An alternate view of Nelson Mandela

[martybegan]

What business did anyone have "mandating" the partition of their land?

"Hey, we feel bad about the Holocaust, so we are going to MANDATE that you give half your land to the Jews!"

"Um, we didn't kill anyone in the Holocaust, why are we being punished?"

The UN is using the same standard it applied to Serbia and Rwanda.

I honestly doubt if the Zionists went back to Europe, the Arabs would care anymore.

They had the authority under the Mandate of Palestine, created after WWI by treaty.

The rest of your crap is just jew hate.

 

[JoeB131]

They had the authority under the Mandate of Palestine, created after WWI by treaty.

The rest of your crap is just jew hate.

you mean the "Mandate" they had because they lied to the Arabs to get them to revolt against the Ottomans? That "Mandate".

Yes, History is Jew Hate. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[martybegan]

you mean the "Mandate" they had because they lied to the Arabs to get them to revolt against the Ottomans? That "Mandate".

Yes, History is Jew Hate. Keep telling yourself that.

The Arabs didn't need to be lied to in order to revolt against the Turks.

 

[JoeB131]

The Arabs didn't need to be lied to in order to revolt against the Turks.

Actually, the Ottoman Sultan was the Caliph of Islam. They probably had a good reason to fight FOR the Turks.

Instead, they trusted the British and got screwed.

Just like everyone else who ever trusted the British, come to think of it.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, the Ottoman Sultan was the Caliph of Islam. They probably had a good reason to fight FOR the Turks.

Instead, they trusted the British and got screwed.

Just like everyone else who ever trusted the British, come to think of it.

At that point in history nationalism was overtaking religious fealty. Islamism as we know it was a reaction a few decades later to the breakup of the Sultanate, and by that time, the Shia and Sunni branches had split far enough to make it an issue between the two of them.

The British were probably one of the most benign empire builders in history. Ask the people who were under Spanish, Dutch, or going back, the Huns or the Mongols.

Empires happen.

 

[JoeB131]

At that point in history nationalism was overtaking religious fealty. Islamism as we know it was a reaction a few decades later to the breakup of the Sultanate, and by that time, the Shia and Sunni branches had split far enough to make it an issue between the two of them.

I think you are a bit confused here. The Arabs are, for the most part, Sunnis. Certainly, the Hashemites and other tribes that helped the British.

The issue was nationalism, to be sure, but the British stabbed the Arabs in the back by turning the place into colonies instead of nations.

And of course, trying to settle Europe's Jews in Palestine (where very few of them lived before that.)

The British were probably one of the most benign empire builders in history. Ask the people who were under Spanish, Dutch, or going back, the Huns or the Mongols.

Tell that to the Aboriginal Australians, who were nearly completely genocided by the British.

Or the residents of the British Raj, who were routinely exploited. (India went from being one of the world's richest regions to one of the poorest.)

 

[martybegan]

I think you are a bit confused here. The Arabs are, for the most part, Sunnis. Certainly, the Hashemites and other tribes that helped the British.

The issue was nationalism, to be sure, but the British stabbed the Arabs in the back by turning the place into colonies instead of nations.

And of course, trying to settle Europe's Jews in Palestine (where very few of them lived before that.)


Tell that to the Aboriginal Australians, who were nearly completely genocided by the British.

Or the residents of the British Raj, who were routinely exploited. (India went from being one of the world's richest regions to one of the poorest.)

The Arabs are also not Turks.

The British did the British thing, just like the French and the Japanese after the war. Russia missed out due to the whole Bolshevik Revolution thing. Hell the US was supposed to get Turkey as a Mandate but the Senate didn't want it.

That was exploitation, not genocide.

Yes, exploitation, the way more powerful groups act towards less powerful groups throughout history.

 

[JoeB131]

The Arabs are also not Turks.

No one said they were.

The British did the British thing, just like the French and the Japanese after the war. Russia missed out due to the whole Bolshevik Revolution thing. Hell the US was supposed to get Turkey as a Mandate but the Senate didn't want it.

Awesome, except that isn't what they promised. They didn't go to the Arabs and say, "Hey, how would you like to be our new Colony and we are going to dump all our Jews here because we don't want them in Europe."

They promised them their own independent countries, which they immediately backtracked on.

That was exploitation, not genocide.

Nope, what happened was genocide.

Genocide of Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, exploitation, the way more powerful groups act towards less powerful groups throughout history.

So by your logic, then, the Holocaust was perfectly fine.

Oh, no, wait, those were white people.

 

[martybegan]

No one said they were.



Awesome, except that isn't what they promised. They didn't go to the Arabs and say, "Hey, how would you like to be our new Colony and we are going to dump all our Jews here because we don't want them in Europe."

They promised them their own independent countries, which they immediately backtracked on.


Nope, what happened was genocide.

Genocide of Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So by your logic, then, the Holocaust was perfectly fine.

Oh, no, wait, those were white people.

Welcome to early 19th century world diplomacy.

About that "genocide"

Many scholars have argued

Never link an article that starts with that.

The Holocaust wasn't exploitation, it was determined extermination. with documentation.

 

[JoeB131]

Welcome to early 19th century world diplomacy.

About that "genocide"

Yeah, it's not like they were white people or anything.

The Holocaust wasn't exploitation, it was determined extermination. with documentation.

Oh, so it's not genocide if no one documents it?

Or could it possibly be that the Jews run Hollywood, they just can't stop talking about the Holocaust.

I think the only movie made about the Cambodian Genocide was about how a white guy was inconvenienced; he couldn't find his friend.

I don't think there's ever been a movie made about the Australian genocide, or the Genocide in Belgian Congo.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, it's not like they were white people or anything.



Oh, so it's not genocide if no one documents it?

Or could it possibly be that the Jews run Hollywood, they just can't stop talking about the Holocaust.

I think the only movie made about the Cambodian Genocide was about how a white guy was inconvenienced; he couldn't find his friend.

I don't think there's ever been a movie made about the Australian genocide, or the Genocide in Belgian Congo.

Dude, you removed my reference, which was my entire point. poor form.

Cambodia was a genocide, and most of the movie was centered on Dith Pran. Wow, you are such a woke racial cuckhold that you have to insult a man who tried to save his friend....

Belgian Congo was massive exploitiaton, along similar veins of what Spanish did in South America. They didn't want them dead, they wanted them worked, and if death happened, oh well.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Whites murdered because they stole someone else's land and subjected people to oppression.

Can't feel bad about it.

Of course the whites stole nothing and oppressed no one.

 

[JoeB131]

Cambodia was a genocide, and most of the movie was centered on Dith Pran. Wow, you are such a woke racial cuckhold that you have to insult a man who tried to save his friend....

But the white guy got top billing, imagine that.

Belgian Congo was massive exploitiaton, along similar veins of what Spanish did in South America. They didn't want them dead, they wanted them worked, and if death happened, oh well.

Oh, that makes it okay, then.

 

[martybegan]

But the white guy got top billing, imagine that.


Oh, that makes it okay, then.

It was an important story that exposed to people the depravity of the Khmer Rouge regime. I guess exposing Asian deaths requires the reporter to be cast as a lesbian trans albino pygmy on the spectrum.

I am saying it wasn't genocide.

 

[JoeB131]

It was an important story that exposed to people the depravity of the Khmer Rouge regime. I guess exposing Asian deaths requires the reporter to be cast as a lesbian trans albino pygmy on the spectrum.

Okay, let's look at that cast.

• Sam Waterston as Sydney Schanberg
• Haing S. Ngor as Dith Pran —
• John Malkovich as Al Rockoff
• Julian Sands as Jon Swain
• Craig T. Nelson as Major Reeves
• Spalding Gray as U.S. Consul
• Bill Paterson as Dr MacEntire
• Athol Fugard as Dr Sundesval
• Graham Kennedy as Dougal
• Patrick Malahide as Morgan
• Nell Campbell as Beth
• Joanna Merlin as Schanberg's Sister
• Monirak Sisowath as Phat

Do you notice anything unusual about this cast in a movie about a bunch of brown people being genocided?

Hmmm... what stands out to you?

I am saying it wasn't genocide.

Of course not. It wasn't like they were killing white people or anything.