Poor Poor Israel

[TheBrutalTruth]

I just want to say that i think the idea of " land ownership " is ridiculous in it's entirety. How can you " own " something that is ever changing, was there before you ever came along, and will be there long after you are gone. Who did you " buy " it from, and who " sold " it to them. Or who did you " take " it from, and who did they " take " it from. Up here, we have people say " I own that river, stream, creek, etc. " Really, how the fuck are you going to own a river. Give me a break. And when you take religion, which should be seperate from everything except what's in your own mind, and add it to the mix, well, obviously everything just gets more fucked up. We are one species, living on one planet. You either care about every person on the planet, or you care only about yourself. Everything for everone, or nothing for anyone. You choose.

Its their property because they are using it. Your arguments break down when they are applied to determining whether or not a person has a right to land that they are living on. In your case the answer is no, in the case of any rational human being that actually respects the laws and customs of society the answer is a resounding yes.

Or a better argument for property rights is the argument that has the person that is claiming ownership has improved the land by building structures on it, it is thus their land.

So, Improvement, by building on it, Occupation, by living on it, or Use, of it are key tests for property rights, but not the only tests. As the structure of society is built up on the rights of holders of properties to deny those rights is to deny society.

Your arguments show an extreme misunderstanding of what society is, and how it came to be.

 

[riznob10000]

Its their property because they are using it. Your arguments break down when they are applied to determining whether or not a person has a right to land that they are living on. In your case the answer is no, in the case of any rational human being that actually respects the laws and customs of society the answer is a resounding yes.

Or a better argument for property rights is the argument that has the person that is claiming ownership has improved the land by building structures on it, it is thus their land.

So, Improvement, by building on it, Occupation, by living on it, or Use, of it are key tests for property rights, but not the only tests. As the structure of society is built up on the rights of holders of properties to deny those rights is to deny society.

Your arguments show an extreme misunderstanding of what society is, and how it came to be.

The structure of society has always been dictated by the " have's " as opposed to the " have not's ". And my argument wasn't that, more a simplification of what should be. And i misunderstand nothing, i know how the world works, and for the most part, it's completely fucked up! You have roughly 20% of the world's population consuming 80% of it's production ( industrialized countries ). There is an extreme dissparity between those who have and those who have not. In America, you have single induviduals who claim to own 10,000/100,000/1,000,000 acres of land, while all over the world you have 1,000,000 people trying to exist, to survive, to not starve to death on 100 square acres. I make no illusions as to how the world and " societies " operate. And i know the difference between right and wrong. If i go and occupy 5 acres of the man's property that owns 1,000,000 acres, maybe put up some structures, plant a garden, bury a family member, is it then mine? Or do I owe something to him? Some of my ancestors came from Europe, fleeing religious persecution ( just like the Jewish, if anyone happens to miss the correllation ). Can I go back and say they land they used to " occupy " should now be mine? Fuck whoever lives there now? People need to quit being so goddamned materialistic, or religious zealots, and realize we're all in this together. One tribe of many faces.

 

[bicycle racer]

oh so you have to be a soldier from an established overpowering and wrong nation to qualify as a soldier well the mental training and propaganda has worked. attempt free thought at some point its more satisfying. so when our founding fathers of this country fought the english and with no established country to speak of they were something else than soldiers? so any time a population fights against unjust action there not soldiers but what? think before you post.

 

[bicycle racer]

riznob i agree but religious people are stupid and cant see beyond there religion and the feeling there right and devine in there FAITH. its similar to racism im not sure if there is a term for that kind of ignorance so i will call it religalism.

 

[ilkhan]

TBT is correct.
People come together and form society to protect their property.
Force is the ultimate arbiter of property ownership.
Hence Libertarians dislike for initiating force or violence.
You own yourself, you own your mind, you own your labor,
hence you own the labor on your land.
Most of the horrors that have taken place in the world,
stem from a lack of respect for property rights.

Native Americans didn't believe in owning land.
It worked OK for them, but really the tribes owned land collectively.
They however had relatively low populations.
(save in Mexico were I'm pretty sure property rights were held by kings.)
In a modern society you should be king in your domain.
So long as your not causing property damage to another through your activities.

Don't get to hating on religious people.
Atheists and Agnostics seem just as devout
and snooty in their beliefs.
IMO

 

[The Warlord]

oh so you have to be a soldier from an established overpowering and wrong nation to qualify as a soldier well the mental training and propaganda has worked. attempt free thought at some point its more satisfying. so when our founding fathers of this country fought the english and with no established country to speak of they were something else than soldiers? so any time a population fights against unjust action there not soldiers but what? think before you post.

UHMMM.......Well since our leaders got together and basically officialy declared war and raised the CONTINENTAL ARMY they were not terrorists. Armys fight each other, terrorists blow up civilians in cafes and subways. Hardly the same thing, no?

 

[medicineman]

UHMMM.......Well since our leaders got together and basically officialy declared war and raised the CONTINENTAL ARMY they were not terrorists. Armys fight each other, terrorists blow up civilians in cafes and subways. Hardly the same thing, no?

Most of the "Continental army was made up of rif-raf from the frontier. What the British would describe as terrorists. Private citizens in their coon skin caps and long rifles doing battle with the british regulars. It was the terrorist like tactics that brought the British their defeats. Standing in lines in the open didn't work well against colonists behind trees. The powers that be always determine who the terrorists are.

 

[bicycle racer]

my point exactly.

 

[ganjman]

This is, summed up, the situation, so listen up lads.

Muslims hate EVERYONE.
Christians hate no one.
Buddists hate no one.
Shiks hate no one.
Jew's and hindus hate muslims.

The muslim bombed the jews, so the jews destroyed the muslims.

What so wrong? That the jews think "Fuck, we're not going to let those dirty suicide bombing scum muslims blow us up, we'll finish them off first."

They're sticking up for themselves, thats all. Just coz christains stand there letting themselves be blown up, and the jews dont and fight back makes the jews look wrong.

Well no way. The muslims are wrong, in every SINGLE little fucked up aspect of their religion.

It's not even about religion. Muslims are bad people. Good people get rid of the bad.

It's, actually, as simple as that. It's all the muslims fault.

 

[medicineman]

This is, summed up, the situation, so listen up lads.

Muslims hate EVERYONE.
Christians hate no one.
Buddists hate no one.
Shiks hate no one.
Jew's and hindus hate muslims.

The muslim bombed the jews, so the jews destroyed the muslims.

What so wrong? That the jews think "Fuck, we're not going to let those dirty suicide bombing scum muslims blow us up, we'll finish them off first."

They're sticking up for themselves, thats all. Just coz christains stand there letting themselves be blown up, and the jews dont and fight back makes the jews look wrong.

Well no way. The muslims are wrong, in every SINGLE little fucked up aspect of their religion.

It's not even about religion. Muslims are bad people. Good people get rid of the bad.

It's, actually, as simple as that. It's all the muslims fault.

"I'm smart because I smoke weed"? Seems like weed is making you dumber than a box of rocks. Not all muslims are bad, just as not all christians are bad. George Bush, a professed Christian, is responsible for a million lives. He is a bad christian. Anyone that believes in the taking of lives to promote a point is in my mind a bad person, no matter what religion or non-religion they hail from.

 

[The Warlord]

Most of the "Continental army was made up of rif-raf from the frontier. What the British would describe as terrorists. Private citizens in their coon skin caps and long rifles doing battle with the british regulars. It was the terrorist like tactics that brought the British their defeats. Standing in lines in the open didn't work well against colonists behind trees. The powers that be always determine who the terrorists are.

It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Sheesh!

GO Israel. Blast them wacko terrorists! YAY!

And with that closing thought I leave this thread to those who love the people who kill their daughters if they don't marry who their parents tell them too.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Sheesh!

GO Israel. Blast them wacko terrorists! YAY!

And with that closing thought I leave this thread to those who love the people who kill their daughters if they don't marry who their parents tell them too.

They don't love them for that reason Warlord, they love them because they hate America, just like they do.

 

[The Warlord]

They don't love them for that reason Warlord, they love them because they hate America, just like they do.

Ya, your probably right.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Ya, your probably right.

No, from what I understand being right requires Political Correctness, I'm not politically correct, so according to the left I can never be right. Of course the entire fact that they accuse me of being a right-wing fascist confuses me. Obviously if I'm on the right-wing does that mean they are all on the wrong-wing? :: shrugs :: Politics, the science of many blood sucking parasites.

 

[bicycle racer]

so anyone who speaks out about israels obvious abuses of human rights hates america? thats ridiculous and an ignorant statement. israel is out of control and will reap what they sow for there inhuman treatment of anyone not israeli and there self justifying ways. mark my words it may be tomorrow it may be in 20 years.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

What the American revolutionists did was use guerrilla tactics.

They were not out there blowing up innocent civilians at work, or in the streets.

They attacked the British military. Our army even had uniforms, fought line to line on the battlefield, had forts, etc...

The British DID use terrorist tactics however. Burning homes, killing the owners of said homes, etc...

But alas, the times were different, and that was par for the course.

 

[bicycle racer]

war is war horrible bad things happen and innocents are killed on all sides hence why it should be avoided. not every person fighting israel blows themselves up thats one more bit of widespread western propaganda. they use guerilla tactics same as any weaker force around the world and through history.

 

[medicineman]

What the American revolutionists did was use guerrilla tactics.

They were not out there blowing up innocent civilians at work, or in the streets.

They attacked the British military. Our army even had uniforms, fought line to line on the battlefield, had forts, etc...

The British DID use terrorist tactics however. Burning homes, killing the owners of said homes, etc...

But alas, the times were different, and that was par for the course.

The British, being the BMOC were calling the Colonists terrorists, assholes, revolutionaries, guerillas, or anything that suited them. They were the ones writing the history books at that time. Luckily, some colonists were also writing ledgers of activities, and hence we get American History. I wonder what the British history books of the era read like? "Those upstart colonists are at it again, throwing tea into the harbor". "We'll have to teach them a lesson".

 

[bicycle racer]

the american british conflict is only one example of hundreds throughout history where the ruling power forced its will on other peoples. at some point the risk of death is outweighed by the quality of living forced upon them at which point conflicts begin. israel and other powers that control weaker populations and abuse and control them should consider reading up on human history if not israel will not exist for long.

 

[ganjman]

"I'm smart because I smoke weed"? Seems like weed is making you dumber than a box of rocks. Not all muslims are bad, just as not all christians are bad. George Bush, a professed Christian, is responsible for a million lives. He is a bad christian. Anyone that believes in the taking of lives to promote a point is in my mind a bad person, no matter what religion or non-religion they hail from.

Dumb? And your a fucking yank... Have a think you moron