Reply With Quote
You wouldn't need suicide belt because you have nukes, the palestinians don't have that "luxury".
Man, all I know is that if freakin' Indians went around saying they wanted their own land, with sovereignty and freedom from Local and State laws, I'd put on a suicide belt and blow up a few Indians without hesitation. No way in I'd allow American Indians to be given American land. Now that you guys have swayed me, I think I'll go kill a few Jews. If we don't eradicate the Zionists, Indians will have their own land. Bas s!
You wouldn't need suicide belt because you have nukes, the palestinians don't have that "luxury".
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]i apologize if i accused you of something untrue, but my question still stands:I can't/won't deal with someone that falsely attributes statements to me and tells me what my position is on policy. Enjoy carrying the discussion for me, I'll tune in later to see how I fared.
Yeah, but that's what Iran is for. We just sit back, let them build up their Nuclear Weapons program, they'll make sure "Israel is wiped off the map" and we're free from the filthy Jews forever. Then we can all live in peace, the Palestinians will finally have their land back (of course they'll all be dead due to the nuclear strikes, but as soon as the Jews are gone we don't really need Palestinians) and we can all sit down in a drum circle and sing kumbya. Then we'll wipe out all the Indians... damn Indians.
you wouldn't mind moving out of seattle to make way for a new country?
...Uhhh, half of Western Washington is made up of Indian Reservations.
thats not the question: would you leave your land, so someone could "reclaim" it, because his ancestors lived there 2 millenia ago?
Maybe I wasn't laying it on thick enough... See, when I was talking about Indians being given their own land I was being facetious. In the United States we have what are called Indian Reservations, land set aside for federally recognized American Indian tribes. While on Tribal land Indians are generally free of Local and State law, instead having Tribal and Federal laws. See, I was mocking the ridiculous argument that Americans would turn into suicide bombers if Indians demanded their own state...
No. But I would leave my land if a local Indian tribe claimed it as Tribal lands and the Federal Government agreed and recognized that said land was Indian land.
see, i'm talking about moving half of population, not about some non-connected pieces of land.
Native Americans outnumber the Palestinian population by quite a large amount.
And judging by this map of the Middle East, there doesn't seem to be a lack of Arab owned countries very nearby where Palestinians could live peacefully. I fail to see how Israel's ownership of that sliver of land amidst that large chunk of the World equals an unjustified hostile takeover that justifies the purposeful targeting and bombing of civilians.
i don't see how this is relevant, but:Native Americans outnumber the Palestinian population by quite a large amount.
And judging by this map of the Middle East, there doesn't seem to be a lack of Arab owned countries very nearby where Palestinians could live peacefully. I fail to see how Israel's ownership of that sliver of land amidst that large chunk of the World equals an unjustified hostile takeover that justifies the purposeful targeting and bombing of civilians.
Palestinian population = 10 mio
native indian population? native indians in reservations?
look at the geographic map not political.
Funny, I didn't realize it was 1948 and we were discussing whether to create a state of Israel.
I was under the impression there had been an Israeli state in place now for 58 years.
So what is the statute of limitations on the legitimacy of states then? Do the Serbs or Austrians still have a legitimate claim on Slovenia?
you are right, what is done is done, but it is important to know who started it and who started with terrorism.
As far as i know Habsburg dinasty is no longer in charge in Austria and we separated from Serbs with their (legal) consent. Neither Austrians or Serbs ever lived here (except some minorities).
About 35 million in the Americas. In just the US, somewhere upwards of 6 million of some American Indian ethnicity, 2.7 million "American Indian and Alaska Native alone" from the 2003 census, something like 1.8 million on reservations? Versus the about 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
And I thought that was a geographic map.
Edit: I think the reservation numbers might be a bit high, I saw 1.8 million somewhere but now I can't find it again. American Indian numbers are hard to peg down, there is a 2004 census report that says there are 4.4 million American Indians. I don't know how much that helps.
Last edited by Gerryatrics; 06-13-2006 at 08:31 AM.
this is from 2003?
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...es/001492.html
i meant terrain map (rivers, mountains, DESERT).
Ok, wait, Indian Reservations are so far from the same thing as Israel that you can't even come close to comparing the 2. There is no sovriegnty on reservations nor are they on the origional tribal lands.
In fact, we took basically the worst land possible and gave it to them. So don't try to compare.
Reservations do have sovereignty.
Okay. There's tons of land in the United States. How about we give up your house and relocate you 1,000 miles in any direction. We'll move your friends, too...1,000 miles in the other direction. Who needs to make arrangements for jobs.
Coulter wants to know why liberals parade out people who have first-hand experience of the issue on the table? To humanize the debate - to take it out of the abstract.
The United Nations demanded Palestine's complete inexistence because Adolf Hitler tried to commit genocide. Where were they going to go? Good question. This wasn't the answer.
You're out of your mind. They have a very limited form of sovereignty but still fall under the authority of the Federal government.
There are limits, their sovereignty isn't absolute, but they're still independent, self-governed nations that retain all powers and rights not relinquished to the Federal Government by treaty. The United States acts as a trustee to American Indian tribes, not an overbearing authority.
That's like telling a minor who lives in his parents' house that he's a free citizen. Sure, you have a certain amount of freedom, but only the amount that's given to you by your parents.
And when you say "all powers and rights not relinquished to the Federal Government by treaty", you do realize that you are talking about a lot of treaties signed under grossly unfair cir stances to the detriment of the Native American peoples (who in most cases were not given and could not afford legal counsel).
Try doing some research on some of the current issues for the Navajo and Hopi tribes - acquaint yourself with people like Roberta Blackgoat (pictured below) who had to fight the US for her right to stay on her people's sacred land after treaties had guaranteed that land was hers.
If I lived among foreign people with a different culture who speak a different language, if there were daily shootings in my neighborhood, if my neighbors were firing rockets into nearby towns, if my kids were being brainwashed into strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves up in buses or restaurants and I had a chance to move 1000 miles to be with people with the same culture that speak the same language... yeah, I think I could live with that. Who needs to make arrangements for jobs? Well, if unemployment was as high as 80% like it is in Palestinian run territories, I might just take that chance.
When did Palestine exist? Israel only encompasses 20% of this "Palestine", I might be wrong but I believe Jordan exists. Before 1967 there were no "Palestinians", Arab leaders said that "Palestine" was part of the Province of Syria. The UN didn't demand "Palestine's" complete nonexistence, it never existed in the first place.The United Nations demanded Palestine's complete inexistence because Adolf Hitler tried to commit genocide. Where were they going to go? Good question. This wasn't the answer.
The Federal Government doesn't give Indian Nations rights, those rights, including sovereignty, are inherent.
I was referring to modern treaties and agreements, any rights unfairly seized by treaty were returned by The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and further clarified by the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003. New agreements between Tribal Nations and the US Government are being made all the time.And when you say "all powers and rights not relinquished to the Federal Government by treaty", you do realize that you are talking about a lot of treaties signed under grossly unfair cir stances to the detriment of the Native American peoples (who in most cases were not given and could not afford legal counsel).
I am aware of the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute. I'm also aware of Roberta Blackgoat. The problem was that "her people's sacred land" was in 1882 Hopi Reservation Land. The US government tried, and failed, to find an acceptable solution to the dispute, but the Dispute was and is between the Navajo and Hopi nations. Blackgoat wouldn't budge, and she was very brave for that, but to be fair she wasn't forcefully relocated by the government.Try doing some research on some of the current issues for the Navajo and Hopi tribes - acquaint yourself with people like Roberta Blackgoat (pictured below) who had to fight the US for her right to stay on her people's sacred land after treaties had guaranteed that land was hers.
there was no shooting in Palestine until Zionist came there and started with terrorism. I wonder why the Russians fought the Germans in ww2, all they had to do was move away in Sibiria, there is plenty of space there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
