[QUOTE=Lachz0r;21940760]I thought the Nazi's pretty much rigged the elections? But also, why do Jews have to have their own country? Gypsies dont. Can we please make a country for the gypsies??????[/QUOTE]
The Jews deserve their own country just like any other nation does. The Gypsies as far as I know don't want their own state, they want to travel and don't like to stay at one place for too long. If they would like a state, I don't see why they shouldn't get one.
[editline]05:31PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940903]Keyword: At one point.[/QUOTE]
Israel also experienced it's share of terroristic history, like the terrorist Zionist groups, the Lehi and the Irgun, however Israel doesn't practice terrorism and has not since the 50's, these two groups were abolished soon after the Israeli war of independence was over.
Where will the gypsy state be??? Alot of gypsies come from eastern europe... Can we just kick the lithuanians out and take their country??? they wont mind its ours by right :)
No-one like Gypsies, but then again no-one likes Jews either. I reckon one of the former Soviet Union countries belongs to the gypsies, problem is countries don't wander around. They might have a bit of trouble actually running a country over a small band and even more trouble staying in the one place.
While we're on the matter of who gets countries, the Nazi's also persecuted Homosexuals. A small section of California should secede from the United states (around San Francisco) and form Gayland. All the gays that Iran, Sudan and other Muslim countries excecute run off to their own little country.
What you don't understand is that there is a difference between an ethnic group and a nation, and the difference is that a nation seeks to control a sovereign state of their own, while an ethnic group does not. For example the Jews, until the start of Zionism, was an ethnic group, not a nation. When they turned into a nation, they got their right to form an independent country, any nation does.
Homosexuals of course aren't an ethnic group and aren't a nation, and they don't seek to control a sovereign state of their own.
Gypsies are an ethnicity, as they don't seek to form their own state, and until then, we shouldn't think about things like "which land will they receive?" because there are a lot of ethnic groups in the world who aren't nations. We'll have to think about this once they decide to have their own nation, "we'll cross the bridge when we get there".
I understand fully well, I was joking at the fact that people think it's because of Nazi persecution that Israel exists. I thought it was fairly obvious when I claimed San Francisco for Gayland.
I think both countries are shit. I hate it when 1 guy defends Israel while the other attacks Isreal/defend some other country.
SO both Iran and Israel sucks.
Yeah well I just wasn't sure what you meant and wanted to explain further, for Lachz0r and anyone else who doesn't understand.
i am a gypsy and i am the gypsy form of zionism. gibe me nation pls
Then you are officially a part of the Gypsy nation. I don't know if there are other members of this nation, but if you can get a good number of like-minded people then you should appeal to the UN and ask for your own state, they should handle it.
And the correct term would be "gypsy form of nationalism", since Zionism is just the Jewish form of nationalism.
thank you kind sir
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21941048]The Jews deserve their own country [/QUOTE]
says who?
oh, and lets slaughter thousands of innocent people so they GET that state
you're a fucking psychopath.
A lot of Jews would disagree with you. I can name two: me and Albert Einstein.
[editline]04:15PM[/editline]
how old are you?
[editline]04:16PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;21941838]thank you kind sir[/QUOTE]
I like france, come lachz0r, lets go cleanse OUR land of frenchies.
[editline]04:17PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21941298]What you don't understand is that there is a difference between an ethnic group and a nation, and the difference is that a nation seeks to control a sovereign state of their own, while an ethnic group does not. For example the Jews, until the start of Zionism, was an ethnic group, not a nation. When they turned into a nation, they got their right to form an independent country, any nation does.
Homosexuals of course aren't an ethnic group and aren't a nation, and they don't seek to control a sovereign state of their own.
Gypsies are an ethnicity, as they don't seek to form their own state, and until then, we shouldn't think about things like "which land will they receive?" because there are a lot of ethnic groups in the world who aren't nations. We'll have to think about this once they decide to have their own nation, "we'll cross the bridge when we get there".[/QUOTE]
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942385]says who?[/quote]
Says almost everyone, including the UN.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942385]oh, and lets slaughter thousands of innocent people so they GET that state[/quote]
Just because two terrorist organizations which weren't supported but objected by the majority of Zionists and the Zionist leadership did terrible things doesn't mean the rest of the Zionists, especially those who objected the terrorists, have to suffer.
By your logic, just because Al-Qaeda claims the US is satan and they must killed every American because this is Allah's will and every Muslim must do this, Islam is an evil religion which must be removed from earth.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942385]A lot of Jews would disagree with you. I can name two: me and Albert Einstein.[/quote]
Good for you, but this is not relevant.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942385]how old are you?[/quote]
I don't see how this is relevant.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942385]I like france, come lachz0r, lets go cleanse OUR land of frenchies.[/quote]
If you have some historical claims to create a country in France then appeal to the UN and they'll decide if you deserve a country or not.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21942494]Says almost everyone, including the UN.[/quote]
the same incompetent un
[quote]Just because two terrorist organizations which weren't supported but objected by the majority of Zionists and the Zionist leadership did terrible things doesn't mean the rest of the Zionists, especially those who objected the terrorists, have to suffer.[/quote]
except the zionist controlled government of Israel constantly slaughters innocent people in Palestine?
it's the whole government of Israel.
[quote]By your logic, just because Al-Qaeda claims the US is satan and they must killed every American because this is Allah's will and every Muslim must do this, Islam is an evil religion which must be removed from earth.[/quote]
what the fuck are you talking about?
[quote]Good for you, but this is not relevant.
I don't see how this is relevant.[/quote]
uh, yeah, it is.
[quote]If you have some historical claims to create a country in France then appeal to the UN and they'll decide if you deserve a country or not.[/QUOTE]
the torah is not a fucking histoical claim you cunt.
you are a fucking ignorant, blood thirsty child
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21942494]Just because two terrorist organizations which weren't supported but objected by the majority of Zionists and the Zionist leadership did terrible things doesn't mean the rest of the Zionists, especially those who objected the terrorists, have to suffer. By your logic, just because Al-Qaeda claims the US is satan and they must killed every American because this is Allah's will and every Muslim must do this, Islam is an evil religion which must be removed from earth.[/QUOTE]
:cawg:
[QUOTE=JDK721;21942571]:cawg:[/QUOTE]
So you guys are only complaining about the Irgun and the Lehi? What about Hezbollah and the Hamas? Do the Palestinians not deserve a state because the Hamas is a terrorist organization which is Palestinian? Do the Lebanese don't deserve a state because of the Hezbollah which is a Lebanese terrorist organization?
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942544]the same incompetent un[/QUOTE]
If you want to complain, complain to the UN then, not me.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942544]except the zionist controlled government of Israel constantly slaughters innocent people in Palestine? [/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't, and when people in the government do these things, they get punished: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre[/url]
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942544]what the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
You are relating Israel's creation to these two terrorist organizations.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942544]uh, yeah, it is.[/QUOTE]
It's not, how about you stop trolling and explain your claims?
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21942544]the torah is not a fucking histoical claim you cunt.[/QUOTE]
The kingdoms of Israel and Judea existed, this is fact and is supported by a lot of evidence.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21939598]
Let me ask you, in the UK, Norway, Japan, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand, does the king or queen hold power even remotely close to this? No.[/QUOTE]
Again, you pull stuff out of nowhere. Jordan is an example of a constitutional monarchy where the king has a lot of constitutional powers but only truly uses them in extreme situations like war, apart from the powers he has to use like appointing the cabinet. This is exactly how it works in the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Spain, among others.
Most constitutional monarchies in the region don't vest all these powers in the monarch, but those that do are in good company with many other nations in the world. If Jordan is not a democratic nation based on the monarch's constitutional powers, you'd be rejecting a lot of the oldest democracies in the world as well.
But again, there are also a whole bunch of republics in the region, and while you might not accept Iran as a legitimate democracy, I hope you're aren't trying to say they're [I]all[/I] undemocratic.
Didn't you say you were Israeli? Because you should [I]at the very least[/I] know that Lebanon, your neighbouring country, is among these republics.
I love how BurnEmDown thinks that if arabs begin to have a larger say in Israel it will no longer be a democracy. It will in fact still be a democracy. Your rights are not more important than theirs, if they are citizens along with you, they have the same rights as you do. Your country is not determined to be a democracy based on the people inside it, you can put it under whatever banner you want, but you're a fucking nationalist racist who can't admit when your arguments have more holes in them than a beehive.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21944963]Again, you pull stuff out of nowhere. Jordan is an example of a constitutional monarchy where the king has a lot of constitutional powers but only truly uses them in extreme situations like war, apart from the powers he has to use like appointing the cabinet. This is exactly how it works in the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Spain, among others.[/QUOTE]
Let's take the UK for example, I've looked at their Wikipedia page on the government section, and the only political power the queen has is appointed the prime minister and the cabinet, however in truth she doesn't choose them and only does so as a ceremony for their inauguration. Jordan's king on the other hand chooses the cabinet, their only elections are for their parliament.
The fact that they only use their constitutional powers only in extreme situations is irrelevant. If too much power is invested in one man or group of people it is dangerous, for example Hitler became Fuhrer thanks to emergency laws.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21944963]Most constitutional monarchies in the region don't vest all these powers in the monarch, but those that do are in good company with many other nations in the world. If Jordan is not a democratic nation based on the monarch's constitutional powers, you'd be rejecting a lot of the oldest democracies in the world as well.[/QUOTE]
The difference between Jordan and western-world constitutional monarchies as far as I know is that the power of the monarch in the western world is only ceremonial and not political.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21944963]But again, there are also a whole bunch of republics in the region, and while you might not accept Iran as a legitimate democracy, I hope you're aren't trying to say they're [I]all[/I] undemocratic.[/quote]
They are undemocratic because they do not fulfill basic human rights to some of their citizens, see: homosexuals, women.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21944963]Didn't you say you were Israeli? Because you should [I]at the very least[/I] know that Lebanon, your neighbouring country, is among these republics.[/QUOTE]
I admit I don't know much about Lebanon, I mostly know about Jordan and Egypt.
I checked around and according to the freedom house, an international organizaiton, Israel is the only truly democratic country in the middle east and north Africa (they didn't include Turkey as part of the middle east).
They do recognize however several states with limited freedom, these are: Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and Kuwait. All other countries are considered not democratic at all.
Here's the source:
[url]http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09_MENA.pdf[/url]
Note that Iran is part of the "not free" group of countries.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;21945162]I love how BurnEmDown thinks that if arabs begin to have a larger say in Israel it will no longer be a democracy. It will in fact still be a democracy. Your rights are not more important than theirs, if they are citizens along with you, they have the same rights as you do. Your country is not determined to be a democracy based on the people inside it, you can put it under whatever banner you want, but you're a fucking nationalist racist who can't admit when your arguments have more holes in them than a beehive.[/QUOTE]
I said that if there will be an Arab majority it will no longer be a Jewish state, learn to read.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21945895]Let's take the UK for example, I've looked at their Wikipedia page on the government section, and the only political power the queen has is appointed the prime minister and the cabinet, however in truth she doesn't choose them and only does so as a ceremony for their inauguration. Jordan's king on the other hand chooses the cabinet, their only elections are for their parliament.[/QUOTE]
The British Monarch actually has a lot of powers, including the power to veto laws. However, it hasn't been used since the early 18th century. The King of Norway last used his powers during WWII.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21945895]The fact that they only use their constitutional powers only in extreme situations is irrelevant. If too much power is invested in one man or group of people it is dangerous, for example Hitler became Fuhrer thanks to emergency laws.[/QUOTE]
So, you're basically arguing that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and arguably the UK and commonwealth nations aren't democratic enough because the monarch technically has a lot of powers they couldn't use without public support anyway? It's the same in Jordan. You think the Jordanian Monarch would be able to retain his status if he didn't use it purely in diplomatic situations? Jordan would've become a republic ages ago if the Monarch didn't behave strictly like the Monarchs of Europe. It is true though, he has some powers that most monarchs don't have, but the difference isn't big.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21945895]The difference between Jordan and western-world constitutional monarchies as far as I know is that the power of the monarch in the western world is only ceremonial and not political.[/QUOTE]
The monarch is the head of state and serves a purpose in international relations in addition to ceremonies, most of which are inherently political in nature.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21945895]They are undemocratic because they do not fulfill basic human rights to some of their citizens, see: homosexuals, women.[/QUOTE]
Amnesty International recognizes Jordan as the country with the best human rights record in the region. This region happens to include Israel. It's not all black and white. For example, the English wikipedia article about human rights concerns in Israel is a [I]lot[/I] bigger than the one about Jordan. A lot of Middle-East countries have really poor human rights records, but Jordan is a completely wrong example.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21945895]
I checked around and according to the freedom house, an international organizaiton, Israel is the only truly democratic country in the middle east and north Africa (they didn't include Turkey as part of the middle east).
They do recognize however several states with limited freedom, these are: Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and Kuwait. All other countries are considered not democratic at all.
Here's the source:
[url]http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09_MENA.pdf[/url]
Note that Iran is part of the "not free" group of countries.[/QUOTE]
Freedom House is a purely American organization, not international. Of course they will be biased towards Israel when it comes to the Middle-East. You couldn't have provided a less biased "source".
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21945895]
I said that if there will be an Arab majority it will no longer be a Jewish state, learn to read.[/QUOTE]
That's just as stupid then.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21947034]The British Monarch actually has a lot of powers, including the power to veto laws. However, it hasn't been used since the early 18th century. The King of Norway last used his powers during WWII.[/quote]
The king of Jordan uses his powers regularly, and is a political figure unlike the kings of these countries, who are merely ceremonial figures.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21947034]So, you're basically arguing that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and arguably the UK and commonwealth nations aren't democratic enough because the monarch technically has a lot of powers they couldn't use without public support anyway?[/quote]
You said that the king of Jordan has quite a lot of power but he can only use most of it in a case of an emergency. The kings of the countries your mention don't have any "extra powers" in case of emergencies as far as I know.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21947034]It's the same in Jordan. You think the Jordanian Monarch would be able to retain his status if he didn't use it purely in diplomatic situations? Jordan would've become a republic ages ago if the Monarch didn't behave strictly like the Monarchs of Europe. It is true though, he has some powers that most monarchs don't have, but the difference isn't big.[/quote]
The powers he have are very similar to the US's president's power, but unlike him the king of Jordan doesn't have to be voted in office and remains so until death.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21947034]The monarch is the head of state and serves a purpose in international relations in addition to ceremonies, most of which are inherently political in nature.[/quote]
Wikipedia lists a lot of powers which don't seem to be ceremonial or international, and while the queen of the UK has several of these powers, her Wikipedia page states that she just follows the government's decisions, this is not written in the king of Jordan's page.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21947034]Amnesty International recognizes Jordan as the country with the best human rights record in the region. This region happens to include Israel. It's not all black and white. For example, the English wikipedia article about human rights concerns in Israel is a [I]lot[/I] bigger than the one about Jordan. A lot of Middle-East countries have really poor human rights records, but Jordan is a completely wrong example.[/quote]
Well, I took Jordan as an example because it's one of the free-er countries in the Arab world. You see, even one of the most free states in the Arab world, isn't quite democratic as Turkey or Israel or the rest of the western world.
Also, this is what Amnesty International has to say about Jordan:
[url]http://www.amnesty.org/en/contact/529[/url]
(not much).
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21947034]Freedom House is a purely American organization, not international. Of course they will be biased towards Israel when it comes to the Middle-East. You couldn't have provided a less biased "source".[/QUOTE]
It's Wikipedia page states that is international. You could say it's formed mainly by Americans, but it's not like a part of the government or something.
Even though it may be biased, it's not like they'd want to present Jordan as less democratic or free than it is, after all Jordan is a relative ally of Israel in the area. Aside for Turkey (and lately this is controversial too), Jordan is our best ally in the middle east.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;21947350]That's just as stupid then.[/QUOTE]
Why? Why should the only Jewish country in the world turn into an Arabic country, when there are already more than 20 Arabic countries in the world.
[editline]01:12AM[/editline]
Why is this thread in "general discussion" section all of a sudden? lol.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;21941184]No-one like Gypsies, but then again no-one likes Jews either. I reckon one of the former Soviet Union countries belongs to the gypsies,[/QUOTE]
i 'reckon' you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and should never post again
He wrote this sarcastically.
The ignorance on this thread is pathetic, ur TV is feeding u with anti-israel bullshit or something?
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21947615]You said that the king of Jordan has quite a lot of power but he can only use most of it in a case of an emergency. The kings of the countries your mention don't have any "extra powers" in case of emergencies as far as I know.[/QUOTE]
They do. They have immunity from the justice system and can grant immunity to their closest relatives from the justice system. They have to sign every law before it is enacted, they have a constitutional right to veto the law, although in most countries some sort of majority threshold can override the veto (or, in the case of Norway, they can push the law 3 times, the third time he's not allowed to veto). And that's just scratching the surface. None of these powers are related to emergencies, but that's when they're typically used, and they're not exactly trigger-happy about it because every extra step into politics they make could mean a huge change in popularity.
And if you can admit that you don't know about something, research it before you refute it.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21947615]The powers he have are very similar to the US's president's power, but unlike him the king of Jordan doesn't have to be voted in office and remains so until death.[/QUOTE]
The monarchs of Europe aren't voted for either. That doesn't mean their existence isn't democratic, however, with every constitutional monarchy is a democratic government and people, who could at any time decide to amend the constitution and throw them out.
Also, in Kuwait, there is a vote when choosing the crown heir, and the parliament can vote an Emir out of office.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21947615]Wikipedia lists a lot of powers which don't seem to be ceremonial or international, and while the queen of the UK has several of these powers, her Wikipedia page states that she just follows the government's decisions, this is not written in the king of Jordan's page.[/QUOTE]
In almost every constitution of a constitutional monarchy the monarch is either described as a symbol of unity or a head of state. That's why they always end up having a role in international relations, acting sort of like diplomats, although primarily in times of peace (cultural exchanges and stuff like that).
Also, Wikipedia isn't a definite source for information. The point is that only really notable information is written. The King of Jordan is very politically active compared to most monarchs, of course his constitutional powers are notable.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21947615]
Also, this is what Amnesty International has to say about Jordan:
[url]http://www.amnesty.org/en/contact/529[/url]
(not much).[/QUOTE]
They don't operate in [B]most[/B] countries. That doesn't stop them from releasing papers on said countries, just like Freedom House is doing (You think they operate in Jordan?).
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21947615]It's Wikipedia page states that is international.[/QUOTE]
It deals with non-inter-governmental international issues but it doesn't operate outside the Unites States. For example, it isn't listed in Wikipedia's list of international organizations. Compare to Amnesty International, which operates in a lot of different countries.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21947615]
Why is this thread in "general discussion" section all of a sudden? lol.[/QUOTE]
Well we're way off topic, but I guess someone deemed it civil enough not to be locked?
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21948658]They do. They have immunity from the justice system and can grant immunity to their closest relatives from the justice system. They have to sign every law before it is enacted, they have a constitutional right to veto the law, although in most countries some sort of majority threshold can override the veto (or, in the case of Norway, they can push the law 3 times, the third time he's not allowed to veto). And that's just scratching the surface. None of these powers are related to emergencies, but that's when they're typically used, and they're not exactly trigger-happy about it because every extra step into politics they make could mean a huge change in popularity.
And if you can admit that you don't know about something, research it before you refute it.
The monarchs of Europe aren't voted for either. That doesn't mean their existence isn't democratic, however, with every constitutional monarchy is a democratic government and people, who could at any time decide to amend the constitution and throw them out.
Also, in Kuwait, there is a vote when choosing the crown heir, and the parliament can vote an Emir out of office.
In almost every constitution of a constitutional monarchy the monarch is either described as a symbol of unity or a head of state. That's why they always end up having a role in international relations, acting sort of like diplomats, although primarily in times of peace (cultural exchanges and stuff like that).
Also, Wikipedia isn't a definite source for information. The point is that only really notable information is written. The King of Jordan is very politically active compared to most monarchs, of course his constitutional powers are notable.
It deals with non-inter-governmental international issues but it doesn't operate outside the Unites States. For example, it isn't listed in Wikipedia's list of international organizations. Compare to Amnesty International, which operates in a lot of different countries.[/QUOTE]
I see, well, you've convinced me. So together with Jordan, and let's take all the countries deemed "partially free" in the middle east by the freedom house, we've got Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon and Yemen, as democratic and free states in the middle east, the rest are not democratic.
My point still stands, that Israel is one of the few democracies in the middle east, and Iran is one of the many Theocratic republics in the area.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21948658]They don't operate in [B]most[/B] countries. That doesn't stop them from releasing papers on said countries, just like Freedom House is doing (You think they operate in Jordan?).[/QUOTE]
Ah, woops, I accidentally clicked on the "in your country" thing instead of the "human rights information". I find it hard to navigate on the website, and I can't find something supporting your claim "Amnesty International recognizes Jordan as the country with the best human rights record in the region.". It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like a source and something to look into for more information.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21948658]Well we're way off topic, but I guess someone deemed it civil enough not to be locked?[/QUOTE]
In The News threads don't get deleted much on my experience, just abandoned. Our recent discussion is pretty civil though compared with Ho Chi Min and humanabyss who act like trolls. You're the best person I had a chance to discuss or argue against so far, which actually doesn't say a lot considering the "title challengers".
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21949071]I see, well, you've convinced me. So together with Jordan, and let's take all the countries deemed "partially free" in the middle east by the freedom house, we've got Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Lebanon and Yemen, as democratic and free states in the middle east, the rest are not democratic.
My point still stands, that Israel is one of the few democracies in the middle east, and Iran is one of the many Theocratic republics in the area.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree, there's a lot of crazy stuff going in many Arab countries, especially if you include North-African countries, I just didn't like your previous statement of Israel being the [I]only[/I] democratic nation in the region.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21949071]Ah, woops, I accidentally clicked on the "in your country" thing instead of the "human rights information". I find it hard to navigate on the website, and I can't find something supporting your claim "Amnesty International recognizes Jordan as the country with the best human rights record in the region.". It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like a source and something to look into for more information.[/QUOTE]
I saw it on Wikipedia, followed the citation, only to end up at a Jordanian website. I doubt they'd make stuff like that up, though, as it looks like the site is tied to the government. I'm trying to find the actual Amnesty International sources for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.