What about the precedent that the zionist ideology in Palestine sets for the rest of the world?

[fncceo]

Is there a reason we cannot discuss the OP?

You mean besides the fact that it's stupid, spurious, pointless, and you don't discuss, you pontificate?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why don't you take your Arab Muslim ass to Israel and see how far you get with that line of reasoning?

 

[abi]

Why don't you take your Arab Muslim ass to Israel and see how far you get with that line of reasoning?

I'm sorry you're triggered, but does the zionist argument set a monumentally dangerous precedent for humanity?

 

[Indeependent]

Why don't you take your Arab Muslim ass to Israel and see how far you get with that line of reasoning?

I'm sorry you're triggered, but does the zionist argument set a monumentally dangerous precedent for humanity?

As opposed to 57 Arab fascist states?

 

[Shusha]

I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Out of curiosity, if a people's right to self-determination should NOT be based on their ancestral homeland, and it should NOT be based on their ability to actually control the territory as sovereigns....

What SHOULD it be based on?

 

[abi]

As opposed to 57 Arab fascist states?

No, look at my first two posts.

If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Oh, and if a small group of Americans came up with scrolls, claimed they were from God and that they were His chosen people, and He told them that they would be returned to their ancestral homeland, would that help or hurt the argument?

What are you having such a problem with? It seems very straightforward to me.

 

[Indeependent]

As opposed to 57 Arab fascist states?

No, look at my first two posts.

If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Oh, and if a small group of Americans came up with scrolls, claimed they were from God and that they were His chosen people, and He told them that they would be returned to their ancestral homeland, would that help or hurt the argument?

What are you having such a problem with? It seems very straightforward to me.

In other words, you're an idiot.

 

[abi]

Out of curiosity, if a people's right to self-determination should NOT be based on their ancestral homeland, and it should NOT be based on their ability to actually control the territory as sovereigns....

What SHOULD it be based on?

You really don't get it. I thought you were kidding.

 

[Indeependent]

As opposed to 57 Arab fascist states?

No, look at my first two posts.

If I understand the zionist position, it boils down to might is right - or might makes right. But, there is also the idea that if a people were somewhere in ancient times, that they still retain rights to that land. I am constantly reminded about a peoples' right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Am I okay so far?

Good.

Now, since we came from Asia, across the Bering Straight, would this ideology not give Americans the right to demolish homes in Asia today, demolish entire cities even? Can we go on to murder and expel those living there today? If any remain, can we imprison them behind walls? Can we use our military to enforce a new government upon them based on our laws, in our cities built where theirs just stood?

I think it is important to see what a dangerous precedent this sets for people the world over.

Oh, and if a small group of Americans came up with scrolls, claimed they were from God and that they were His chosen people, and He told them that they would be returned to their ancestral homeland, would that help or hurt the argument?

What are you having such a problem with? It seems very straightforward to me.

Did you know that until 1948 and the existence of the State of Israel the entire world lived in peace?
Are you feeling stupid yet you lying piece of Muslim shit?

 

[Shusha]

Out of curiosity, if a people's right to self-determination should NOT be based on their ancestral homeland, and it should NOT be based on their ability to actually control the territory as sovereigns....

What SHOULD it be based on?

You really don't get it. I thought you were kidding.

Deadly serious. I really want to know. What should it be based on?

 

[abi]

Deadly serious. I really want to know. What should it be based on?

Now you're threatening me if I don't respond?

Just read my first two posts. It will all make sense.

 

[Indeependent]

Deadly serious. I really want to know. What should it be based on?

Now you're threatening me if I don't respond?

Just read my first two posts. It will all make sense.

"It will all make sense."
To you.

 

[abi]

Deadly serious. I really want to know. What should it be based on?

Now you're threatening me if I don't respond?

Just read my first two posts. It will all make sense.

"It will all make sense."
To you.

They made sense to you obviously, as you were triggered again.

 

[Shusha]

Deadly serious. I really want to know. What should it be based on?

Now you're threatening me if I don't respond?

Just read my first two posts. It will all make sense.

Is English not your first language? "Deadly serious" is an expression, not a threat.

Your OP claims that neither historical indigeniety nor effective sovereignty is a viable justification for rights to self-determination. So what IS?

 

[abi]

Is English not your first language? "Deadly serious" is an expression, not a threat.

Your OP claims that neither historical indigeniety nor effective sovereignty is a viable justification for rights to self-determination. So what IS?

Now, hold on right there. Is English yours? Where did I claim that. Stop making things up.

 

[Indeependent]

Deadly serious. I really want to know. What should it be based on?

Now you're threatening me if I don't respond?

Just read my first two posts. It will all make sense.

"It will all make sense."
To you.

They made sense to you obviously, as you were triggered again.

Did you know that until 1948 and the existence of the State of Israel the entire world lived in peace?
Are you feeling stupid yet you lying piece of Muslim shit?

 

[abi]

Is English not your first language? "Deadly serious" is an expression, not a threat.

Your OP claims that neither historical indigeniety nor effective sovereignty is a viable justification for rights to self-determination. So what IS?

Is it yours? Where did I say that? Are you backing off this claim? Are you ready to actually respond to my first two posts?

 

[Indeependent]

Is English not your first language? "Deadly serious" is an expression, not a threat.

Your OP claims that neither historical indigeniety nor effective sovereignty is a viable justification for rights to self-determination. So what IS?

Is it yours? Where did I say that? Are you backing off this claim? Are you ready to actually respond to my first two posts?

You just made a histrionic idiot out of yourself.

 

[abi]

Deadly serious.

And yet you refuse to back up your claim? Why? Because I caught you again? Pretending I claimed something that I didn't?

Does it set a dangerous precedent or not?

 

[jillian]

WTF is your agenda?

Peace.

no one believes that