The Proof About Jews

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 20:03
How can it have been "stolen"? That's a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.  There was no international law, as there is now, no UN, and no real concept of universal human rights.  There is also no suggestion of illegality on Britain's behalf.  Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.  The indiginous population is not asking anyone to leave, nor claiming the whole of Australia.

As for answering your irrelevent questions, I have you to thank for that, you taught me well, I salute you.

How can it have been "stolen"? That's a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.

That is just ridiculous. Is your tongue sore, you must be biting it.

.... no real concept of universal human rights.

Oh that's OK then, as was slavery based on that argument.

Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.

You used terra nullis as your original defence for the land being taken, when you said

As for the legality or otherwise of your lot's occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.

This was the worst I have ever seen from you and there has been some real garbage. Please at least try to be consistent. You use an argument to defend your position, then a few posts later describe that very defence as "incorrect".

[Billy_Dean]

[BD] How can it have been "stolen"? That's a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.

[JP] That is just ridiculous. Is your tongue sore, you must be biting it.

[Me]If you wish to argue the point of legality or otherwise of an act, declared legal under British law at the time, go ahead. If they "stole" it by their understanding, why did they bother to justify it?

[BD] ... no real concept of universal human rights.

[JP] Oh that's OK then, as was slavery based on that argument.

[Me] My point exactly, different world, different understanding of right and wrong.

[BD] Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.

[JP] You used terra nullis as your original defence for the land being taken, when you said...

...As for the legality or otherwise of your lot's occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.

[Me] Another of your famous misrepresentations.

The land was declared terra nullis, whether you like or agree with it is irrelevant.

I find your defence of Israel's repeated violation of human rights, their murders, assasinations, land stealing and dispossesions to be abhorrant. To try to justify them by your country's actions over 200 years ago, even more so.

[Lamsey]

I don't mean to criticise, but QUOTE tags would make that a lot more easy to understand

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Lamsey@25 October 2003 - 15:00
I don't mean to criticise, but QUOTE tags would make that a lot more easy to understand

I agree.

Finally! Something I can comment on here.

[J'Pol]

I find your defence of Israel's repeated violation of human rights, their murders, assasinations, land stealing and dispossesions to be abhorrant. To try to justify them by your country's actions over 200 years ago, even more so.

What defence would that be Billy - show me where I did this.

I see you are back to your old way of ignoring what people actually say and just typing nonsense.

Do you forget that people can actually read what we have both posted, so I say again show me where this defence is.

Take Lamsey's suggestion and quote the post in which I do it.

Here is my most recent post in relation to this

Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don't think I said anywhere that it did.

I though I made my position clear, sorry if it wasn't.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by JPaul@25 October 2003 - 07:12
Since this thread is comfortable with history let's mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.

Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans

The partitioning of Ireland didn't go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.

History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.

I don't see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.

This was not a defence???

What was it then?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 21:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@25 October 2003 - 07:12
Since this thread is comfortable with history let&#39;s mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.

Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans

The partitioning of Ireland didn&#39;t go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.

History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.

I don&#39;t see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.

This was not a defence???

What was it then?


[/b][/quote]
Have you run mad.

That post states that history is full of examples of people taking land from others. It mentions it happening in several places.

There is nothing in it which makes a value judgement on any of the specific examples, or indeed any one in particular.

It does not even mention the present trouble in the middle east, far less defend either side.

[Biggles]

Billy

I said that the majority of Israelis do not support the far right agenda because I believe that to be the case.

The Israeli election system is one of proportional representation. The current government is an amalgamation of far right and centrist parties, the oppostion, likewise, a grouping of left of centre parties. The Israeli Labour party has won elections and could, if it could agree with some of the centrist parties, take control again. The far right religious parties never garner enough support to be a credible government but they frequently hold the balance when things are tight for Likud.

It would be fair to say the far right are troublesome even for the Likud party but the latter tries to keep them at least theoretically on-side as they are important in holding together the coalition and, consequently, power.

[Rat Faced]

Although the Israeli Labour Party is the "Left" in Israel, it is still Right of Centre itself...History of Israeli Labour Party

As said earlier, its the Ultra Orthodox Right Wing that holds the "Balance of Power"....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 October 2003 - 17:26
Although the Israeli Labour Party is the "Left" in Israel, it is still Right of Centre itself...History of Israeli Labour Party

As said earlier, its the Ultra Orthodox Right Wing that holds the "Balance of Power"....

I would like to point out that the "center", such as it is in Israel, is NOT the same center as exists in the U.K., the U.S., or anywhere else.

I see the terms right, left and center lobbed about as if there is an Oxford definition which has universal application.

Relativity will out, just as the truth; such loose play with words and terms is dishonest, and has no place this discussion.