Forums

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the Palestinians get to pay for the Nazis crimes? Europe couldn't and didn't want to repay the Jews for what they did to them, so the decided to make the Palestinians pay?

The US conquered Iraq. So following your logic, couldn't we keep it? So would it be OK for the US to expel the Arabs out of Iraq? We won it fairly and squarely in a war?

I am tired of theory and circular argument, Spanky. In theory, it was wrong for Israel to expel Arabs from Israel. Big fucking deal. It was wrong for the Baylonians, the Romans, and the Muslims to expel the Israelites from Israel.

So what. I agree it was wrong. You keep casting for an argument so you can be a snarky self-satisfied putz by arguing in cirlces until whoever you've set your sights on gets tired and walks away. I'm not playing.

Propose a solution or let it go.

I am having trouble with your logic here. So are you saying it was OK for the US to grab land from Mexico, and it was OK for the US to ethnically cleanse the Indians so therefore it was OK for the Israelis to do what they did?

Or were those things were wrong, but since the US did wrong things in the nineteenth century the Israelis get to do wrong things too?

So what is it? It seems to me that those things were wrong and it is wrong that Israelis did what they did (and continues to do). Or those things were OK so it is OK that Israel did what it did?

No. It's not okay; it's just the way it is. Find a way to fix or stop harping on it.

So are you justifying ethnic cleansing?

Don't be an asshat.

So under your doctrine of: "if you win, you can take other peoples land" it would have been OK for Russia to hold Hungary and Romania to this day, and still not allowing the native populations to vote? Or if they wanted, they could have expelled the native populations of Romania and Hungary and replaced them with ethnic Russians?

I don't have your over-weening sense of self-importance. I don't announce doctrines.

What do you mean? Under your doctrine we don't have to move the troops out at all, ever. The Israelis never moved their troops out. We can just expel the Arabs in Baghdad and leave our troops there. And then fill the empty land with Texans. If the Arabs we just expelled start giving us trouble, we just conquer the land they moved to (maybe Syria), and then militarily occupy the land they have been pushed into so they don't give us anymore trouble about wanting their original homes and land back. How is that different from what the Israelis did?

My point here is very simple. We need so many troops over there that there's no room for resettlement even if that was our goal. But of course it isn't, and you know it isn't, so stop being an asshole.

Isn't that ethnic cleansing and aren't you just giving excuses for ethnic cleansing? It seems to fit the definition to me: expelling the native population because of their race (and religion), and replacing the population with people from somewhere else who are of another religion and race. When the Serbians tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo couldn't they have made the same argument you made? The Albanians can't be trusted and they couldn’t police them? And besides the Serbians could have argued that the Albanians they were expelling could go live in Albania or the rest of Europe.

Again, it was wrong in Kosovo. So what. How is that helping find a solution to the Israel problem. Until you have a solution that might actually be workable and politically acceptable, you can keep jerking off intellectually. I think your argument is sophistry and your arrogance seriously unwarranted. I'm not playing anymore.

The power of your intellect is truly dazzling. That sort of logic is very persuasive.

I wasn't trying to persuade. You haven't shown me that you can be persuaded of anything by reason or logic. You don't have the equipment and I have neither the interest nor the time.