Political Crossfire Forums

[Tepic]

Saracen wrote: Japanese have a right to their nation state because they lived there.
Did you know there are many Koreans who've lived in Japan for generations, speak fluent Japanese yet are denied Japanese citizenship?

The Japanese certainly have a right to live in a structured society of some sort, which you might as well call a state. But why does it have to be a 'nation' state?

Nathyn wrote: Nationalism, period, is wrong
Nations, like languages, can be inclusionary or exclusionary. Historically, it seems nationalism has been used to exclude 'the other', and that I agree is wrong.

(But doesn't the American dream, the welcoming of immigrants, the melting pot ideology also count as a nationalism of sorts? Isn't that the 'inclusive' version? Is that also wrong?)

Duchifas may feel that Israel is being singled out for criticism but I think that's just the result of the middle east's being so much more newsworthy than Asia or Africa. Most leftwingers disagree with nationalism regardless of who practises it.

[programmusic]

Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: scoobysnack wrote: Duchifas wrote: scoobysnack wrote: I've always considered myself a Zionist, because I supported the Jewish state, Israel. It wasn't until I started looking into the plan to create a pure Jewish state, a couple of months ago, that I started questioning what I believed.

May I ask you...do you support the Japanese state? How about the Lithuanian one?

Then, can you tell me, why Japanese can have a Japanese state, Lithuanians can have a Lithuanian state, but Jews can't, in your opinion, have a Jewish state?

That's not the point. I've always considered being Jewish as a religion, not a race. I know many atheists who claim to be Jews also, by the way. So maybe Judaism is a race. Is it a race or a religion?

It doesn't matter what you consider Judaism. If the Japanese can have a state, then so should Jews.
No race, religion, or ethnic group should have explicit control over any particular area. Land, itself, cannot be justifiably owned. Establishing ownership based upon such an arbitrary criteria as religion is all the more unjust. It is no different than the racists in America and Britain who want to establish both countries as "white" nations or the black supremacists who want to establish "black" nations.

Nationalism, period, is wrong; racial and religious nationalism even more so.

It is hypocritical, on the one hand, for Jews to have faced the perils of German nationalism and socialism, but then to suddenly become nationalists and socialists themselves.

There are more non jews in Israel then there are non christians in America. And more non jews in Israel than non christians in most european countries or non muslims in most middle eastern countries. And they have complete equal rights which cannot be said about all those other countries.

[TheTME]

programmusic wrote: Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: scoobysnack wrote: Duchifas wrote: scoobysnack wrote: I've always considered myself a Zionist, because I supported the Jewish state, Israel. It wasn't until I started looking into the plan to create a pure Jewish state, a couple of months ago, that I started questioning what I believed.

May I ask you...do you support the Japanese state? How about the Lithuanian one?

Then, can you tell me, why Japanese can have a Japanese state, Lithuanians can have a Lithuanian state, but Jews can't, in your opinion, have a Jewish state?

That's not the point. I've always considered being Jewish as a religion, not a race. I know many atheists who claim to be Jews also, by the way. So maybe Judaism is a race. Is it a race or a religion?

It doesn't matter what you consider Judaism. If the Japanese can have a state, then so should Jews.
No race, religion, or ethnic group should have explicit control over any particular area. Land, itself, cannot be justifiably owned. Establishing ownership based upon such an arbitrary criteria as religion is all the more unjust. It is no different than the racists in America and Britain who want to establish both countries as "white" nations or the black supremacists who want to establish "black" nations.

Nationalism, period, is wrong; racial and religious nationalism even more so.

It is hypocritical, on the one hand, for Jews to have faced the perils of German nationalism and socialism, but then to suddenly become nationalists and socialists themselves.

There are more non jews in Israel then there are non christians in America. And more non jews in Israel than non christians in most european countries or non muslims in most middle eastern countries. And they have complete equal rights which cannot be said about all those other countries.

This is only true if you go by number and not percent.

[TheTME]

programmusic wrote: Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: scoobysnack wrote: Duchifas wrote: scoobysnack wrote: I've always considered myself a Zionist, because I supported the Jewish state, Israel. It wasn't until I started looking into the plan to create a pure Jewish state, a couple of months ago, that I started questioning what I believed.

May I ask you...do you support the Japanese state? How about the Lithuanian one?

Then, can you tell me, why Japanese can have a Japanese state, Lithuanians can have a Lithuanian state, but Jews can't, in your opinion, have a Jewish state?

That's not the point. I've always considered being Jewish as a religion, not a race. I know many atheists who claim to be Jews also, by the way. So maybe Judaism is a race. Is it a race or a religion?

It doesn't matter what you consider Judaism. If the Japanese can have a state, then so should Jews.
No race, religion, or ethnic group should have explicit control over any particular area. Land, itself, cannot be justifiably owned. Establishing ownership based upon such an arbitrary criteria as religion is all the more unjust. It is no different than the racists in America and Britain who want to establish both countries as "white" nations or the black supremacists who want to establish "black" nations.

Nationalism, period, is wrong; racial and religious nationalism even more so.

It is hypocritical, on the one hand, for Jews to have faced the perils of German nationalism and socialism, but then to suddenly become nationalists and socialists themselves.

There are more non jews in Israel then there are non christians in America. And more non jews in Israel than non christians in most european countries or non muslims in most middle eastern countries. And they have complete equal rights which cannot be said about all those other countries.

This is only true if you go by number and not percent.

[Saracen]

I'm telling you guys, now: If there is to be a barrier between religion and Zionism (or any other belief that states that a piece of land should have sole ownership on part of a certain group of people), there should also be a barrier between religion and the opposite of Zionism (i.e. anti-Zionism). While I have religious convictions in my anti-Zionist stance, there are some Muslims who actually have religious convictions in their Zionist stances.

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: No race, religion, or ethnic group should have explicit control over any particular area. Land, itself, cannot be justifiably owned. Establishing ownership based upon such an arbitrary criteria as religion is all the more unjust. It is no different than the racists in America and Britain who want to establish both countries as "white" nations or the black supremacists who want to establish "black" nations.

Nationalism, period, is wrong; racial and religious nationalism even more so.

It is hypocritical, on the one hand, for Jews to have faced the perils of German nationalism and socialism, but then to suddenly become nationalists and socialists themselves.

What the hell do you want from Jews? You think nation-states are wrong? Fine. There is one in Russia, 150 million big. Japan. China. Germany. Spain. Poland. France. Iran. Turkey. India. ETC. All national/ethnic states. According to you, all "wrong."

The little 6 million Jewish state in the middle of a stinking desert you lose sleep over?

What's your problem?
Of course nationstates are wrong. Ownership of natural resources is wrong, period, but even more so when it's on the arbitrary basis of race or religion.

I mean, would you defend the Christian Identity movement's goal of establishing a "White Christian" state?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: or any other belief that states that a piece of land should have sole ownership on part of a certain group of people

How do you feel about me buying some property in Mecca and moving there to start a Christian church on that property?

:lol:

[Saracen]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: or any other belief that states that a piece of land should have sole ownership on part of a certain group of people

How do you feel about me buying some property in Mecca and moving there to start a Christian church on that property?

:lol:

I wouldn't mind, but you have to take that up with the mayor of Mecca.

And then again, why Mecca? It's a mountainous region.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: Of course nationstates are wrong. Ownership of natural resources is wrong, period, but even more so when it's on the arbitrary basis of race or religion.

Why stop at race or religion? Isn't "we don't want to pay taxes to the King" also pretty arbitrary? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Are we ready to cancel U.S.A.?

Quote: I mean, would you defend the Christian Identity movement's goal of establishing a "White Christian" state?

Sure. Go establish a white Christian state. So long as you don't bother or threaten others, what do I care?