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.

Of course there is a particularly chilling historical precedent of an occupying nation forcing people out of their homes and into impoverished areas, surrounded by walls, controlling access to food, medicine, work etc.

One that the people of Israel should be extremely familiar with.


Strangely enough no-one ever blamed the people in the Warsaw ghetto for it being burned to the ground when they used violent resistance against their oppressors. No-one said they shouldn't have fought futilely against a professional army and it was their own fault they got shot.


To be clear, I am not saying Israel is as bad as the Nazis, or that they are going to try and set up extermination camps etc.

But their behaviour with regards to forcing Palestinians out of their homes to make way for Israeli settlements, their construction of the walls, their reprisals for attacks etc. is incredibly similar to that of the Nazi government prior to the Final Solution.

Difference is the Polish Jews in Warsaw weren't detonating suicide vests and going on stabbing sprees targeting German civilians. So this is a false equivalence and you bloody well know it.

Don't act like building walls to protect civilians from violence is something unique to Israel. Belfast had "peace" walls to stop Protestants and Catholics from killing each other.

Nutter launches terror attacks.

State murders civilians.

Good logic.

Civilians who are throwing bombs and trying to tear down and breach a border wall. Get it right.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Difference is the Polish Jews in Warsaw weren't detonating suicide vests and going on stabbing sprees targeting German civilians. So this is a false equivalence and you bloody well know it.

Don't act like building walls to protect civilians from violence is something unique to Israel. Belfast had "peace" walls to stop Protestants and Catholics from killing each other.

That is a false difference. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was in a span of 3 years. Palestinians didn't start off suicide bombing and stabbing people either. The first Intifada was relatively peaceful. Only the second Intifada saw the rise of suicide bombing. Who knows that the Jews would have done if they had been locked up in the ghetto for 50+ years. That is a long time to be treated as a doormat. You're comparing events transpiring in three years time to at least two generations of violations by Israel.

jouso 753955 9978441 wrote:


I go to Israel quite frequently (though it's been quite a few years I don't cross into the West Bank because then Israeli immigration gives you all sorts of crap) and cognitive dissonance once this issue turns up (and it does turn up, you can't really ignore it) is something like I haven't seen anywhere else in the world. Best case scenario is Palestinians deserve what's coming for them because they brought it on themselves, worst case is they don't qualify for the human card.

This is sadly true. I have an Israeli colleague and once, when discussing Palestinian riots he shrugged and said "You can't reason with them. Violence is the only language they understand."
When I asked when Israel had actually tried another language the subject was changed pretty quickly.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Civilians who are throwing bombs and trying to tear down and breach a border wall. Get it right.

Sweet.

I'll be round your house in the next week or two. Build a way halfway across your bedroom, decide what resources, and how much thereof you're allowed, and threaten you with violence if you so much as raise your voice at me.

Gotcha.

Bran Dawri wrote:

jouso 753955 9978441 wrote:


I go to Israel quite frequently (though it's been quite a few years I don't cross into the West Bank because then Israeli immigration gives you all sorts of crap) and cognitive dissonance once this issue turns up (and it does turn up, you can't really ignore it) is something like I haven't seen anywhere else in the world. Best case scenario is Palestinians deserve what's coming for them because they brought it on themselves, worst case is they don't qualify for the human card.

This is sadly true. I have an Israeli colleague and once, when discussing Palestinian riots he shrugged and said "You can't reason with them. Violence is the only language they understand."
When I asked when Israel had actually tried another language the subject was changed pretty quickly.

There has been international negotiations for decades and none has come of it bar a few smaller gains like the PA being founded. However that is a mess mired in corruption etc.

Recently the US cut off there funding to the UN mission there dramatically. Things are a multi layered, maze like mess equal to most middle Eastern problems.

Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.

It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.

I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.

It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.

I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.

True but psychologically.

You have Israel. Who where driven from home city, home land. Scattered and for next 2000+ years, expelled, malligned and more by many countries they inhabited. They faced genocide and loss many times.

They survive of the most focused and orgonised genocides in human history.

They then regain there ainciant homeland, now for first time they have a secure hold on land and the strengh to defend it.

So.. When someone's going on about driving them into the sea, destruction, there's a huge collective history behind it and a single fact there not going back there.

So they going to yield now when they have stood and won against 5-1 odds in war and hold and defend there most holy sites, now in possession for first time in 2000 years?

You wonder why they fight?

And how much help bar for political gain has there Arab "Brothers" truly gave them?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

A cease fire is automatic. Stop trying to attack the wall - they will stop shooting you. Come on man. Nothing I said is even remotely racist. Hamas is Racist.

Not attacking the wall didn't stop the IDF from murdering the protesters before, why would it now? Maybe you missed this, but the murdering started BEFORE the wall attacking started. Israel's justification has jumped around quite a bit: first it was that all the people they killed were terrorists. Then they killed a bunch of journalists covering it who were provably not terrorists, so then it was that all the people they were killed were violent rioters, but then footage of them shooting people just standing there kept coming out, so now it's to protect the wall separating Gaza and Israel.

And, yes, you did. Maybe you don't grasp WHY it's racist, but you did.

You know they have simar genetic markers right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
. It was a world war where we were attacked on our homeland. Intervention here was self-defense.

One, after FDR set it up so that Japan would attack the US, even having studies done to formulate a foreign policy that would ensure this.

Two: actually you were attacked in foreign countries that you just happened to have conquered. Hawaii, The Philippines, etc.

 Xenomancers wrote:
.What racist fantasy? Am I imagining that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and all its people?

So do a lot of people, but the thing is that there's something called 'proportionality' even in warfare. Calling for your enemies deaths is not the same as actually committing a war crime. (This is discussed at length at the trial of 'Panzer' Meyer)

The difference here is while Hamas has blown a lot of smoke, it's the IDF committing actual crimes.

Wait you just said FDR set up Japan attacking the US. That's pants on head crazy chemtrails moon landings were fake crap.

Its not an uncommon belief though, the carriers all being at sea in December is could be seen as suspicious in hindsight. Economic policy was pushing the Japanese Empire closer to having to do something.

I'm not going to attack anyone for thinking that pearl was a setup. It could have been - though I really doubt it (I can think of a lot better ways to set up a war than letting a whole fleet sink). I attribute it to inexperienced operators and a general false sense of security that allowed it to happen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.

It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.

I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.

I've asked this in another thread, but it really should go here:

What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns?

I'm not so certain if any other nation would've handled that better...

Can anyone rational explain how going through the Shoa explains the Nakba?

 jhe90 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.

It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.

I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.

True but psychologically.

You have Israel. Who where driven from home city, home land. Scattered and for next 2000+ years, expelled, malligned and more by many countries they inhabited. They faced genocide and loss many times.

They survive of the most focused and orgonised genocides in human history.

They then regain there ainciant homeland, now for first time they have a secure hold on land and the strengh to defend it.

So.. When someone's going on about driving them into the sea, destruction, there's a huge collective history behind it and a single fact there not going back there.

So they going to yield now when they have stood and won against 5-1 odds in war and hold and defend there most holy sites, now in possession for first time in 2000 years?

You wonder why they fight?

And how much help bar for political gain has there Arab "Brothers" truly gave them?

The issue with this is that its pretty hard to go and claim that you have a right to a 'homeland' that you were driven from (which is debatable, a number of Jews have always lived in the region) 2000 years ago. Meanwhile they have driven off the people who's homeland it was not even a few decades ago. Following the homeland argument is going to lead to incredible bloodshed. As most of Europe and a good deal of Asia could invoke homeland and move over a few countries if we can stretch it back 2000 years.

As for the drive them into the sea rethoric. Its pretty tasteless, but don't forget that for most people in the region the Israelis are the invaders from the sea.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.

It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.

I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.

I've asked this in another thread, but it really should go here:

What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns?

That's why there is a physical fence. You need non-concealeable equipment to get through that. Try to cut through several layers of heavy wire while tear-gassed and pelted with rubber bullets. It's not like the IDF lacks things like water cannons, and riot gear.

But just look at the footage, no protester got anywhere close to the actual fence (of which there are several, with buffer zones in between).

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.

It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.

I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.

I've asked this in another thread, but it really should go here:

What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns?

I'm not so certain if any other nation would've handled that better...

Again, you just arrest the ones that break through. You have an army with tanks and everything against a few guys with improvised explosives in a civilian crowd.

And we have video of people being shot in the back, are they walking backwards towards the fence? Even journalists were killed, its hardly proportional when they don't seem to bother aiming. Saying they all want to cross is just misleading.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No, the Gauls didn't go this far north. The Gauls are pretty much French adjacent. Then we have the Belgicae who became sort of Belgium and up here we have a few Germanic tribes. Later those few tribes fell under the control of some Frankish and Viking influence but nobody really got displaced. It just blended together. Or not in the case of the Frisians who didn't mix and are still distinct in the north of our country, with a name going back to Roman times.

Funnily enough we might have some 'Gaul' in us, because Belgium and the Netherlands were once considered one region and when we struggled for independence in the 16th century a lot of what we now call Belgians fled north to what became the Netherlands.

Also most 'white' people have some neaderthal in them, they went extinct due to a number of enviromental factors but they had snu snu with our European ancestors beforehand.

The modern Dutch, who are descendants of the Franks (who themselves were a confederation of a number of Germanic tribes that lived in what is now the Southern and Eastern Netherlands and the adjacent regions of Germany and Belgium) did 'steal' (as in take by force) most of the northern and western Netherlands from the Frisians, who were a Germanic tribe (descended from the Anglo-Saxons) that like other Saxon tribes weren't so keen on integrating with the Franks, largely because the Franks were christians while the Frisians and other Saxon tribes remained pagan (except for those Anglo-Saxons who went to Britain). They fought for their land and their faith, but the Franks were much larger and just conquered their land (although not without some wars that saw the Franks getting close to defeat) and forcefully integrated the Frisians. The Frisians remain a distinct people to this day, but only in the Frisian heartlands. Frisia used to be much larger than just the small part that remains today. It stretched along the North Sea coast from Belgium to Denmark, and in most of that area the Frisians were either driven out by the Franks or forcefully converted and assimilated into the immigrant Frankish population.
The Netherlands does have a remarkably peaceful early history for a European country, but it is not without its conquests and land-stealing. So yeah, if we are going the 'give land back to the original inhabitants' route, please give back most of the Netherlands to the Frisians.
Approximate map of early medieval Frisia:


Now in relation to the Palestine-Israel conflict, I think it is useless to discuss who came first and who has more right to the land. The Israelis are there now and they are not going to leave again. That is just fact. Even if the Palestinians were given back some of their land and their own state, it would most likely still exist in a state of perpetual conflict with Israel over all kinds of issues. IMO, the only real solution is that Palestinians and Israelis have to learn to accept one another and live together in a single state. Basically, Israel should stop being a 'Jewish state' (that is racist) and in its place should come a multicultural, democratic state. An unrealistic idea maybe, but I just don't see any other lasting solution.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No, the Gauls didn't go this far north. The Gauls are pretty much French adjacent. Then we have the Belgicae who became sort of Belgium and up here we have a few Germanic tribes. Later those few tribes fell under the control of some Frankish and Viking influence but nobody really got displaced. It just blended together. Or not in the case of the Frisians who didn't mix and are still distinct in the north of our country, with a name going back to Roman times.

Funnily enough we might have some 'Gaul' in us, because Belgium and the Netherlands were once considered one region and when we struggled for independence in the 16th century a lot of what we now call Belgians fled north to what became the Netherlands.

Also most 'white' people have some neaderthal in them, they went extinct due to a number of enviromental factors but they had snu snu with our European ancestors beforehand.

The modern Dutch, who are descendants of the Franks (who themselves were a confederation of a number of Germanic tribes that lived in what is now the Southern and Eastern Netherlands and the adjacent regions of Germany and Belgium) did 'steal' (as in take by force) most of the northern and western Netherlands from the Frisians, who were a Germanic tribe (descended from the Anglo-Saxons) that like other Saxon tribes weren't so keen on integrating with the Franks, largely because the Franks were christians while the Frisians and other Saxon tribes remained pagan (except for those Anglo-Saxons who went to Britain). They fought for their land and their faith, but the Franks were much larger and just conquered their land (although not without some wars that saw the Franks getting close to defeat) and forcefully integrated the Frisians. The Frisians remain a distinct people to this day, but only in the Frisian heartlands. Frisia used to be much larger than just the small part that remains today. It stretched along the North Sea coast from Belgium to Denmark, and in most of that area the Frisians were either driven out by the Franks or forcefully converted and assimilated into the immigrant Frankish population.
The Netherlands does have a remarkably peaceful early history for a European country, but it is not without its conquests and land-stealing. So yeah, if we are going the 'give land back to the original inhabitants' route, please give back most of the Netherlands to the Frisians.
Approximate map of early medieval Frisia:

Spoiler:

Well that isn't entirely true. Frisians aren't Anglo Saxon descendent, as the Frisians where already there before Anglo Saxon became the name for the groups crossing to Britain. Also traditionally the Frisian domains have gone back and forth but they still hold onto their core territory. They themselves aren't from the West of the Netherlands. They are from the north and conquered southwards after the Romans left, which is shown on your map. Most of the Netherlands does not belong to the Frisians as such, at most they could claim Groningen and a bit of Noord-Holland historically. Eventually we would become the Netherlands together. Most of the outer parts of Frisian culture were just merged in with new populations.

The Franks came into territory that was more or less occupied by the tribes that had been around since the Romans. Yet to say they displaced or stole it is a bit much, as the Frankish population that moved here was not overly large (certainly not on the scale of Israeli immigration).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Now in relation to the Palestine-Israel conflict, I think it is useless to discuss who came first and who has more right to the land. The Israelis are there now and they are not going to leave again. That is just fact. Even if the Palestinians were given back some of their land and their own state, it would most likely still exist in a state of perpetual conflict with Israel over all kinds of issues. IMO, the only real solution is that Palestinians and Israelis have to learn to accept one another and live together in a single state. Basically, Israel should stop being a 'Jewish state' (that is racist) and in its place should come a multicultural, democratic state. An unrealistic idea maybe, but I just don't see any other lasting solution.

It is, neither part is going to leave which is pretty clear. But they still have to allow the other to live instead of having a yearly Israeli landgrab. Israel won't ever allow a single state and would rather put up with a two state solution, 'luckily' for Israel there is no need to compromise however.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No, the Gauls didn't go this far north. The Gauls are pretty much French adjacent. Then we have the Belgicae who became sort of Belgium and up here we have a few Germanic tribes. Later those few tribes fell under the control of some Frankish and Viking influence but nobody really got displaced. It just blended together. Or not in the case of the Frisians who didn't mix and are still distinct in the north of our country, with a name going back to Roman times.

Funnily enough we might have some 'Gaul' in us, because Belgium and the Netherlands were once considered one region and when we struggled for independence in the 16th century a lot of what we now call Belgians fled north to what became the Netherlands.

Also most 'white' people have some neaderthal in them, they went extinct due to a number of enviromental factors but they had snu snu with our European ancestors beforehand.

The modern Dutch, who are descendants of the Franks (who themselves were a confederation of a number of Germanic tribes that lived in what is now the Southern and Eastern Netherlands and the adjacent regions of Germany and Belgium) did 'steal' (as in take by force) most of the northern and western Netherlands from the Frisians, who were a Germanic tribe (descended from the Anglo-Saxons) that like other Saxon tribes weren't so keen on integrating with the Franks, largely because the Franks were christians while the Frisians and other Saxon tribes remained pagan (except for those Anglo-Saxons who went to Britain). They fought for their land and their faith, but the Franks were much larger and just conquered their land (although not without some wars that saw the Franks getting close to defeat) and forcefully integrated the Frisians. The Frisians remain a distinct people to this day, but only in the Frisian heartlands. Frisia used to be much larger than just the small part that remains today. It stretched along the North Sea coast from Belgium to Denmark, and in most of that area the Frisians were either driven out by the Franks or forcefully converted and assimilated into the immigrant Frankish population.
The Netherlands does have a remarkably peaceful early history for a European country, but it is not without its conquests and land-stealing. So yeah, if we are going the 'give land back to the original inhabitants' route, please give back most of the Netherlands to the Frisians.
Approximate map of early medieval Frisia:

Spoiler:

Well that isn't entirely true. Frisians aren't Anglo Saxon descendent, as the Frisians where already there before Anglo Saxon became the name for the groups crossing to Britain. Also traditionally the Frisian domains have gone back and forth but they still hold onto their core territory. They themselves aren't from the West of the Netherlands. They are from the north and conquered southwards after the Romans left, which is shown on your map. Most of the Netherlands does not belong to the Frisians as such, at most they could claim Groningen and a bit of Noord-Holland historically. Eventually we would become the Netherlands together. Most of the outer parts of Frisian culture were just merged in with new populations.

The Franks came into territory that was more or less occupied by the tribes that had been around since the Romans. Yet to say they displaced or stole it is a bit much, as the Frankish population that moved here was not overly large (certainly not on the scale of Israeli immigration).

There have actually been two distinct Frisian peoples in history. The original Frisians (Frisii in Roman sources) moved out of their traditional lands during the early Migration period, as they were forced to leave due to a series of unprecedented marine transgressions and were resettled within the borders of the Roman Empire, mostly in the province of Gallia Belgica and in present-day Kent. Centuries later, the water had receded again and the Angles and Saxons, who at the time lived in northern Germany were looking to expand. The virtually empty lands of Frisia were an obvious choice, and a good springboard towards England. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons who settled Frisia and remained there (a lot of them appear to have moved on to England) became known as Frisians themselves, after the name of the land they lived in. Modern Frisians are actually descended from these Anglo-Saxon settlers, not from the ancient Frisii (don't tell any Frisians I said this though, they might to become angry). We have a lot of evidence for this. We know medieval Frisians spoke Anglo-Saxon (this is recorded in written sources), and linguistically modern Frisian is still very closely related to English, which is another language descended from Anglo-Saxon. Besides, in archaeology we see the material culture we associate with the ancient Frisians disappear at some point, without any material culture taking their place or traces of human habitation for hundreds of years. And then the whole region suddenly gets flooded with Anglo-Saxon material culture (they had very distinctive pottery and jewelry), virtually the same material culture we also find in the Anglo-Saxon homelands and in Britain. There is some evidence for continuity of habitation at two or three sites from Roman times to Medieval times, but it is very clear that only a very small original population remained in Frisia when the Anglo-Saxons moved in en-masse, and that most of the land was empty.
But obviously, any Frisian claims on the Netherlands are kinda silly. The Frisians have been fully integrated in the Netherlands, Friesland was even one of the founding provinces of the Netherlands, and one of the most powerful and active in the 80 years war. It is just an example that no country or people hasn't 'stolen' its land at some point, including even the Dutch.

Sorry for going off-topic, by the way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Now in relation to the Palestine-Israel conflict, I think it is useless to discuss who came first and who has more right to the land. The Israelis are there now and they are not going to leave again. That is just fact. Even if the Palestinians were given back some of their land and their own state, it would most likely still exist in a state of perpetual conflict with Israel over all kinds of issues. IMO, the only real solution is that Palestinians and Israelis have to learn to accept one another and live together in a single state. Basically, Israel should stop being a 'Jewish state' (that is racist) and in its place should come a multicultural, democratic state. An unrealistic idea maybe, but I just don't see any other lasting solution.

It is, neither part is going to leave which is pretty clear. But they still have to allow the other to live instead of having a yearly Israeli landgrab. Israel won't ever allow a single state and would rather put up with a two state solution, 'luckily' for Israel there is no need to compromise however.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There have actually been two distinct Frisian peoples in history. The original Frisians (Frisii in Roman sources) moved out of their traditional lands during the early Migration period, as they were forced to leave due to a series of unprecedented marine transgressions and were resettled within the borders of the Roman Empire, mostly in the province of Gallia Belgica and in present-day Kent. Centuries later, the water had receded again and the Angles and Saxons, who at the time lived in northern Germany were looking to expand. The virtually empty lands of Frisia were an obvious choice, and a good springboard towards England. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons who settled Frisia and remained there (a lot of them appear to have moved on to England) became known as Frisians themselves, after the name of the land they lived in. Modern Frisians are actually descended from these Anglo-Saxon settlers, not from the ancient Frisii (don't tell any Frisians I said this though, they might to become angry). We have a lot of evidence for this. We know medieval Frisians spoke Anglo-Saxon (this is recorded in written sources), and linguistically modern Frisian is still very closely related to English, which is another language descended from Anglo-Saxon. Besides, in archaeology we see the material culture we associate with the ancient Frisians disappear at some point, without any material culture taking their place or traces of human habitation for hundreds of years. And then the whole region suddenly gets flooded with Anglo-Saxon material culture (they had very distinctive pottery and jewelry), virtually the same material culture we also find in the Anglo-Saxon homelands and in Britain. There is some evidence for continuity of habitation at two or three sites from Roman times to Medieval times, but it is very clear that only a very small original population remained in Frisia when the Anglo-Saxons moved in en-masse, and that most of the land was empty.
But obviously, any Frisian claims on the Netherlands are kinda silly. The Frisians have been fully integrated in the Netherlands, Friesland was even one of the founding provinces of the Netherlands, and one of the most powerful and active in the 80 years war. It is just an example that no country or people hasn't 'stolen' its land at some point, including even the Dutch.

Sorry for going off-topic, by the way.

True, but not all the orginal inhabitants up and left. And it likely wasn't densely populated to begin with. The next Germanic tribe assimilated the remaining people left there. If anything there isn't a great claim for anyone as it all tended to be mixed in this area. I think the argument that our history has had stolen land on the scale of the US or Israel is a bit much. Large scale deportation didn't happen that often in European history, at least not in our own Dutch backyard as opposed to the colonies. Its not a very strong case is what I'm saying.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Luckily for Israel, unfortunately for the Palestinians.

Yup, hence the airquotes.

these are really good for riots https://www.lradx.com/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

A cease fire is automatic. Stop trying to attack the wall - they will stop shooting you. Come on man. Nothing I said is even remotely racist. Hamas is Racist.

Not attacking the wall didn't stop the IDF from murdering the protesters before, why would it now? Maybe you missed this, but the murdering started BEFORE the wall attacking started. Israel's justification has jumped around quite a bit: first it was that all the people they killed were terrorists. Then they killed a bunch of journalists covering it who were provably not terrorists, so then it was that all the people they were killed were violent rioters, but then footage of them shooting people just standing there kept coming out, so now it's to protect the wall separating Gaza and Israel.

And, yes, you did. Maybe you don't grasp WHY it's racist, but you did.

You know they have simar genetic markers right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
. It was a world war where we were attacked on our homeland. Intervention here was self-defense.

One, after FDR set it up so that Japan would attack the US, even having studies done to formulate a foreign policy that would ensure this.

Two: actually you were attacked in foreign countries that you just happened to have conquered. Hawaii, The Philippines, etc.

 Xenomancers wrote:
.What racist fantasy? Am I imagining that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and all its people?

So do a lot of people, but the thing is that there's something called 'proportionality' even in warfare. Calling for your enemies deaths is not the same as actually committing a war crime. (This is discussed at length at the trial of 'Panzer' Meyer)

The difference here is while Hamas has blown a lot of smoke, it's the IDF committing actual crimes.

Wait you just said FDR set up Japan attacking the US. That's pants on head crazy chemtrails moon landings were fake crap.

Its not an uncommon belief though, the carriers all being at sea in December is could be seen as suspicious in hindsight. Economic policy was pushing the Japanese Empire closer to having to do something.

I'm not going to attack anyone for thinking that pearl was a setup. It could have been - though I really doubt it (I can think of a lot better ways to set up a war than letting a whole fleet sink). I attribute it to inexperienced operators and a general false sense of security that allowed it to happen.

I do believe in the saying "never ascribe to malice what is better explained with incompetence" but if it was a setup (possible even if highly improbable) the loss of hulls was not nearly as catastrophic as it could have been.

That is true - They could use a sonic or microwave crowd dispersing device.

That's what the UN should do - provide to tools to break these crowds without killing them. Right now I am sure Israel is happy to utilize the tools they have without paying for expensive new tech in all their boarder units.

So the UN would have to buy a rich country the tools they need to stop comitting gross human right violations while poor people continue to suffer from disease and starvation in this world?

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is true - They could use a sonic or microwave crowd dispersing device.

That's what the UN should do - provide to tools to break these crowds without killing them. Right now I am sure Israel is happy to utilize the tools they have without paying for expensive new tech in all their boarder units.

Israeli police and IDF are quite able to use non-lethal means whenever it's citizens involved.




Subjects get another kind of treatment, though.

This is a really complicated subject and certainly has enough blame to be spread around on all sides, from those within the region and outside of it. While I don't support everything Israel does, and what they are essentially doing is apartheid, you certainly can't put all the blame on them. The truth is, no one in the region really wants the Palestinians either. Not Jordon, not Egypt. And whatever support they do get, is really more about sticking it to the jews having a Jewish country located within the arab dominated middle east. But even that is changing as many of the surrounding countries now have good relations with Israel.

And its ridiculous to argue about who was there first. The jews have been there far far long enough to have a say in how they govern themselves. Where do people expect them to go? Back to Egypt? Never going to happen. And their migration to Palestine was a bloody affair but by no means unique. Everyone's done it. Then the Romans came in and scattered them around Europe. After the events of WWII, if I were Jewish and living in the region, I would have wanted the same thing and fought for it.

The problem today is really just Israel acting racist and not including the Palestinians in the political process. And what they are doing in Gaza should very well be a crime.

But you certainly can't say the Palestinians are innocent here. It wasn't too long ago they were launching rockets from their backyards and tuning into CNN to see where they landed. Obviously that's going to bring some retaliation. The Israelis shooting missiles into apartment buildings and killing innocent people is also the same thing. There is a cycle of violence that's been going on for 2000 years. Trying to isolate one instance in a void and pointing fingers is silly. The truth is, if you are dumb enough to throw rocks and fire bombs at soldiers armed with guns, you deserve to be shot. Common sense tells you that you will be.

I am not saying they shouldn't protest or fight. They very well will have to. The ownership of territory goes to the guy who has the means to control it. its no different than Crimea, South China Sea, the Falklands, or any other disputed area. Its going to have to be sorted out one way or another, so if there isn't going to be a diplomatic one, and I don't see there ever being one, then there is going to have to be a violent one. But with that, blaming the Israelis for excessive force is dumb. If the Palestinians had the means, they would be doing the same to the Israelis.

Tune back to this channel 50 years from now and we'll be having the same discussion.

 KTG17 wrote:

But you certainly can't say the Palestinians are innocent here. It wasn't too long ago they were launching rockets from their backyards and tuning into CNN to see where they landed. Obviously that's going to bring some retaliation. The Israelis shooting missiles into apartment buildings and killing innocent people is also the same thing. There is a cycle of violence that's been going on for 2000 years.

Not really. Under Ottoman rule Jews were better treated than in European countries at the time. Which really ain't much, but rules out exceptionalism.

It took the first mass immigrations to the holy land (and the collapse of the Ottoman system) for the first conflicts to arise.

Problem with the comparison is that one is clearly a terrorist organization, while the people launching missiles into appartment blocks get treated like an actual state and not held accountable for the most part.

Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law. Again, US protests must be bloody if law enforcement just opens up at every protests where stuff gets thrown.

And while it is similar to Crimea, neither the Falklands or the SCS really belong in that list because of entirely different circumstances.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law.

I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.

If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.

Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.

The ancestral argument holds about as much water as my leaky bladder does these days.

Take Britain as a example. Named by the Romans, the Romans lived there for 400 years, and many of their roads and monuments, including a bloody great big wall, are still here in our landscape.

But I've yet to see the Italian government put in a claim for lost property and assets and a desire to return to the land of their ancestors.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law.

I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.

If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.

Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.

Broadly speaking, US police dont respond to rock throwing by killing 60 people and injuring thousands more