Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LordOfHats
pretention and ignorance is a bad combination.
There was never a massachussetts bay company. It didnt have a corporate charter. There was a massachussetts bay COLONY however. Please google this gak before you type. Watching you is painful.
AF

You didn't even bother reading did you? Fine. I'll point them out for you.

The Massachusetts Colony (sometimes called the Massachusetts Company, for the institution that founded it) was an English settlement on the east coast of North America in the 17th century, in New England, centered around the present-day cities of Salem and Boston. The area is now in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of the 50 United States of America.

If you bothered to read further, you'd notice a dead link to Massachusettes Bay Company that only redirects back to the Massachusettes Bay Colony article, hinting that there were at one time two articles that have since been merged into one seeing as the Colony and the Company are the same thing.

Since you're so big on sources, here is more information from one of my US History text books:

Before the 1620s ended, another group of Puritans (Congregationalists who hoped to reform the church of England from within) launched another colonial enterprise that would come to dominate New England and would absorb Plymouth in 1691. Charles I, who became king in 1625, was more hostile to Puritans than his father had been. Under his leadership, the Church of England attempted to suppress Puritan practices, driving clergymen from their pulpits and forcing congregations to worship secretly. Some Congregationalist merchants concerned about their long-term prospects in England sent out a body of colonists to Cape Ann in 1628. The following year the merchants obtained a royal charter, constituting themselves as the Massachusettes Bay Company.

I digress. I'm not going to type out my whole text book. I do hope you realize Abb that this is intended to help. You don't know as much as you think you do. That you can't even grasp what Ahtman was trying to say is rather hard the fathom.

whoops. It existed for 3 years out of a total of 403 years of settlement. The Virginia company lasted about 20. But yes, you do digress. Your original point was that Palestine is not a colony because a colony cant have its own government or military organization, which massachussetts colony clearly did. So while its fun to point out footnotes, your larger point is still clearly mistaken.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:whoops. It existed for 3 years out of a total of 403 years of settlement. The Virginia company lasted about 20. But yes, you do digress. Your original point was that Palestine is not a colony because a colony cant have its own government or military organization, which massachussetts colony clearly did. So while its fun to point out footnotes, your larger point is still clearly mistaken.
AF

In 1684 England revoked the Massachusetts charter, sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686

Not 3 years. Really. READ.

403 years of settlement

Massachussettes bay was colonized for the first time in 1606. 171 years of colonization.

There is a difference between a standing military force like the IDF and a militia, which is as Lord Cornwallis is a somewhat decent movie said 'farmers with pitchforks'. The Militias of the colonies (legally) were under the authority of royal appointees, but England was pretty new at the colonization thing and the unique environment of the American colonies ultimately led to their rebellion. Colonies are not sovereign. They have no political authority unto themselves but are subject to rule from the parent state. They are incapable of pursing their own interests but must pursue the interests of the parent state and they cannot form their own military forces. American Colonial militias were not a standing army and were subject to royal rule anyway not colonial rule (legally). The American colonies had a lot of friction with royal governors and didn't always enjoy their presence which is one of the reasons the Revolution happened. Really Abb stop digging yourself deeper.

you're so cute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Company
The article says the company had fallen into disuse by 1609.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:you're so cute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Company
The article says the company had fallen into disuse by 1609.

That's the Plymouth Company Abb, not the MBC

ofcourse theres a difference between the IDF and a Militia. They are both state sponsored military organizations, so they both fit according to the criteria you provided.

It is, alas, you, who dont know gak about gak.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:ofcourse theres a difference between the IDF and a Militia. They are both state sponsored military organizations, so they both fit according to the criteria you provided.

It is, alas, you, who dont know gak about gak.
AF

Sigh. Why do I bother... You just spout off and don't even seem to be capable of actually reading or thinking critically. I highly advise you either pay attention in school, or go back to it and educate yourself. Your understanding of just about everything in this thread is horribly lacking.

The Colonial militias were not sponsored by the colonies. They formed under royal charter or royal decree. They were English sponsored organizations (legally).

LordOfHats wrote:
There is a difference between a standing military force like the IDF and a militia, which is as Lord Cornwallis is a somewhat decent movie said 'farmers with pitchforks'. The Militias of the colonies (legally) were under the authority of royal appointees, but England was pretty new at the colonization thing and the unique environment of the American colonies ultimately led to their rebellion. Colonies are not sovereign. They have no political authority unto themselves but are subject to rule from the parent state. They are incapable of pursing their own interests but must pursue the interests of the parent state and they cannot form their own military forces. American Colonial militias were not a standing army and were subject to royal rule anyway not colonial rule (legally). The American colonies had a lot of friction with royal governors and didn't always enjoy their presence which is one of the reasons the Revolution happened. Really Abb stop digging yourself deeper.

they are both legally constituted military organizations. the QUALITY of the organization is not what is under discussion, merely the EXISTANCE of the organization. The rule of the british Parliament was exercised indirectly through the Assemblies. Militia commanders answered directly to the Massachussetts assembly which in turn answered to Parliament. Your definition doesnt fit because Massachussetts and Virginia colonies both did indeed have political authority to themselves, but were subject to an overrarching authority exercised by the British Parliament through the American Declaratory Act. If you knew gak about the British in India you would know that their colony in Calcutta did IN FACT pursue the interests of the company officers sent to govern it, and were often at VARIANCE with the interests of the English East India Company board of directors. your definition does not, alas, fit here either.
You obviously dont know anything about this subject.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:ofcourse theres a difference between the IDF and a Militia. They are both state sponsored military organizations, so they both fit according to the criteria you provided.

It is, alas, you, who dont know gak about gak.
AF

Sigh. Why do I bother... You just spout off and don't even seem to be capable of actually reading or thinking critically. I highly advise you either pay attention in school, or go back to it and educate yourself. Your understanding of just about everything in this thread is horribly lacking.

The Colonial militias were not sponsored by the colonies. They formed under royal charter or royal decree. They were English sponsored organizations (legally).

I'm done going round and round with you. You're obviously a .
AF

Self-identification as a Jew does not make all Jews identical.

One definition of a Londoner is a person who defines himself as a Londoner.


A Jew.


Another Jew.


The Mayor of London, with friends.


A Londoner.


A London Jew burns Israeli flag to protest against Zionism.

nobody said that all jews were identical.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The rule of the british Parliament was exercised indirectly through the Assemblies. Militia commanders answered directly to the Massachussetts assembly which in turn answered to Parliament.

You realize this statement agrees with me right? In this statement power flows from Parliament, to the assembly, to the militia. Ultimately the militia answer to the British, not the colony. Power lies in Parliament. The ruling legislative body of the parent state.

Your definition doesnt fit because Massachussetts and Virginia colonies both did indeed have political authority to themselves, but were subject to an overrarching authority exercised by the British Parliament through the American Declaratory Act.

You... you baffle me... the evidence that the colonies were colonies as I have stated is somehow evidence that they aren't? The ADA was formed in response to the colonies forming the Stamp Congress, which was an attempt by Colonial powers to challenge the Stamp Act. Fearing they would lose control of the colonies, Parliament passed the ADA, repealing the Stamp Act, and stating that they ruled the colonies and that all laws they made governed them. If you at all understood the American Revolution you'd know that this was one of the critical points that sparked the American Revolution and why colonialism in the Americas by the British failed.

If you knew gak about the British in India you would know that their colony in Calcutta did IN FACT pursue the interests of the company officers sent to govern it, and were often at VARIANCE with the interests of the English East India Company board of directors.

And? Ultimately the British benefited from the colonies economically. They held political power over them. This doesn't disprove that fact. That Britain didn't have perfect control of a colony thousands of miles away doesn't negate the traits of a colony or what a colony is. EDIT: This same thing happened in the Americas. If you bothered properly reading the text book excerpt, you'd notice that colonization in Massachussettes began before the colonists even had a charter that allowed them to legally be there!

You seem to be done but really Abb. Come on. You can't be this bad at critical reading or thinking. I don't want to believe anyone is. You prove incapable of understanding what a colony is, even when directed to the information. You fail to notice in the first sentence what the MBC is, and then fail to properly read an excerpt from a text book and just spout off random things. And then you go and describe the break down of a colony's political authority and yet, claim that it is evidence that what a colony is isn't a colony...

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

What?

Ketara wrote:Well, might as well start with correcting a few problems here....

If we stopped supporting them they could never last, and they know it. I think that disqualifies them as independent.

Verification. Please. To claim a nation as geographically distant, and radically different as Israel is 100% susceptible to, and influenced by the whims of American foreign policy requires substantial, unarguable proof

Indeed it does. Not that I argued that. Obviously the Isrealis are not 100% susceptible to the whims of American foreign policy. If they were they'd stop building their settlements bc thats not what we want.
What I argued was

If we stopped trading with them, stopped selling them our military surplus at bargain basement deals, and in general treated them like the world treated South Africa in the 80s, they would have to give the palestinians justice. But we dont bc of domestic politics....the isrealis are like little kids who know just how far they can push it without getting spanked. If it were up to them they would have blasted iran's nuclear sites last year or earlier. why havent they? we wont let them. If it were up to them they'd still be in lebanon right now. why did they leave? because papa bear US was getting pissed. Do they do everything we tell them? No. Can they act without tacit US approval? No they cant.

Thats not the same thing as what you said. What I said was that the Isrealis have to stay in bounds and they know that. Not that they do just whatever we tell them to do. Obviously they dont.

Ketara wrote:
let alone to claim that the nation would collapse altogether. Please provide this evidence in the form of academic citation, or at the very least, a verifiable and academcially respected source. Until then, I'll take such a wild sounding statement with a small mountain of salt.

No it wouldnt collapse all together. But their standard of living and their industrial base would depriciate considerably. Without access to military equipment supplied by the US, to unlimied financing provided by the US, to the diplomatic protection provided by the US, or to US markets, which are the largest in the world. Isreal is a democracy its domestic politics are heavily influenced by economic issues as is the domestic politics of the US. If we took a hard line, they would be forced to compromise with the Palestinians. Why do I think that? Below:

Isreal is resource poor and dependent on imports of raw materials to maintain an industrial economy. No imports, no industrial economy, no modern nation state. A US lead international boycott of Isreal would force them to negotiate.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html
It [Isreal] depends on imports of crude oil, grains, raw materials, and military equipment. Despite limited natural resources ...

The United States has been and continues to be the chief source of finance to Isreal
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html
Israel usually posts sizable trade deficits, which are covered by large transfer payments from abroad and by foreign loans. Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, its major source of economic and military aid.

We support Isreal Militarily and Financially
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html
In August 2007, the Bush Administration agreed to increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the following decade. Israel is to receive incremental annual increases of $150 mllion, starting at $2.55 billion in FY2009 and reaching $3.15 billion per year for FY2013-2018.

we loan them as much money as they want
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56M2QL20090723
Israel does not expect the United States to limit use of loan guarantees despite a dispute with Washington over building in East Jerusalem or in West Bank settlements, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Thursday. "I don't see any limitations on the horizon. It's not time to be concerned about that," Steinitz told reporters.

To get a good idea of what would happen to Isreal without the ability to receive aid, financing, or trade with the US, see here:
http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/apartheid.html
The country was in great turmoil and the anti apartheid struggle had succeeded in capturing the attention of the world. As pressures from outside as well as inside the country were building up, economic sanctions were beginning to seriously hurt the economy...With international pressure continuing to grow and the country on the verge of becoming ungovernable, the South African government was left with no other option then to look for a negotiated settlement, recognizing the demands of the blacks and ending the racial segregation system...In February 1990 de Klerk announced the dismantling of the racial segregation system, the un-banning of all liberation movements and the release of political prisoners, in particular Nelson Mandela.

kletara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:you just flatly assert, on your own authority, that isreal isnt a colony.

You just as equally assert that is. A link to a dictionary does not equate proof. As a War Studies student (think history and politics combined), who recently finished a term studying the myriad types of colonialism from British Empire building, to American financial colonialism, you will have to excuse me if I take the umpteen dozen books I just read on the topic over your word for it.

nope. what I assert is that Isreal fits the definition of a colony found here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
It is a "a body of people living in a new territory but maintaining ties to the parent state" or, in this case, states - the west collectively.
LordOfHats could not provide an alternative definition of a colony and did not even attempt to argue that Isreal did not fit that definition. His argument (and if you'll scroll back I think you'll see this) was that a colony meant something established during Colonialism - that is, European expansion from the 16th to the 19th centuries. What I told him was that this was a historically localized definition of a term with broader meaning. So, as I said, I pulled my definition from a reputable, 3rd party source. He pulled his out of his ass.

ketara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote: reflect that Isrealis are westerners

Where does this perception of Israeli's as white skinned westerners come from? Have you ever met many Israeli's? Methinks not.
There were Jews who lived there long before Israel came into existence. By this stage of the game, fifty years down the line, the racial groupings get a little blurred. They're all quite tanned, and fairly similar. Please, no more bad analogies to prove this 'colonialism' point.

they have close cultural, political, and economic links to the west. Most Isreals are either 1st 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants from western nations. see here:
http://www.adl.org/israel/record/immigration_since_30.asp
while there are a high number of non-western sources for emmigration to Isreal, the USSR, Poland, Rumania, the United States, Argentina, France, Hungary, the UK and Germany are all represented and together comprise the majority of emmigration to Isreal from 1948-1995. I never said that they were western because they are white. Thats an unfair caracture of what I said. The fact of the business is that their culture is western derived and their citizens are mostly western emmigrants. That is why they are westerners.

Ketara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:they kind of deserve what they get.

Y'know, I could turn that on it's head quite easily. For example, you could say that any American who gets blown up by an Islamic terrorist deserves what he gets, because US troops are in Afganistan. And I mean, if the US was willing to make the concession, and pull out, that terror attack would never have happened. Right? He clearly had it coming!

again, caracture. what I said was that the Isrealis are an occupying power in someone else's territory and it's to be expected that they will be met with violent opposition.

Ketara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:it would be ideal if the jews living in that area had not created this situation......So ideally yes the Isrealis would atone for their crime by leaving the area.

Let em get this straight. You think the Israeli's should all pack up and leave? Despite them having been dumped there fifty years ago by a world that didn't want them? Hang on. Little backstory on the creation of Israel here.

you got it straight. that would be the best thing. thieves give back what they stole. that's justice. practically the best thing would be for isreal to grant the palestinians full political and legal equality within the state of isreal, or, failing that, to permit them an independent state. But the isrealis, you see, are racist, and they're afraid that their democracy will be swamped with angry brown people. which it probably would be. so they should give them a state. why dont they? dont have to as long as we're protecting them. politically its easier to maintain the status quo than to grant justice to the palestinians, who do not, after all, vote in isreali elections.

ketara wrote:
The plan to give the Jews their own homeland was proposed by the British goverment pre World War 1. The idea got pushed to one side shortly after due to larger events. Post World War 2, the Allies had all these Holocaust survivors left on their hands that they didn't know what to do with. The French mentione dthe original British idea of a Jewish homeland, but the British weren't interested. They'd gone off the idea. Not only that, they closed their doors to the survivors. Didn't want them in their country. The French did the same. The Jews were moved out of Nazi camps into marginally better camps, but they still had nothing apart from the clothes on their backs.

The French kept pushing the idea, mainly to hack off the British. The Americans weren't too keen on taking in all these boatloads of refugees either, so they pressured the British into agreeing. Hence, all the Jews got moved to Israel.

As you can see, they kind of didn't have much choice in the equation. They didn't invade, they didn't even set up their own 'homeland'. They were dumped there by an international community who wanted nothing more to do with them.
They didn't 'steal' the land. I think this is a very basic error that colours everything you say on the topic. I hope that once you realise this, you'll also realise how very, very foolish you sound when talking about how they should all be 'leaving the area'.

really Ketara I dont give a damn whether you think I sound foolish or not. lets just stick to the facts ok? If you cant handle civil discourse just let me know and we dont have to talk about it anymore.
The area was taken by force during the so called Isreali "War of Independence" in 1948. The presence of large numbers of jews did not necessitate the creation of an independent state in an arab-dominated territory any more than the presence of large numbers of black people in alabama necessitates the creation of an independent state there. Colonialism has left problems all over the world: wars in vietnam, algeria, rwanda, in the Kashmir between Pakistan and India, and, incidentally, in Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews. If you think colonialism was great then I guess you can argue that the land was the property of the british and they could give it to whoever you wanted. But if you recognize that colonialism was always an injustice committed by technologically superior people against the technologically inferior possessors of that land then you recognize that the arabs had a just claim to that land which currently only Isreal and the United States prevents them from exercising.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:nobody said that all jews were identical.
AF

No one, except you.

You remind me of someone... are you related to G-Baby?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

What?

Seriously.

I have read through the greater part of this thread. The pattern here is mindbogglingly obvious.

http://th08.deviantart.net/fs39/PRE/f/2008/332/9/9/lolwut_pear_template_by_sgoheen06.png

Go ahead, print that out and get something cool from the thread. It's in 3-D, which is pretty awesome.

Tyyr wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:nobody said that all jews were identical.
AF

No one, except you.

You remind me of someone... are you related to G-Baby?

No.... Not even me. I said they were a cultural group. Are all Americans the same? Nope but they are a group. Are all Catholics? Nope. But they are a group. That's not the same as being identical.
AF

djones520 wrote:And please cite how the blockade is not legal? They are at war with the governing body of Gaza. Hamas launches numerous attacks against Israel all the time. Even President Obama says the blockade is legal.

Umm, no. There is no declaration of war, and even if there were it is illegal and immoral to inflict collective punishment on a population for the actions of a few.

It is hilarious that you'd say 'even Obama' as if Obama was anything like the people who are actually critical of Israel. He's a mainstream US politician, he falls well and truly into the pro-Israel side.

Israel has delivered more then 2 billion pounds of aid to Gaza in the last year and a half. Thats more then 1300lbs per person. Meanwhile, Egypt which also shares a border with Gaza, has blockaded all aid shipments to the area through their territory. Israeli's are the bad guys though.

The Egyptian blockade is undertaken in close co-operation with Israel, as part of the greater quarantine effort led by Israel. Meanwhile Israel is the primary deliverer of aid, because they take it on themselves to control everything that moves into Palestine. What you've basically said above is complete nonsense, and I'd really like to know who's phrasing it that way to you, because they're clearly phrasing it to mislead you.

It never ceases to amaze me that a terrorist organization gets more support by people like you then a country actively fighting the terrorists.

You are quite right that Hamas are very bad, but it's very funny that you'd use that point to try and show that Israel must be good. You have assumed that there must be one good side and one bad side, which is a very silly thing to assume.

We can, in fact, be critical of both Israel and Hamas. We can also be critical of Fatah.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

What?

Seriously.

I have read through the greater part of this thread. The pattern here is mindbogglingly obvious.

http://th08.deviantart.net/fs39/PRE/f/2008/332/9/9/lolwut_pear_template_by_sgoheen06.png

Go ahead, print that out and get something cool from the thread. It's in 3-D, which is pretty awesome.

I've said it before, I watched that raid and as far as on concerned nobody could blame the guys for shooting. The legality of the whole thing... well, that's above my pay scale. I tend to sympathize with the Israelis though...

mattyrm wrote:I've said it before, I watched that raid and as far as on concerned nobody could blame the guys for shooting. The legality of the whole thing... well, that's above my pay scale. I tend to sympathize with the Israelis though...

mattrym siding with Israel?! Well I never!

loki old fart wrote:Israel's military broke international laws during its raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, a UN Human Rights Council investigation says.

The three-member panel said the Israeli commandoes' response to the flotilla was "disproportionate" and "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality"

Israel: "La-la-la we don't hear you"