Canada, Australia Vote Against U.N. Declaration on Aboriginal Rights (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-9-21/59991.html)
The disappointment came when four countries with sizeable indigenous populations—Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand—voted against the declaration that was more than two decades in the making. Eleven countries abstained.
Is it any surprise to anyone that Australia refused to sign it ?

This arrogant action against our own indigenous people endorsed by the vast majority of Australians particularly shows Australia's racist and intolerant reluctance to treat Aborigines as equals this signifies that Aborigines are still to be retained in primitive slavery . There only future for Aboriginals is that there lands will become atomic/chemical waste dumps for the EU and the US . Australians still think that they have a manifest destiny to rob Aborigines whom they know to be weaker than them I call for an International boycott of Australia .

As a note to the moral corruption of the UN the Declaration of Aboriginal Rights deliberately omitted was the issue of indigenous Palestinians , absolutely disgraceful .

'Although non-binding and mostly symbolic...'

why even bother reading it if it had no meaning??

As a note to the moral corruption of the UN the Declaration of Aboriginal Rights deliberately omitted was the issue of indigenous Palestinians , absolutely disgraceful .

Huh? I don't think the Palestinians are called "aboriginal", are they? :D

Baron Max

ab·o·rig·i·nal (adj.) - indigenous: existing in a place from the earliest known times

(n.) - original inhabitant: a member of a people who have lived in an area from the earliest known times

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (pdf) (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N07/498/30/PDF/N0749830.pdf?OpenElement)

Huh? I don't think the Palestinians are called "aboriginal", are they? :D

Baron Max

Do you even know what the term "aboriginal" even means?

Huh? I don't think the Palestinians are called "aboriginal", are they? :D

Baron Max

Where do you find that ?

ab·o·rig·i·nal (adj.) - indigenous: existing in a place from the earliest known times

(n.) - original inhabitant: a member of a people who have lived in an area from the earliest known times ...

Well, then I was right ...Palestinians were not from the area where they now claim to live. So ....they are not "aboriginals".

Baron Max

Well, then I was right ...Palestinians were not from the area where they now claim to live. So ....they are not "aboriginals".

Baron Max

Really? Wow!

Ermm ok. So where exactly do you think Palestinians come from Baron?

Do you think they moved to the region in the last 100 years?:rolleyes:

Really? Wow!

Ermm ok. So where exactly do you think Palestinians come from Baron?

Do you think they moved to the region in the last 100 years?:rolleyes:
Apparently the current belief with him and others on this forum was that Palestinians only came into existence post 1967 .

"Apparently the current belief with him and others on this forum was that Palestinians only came into existence post 1967"

Whatever name you use there where people (Arabs) living in that area for thousands.

They are called Palesitnians now but where called other things before and are a mix of alot of different races that lived in the area over the years, such as the caanites ancient hebrews and even crusaders and ofcourse arabs. They are relatively speaking the closest thing to native people of that land that is called Israel/Palestine.

Well, then I was right ...Palestinians were not from the area where they now claim to live. So ....they are not "aboriginals".

Baron Max

Then where are they from? Mars?

They claim to live? Build a time machine and go back to before 1948, and tell me that there isn't a fucking Palestinian living there.


Anyways, this is such hypocrasy. The US speaks of returning the land and rights of existence, yet it is occupying Native American land! Ha! And they expect others to respect them.

Then where are they from? Mars?

They claim to live? Build a time machine and go back to before 1948, and tell me that there isn't a fucking Palestinian living there.


Anyways, this is such hypocrasy. The US speaks of returning the land and rights of existence, yet it is occupying Native American land! Ha! And they expect others to respect them.

Except the current theory is that what we think of as indians weren't the original people group here at all.

Really? I didn't know that. Can you elaborate?

IIRC, the oldest remains found do not match those of the known ancestors of the main population at the time of Columbus - different biometrics place them as part of the same group that the Ainu descended from, while the current NativeAmericans descended from a later wave of East Asians colonists.

There has naver been a Nation State called Palestine, It either belonged to the Cannanites, Israel, Rome, The Ottomen Empire, the British Mandate or Israel, but there has never beeen a independent State of Palestine.

ps: the Indians didn't own the land, they had no concept of land ownership,

There has naver been a Nation State called Palestine, It either belonged to the Cannanites, Israel, Rome, The Ottomen Empire, the British Mandate or Israel, but there has never beeen a independent State of Palestine.

ps: the Indians didn't own the land, they had no concept of land ownership,

But there was a land, a land with people living on it called Pholesteen (Palestine), and the Palestinians were Arabs. So yes, it is their land.


But IT'S THEIR FUCKING LAND! What don't you understand? Trying to make excuses? The Natives were on the land first, who cares about who "owns" it officially, it always belongs to them. Give it back to them or else you speak shit.

But there was a land, a land with people living on it called Pholesteen (Palestine), and the Palestinians were Arabs. So yes, it is their land.


But IT'S THEIR FUCKING LAND! What don't you understand? Trying to make excuses? The Natives were on the land first, who cares about who "owns" it officially, it always belongs to them. Give it back to them or else you speak shit.


Philistines, not Palestinians, get your history right.

The Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders could never accept aboriginal rights.

That would mean they had to accept that their country is based on mass genocide; the natives of which are still not considered the same as the invaders.

Its more convenient when they are just bones like the 400 dead found in New York (half of them children). Build a memorial and forget about it.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9802/12/t_t/burial.ground/

Philistines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of region according to the Bible, showing the location of Philistine land and cities of Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon
Map of the southern Levant, c.830s BC.
Kingdom of Judah

Kingdom of Israel

Philistine city-states

Phoenician states

Kingdom of Ammon

Kingdom of Edom

Kingdom of Aram-Damascus

Aramean tribes

Arubu tribes

Nabatu tribes

Assyrian Empire

Kingdom of MoabThe historic Philistines (Hebrew פְּלְשְׁתִּים, plishtim) (see "other uses" below) were a people who inhabited the southern coast of Canaan before the time of the arrival of the Israelites, their territory being named Philistia in later contexts. Their origin has been debated among scholars, but modern archaeology has suggested early cultural links with the Mycenean world in mainland Greece. Though the Philistines adopted local Canaanite culture and language before leaving any written texts, an Indo-European origin has been suggested for a handful of known Philistine words (See Philistine language).

Nothing mentioned about Palestinians, or Syrians.

Genetics shows the people of Palestine are descendants of the original inhabitants. Shows uninterrupted occupation (without a 2000 year recess).

Eventually all traces of the Philistines as a people or ethnic group disappear. Subsequently the cities were under the control of Persians, Jews (Hasmonean Kingdom), Greeks (Seleucid Empire), Romans, and subsequent empires.

The name "Palestine" comes, via Greek and Latin, from the Philistines;

The Palestinians are genetic descendents of the Canaanites, whose culture was adopted by the Israelis when they came to Canaan.

They are also genetically similar to the Lebanese, who are descendants of the Canaanite Phoenicians

The name does not matter, but it is interesting that it has been applied to the people since such a long time. Over 2000 years in fact.

Far greater than the time the name Americans has been applied to citizens of the US.

Quite a deeply entrenched identity, wouldn't you say?

Eventually all traces of the Philistines as a people or ethnic group disappear. Subsequently the cities were under the control of Persians, Jews (Hasmonean Kingdom), Greeks (Seleucid Empire), Romans, and subsequent empires.

The name "Palestine" comes, via Greek and Latin, from the Philistines;

that isn't that common for example you do not here much about the dacians why the roman killed them and tried to suppress their culture over the longer time frame we are talking about it would not suprise me that one of the conquering powers was successful in destroying all records of them

Genetics shows the people of Palestine are descendants of the original inhabitants. Shows uninterrupted occupation (without a 2000 year recess).

Regrets, but the Jewish genetic signature is indistinguishable from that of the Palestinian. Genetics illustrates no evidence of "recess"; in fact, the system sounds unrooted. Sorry.

The Palestinians are genetic descendents of the Canaanites, whose culture was adopted by the Israelis when they came to Canaan.

They are also genetically similar to the Lebanese, who are descendants of the Canaanite Phoenicians

They are also genetically similar to both Ashkenazim and Occidental Jews.

I'm curious: do you have evidence of genetic association between Caanites and Palestinians? I've never seen this yet and I'd be keen to see such evidence, if you're citing it in support of your claim.

The Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders could never accept aboriginal rights.

That would mean they had to accept that their country is based on mass genocide
Every country has some mass genocide or other in its history. Hell, the entire human species (homo sapiens) probably wouldn't even exist had we not commited genocide against the Neanderthals!

So get off your high horse about crap that happened hundreds of years ago on the other side of the world and open your eyes to the atrocities occuring in your own country right now.


Genocide of India's daughters
Ten million female foetuses have been illegally aborted in India by mothers desperate to bear a son. What will become of this nation of ever fewer women? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=393896&in_page_id=1770

India: Genocide in Gujarat
Beginning on 28 February 2002, over 2,000 Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat are believed to have been murdered, over 80 of them burned alive and over 35,000 internally displaced by the dominant caste and community groups there. Independent investigators have pointed to the evidence of state complicity in the violence, in premeditation and planning behind the attacks on the lives, dignity, livelihoods, businesses and properties of the Muslim population and a selective assault on their religious and cultural places of worship. Muslim women were targeted for a particularly inhuman level of violence and sexual crimes.http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2003vol13no02/2252/

Every country has some mass genocide or other in its history.

Really ? What about singapore ?
It isn't perfect, but i don't recall more than a few hundred deaths occuring at once.

Unless of course that falls in your definition of other..

Is it any surprise to anyone that Australia refused to sign it ?

This arrogant action against our own indigenous people endorsed by the vast majority of Australians particularly shows Australia's racist and intolerant reluctance to treat Aborigines as equals this signifies that Aborigines are still to be retained in primitive slavery . There only future for Aboriginals is that there lands will become atomic/chemical waste dumps for the EU and the US . Australians still think that they have a manifest destiny to rob Aborigines whom they know to be weaker than them I call for an International boycott of Australia .

As a note to the moral corruption of the UN the Declaration of Aboriginal Rights deliberately omitted was the issue of indigenous Palestinians , absolutely disgraceful .

On topic though,
Yes, Absolutely shameful , add this to howards march into NT with the intention of using brute force to set things right..Although action is needed i doubt this is the right way to go. Labour hasn't comeup with better solutions
An intenational boycott doesn't work against a country like australia not with its ties to the US and with many of its Asian neighbours having several atrocities under their belt.

Really ? What about singapore ?
It isn't perfect, but i don't recall more than a few hundred deaths occuring at once.

Unless of course that falls in your definition of other..

Singapore became an independent republic on 9 August 1965. The new republic was admitted to the United Nations on September 21 that same year. So it has a very short track record.

Hoping to see a rebellion of the people against political censorhip eh buffalo ?, In a population of 3 million only a minority are politically active.By that i mean opposed to the government's continuing rule.. the same party has been in power since inception. Yet, no massacre, Perhaps dictators could learn a thing or two from singapore.

Hoping to see a rebellion of the people against political censorhip eh buffalo ?, In a population of 3 million only a minority are politically active.By that i mean opposed to the government's continuing rule.. the same party has been in power since inception. Yet, no massacre, Perhaps dictators could learn a thing or two from singapore.

I love your 12 year old logic, your really are pathetic in your logic, You use a Country as a example that is barely 50 years old, again not much of a track record, to make any compairison, there are a lot of countries with less than a 100 years of existiance who have major historys of killing their own, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Southern African, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, let see in a 100 years.

I love your 12 year old logic, your really are pathetic in your logic, You use a Country as a example that is barely 50 years old, again not much of a track record, to make any compairison, there are a lot of countries with less than a 100 years of existiance who have major historys of killing their own, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Southern African, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, let see in a 100 years.

All of those countries have a record of extensive western exploitation and abuse.
Singapore was slightly more lucky and let off as a trading post, albiet the lynchpin of british defense.

I think Buffalo's point was that other civilizations are also guilty of genocide and massacre - not all, but very, very many. Only give humans a chance and a reason, and they will fulfill all your darkest imaginings.

Genetics shows the people of Palestine are descendants of the original inhabitants. Shows uninterrupted occupation (without a 2000 year recess).

I don't understand why the Jewish people had to have their very own country. It's a bit like saying that gypsies should all live in one Country.

I'm starting at A in the hope of arriving at B and not Z.

Every country has some mass genocide or other in its history. Hell, the entire human species (homo sapiens) probably wouldn't even exist had we not commited genocide against the Neanderthals!

So get off your high horse about crap that happened hundreds of years ago on the other side of the world and open your eyes to the atrocities occuring in your own country right now.

How many that completely displaced millions and put the the original natives into reservations?

Regrets, but the Jewish genetic signature is indistinguishable from that of the Palestinian. Genetics illustrates no evidence of "recess"; in fact, the system sounds unrooted. Sorry.



They are also genetically similar to both Ashkenazim and Occidental Jews.

I'm curious: do you have evidence of genetic association between Caanites and Palestinians? I've never seen this yet and I'd be keen to see such evidence, if you're citing it in support of your claim.

Only 5% of the original population of Israel was native, the rest were immigrants. Thats the recess.

google for the origin of palestinians.

hmm..interesting.

Err..I'm confused so bear with me...what religion were the Arabs prior to Islam?

Jewish, Christian or pagans; Persians were Zoroastrians

Like Freddie Mercury!

I like the Zoroastrians..very peaceful and pious but I guess you would be if you were a tiny minority..


...very good swordsmen..I remember the Prisoner or Zoroastria!

Ahem...no, the Mark of Zoroastria!


..it takes awhile but I get there in the end.

:)

Philistines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of region according to the Bible, showing the location of Philistine land and cities of Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon
Map of the southern Levant, c.830s BC.
Kingdom of Judah

Kingdom of Israel

Philistine city-states

Phoenician states

Kingdom of Ammon

Kingdom of Edom

Kingdom of Aram-Damascus

Aramean tribes

Arubu tribes

Nabatu tribes

Assyrian Empire

Kingdom of MoabThe historic Philistines (Hebrew פְּלְשְׁתִּים, plishtim) (see "other uses" below) were a people who inhabited the southern coast of Canaan before the time of the arrival of the Israelites, their territory being named Philistia in later contexts. Their origin has been debated among scholars, but modern archaeology has suggested early cultural links with the Mycenean world in mainland Greece. Though the Philistines adopted local Canaanite culture and language before leaving any written texts, an Indo-European origin has been suggested for a handful of known Philistine words (See Philistine language).

Nothing mentioned about Palestinians, or Syrians.

Arabs. Not Palestininians or Syrians, it's Arab land. As it was under Saladin as well.

Who was living there before 1948? Arabs.


History that was 2000 years ago is irrelevant.
So yes, Palestine is Arab, and has been Arab since the Crusades.

How many that completely displaced millions and put the the original natives into reservations?
How many are still engaging in genocide right now?

How many are still engaging in genocide right now?

In Iraq? Aghanistan? 25 countries in 50 years?:rolleyes:

In Iraq? Aghanistan? 25 countries in 50 years?:rolleyes:
There's no genocide going on in Afghanistan or Iraq. If anything, our presence there now is helping to prevent one.

I don't understand why the Jewish people had to have their very own country. It's a bit like saying that gypsies should all live in one Country.

Yeah. Or Germans, French, Poles, or the like.

How many that completely displaced millions and put the the original natives into reservations?

The North American ones, the South American ones, the Australian ones and all the ones used to create dar-al-islam.

Only 5% of the original population of Israel was native, the rest were immigrants. Thats the recess.

Actually, you were trying to make your case on genetic grounds again, which don't support your scenario. Why do you keep coming back to this?

Jewish, Christian or pagans; Persians were Zoroastrians

"Targets", in other words. (See the tafsir to Sura 9). Those pogroms some people don't mind so much, it seems.

There's no genocide going on in Afghanistan or Iraq. If anything, our presence there now is helping to prevent one.

That explains why there are 4 million refugees, 4 million in each country that is. Are they coming to America?

Yeah. Or Germans, French, Poles, or the like.

The North American ones, the South American ones, the Australian ones and all the ones used to create dar-al-islam.

Actually, you were trying to make your case on genetic grounds again, which don't support your scenario. Why do you keep coming back to this?

"Targets", in other words. (See the tafsir to Sura 9). Those pogroms some people don't mind so much, it seems.

*looking for the point*

Look hard. It may elude the prejudicial mind.

Heh, like quoting religion in a thread on aboriginal rights?

What do you think of the fact that its the secular settler countries that refused to sign the UN declaration?

Heh, like quoting religion in a thread on aboriginal rights?

What do you think of the fact that its the secular settler countries that refused to sign the UN declaration?

I was hoping they would sign it so white people could use it to stop having their countries colonized by non-whites.

I was hoping they would sign it so white people could use it to stop having their countries colonized by non-whites.

white people are aborigines?

white people are aborigines?

They are in Europe. A case can be made that they are even in "settler" countries. Lots of groups have been displaced by other groups yet SAM only considers it a problem if those doing the pushing are white or Jewish.

Heh, like quoting religion in a thread on aboriginal rights?

What do you think of the fact that its the secular settler countries that refused to sign the UN declaration?

I disagree with their decision. Did you expect something else?

Then again, it could at least be said they're less hypocritical than some other nations, I guess.

"Human rights and social justice groups around the world were overjoyed last week when the U.N. General Assembly adopted the long-awaited U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The disappointment came when four countries with sizeable indigenous populations—Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand—voted against the declaration that was more than two decades in the making. Eleven countries abstained.

Although non-binding and mostly symbolic, the adoption of the declaration is seen as an affirmation of indigenous peoples' rights at a time when, in many regions in the world, indigenous peoples face daily threats to their well-being and survival."

Why would it matter if anyone signed it if it didn't mean a damn thing??? :confused:

At the risk of sounding like Max:

Great, we;re all happy about nothing again..

Count:

They are in Europe. A case can be made that they are even in "settler" countries. Lots of groups have been displaced by other groups yet SAM only considers it a problem if those doing the pushing are white or Jewish.


Yep, she never mentions the Adivasis who are displaced by Indians:
http://www.anar-kali.blogspot.com/

The one time I brought this up, she said something along the lines of "It was either displacement or starvation." No doubt many white and Jewish settlers felt the same way.

Yeah but the white settlers did it on a much larger scale across the entire dammn world.

That's the fault of the colonized for being so weak and decadent.

That's the fault of the colonized for being so weak and decadent.

You mean suspectible to disease ? Isn't that what caused the most deaths amongst Aboriginies and Native Indians in the early years ? . Gee..I don't know what medieval techniques there are to protect yourself from a disease you never heard of.

They are in Europe. A case can be made that they are even in "settler" countries. Lots of groups have been displaced by other groups yet SAM only considers it a problem if those doing the pushing are white or Jewish.

I thought their low birth rate was the reason they required immigrants.

Do you suppose the white people are under selection pressure?

You mean suspectible to disease ? Isn't that what caused the most deaths amongst Aboriginies and Native Indians in the early years ? . Gee..I don't know what medieval techniques there are to protect yourself from a disease you never heard of.

Well, they should have had better doctors and hospitals! If they'd invented and made machine guns, they could have protected themselves. See? It's still all the fault of the weak and the meek.

Baron Max

Very confused people
In the entire history of the human race people have migrated
from jungle to savannah, savannah to steppe, steppe to valley, valley to hillside, hillside to plain, plain.....to just about anywhere.
Land is land it belongs to no-one regardless of how you divide it and fence it off. You belong to the land and it will outlive you whether you call yourselves scots or ghanaians, americans or jews or jubblies from the land of nod. Whether your skin is blue or black or brown or pink or grey. None of you can see beyond the nationalistic/racialistic bullshit propaganda that is fed to you by whatever 'group' you all want to cling to.

Death is the only certainty in life and it owns you. Tell that to your 'country' and keep waving those flags.

That's the fault of the colonized for being so weak and decadent.

That can be said of white people today though.

I thought their low birth rate was the reason they required immigrants.

The people who pushed for this used a variety of reasons of which this is one. I actually read parts of that particular UN Declaration....

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to
forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress
for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their
integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their
lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of
violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic
discrimination directed against them

When white countries are flooded with racial aliens who breed much faster than the native population, all of the above happens.

Do you suppose the white people are under selection pressure?

When their lands are flooded with racial aliens they are.

Very confused people
In the entire history of the human race people have migrated
from jungle to savannah, savannah to steppe, steppe to valley, valley to hillside, hillside to plain, plain.....to just about anywhere.
Land is land it belongs to no-one regardless of how you divide it and fence it off. You belong to the land and it will outlive you whether you call yourselves scots or ghanaians, americans or jews or jubblies from the land of nod. Whether your skin is blue or black or brown or pink or grey. None of you can see beyond the nationalistic/racialistic bullshit propaganda that is fed to you by whatever 'group' you all want to cling to.

Death is the only certainty in life and it owns you. Tell that to your 'country' and keep waving those flags.

Keep that attitude and you'll find yourself moved to the North Pole by people who don't agree.

Yeah. Or Germans, French, Poles, or the like.


That is incomparable.

Look, here it is really simple. Jews can have their own nation, that's not the issue.

However, they can NOT displace the existing population in order to get at it. From the land given to Israel, it would've meant that they would've torn down the Palestinians' homes, their lives, etc, and those Palestinians would've had to move and get a new start, displaced from their own land WHEN THEY DID NOTHING TO DESERVE IT.


If Jews want their own nation, they can feel free to take any land that's uninhabited.

Like Antartica. They'd flourish and thrive and be the World's Largest Country!

If Jews want their own nation, they can feel free to take any land that's uninhabited.

Like Antartica.

Sounds like a realistic solution. Well done.

Has Israel ever considered simply buying out the Palestinians? Offer each Palestinian a house in some middle eastern country and some cash on the promise that they and their heirs relinquish all claims on Israeli land?

Has Israel ever considered simply buying out the Palestinians? Offer each Palestinian a house in some middle eastern country and some cash on the promise that they and their heirs relinquish all claims on Israeli land?

in 'Palestine' It is Punishable By Death to sell to an Israeli-- and they don't have trials.

And I might add. Arabs ARE living on their home Range/indigenuous area. Perhaps 110% of it even as of 1900 - even after/since they conquered everything but their sole original Home- Saudi Arabia.
Whether you call them Syrians, Iraqis, 'Jordanians' (who are 70% 'palestinian'.. it's such baloney with these new 1920-1940's names), etc.

And I might futher Add, they're also living on Top of Other peoples ranges- like Kurds.

Mostly though they have Cleansed the original/Indigenuous peoples so that now they are miniscule minorities -- as in Iraq, Egypt, and many other [now] arab countries-- and are actively engaged in Cleansing the Maronites from Lebanon and millions of the original Black Christians and animists (and even black Muslims) from Sudan.
Still Conquering as we speak.

Count:

That can be said of white people today though.


Sure.

White culture needs to get it's stuff together and start actively attempting to preserve itself.

Count:


Sure.

White culture needs to get it's stuff together and start actively attempting to preserve itself.

Question: What is white culture ?. I think i asked this before in another thread but didn't get a definitive answer. Something about surfing i think..

On another note: Has this issue come up on the mainstream media yet ? It should be an issue particularly with the elections.

Keep that attitude and you'll find yourself moved to the North Pole by people who don't agree.

Will you be there?

That is incomparable.

I know. I'm an incomparable kind of person.

Look, here it is really simple. Jews can have their own nation, that's not the issue.

However, they can NOT displace the existing population in order to get at it. From the land given to Israel, it would've meant that they would've torn down the Palestinians' homes, their lives, etc, and those Palestinians would've had to move and get a new start, displaced from their own land WHEN THEY DID NOTHING TO DESERVE IT.

Aside from the displacements in the current era, the Israelis of up to 1948 did nothing beyond buy land and immigrate in tiny numbers. Examining the period 1917-1921, the Jewish population remained at a steady 80K while the Arab population grew by about 50K to somewhere around 650K. You can't honestly tell me they were forcibly excising people in this period; it simply isn't possible. But in contrast, they were being attacked by paramilitary groups and mobs, and generally held as second-class citizens. By 1948, their holdings were, again, insignificant; and how much more insignificant were they in the 1920s, when the attacks started? The massive displacement you're talking about started in 1948, not prior; and it occurred because of a war that the neighbouring Arab powers started. The "nakba" itself was largely the fault of the Arab Legion, who told the Palestinian residents to move! I don't doubt that the Israelis saw this as their chance to get a contiguous, secure border, and I don't blame them after thirty years of experience of 'tolerance' by the locals, which apparently meant supression in the good old religious formula. I don't agree with their continuing pressure on Palestinian settlements today, of course. Then again I also don't agree with the nearly 100 years of informal warfare on the part of the Arabs either.

If Jews want their own nation, they can feel free to take any land that's uninhabited.

Palestine was largely uninhabited; the Jews were buying up the bloody uninhabited parts (and the worst of them) when the Arab violence bloody started. For God's sake, man. Think. That was the start of the hostility, when the Jews were just buying up land no one wanted. No one seems to get this. The Arab violence didn't magically appear in 1948 at the Nakba. It was intrinsic to the area, for the better part of 1400 years, frankly. Jews and others were tolerated, sure - but as Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts it, only as second class citizens. When they didn't "know their place", they weren't tolerated, and the violence was religiously sanctioned. Is there any wonder at the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's part in trying to form an alliance with Nazi Germany?? Of course not.

Like Antartica. They'd flourish and thrive and be the World's Largest Country!

Until history was rewritten to say that they had no right to be there, I imagine.

And I might futher Add, they're also living on Top of Other peoples ranges- like Kurds.

Mostly though they have Cleansed the original/Indigenuous peoples so that now they are miniscule minorities -- as in Iraq, Egypt, and many other [now] arab countries-- and are actively engaged in Cleansing the Maronites from Lebanon and millions of the original Black Christians and animists (and even black Muslims) from Sudan.
Still Conquering as we speak.

You know, this is a good point. Kurds, Baluchistanis, all the other indigenous tribes - these all get brushed under the carpet by people willing to attack Israelis and Westerners and all the rest, as if they were somehow part of the new pan-Arab sea. Are they? They don't seem to think so. And yet while completely ignoring the run-up to the presence of Israel - and their part in creating the problem - the usual suspects attack and attack, comfortably ignoring the ethnic minorities extirpated in their near and far histories on the basis that the ignorant Westerners probably will too. Yet, it's clear we shouldn't be ignoring them, if some people want to play tu quoque games of guilt all the time.

Has Israel ever considered simply buying out the Palestinians? Offer each Palestinian a house in some middle eastern country and some cash on the promise that they and their heirs relinquish all claims on Israeli land?

It's a Capital Offence punishable by death to sell land to a Jew.


PA legalises death penalty for land sales to Jews

The Palestinian Authority has passed a law making it a capital offence for Arabs to sell any property to an Israeli, and prohibiting any Israeli ownership of real estate "in Palestine", on pain of death. As the law contains no definition of what is considered Palestinian territory, it could therefore apply to land anywhere in today's Israel, as well as disputed areas such as eastern Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria. The "Foreign Ownership of Real Estate in Palestine" law forbids any "non-Arab Palestinian" of possessing "any real estate in Palestine". While it provides for special exceptions in some cases, "occupiers" (defined as "the Israeli occupying government and its civil and military institutions, settlements and whomever is under their authority") are specifically excluded from property-ownership. All foreigners who possess property must submit details of their holdings to the PA authorities within one year, or risk having it confiscated. Palestinians selling or brokering the sale of land to Israelis will have committed "high treason", while the Israeli parties to the deal will be guilty of causing "harm to national security". Both offences carry the death penalty. Ma'ariv's Nadav Haetzni quoted a senior jurist in the civil service as saying: "This is a racist law, which, if it were legislated by a friendly country such as Britain, we would interpret as a declaration of war against us, and which would cause an immediate severing of relations with it. We must understand the meaning of the legislation. This law states that any Israeli who owns land in a place that the Palestinians determine is Palestine, certainly in the settlements and in Jerusalem, will be sentenced to death. The same holds true for the Israeli government" (Dec 3).

IN the early hours of Saturday, May 31, Assad Rajibi was taken by force from his home near Jerusalem by six armed men. They hustled him into a car and raced off in the direction of Ram'Allah.

At that moment, the 57-year-old Arab land merchant must have known his life hung by a tenuous thread. Three other Palestinian realtors with business links to Israelis had been found dead in recent days, as hit teams enforced in their own grisly way a newly-announced Palestinian Authority law aimed at stamping out the sale of land to Jews.

Rajibi may well have become the fourth victim, but the two cars in which he and his captors were speeding towards the PA-controlled area never made Ram'Allah. Israeli security forces gave chase, stopped the vehicle and arrested the six men. Four of them were PA Preventive Security officers.

Less fortunate were Farid Bashiti, Mahmoud Ali Jamhour, and Harbi Abu Sarah, the three land dealers abducted, shot in the head and dumped. Yet another man, Muhmad el-Mitzri, was hospitalised after alleged torture at the hands of PA security officials who suspected him of selling property to Jews. The same night Rajibi was rescued, another attempted abduction was foiled, when members of Muhammed Abu Meleh's family alerted Israeli police of the arrival at their northern Jerusalem home of PA security men.

The Israelis arrived, the PA officers left, and Abu Meleh was placed under Israeli protection.

You know, this is a good point. Kurds, Baluchistanis, all the other indigenous tribes - these all get brushed under the carpet by people willing to attack Israelis and Westerners and all the rest, as if they were somehow part of the new pan-Arab sea. Are they? They don't seem to think so. And yet while completely ignoring the run-up to the presence of Israel - and their part in creating the problem - the usual suspects attack and attack, comfortably ignoring the ethnic minorities extirpated in their near and far histories on the basis that the ignorant Westerners probably will too. Yet, it's clear we shouldn't be ignoring them, if some people want to play tu quoque games of guilt all the time.

Old trick. Called divide and rule. Get people fighting among each other, accentuate their differences. Keep them busy while you exploit them for your own purpose.

Been there, done that. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. See also Sudan. Wanna protect oppressed minorities? Great, divide your own country and hand over some of it to all those unhappy people.

More fool you, anyone who believes there are actually minority interests at heart. Signed the UN declaration on rights of aborigines? rights of the child? right to effing food? regulation of arms trade? No?

in 'Palestine' It is Punishable By Death to sell to an Israeli-- and they don't have trials.

And I might add. Arabs ARE living on their home Range/indigenuous area. Perhaps 110% of it even as of 1900 - even after/since they conquered everything but their sole original Home- Saudi Arabia.
Whether you call them Syrians, Iraqis, 'Jordanians' (who are 70% 'palestinian'.. it's such baloney with these new 1920-1940's names), etc.

And I might futher Add, they're also living on Top of Other peoples ranges- like Kurds.

Mostly though they have Cleansed the original/Indigenuous peoples so that now they are miniscule minorities -- as in Iraq, Egypt, and many other [now] arab countries-- and are actively engaged in Cleansing the Maronites from Lebanon and millions of the original Black Christians and animists (and even black Muslims) from Sudan.
Still Conquering as we speak.

Not on their land, Palestinians are not.


Still conquering? Of course, yet not at the rate of the US conquest, I'm afraid.


Whether you call them Syrians, Iraqis, 'Jordanians'

Wow. Syria is not a "1920-1940's" name.

Syria has been around since the Saracens, if not before. The word "Syria", this proves your ignorance.


Same thing with Iraq. The land of Iraq has been around for a very, very long time. And the nature of being the land, the nation.



And let me tell you, quit speaking shit out of your mouth. "Cleansing" and all this bullshit.

You are making it seem like our daily lives and routines are revolved around this idiocy of your mind.

Visit Syria, visit Latakia, and I guarantee you the people aren't dressed up in witch suits dreaming about burning Jews or whatever shit comes out of you rmouth.

You fucking bring all this stupid shit into the spectrum, all of this irrelevance, and yet NEVER focus on cultural and musical or historical aspects of the region.


Believe it or not, Syrians DON'T spend their days dreaming of your shit.


And I take it as an insult that you talk before you even know what you are talking about.


100 posts, all of them anti-Semitic bullshit.

Old trick. Called divide and rule. Get people fighting among each other, accentuate their differences. Keep them busy while you exploit them for your own purpose.

No. Old trick. Called "sweep it all under the carpet and bitch about other people". Indigenous peoples in Iran, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. Ignore them. Hit the heavy publicized cases and pretend to an eternal homogeneity. No one's avocating a divide and rule exploitation here, Sam. You can look back over my posts above and see that for yourself. No one is advocating divide and rule here.

Been there, done that. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. See also Sudan. Wanna protect oppressed minorities? Great, divide your own country and hand over some of it to all those unhappy people.

I have a better idea: let them live where they lived before and not genocidally or ethnocidally obliterate them, and then claim them as your own, good, untouched people. Pretend to homogeneity. Or, do attack them out and then blame it on interlopers for - what was it? Keeping them apart. And thereby preventing the natural progression of slow strangulation of their culture by the more aggressive one. I believe that was your Sudan solution.

More fool you, anyone who believes there are actually minority interests at heart.

No idea where you're going with this. There are no minority interests?

Signed the UN declaration on rights of aborigines? rights of the child? right to effing food? regulation of arms trade? No?

Me personally?

It's a Capital Offence punishable by death to sell land to a Jew.


PA legalises death penalty for land sales to Jews
This is anti-semitic propaganda , no such offence punishable by execution exists in Palestinian law .
The DRAFT Of the Palestinian Constitution (http://www.pcpsr.org/domestic/2001/conste1.html)

Article 50

The law shall regulate the conditions of transfer of ownership of real estate to foreigners.

This is anti-semitic propaganda , no such offence punishable by execution exists in Palestinian law .

Don't be ridiculuous: it's an informal "legislation" of Hamas and any other PLO-connected body. Please stop spamming the thread. Thankyou.

Don't be ridiculuous: it's an informal "legislation" of Hamas and any other PLO-connected body. Please stop spamming the thread. Thankyou.

Its one of your anti-HAMAS tangents like the homicidal HAMAS mickey mouse debacle . Well you know the routine by now , I proved this claim to be garbage now its up to you to provide a credible media source that verifies this ridiculous claim .

Or I can take this as an admission you cannot substantiate this claim other than some rag tag racist Zionist propaganda front organization intent on spreading vicious anti-Semitism against Palestinians.

Again, please stop spamming the thread with your ridiculous off-topic recants of your defeats. Arafat himself admitted to the policy; it is for you now to find a way to pretend he didn't. Off you go.

I know. I'm an incomparable kind of person.



Aside from the displacements in the current era, the Israelis of up to 1948 did nothing beyond buy land and immigrate in tiny numbers. Examining the period 1917-1921, the Jewish population remained at a steady 80K while the Arab population grew by about 50K to somewhere around 650K. You can't honestly tell me they were forcibly excising people in this period; it simply isn't possible. But in contrast, they were being attacked by paramilitary groups and mobs, and generally held as second-class citizens. By 1948, their holdings were, again, insignificant; and how much more insignificant were they in the 1920s, when the attacks started? The massive displacement you're talking about started in 1948, not prior; and it occurred because of a war that the neighbouring Arab powers started. The "nakba" itself was largely the fault of the Arab Legion, who told the Palestinian residents to move! I don't doubt that the Israelis saw this as their chance to get a contiguous, secure border, and I don't blame them after thirty years of experience of 'tolerance' by the locals, which apparently meant supression in the good old religious formula. I don't agree with their continuing pressure on Palestinian settlements today, of course. Then again I also don't agree with the nearly 100 years of informal warfare on the part of the Arabs either.



Palestine was largely uninhabited; the Jews were buying up the bloody uninhabited parts (and the worst of them) when the Arab violence bloody started. For God's sake, man. Think. That was the start of the hostility, when the Jews were just buying up land no one wanted. No one seems to get this. The Arab violence didn't magically appear in 1948 at the Nakba. It was intrinsic to the area, for the better part of 1400 years, frankly. Jews and others were tolerated, sure - but as Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts it, only as second class citizens. When they didn't "know their place", they weren't tolerated, and the violence was religiously sanctioned. Is there any wonder at the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's part in trying to form an alliance with Nazi Germany?? Of course not.



Until history was rewritten to say that they had no right to be there, I imagine.

It might be prudent to note that Violence also started when Jewish immigration levels started rising, and british support for the Zionists increased.

It might be prudent to note that Violence also started when Jewish immigration levels started rising, and british support for the Zionists increased.


British support for the Zionist? :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

What. You never heard of Lord Rothschild or the Balfour Declaration ?

Again, please stop spamming the thread with your ridiculous off-topic recants of your defeats. Arafat himself admitted to the policy; it is for you now to find a way to pretend he didn't. Off you go.
Yep another baseless claim from Geoff exposed :poke:
What. You never heard of Lord Rothschild or the Balfour Declaration ?
I wouldnt bother expecting any reasonable debate with this poster buffalo roam Challenger , its not there , you know like , its , like talking with someone underwater .

Aside from the displacements in the current era, the Israelis of up to 1948 did nothing beyond buy land and immigrate in tiny numbers. Examining the period 1917-1921, the Jewish population remained at a steady 80K while the Arab population grew by about 50K to somewhere around 650K. You can't honestly tell me they were forcibly excising people in this period; it simply isn't possible. But in contrast, they were being attacked by paramilitary groups and mobs, and generally held as second-class citizens. By 1948, their holdings were, again, insignificant; and how much more insignificant were they in the 1920s, when the attacks started? The massive displacement you're talking about started in 1948, not prior; and it occurred because of a war that the neighbouring Arab powers started. The "nakba" itself was largely the fault of the Arab Legion, who told the Palestinian residents to move! I don't doubt that the Israelis saw this as their chance to get a contiguous, secure border, and I don't blame them after thirty years of experience of 'tolerance' by the locals, which apparently meant supression in the good old religious formula. I don't agree with their continuing pressure on Palestinian settlements today, of course. Then again I also don't agree with the nearly 100 years of informal warfare on the part of the Arabs either.



Palestine was largely uninhabited; the Jews were buying up the bloody uninhabited parts (and the worst of them) when the Arab violence bloody started. For God's sake, man. Think. That was the start of the hostility, when the Jews were just buying up land no one wanted. No one seems to get this. The Arab violence didn't magically appear in 1948 at the Nakba. It was intrinsic to the area, for the better part of 1400 years, frankly. Jews and others were tolerated, sure - but as Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts it, only as second class citizens. When they didn't "know their place", they weren't tolerated, and the violence was religiously sanctioned. Is there any wonder at the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's part in trying to form an alliance with Nazi Germany?? Of course not.



Until history was rewritten to say that they had no right to be there, I imagine.


Rewritten history?

Like this?



According to Benny Morris, recently declassified documents in the archives of the IDF reveal that in 1947, Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders concluded that a Jewish state could not come into being in the territory assigned to Jews by the UN without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians.... In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

This resulted in "far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought," including "many cases of rape [that] ended in murder" and executions of Palestinians who were lined up against a wall and shot (in Operation Hiram).
The dismantling of Palestinian society, the destruction of Palestinian towns and villages, and the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians were not unavoidable consequences of the war declared on the emerging Jewish state by Arab countries. Rather, as Morris repeatedly confirms, it was a deliberate and planned operation intended to "cleanse" (the term used in the declassified documents) those parts of Palestine assigned to the Jews as a necessary pre-condition for the emergence of a Jewish state.

The incredulous interviewer asks Morris, "Ben-Gurion was a 'transferist'?" Morris replies, "Of course." He adds, "Ben-Gurion was right. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here." Indeed, Morris faults Ben-Gurion for limiting the "cleansing" to the 1948 armistice line. "Even though understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered." Morris believes that it is only a question of time before Israel will have to complete the job begun in 1947 by "cleansing" the entire West Bank as well.
[B]
The interviewer asked Morris whether he was not justifying war crimes. Morris replied that the necessity and nobility of the Jewish people's return to their patrimony justified what the Jewish forces did. "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.... The need to establish this [Jewish] state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."


http://www.vopj.org/issues50.htm

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleasing.."
What the ?
What circumstances.. ?

What. You never heard of Lord Rothschild or the Balfour Declaration ?



The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, by the Arab League, and by most of the Arab population. Most of the Jews accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation. The British refused to implement any parts of the Plan deemed unacceptable by either side.

The British government placed limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. These quotas were controversial, particularly in the latter years of British rule,

The British didn't offer unwavering support to the Israelis.

According to official records, 367,845 Jews and 33,304 non-Jews immigrated legally between 1920 and 1945.[33] It was estimated that another 50–60,000 Jews and a small number of non-Jews immigrated illegally during this period.[34] Immigration accounts for most of the increase of Jewish population, while the non-Jewish population increase was largely natural. These figures have been supported by later studies[35], though estimates of Arab immigration have been disputed.[36]

Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab resentment.

The British government placed limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. These quotas were controversial, particularly in the latter years of British rule, and both Arabs and Jews disliked the policy, each side for its own reasons. In response to numerous Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, was formed on June 15, 1920 to defend Jewish residents. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1921, 1929 (primarily violent attacks by Arabs on Jews — see Hebron) and 1936–1939. Beginning in 1936, several Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted their own campaigns of violence against British military and Arab targets. This prompted the British government to label them both as terrorist organizations.

Threy labeled both sides as Terrorist.

Rewritten history?

Like this?

http://www.vopj.org/issues50.htm

Firstly, I'm really not sure of your sources, but even supposing that they're correct, I didn't say that Israel was guiltless in this - as I've said many times. However, they didn't fire the first shots, as the history illustrates. You seem to have missed that bit in your reactionary zeal.

GeoffP: "I don't agree with [Israel's] continuing pressure on Palestinian settlements today, of course."

Palestinian "settlements"? Let's give him a pass on that curious phrase. Because what's more interesting to me here is a laudable tone I've never noticed before from Geoff:

"I didn't say that Israel was guiltless in this - as I've said many times."

Then I've not been paying attention, because I have entirely missed those numerous occasions. My apologies Geoff, for not noticing your consistent criticism of zionist policy- and cheers for acknowledging the bigger picture.

The British didn't offer unwavering support to the Israelis.



Threy labeled both sides as Terrorist.

But surely, They offered more support to the Israeli's than the Arabs, The Arabs interest wasn't even taken into consideration in the summits between Britain and the other post WWII nations.

But surely, They offered more support to the Israeli's than the Arabs, The Arabs interest wasn't even taken into consideration in the summits between Britain and the other post WWII nations.

It seems that the British tried to stay neutral, and not play favorites.

The British refused to implement any parts of the Plan deemed unacceptable by either side.

But surely, They offered more support to the Israeli's than the Arabs, The Arabs interest wasn't even taken into consideration in the summits between Britain and the other post WWII nations.

The Arab interest weren't taken into consideration? :roflmao: Just what do you call Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, all under British rule and given their independence, What do you call Glubb Pasha sent by the British to Jordan, and he turned the Arab Legion, into a crack outfit.

A British Officer built the Jordanian Arab Legion.

The British didn't send any help to the Israelis now did they, and they gave 99% of the Land to the Arabs, so how do you figure that the British didn't give consideration to the Arabs?

The Arab interest weren't taken into consideration? :roflmao: Just what do you call Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, all under British rule and given their independence, What do you call Glubb Pasha sent by the British to Jordan, and he turned the Arab Legion, into a crack outfit.

A British Officer built the Jordanian Arab Legion.

The British didn't send any help to the Israelis now did they, and they gave 99% of the Land to the Arabs, so how do you figure that the British didn't give consideration to the Arabs?

They didn't take the interest of the native Palestinians the ones that were definitely going to be misplaced, The british couldn't get away with breaking any promises to those groups, but they could with the Palestinians.

They didn't take the interest of the native Palestinians the ones that were definitely going to be misplaced, The british couldn't get away with breaking any promises to those groups, but they could with the Palestinians.


The Hashemite Emir Abdullah, elder son of Britain's wartime Arab ally Sharif Hussein of Mecca, was placed on the throne of Transjordan. Britain recognized Transjordan as a state on May 15, 1923, and gradually relinquished control, limiting its oversight to financial, military and foreign policy matters. This had an impact on the goals of Zionism, as it effectively severed Transjordan from Palestine and so reduced the area of a future Jewish state in the region. [1] In March 1946, under the Treaty of London, Transjordan became a kingdom and on May 25, 1946, the parliament of Transjordan proclaimed the emir king, and formally changed the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. After capturing the 'West Bank' area of Cisjordan during the 1948–49 war with Israel, Abdullah took the title King of Jordan, and he officially changed the country's name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in April 1949. The following year he annexed the West Bank. With the exception of the French Cisjordanie, the coinage, Cisjordan, meant to apply specifically to the West Bank at that time, has not since caught on, outside Jordanian circles.
So it would appear that the British didn't the Israelis into account, they sure seemed to make sure that the Palestinians Arabs got the biggest share of the land.

"I didn't say that Israel was guiltless in this - as I've said many times."

Then I've not been paying attention, because I have entirely missed those numerous occasions. My apologies Geoff, for not noticing your consistent criticism of zionist policy- and cheers for acknowledging the bigger picture.

You are emininently forgiven. Go in the peace and tranquility of Myuu.

So it would appear that the British didn't the Israelis into account, they sure seemed to make sure that the Palestinians Arabs got the biggest share of the land.

They still gave land away didn't they.. They're pretty much the reason Israel Exists today.

Isn't it funny how S.A.M derailed that 'Throw a git on the barbecue' thread by whining about Australia's treatment of aborigines. Yet she fails to discuss the same topic on a thread DEVOTED to Australia's treatment of the Abbos.

Now THAT'S irony.

S.A.M:

In Iraq? Aghanistan? 25 countries in 50 years?


How on earth is American occupation equivalent to genocide? Genocide is the targeted and systematic extermination of a racial, religious or political group. I don't support American interference any more than you do, but to claim that the American occupation is equivalent to genocide is hyperbole, and intellectually dishonest.


That explains why there are 4 million refugees, 4 million in each country that is. Are they coming to America?


Many are clamouring to get into America. The problem is that America is reluctant to open its doors to 4 million Iraqi citizens, especially considering the current climate.

But they are going to admit 7,000 refugees:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/

And tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees were granted sanctuary in the U.S during Saddam's regime:
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/iraqi_refugees.htm

Nonetheless, over 32,000 Iraqi refugees were resettled in the United States through 2002, adding to the population of non-refugee Iraqi immigrants, for a total of about 90,000 foreign-born Iraqis

S.A.M:


How on earth is American occupation equivalent to genocide? Genocide is the targeted and systematic extermination of a racial, religious or political group. I don't support American interference any more than you do, but to claim that the American occupation is equivalent to genocide is hyperbole, and intellectually dishonest.[/url]

You're right, the five year presence of the US in Iraq is not a targeted and systematic extermination of Iraqis. Its just a tiny little error in collateral damages.

Isn't it funny how S.A.M derailed that 'Throw a git on the barbecue' thread by whining about Australia's treatment of aborigines. Yet she fails to discuss the same topic on a thread DEVOTED to Australia's treatment of the Abbos.

Now THAT'S irony.

Feel free to add to the discussion by contributing your views on Australian aborigines.

S.A.M:

You're right, the five year presence of the US in Iraq is not a targeted and systematic extermination of Iraqis. Its just a tiny little error in collateral damages.


It's nice to agree with you for once.

the sooner politicians realise that there is a way to get Aboriginal's voting (they've had that right since 1962), They would be able to change it and win themselves the election, as it is we're more concerned about ourselves and the economy.

Is it any surprise to anyone that Australia refused to sign it ?

This arrogant action against our own indigenous people endorsed by the vast majority of Australians particularly shows Australia's racist and intolerant reluctance to treat Aborigines as equals this signifies that Aborigines are still to be retained in primitive slavery . There only future for Aboriginals is that there lands will become atomic/chemical waste dumps for the EU and the US . Australians still think that they have a manifest destiny to rob Aborigines whom they know to be weaker than them I call for an International boycott of Australia .

As a note to the moral corruption of the UN the Declaration of Aboriginal Rights deliberately omitted was the issue of indigenous Palestinians , absolutely disgraceful .

any chance you could tell us in bitesize portions what the decleration includes?

You're right, the five year presence of the US in Iraq is not a targeted and systematic extermination of Iraqis. Its just a tiny little error in collateral damages.

Your roundabout accusation is the most absurd thing you've posted yet. Please desist. "Targeted and systematic"...that must be why the death rate is going down. Why, there are no Iraqis left! That must be it.

Your roundabout accusation is the most absurd thing you've posted yet. Please desist. "Targeted and systematic"...that must be why the death rate is going down. Why, there are no Iraqis left! That must be it.

Is it? Anyone counting? Oh you mean the US troops? :rolleyes:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.iraqdead09oct09,0,6936773.story

So multiple polls and scientific surveys all suggest the official figures and media-based estimates in Iraq have missed 70 percent to 95 percent of all deaths. The evidence suggests that the extent of underreporting by the media is only increasing with time.

Is it? Anyone counting? Oh you mean the US troops?

Lots of people are counting. It looks pretty unsystematic.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Cool. We agree. ;)


...it's Hallowe'en!