Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/21/11 11:45 PM, satanbrain wrote:

I'll hate myself for opening this can of worms later but...

Why are we illegitimate? We have existed as a nation for at least 3,000 years.

Nation does not mean only "a group of people" satanbrain, you've been shown this over and over. Use the term honestly or stop using the term.

Correction: Israelites. and were in the roman exile they were forced out.

Doesn't change what he said. Palestinians lived in the land that is now Israel for centuries after the Kingdom of Israel was overthrown and most of it's inhabitants went into exile. You're not really countering what he's saying or adding anything of real relevance (as usual).

The byzantines were in israel before the muslims and before "palestinans", called back then simply arabs, immigrated from jordan into israel.

This is not an actual rebuttal to what he's saying. Not that that's shocking really given your history on this subject.

Hamas alone see all the jews as their enemy, like a lot of other antisemites, along with seeing US as a puppet to the jews.

Hamas is no the only organization that can be mentioned when someone says "terrorists" the very fact that they use the plural and not the singular should tell you that. But I know, language isn't something you have a great mastery of.

They do not directly attack you because they are in israel, not in north america.

All terrorists? Seriously dude, get off this self interested shit you do where you seem to think the only terrorists are the ones in your backyard, focused on ending you. There are terrorists all over the world, and while many, many of them want to end Israel, they also multi-task and have other cultures and states they'd like to end too.

We have forced not one arab one, some of the palestinans have chosen run away by themselves.

This has been proven time and again to be incorrect when one studies policies that Israel has, or currently pursues. The whole "illegitimate state" thing I won't really touch, and my reply here shouldn't be seen as any sort of agreement with that. Just a rebuttal of yet more propaganda and misinformation satanbrain seems hell bent on spreading.

---

At 8/22/11 01:35 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Nation does not mean only "a group of people" satanbrain, you've been shown this over and over. Use the term honestly or stop using the term.

Jews- "The Jews (Hebrew: %u05D9%u05B0%u05D4%u05D5%u05BC%u05D3%u05 B4%u05D9%u05DD%u200E%u200E ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehu'dim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. "

Doesn't change what he said. Palestinians lived in the land that is now Israel

As was israel since canaanites were extinct.

Hamas alone see all the jews as their enemy, like a lot of other antisemites, along with seeing US as a puppet to the jews.

All terrorists?

All jihadist terrorists, most of them actually.

Seriously dude, get off this self interested shit you do where you seem to think the only terrorists are the ones in your backyard, focused on ending you.

Jihadists are focused on killing everyone who they think defile their religion, I am focusing on hamas since this is the main terrorist organization Israel have fought recently.

There are terrorists all over the world, and while many, many of them want to end Israel, they also multi-task and have other cultures and states they'd like to end too.

But unlike many other states, we do not delude ourselves these terrorists could ever be placated.

This has been proven time and again to be incorrect when one studies policies

Made by "professors" who have claimed we done it before their research and then asking only the palestinan side for their version?

The whole "illegitimate state" thing I won't really touch, and my reply here shouldn't be seen as any sort of agreement with that. Just a rebuttal of yet more propaganda and misinformation satanbrain seems hell bent on spreading.

If we evicted palestinans, how is that there are still arabs in israel? Did we selectively chose who will stay and who will be forced out? If we did intiate our eviction plan to clear israel of arabs, why did why did we abruptly stopped? If we wanted a demographic advantage we should've evicted more, and if we wanted military advantage we could've evict only the problematic areas.

---

Israel is absolutely legitimate.

First off, as regards to its creation, the Jews and Muslims were to split the land, as organized by the UN. Neither of them had their own country for hundreds of years. From 1920-1948 it was owned by the British, and before, since the 1600s, it was a province of the Turkish Empire.

As to regards about "but the Jews immigrated with Zionism," Jews had been living there for centuries. All Zionism did was spur immigration, not occupation. The Jews did not come in with guns and armies; they had none. They just came to the land of Palestine like immigrants to other countries. For many years, even before Zionism, Jews were the majority in Jerusalem and other cities in the land.

After 1948, a Jewish state was necessary because the Holocaust wiped out most Jews in Europe. Many fled to their families in Palestine because there was nowhere else to go. It was obvious that Europe was no longer a home for the Jews there. Not that the Holocaust created Israel, because in 1917 the British Government passed the Balfour Declaration, supporting a Jewish state, long before Hitler's rise to power.
In addition, WWII brought anti-Semitism to the Middle East. In addition to pure Aryan Germans scheming to kill the Jews, the Palestinian leadership took a pro-Axis stance during WWII. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and other Palestinian religious leaders pledged support for Hitler. Nazism did not die in WWII; it only changed forms. Future rulers like Anwar Sadat, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Nasrallah, and Hafez al-Assad were all influenced by Nazism. With such a pro-Nazi Palestinian population, how could the Jews living and fleeing to British Palestine be safe in a Palestinian state, where they would undoubtedly continue where Hitler left off?

In 1948, when Israel was established, it was the Arab armies who attacked Israel. Israel reacted in self-defense and was victorious.

Last, let's get to the most crucial point of all; Israel has been here for over 60 years. They are not European. In fact, about 70% of Israel is racially Arab (and I'm talking Israeli citizens, not the refugees).
The Israelis of today were born there. Their parents and grandparents were born there. They have their own life and culture. They are a stable democracy in a land of autocrats. If Israel was liquidated, where would they go? They're here, get used to it.

---

At 8/21/11 07:08 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 8/21/11 04:28 PM, lapis wrote: I can't argue against nihilism or moral relativism.

Good, because it's neither. It's reality.

Sorry, but what's the difference between "Can you honestly say that your morality and values are inherently superior to those who lived a hundred years ago, rather than them being products of the environment and culture you grew up in?" and the very essence of moral relativism?

It is bad. But you can't do anything about it, and you can't be angry and outraged 100% of the time. And even when countries can do something, it's almost always prohibitively expensive or risky. I can't envision international relations operating any other way, and when there's only one way of doing things, there's no point to describing it as good or bad. It just is.

Erm, but all the countries that voted about recognising Israel's existence as a state could do something, namely vote. And although you can't do anything to undo Israel's founding, you can still discuss whether or not it was legitimate because it may serve as a precedent (this also applies to what Ranger2 is saying).

For example, if I remember correctly there are about 700,000 Darfurian refugees in Chad. Let's say that they want to create a Darfurian nation state that encompasses, say, 30% of eastern Chad. They fight a war and end up in control of the territory that they claim, displacing a few hundred thousand ethnic Chadians in the process. When the Darfurian refugees then turn to the UN, should your country recognise such a state? When you decide, you have to take decisions like the ones regarding Israel into account. Remember, this is a big deal for the Chadians and Darfurians: all this affects the probability of a trade embargo or, and this is very important, a position on an IMF blacklist. This really isn't all just "it's history, never have to think about that again".

---

At 8/21/11 11:45 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 8/21/11 08:54 PM, Polske322 wrote: Let's ask another question. Why should the United States support Israel, it being an illegitimate nation?

Why are we illegitimate? We have existed as a nation for at least 3,000 years.

And? Greeks used to be the people who lived in modern day Turkey, yet they don't live there anymore, same with Istanbul, and yet they don't constantly bitch about not having Turkey in their country.

Again it was anarchy during that time, using your logic Jews should go back to Iraq and go back to living where they really came from and give the native Berber's their land back. That and the Palestinians are also descended from the Greek Phillistines who lived there, you know the people who lived there as long as you did?

The Palestinians had lived in Palestine for centuries after the Israelis left or were forced out.

Correction: Israelites. and were in the roman exile they were forced out.

Yah it was the standard stuff, from Circasians to Germans in Eastern Europe etc.though those are bad examples since they're alot more recent.

There was no Israeli culture or political body present in Israel. After being forced off there land the Palestinians fought and still are fighting to regain it.

The byzantines were in israel before the muslims and before "palestinans", called back then simply arabs, immigrated from jordan into israel.

Yes, they mixed with the Phillistines and became the Palestinians, not that this argument is a good argument for the legitimacy of Israel.

We have forced not one arab one, some of the palestinans have chosen run away by themselves.

Why yes, it was either going away to the border of other nations to refugee camps which are STILL THERE TO THIS DAY! or getting killed defending their home they've lived in for hundreds of years. That's not really a great deal.

---

Honestly the American Jews are the ones most aggressive on this subject. I've met some Israelis and they just want the fighting to stop, they don't care about rooting out terrorist groups and believe that their government is in fact oppressing the Palestinians. American Jews seem to have more loyalty towards Israel than America. I don't mean all of them, I have a lot of Jewish friends whom are very patriotic or just don't care about politics what so ever.

---

At 8/22/11 12:50 PM, lapis wrote:

Sorry, but what's the difference between "Can you honestly say that your morality and values are inherently superior to those who lived a hundred years ago, rather than them being products of the environment and culture you grew up in?" and the very essence of moral relativism?

No, it's an acknowledgement that morality is only relevant in the present. Morals are personal in nature, and it makes no sense to make judgements about the morality of the past using the morality of the present as a benchmark. At most, you can say, "by our moral standards, such and such people weren't very moral."
Moral relativism is when you can excuse anything, in other words not making any moral judgments about anything. For example, excusing the oppression of women in Muslim culture. I think it's morally degenerate and unforgivable.

Erm, but all the countries that voted about recognising Israel's existence as a state could do something, namely vote. And although you can't do anything to undo Israel's founding, you can still discuss whether or not it was legitimate because it may serve as a precedent

No it won't. A nation isn't going to act against its own interests because of what a bunch of dead politicians decided 60 years ago. Our government changes every few years. Direct policy reversals are not unheard of, and no one mandates consistency between administrations and legislatures over time.

When you decide, you have to take decisions like the ones regarding Israel into account. Remember, this is a big deal for the Chadians and Darfurians: all this affects the probability of a trade embargo or, and this is very important, a position on an IMF blacklist.

Both of those considerations involve more than the Chad and Darfur people alone. The US and other major nations will see potential risks and opportunities and act accordingly. Consistency with Israel's establishment won't be a concern. It shouldn't be a concern.

---

At 8/21/11 11:26 PM, Warforger wrote: Latin America is not like that, North America was though. Latin America is probably the perfect way to deal with ethnic conflicts i.e. by getting the indigenous, African and White populations to mix which creates Latino's, hence why there isn't too much widespread racism there.

Except for the earliest years when it was outright butchery, followed by slavery, followed by a rigid caste system based on racial heritage, not to mention the pervasive racial discrimination. This went on for a few hundred years before it was removed through armed revolution. Latin America undoubtedly has one of the worst histories of racial conflict in the world.

---

At 8/22/11 03:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, it's an acknowledgement that morality is only relevant in the present.

If I can't criticise people from the past, why would I be able to criticise people from different geographical locations or even outside my own body? Someone who was randomly beaten by his father might be more inclined to use violence himself, due to the environment he grew up in when he developed the better part of his moral consciousness. When he beats someone who made a critical remark about the loud music he was playing in the subway a bloody lip, who am I to say that that's 'wrong' or 'reprehensible' if "[m]orals are personal in nature", not having grown up in the same circumstances? On the other hand, if I were to be able to criticise him, why shouldn't I be able to criticise people from the past?

I think it's morally degenerate and unforgivable.

I have yet to see a logical justification for you to be able to pass that kind of judgement.

The US and other major nations will see potential risks and opportunities and act accordingly.

Really? What it all boils down to is that the only practical thing that you see wrong with the establishment of such a Darfurian nation state is that it might bring "risks" for the US? Again, I can't argue against nihilism. In my book, claiming that the only relevant arguments that I should contemplate before I rob an old lady are the potential profit on one hand and the risk of getting caught on the other hand boils down to nihilism. The same goes for international politics.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

If the economic foundations underlying my country's security were to crumble, all I can cling to is that the morals that I've acted upon in my time will be repaid in action why whoever surges to dominance after us. That's really all I have, and actions are the best way of arguing your message. If you say that that's against human nature and that we should behave like they do in anticipation of their barbarity, then I have little to say. I can't argue against nihilism.

---

At 8/22/11 03:04 PM, adrshepard wrote: Except for the earliest years when it was outright butchery,
followed by slavery,

Same could be said for pretty much every other nation's earliest years ESPECIALLY Israel.

At 8/22/11 03:04 PM, adrshepard wrote: followed by a rigid caste system based on racial heritage, not to mention the pervasive racial discrimination. This went on for a few hundred years before it was removed through armed revolution. Latin America undoubtedly has one of the worst histories of racial conflict in the world.

That's not even that bad compared to say every other continent. By ethnic conflicts I meant actual conflicts that could lead to genocide, and the only one I could think of off the top of my head was Domincan Republic vs. Haiti, as opposed to say Europe which was Whites vs. Jews, Serbs vs. Croats vs. Muslims, Russians vs. Circasians

Asia with Turks vs. Armenians, Japanese vs. Chinese/Korean, Indians vs. Muslims, British vs. New Zealand and Australian Aborginee's,

Africa with Arabs vs. Africans, Tutsi vs. Hutu

North America with whites vs. Native Americans.

All of those I mentioned have already lead to or probably will lead too (only unsure for Indians vs. Muslims really) crimes against humanity, now again if you could point me to a situation in Latin America that's like that other then the Dominican vs. Haiti one that would be nice.

---

At 8/22/11 06:40 PM, Warforger wrote: Same could be said for pretty much every other nation's earliest years ESPECIALLY Israel.

Are you serious? You must be going back to biblical times because the war in 1948 lead to the death of only about 20,000 people, mostly soldiers in the armies of Israel and the Arab states.
Afterwards, the Palestinians were never enslaved, nor did they come under any persecution as severe and organized as the casta system in Spanish latin America. Refusing building permits and special perks for IDF Israelis doesn't remotely compare to involuntary servitude, forbidden education, and mandatory religious conversion.

That's not even that bad compared to say every other continent. By ethnic conflicts I meant actual conflicts that could lead to genocide, and the only one I could think of off the top of my head was Domincan Republic vs. Haiti

Well, gee, you must have fallen asleep during those history classes because you're forgetting about the Incans, the Aztecs, the Maya, and every other minor kingdom and people in Latin and South America that were absolutely crushed by the Spanish. Sure, disease did a lot of it, but the Conquistadores and missionaries finished them off, destroying their religion and culture and enslaving whomever was left.

All of those I mentioned have already lead to or probably will lead too (only unsure for Indians vs. Muslims really) crimes against humanity, now again if you could point me to a situation in Latin America that's like that other then the Dominican vs. Haiti one that would be nice.

You expect me to take part in some deranged pissing contest about which genocide was worse? Your attempts to downplay the near total destruction of every native culture in Latin and South America is absolutely absurd, and to say that what happened is "the ideal method of racial integration" makes you a dumbass. I'm sorry, but there's just no way around it given the flow of garbage emanating from you.

---

At 8/22/11 04:06 PM, lapis wrote:

If I can't criticise people from the past, why would I be able to criticise people from different geographical locations or even outside my own body?.... When he beats someone who made a critical remark about the loud music he was playing in the subway a bloody lip, who am I to say that that's 'wrong' or 'reprehensible' if "[m]orals are personal in nature", not having grown up in the same circumstances?

Let me clarify. Part of this has to do with perspective. Let's say you have two groups of people with different values yet they find the other's reprehensible. If they live on the other side of the planet and are totally isolated besides a general knowledge of the other. They may not like what each other does, but since there's no interaction it's entirely irrelevant. If the two groups are suddenly thrust together, with each one forced to see and live near what the other does, what was once only a feeling will probably turn to real conflict. The actual actions don't change, but actually seeing it makes it far more aggravating or disturbing to people.

When I voice my disapproval of an aspect of Muslim culture, it's nothing more than a mild sentiment about a group I have almost no interaction with. However, I still live on the same planet as them, I still hear about what they do, and from time to time I see real life examples of it (in this case, Muslim women walking around in body veils). But when I hear about the people of the past, there's no real connection. All of them are long dead. The consequences of their real actions is relevant; their morals and values only remain so long as future generations choose to preserve them.

I think it's morally degenerate and unforgivable.

I have yet to see a logical justification for you to be able to pass that kind of judgement.

Logic has nothing to do with it. I can't escape my own emotional reactions and moral beliefs through rationality. But I'm reacting to something that's real and ongoing, not something done and finished in the past.

Really? What it all boils down to is that the only practical thing that you see wrong with the establishment of such a Darfurian nation state is that it might bring "risks" for the US?

You asked for things that might influence the US's potential recognition of that state. I'm sure there are plently of obstacles local to those people themselves.

In my book, claiming that the only relevant arguments that I should contemplate before I rob an old lady are the potential profit on one hand and the risk of getting caught on the other hand boils down to nihilism. The same goes for international politics.

I don't think I ever said that international relations didn't reflect nihilism. In fact, I'd agree with you on that point completely. What got this started was your remark about allegedly immoral laws (like Jim Crow) enacted democratically. The greatest and simplest objection to this is that it implies you are inherently better than the billions of people who preceded you because your morality better reflects some timeless absolute. I won't say that my morality is the best that has ever and will ever exist, but it is mine, and I believe in it strongly enough to fight for it.

If the economic foundations underlying my country's security were to crumble, all I can cling to is that the morals that I've acted upon in my time will be repaid in action why whoever surges to dominance after us.

You yourself might, but the vast majority of people would not. Look at the Iraqis or the Afghanis. It's well within the US's power to rule over them, or even kill most of them. But that doesn't mean they give up and throw themselves to our mercy. They struggle onward, forced by pride that demolishes all reason. Look at Iran. Is there any real measurement that would objectively lead the people there to think their country is particularly powerful, relevant, or otherwise unique? Of course not. But that doesn't stop them from declaring "death to America," a democratic state, while simultaneously rioting for democratic reforms at home.

---

At 8/22/11 07:53 AM, satanbrain wrote: Jews-

Ok, reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't dispute the Jews to be a nation. I disputed your continued disingenuous representation that there's only really one definition for nation, or that just because there's a definition you like best, it's the only definition that matters.

As was israel since canaanites were extinct.

No one disputes that the nation state of israel was established on that land, and the Jewish nation who comprised much of it lived there. We've been over these arguments you have about how you think Jews are the only rightful owners a million times already. I'm not interested in re-hasing them. I'm interested in you saying something new, or just pissing the fuck off.

All jihadist terrorists, most of them actually.

So you admit that you can't say "terrorists" or "all terrorists" that it has to be quantified. Also want to even prove that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (you know, the guys that believe in declaring "jihad" as a call to violent aggression) are active against Israel? I just have a problem with people who like to make grand statements without really having the back up.

Jihadists are focused on killing everyone who they think defile their religion, I am focusing on hamas since this is the main terrorist organization Israel have fought recently.

Ok, but I'd rather you say that vs. being dishonest and saying "terrorist" or "all terrorists". I understand your by no means the only one guilty of this, most americans think "terrorist" is synonymous with Islamic fundamentalism...forgetting politically motivated terrorists like McVeigh, or Kazynski. Or groups like Aum. I just think if we're going to discuss something, it's helpful to define our subject, and what it is we're talking about.

But unlike many other states, we do not delude ourselves these terrorists could ever be placated.

Uh, who's deluding themselves about this?

Made by "professors" who have claimed we done it before their research and then asking only the palestinan side for their version?

No, made by people much more learned then a pro-Israel jingoist like yourself who actually bothered to study things the government says or policies they enact. Stop it with the conspiracy theory already. Sometimes Israel acts really badly, just like any other state.

If we evicted palestinans, how is that there are still arabs in israel?

Are all Arabs Palestinian now? There aren't Jews of Arabic descent? Christians of Arabic descent? Arabs who identify as Israeli? You're prejudice is showing huge right now.

Did we selectively chose who will stay and who will be forced out?

Um, yeah. There have certainly been steps to exclude either directly (that story we discussed at length a few weeks back about repopulating neighborhoods with non-Jews with Jews), or in-directly (wanting all citizens to accept the essential "Jewishness" of Israel).

If we did intiate our eviction plan to clear israel of arabs, why did why did we abruptly stopped?

One reason for halting, or even not being too public with any such plan is you have allies who would be massively uncomfortable with the potential human rights violation of such and would have to do something to make Israel stop, lest they lose face with their own public. Actions have ripples when it comes to the world stage.

If we wanted a demographic advantage we should've evicted more,

Israel has been actively trying to create demographic advantages in areas it holds, or wants to hold since it's inception! Are you really that blind?

and if we wanted military advantage we could've evict only the problematic areas.

Or you could, ya know, have a better military then your enemies, oh look...ya do. Therefore you have a military advantage. America has much the same situation. Using your military is not the only way in which you can prove you have an advantage over another state.

---

At 8/22/11 08:31 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 8/22/11 06:40 PM, Warforger wrote: Same could be said for pretty much every other nation's earliest years ESPECIALLY Israel.

Are you serious? You must be going back to biblical times because the war in 1948 lead to the death of only about 20,000 people, mostly soldiers in the armies of Israel and the Arab states.

That's what I was referring to yes. It should be quite obvious since I said "earliest".

At 8/22/11 08:31 PM, adrshepard wrote: Afterwards, the Palestinians were never enslaved, nor did they come under any persecution as severe and organized as the casta system in Spanish latin America. Refusing building permits and special perks for IDF Israelis doesn't remotely compare to involuntary servitude, forbidden education, and mandatory religious conversion.

Erm I think a better point would be that the Philistines were wiped out culturally, and were all made Arabic.

That's not even that bad compared to say every other continent. By ethnic conflicts I meant actual conflicts that could lead to genocide, and the only one I could think of off the top of my head was Domincan Republic vs. Haiti

Well, gee, you must have fallen asleep during those history classes because you're forgetting about the Incans, the Aztecs, the Maya, and every other minor kingdom and people in Latin and South America that were absolutely crushed by the Spanish. Sure, disease did a lot of it, but the Conquistadores and missionaries finished them off, destroying their religion and culture and enslaving whomever was left.

I'm talking about an ongoing one. And that didn't really lead to genocide because those natives were still there, in fact natives even had children with the whites themselves, causing a huge race mix, so while their culture was mostly destroyed they themselves weren't targeted for extermination.

You expect me to take part in some deranged pissing contest about which genocide was worse? Your attempts to downplay the near total destruction of every native culture in Latin and South America is absolutely absurd,

No. Compared to what happened elsewhere it was MUCH better ESPECIALLY in the long run. At the very least the culture partially survived and was intergrated with the rest of the other cultures hence why there wasn't really any "KILL THOSE BLACKS!" kind of situation, in say Australia the cultures were nearly exterminated and are isolated, while there aren't any conflicts remaining the toll it took on the Aborginee's was terrible.

and to say that what happened is "the ideal method of racial integration" makes you a dumbass. I'm sorry, but there's just no way around it given the flow of garbage emanating from you.

Nice resorting to insults again have we?

---

At 8/22/11 01:23 PM, Warforger wrote: And? Greeks used to be the people who lived in modern day Turkey, yet they don't live there anymore, same with Istanbul, and yet they don't constantly bitch about not having Turkey in their country.

That doesn't mean it should happen in israel, If they choose to give up their land (or part of it) it is only their decision.

Again it was anarchy during that time, using your logic Jews should go back to Iraq and go back to living where they really came from and give the native Berber's their land back.

Why do you think jews originated in iraq? If we did, then in the war between us and canaanites we would've attacked from the north, not the south.

That and the Palestinians are also descended from the Greek Phillistines who lived there, you know the people who lived there as long as you did?

Phillistines couldn't possibly lived there since they were dead.

Yes, they mixed with the Phillistines and became the Palestinians,

No, palestinans were arabs who live in jordan.

which are STILL THERE TO THIS DAY!

Because they do not want, or cannot, reside where they are.

or getting killed defending their home they've lived in for hundreds of years. That's not really a great deal.

Why weren't all the arabs in israel killed? Some arabs thought that what will happen to them so they run away, the others realized it will not, stayed, and became citizens of israel.

At 8/22/11 09:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So you admit that you can't say "terrorists" or "all terrorists" that it has to be quantified.

This thread name implies we are talking about israel, what else could i have been talking about?

Uh, who's deluding themselves about this?

Countries who can't deal with their terrorists, countries who support terrorists.

No, made by people much more learned then a pro-Israel jingoist like yourself who actually bothered to study things the government says or policies they enact.

Without never hearing the israeli side of it.

Are all Arabs Palestinian now?

All arabs in israel. Or at least they claim so and, have family who fled from israel in 1948 and were proven by genetic studies to be so.

There aren't Jews of Arabic descent?

Genetic studies showed there is more resemblance between jews from any country to the natvies of the country where they used to live. Jews are a middle eastern nation son aturally it would have slightly more resmblance to arabs.

Christians of Arabic descent?

They were converted, the predominant nation which they resemble with is palestinan, genetic and cultuar.

Arabs who identify as Israeli?

You can be israeli arab, it doesn't contradict.

One reason for halting, or even not being too public with any such plan is you have allies who would be massively uncomfortable with the potential human rights violation

Allegations of human rights violation were already claimed, eviction couldn't be more condemnable than massacres.

Israel has been actively trying to create demographic advantages in areas it holds, or wants to hold since it's inception! Are you really that blind?

But if we wanted to evict them we wouldn't have left any palestinans around, or just an insignificant minority.

---

At 8/22/11 11:30 PM, Warforger wrote: That's what I was referring to yes. It should be quite obvious since I said "earliest".

You, the frenzied anti-Israel activist, acknowledging the historical foundation and justification for Israel's existence as a nation?

I'm talking about an ongoing one.

I'm not, and neither were you until just now, trying to weasel your way out of your retarded assertions.

And that didn't really lead to genocide because those natives were still there

Oh, sure, they kept some for wives and slave labor, so it's not genocide. I guess the holocaust wasn't genocide, either, since there are still some jews around. Actually, I guess there's never been a genocide ever since not every single

in fact natives even had children with the whites themselves, causing a huge race mix,

A mix seen as a social defect in a RACIAL CASTE SYSTEM. Your entire argument is based on how people happened to rebel against it and therefore it was good because they were all mixed. The Spanish weren't hoping to be overthrown just so there could be a new society based on racial tolerance. Like all caste systems, it was a means of control over the lower classes.

No. Compared to what happened elsewhere it was MUCH better ESPECIALLY in the long run. At the very least the culture partially survived and was intergrated with the rest of the other cultures

The words "chocolate" and "tomato" come from the Aztecs, as well as some food dishes. Let us all bask in the glory of surviving Latin American cultures!

and to say that what happened is "the ideal method of racial integration" makes you a dumbass. I'm sorry, but there's just no way around it given the flow of garbage emanating from you.

Nice resorting to insults again have we?

My insults are more accurate than your arguments.

---

At 8/21/11 10:19 AM, Jizzlebang wrote:

At 8/21/11 09:56 AM, Camarohusky wrote: People declared a certain area of land a country, and the rest of the world acknowledged it. Sounds legitimate to me. As legitimate as pretty much any other country born in modern times.

Yeah, except people forcibly moved from their homes to make room for Israel

and that they had been driven out, it's a stupid pattern that keeps happening over and over! deal with it, the sooner the middle east just, deals with it the sooner everything gets better

---

The UK tried to split the land between Israel and Palestine while creating Israel, but then a war immediately broke out and now you have todays borders. Id say Israel is very legitimate as a country, but the legitmacy of their borders is a whole other thing.

---

At 8/23/11 12:18 AM, satanbrain wrote: This thread name implies we are talking about israel, what else could i have been talking about?

Well, you said "terrorists" in a very general way. I just wanted to get it down to specific terrorists.

Countries who can't deal with their terrorists, countries who support terrorists.

No no, you misunderstand, I want NAMES not bullshit generalizing that makes me 100% convinced you made all that up to avoid having to substantiate your point...in other words: the usual thing you do.

Without never hearing the israeli side of it.

Prove they never heard and considered the Israeli side.

All arabs in israel.

Prove there are no Arabs who hold citizenship in Israel and identify proudly as Israelis. I don't believe for a second you can.

Or at least they claim so and, have family who fled from israel in 1948 and were proven by genetic studies to be so.

Being Palestinian is not something shown in genes last I checked. That is a national identity...national identities are not inherently genetic things. Also prove that all arabs in Israel claim to be Palestinian. Back up the claim or stop making it please.

Genetic studies showed there is more resemblance between jews from any country to the natvies of the country where they used to live.

That does not answer my question.

Jews are a middle eastern nation son aturally it would have slightly more resmblance to arabs.

So the answer then is yes Virginia, there are Arab Jews.

They were converted, the predominant nation which they resemble with is palestinan, genetic and cultuar.

Palestine is not a genetic thing you twit! It's a group identity. Also religion is not genetic either, it is an ideology that one ascribes to. You obviously don't understand genetics, yet here you are trying to act like you do. Don't speak on things you're obviously not equipped to deal with.

You can be israeli arab, it doesn't contradict.

You're the one claiming it does because all Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinian. If you identify as Palestinian, you identify yourself as someone who believes in, and is desirous of citizenship in, the nation of Palestine. Clearly it does...congrats, you actually shocked me. I didn't think you could possibly be this clueless.

Allegations of human rights violation were already claimed,

They have been indeed.

eviction couldn't be more condemnable than massacres.

So now the game is "well look...maybe there's a violation here...but it's ok cause it's not as bad as this violation"? Really? You're the guy that called me all sorts of names when you believed I didn't respect the "human right to property" and now that's exactly what you're doing.

But if we wanted to evict them we wouldn't have left any palestinans around, or just an insignificant minority.

You're Affirming the Consequent. Try not to do that.

---

At 8/23/11 09:29 PM, BumFodder wrote: The UK tried to split the land between Israel and Palestine while creating Israel, but then a war immediately broke out and now you have todays borders. Id say Israel is very legitimate as a country, but the legitmacy of their borders is a whole other thing.

agreed, if Israelis honestly wants peace, the first thing they should do is to evict the settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, they should also return Golan and Sinai to Syria and Egypt respectively.

---

At 8/24/11 02:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Prove they never heard and considered the Israeli side.

Link to their research and prove they did.

Prove there are no Arabs who hold citizenship in Israel and identify proudly as Israelis.

That doesn't mean they are not ethnically palestinian.

Being Palestinian is not something shown in genes last I checked.

Then how could palestinans have any genetic similarity with jews?

That does not answer my question.

The number convereted jews who are not ethnically jews is inconsequential. There are no ethnically jews of actual arab descent, Jews from arab countries may have slightly more resemblance with arabs since jews is a middle eastern nation.

So the answer then is yes Virginia, there are Arab Jews.

If you consider all jews arabs, then yes, all jews are arab jews.

Palestine is not a genetic thing you twit!

How could they have genetic resemblance if it isn't?

If you identify as Palestinian, you identify yourself as someone who believes in, and is desirous of citizenship in, the nation of Palestine.

Or just ethically palestinan, that is what the arab knesset members identify themselves as. At least publicly.

They have been indeed.

Then why would they care about eviction?

So now the game is "well look...maybe there's a violation here...but it's ok cause it's not as bad as this violation"? Really? You're the guy that called me all sorts of names when you believed I didn't respect the "human right to property" and now that's exactly what you're doing.

I was speaking hypothetically, the "professors" who claim we evicted palestinans also claim we massacred them, why would we care what the world thinks, what you claim was the reason for "stopping" the eviction, if we have already massacred the palestinan nation?

You're Affirming the Consequent. Try not to do that.

No, i am not. If we wanted to evict palestinans, why did we stop? Your theory of IDF soldiers evicting palestinans is flawed until you can justify this inconsistence.

---

At 8/24/11 08:04 AM, satanbrain wrote: Link to their research and prove they did.

No no. We're not doing that. You are the one making a claim. I'm asking you to prove the claim. Asking you to prove the claim does not automatically mean I'm taking the opposite position. It's just that I don't trust your word on the subject. So I say again: Prove the claim.

That doesn't mean they are not ethnically palestinian.

Define "ethnically" palestinian. Because last I checked the ethnicity of those we would tend to consider palestinian is not exclusive to that one particular nation/group. "Palestinian" isn't really an ethnicity as I pointed out prior, more an identity and nation. Kind of like how there's no explicit laws that say one must be "ethnically" Jewish to be a citizen. Heck, you don't even necessarily need to be Jewish to hold citizenship. You're the one that's all hung up on race and such.

Then how could palestinans have any genetic similarity with jews?

Cause ethnicity and genetic similarity trumps and is not precluded by the entirely man made notion of "nations"? Especially when you consider the concept of "nation" or "state" has multiple definitions, some of them having nothing to do with ethnicity or genetics. This is the whole problem with you trying to argue that only one definition of the term "nation" is valid...it creates all these simple little questions into big complex issues because you can't accept the simplest answer because it untangles all your stubborn denials.

The number convereted jews who are not ethnically jews is inconsequential.

Why? Judaism is primarily a religion, that bonded an ethnically similar tribe together. The Jewish identity is not something that comes from the genes as it is perfectly acceptable for a cuacasian to say "I am Jewish" as much as it would be for anyone else, even those of genetic relation to the original Israelites to claim such. Unless you've got some kind of bias and supremacist view about "Real" or "True" Jews of course...

There are no ethnically jews of actual arab descent,

Prove it. Because I've seen a good deal of evidence that's been posted in these sorts of discussions that says different.

Jews from arab countries may have slightly more resemblance with arabs since jews is a middle eastern nation.

Which would still make them "family" and establish a relation. One doesn't share as much blood with a cousin as they do with a brother...but they are no less related now are they?

If you consider all jews arabs, then yes, all jews are arab jews.

Except I don't because there are Jews of all different races and ethnicities because Judaism is not really a "racial" or genetic identity as the only identity factor, as you like to claim. It is primarily an identity based on shared beliefs and values. I'm asking you to prove that there are no arabs who are religiously, "ethnically" or in any other way identifiably Jewish. You continue to dodge the question by throwing up absurdities, I think deep down you know it's a claim you can't possibly hope to prove.

How could they have genetic resemblance if it isn't?

Because genetic similarity is not always synonymous with national identity. Look at how many white people there are in the world, how many blacks, how many asians. Now look at how many different states, and nations they identify themselves as belonging to. It's patently ridiculous to say that the only marker for a national identity is a genetic one.

Or just ethically palestinan, that is what the arab knesset members identify themselves as. At least publicly.

Is the knesset somehow a race? No? The Israeli legislature right. Also just because somebody raises their hand and identifies themselves as something, doesn't automatically mean they are that thing. I think it might also be helpful if we define ethnicity, we might both be misusing the word. Ethnicity, it appears we have been indeed. What I should have said was "race". You keep trying to split hairs and say that because Palestine has different ethnic values or religious beliefs that this makes them different from Israel even genetically. This is preposterous, it assumes that if you share the same genes you would not do anything to harm those sharing your genes. But murder and crime people commit against family members happens...thus disproving the idea. I'm not really even sure what the hell it is your trying to say with this actually now that I'm this far down the rabbit hole.

Then why would they care about eviction?

Because people have this funny habit of getting upset when they believe their human rights have been violated? What does this have to do with a general point of agreement between us that allegations of human rights have been leveled?

I was speaking hypothetically,

I really doubt it.

the "professors" who claim we evicted palestinans also claim we massacred them,

Prove this claim. Also it's not always academics or "professors" as you say making the claims that Israel has violated the human rights of others.

why would we care what the world thinks,

Because without the help of your allies your enemies would have banded together and massacred you by now? Because it's essential to your security that other powerful nations back you up? Any other stupid questions you'd like to ask?

what you claim was the reason for "stopping" the eviction, if we have already massacred the palestinan nation?

I'm not claiming you massacred anybody. You really need to do me the courtesy of arguing what I actually say vs. making shit up and ascribing it to me. Paranoia is very tedious.

No, i am not.

Yes, you are. I provided a definition and everything.

If we wanted to evict palestinans, why did we stop?

I offered examples as to why. You continue to Affirm The Consequent by ignoring this.

Your theory of IDF soldiers....

I didn't mention the IDF even once. Quit lying about what I said. My posts are right there in black and white, take as much time as you need to digest them and properly understand their content, no need to rush and make such blatant mistakes on my account.

---

This describes satanbrain perfectly

---

just genocide the Lebanese with smallpox and give the survivors casinos.

---

At 8/25/11 12:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

No no. We're not doing that. You are the one making a claim. I'm asking you to prove the claim. Asking you to prove the claim does not automatically mean I'm taking the opposite position. It's just that I don't trust your word on the subject. So I say again: Prove the claim.

you haven't even prove your claim that anyone proved the IDF committed war crimes in the war for independece.

Define "ethnically" palestinian. Because last I checked the ethnicity of those we would tend to consider palestinian is not exclusive to that one particular nation/group. "Palestinian" isn't really an ethnicity as I pointed out prior, more an identity and nation.

What other grop do they belong to? Bedouins define themselves as bedouins, druzes as druzes, egyptians as egyptians and syrians as syrians. Are palestinians one of the groups mentioned?

Kind of like how there's no explicit laws that say one must be "ethnically" Jewish to be a citizen. Heck, you don't even necessarily need to be Jewish to hold citizenship.

You're the one that's all hung up on race and such.

Ethnically jews who aren't religiously jews received citizenship, most of them were from russia. Why did israel allowed that if jew is only a religious term?

Cause ethnicity and genetic similarity trumps and is not precluded by the entirely man made notion of "nations"?

I will ask again, how can a researcher conclude that palestinans can be ethnically calssified, in order to compare their genetics with us, if palestinans are not an ethnic nation?

Why?

Because genetic studies proved so.

Judaism is primarily a religion, that bonded an ethnically similar tribe together.

2 tribes and a bit of 2 more.

The Jewish identity is not something that comes from the genes

It is based on our history, how is our ancestral history not connected to genes?

Prove it. Because I've seen a good deal of evidence that's been posted in these sorts of discussions that says different.

There is some similarity but as i've proved before by genetic studies, all ethnically jews resemble each other more than non-jews in their area.

Which would still make them "family" and establish a relation. One doesn't share as much blood with a cousin as they do with a brother...but they are no less related now are they?

You can say all middle eastern nations originated from one, it may even be true, but we are still different nations.

Except I don't because there are Jews of all different races and ethnicities

Genetic studies on Jews prove that jews of all races and "ethnicities" share genetic resemblance.

because Judaism is not really a "racial" or genetic identity as the only identity factor, as you like to claim. It is primarily an identity based on shared beliefs and values.

Judaism as a religion, Israel was based on zionist ideas, not solely judaism.

I'm asking you to prove that there are no arabs who are religiously, "ethnically" or in any other way identifiably Jewish.

Jews in arab countries still identified themselves and were identified as jews, not as arabs.

Because genetic similarity is not always synonymous with national identity. Look at how many white people there are in the world, how many blacks, how many asians.

There isn't a white/black/asian nation, there are many nations who racially asian/black/white but they are not all one nation.

Now look at how many different states, and nations they identify themselves as belonging to. It's patently ridiculous to say that the only marker for a national identity is a genetic one.

Do all whites/blacks/asians share an equal amount of dna resmeblance with all those who are racially white/black/asian? Or do they share more resemblance with people of their own nation?

Is the knesset somehow a race? No? The Israeli legislature right.

These are their representatives. I can assume that they voted to people who represnt them.

Also just because somebody raises their hand and identifies themselves as something, doesn't automatically mean they are that thing.

Like being part of the jewish nation?

I think it might also be helpful if we define ethnicity, we might both be misusing the word. Ethnicity, it appears we have been indeed.

What exactly are traits if not genetic traits? Mental traits? Are nations defined by mental traits now?

What I should have said was "race". You keep trying to split hairs and say that because Palestine has different ethnic values or religious beliefs that this makes them different from Israel even genetically.

The ethnically are different from jews because genetic studies proved so.

Because people have this funny habit of getting upset when they believe their human rights have been violated?

But there were allegations of massacres even after the war, why would they worry about eviction angers poeple and not massacres?

Because without the help of your allies your enemies would have banded together and massacred you by now?

Why would we care if we "massacred" and were still aided? You claim the IDF stopped eviction and massacre because of our allies' objections, but there were allegations of human rights violation after the war.

Because it's essential to your security that other powerful nations back you up?

Would they concede their objection to stop the eviction and be content with stopping eviction? I do not understand this.

I'm not claiming you massacred anybody.

Those who claim the IDF evicted also claim there were massacres.

I didn't mention the IDF even once.

Who did this if not the IDF? They were named HaHaganah before 1948, but that is irrelevant, the commanders, soldiers and ethics remained.

---

At 8/25/11 02:31 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: just genocide the Lebanese with smallpox and give the survivors casinos.

I hope you are being sarcastic about this

---

At 8/25/11 10:36 AM, MattDogg wrote:

At 8/25/11 02:31 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: just genocide the Lebanese with smallpox and give the survivors casinos.

I hope you are being sarcastic about this

I hope you caught the reference

---

At 8/23/11 05:10 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 8/22/11 11:30 PM, Warforger wrote: That's what I was referring to yes. It should be quite obvious since I said "earliest".

You, the frenzied anti-Israel activist, acknowledging the historical foundation and justification for Israel's existence as a nation?

?????I'm not an anti-Israeli activist and there is no "historical foundation and justification" for any nation to exist because pretty much all nations were formed through the subjugation of others. Israel is as justified as being a nation as Kosovo, Palestine, Chechnya or Slovenia are.

What I am against however are the people who think the other side does not deserve to be there, and work to get them out or constantly antagonize the opposite side. THOSE people are the people who unwittingly are pouring the gasoline around the firewood and when someone lights the spark it's going to hell. THESE people would lead to people like the Nazi's or people like the Conquistadors.

I'm talking about an ongoing one.

I'm not, and neither were you until just now, trying to weasel your way out of your retarded assertions.

No. You're weaseling my argument into something I wasn't saying at all. What I'm saying is that the way it went down it became a unique racially blended society and that's more ideal because there aren't many ethnic conflicts that survived to this day. As opposed to say Canaan, which became an antagonistic society due to their racial differences.

in fact natives even had children with the whites themselves, causing a huge race mix,

A mix seen as a social defect in a RACIAL CASTE SYSTEM. Your entire argument is based on how people happened to rebel against it and therefore it was good because they were all mixed. The Spanish weren't hoping to be overthrown just so there could be a new society based on racial tolerance. Like all caste systems, it was a means of control over the lower classes.

Correction, the caste system wasn't entirely based on race, the caste system in say India or Southern Africa is more racist than it is, but in the Latin American one if you were successful financially you were "Spanish" regardless of your parents, so again it was more determined by wealth than by actual racial heritage.

The words "chocolate" and "tomato" come from the Aztecs, as well as some food dishes. Let us all bask in the glory of surviving Latin American cultures!

Also numerous math concepts like the number 0 along with agricultural techniques and all....

My insults are more accurate than your arguments.

No. They just further debase your arguments.

---

At 8/25/11 07:41 AM, satanbrain wrote: you haven't even prove your claim that anyone proved the IDF committed war crimes in the war for independece.

1. I don't recall ever claiming that. 2. That is deflection from my asking you to prove the claim you made here and now, which proves to me that you can't back it up, so you deflect. 3. This topic was clearly stated as NOT being about Israeli policy, but about the legitimacy of the establishment of Israel. The IDF's policies and alleged war crimes are NOT relevant to that. Stay on topic or be gone. That goes for all of us.

What other grop do they belong to?

Those of arabic descent? Prior tribes, groups, or other now extinct states I'm not personally aware of?

Bedouins define themselves as bedouins,

But that's not a genetic thing. Show me where a bedouin is genetically dissimilar to everyone else. That is a social and cultural identity they apply to themselves. Genetics are not what is making them Bedouin.

druzes as druzes,

See above.

egyptians as egyptians

See Bedouin explanation.

and syrians as syrians.

See Bedouins.

Are palestinians one of the groups mentioned?

Genetically? Very very similar. But this is my whole point, you worry about ethnicity in terms of race and genetics. You use that as the only way you define nation and my whole point is that nation can be defined by that...but there are also many other definitions, and when you talk about groups linked by common beliefs and history, you are dealing with nation being bonded by something different then genes. Black people are genetically similar, but not all blacks are members of the same tribe, nation, or state. Genetics in the end do almost nothing to bond a group as a nation in the modern age.

Ethnically jews who aren't religiously jews received citizenship, most of them were from russia.

And non-jews get it too. What are you trying to refute?

Why did israel allowed that if jew is only a religious term?

I didn't say Jew is only a religious term. I said Judaism is a religion, thus I think you're harping on ethnic or genetic Jews is exclusatory and prejudice against those who are Jewish, and devoutly so, but do not have the genetic characteristics of the original Israelites.

I will ask again, how can a researcher conclude that palestinans can be ethnically calssified, in order to compare their genetics with us, if palestinans are not an ethnic nation?

Because they have a genetic similarity. I have genetic similarities to my relatives who are German, but I do not consider myself German because I do not speak the language, know the customs, or even have a strong desire to visit the land. Genetics are genetics.

Because genetic studies proved so.

How do genetic studies prove converted Jews are inconsequential when we talk about defining all those who subscribe to Judaism? I think you're lying to try and back yourself out of the obvious corner I stuck you in.

2 tribes and a bit of 2 more.

Ok, two tribes. I got one teensy bit wrong, you're not disputing the overall definition.

It is based on our history, how is our ancestral history not connected to genes?

Because culture has no bearing on genes? I share genes with my German relatives but we have a completely different cultural and historical experience.

There is some similarity but as i've proved before by genetic studies, all ethnically jews resemble each other more than non-jews in their area.

I don't think you've ever "proved" anything because usually whatever evidence you use actually says something different then what you think it says.

You can say all middle eastern nations originated from one, it may even be true, but we are still different nations.

But you're not different nations because of genes dope. You're different nations because you broke off into different groups over thousands of years and fought each other for territory. The history and culture makes you different, not the genes.

Genetic studies on Jews prove that jews of all races and "ethnicities" share genetic resemblance.

Except in the article where it points out that Indian and Ethiopian Jews are an exception. Try reading more then a few sentences next time.

Judaism as a religion, Israel was based on zionist ideas, not solely judaism.

But Zionism comes from that cultural identity, of which the religion is a big part and a major unifying factor.

Jews in arab countries still identified themselves and were identified as jews, not as arabs.

Why are Jews and Arabs exclusive terms? I have seen no evidence of why they have to classify differently.

There isn't a white/black/asian nation, there are many nations who racially asian/black/white but they are not all one nation.

Thank you for restating my point. Apparently you do occasionally understand and read what I post.

Do all whites/blacks/asians share an equal amount of dna resmeblance with all those who are racially white/black/asian?

It wouldn't be entirely equal since your genes come from family lineage. Jews would be the same damn thing as well. But their race is a genetic factor and so yes, they have similarities. However these alone are not enough to make these races close themselves off and decide to be a unified single nation.

Or do they share more resemblance with people of their own nation?

There you go again defining nation as solely genetic. Stop using the word if you wont use it properly.

These are their representatives. I can assume that they voted to people who represnt them.

So in the end, you don't really know. You're arguing something as fact based on an admitted assumption. Sloppy.

Like being part of the jewish nation?

Sure, that could happen. Why someone would lie about something like that I don't get...but it's certainly possible somebody could claim to be a Jew and have absolutely not a shred of proof for the claim.

What exactly are traits if not genetic traits? Mental traits? Are nations defined by mental traits now?

How about cultural and societal traits? Have you ever taken a sociology course or are familiar with just the basics of the science?

The ethnically are different from jews because genetic studies proved so.

Not quite, also ethnicity isn't just genes, we just defined the word and showed that. Studies prove the Jews as a group tend to be very closed off, but Palestinians share enough similarities to be considered a distant "cousin".

But there were allegations of massacres even after the war, why would they worry about eviction angers poeple and not massacres?

This is a policy question again that I really shouldn't have let you go so far along with. This belongs in the other thread, or your welcome to PM me and we'll continue the discussion that way.

Why would we care if we "massacred" and were still aided?

You'd be dead...so you wouldn't care about jack shit. I'm saying without support, and nobody wanting to help or aid Israel in their struggles, Israel's hostile neighbors most likely would have overrun your borders and eliminated all of you.

You claim the IDF stopped...

I haven't mentioned the IDF at all...you are the one that keeps bringing them up. Also this again isn't very relevant to the topic at hand. We need to stay relevant to this topic, or not use it.

Would they concede their objection to stop the eviction and be content with stopping eviction?

Other nations talk a lot about human rights, not liking dictators, etc etc. Yet they turn a blind eye when it's convenient to them. If you think world leaders always tell the truth, and are always doing what they say...well, I have bridge in London you might like to buy also.

Those who claim the IDF evicted also claim there were massacres.

I haven't claimed either thing. Also you haven't proven this correlation, and again, off topic.

Who did this if not the IDF?

Well the evictions I know of were the ones in the previous thread which don't have overt government ties.

---

At 8/26/11 11:25 PM, Warforger wrote:

?????I'm not an anti-Israeli activist

Right...

No. You're weaseling my argument into something I wasn't saying at all.

You said "Latin America is probably the perfect way to deal with ethnic conflicts i.e. by getting the indigenous, African and White populations to mix which creates Latino's, hence why there isn't too much widespread racism there."
You suggest that racial mixing is the ideal way to promote racial harmony, and the casta system that was in place utterly destroys that idea. It didn't bring understanding and tolerance, only hatred between castes and social stratification. What you identify as a racially tolerant society today only came about through armed rebellion. No one intended that to happen, so there's no way you can describe the current racial environment as anything but a period of good luck paid for by centuries of intolerance and suffering.

What I'm saying is that the way it went down it became a unique racially blended society and that's more ideal because there aren't many ethnic conflicts that survived to this day.

When in doubt, resort to truisms. "If a people is racially homogenous, it won't have any racially motivated conflicts!" Great idea!

Correction, the caste system wasn't entirely based on race, the caste system in say India or Southern Africa is more racist than it is, but in the Latin American one if you were successful financially you were "Spanish" regardless of your parents, so again it was more determined by wealth than by actual racial heritage.

I have no idea what encyclopedia you read that from, but you've drawn the entirely wrong conclusion. I have no doubt there were a few wealthy mulattoes, moriscos, and mestizos who managed to get along with the other wealthy Spaniards, but it's just stupid to declare that the system wasn't based on race because of a handful of exceptions.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/d/dd/CastaSystemVirreinato.JPG
Note the differences in clothing between the top and bottom tier couples.

The words "chocolate" and "tomato" come from the Aztecs, as well as some food dishes. Let us all bask in the glory of surviving Latin American cultures!

Also numerous math concepts like the number 0 along with agricultural techniques and all....

Which Europeans had long since adopted from the Arabs and Indians. That is not a contribution. Same thing with whatever agricultural techniques you're talking about. Learning how to grow corn is not the same as discovering fertilization or crop rotation.

My insults are more accurate than your arguments.

No. They just further debase your arguments.

Every other word could be an insult and you still couldn't refute anything I've said.