Tweet
Originally posted by CyberGnu
I don't equate 'civilian' with 'innocent'. (Ironically, if this was true, the ones you label 'terrorists' are also 'innocent').
I don't equate 'civilian' with 'innocent'. (Ironically, if this was true, the ones you label 'terrorists' are also 'innocent').
Terrorists are not civilians but combatants, since they participate in combat action.
If a civilian decides to go live on stolen land, he has only himself to blame if he is hurt when the rightful owner tries to take the property back.
So you re-affirm that if you steal my purse, I'm justified in killing your wife and children while trying to get it back?
Furthermore, if said civilian decides to take his children with him, said civilian is solely responsible for any harm that comes to them.
So if you cheat me out of my house, and then move in with your family there, then I have a moral right to murder them all?
The majority of your post is basically a bold faced lie.
First off, immigration of an ethinc group does not warrant special treatment of that ehtnic group. Swedes might be the biggest ethnic group of Nebraska, that still doesn't give the swedish decesendants of Nebraska right to ceceede out of the union.
First off, immigration of an ethinc group does not warrant special treatment of that ehtnic group. Swedes might be the biggest ethnic group of Nebraska, that still doesn't give the swedish decesendants of Nebraska right to ceceede out of the union.
This is nonsense.
Ethnic national states give special treatment to it's ethnic groups.
Germany does to Germans. Russia does to Russians. Poland does to Poles. And Israel does to Jews. And so will Palestine to Palestinians.
Second, only a small portion of Israel was owned by jews in 1948, way less than even the 25% that constituted the population.
But if they lived there, they owned it.
That's the basis of your own claims about the Palestinians owning the rest.
If you say that simply occupying terrain does not constitute owning it, then most of the land Palestinians claim to own, is not at all owned by them.
But since you think that land in which Palestinians lived, naturally belongs to them, then I assume the same for Jewish immigrants who settled in Mandatorial Palestine.
Third, the declaration of Israel was never legal. The arabs who owned the land never agreed to it, and using their opposition to an illegal declaration as a justification as to why it should be legal is a logical leap that can convince only someone dumber than an american politician.
This is again nonsense.
The declaration of Israel was very much legal. It was declared without borders, but only in principle therefore your claim is moot.
Since war was declared immediatelly, Israel had to define it's borders through armed struggle.
Furthermore, if Palestinians owned land in which they settled, so did jews. And if the jews decided to unite their lands and give them to the Israeli state - it's their right.
I enjoyed your 'blatant theft is a murky business, since it was the goveremnt that stole it, not individual people'.
Not sure what it was supposed to prove, though.
Not sure what it was supposed to prove, though.
Never have I reffered to it as blatant theft.
This 'blatant theft' was perfectly legal under the Brittish laws on which the Israeli law is based.
Tell me, do you also consider tax money which the government legally collects from you as "blatant theft"?
If so, you would prove consistent - for the first time.
)
Comment