Can't wait for Trump to declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel

[Roudy]

Is that your version of history, or is it actual history? Point is you made it look like it was the Europeans / Christians who have invaded, colonized and persecuted Muslims, and therefore Muslims are "lashing out" in response, when that is just not the case, as even you have admitted.

Actual history. Sorry, but I do actually know what I'm talking about. You can go do some research and find stuff out, and I bet you can't show that anything I have said is wrong.

It is the case that Christians have invaded, colonized and persecuted Muslims.

You want me to prove it?

Iraq: What is now Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. During WW1 the Ottomans were defeated by the British and the British set up shop there. In 1920 the British set up the State of Iraq as a League of Nations mandate. Faisal I was made monarch. He wasn't even Iraqi, he was Hashemite, meaning Saudi (but not House of Saud). Faisal was born in Mecca.
Iraq didn't exist before the British turned up, and they took parts that didn't belong together and made a country that was convenient for them.

Egypt, with a long and proud history was nothing more than a puppet for the Ottomans and British by the 1800s. The British and French built the Suez Canal, made the Egyptians pay for it, taxing them to hell, while keeping the control of the country. In 1914 Egypt was declared a British protectorate. This ended in 1922 because the Egyptians had a revolution. By 1936 the British had signed the Anglo-Egyptian treaty which forced British troops to leave, except those protecting the Suez Canal. WW2 saw British troops coming back to fight against the Germans.

Pakistan and Bangladesh were both part of British India. Pakistan had East India Company outposts in the 1700s and by the 1800s they were under the control of the British. Bangladesh was in a similar situation, and neither gained independence until British India gained independence and then they split into three countries.

Malaysia and Singapore were Malay Muslim areas, the British had trading posts in Penang, Malaka (which they got from the Dutch in exchange for a part of what is now Indonesia) and Singapore and made them into the Straights Settlements. The rest of Malaysia had British control of the local puppet government officials.

I could go on all day here. These are four countries, Middle East/Africa, Middle East/Asia, Central Asia and Far East Asia and it is all about controlling countries and doing whatever they wanted with them. Saudi Arabia is one of the few Muslim countries that was not controlled by a Western power.

Yes yes, like I said these two religions have been at each other's throats forever. What else is new? But it is Islam that drew first blood and its followers still behave like medieval Neanderthals trying to drag the world back to the 7th century by force.

Strange how you mention Pakistan and Bangladesh without mentioning they are remnants of a barbaric genocide committed by Muslims in the natives of the Indian peninsula which by some estimates added up to 70 million dead in the effort Islamicise India. Now they're all upset why they can't have the lands they conquered centuries ago? And that goes back to Jerusalem, it is kand they conquered once, centuries ago, and now want it back. First and foremost, Jerusalem is the religious, spiritual and ancestral homeland of the Jews, even both Christian and Muslim conquerors acknowledged that.

So again, actual history vs your history. The religion of Islam invaded, conquered, terrorized, looted, and raped people's and lands right from the very beginning. They have much more blood on their hands and colonized more lands than Christians or Europeans.

True story dude.

You say Islam drew first blood. Did it? When? I have the suspicion you're just making this up as you go along. So I want you to tell me when the first blood was drawn between a Christian and a Muslim.

No, it's not funny that I didn't mention something that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.

You're switching arguments every five seconds, it's getting ridiculous. Every time I talk about one thing you then throw in the Muslims killed loads of people. So what? Christians killed loads of people too. It doesn't tell me anything.

You're trying to tell me that what you're saying is "actual history" and yet you've provided no sources, you're picking and choosing facts and using them out of context and without much in the way of an argument that you're pushing. Instead it's just random stuff you're trying to use to say one thing now, and something different later.

True story.

What are you talking about? Are you that ignorant of history? Islam spread through war, terror, and conquest of other people's and lands. It all started in the 7th century and they haven't stopped since. The Crusades started as a response to purging Southern Europe from the Muslim invaders. So yes, Muslims drew first blood.

Did I say Islam didn't conquer through war? No, I did not.

Christianity also did this. Why do you think it's the largest religion in the world?

You're making assumptions, rather than reading what I've said.

I asked you to PROVE the Islam drew first blood. You didn't prove it, you merely told me. Meaningless.

No but you did make it look like these poor Muslims are victims of the West for the last 200 years, and therefore have no choice but to lash out like this terrorising and behaving like barbaric animals, when in reality they've been acting like this since the 7th century.

41]

Conquest of Hispania and Septimania: 711–721Edit
Main articles: Umayyad conquest of Hispania and Umayyad invasion of Gaul

Bilingual Latin-Arabic dinar minted in Iberia AH 98 (716/7 AD)
The Muslim conquest of Iberia is notable for the brevity and unreliability of the available sources.[42][43] After the Visigothic king of Spain Wittiza died in 710, the kingdom experienced a period of political division.[43] Taking advantage of the situation, the Muslim Berber commander Tariq ibn Ziyad, who was stationed in Tangiers at the time, crossed the straits with an army of Arabs and Berbers.[43] After defeating the forces of king Roderic, Muslim forces advanced capturing cities of the Gothic kingdom one after another.[42] Some of them surrendered with agreements to pay tribute and local aristocracy retained a measure of former influence.[43] By 713 Iberia was almost entirely under Muslim control.[42] The events of the subsequent ten years, whose details are obscure, included capture of Barcelona and Narbonne, and a raid against Toulouse, followed by an expedition into Burgundy in 725.[42]

 

[Roudy]

Like I said, Muslims started invading and attacking Europe and the holy land from the very beginning. Time to take Jerusalem back and give it to its rightful owners.

Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)

649: Muawiya I, a member of the Umayyad family, leads a raid against Cyprus, sacking the capital Salamis-Constantia after a short siege and pillaging the rest of the island.

652: Sicily is attacked by Muslims coming out of Tunisia (named Ifriqiya by the Muslims, a name later given to the entire continent of Africa).

July 19, 711: Battle of Guadalete: Tariq ibn Ziyad kills King Rodrigo (or Roderic), Visigoth ruler of Spain, at the Guadalete River in the south of the Iberian peninsula. Tariq ibn Ziyad had landed at Gibraltar with 7,000 Muslims at the invitation of heirs of the late Visigoth King Witica (Witiza) who wanted to get rid of Rodrigo (this group includes Oppas, the bishop of Toledo and primate of all Spain, who happens to be the brother of the late king Witica). Ziyad, however, refuses to turn control of the region back over to the heirs of Witica. Almost the entire Iberian peninsula would come under Islamic control by 718.

712: Muslim governor of Northern Africa Musa ibn Nusayr follows Tariq ibn Ziyad with an army of 18,000 as reinforcements for the conquest of Andalusia. Musa's father had been a Catholic Yemenite studying to be a priest in Iraq when he was captured in Iraq by Khalid, the "Sword of Islam," and forced to choose between conversion or death. This invasion of Iraq had been one of the last military orders given by Muhammed before his death.


714: Birth of Pippin III (Pippin the Short) in Jupille (Belgium). Son of Charles Martel and father of Charlemagne, in 0759 Pippin would capture Narbonne, the last Muslim stronghold in France, and thereby drive Islam out of France.

715: By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands. The Muslim conquest of Spain only took around three years but the Christian reconquest would require around 460 years (it might have gone faster had the various Christian kingdoms not been at each other' throats much of the time). Musa's son, Abd el-Aziz, is left in charge and makes his capital the city of Seville, where he married Egilona, widow of king Rodrigo. Caliph Suleiman, a paranoid ruler, would have el-Aziz assassinated and sends Musa into exile in his native Yemen village to live out his days as a beggar.

716: Lisbon is captured by Muslims.

717: Cordova (Qurtuba) becomes the capital of Muslim holdings in Andalusia (Spain).

719: Muslims attack Septimania in southern France (so named because it was the base of operations for Rome's Seventh Legion) and become established in the region known as Languedoc, made famous several hundred years later as the center of the Cathar heresy.

July 09, 721: A Muslim army under the command of Al-Semah and that had crossed the Pyrenees is defeated by the Franks near Toulouse. Al-Semah is killed and his remaining forces, which had previously conquered Narbonne, are forced back across the Pyrenees into Spain.

722: Battle of Covadonga: Pelayo, (690-737) Visigoth noble who had been elected the first King of Asturias (718-0737), defeats a Muslim army at Alcama near Covadonga. This is generally regarded as the first real Christian victory over the Muslims in the Reconquista.

724: Hisham becomes the 10th caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty. It is under Hisham that Muslim forces make their deepest incursions into Western Europe before being stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers in 0732.

724: Under the command of Ambissa, Emir of Andalusia, Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes. Primary targets in these and other raids are churches and monasteries where the Muslims take away holy objects and enslave or kill all the clerics.

725: Muslim forces occupied Nimes, France.

730: Muslim forces occupy the French cities of Narbonne and Avignon.

June 827: Sicily is invaded by Muslims who, this time, are looking to take control of the island rather than simply taking away booty. They are initially aided by Euphemius, a Byzantine naval commander who is rebelling against the Emperor. Conquest of the island would require 75 years of hard fighting.

831: Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Palermo and make it their capital.

 

[Phoenall]

You are so dense, Frigid is running rings around you. There were no Christians in Europe before they arrived in Europe from the Middle East.

And they were Europeans returning home after the demise of the Roman empire, they were not arab's as you are trying to imply


They also brought their Jewish slaves with them to Rome and other European lands to show them of

 

[Roudy]

You are so dense, Frigid is running rings around you. There were no Christians in Europe before they arrived in Europe from the Middle East.

And they were Europeans returning home after the demise of the Roman empire, they were not arab's as you are trying to imply


They also brought their Jewish slaves with them to Rome and other European lands to show them of

Collosseum was built by 50,000 imported Jewish slaves and stolen gold from the sacked Temple in Jerusalem. Years later the Pope stripped the colosseum entirely of its marble and installed it in the Vatican.

Highway robbery, ancient style.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actual history. Sorry, but I do actually know what I'm talking about. You can go do some research and find stuff out, and I bet you can't show that anything I have said is wrong.

It is the case that Christians have invaded, colonized and persecuted Muslims.

You want me to prove it?

Iraq: What is now Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. During WW1 the Ottomans were defeated by the British and the British set up shop there. In 1920 the British set up the State of Iraq as a League of Nations mandate. Faisal I was made monarch. He wasn't even Iraqi, he was Hashemite, meaning Saudi (but not House of Saud). Faisal was born in Mecca.
Iraq didn't exist before the British turned up, and they took parts that didn't belong together and made a country that was convenient for them.

Egypt, with a long and proud history was nothing more than a puppet for the Ottomans and British by the 1800s. The British and French built the Suez Canal, made the Egyptians pay for it, taxing them to hell, while keeping the control of the country. In 1914 Egypt was declared a British protectorate. This ended in 1922 because the Egyptians had a revolution. By 1936 the British had signed the Anglo-Egyptian treaty which forced British troops to leave, except those protecting the Suez Canal. WW2 saw British troops coming back to fight against the Germans.

Pakistan and Bangladesh were both part of British India. Pakistan had East India Company outposts in the 1700s and by the 1800s they were under the control of the British. Bangladesh was in a similar situation, and neither gained independence until British India gained independence and then they split into three countries.

Malaysia and Singapore were Malay Muslim areas, the British had trading posts in Penang, Malaka (which they got from the Dutch in exchange for a part of what is now Indonesia) and Singapore and made them into the Straights Settlements. The rest of Malaysia had British control of the local puppet government officials.

I could go on all day here. These are four countries, Middle East/Africa, Middle East/Asia, Central Asia and Far East Asia and it is all about controlling countries and doing whatever they wanted with them. Saudi Arabia is one of the few Muslim countries that was not controlled by a Western power.

Yes yes, like I said these two religions have been at each other's throats forever. What else is new? But it is Islam that drew first blood and its followers still behave like medieval Neanderthals trying to drag the world back to the 7th century by force.

Strange how you mention Pakistan and Bangladesh without mentioning they are remnants of a barbaric genocide committed by Muslims in the natives of the Indian peninsula which by some estimates added up to 70 million dead in the effort Islamicise India. Now they're all upset why they can't have the lands they conquered centuries ago? And that goes back to Jerusalem, it is kand they conquered once, centuries ago, and now want it back. First and foremost, Jerusalem is the religious, spiritual and ancestral homeland of the Jews, even both Christian and Muslim conquerors acknowledged that.

So again, actual history vs your history. The religion of Islam invaded, conquered, terrorized, looted, and raped people's and lands right from the very beginning. They have much more blood on their hands and colonized more lands than Christians or Europeans.

True story dude.

You say Islam drew first blood. Did it? When? I have the suspicion you're just making this up as you go along. So I want you to tell me when the first blood was drawn between a Christian and a Muslim.

No, it's not funny that I didn't mention something that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.

You're switching arguments every five seconds, it's getting ridiculous. Every time I talk about one thing you then throw in the Muslims killed loads of people. So what? Christians killed loads of people too. It doesn't tell me anything.

You're trying to tell me that what you're saying is "actual history" and yet you've provided no sources, you're picking and choosing facts and using them out of context and without much in the way of an argument that you're pushing. Instead it's just random stuff you're trying to use to say one thing now, and something different later.

True story.

What are you talking about? Are you that ignorant of history? Islam spread through war, terror, and conquest of other people's and lands. It all started in the 7th century and they haven't stopped since. The Crusades started as a response to purging Southern Europe from the Muslim invaders. So yes, Muslims drew first blood.

Did I say Islam didn't conquer through war? No, I did not.

Christianity also did this. Why do you think it's the largest religion in the world?

You're making assumptions, rather than reading what I've said.

I asked you to PROVE the Islam drew first blood. You didn't prove it, you merely told me. Meaningless.

No but you did make it look like these poor Muslims are victims of the West for the last 200 years, and therefore have no choice but to lash out like this terrorising and behaving like barbaric animals, when in reality they've been acting like this since the 7th century.

41]

Conquest of Hispania and Septimania: 711–721Edit
Main articles: Umayyad conquest of Hispania and Umayyad invasion of Gaul

Bilingual Latin-Arabic dinar minted in Iberia AH 98 (716/7 AD)
The Muslim conquest of Iberia is notable for the brevity and unreliability of the available sources.[42][43] After the Visigothic king of Spain Wittiza died in 710, the kingdom experienced a period of political division.[43] Taking advantage of the situation, the Muslim Berber commander Tariq ibn Ziyad, who was stationed in Tangiers at the time, crossed the straits with an army of Arabs and Berbers.[43] After defeating the forces of king Roderic, Muslim forces advanced capturing cities of the Gothic kingdom one after another.[42] Some of them surrendered with agreements to pay tribute and local aristocracy retained a measure of former influence.[43] By 713 Iberia was almost entirely under Muslim control.[42] The events of the subsequent ten years, whose details are obscure, included capture of Barcelona and Narbonne, and a raid against Toulouse, followed by an expedition into Burgundy in 725.[42]

Are they not the victim of Western aggression for the last 200 years? Did the West not go into these countries and basically enslave them? Yes they did.

If you start a fight with a guy in a bar, does that give him a legitimate reason to enslave you and lock you up forever?

But you need to change your mindset. I did not say that they wouldn't have done the same to the West. I did not say they were completely innocent in this. You just decided that I had said this, when I didn't say it. Another frustration in debating with someone who isn't willing to stick to the truth.
The reason this is important is because it shows you the thinking of the normal Muslim. People who have had their country controlled by the West are going to hate the West. The more you do it, the more hate you produce.

So why the fuck have you gone off on one about the conquest of what is now Spain? Does this have anything to do with this debate? You didn't even provide your own commentary to it.

As for acting the same since the 7th Century, well... the only difference between the West in the 7th Century and now is that they have more effective tools for killing.

Do you think invading a country like Iraq by making up "intelligence" is civilized in any way? I don't. And the post war period was the work of an ignorant fool.

 

[montelatici]

In any case, those that invaded Spain were Berbers that converted to Islam and were formerly Christian.

 

[Roudy]

Yes yes, like I said these two religions have been at each other's throats forever. What else is new? But it is Islam that drew first blood and its followers still behave like medieval Neanderthals trying to drag the world back to the 7th century by force.

Strange how you mention Pakistan and Bangladesh without mentioning they are remnants of a barbaric genocide committed by Muslims in the natives of the Indian peninsula which by some estimates added up to 70 million dead in the effort Islamicise India. Now they're all upset why they can't have the lands they conquered centuries ago? And that goes back to Jerusalem, it is kand they conquered once, centuries ago, and now want it back. First and foremost, Jerusalem is the religious, spiritual and ancestral homeland of the Jews, even both Christian and Muslim conquerors acknowledged that.

So again, actual history vs your history. The religion of Islam invaded, conquered, terrorized, looted, and raped people's and lands right from the very beginning. They have much more blood on their hands and colonized more lands than Christians or Europeans.

True story dude.

You say Islam drew first blood. Did it? When? I have the suspicion you're just making this up as you go along. So I want you to tell me when the first blood was drawn between a Christian and a Muslim.

No, it's not funny that I didn't mention something that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.

You're switching arguments every five seconds, it's getting ridiculous. Every time I talk about one thing you then throw in the Muslims killed loads of people. So what? Christians killed loads of people too. It doesn't tell me anything.

You're trying to tell me that what you're saying is "actual history" and yet you've provided no sources, you're picking and choosing facts and using them out of context and without much in the way of an argument that you're pushing. Instead it's just random stuff you're trying to use to say one thing now, and something different later.

True story.

What are you talking about? Are you that ignorant of history? Islam spread through war, terror, and conquest of other people's and lands. It all started in the 7th century and they haven't stopped since. The Crusades started as a response to purging Southern Europe from the Muslim invaders. So yes, Muslims drew first blood.

Did I say Islam didn't conquer through war? No, I did not.

Christianity also did this. Why do you think it's the largest religion in the world?

You're making assumptions, rather than reading what I've said.

I asked you to PROVE the Islam drew first blood. You didn't prove it, you merely told me. Meaningless.

No but you did make it look like these poor Muslims are victims of the West for the last 200 years, and therefore have no choice but to lash out like this terrorising and behaving like barbaric animals, when in reality they've been acting like this since the 7th century.

41]

Conquest of Hispania and Septimania: 711–721Edit
Main articles: Umayyad conquest of Hispania and Umayyad invasion of Gaul

Bilingual Latin-Arabic dinar minted in Iberia AH 98 (716/7 AD)
The Muslim conquest of Iberia is notable for the brevity and unreliability of the available sources.[42][43] After the Visigothic king of Spain Wittiza died in 710, the kingdom experienced a period of political division.[43] Taking advantage of the situation, the Muslim Berber commander Tariq ibn Ziyad, who was stationed in Tangiers at the time, crossed the straits with an army of Arabs and Berbers.[43] After defeating the forces of king Roderic, Muslim forces advanced capturing cities of the Gothic kingdom one after another.[42] Some of them surrendered with agreements to pay tribute and local aristocracy retained a measure of former influence.[43] By 713 Iberia was almost entirely under Muslim control.[42] The events of the subsequent ten years, whose details are obscure, included capture of Barcelona and Narbonne, and a raid against Toulouse, followed by an expedition into Burgundy in 725.[42]

Are they not the victim of Western aggression for the last 200 years? Did the West not go into these countries and basically enslave them? Yes they did.

If you start a fight with a guy in a bar, does that give him a legitimate reason to enslave you and lock you up forever?

But you need to change your mindset. I did not say that they wouldn't have done the same to the West. I did not say they were completely innocent in this. You just decided that I had said this, when I didn't say it. Another frustration in debating with someone who isn't willing to stick to the truth.
The reason this is important is because it shows you the thinking of the normal Muslim. People who have had their country controlled by the West are going to hate the West. The more you do it, the more hate you produce.

So why the fuck have you gone off on one about the conquest of what is now Spain? Does this have anything to do with this debate? You didn't even provide your own commentary to it.

As for acting the same since the 7th Century, well... the only difference between the West in the 7th Century and now is that they have more effective tools for killing.

Do you think invading a country like Iraq by making up "intelligence" is civilized in any way? I don't. And the post war period was the work of an ignorant fool.

Actually most of the region was under control of the invading Ottoman's until the Ottoman's lost it all after they sided with Germans in WWI. Yup, the same Ottomans that invaded and conquered Christian lands, committed genocide on the Christian Armenians.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You say Islam drew first blood. Did it? When? I have the suspicion you're just making this up as you go along. So I want you to tell me when the first blood was drawn between a Christian and a Muslim.

No, it's not funny that I didn't mention something that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.

You're switching arguments every five seconds, it's getting ridiculous. Every time I talk about one thing you then throw in the Muslims killed loads of people. So what? Christians killed loads of people too. It doesn't tell me anything.

You're trying to tell me that what you're saying is "actual history" and yet you've provided no sources, you're picking and choosing facts and using them out of context and without much in the way of an argument that you're pushing. Instead it's just random stuff you're trying to use to say one thing now, and something different later.

True story.

What are you talking about? Are you that ignorant of history? Islam spread through war, terror, and conquest of other people's and lands. It all started in the 7th century and they haven't stopped since. The Crusades started as a response to purging Southern Europe from the Muslim invaders. So yes, Muslims drew first blood.

Did I say Islam didn't conquer through war? No, I did not.

Christianity also did this. Why do you think it's the largest religion in the world?

You're making assumptions, rather than reading what I've said.

I asked you to PROVE the Islam drew first blood. You didn't prove it, you merely told me. Meaningless.

No but you did make it look like these poor Muslims are victims of the West for the last 200 years, and therefore have no choice but to lash out like this terrorising and behaving like barbaric animals, when in reality they've been acting like this since the 7th century.

41]

Conquest of Hispania and Septimania: 711–721Edit
Main articles: Umayyad conquest of Hispania and Umayyad invasion of Gaul

Bilingual Latin-Arabic dinar minted in Iberia AH 98 (716/7 AD)
The Muslim conquest of Iberia is notable for the brevity and unreliability of the available sources.[42][43] After the Visigothic king of Spain Wittiza died in 710, the kingdom experienced a period of political division.[43] Taking advantage of the situation, the Muslim Berber commander Tariq ibn Ziyad, who was stationed in Tangiers at the time, crossed the straits with an army of Arabs and Berbers.[43] After defeating the forces of king Roderic, Muslim forces advanced capturing cities of the Gothic kingdom one after another.[42] Some of them surrendered with agreements to pay tribute and local aristocracy retained a measure of former influence.[43] By 713 Iberia was almost entirely under Muslim control.[42] The events of the subsequent ten years, whose details are obscure, included capture of Barcelona and Narbonne, and a raid against Toulouse, followed by an expedition into Burgundy in 725.[42]

Are they not the victim of Western aggression for the last 200 years? Did the West not go into these countries and basically enslave them? Yes they did.

If you start a fight with a guy in a bar, does that give him a legitimate reason to enslave you and lock you up forever?

But you need to change your mindset. I did not say that they wouldn't have done the same to the West. I did not say they were completely innocent in this. You just decided that I had said this, when I didn't say it. Another frustration in debating with someone who isn't willing to stick to the truth.
The reason this is important is because it shows you the thinking of the normal Muslim. People who have had their country controlled by the West are going to hate the West. The more you do it, the more hate you produce.

So why the fuck have you gone off on one about the conquest of what is now Spain? Does this have anything to do with this debate? You didn't even provide your own commentary to it.

As for acting the same since the 7th Century, well... the only difference between the West in the 7th Century and now is that they have more effective tools for killing.

Do you think invading a country like Iraq by making up "intelligence" is civilized in any way? I don't. And the post war period was the work of an ignorant fool.

Actually most of the region was under control of the invading Ottoman's until the Ottoman's lost it all after they sided with Germans in WWI. Yup, the same Ottomans that invaded and conquered Christian lands, committed genocide on the Christian Armenians.

Yes, I know. And what's your point here? That because Muslims committed genocide and because the Ottomans invaded and conquered some land that was Christian, it means what?

The US has committed genocide, and conquered Muslims lands. The Spanish, British and Portuguese did it in the Americas, the British did it almost everywhere they went.

This doesn't prove anything other than this shit happened a lot and Muslims and Christians (let's say religions) did this sort of thing.

So what is your argument?

 

[Shusha]

We toss words like "genocide" around far too casually these days. It has the effect of demeaning the words.

 

[montelatici]

You haven't a clue what the definition of genocide is, do you.

 

[Shusha]

You haven't a clue what the definition of genocide is, do you.

In the context of the US committing it? Do tell.

 

[montelatici]

The definition is below, what do you think?

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "

 

[Shusha]

The definition of genocide includes the requirement of intent. Wars are not (necessarily) genocide, even if large numbers of innocents are killed. There must be an intent to destroy a national, racial, ethnic or religious group.

 

[Shusha]

So again, please put this in the context of the US.

 

[montelatici]

The U.S. had the intent to destroy the native americans, at least "in part". And, Israel certainly had the intent to destroy the Palestinians at least "in part".

 

[Shusha]

We disagree.

 

[montelatici]

You are delusional.

 

[Hollie]

The U.S. had the intent to destroy the native americans, at least "in part". And, Israel certainly had the intent to destroy the Palestinians at least "in part".

As long as you're making up definitions as an appeal to your personal biases, where do we find support for your invention of a "in part" genocide? If you don't want your stuttering and mumbling remarks to be seen as mere pablum, you need to be versed in the topic, understand context and you need to choose words that denote specificity--contrary to your silly attempt with "in part" genocide.

 

[Shusha]

"In part" does not mean that if I stab a Jew on the street I am committing genocide or that I have the intent to commit genocide.

 

[Phoenall]

You haven't a clue what the definition of genocide is, do you.

Nor do you, as you trot out the same words without understanding their meaning.