Decolonization

Shusha

Gold Member
Dec 14, 2015
13,079
2,205
290
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

Tinmore is not concerned about a "solution" to the conflict. Neither is monte. They just want to endlessly debate what happened more than 70 years ago.
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

I don't know about that FY436, BUT we do need to Decolonize the Occupied Palestinian Territories..........steven
I don't know about that FY436,BUT we do need to Decolonize the Occupied Palestinian Territories....steven
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

I don't know about that FY436, BUT we do need to Decolonize the Occupied Palestinian Territories..........steven
I don't know about that FY436,BUT we do need to Decolonize the Occupied Palestinian Territories....steven







To remove all the illegal arab muslim immigrants. Then we can de-colonise Australia of all the dregs of English society
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

Absolutely agree, get the arab muslims to go back to the countries of origin: egypt, syria and jordan, destroy and liquidate hamas completely, destroy and liquidate the diseased regime of iran, and peace is an attainable goal.
 
Shusha, you've been here long enough to know the truth of this:

Tinmore is not concerned about a "solution" to the conflict. Neither is monte. They just want to endlessly debate what happened more than 70 years ago.

Furthermore, their actual definition of 'decolonization' for Israel means no country of Israel at all.
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

Absolutely agree, get the arab muslims to go back to the countries of origin: egypt, syria and jordan, destroy and liquidate hamas completely, destroy and liquidate the diseased regime of iran, and peace is an attainable goal.

It sounds like you are saying that only Jews occupied that area and all the Arab muslims are invaders. What a strange belief.
 
So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

Darn you for responding to this Teddy :lol: I was just going to delete it rather than get into a "discussion" with Mr. Foulmouth.

The current inhabitants of the region are a mix of indiginous peoples who converted to other religions over millenia and other people's who migrated. In much the same way - Jews, who immigrated from Europe represent a mixture of Middle Eastern Jewish populations and the different European populations they settled amongst.

To insist that one (or the other) is an "invader" who should be "sent back" to their "countries of origins" is problematic isn't it? Where do you send a Palestinian Muslim family who's people have lived in the WB for hundreds of years?

And for those who insist on it - WHY do you insist on it?
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

This is such a great post...great for multiple reasons. It hits at the people who insist that Israeli's Jewish population should be "sent back" (to ... where?) and to those who insist that the "Arab Muslims" should be "sent back" (to...where?).

And no one is answering the questions.

It's a rotten idea and - if someone actually answered the questions, that would become very apparent.
 
What people on each side are talking about are essentially FORCED population transfers - something considered to be a serious human rights violation. Forceably relocating people into alien communities, cultures, places with no jobs, no ties, no family heritage....in essence creating another HUGE refugee/displaced persons situation. How inhuman is that?
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

Absolutely agree, get the arab muslims to go back to the countries of origin: egypt, syria and jordan, destroy and liquidate hamas completely, destroy and liquidate the diseased regime of iran, and peace is an attainable goal.

It sounds like you are saying that only Jews occupied that area and all the Arab muslims are invaders. What a strange belief.







You cant convert your race, so if you are an arab you do not come from palestine. A distinctive difference in DNA structure, ethnicity and culture.
 
What people on each side are talking about are essentially FORCED population transfers - something considered to be a serious human rights violation. Forceably relocating people into alien communities, cultures, places with no jobs, no ties, no family heritage....in essence creating another HUGE refugee/displaced persons situation. How inhuman is that?






Not as inhumane as the arab muslim solution which would see 12 million dead Jews waiting ti be cremated. Have you applied for a job in the new business that will spring up ?
 
So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

Darn you for responding to this Teddy :lol: I was just going to delete it rather than get into a "discussion" with Mr. Foulmouth.

The current inhabitants of the region are a mix of indiginous peoples who converted to other religions over millenia and other people's who migrated. In much the same way - Jews, who immigrated from Europe represent a mixture of Middle Eastern Jewish populations and the different European populations they settled amongst.

To insist that one (or the other) is an "invader" who should be "sent back" to their "countries of origins" is problematic isn't it? Where do you send a Palestinian Muslim family who's people have lived in the WB for hundreds of years?

And for those who insist on it - WHY do you insist on it?






All the links given show that the last invaders were wiped out or evicted from the area, so how can their descendants be current inhabitants ?

Find a palestinian family that has lived in the west bank for hundreds of years and I will show you an Israeli citizen.

Better than wiping them out as they want to do to the Jews
 
On another thread, P F Tinmore asserted that the solution to the conflict is "decolonization".

So let's talk about that as a potential solution to the conflict.

Is this a legally sound position to take? Why or why not?
Is it an ethically sound position to take? Why or why not?
To which territory, very specifically, would this apply?
Should it apply to all people or only to some people?
What criteria should be applied to decide which people it applies to?
What proof would you require of people to measure whether or not this criteria applied to them?
Where would decolonized people go?
Who would pay for their relocation?
Should people be internally relocated, as well as relocated to or from different States?
After decolonization, who would hold sovereignty over the territory?
Would existing States be dissolved or would they continue to exist?
Should we apply this same "solution" to other global territories? Why or why not?
Under what conditions should this "solution" be used?

Have fun with this.

This is such a great post...great for multiple reasons. It hits at the people who insist that Israeli's Jewish population should be "sent back" (to ... where?) and to those who insist that the "Arab Muslims" should be "sent back" (to...where?).

And no one is answering the questions.

It's a rotten idea and - if someone actually answered the questions, that would become very apparent.
It is all about a change in policy not a change in population.
 
So coyote, who invaded Israel around 700 c.e. or so? Wasn't it Arab Muslims? What a strange TRUTH

The Arabian Muslims conquered Christian Palestine in 638 AD, not Israel. The people of Roman Palaestina (and its capital Aelia Capitolina) had been required to convert to Christianity over 300 years earlier when Christianity became the Roman religion. Your lack of Historical knowledge, possibly exacerbated by your Zionist conditoning, makes you look quite the fool when youmake assertions way out of context.

You have to remember that Palestine had been conquered and briefly occupied by the Persians and Jewish forces from Arabia in 614 AD. The Persians and Jews massacred many of the Christian inhabitants. For a few years the Jewish military forces, under Persian authority, ruled Palestine, but a Christian revolt and general mayhem resulted in the Persians returning Palestine to Christian rule, under their authority and the Jewish forces were evicted.

The Romans, under Heraclius reconquered Palaestina in 628 AD and evicted or killed the Persians.

The Arabian forces, whose forces were made up of mostly Christian converts to Islam and Jews (who had been recently evicted from Palestine), conquered Palestine in 638 AD.

Israel did not exist in 638 AD, thus was not invaded by Muslims. In fact, only Palestine existed and was invaded by Muslims and Jews in 638 AD at the expense of the native people who had converted to Christianity centuries prior.
 

Forum List

Back
Top