Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Israel - Palestine History

1356

Comments

  • #102
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    iMrApex wrote: »
    The population of England was 27 million in 1891, in 2011 it was 53 million. The population doubled in 120 years, you get my point.
    you're not comparing like with like there at all, in that time frame england fought 2 world wars in that time having millions replaced by inward immigration. I'm saying the Arab population should be much higher. in 1934 the population of Egypt was 15 million it is now 82 million.


  • #103
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    The first shots of the civil war were fired by Arabs though both sides can be to blame for starting the civil war. Answer me this, if the Arabs in the British Mandate had "won", with the help of the Arab Coalition, and created a Palestinian state in British Mandate terrirtory what would be your stance now?

    Firstly it was not a civil war, it was an anti-colonial war, as recently arrived Zionist settlers were the ones who started the conflict, when they started arriving with the express intent of removing the existing non-Jewish populace (already provided several quotes showing this clear intent). Just, because Zionists had an extremist interpretation of the Bible doesn't make it a civil war, or that the land was there by god given right. The conflict started once Zionists settlers arrived. The Arab didn't fire the first shot, no more than Native Americans fired the first "shot", when resisting European colonists.

    I already answered that Israel should not have been created in the first place, as I don't agree with colonialism, but seeing as its there now, with millions living there, its moot point, about what may or may not have happened in the past. Israel is there now, but they have 0 rights to Palestinian land outside there borders.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Not once did I say that.

    It seems to be the logical conclusion ultimately (albeit done via "weasel" words), and btw Palestinians can't do what they want. There largely stateless, which limits there options a great deal. You seem to be largely suggesting that the Palestinians either leave, or accept statelessness, while Israel rules over there lives, and quite frankly, that is disturbing, and I do sense a hint of racist undertones to what your saying in this regard, as you seem to suggest that the Palestinians can do what they want, accept assert there rights to have there own state, or even equal rights in a singular state, as you seem to believe in the concept of might make right.

    Quick question, why shouldn't the Palestinians keep fighting til they get there land back? Who says they need to give up? If might make right, its just a recipe for eternal war, with everyone fight to take the land back over and over again, seeing as whoever wins get the land. You world view is just a recipe for disaster and forever war, and is just silly.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Also, this is extremely relevant. The US along with the UK approved of the annexation of "Palestinian land" into Jordan. What's changed? Why can Jordan annex it and Israel can't?

    UN Resolution 242 is what has changed, its only been mentioned several times already. You continued deliberate ignorance of this fact is astonishing.

    Also, the Israeli government wants to keep the Palestinians stateless. If Israel wants the land, then they need to give the Palestinians citizenship, and then repatriate the millions of Palestinian refugees, seeing as there taking there land. So, that means either a bi-national state, or a singular secular state, either way Zionism as it is now would be finished.


  • #104
    ftakeith
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭ftakeith


    Gaza and the West Bank are enclosed prisons or Ghettos like the Warsaw's ones and the Lodz ghetto in Poland between 1940-44

    Israel will never be brought into account because of the USA

    Al Jazzera English is the only news channel that is balanced from both sides


  • #105
    Tilikum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭Tilikum


    I've always wanted to know the history behind Palestine/Israel.

    Thanks to everyone in this thread, it's clear to me now which side is completely in the wrong.


  • #106
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    Also, the Israeli government wants to keep the Palestinians stateless

    There is 1,658,000 Arab citizens in Israel representing 20.7% of the country's population. The state of Israel is of the view that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” are considered occupied territories. Wes you seem to think that suddenly Jewish people began to show up in the British Mandate after WW2, you do realise there was already a large Jewish population there?


  • #107
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    There is 1,658,000 Arab citizens in Israel representing 20.7% of the country's population. The state of Israel is of the view that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” are considered occupied territories. Wes you seem to think that suddenly Jewish people began to show up in the British Mandate after WW2, you do realise there was already a large Jewish population there?

    That's nice. Convenient too. Nobody else takes that view, however.


  • #108
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    There is 1,658,000 Arab citizens in Israel representing 20.7% of the country's population.

    Its amazing how selective you are with your facts. Your clearly well aware of the millions of stateless Palestinians in the occupied territories, and not to mention all those refugees as well.

    By denying the Palestinians a state, Israel is making them stateless. Its amazing, that you have chosen to ignore this. Its just completely puzzling to me, how you can keep what is an absurd and easily disproven argument.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    The state of Israel is of the view that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” are considered occupied territories.

    Wow, the state that is taken someones else land, thinks it ok. Your taking the piss right? Again, UN resolution 242, the land does not belong to them. No one else in the world, not even the bloody US recognizes Israels claim.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Wes you seem to think that suddenly Jewish people began to show up in the British Mandate after WW2, you do realise there was already a large Jewish population there?

    You are being once again being selective with your time line. Zionist colonists arrived from the late 1800s onwards. As I have shown earlier with a clear intent of removing the Palestinians. I provided a quote that predates World War 2 by decades in one case. When, Israel was created, the vast majority of the population were recently arrived colonists, if you look at the population records, even with the colonists being counted, Palestinians were very much the majority.

    What Zionists did to Palestinians is no different to what was done to Native American's by Europeans. It was a colonial project from the start, and claims via extremists takes on the Bible aren't worth anything.

    Now, you clearly aware of all these facts, but for some reason choose to ignore them, and I am honestly baffled.


  • #109
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    The state of Israel is of the view that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” are considered occupied territories.

    See that would be personal supposition on the part of Israel and as a nation they are quite partial to a bit of that . but it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how your neighbours got there nor how long they have been there or why they are there or how many of them are there or whatever .what matters is that they are your neighbours. and you don't bulldoze your neighbours off their property then steal their stuff for any reason whatsoever be it real or imagined. Surely you have the basic mental faculty required to process that concept I mean you do right you have too?..


  • #110
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    WakeUp wrote: »
    we live in a realist world.

    As I've said before, we live in a realist world and this is what is real:
    SELxlkh.jpg

    You can argue all you want in favour of Palestine but that map is what is real. Palestine doesn't exist, the country we live in doesn't recognise that state of Palestine. Both sides have committed countless crimes against each other.


  • #111
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    As I've said before, we live in a realist world and this is what is real:

    UN resolution 242 is real. Millions of Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, who are not going anywhere are real. You concept of realism, is rather unreal, and borderline delusional.

    In reality maps change all the time (btw no other country recognizes that map), and I think its time that Zionists except that there dream of a Greater Israel is just that, a dream.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    You can argue all you want in favour of Palestine but that map is what is real. Palestine doesn't exist, the country we live in doesn't recognise that state of Palestine. Both sides have committed countless crimes against each other.

    Interesting that you say that. No one, not a single country in the world recognizes Israels claim to East Jerusalem or the West Bank. You keep talking about what is real, but you don't care about realism at all. You ignore anything that doesn't reinforce you world view, and when challenged and shown to be factually incorrect, you just make a statement basically claiming your right regardless.

    Sorry, but you have no sense of realism. Simply put, the map you posted is a lie, created by violent extremists, who want to make it fact via murder and ethnic cleansing, now that is the reality of the map you post.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    UN resolution 242 is real. Millions of Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, who are not going anywhere are real. You concept of realism, is rather unreal, and borderline delusional.

    In reality maps change all the time (btw no other country recognizes that map), and I think its time that Zionists except that there dream of a Greater Israel is just that, a dream.



    Interesting that you say that. No one, not a single country in the world recognizes Israels claim to East Jerusalem or the West Bank. You keep talking about what is real, but you don't care about realism at all. You ignore anything that doesn't reinforce you world view, and when challenged and shown to be factually incorrect, you just make a statement basically claiming your right regardless.

    Sorry, but you have no sense of realism.

    I have no sense of realism? You continuously talk about a pieces of paper that say one thing while I show how the world really is through that map.


  • #113
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    I have no sense of realism? You continuously talk about a pieces of paper that say one thing while I show how the world really is through that map.

    Your map is also a piece of paper, that no other country in the world recognizes. The map is a lie created by people, who want to make it reality via murder, and ethnic cleansing.

    UN resolution 242 is recognized by every country in the World that isn't Israel.

    So again, you have 0 sense of realism, you present a map that only 1 country recognizes, and call it reality, and then call a UN resolution that is accept by everyone except Israel a piece of paper. Sorry, but what your saying is a delusion, and most certainly not realism, and quite frankly your usage of the term is bizarre and nonsensical.


  • #114
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    iMrApex wrote: »
    There is 1,658,000 Arab citizens in Israel representing 20.7% of the country's population. The state of Israel is of the view that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” are considered occupied territories. Wes you seem to think that suddenly Jewish people began to show up in the British Mandate after WW2, you do realise there was already a large Jewish population there?

    76,000 in settlements at the start of the british mandate mainly from europe. source


  • #115
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    Your map is also a piece of paper, that no other country in the world recognizes. The map is a lie created by people, who want to make it reality via murder, and ethnic cleansing.

    UN resolution 242 is recognized by every country in the World that isn't Israel.

    So again, you have 0 sense of realism, you present a map that only 1 country recognizes, and call it reality, and then call a UN resolution that is accept by everyone except Israel a piece of paper. Sorry, but what your saying is a delusion, and most certainly not realism, and quite frankly your usage of the term is bizarre and nonsensical.

    How can you say that map isn't real? Israel control all of that land, right now there is thousands upon thousands of Israeli soldiers in that land. You tell an Israeli soldier that he has no right to be there and he'll laugh right into your face. You're being delusional, step into reality.


  • #116
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    As I've said before, we live in a realist world and this is what is real:
    SELxlkh.jpg

    You can argue all you want in favour of Palestine but that map is what is real. Palestine doesn't exist, the country we live in doesn't recognise that state of Palestine. Both sides have committed countless crimes against each other.

    But am I arguing in favour of Palestine. if you're unclear as to what the answer is then have a read back over my posts. or stop being obtuse. but please do one . youre full of "facts" and statements so on you're being asked some questions so man the phuck up and answer them, please. my "argument" has you have put it, is that bulldozing your neighbours off their property and stealing it , for whatever reason you care to put forward, is not only wrong but cruel, nasty, despicable and deplorable. and a whole lot more. and no country or people should act in that way toward their neighbours. I'm asking you do you have the ability to comprehend that??..is very simple. You aren't giving me a straight answer and by doing so leaving yourself open - should I read something into that?...


  • #117
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    How can you say that map isn't real? Israel control all of that land, right now there is thousands upon thousands of Israeli soldiers in that land.

    I never denied the existence of Israels colonial project, but the fact of the matter is that there are millions of Palestinians who are not going anywhere.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    You tell an Israeli soldier that he has no right to be there and he'll laugh right into your face.

    Now, now, I would probably be shot in the face, or if I am lucky beaten half to death.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    How
    You're being delusional, step into reality.

    You seem to think that maps are permanent, and that is laughable. You deny facts that don't suit you, to support a claim made by murderous extremists.


  • #118
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    "War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left". In this case it has clearly done that. I have said each side has treated each other horrendously and committed countless crimes against each other. Let us say that there was never any wars between the two sides, I would support having two states. You have to understand I can't support having two states after both sides went to war with each other breaking international law. Israel shouldn't put to blame because they came out on top.

    If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions.


  • #119
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    You have to understand I can't support having two states after both sides went to war with each other breaking international law.

    You clearly could care less about International law, after making it very clear you reject UN resolution 242, so to invoke International law to justify your position, while ignoring it, when it doesn't suit your world view. Once again your position is simply delusion and nothing more.


  • #120
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    You clearly could care less about International law, after making it very clear you reject UN resolution 242, so to invoke International law to justify your position, while ignoring it, when it doesn't suit your world view. Once again your position is simply delusion and nothing more.

    The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the UN Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

    "The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

    Let us say that there was never any wars between the two sides, I would support having two states. You have to understand I can't support having two states after both sides went to war with each other with intentions of completely destroying one another. Israel shouldn't put to blame because they came out on top.

    If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions.

    I'll provide another example, let us say when India was partitioned Pakistan immediately launched an invasion against India. India repelled the invasion and continued into Pakistani territory occupying the whole country and annexing it. Would Pakistan have a right to argue?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    "War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left". In this case it has clearly done that. I have said each side has treated each other horrendously and committed countless crimes against each other. Let us say that there was never any wars between the two sides, I would support having two states. You have to understand I can't support having two states after both sides went to war with each other breaking international law. Israel shouldn't put to blame because they came out on top.

    If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions.

    Reading this it would appear you haven't a clue what your position is , but really deep down , I think you do . The above post would pretty much contradict most of what you have put forward thus far , it seems confused and flippant and most contradictory. and you can't or won't admit to the obvious fact that bulldozing people of their property and taking it is a wrong cruel nasty thing to be doing . so what am I missing?..


  • #122
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Reading this it would appear you haven't a clue what your position is , but really deep down , I think you do . The above post would pretty much contradict most of what you have put forward thus far , it seems confused and flippant and most contradictory. and you can't or won't admit to the obvious fact that bulldozing people of their property and taking it is a wrong cruel nasty thing to be doing . so what am I missing?..

    My position is that I don't feel Arabs in Israel are entitled to a state due to going to war. Likewise if the Arabs won I don't feel Jewish people would be entitled to a state. Answer me this, let us say when India was partitioned Pakistan immediately launched an invasion against India. India repelled the invasion and continued into Pakistani territory occupying the whole country and annexing it. Would Pakistan have a right to argue?


  • #123
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the UN Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

    "The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

    Repeating the same thing again and again will not some how make it right the 2nd time. I have already pointed out the deficiencies in your version of history.

    As I pointed out the Zionist had no intent of adhering the UN backed plan either, what with the whole ethnic cleansing thing, that was planned years before. There was no provision in the partition plan for Zionist to remove people already living there.

    BTW, the partition plan was voted in the general assembly and not the the security council and as such wasn't binding. Not to mention giving most of the land to a minority that largely consisted of recently arrived colonists, was the height of stupidity.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Let us say that there was never any wars between the two sides, I would support having two states. You have to understand I can't support having two states after both sides went to war with each other with intentions of completely destroying one another.

    Repeating the same things over and over again, will not somehow make it right the 2nd time.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Israel shouldn't put to blame because they came out on top.

    Zionists are to blame, as the conflict was created by there colonial project, but quite frankly that neither here nor there now. The fact is that today, they are illegally colonizing land outside there borders.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions.

    If your country is invaded, you generally have no choice but to fight back. The Palestinians did not choose to be invaded by Zionists colonists, they have no choice either when it comes to modern day Zionist colonists either. The conflict has been brought to them, and like anyone else, they have a right to defend themselves.


  • #124
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    If your country is invaded, you generally have no choice but to fight back. The Palestinians did not choose to be invaded by Zionists colonists, they have no choice either when it comes to modern day Zionist colonists either. The conflict has been brought to them, and like anyone else, they have a right to defend themselves.

    Jewish people have always been in the region known as Israel. You've been arguing about the partition plan and now you say it isn't binding?

    Answer me this, let us say when India was partitioned Pakistan immediately launched an invasion against India. India repelled the invasion and continued into Pakistani territory occupying the whole country and annexing it. Would Pakistan have a right to argue?


  • #125
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    My position is that I don't feel Arabs in Israel are entitled to a state due to going to war.

    So they don't deserve a state due to resisting a colonial invasion by Zionists, who justified it via an extremist take on the Bible. You seem intent on ignoring that fact that Zionists, came from Europe, and were colonists.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Likewise if the Arabs won I don't feel Jewish people would be entitled to a state.

    If the Native American won the conflict, against European, they would rightly feel that Europeans had no right to a state in the America's. Regardless, of the rights and wrong of the past, the fact remain that today, the Palestinians are per UN resolution entitled to a state.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Answer me this, let us say when India was partitioned Pakistan immediately launched an invasion against India. India repelled the invasion and continued into Pakistani territory occupying the whole country and annexing it. Would Pakistan have a right to argue?

    Yes, they would, as you can't acquire land via force, and btw your choice of aggressor is rather telling.

    Secondly, both Pakistan and India did fight over Kashmir right after partition, and neither side tried to grab any other land except the disputed reason. There is also a UN resolution calling for the self determination of the people of Kashmir, which has sadly been ignored by both sides, and in the case if Indian occupied Kashmir, there army has for the last couple of decades, engaged in mass murder, and mass rape in Kashmir.,


  • #126
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    My position is that I don't feel Arabs in Israel are entitled to a state due to going to war. Likewise if the Arabs won I don't feel Jewish people would be entitled to a state. Answer me this, let us say when India was partitioned Pakistan immediately launched an invasion against India. India repelled the invasion and continued into Pakistani territory occupying the whole country and annexing it. Would Pakistan have a right to argue?

    So you agree with and support the continued theft of Palestinian homes and their property? and you want the Palestinians to leave where do you want them to go? Or you support a one state secular solution?..I've pointed out to you already I'm not interested in your whataboutery so leave Pakistan and India and other such attempts at whataboutery to one side I'm not going there.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    Secondly, both Pakistan and India did fight over Kashmir right after partition, and neither side tried to grab any other land except the disputed reason. There is also a UN resolution calling for the self determination of the people of Kashmir, which has sadly been ignored by both sides, and in the case if Indian occupied Kashmir, there army has for the last couple of decades, engaged in mass murder, and mass rape in Kashmir.,

    You're going off on a tangent, I'll provide another example. Let's say Portugal was partitioned between North and South Portugal. Let's then say North Portugal decided to invade South Portugal. South Portugal repelled the attack and pushed into North Portugal and annexed it.

    Would the people of North Portugal have a right to a state?


  • #128
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Jewish people have always been in the region known as Israel.

    You seem to be confusing the term Zionist with Jews. Zionism is a political ideology, and one does not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Zionism was created in Europe, and Zionists from Europe then launched a colonial project in Palestine.

    Now, the existence of other people who share the same Religion/ethnicity in Palestine at the time, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Zionists were European colonists.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    You've been arguing about the partition plan and now you say it isn't binding?

    I never said it was binding to begin with. UN General Assembly resolution are generally non-binding. The partition plan was voted on by the General Assembly. For someone who keep bringing up the original partition plan, I find if very strange that you were unaware that it was never binding.

    UN security council resolutions are binding, hence why I invoke UN resolution 242.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Answer me this, let us say when India was partitioned Pakistan immediately launched an invasion against India. India repelled the invasion and continued into Pakistani territory occupying the whole country and annexing it. Would Pakistan have a right to argue?

    Already addressed this. Why are you repeating yourself, even after your question was answered? Your post are an old CD stuck on repeat on the same old boring song. Seriously your constant repetition isn't making any sense.


  • #129
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    You're going off on a tangent,

    Your the one who brought up Pakistan and India FFS. I already addressed your question, btw. You not liking the answer is your issue not mine. Regardless of who starts a conflict, you cannot acquire land via war, as I said earlier.

    We don't live in that world anymore, and you are more than welcome to live in that kind of world on your own.

    Seriously, I won't bother answering the same question more than once anymore. Your going over board with constant repetition at this point.


  • #130
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    Already addressed this. Why are you repeating yourself, even after your question was answered? Your post are an old CD stuck on repeat on the same old boring song. Seriously your constant repetition isn't making any sense.

    I would appreciate it if you answered my question regarding Portugal.


  • #131
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    You're going off on a tangent, I'll provide another example. Let's say Portugal was partitioned between North and South Portugal. Let's then say North Portugal decided to invade South Portugal. South Portugal repelled the attack and pushed into North Portugal and annexed it.

    Would the people of North Portugal have a right to a state?

    Instead of providing examples you're quite good at how about you answer some of the questions being put to you . you started this thread don't be expecting an easy ride.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Instead of providing examples you're quite good at how about you answer some of the questions being put to you . you started this thread don't be expecting an easy ride.

    So now you're refusing to answer that question?


  • #133
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    I would appreciate it if you answered my question regarding Portugal.

    I answered your question twice already. I answered it when it was Pakistan and India, and I then answered the same thing, when it was Portugal. It seems clear to me, your not interested in any kind of debate, and will just repeat yourself again and again for reasons I can't honestly fathom.

    If you choose to ignore the fact that I have answered the same question twice already, then that your problem and not mine. I won't be doing it again.

    BTW, you could do other posters the courtesy of answering there questions, as opposed to demanding answers to question that have been addressed already.


  • #134
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    So now you're refusing to answer that question?

    Go away out of that. for the third time I've no interest in your whataboutery. the questions I'm putting to you are in relation to the topic in question and this thread , you know , the one you started. and so far you seem reluctant or incapable of answering them. I wonder why.


  • #135
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    I answered your question twice already. I answered it when it was Pakistan and India, and I then answered the same thing, when it was Portugal. It seems clear to me, your not interested in any kind of debate, and will just repeat yourself again and again for reasons I can't honestly fathom.

    If you choose to ignore the fact that I have answered the same question twice already, then that your problem and not mine. I won't be doing it again.

    So the people of North Portugal would have the right to a state in your opinion?


  • #136
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    So the people of North Portugal would have the right to a state in your opinion?

    Question was answered twice already. I said I wouldn't answer again, especially when you don't extend the same courtesy of even answering a question once, to other posters on this thread. Quite frankly I am not sure I will bother answering anything else from you at this point, seeing as you will just repeat the same question again and again, and not answer any question directed your way.

    Seriously, your taking the piss with this question.


  • #137
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    Question was answered twice already. I said I wouldn't answer again, especially when you don't extend the same courtesy of even answering a question once, to other posters on this thread.

    Seriously, your taking the piss with this question.

    Alright, I'll make it easier. You can answer yes or no. Would the people of North Portugal have the right to a state if they invaded South Portugal, lost and was annexed into South Portugal? Yes or no?


  • #138
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Alright, I'll make it easier. You can answer yes or no. Would the people of North Portugal have the right to a state if they invaded South Portugal, lost and was annexed into South Portugal? Yes or no?

    Again, answered this twice already. Won't answer again. In fact won't be answering any question from you, as you ignore that an answer was given, and you clearly don't care that I answered your question multiple times already, and are just pretending I didn't.

    Now, how about answering questions directed at you.

    If ask the question one more time, then off to block list you go.


  • #139
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    Again, answered this twice already. Won't answer again. In fact won't be answering any question from you, as you ignore that an answer was given, and you clearly don't care that I answered your question multiple times already, and are just pretending I didn't.

    Now, how about answering questions directed at you.

    If ask the question one more time, then off to block list you go.

    Again, you haven't answered yes or no. I'm simply asking to understand your mindset more.


  • #140
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Again, you haven't answered yes or no. I'm simply asking to understand your mindset more.

    I understand your mindset to be honest it didnt take much . as soon as the hard questions are asked it's obvious you would prefer if they weren't asked - you don't want to know . and resort to whataboutery and being obtuse which says a lot. and it doesn't work like that. Perhaps we can try again tomorrow though that really depends on you.


  • #141
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    WakeUp wrote: »
    I understand your mindset to be honest it didnt take much . as soon as the hard questions are asked it's obvious you would prefer if they weren't asked - you don't want to know . and resort to whataboutery and being obtuse which says a lot. and it doesn't work like that. Perhaps we can try again tomorrow though that really depends on you.

    I find it strange how you refuse to type either 2 or 3 characters, it's a simple question and says quite a lot about you. What have I refused to answer?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Again, you haven't answered yes or no. I'm simply asking to understand your mindset more.

    I answered the question twice already. I could care less about you asking the same thing over and over again, and then demanding later a yes or no answer, after receiving an answer twice, when you refuse to answer a question once to anyone else.

    You won't be getting anymore answers from me, as quite frankly you will just ignore it in anyways.


  • #143
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    I answered the question twice already. I could care less about you asking the same thing over and over again, and then demanding later a yes or no answer, after receiving an answer twice, when you refuse to answer a question once to anyone else.

    You won't be getting anymore answers from me, as quite frankly you will just ignore it in anyways.

    I posed a question to you and you refuse to answer it, I asked for a yes or no. What have I refused to answer?


  • #144
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    "........................

    If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions.


    You said there was no Palestine earlier? Please make up your mind.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    I'll provide another example, let us say when India was partitioned Pakistan immediately launched an invasion against India. India repelled the invasion and continued into Pakistani territory occupying the whole country and annexing it. Would Pakistan have a right to argue? .

    Rather obviously yes.


  • #145
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    I posed a question to you and you refuse to answer it, I asked for a yes or no. What have I refused to answer?

    He answered your question here, in unambigous terms.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91309945&postcount=125


  • #146
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    iMrApex wrote: »
    I posed a question to you and you refuse to answer it, I asked for a yes or no. What have I refused to answer?

    Answered the question twice already. Your inability to understand my answer is your problem not mine. You have constantly refused to answer questions posed by others, and now you telling a lie, about how I didn't answer your question. I answered it twice already, I already said I would not answer a 3rd time. In fact you won't be getting any answers from me on anything, as you clearly will just lie about having never receiving them in the first place.

    Here is the 1st time I answered (as pointed out by other posters):
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91309945&postcount=125

    Here is the 2nd time:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91310088&postcount=133

    You replied to both posts, so you know full well I answered your question.

    So, Now I have to wonder, why are you engaged in such an easily disprovable lie, about me not answering? Secondly, why do you yourself not answer questions posed to you?


  • #147
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    wes wrote: »
    Answered the question twice already. Your inability to understand my answer is your problem not mine. You have constantly refused to answer questions posed by others, and now you telling a lie, about how I didn't answer your question. I answered it twice already, I already said I would not answer a 3rd time. In fact you won't be getting any answers from me on anything, as you clearly will just lie about having never receiving them in the first place.

    Here is the 1st time I answered (as pointed out by other posters):
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91309945&postcount=125

    Here is the 2nd time:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91310088&postcount=133

    You replied to both posts, so you know full well I answered your question.

    So, Now I have to wonder, why are you engaged in such an easily disprovable lie, about me not answering? Secondly, why do you yourself not answer questions posed to you?

    That answer doesn't satisfy me, I would prefer a yes or no regarding Portugal. Again, you have not told me what I have refused to answer.
    Nodin wrote: »
    You said there was no Palestine earlier? Please make up your mind.

    I say if Palestine came out on top meaning if Palestine was formed and Israel was not.


  • #148
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    iMrApex wrote: »

    I say if Palestine came out on top meaning if Palestine was formed and Israel was not.

    What?


  • #149
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    karma_ wrote: »
    What?

    "If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions."


  • #150
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    iMrApex wrote: »
    "If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions."

    I'm honestly at a loss about what to say to this. That's just insane.

    Like if Germany won WW2 you'd be a Nazi?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    karma_ wrote: »
    I'm honestly at a loss about what to say to this. That's just insane.

    Like if Germany won WW2 you'd be a Nazi?

    Have you read all this thread? That situation is completely different. The UN resolution for partition was not accepted in 1947 resulting in civil was until 1948, the Arab states then invaded.


Advertisement