Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

For those who do not know what I talk about:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41509050

 

Everyone is criticising the police crack-down and police-violence during the vote on Sunday. And they come with statements about how that is against their rights given by a democracy.

I do not condone the repression by the police, but it really pisses me of that they take democracy and their supposed rights as arguments.

What I mean, a region inside a democratic nation can not just choose to vote on something and if accepted it has to pass. You are part of a nation, which also can put limits. I mean take this hardcore example, a region decides to vote on that the state/local government has to provide that men can get sex once a day. Imagine it passes, but nation says it is hedonistic bullshit (as it is), would the world still be outcrying "where is democracy"?
Or when Russia used the "vote" for annexing Crimea, everyone was saying it is right they voted for it, right?
I mean where is the coherence??


IF you do such a vote, which should be permitted, do it like the Kurds in northern Iraq did, use it for negotiting purposes with the central government (like saying see indeed there is a lot of people wanting it)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Tell me, do you speak American or English? And what about Canadians and Australians? So you and they are all English, right? So the Native Americans can tell you to fcuk off back home to England, seei

And you are about to hand large tracts of the USA back to the Native Americans? Really?     And the ethnic Britons, now living in Wales and Cornwall, can dispossess the English of their land, because

Hey exchemist, let's go start an encampment on Tom's lawn. Bet he'd tell us to "get off'a" it though....and probably call the police.     Legalism breeds a sense of entitlement that turns us into com

For those who do not know what I talk about:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41509050

 

Everyone is criticising the police crack-down and police-violence during the vote on Sunday. And they come with statements about how that is against their rights given by a democracy.

 

I do not condone the repression by the police, but it really pisses me of that they take democracy and their supposed rights as arguments.

 

What I mean, a region inside a democratic nation can not just choose to vote on something and if accepted it has to pass. You are part of a nation, which also can put limits. I mean take this hardcore example, a region decides to vote on that the state/local government has to provide that men can get sex once a day. Imagine it passes, but nation says it is hedonistic bullshit (as it is), would the world still be outcrying "where is democracy"?

Or when Russia used the "vote" for annexing Crimea, everyone was saying it is right they voted for it, right?

I mean where is the coherence??

 

 

IF you do such a vote, which should be permitted, do it like the Kurds in northern Iraq did, use it for negotiting purposes with the central government (like saying see indeed there is a lot of people wanting it)

I rather agree. The proportion voting was in any case not enough to justify precipitate action. For a thing like this you ought have a 2/3 majority or some other severe threshold, because it is such a severe step. It looks to me as if the Catalonia local leaders want a confrontation in order to increase their support to the stage at which they might win such a vote.

 

I thought the king did not help much: he could have made a more conciliatory speech to show some understanding and to try to bring the parties together.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Not every minority group gets his own country just by drawing a line around themselves and then having a vote for secession of only those voters within the boundaries of that line you just drew. I have a better idea, maybe Catalonians can colonize space, they have to be patient and wait until technology can get them into space at a reasonable cost, and then they can build a space colony and call it Catalonia. I would do the same thing for the Kurds and the Palestinians, and everyone else who wants to secede, the only exception is if the government is severly oppressing them, and I mean for instance killing them in large numbers, such as when the Serbs were killing Bosnians. The Serbs deserved to pay a price for that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on the first part.

But the palestians are not oppressed and killed just like you say the Bosnians were?

Did the Israelis run rape camps where Israeli soldiers could rape Palestinian women and then slit their throats? That is what the Serbs did to the Bosnians. If the Serbs were in charge of Israel, there would be no Palestinians left! The Serbs would have killed them all!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every minority group gets his own country just by drawing a line around themselves and then having a vote for secession of only those voters within the boundaries of that line you just drew. I have a better idea, maybe Catalonians can colonize space, they have to be patient and wait until technology can get them into space at a reasonable cost, and then they can build a space colony and call it Catalonia. I would do the same thing for the Kurds and the Palestinians, and everyone else who wants to secede, the only exception is if the government is severly oppressing them, and I mean for instance killing them in large numbers, such as when the Serbs were killing Bosnians. The Serbs deserved to pay a price for that!

Surely it would be the Israelis you would send into space? They are the ones stealing the Palestinians' land, after all. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you do such a vote, which should be permitted, do it like the Kurds in northern Iraq did, use it for negotiting purposes with the central government (like saying see indeed there is a lot of people wanting it)

 

That all depended on how things actually did go Sanctus. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-17/iraqi-forces-seize-kirkuk-from-kurds-in-bold-advance/9056708 

 

Slight difference though, Saladin wasn't a Catalan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's God do the Palestinians worship? Which religion came first? Is Muhammad older that Abraham and Moses?

What has that to do with the price of fish? 

 

Do you imagine that the law of property rights is determined by the antiquity of people's religion? "Oh, you're a parsee, you can have my house then."  Seriously? 

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

What has that to do with the price of fish? 

 

Do you imagine that the law of property rights is determined by the antiquity of people's religion? "Oh, you're a parsee, you can have my house then."  Seriously? 

Who was there first? What does the Archeological evidence suggest? There were Jews before there were Muslims living in the area. Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? they were written by Jews and they are older than Islam, so therefore Palestinians could not have been there, they are basically squatters, but the main problem is they do not wish to live in peace and are therefore a problem. The Jews wished to return to their homeland, to which archeological evidence suggests is theirs since they have prior claim to it than the Muslim squatters who refuse to live in peace with the returnees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was there first? What does the Archeological evidence suggest? There were Jews before there were Muslims living in the area. Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? they were written by Jews and they are older than Islam, so therefore Palestinians could not have been there, they are basically squatters, but the main problem is they do not wish to live in peace and are therefore a problem. The Jews wished to return to their homeland, to which archeological evidence suggests is theirs since they have prior claim to it than the Muslim squatters who refuse to live in peace with the returnees.

And you are about to hand large tracts of the USA back to the Native Americans? Really?  

 

And the ethnic Britons, now living in Wales and Cornwall, can dispossess the English of their land, because history shows they, as a race, were "there first"? 

 

And the US is going to hand Texas back to Mexico? After all, they had it first.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are about to hand large tracts of the USA back to the Native Americans? Really?  

 

And the ethnic Britons, now living in Wales and Cornwall, can dispossess the English of their land, because history shows they, as a race, were "there first"? 

 

And the US is going to hand Texas back to Mexico? After all, they had it first.  

But the so called Palestinians didn't hand it back to the Jews, the Jews took it back, and they had it back for quite a while since 1949 or about 68 years ago. Also the Palestinians aren't a people, they are Arabs, they speak Arabic, not Palestinian. Their is no language called Palestinian. Palestinian nationalism is a stalking horse for building the Caliphate that ISIS talks about. Israel was once part of the Caliphate, but it was also once part of the Roman Empire, do the Italians get it back? Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews, Arabia is the ancestral home of the Arabs, so why don't the Palestinians go to Arabia?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the so called Palestinians didn't hand it back to the Jews, the Jews took it back, and they had it back for quite a while since 1949 or about 68 years ago. Also the Palestinians aren't a people, they are Arabs, they speak Arabic, not Palestinian. Their is no language called Palestinian. Palestinian nationalism is a stalking horse for building the Caliphate that ISIS talks about. Israel was once part of the Caliphate, but it was also once part of the Roman Empire, do the Italians get it back? Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews, Arabia is the ancestral home of the Arabs, so why don't the Palestinians go to Arabia?

Tell me, do you speak American or English? And what about Canadians and Australians? So you and they are all English, right? So the Native Americans can tell you to fcuk off back home to England, seeing as you speak English, yes? Sounds very logical and reasonable, doesn't it? 

 

Just as all the people of South and Central America (excepting Brazilians) are Spanish. Stands to reason, doesn't it? I mean, they all speak Spanish.   

 

I have seldom heard such poisonous rubbish as you are spouting here. Huge numbers of Palestinians were dispossessed when Israel was founded. They still refer to it as "Al Naqba" - The Catastrophe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus  They have every reason to feel aggrieved. To matters worse the Israeli state still connives, to this very day, in encouraged more gun-toting, machoed up, Israeli "settlers" to steal by force even more of their land. It is hardly surprising they support terrorist groups. In their position I would , too. The abortive Daesh "caliphate"  does not remotely come into it anywhere.

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me, do you speak American or English? And what about Canadians and Australians? So you and they are all English, right? So the Native Americans can tell you to fcuk off back home to England, seeing as you speak English, yes? Sounds very logical and reasonable, doesn't it? 

 

Just as all the people of South and Central America (excepting Brazilians) are Spanish. Stands to reason, doesn't it? I mean, they all speak Spanish.   

 

I have seldom heard such poisonous rubbish as you are spouting here. Huge numbers of Palestinians were dispossessed when Israel was founded. They still refer to it as "Al Naqba" - The Catastrophe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus  They have every reason to feel aggrieved. To matters worse the Israeli state still connives, to this very day, in encouraged more gun-toting, machoed up, Israeli "settlers" to steal by force even more of their land. It is hardly surprising they support terrorist groups. In their position I would , too. The abortive Daesh "caliphate"  does not remotely come into it anywhere.

There weren't any Palestinians back then, they were Arabs, Israel got its independence from the British Empire, the British Empire got the land from the Ottoman Turks when they were defeated in World War I. The Arabs living in the Palestine region were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and then of the British. So why do you think Palestine ought to be an independent country, it wasn't such under the Ottoman Empire? The Ottoman Empire was around for a very long time, since they conquered Constantinople back in the 1400s, and that was the reason Columbus sailed West to find the East Indies and instead discovered America. So there wasn't ever an independent Palestine who's population were Arabs. Before the Ottomans, Palestine was a province of the Byzantine Empire, and before that it was a province of the Roman Empire, and it was the Romans that forced the Jews out of Israel, Judea and Samaria. So those Jews are simply returning, regardless of what the Arab squatters say.

 

So what is your justification for creating an Arab Palestinian State? Because they are violent? Because they mistreat women? Because they don't distinguish between military and civilian targets, as that is what terrorists do? In fact terrorists deliberately target civilians because they are so much easier to kill that military targets. Do you believe in unrestricted warfare in our nuclear age? The Iranians are developing nuclear weapons and they are developing the missiles to deliver them, now the Iranians are giving weapons to the Palestinians so they can expand the Uma. You know you can't be an independent country and part of the Uma or Caliphate at the same time. So if Palestinians are trying to expand the Uma, then they aren't really fighting for an independent Palestine are they! Since they want what is now Israel to be part of the Uma, then they aren't really an independence movement, are they! They are using label of "Palestinian" to justify their attempt to expand the Uma and drive out the Jews.

 

The Arabs aren't a very nationalistic people, the ones that really want those Arab states are the ones running them, such as the King of Saudi Arabia for instance, the borders of these states were decided by the European victors of World War I and were drawn quite arbitrarily as their plan to divide up the former Ottoman Empire. The country, for example know as Egypt, is composed primarily of Arabs, not Egyptians, the Egyptians have their own unique language, culture, and religion. The state that is called Egypt is not really an Egyptian state, it is called that because when the European powers drew up the borders to divide the Ottoman Empire, that particular state happened to exist on the site of the former Egyptian Empire. Egypt was conquered by the Romans, inherited by the Byzantines, and then conquered by the Ottoman Turks, and by the time the Ottoman Empire was broken up, what was left was inhabited primarily by Arabs. Most Arabs don't care much about the borders the Europeans created for them, the Palestinians wouldn't either if it weren't for the reestablishment of the State of Israel, so suddenly they became Palestinian Nationalists, because it suited them for the purposes of driving out the Jews. You see, the Europeans, which are their primary audience, have a lot of countries with unique languages and cultures, the Arabs don't.

Edited by TomKalbfus
Link to post
Share on other sites

There weren't any Palestinians back then, they were Arabs, Israel got its independence from the British Empire, the British Empire got the land from the Ottoman Turks when they were defeated in World War I. The Arabs living in the Palestine region were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and then of the British. So why do you think Palestine ought to be an independent country, it wasn't such under the Ottoman Empire? The Ottoman Empire was around for a very long time, since they conquered Constantinople back in the 1400s, and that was the reason Columbus sailed West to find the East Indies and instead discovered America. So there wasn't ever an independent Palestine who's population were Arabs. Before the Ottomans, Palestine was a province of the Byzantine Empire, and before that it was a province of the Roman Empire, and it was the Romans that forced the Jews out of Israel, Judea and Samaria. So those Jews are simply returning, regardless of what the Arab squatters say.

 

So what is your justification for creating an Arab Palestinian State? Because they are violent? Because they mistreat women? Because they don't distinguish between military and civilian targets, as that is what terrorists do? In fact terrorists deliberately target civilians because they are so much easier to kill that military targets. Do you believe in unrestricted warfare in our nuclear age? The Iranians are developing nuclear weapons and they are developing the missiles to deliver them, now the Iranians are giving weapons to the Palestinians so they can expand the Uma. You know you can't be an independent country and part of the Uma or Caliphate at the same time. So if Palestinians are trying to expand the Uma, then they aren't really fighting for an independent Palestine are they! Since they want what is now Israel to be part of the Uma, then they aren't really an independence movement, are they! They are using label of "Palestinian" to justify their attempt to expand the Uma and drive out the Jews.

 

The Arabs aren't a very nationalistic people, the ones that really want those Arab states are the ones running them, such as the King of Saudi Arabia for instance, the borders of these states were decided by the European victors of World War I and were drawn quite arbitrarily as their plan to divide up the former Ottoman Empire. The country, for example know as Egypt, is composed primarily of Arabs, not Egyptians, the Egyptians have their own unique language, culture, and religion. The state that is called Egypt is not really an Egyptian state, it is called that because when the European powers drew up the borders to divide the Ottoman Empire, that particular state happened to exist on the site of the former Egyptian Empire. Egypt was conquered by the Romans, inherited by the Byzantines, and then conquered by the Ottoman Turks, and by the time the Ottoman Empire was broken up, what was left was inhabited primarily by Arabs. Most Arabs don't care much about the borders the Europeans created for them, the Palestinians wouldn't either if it weren't for the reestablishment of the State of Israel, so suddenly they became Palestinian Nationalists, because it suited them for the purposes of driving out the Jews. You see, the Europeans, which are their primary audience, have a lot of countries with unique languages and cultures, the Arabs don't.

So who then were the Philistines in the bible? You do realise that here is no "P" sound in Arabic and the Arabic word for Palestinian is transliterated as "Filistin". 

 

But regardless, I have now exposed several of your arguments as indefensible - and you have not in fact attempted to defend any of them. You have just dropped them and moved onto something new. 

 

That fact remains that, whatever you call these people, they owned the land they lived on and were hounded out in 1948 and subsequently. You have yet to explain to me why this treatment of 700,000 people was remotely fair or acceptable. And you have yet to show any appreciation of why this might lead them to support terrorism against the Israeli state that has so cruelly dispossessed them of land and livelihood.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So who then were the Philistines in the bible? You do realise that here is no "P" sound in Arabic and the Arabic word for Palestinian is transliterated as "Filistin". 

 

But regardless, I have now exposed several of your arguments as indefensible - and you have not in fact attempted to defend any of them. You have just dropped them and moved onto something new. 

 

That fact remains that, whatever you call these people, they owned the land they lived on and were hounded out in 1948 and subsequently. You have yet to explain to me why this treatment of 700,000 people was remotely fair or acceptable. And you have yet to show any appreciation of why this might lead them to support terrorism against the Israeli state that has so cruelly dispossessed them of land and livelihood.  

 

I don't think any justification supports terrorism, I will not excuse them or murdering innocent civilians!

 

 

Language[edit]
Main article: Philistine language

Nothing is known for certain about the language of the Philistines. Pottery fragments from the period of around 1500-1000 BCE have been found bearing inscriptions in non-Semitic languages, including one in a Cypro-Minoan script.[81] The Bible does not mention any language problems between the Israelites and the Philistines, as it does with other groups up to the Babylonian occupation.[82] Later, Nehemiah 13:23-24 writing under the Achaemenids records that when Judean men intermarried women from Moab, Ammon and Philistine cities, half the offspring of Judean marriages with women from Ashdod could speak only their mother tongue, Ašdôdît, not Judean Hebrew (Yehûdît); although by then this language might have been an Aramaic dialect.[83] There is some limited evidence in favour of the assumption that the Philistines were originally either Indo-European-speakers from Greece or Luwian speakers from the coast of Asia Minor, on the basis of some Philistine-related words found in the Bible not appearing to be related to other Semitic languages.[84] Such theory suggests that the Semitic elements in the language were borrowed from their neighbours in the region. For example, the Philistine word for captain, "seren", may be related to the Greek word tyrannos (thought by linguists to have been borrowed by the Greeks from an Anatolian language, such as Luwian or Lydian[84]). Although most Philistine names are Semitic (such as Ahimelech, Mitinti, Hanun, and Dagon)[82] some of the Philistine names, such as Goliath, Achish, and Phicol, appear to be of non-Semitic origin, and Indo-European etymologies have been suggested.

 

 

As it states here the Philistines are a non-semetic people, the Modern Palestinians are a Semetic people and they speak Arabic, the Philistines did not speak Arabic, the word "Palestine" possibly came from the Philistines, and the Arabs adopted it as the name they call themselves to legitimize their call to drive out the Jews, but that doesn't make them Philistines. The Philistines are an ancient people, possibly extinct just like the Ancient Egyptians. The people living in the modern state of Egypt are Arabs, they live on the ruins of an ancient empire called Egypt, which includes the pyramids and the Sphinx. The people who are closest to being the Ancient Egyptians are the Coptic Christians that are now a minority in the modern state of Egypt. Many Egyptians are blasé about their country, they consider themselves Arabs, they don't distinguish themselves from the people living in Jordan or the people living in Libya, Egypt is where they happen to live, that is all. The people running Egypt however are proud to call themselves Egyptians, they derive power from that nation state, the people who conduct tours of the pyramids and other Egyptian ruins are also proud Egyptians. Some people in the Muslim Brotherhood have threatened to tear down those pyramids, and the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any justification supports terrorism, I will not excuse them or murdering innocent civilians!

 

 

As it states here the Philistines are a non-semetic people, the Modern Palestinians are a Semetic people and they speak Arabic, the Philistines did not speak Arabic, the word "Palestine" possibly came from the Philistines, and the Arabs adopted it as the name they call themselves to legitimize their call to drive out the Jews, but that doesn't make them Philistines. The Philistines are an ancient people, possibly extinct just like the Ancient Egyptians. The people living in the modern state of Egypt are Arabs, they live on the ruins of an ancient empire called Egypt, which includes the pyramids and the Sphinx. The people who are closest to being the Ancient Egyptians are the Coptic Christians that are now a minority in the modern state of Egypt. Many Egyptians are blasé about their country, they consider themselves Arabs, they don't distinguish themselves from the people living in Jordan or the people living in Libya, Egypt is where they happen to live, that is all. The people running Egypt however are proud to call themselves Egyptians, they derive power from that nation state, the people who conduct tours of the pyramids and other Egyptian ruins are also proud Egyptians. Some people in the Muslim Brotherhood have threatened to tear down those pyramids, and the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt.

Nobody is asking you to justify terrorism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...