So I'm reading the Wikileaks book, and it's infuriating.

[dissolved]

I mean, if we are being honest: any country has been allowed their own country by self determination since WW2 ended has received it is a gift from the Soviets and the U.S.A.

We could've conquered the world if we wished. In the 1990's after the fall of the Soviet Union, it could've been done by the U.S. alone.

This is actually true for all the heat it's taking in this thread.

 

[Blackened]

This is actually true for all the heat it's taking in this thread.

Right?

 

[dissolved]

Right?

Of course it is absolutely true.

 

[dissolved]

Again : / don't really agree, and then agree. You're a mixed bag dude. Ah well, good explanation.

I see him the same way.

 

[Islam Imamate]

But ok, lets grant that. So Islam wasn't largely spread by conquest? That's the point I'm getting at.

So what? All of the Americas was created through conquests and conquests that happened far more recently. Challenging the claims of Muslims because they conquered the land over a thousand years ago puts a lot of other claims to land in question. Pretty much all the spawn of European colonialism, including the US, are put in to question. Same with Israel, I guess it doesn't have the right to exist.

What makes someone "owner" of the land? The argument isn't going anywhere until we get some definition up in this bitch.

Peoples have a right to self determination and part of that is self governance of the land they work and live on.

So no, I don't agree that might makes right. The reality is that the mentality of the world has changed on this point and imperialism has been almost uniformly rejected since the end of WWII. Even Israeli colonialism, competitively mild when put next to European colonialism in the Americas and Africa, is routinely denounced.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Tldr and Happy Xmas

 

[Blackened]

So what? All of the Americas was created through conquests and conquests that happened far more recently. Challenging the claims of Muslims because they conquered the land over a thousand years ago puts a lot of other claims to land in question. Pretty much all the spawn of European colonialism, including the US, are put in to question. Same with Israel, I guess it doesn't have the right to exist.

Peoples have a right to self determination and part of that is self governance of the land they work and live on.

So no, I don't agree that might makes right. The reality is that the mentality of the world has changed on this point and imperialism has been almost uniformly rejected since the end of WWII. Even Israeli colonialism, competitively mild when put next to European colonialism in the Americas and Africa, is routinely denounced.

Right's aren't an inherent part of the universe. Rights are some made up shit by governments.

Right to self determination is the same.
Force is the only thing that determines ownership, everything else is an illusion propped up by people using force to determine these "rights".

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Forget it then, just look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

If they gained most of their territory by up and taking it, why couldn't we do the same? If their rightful claim is due to their use of force, why couldn't we rightfully claim it by use of force?

I'd say the claim would be the possession is 9/10ths of the law and that most every property owner in the area is on land that was purchased at some point and not stolen by them.

Still not sure how you give people the land they already own and occupy.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Right's aren't an inherent part of the universe. Rights are some made up shit by governments.

Right to self determination is the same.
Force is the only thing that determines ownership, everything else is an illusion propped up by people using force to determine these "rights".

You're right but at the same time even force is on my side. The Vietnamese and Afghans ejected those two superpowers you said generously gave the world the gift of sovereignty. If they could do that do you really think either the USSR or the US could occupy the whole Middle East? We couldn't even occupy Iraq for ten years.

What they did was realize the direction the world was heading.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I don't have a problem with Muslims. I have a problem with Muslims coming to places where Europeans are/were living peacefully and disrespecting and murdering them because they are civilized... Then crying victim along with immature Euro women to get their way after they have behaved poorly. I swear on my life, if it were Christians moving to Muslim countries, not assimilating, and pretending they were all badass because the Muslims were nice/organized people, I would say "send them back."

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'm not sure what you are seeing?

You don't think the complete shut-down on other religions in the ME isn't a reality? That over 99% of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia or Muslims already, Iran is over %98 and Pakistan is at 97% doesn't represent this?

You're talking about something completely different than suggesting the U.S. parcel out a specified piece of land to Muslims.
The declining Christian population in the ME in a concern for multiple reason, and the causes are more complex than "muzzies are bad".

 

[Anung Un Rama]

#Notanargument

Well when you've developed one I'm game to hear it.

 

[Blackened]

I'd say the claim would be the possession is 9/10ths of the law and that most every property owner in the area is on land that was purchased at some point and not stolen by them.

Still not sure how you give people the land they already own and occupy.

Not a good argument. The idea of ownership is enforced by the law, some philosophies don't have the idea of ownership or property.

Laws are an artificial construct bound to a region enforced by... well, use of force. If someone conquered the land and started using a different set of laws what's to stop them? Laws are enforced by the barrel of a gun.

We gave them the land by declaring "all nations have the right of self determination" not taking it and conquering the world as we could've done.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not a good argument.

I'm sorry you're unimpressed.

 

[Blackened]

Well when you've developed one I'm game to hear it.

I don't know what to tell you. If they gained most of their territory by up and taking it, why couldn't we do the same? If their rightful claim is due to their use of force, why couldn't we rightfully claim it by use of force?

They should teach philosophy in high school so you can follow an argument. I'll try to make it as easy as I can for you to follow, then I'm done here.

A. If ownership of land is determined by use of force

B. Then ownership of the Islamic land can be attained by use of force



A. After WW2, The United States and the Soviet Union were dominant world powers who CHOSE to stop the reign of empires and colonization (some treaty, can't remember the name).
B. Therefore we gave the world (including Islamic land) the right to self determination by not conquering it.

 

[Bald1]

Calls the hadits heresy, yet doesn't realise that 99% of Muslms call quranists heretics. Brilliant.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't know what to tell you. If they gained most of their territory by up and taking it, why couldn't we do the same? If their rightful claim is due to their use of force, why couldn't we rightfully claim it by use of force?

1. Thats a HUGE fucking "IF" and a very unnuanced position to take on a very complex issue that has developed over 100+ years.
2. Thats a HUGELY ignorant position to just assume we could take it at all, let alone "rightfully". Who is "we", the USA or your congregation?

They should teach philosophy in high school so you can follow an argument. I'll try to make it as easy as I can for you to follow, then I'm done here.

A. If ownership of land is determined by use of force and Islam was spread by conquest.
B. Then ownership of the Islamic land can be attained by use of force and conquest.

You sound even stupider when you try to be condescending.

A. After WW2, The United States and the Soviet Union were dominant world powers who CHOSE to stop the reign of empires and colonization (some treaty, can't remember the name).
B. Therefore we gave the world (including Islamic land) the right to self determination by not conquering it.

So when you say "we", you mean the Russians, English, and French? And you feel they should take back their ME colonies and put the Muslims on reservations because you think they can?
Yeah good luck with your neo-Manifest Destiny. Just a reminder: the US and Russia have, collectively, fought nomads in Afghanistan for 21 years and they have yet to bend the knee.

 

[Blackened]

1. Thats a HUGE fucking "IF" and a very unnuanced position to take on a very complex issue that has developed over 100+ years.
2. Thats a HUGELY ignorant position to just assume we could take it at all, let alone "rightfully". Who is "we", the USA or your congregation?


You sound even stupider when you try to be condescending.





So when you say "we", you mean the Russians, English, and French? And you feel they should take back their ME colonies and put the Muslims on reservations because you think they can?
Yeah good luck with your neo-Manifest Destiny. Just a reminder: the US and Russia have, collectively, fought nomads in Afghanistan for 21 years and they have yet to bend the knee.

Hey, guess what: It's not a HUGE fucking "IF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

"We" were the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union. And yes we could've taken it all. One at a time. What country would've been able to stop us?

Right, but that is before Geneva convention. Drop a good 20 nukes in Afghanistan, let it die down, send in air force then ground troops to clean up and we could conquer it in 2 months tops.










You don't have to admit you're wrong, it'll be obvious to those reading the thread. As promised, I'm done here. See ya.

 

[dissolved]

You're talking about something completely different than suggesting the U.S. parcel out a specified piece of land to Muslims.
The declining Christian population in the ME in a concern for multiple reason, and the causes are more complex than "muzzies are bad".

What reasons would those be?

You know Christianity has been genocided out of Iraq and Syria in under 10 years? Is this ISIS' fault or the fact that ISIS AND Saudi Arabia are practically the same entity?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What reasons would those be?

You know Christianity has been genocided out of Iraq and Syria in under 10 years? Is this ISIS' fault or the fact that ISIS AND Saudi Arabia are practically the same entity?

So long as you acknowledge that this wasn't the original argument we can go down this thread.