Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,942 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,649,212
Pageviews Today: 2,263,227Threads Today: 545Posts Today: 9,268
03:12 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Clean Sweep: The normality of ethnic cleansing

 
The Broom
User ID: 27812435
United States
11/15/2012 03:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Clean Sweep: The normality of ethnic cleansing
How about some equality? I’m not talking of Jewish-Arab equality: there are enough Arab politicians to demand it. They only need equality in order to destroy the Jewish state: how is it Jewish if Jews and their haters are equal there?

Rather, I want Jewish equality with civilized nations. Take the Americans, for example. They fled Europe to a land they had no claim to: neither historical, nor religious or any else. They uprooted and exterminated the locals: sometimes after being provoked, more often hatefully and disproportionately. They murdered and enjoy the inheritance. The settlers of the Occupied United States of America, who stole their land from Native Indians dare teach us morality.

The reality is slightly better: most American people are sensible and don’t care about Jews taking over the land of the Palestinian aborigines even at some cost to the natives. Only American leftists have the audacity to enjoy the fruits of murder and place the onus of morality on Israel.
They claim that the times have changed. If so, be nice and moral yourself and go back to Europe—or to American reservations if the Indians would have you. There are not enough Indians to take over the United States? That’s not your business—you just leave their country. Sinai is also inhabited only sparsely, so why did Carter pushed us out of it to appease his friend Sadat? One percent of Palestinian Arabs live on 56 percent of the West Bank: can we take over that empty land, please?

I would like to see some proof—any proof—to back up the claim that something has changed in human behavior. Apparently, the change did not take place seventy years ago, when Europeans were killing each other and the world was murdering Jews. Nor did the change take place forty years ago, when the slaughter went on in Vietnam. Oddly, there had still been no change twenty years ago, when the United States jump-started and financed a guerrilla war in Afghanistan which eventually took 1.5 million lives; no condolences or reparations were offered. Somehow, the change eluded us five years ago when the United States—not George Bush as a private person—launched an offense against Iraq for no reason, with the predictable result of hundreds of thousands of local casualties. In Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq more than ten million people perished who posed no threat to America. If someone is so apocalyptic as to believe that the natural order of things ends in our days, and wolves lie with sheep without having sex with them—let him test the proposition domestically before enforcing it on Israel.

Perhaps occupation is no longer fashionable? Only for the states which have established themselves already. Even so, Britain still occupies the Falkland Islands and several other offshore territories; the United States occupies Samoa and just fifty years ago helped France to occupy Indochina. But this change is no change: over the ages, states emerged, occupied whatever lands they could, then settled down and ceased occupation. Western powers are in just such a situation. Israel, an emerging state, has to occupy a place for herself like every other state did.

It is also doubtful that occupation is morally inferior to other types of power projection. The Iraqis probably would have preferred a lasting American occupation and eventual annexation to the bloody civil war that America started there.

Maybe there emerged respect for international law? There is no such law in the first place. A handful of high-flown conventions, general principles distilled from ad hoc solutions, and a body of UN decisions are not a law. The conventions are theoretical and constantly violated, the ad hoc solutions are too diverse, and a United Nations in which America and Tuvalu have equal voices cannot produce binding arrangements. Indeed, America itself has violated the purported international law and UN resolutions on many occasions. US vetoing of unfavorable UN decisions does not seem like respect for law. In our case, the Arabs have violated every relevant UN resolution, from the 1947 one partitioning the Land of Israel to the 2009 one ending the fire in Gaza. It is only Israel that is supposed to observe the UN’s decisions. The United Nations includes fifty-two Muslim member states; any court would disqualify itself with such an affinity for one side.

Stripping the Arabs of Israeli citizenship would be without precedent? Ask FDR, who rescinded US nationality from the residents of Philippines. Expelling the Arabs would be illegal? No more than such US actions as expelling the locals from the annexed chunks of Mexico. I don’t want to be rude, but can we have the same rights as our friends the Americans?

Is a strong preference for Jews in granting Israeli citizenship a form of racism? Then start with condemning dozens of countries which follow jus sanguinis, including Japan, Spain, and Italy. Strangely, no one accuses Germany of racism when it grants citizenship to ethnic Germans who have not set foot there for generations. Many countries lack jus soli at all: one can live in Japan or the UAE for generations and still be ineligible for local citizenship; after the first thousand articles condemning Japanese racism are published, I will gladly listen to similar criticism leveled against Israel.

Also, I want permission to hate the Arabs. Open the WWII-era American newspapers: they are seething with hatred toward Japanese and Germans. It is true that many ethnic Japanese and Germans remained embedded in American society—but also there are nice Arabs who are welcome to stay in Israel. It is normal to hate your enemy; it is abnormal when leftists demand that we embrace our Arab enemies. The liberals who condemn our hateful speech would better read their own diatribes against Israel, which are full of hate. Far from being immoral, hatred is an amoral tool: hating your good neighbors or your implacable enemies is very different thing.

Do we have a right to define Arabs as enemies? Ask first, could Americans define Afghans as enemies based on merely one attack, the 9/11? Or could they make the Vietnamese into enemies and legal targets, despite the absence of any threat from Vietnam? Palestinian Arabs have attempted and carried out more attacks on Jews than Native Indians ever did on the European settlers in America; thousands of attacks are planned annually. Maybe modern Americans are full of guilt for cleansing a country for themselves. Maybe. I will accept being burdened with guilt two hundred years from now; that being said, can we now proceed the American way?

When I get to Hell, it certainly won’t be because we carried out the biblical commandment of cleansing the Promised Land. Rather, my wasting time to write this article instead of cleansing the Temple Mount of Muslim presence is what assures my condemnation.

[link to samsonblinded.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27816177
United States
11/15/2012 03:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Clean Sweep: The normality of ethnic cleansing
How about some equality? I’m not talking of Jewish-Arab equality: there are enough Arab politicians to demand it. They only need equality in order to destroy the Jewish state: how is it Jewish if Jews and their haters are equal there?

Rather, I want Jewish equality with civilized nations. Take the Americans, for example. They fled Europe to a land they had no claim to: neither historical, nor religious or any else. They uprooted and exterminated the locals: sometimes after being provoked, more often hatefully and disproportionately. They murdered and enjoy the inheritance. The settlers of the Occupied United States of America, who stole their land from Native Indians dare teach us morality.

The reality is slightly better: most American people are sensible and don’t care about [bJews taking over the land of the Palestinian aborigines even at some cost to the natives. Only American leftists have the audacity to enjoy the fruits of murder and place the onus of morality on Israel.
They claim that the times have changed. If so, be nice and moral yourself and go back to Europe—or to American reservations if the Indians would have you. There are not enough Indians to take over the United States? That’s not your business—you just leave their country. Sinai is also inhabited only sparsely, so why did Carter pushed us out of it to appease his friend Sadat? One percent of Palestinian Arabs live on 56 percent of the West Bank: can we take over that empty land, please?

I would like to see some proof—any proof—to back up the claim that something has changed in human behavior. Apparently, the change did not take place seventy years ago, when Europeans were killing each other and the world was murdering Jews. Nor did the change take place forty years ago, when the slaughter went on in Vietnam. Oddly, there had still been no change twenty years ago, when the United States jump-started and financed a guerrilla war in Afghanistan which eventually took 1.5 million lives; no condolences or reparations were offered. Somehow, the change eluded us five years ago when the United States—not George Bush as a private person—launched an offense against Iraq for no reason, with the predictable result of hundreds of thousands of local casualties. In Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq more than ten million people perished who posed no threat to America. If someone is so apocalyptic as to believe that the natural order of things ends in our days, and wolves lie with sheep without having sex with them—let him test the proposition domestically before enforcing it on Israel.

Perhaps occupation is no longer fashionable? Only for the states which have established themselves already. Even so, Britain still occupies the Falkland Islands and several other offshore territories; the United States occupies Samoa and just fifty years ago helped France to occupy Indochina. But this change is no change: over the ages, states emerged, occupied whatever lands they could, then settled down and ceased occupation. Western powers are in just such a situation. Israel, an emerging state, has to occupy a place for herself like every other state did.

It is also doubtful that occupation is morally inferior to other types of power projection. The Iraqis probably would have preferred a lasting American occupation and eventual annexation to the bloody civil war that America started there.

Maybe there emerged respect for international law? There is no such law in the first place. A handful of high-flown conventions, general principles distilled from ad hoc solutions, and a body of UN decisions are not a law. The conventions are theoretical and constantly violated, the ad hoc solutions are too diverse, and a United Nations in which America and Tuvalu have equal voices cannot produce binding arrangements. Indeed, America itself has violated the purported international law and UN resolutions on many occasions. US vetoing of unfavorable UN decisions does not seem like respect for law. In our case, the Arabs have violated every relevant UN resolution, from the 1947 one partitioning the Land of Israel to the 2009 one ending the fire in Gaza. It is only Israel that is supposed to observe the UN’s decisions. The United Nations includes fifty-two Muslim member states; any court would disqualify itself with such an affinity for one side.

Stripping the Arabs of Israeli citizenship would be without precedent? Ask FDR, who rescinded US nationality from the residents of Philippines. Expelling the Arabs would be illegal? No more than such US actions as expelling the locals from the annexed chunks of Mexico. I don’t want to be rude, but can we have the same rights as our friends the Americans?

Is a strong preference for Jews in granting Israeli citizenship a form of racism? Then start with condemning dozens of countries which follow jus sanguinis, including Japan, Spain, and Italy. Strangely, no one accuses Germany of racism when it grants citizenship to ethnic Germans who have not set foot there for generations. Many countries lack jus soli at all: one can live in Japan or the UAE for generations and still be ineligible for local citizenship; after the first thousand articles condemning Japanese racism are published, I will gladly listen to similar criticism leveled against Israel.

Also, I want permission to hate the Arabs. Open the WWII-era American newspapers: they are seething with hatred toward Japanese and Germans. It is true that many ethnic Japanese and Germans remained embedded in American society—but also there are nice Arabs who are welcome to stay in Israel. It is normal to hate your enemy; it is abnormal when leftists demand that we embrace our Arab enemies. The liberals who condemn our hateful speech would better read their own diatribes against Israel, which are full of hate. Far from being immoral, hatred is an amoral tool: hating your good neighbors or your implacable enemies is very different thing.

Do we have a right to define Arabs as enemies? Ask first, could Americans define Afghans as enemies based on merely one attack, the 9/11? Or could they make the Vietnamese into enemies and legal targets, despite the absence of any threat from Vietnam? Palestinian Arabs have attempted and carried out more attacks on Jews than Native Indians ever did on the European settlers in America; thousands of attacks are planned annually. Maybe modern Americans are full of guilt for cleansing a country for themselves. Maybe. I will accept being burdened with guilt two hundred years from now; that being said, can we now proceed the American way?

When I get to Hell, it certainly won’t be because we carried out the biblical commandment of cleansing the Promised Land. Rather, my wasting time to write this article instead of cleansing the Temple Mount of Muslim presence is what assures my condemnation.

[link to samsonblinded.org]
 Quoting: The Broom 27812435


"Jews taking over the land of the Palestinian aborigines even at some cost to the natives."

This is an admission that what the Israelis are attempting is a crime, that they have no "divine" right to the land.

We already know Zionism is Racism.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 27812435
United States
11/15/2012 03:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Clean Sweep: The normality of ethnic cleansing
How about some equality? I’m not talking of Jewish-Arab equality: there are enough Arab politicians to demand it. They only need equality in order to destroy the Jewish state: how is it Jewish if Jews and their haters are equal there?

Rather, I want Jewish equality with civilized nations. Take the Americans, for example. They fled Europe to a land they had no claim to: neither historical, nor religious or any else. They uprooted and exterminated the locals: sometimes after being provoked, more often hatefully and disproportionately. They murdered and enjoy the inheritance. The settlers of the Occupied United States of America, who stole their land from Native Indians dare teach us morality.

The reality is slightly better: most American people are sensible and don’t care about [bJews taking over the land of the Palestinian aborigines even at some cost to the natives. Only American leftists have the audacity to enjoy the fruits of murder and place the onus of morality on Israel.
They claim that the times have changed. If so, be nice and moral yourself and go back to Europe—or to American reservations if the Indians would have you. There are not enough Indians to take over the United States? That’s not your business—you just leave their country. Sinai is also inhabited only sparsely, so why did Carter pushed us out of it to appease his friend Sadat? One percent of Palestinian Arabs live on 56 percent of the West Bank: can we take over that empty land, please?

I would like to see some proof—any proof—to back up the claim that something has changed in human behavior. Apparently, the change did not take place seventy years ago, when Europeans were killing each other and the world was murdering Jews. Nor did the change take place forty years ago, when the slaughter went on in Vietnam. Oddly, there had still been no change twenty years ago, when the United States jump-started and financed a guerrilla war in Afghanistan which eventually took 1.5 million lives; no condolences or reparations were offered. Somehow, the change eluded us five years ago when the United States—not George Bush as a private person—launched an offense against Iraq for no reason, with the predictable result of hundreds of thousands of local casualties. In Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq more than ten million people perished who posed no threat to America. If someone is so apocalyptic as to believe that the natural order of things ends in our days, and wolves lie with sheep without having sex with them—let him test the proposition domestically before enforcing it on Israel.

Perhaps occupation is no longer fashionable? Only for the states which have established themselves already. Even so, Britain still occupies the Falkland Islands and several other offshore territories; the United States occupies Samoa and just fifty years ago helped France to occupy Indochina. But this change is no change: over the ages, states emerged, occupied whatever lands they could, then settled down and ceased occupation. Western powers are in just such a situation. Israel, an emerging state, has to occupy a place for herself like every other state did.

It is also doubtful that occupation is morally inferior to other types of power projection. The Iraqis probably would have preferred a lasting American occupation and eventual annexation to the bloody civil war that America started there.

Maybe there emerged respect for international law? There is no such law in the first place. A handful of high-flown conventions, general principles distilled from ad hoc solutions, and a body of UN decisions are not a law. The conventions are theoretical and constantly violated, the ad hoc solutions are too diverse, and a United Nations in which America and Tuvalu have equal voices cannot produce binding arrangements. Indeed, America itself has violated the purported international law and UN resolutions on many occasions. US vetoing of unfavorable UN decisions does not seem like respect for law. In our case, the Arabs have violated every relevant UN resolution, from the 1947 one partitioning the Land of Israel to the 2009 one ending the fire in Gaza. It is only Israel that is supposed to observe the UN’s decisions. The United Nations includes fifty-two Muslim member states; any court would disqualify itself with such an affinity for one side.

Stripping the Arabs of Israeli citizenship would be without precedent? Ask FDR, who rescinded US nationality from the residents of Philippines. Expelling the Arabs would be illegal? No more than such US actions as expelling the locals from the annexed chunks of Mexico. I don’t want to be rude, but can we have the same rights as our friends the Americans?

Is a strong preference for Jews in granting Israeli citizenship a form of racism? Then start with condemning dozens of countries which follow jus sanguinis, including Japan, Spain, and Italy. Strangely, no one accuses Germany of racism when it grants citizenship to ethnic Germans who have not set foot there for generations. Many countries lack jus soli at all: one can live in Japan or the UAE for generations and still be ineligible for local citizenship; after the first thousand articles condemning Japanese racism are published, I will gladly listen to similar criticism leveled against Israel.

Also, I want permission to hate the Arabs. Open the WWII-era American newspapers: they are seething with hatred toward Japanese and Germans. It is true that many ethnic Japanese and Germans remained embedded in American society—but also there are nice Arabs who are welcome to stay in Israel. It is normal to hate your enemy; it is abnormal when leftists demand that we embrace our Arab enemies. The liberals who condemn our hateful speech would better read their own diatribes against Israel, which are full of hate. Far from being immoral, hatred is an amoral tool: hating your good neighbors or your implacable enemies is very different thing.

Do we have a right to define Arabs as enemies? Ask first, could Americans define Afghans as enemies based on merely one attack, the 9/11? Or could they make the Vietnamese into enemies and legal targets, despite the absence of any threat from Vietnam? Palestinian Arabs have attempted and carried out more attacks on Jews than Native Indians ever did on the European settlers in America; thousands of attacks are planned annually. Maybe modern Americans are full of guilt for cleansing a country for themselves. Maybe. I will accept being burdened with guilt two hundred years from now; that being said, can we now proceed the American way?

When I get to Hell, it certainly won’t be because we carried out the biblical commandment of cleansing the Promised Land. Rather, my wasting time to write this article instead of cleansing the Temple Mount of Muslim presence is what assures my condemnation.

[link to samsonblinded.org]
 Quoting: The Broom 27812435


"Jews taking over the land of the Palestinian aborigines even at some cost to the natives."

This is an admission that what the Israelis are attempting is a crime, that they have no "divine" right to the land.

We already know Zionism is Racism.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27816177


jerkit

News