people in America were born somewhere else?
I think it's fairly obvious he's saying most Americans are the descendants of immigrants, which is correct.
ALL Americans are descendants of immigrants. But, that's not the point. The point is that I'm sick and tired of being labeled a foreigner in my own land.
Post by
Squishalot
I think it's fairly obvious he's saying most Americans are the descendants of immigrants, which is correct.
ALL Americans are descendants of immigrants. But, that's not the point. The point is that I'm sick and tired of being labeled a foreigner in my own land.
It is a fair point. I'm not sure what ancestral nationality you are, MyTie, but I know that quite a number of Chinese people in the US still get labelled as foreigners and immigrants, despite being born and growing up in the US and having citizenship etc. Same goes in Australia and everywhere else in the world. If you think you have it tough, suck it up.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm slowly coming up to speed with what happened yesterday.
Just as a comparison though, consider some of the following situations.
1) What would happen in Afghanistan, when vehicles with white flags carrying aid for prisoners move towards checkpoints or bases and
disobey the military's orders to stop, turn around
?
2) If an aid worker ignored requests from customs officers and proceeded to walk straight to the exit of an airport,
ignoring the protocols for entering the country
, what would happen?
In the case of (1) - I don't see what Israel has done is much different to what American forces would do in a similar situation in Afghanistan. In the case of (2), this would apply anywhere in the world - Israel has just as much right as any other country in the world to protect its borders. That it ended in violence is unfortunate, but I would not be surprised if it were the aid ships who instigated it when they were boarded, and I don't believe that there should be a presumption that Israel instigated it.
The issue is not whether they should have let them through or not. The issue is whether they should have killed civilians or not.
Post by
Squishalot
The issue is not whether they should have let them through or not. The issue is whether they should have killed civilians or not.
Yes, but my point is, in both of the cases I identified, they would be willing to use force to prevent them from going through. Again, there should not be a presumption that either the Israelis or the aid ships instigated the conflict. If people on the aid ships attacked first, then by definition, they are no longer to be treated as civillians.
Post by
MyTie
I think it's fairly obvious he's saying most Americans are the descendants of immigrants, which is correct.
ALL Americans are descendants of immigrants. But, that's not the point. The point is that I'm sick and tired of being labeled a foreigner in my own land.
It is a fair point. I'm not sure what ancestral nationality you are, MyTie, but I know that quite a number of Chinese people in the US still get labelled as foreigners and immigrants, despite being born and growing up in the US and having citizenship etc. Same goes in Australia and everywhere else in the world. If you think you have it tough, suck it up.
No, I don't have to "suck it up". I have earned my right through military service to cry "BS" when people use the term 'Native American' when refering to a certain sect of people born here, but not another sect of people born here. The whole world demands political correctness, unless they are refering to young christian white males. I've had enough.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The issue is not whether they should have let them through or not. The issue is whether they should have killed civilians or not.
Yes, but my point is, in both of the cases I identified, they would be willing to use force to prevent them from going through. Again, there should not be a presumption that either the Israelis or the aid ships instigated the conflict. If people on the aid ships attacked first, then by definition, they are no longer to be treated as civillians.
Neither of the cases you mentioned was relevant to the situation.
And yes, even if a civilian is to attack, he's still a civilian. A civilian, by international definition, is someone not a member of his or her country's armed forces.
Post by
Squishalot
The issue is not whether they should have let them through or not. The issue is whether they should have killed civilians or not.
Yes, but my point is, in both of the cases I identified, they would be willing to use force to prevent them from going through. Again, there should not be a presumption that either the Israelis or the aid ships instigated the conflict. If people on the aid ships attacked first, then by definition,
they are no longer to be treated as civillians
.
Neither of the cases you mentioned was relevant to the situation.
And yes, even if a civilian is to attack, he's still a civilian. A civilian, by international definition, is someone not a member of his or her country's armed forces.
Customs. Technically, until you pass the customs line, you're on international turf. If the military ask you to turn around and go away when you try to get through customs and you ignore them, they're going to try to stop you and force you to turn around. If you attack them, they are going to attack back.
Re: definition of civillian, I never said that they weren't civillians. I'll take that back though, and say that they
should no longer be treated as non-combatants.
No, I don't have to "suck it up". I have earned my right through military service to cry "BS" when people use the term 'Native American' when refering to a certain sect of people born here, but not another sect of people born here. The whole world demands political correctness, unless they are refering to young christian white males. I've had enough.
I'm saying that American society can't claim that the American-born Chinese are immigrants if they don't call themselves immigrants. I agree with your view on this matter, generally speaking, but just remember other people have to put up with a crapload more prejudice than you do.
And military service doesn't earn you any rights to cry BS. That's a constitutional thing only, as far as I'm aware. Just nitpicking now.
Post by
MyTie
And military service doesn't earn you any rights to cry BS. That's a constitutional thing only, as far as I'm aware. Just nitpicking now.Matter of opinion I suppose. I am not an immigrant. I am a native american.
Post by
Squishalot
And military service doesn't earn you any rights to cry BS. That's a constitutional thing only, as far as I'm aware. Just nitpicking now.Matter of opinion I suppose. I am not an immigrant. I am a native american.
As in, ancestry from the native 'American Indian' tribes who populated Northern America prior to the coming of the English and the Spanish? Or 'native american' in the sense that your parents were American and that you were born and raised in America? I'm finding it hard to read your tone online at the moment.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Customs. Technically, until you pass the customs line, you're on international turf. If the military ask you to turn around and go away when you try to get through customs and you ignore them, they're going to try to stop you and force you to turn around. If you attack them, they are going to attack back.
That's the problem. They can't fall back on Gaza being their land because that's what the whole dispute is about. Israel has every right to keep people out of their own country, but not out of anywhere else. It's no different than the Germans sinking our (US) ships in WWI before we joined.
And then it comes to the question, is trespassing deserving of the death penalty?
And military service doesn't earn you any rights to cry BS. That's a constitutional thing only, as far as I'm aware. Just nitpicking now.Matter of opinion I suppose. I am not an immigrant. I am a native american.
As in, ancestry from the native 'American Indian' tribes who populated Northern America prior to the coming of the English and the Spanish? Or 'native american' in the sense that your parents were American and that you were born and raised in America? I'm finding it hard to read your tone online at the moment.
He's say Native American is a misnomer. He (a Caucasian) is just as much native to America as the American Indians.
Post by
Squishalot
That's the problem. They can't fall back on Gaza being their land because that's what the whole dispute is about. Israel has every right to keep people out of their own country, but not out of anywhere else. It's no different than the Germans sinking our (US) ships in WWI before we joined.
To some extent. They can, because they do believe it's their land. Unlike Taiwan, which is internationally recognised as a separate nation from China, to the best of my knowledge, Gaza is a semi-autonomous state, similar to Hong Kong or Macau. Although Hong Kong has its own customs, separate to China, and requires customs processing between Hong Kong and China, it would not be illegal of China to re-annex Hong Kong and prevent people from entering, whereas it would be if they attempted to do the same to Taiwan.
He's say Native American is a misnomer. He (a Caucasian) is just as much native to America as the American Indians.
I know that's what he's saying, hence my question for clarification. But your second statement is incorrect - by definition, the American Indians were there significantly longer than the Caucasians were, so technically, the American Indians are more native than Caucasians. Or, the Asians are just as native as the Caucasians, that works too.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.