Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Simple, but never properly answered question

Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:06:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
This isn't dedicated to people who are actually outright against organized religion (like TBR), its to all the people who are "Anti Zionist" but have rarely, if ever uttered a word about all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding Israel. If you are going to make an argument based on the fact that Palestinians are the rightful owners of Israel, you have to acknowledge that there is no morally superior side in the fight for Israel since the so called "Palestinians" (not actually a race of people) were occupiers at one time too. To this same group of people who are primarily of the left wing persuasion, how do you say you are against tribalism while saying a land belongs to one race? (i.e "Israel belongs to the Palestinians"). I would like a coherent answer to these two questions.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:11:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Since I believe in the Bible saying that the Palestinians have the right to their part of the land because they were here before modern isreal is like saying that if you leave for a hundred years from your property but have the fed to it. Then some squatter settled on your land and when your heir comes to reclaim the property the squatter says he has the right to it since he has there first.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:12:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:11:33 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Since I believe in the Bible saying that the Palestinians have the right to their part of the land because they were here before modern isreal is like saying that if you leave for a hundred years from your property but have the fed* to it. Then some squatter settled on your land and when your heir comes to reclaim the property the squatter says he has the right to it since he has there first.

Deed*
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:13:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

+1
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:41:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.

Poverty leads to crime, but Islam is criminal regardless of the wealth of a nation. You are right in saying that these wealthy nations are hubs for extremism.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:44:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:41:51 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.

Poverty leads to crime, but Islam is criminal regardless of the wealth of a nation. You are right in saying that these wealthy nations are hubs for extremism.

Also to anyone who would endeavor to say we should determine who rightfully owns land based on who was supposedly there first, I want North Africa back on behalf of Caucasians... let's start a facebook trend, #FreeCarthage lol

Also poverty leads to crime but not extremism.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 7:46:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:44:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:41:51 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.

Poverty leads to crime, but Islam is criminal regardless of the wealth of a nation. You are right in saying that these wealthy nations are hubs for extremism.

Also to anyone who would endeavor to say we should determine who rightfully owns land based on who was supposedly there first, I want North Africa back on behalf of Caucasians... let's start a facebook trend, #FreeCarthage lol

Also poverty leads to crime but not extremism.

Rightful owners? Right is guaranteed by government, and when that government falls, the rights go with it. I never understood why people say that, as if the United States is going to return all of its lands to some useless savage Native Americans.

All conquered people were inferior in some way, whether it was scientifically, culturally, socially, militarily, etc. Natives were wiped out because we spread the diseases that they were not immune to. Natives were useless and worthless savages that deserved what came upon them. It's called natural selection and evolution.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 9:24:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:46:39 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:44:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:41:51 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.

Poverty leads to crime, but Islam is criminal regardless of the wealth of a nation. You are right in saying that these wealthy nations are hubs for extremism.

Also to anyone who would endeavor to say we should determine who rightfully owns land based on who was supposedly there first, I want North Africa back on behalf of Caucasians... let's start a facebook trend, #FreeCarthage lol

Also poverty leads to crime but not extremism.

Rightful owners? Right is guaranteed by government, and when that government falls, the rights go with it. I never understood why people say that, as if the United States is going to return all of its lands to some useless savage Native Americans.

Our rights come from God, they are unalienable.

All conquered people were inferior in some way, whether it was scientifically, culturally, socially, militarily, etc. Natives were wiped out because we spread the diseases that they were not immune to. Natives were useless and worthless savages that deserved what came upon them. It's called natural selection and evolution.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 9:27:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 9:24:40 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:46:39 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:44:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:41:51 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.

Poverty leads to crime, but Islam is criminal regardless of the wealth of a nation. You are right in saying that these wealthy nations are hubs for extremism.

Also to anyone who would endeavor to say we should determine who rightfully owns land based on who was supposedly there first, I want North Africa back on behalf of Caucasians... let's start a facebook trend, #FreeCarthage lol

Also poverty leads to crime but not extremism.

Rightful owners? Right is guaranteed by government, and when that government falls, the rights go with it. I never understood why people say that, as if the United States is going to return all of its lands to some useless savage Native Americans.

Our rights come from God, they are unalienable.

Oh please. Cut the crap. As if religion brings freedom.


All conquered people were inferior in some way, whether it was scientifically, culturally, socially, militarily, etc. Natives were wiped out because we spread the diseases that they were not immune to. Natives were useless and worthless savages that deserved what came upon them. It's called natural selection and evolution.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 9:33:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 9:27:31 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 9:24:40 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:46:39 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:44:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:41:51 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.

Poverty leads to crime, but Islam is criminal regardless of the wealth of a nation. You are right in saying that these wealthy nations are hubs for extremism.

Also to anyone who would endeavor to say we should determine who rightfully owns land based on who was supposedly there first, I want North Africa back on behalf of Caucasians... let's start a facebook trend, #FreeCarthage lol

Also poverty leads to crime but not extremism.

Rightful owners? Right is guaranteed by government, and when that government falls, the rights go with it. I never understood why people say that, as if the United States is going to return all of its lands to some useless savage Native Americans.

Our rights come from God, they are unalienable.

Oh please. Cut the crap. As if religion brings freedom.


All conquered people were inferior in some way, whether it was scientifically, culturally, socially, militarily, etc. Natives were wiped out because we spread the diseases that they were not immune to. Natives were useless and worthless savages that deserved what came upon them. It's called natural selection and evolution.

I would agree with a good deal of this. Whomever occupies a land is its "owner" at that time. Rightful has little real meaning within conversations like this.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 9:36:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 9:33:16 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/17/2016 9:27:31 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 9:24:40 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:46:39 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:44:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:41:51 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:37:44 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:25:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:22:07 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:13:48 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

Exactly. I am not for the establishment of any religious state, as I am a secularist, but I am also for the establishment of a state or the integration of a people into a nation that will not oppress people of a certain religion.

Also, Judaism is a vastly more peaceful religion than Islam, as shown in, well, all of history.

If you want to determine the tolerance of a nation, look to how they treat their racial and religious minorities. I think based on your statement we both agree on who is more tolerant in the 21st century.

+1

Saudi Arabia is the epitome of a large and wealthy Muslim state, and look at how they treat non Muslims and immigrants. However, in Israel, people of different ethnicity and religion coexist in peace, except for when the Muslim Pro-Palestine advocates decide to run around bombing and killing people.

Yes and this also eliminates the idea that poverty=extremism since as you said look to Saudi Arabia, look to UAE, look to Qatar, they are some of the most extremist states in existence and they are also very wealthy.

Poverty leads to crime, but Islam is criminal regardless of the wealth of a nation. You are right in saying that these wealthy nations are hubs for extremism.

Also to anyone who would endeavor to say we should determine who rightfully owns land based on who was supposedly there first, I want North Africa back on behalf of Caucasians... let's start a facebook trend, #FreeCarthage lol

Also poverty leads to crime but not extremism.

Rightful owners? Right is guaranteed by government, and when that government falls, the rights go with it. I never understood why people say that, as if the United States is going to return all of its lands to some useless savage Native Americans.

Our rights come from God, they are unalienable.

Oh please. Cut the crap. As if religion brings freedom.


All conquered people were inferior in some way, whether it was scientifically, culturally, socially, militarily, etc. Natives were wiped out because we spread the diseases that they were not immune to. Natives were useless and worthless savages that deserved what came upon them. It's called natural selection and evolution.

I would agree with a good deal of this. Whomever occupies a land is its "owner" at that time. Rightful has little real meaning within conversations like this.

Exactly. This is war, not domestic violence. When you live in Britain, and you take another British man's house, that is a crime. If you live in Russia, and you invade Britain, and you take their land, then it is no longer a crime, as there isn't a body that governs both Russian and Britain.

Actually this analogy is better than that of Native vs Europeans, as the Natives didn't even have any documents proving their claim on the lands.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 12:23:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

- All this is completely irrelevant to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Red-herring.

- As to your questions, I have two of my own:
1. Who do you think has the right to the Indian peninsula, Indians or Brits?!
2. Hypothetically, what would you say about Jews coming into your country under British rule early 20th century, & just with the Declaration of Independence in 1947, they were handed out half your territories, then when your people tried to get them back, they lost even more territory with a wall built around your land, where supplies are banned...?!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 1:54:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 12:23:48 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

- All this is completely irrelevant to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Red-herring.

- As to your questions, I have two of my own:
1. Who do you think has the right to the Indian peninsula, Indians or Brits?!

Who has the right to North Africa? Caucasians or Arabs?

2. Hypothetically, what would you say about Jews coming into your country under British rule early 20th century, & just with the Declaration of Independence in 1947, they were handed out half your territories, then when your people tried to get them back, they lost even more territory with a wall built around your land, where supplies are banned...?!

The arabs took the land from someone to, neither the hebrews/jews nor the arabs were the original occupiers of the land, the Canaanites were, and they no longer exist. So since neither the Arabs or the Hebrews/Jews are the legitimate occupiers of Israel if we are looking to who had it first, we can't look to that. And if we are still going to look to who had the land first that's still alive the Jews got it next so gg on that mate
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 2:44:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 12:23:48 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

- All this is completely irrelevant to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Red-herring.

- As to your questions, I have two of my own:
1. Who do you think has the right to the Indian peninsula, Indians or Brits?!
2. Hypothetically, what would you say about Jews coming into your country under British rule early 20th century, & just with the Declaration of Independence in 1947, they were handed out half your territories, then when your people tried to get them back, they lost even more territory with a wall built around your land, where supplies are banned...?!

Concerning the 'Holy Land', the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated:
"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 AD hardly lasted, as such, 22 years."

Face it Yassine, the arab claim to Israel is nothing but a lie, and until it became politically expedient to Muslims and Arabs in 1949 Palestinians didn't even exist as a race.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:25:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

That is where you are wrong. I believe that any government that is serious about freedom should not establish a religion nor promote any particular religion. Israel clearly violates this as do most Muslim countries.

You confuse issues. Many Westerners who support Palestinians do not offer their support because they are Muslim or because Israel is Jewish. They support them because Israel rules the West Bank as a police state and they continue to settle it. Israel is just beginning to take action against radical settlers who have been terrorizing Palestinians since Israel took the land in 67. Even though they are beginning to address that threat they do not punish the families of settlers who commit acts of terror like they do Palestinians.

Quite honestly, it boils down to this. If Israel is going to continue to control the West Bank they are running an apartheid rule with a very heavy hand. If they are going to not rule the West Bank then they are doing a piss poor job of preparing to get out of it.

PS. as far as I am concerned Saudia Arabia is just as big of a threat to Israel as Iran is, simply because the radicalization and funding that comes from there. They are vile nations. I would choose to live in Israel long before I chose any Muslim nation, however, that does not mean that Israel is right with their approach to solving their security issues.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:29:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

The bigger question is why do you look away when Israel does immoral deeds?
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:47:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 4:25:45 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

That is where you are wrong. I believe that any government that is serious about freedom should not establish a religion nor promote any particular religion. Israel clearly violates this as do most Muslim countries.

OK, like I said you are in the class of people like TBR, but you are the exception, not the rule. This is the position I take too, although in the status quo I would like to see the Islamic state dismantle before I saw the jewish state dismantle due to the hostility and belligerence of the islamic state to the jewish state.

You confuse issues. Many Westerners who support Palestinians do not offer their support because they are Muslim or because Israel is Jewish. They support them because Israel rules the West Bank as a police state and they continue to settle it. Israel is just beginning to take action against radical settlers who have been terrorizing Palestinians since Israel took the land in 67. Even though they are beginning to address that threat they do not punish the families of settlers who commit acts of terror like they do Palestinians.

OK.. I would love to discuss the specific actions of Israel later but this is about the ideology of Zionism, if you are against both Zionism and Pan-Arabism/the arab state then you do not fit under the umbrella of people I am against.

Quite honestly, it boils down to this. If Israel is going to continue to control the West Bank they are running an apartheid rule with a very heavy hand. If they are going to not rule the West Bank then they are doing a piss poor job of preparing to get out of it.

PS. as far as I am concerned Saudia Arabia is just as big of a threat to Israel as Iran is, simply because the radicalization and funding that comes from there. They are vile nations. I would choose to live in Israel long before I chose any Muslim nation, however, that does not mean that Israel is right with their approach to solving their security issues.

OK, I agree to some end here that there is definitely room for improvement in Israel, but structurally Israel is basically the only nation in the region where such improvement is even possible, and where such improvement has happened at least to some extent.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:49:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 4:29:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

The bigger question is why do you look away when Israel does immoral deeds?

I don't, but I don't feign moral equivalency when none exists either. There is no moral equivalency between Hamas and any nation surrounding Israel, with Israel.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:19:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 4:49:05 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:29:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

The bigger question is why do you look away when Israel does immoral deeds?

I don't, but I don't feign moral equivalency when none exists either. There is no moral equivalency between Hamas and any nation surrounding Israel, with Israel.

moral equivalency is an argument of the weak. Condemn Israels continue settlement of the West Bank while occupying/managing the West Bank like an interment camp.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:12:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 4:19:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:49:05 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:29:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 7:07:26 PM, Objectivity wrote:
So the question is how can you be against Israel being a Jewish state if you aren't equally against all the self-proclaimed Islamic nations surrounding it? It's doubtful that anyone who is Anti-Zionist speaks out against Islamic nations with the same veracity as they do the Jewish state.

The bigger question is why do you look away when Israel does immoral deeds?

I don't, but I don't feign moral equivalency when none exists either. There is no moral equivalency between Hamas and any nation surrounding Israel, with Israel.

moral equivalency is an argument of the weak. Condemn Israels continue settlement of the West Bank while occupying/managing the West Bank like an interment camp.

First tell me one time when Israel has benefited from acquiescing to the palestinian savages.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 7:19:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 1:54:17 AM, Objectivity wrote:

Who has the right to North Africa? Caucasians or Arabs?

- You mean France, Spain & Italy, or the Arabs & Berbers? Same question. Do you think all those countries which got their independence from India to Morocco, should give their territories back to the Europeans? If not, why do you think other rules should apply in the case of Palestine?

2. Hypothetically, what would you say about Jews coming into your country under British rule early 20th century, & just with the Declaration of Independence in 1947, they were handed out half your territories, then when your people tried to get them back, they lost even more territory with a wall built around your land, where supplies are banned...?!

- You haven't answered the question.

The arabs took the land from someone to, neither the hebrews/jews nor the arabs were the original occupiers of the land, the Canaanites were, and they no longer exist.

- The Canaan are considered Arabs. Arabs are three kinds:
1. al-'Arab al-Ba'ida, the extinct Arabs who lived in the times of prophets like Hud & Salih, such as the Canaan, & the Amalekites (ancient Egyptian dynasty).
2. al-'Arab al-'Ariba, the indigenous Arabs amongst whom Ismael grew up in the Arabian Isles.
3. al-'Arab al-Musta'rib, the descendants of Ismael, or more precisely Adnan.

So since neither the Arabs or the Hebrews/Jews are the legitimate occupiers of Israel if we are looking to who had it first,

- Had it first =/= legitimate occupier.

we can't look to that. And if we are still going to look to who had the land first that's still alive the Jews got it next so gg on that mate

- The Jews of today are not the Jews of 2,000 years ago!!!

Concerning the 'Holy Land', the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated:
"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 AD hardly lasted, as such, 22 years."

- Except the other 800 years or so, before it went under the rule of the Muslim Turks. This is getting rather funny, in a ridiculous sense.

Face it Yassine, the arab claim to Israel is nothing but a lie,

- Why are you making this to be an Arab claim to Israel?! Israel is an unwelcomed occupying force. It's that simple.

and until it became politically expedient to Muslims and Arabs in 1949 Palestinians didn't even exist as a race.

- Palestinians are not a race, nor are French or Brits or Americans!!! & The matter is much simpler than that.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...