mostly terroristlondon 20 years later
Mostly SUNNIS
Like the OTHER TERRORIST TEAM---Shiite shit
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Muslims demand independent Islamic state in Britian
- Thread starter GHook93
- Start date
Like the OTHER TERRORIST TEAM---Shiite shit
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
Majority rules !
Until concentrated wealth and power no longer have the numbers, then oppression rules.
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
Really?
"PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
"invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
What's that?
the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders" and on each other
Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. A Companion to American Indian History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” Journal of Genocide Research 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Mann, Michael. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
Ward Churchill?
Michael Mann?
Not that you had any credibility to start with.
Plenty of others. You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical. I'm fine with your denial. Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting. We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
you are over-estimating yourself, FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time. The Mayans went around raiding"other nations" just to have
lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
Indians were proper targets
Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe? Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.
Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first. A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today. We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.
Genocide and slavery. If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine. then we're not so "exceptional" after all.
Last edited:
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
What I object to is the collective miniscule intellect that on the one hand professes america to be an "exceptional" nation and people, a beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice, but then when confronted with its own mediocrity regarding its brutal past must fall back on the “well everyone else was doing it too” argument.
I don't say those things about America. Compared to most other nations on the planet, it's a freer place to live and I'd rather be here than most, but in reality, no, It's not a beacon of freedom, liberty, or justice. That's just propaganda. It really isn't practiced.
America is just another place, with a power structure, a propaganda machine, a history of oppression and brutality, and a continual disregard for the unsubstantial people. Just like every place else as you suggest.
No argument here.
Then we're not really all that far apart. With the exception of perhaps "Compared to most other nations on the planet, it's a freer place to live ...". that would have to be approached on a case by case basis. I have lived abroad. Eh sometimes yes, sometimes not so much. But if we never leave, all we really know is what we're fed.
the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders" and on each other
Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. A Companion to American Indian History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” Journal of Genocide Research 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Mann, Michael. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
Ward Churchill?
Michael Mann?
Not that you had any credibility to start with.
Plenty of others. You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical. I'm fine with your denial. Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting. We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
you are over-estimating yourself, FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time. The Mayans went around raiding"other nations" just to have
lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
Indians were proper targets
Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe? Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.
Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first. A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today. We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.
Genocide and slavery. If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine. then we're not so "exceptional" after all.
by the time of the AGE OF EXPLORATION---there were no native villages to RAID------The age of European Exploration was-----something like a VIKING VOYATE---to make further TERRITORIAL CLAIMS-----in regard to the "NEW WORLD" the existing nations were "doing it to each other" -----YES----the natives of the USA and the Invading Europeans----played the same game-------they killed each other. The Europeans won.
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants? If the latter it was illegal.
There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."
In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since 97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.
When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
you make important points, DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws. As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was THEIR LAW
Agreed. When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count. Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
Vikrant
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2013
- 8,317
- 1,075
Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
don't agree so fast, VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
DA BRAHMINS .---------
LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups. The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will see Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
dani67
Gold Member
- Dec 21, 2015
- 5,028
- 505
mostly terroristlondon 20 years later
Mostly SUNNIS
Like the OTHER TERRORIST TEAM---Shiite shit
give me one terrorist ........ or radical ........by shia in europe and usa
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants? If the latter it was illegal.
There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."
In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since 97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.
When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
you make important points, DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws. As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was THEIR LAW
Agreed. When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count. Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH. Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
don't agree so fast, VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
DA BRAHMINS .---------
LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups. The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
BJP revisionism ------
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. A Companion to American Indian History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” Journal of Genocide Research 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Mann, Michael. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
Ward Churchill?
Michael Mann?
Not that you had any credibility to start with.
Plenty of others. You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical. I'm fine with your denial. Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting. We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
you are over-estimating yourself, FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time. The Mayans went around raiding"other nations" just to have
lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
Indians were proper targets
Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe? Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.
Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first. A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today. We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.
Genocide and slavery. If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine. then we're not so "exceptional" after all.
by the time of the AGE OF EXPLORATION---there were no native villages to RAID------The age of European Exploration was-----something like a VIKING VOYATE---to make further TERRITORIAL CLAIMS-----in regard to the "NEW WORLD" the existing nations were "doing it to each other" -----YES----the natives of the USA and the Invading Europeans----played the same game-------they killed each other. The Europeans won.
Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. A Companion to American Indian History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” Journal of Genocide Research 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Mann, Michael. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
Ward Churchill?
Michael Mann?
Not that you had any credibility to start with.
Plenty of others. You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical. I'm fine with your denial. Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting. We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
you are over-estimating yourself, FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time. The Mayans went around raiding"other nations" just to have
lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
Indians were proper targets
Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe? Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.
Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first. A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today. We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.
Genocide and slavery. If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine. then we're not so "exceptional" after all.
by the time of the AGE OF EXPLORATION---there were no native villages to RAID------The age of European Exploration was-----something like a VIKING VOYATE---to make further TERRITORIAL CLAIMS-----in regard to the "NEW WORLD" the existing nations were "doing it to each other" -----YES----the natives of the USA and the Invading Europeans----played the same game-------they killed each other. The Europeans won.
Now you’re just making excuses for it, genocide, which is an improvement of sorts. So the argument now is might makes right. I would point out the indigenous peoples were home, your winners were colonizing and whole sale murdering and engaging in genocide. If “winning” is your final determinate, then there’s really no discussion around this. Fuck it, they lost. Praise Jesus someone intervened on the Jews behalf with regard to WWII. Otherwise, fuck it, they lost, everyone was at war.
Vikrant
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2013
- 8,317
- 1,075
Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
don't agree so fast, VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
DA BRAHMINS .---------
LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups. The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
BJP revisionism ------
You are an illiterate.
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants? If the latter it was illegal.
There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."
In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since 97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.
When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
you make important points, DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws. As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was THEIR LAW
Agreed. When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count. Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH. Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it. I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.
Or they could do like euros did when they fanned out across the globe and coveted something. Take it.
Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
don't agree so fast, VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
DA BRAHMINS .---------
LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups. The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
BJP revisionism ------
You are an illiterate.
try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS) The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking. Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world "independently" India did not INVENT IT. Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes. Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there (are you worried about semantics?) -------but Dravidians or "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.
it is a matter of the USUAL culture interface----
each side will make its own rights. Be careful
as to what you wish for-------any land can end up CUT UP
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
don't agree so fast, VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
DA BRAHMINS .---------
LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups. The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
BJP revisionism ------
You are an illiterate.
try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS) The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking. Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world "independently" India did not INVENT IT. Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes. Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there (are you worried about semantics?) -------but Dravidians or "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
And what was happening in the americas during this time frame regarding advances in "civilization"?
Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants? If the latter it was illegal.
There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery (circa 1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."
In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since 97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.
When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
you make important points, DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws. As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was THEIR LAW
Agreed. When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count. Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH. Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it. I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
different with some commonalities
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.
it is a matter of the USUAL culture interface----
each side will make its own rights. Be careful
as to what you wish for-------any land can end up CUT UP
Not without the involvement of the "capitalists".
Similar threads
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 368
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 353
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 100
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 305
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 778
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 192
- Views
- 718
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8507
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-