HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

hardbass

26 karmajoined il y a 2 mois

comments

hardbass
·il y a 2 heures·discuss
Absolutely not, unless the region is completely empty of people or land ownerships. Otherwise state or no, the stakeholders have the justified right to self defense. I am not going in many directions, it's all the same thing. If one does not have a right to a land and try to force yourself onto it, then the stakeholders of that land have a legal right to shoot them dead. Whether its killing the illegal settlers taking over peoples lands today or for the entire illictly formed state itself to be dismantled and the properties restores to the just and rightful owners.
hardbass
·avant-hier·discuss
Why the british withdrew is closely connected as the Israeli/Zionist continuous terroristic attacks against the British and clamping down the Israeli/Arab terrorist factions warring is what was the final straw that broke the camel's back of a country already weakened by WW2. The fact of a place lacking a formal military I hope doesn't make it legal or okay by the some entity to violate their property rights, for the same could be said equally either way for Israeli illegal settlement expansions, for if there is no clear state system there, what's the objection against shooting down the squatters? (Even with a real state existing some countries have things like the Castle doctrine of course, which gives a full legal justification to shoot down the Israeli squatters). The real question that must be answered is if the locals are okay with you arriving, if you came in and legally purchased property or were granted some parcels of land with agreement by the locals, neither of which of course occurred during the violent establishment of Israel. The question of property and territory is very ancient and predates even humans, even animals have a sense of territory. So if you do not respect the existing legal claims by the British or Ottoman governments or claims by precedent of living, then you should be justly treated as an illegal invader. It is a very high degree of naked ingratitude to complain and start attacks against the Brits for controlling their own border and restricting immigration to their own lands, behaving as if these random Poles and Russians literally own the place. Would you support random Poles or Russians performing terrorist attacks against America if the USA instituted a strong and limited immigration quota upon them? Because that's what happened in the region of Israel back then. I completely understand the Holocaust but that gives a person no right to go ahead and rob at gunpoint an unrelated entity's land, moreover launching attacks against a country that bled so much fighting against nazis.
hardbass
·il y a 3 jours·discuss
Yes the classification of what is deemed soundly harmful to be allowed to exist goes on a false negative basis as would any such sane assessment be. I do not try to predict the future of every possible system, but it is quite clear some systems are always disastrous.

The people already living there under Ottoman and British rule obviously with suitable legal arrangements deemed agreeable by the former governments. The terroristic appropriation of British administered land just a few decades ago is of course not something anyone of a calm mind would deem as valid so by necessity claims of validity must trace from previous governments. Obviously if it were say a few centuries ago it'd have been not a matter worth doing anything about, time matters. And right now, further other peoples legal lands too, which settlers come at gunpoint and rob. Your state supports the illicit settlers viz the current ongoing expansions by technically non-state actors, quite aside from the state itself being an illicit settlement of course.
hardbass
·il y a 3 jours·discuss
Communism, nazism and nationalism are proven time and again to cause mass death and destruction. Why engage in the stupidity of trying these faulty systems again and again? Nationalism is tied to and depends on ethnic composition existing in a state. Its much harder to induce nationalism in a mixed population.

With israel of course we don't even need to come to such theoretical matters, as the entity was founded by vile terroristic attacks against the very country that granted it the land and naked robbery of others property and it continues today to rob others lands and thus the valid and just response is to shoot the invaders and thieves until they desist as is the right of any property owner to do to a intruder that threatens their life.

You said before you feel Israels actions are justified, so I am asking again, justify the illegal settlers. If not then I hope you have no problem with the land owners engaging in valid self defense.
hardbass
·il y a 4 jours·discuss
On similar lines of reasoning I would oppose the organizing of a communist or nazi government, it might or might not be non-harmful today but it is laying the seeds for harm. How many times have you heard people inciting war over a specific race or nation? Why shouldn't I support or prevent any kinds of organizations I want? However for Israel, the main reason for the bitterness is the blatant thievery of others land and continual blatant violations of property rights and murders. You said you feel Israel is justified in their actions. Justify the settler expansions then.
hardbass
·il y a 5 jours·discuss
Absolutely yes to the first two, including "Chinese", "Japanese", "Somali" or any other existing ethnostates, nothing special about Israel. But what's done is done, a persons private property/a justified governments belief of what people are allowed to buy or not is a more important thing. As for the third, yes I would prevent by any non-violent means possible should there be an attempt to launch a new ethnostate. If there is already a conflict, I will materially support the side that isn't an ethnostate. Iranians wanting to reinstate some stupid king is not something I support, if you just wanted a dictatorship you already live under one and I see no point in the bloodshed and human loss to change to yet another. I do not support druze or any other racialist splinter state movements. I would fully support any movement that wants a capitalist and democratic secular Iran. Nothing special or complicated really. A jew or lebanese tracing dna back there is a curious academic fact, just as the fact that they both also trace dna back to some spot in African further ago. Neither of these facts affect any matters in property rights or contracts.
hardbass
·il y a 6 jours·discuss
Of course not. What happened 3000 years ago is hardly relevant to property rights and legal matters 80 years ago. If someone traces their genes to that area, that might help of course, he might be able to produce an unbroken series of valid inheritances, entails, etc proving that each ancestor is indeed their direct ancestor and that the inheritance claim is valid. If one can show a valid unbroken chain of land transfers from 3000 years ago till now, then 3000 has a significance, otherwise it has zero significance to the principles of law. As of yet, I am not aware of any such offers. The genetic origins of "Jews" or "lebanese" or anyone else is an interesting anthropological and academic topic that has no bearing to property rights. You are forgetting and I must again remind you that I do not believe in ethnostates and even if I took that assumption for granted, 3000 is far past any sane statute of limitations. I do not care about "indigenous", if a person from Canada with gaulish lineage is denied citizenship to France, then he has no right to commit terror acts against France.
hardbass
·il y a 7 jours·discuss
The answer to both questions is I cannot place any comment without reading suitable genetic literature.

Your response to #2 confuses two different things. I made that statement in relation to moral justification for who owns the state per your standards. It is quite unrelated to the quite practical matter of who captures it, owns it. It is also "moot" morally as well since 3000 year old genetics are moot to legal status and ownership of the land, whether the person with genes going back there is Muslim, Christian or Jew. I do not believe in ethnostates.

My idealistic plan is what I came after some thought toward a just and fair solution as possible to all parties involved. The freed up land such as those evicted for lack of legal documents and the remainder of unallocated government land of the former Israeli government should of course be available to any person in the world with the suitable money and paperwork to buy property. In time this can become a new country but it should be administered by an international military force meanwhile. Ideally this should have been the unbroken rule of the British colonial government itself, but history is what it is.
hardbass
·il y a 8 jours·discuss
If jews want an ethnostate, then its valid for others also to want an ethnostate and boot out the foreign jews, yes or no? The answer is tied for both.

I could just as much find the people with genetics tracing to that region who are Muslims and Christians today. And if I manage to muster a number larger than those fraction of Israeli jews with genetic roots there, what would you say?

If I am 1% Native American and 99% English, what am I? Native or English?
hardbass
·il y a 9 jours·discuss
(This arrangement applies to only persons who are innocent victims ie born in Israel and saved up money to buy some property or inherited any. To these persons a sum deemed equivalent to the price of the property will be provided. To illegal settlers, nothing should be provided. Suitable criminal proceedings and punishment should occur for them.)
hardbass
·il y a 9 jours·discuss
No, why would it, they are "native" only if we pick this date, if we pick a different date they are native elsewhere. I can ask you likewise if you think its agreeable for a deported immigrant to begin terror attacks against the USA for that's how Israel began. Either you have legal rights to the land, or permission from those already living there or you don't. I don't care if its Chinese, Jewish, Somali, Indian. In my "dream scenario" Israel's land is relitigated. Those found to have valid purchases matching any in the last government (British or Ottoman) may stay. The rest are given a sum of money and a arrangement for immigration anywhere they wish. The remainder land is put into some kind of military trust and sold off via auctions to anyone in the world.
hardbass
·il y a 10 jours·discuss
Simple money. If you already have a scrap motor and some lumber from somewhere (or even if you have to buy new, in many cases) the cost can be more affordable to build some tools at home, especially if the commercial market for that tool is not competitive.
hardbass
·il y a 10 jours·discuss
Yes and I am saying there is no naturalistic or scientific meaning to 3000. Its a number of selfish convenience. Israelis may try to say it is special, but it has no meaning to others.
hardbass
·il y a 11 jours·discuss
Yes without doubt, obviously a person from NY would have a different culture than a person from Haifa or whatever. I think I misread you on that.
hardbass
·il y a 12 jours·discuss
Correct. Why should any country want its sensitive government data to be visible to other countries, and to Trumps government at that?

Why doesn't the Trump admin open up it's data to inspection by European, Chinese, Russian etc auditors? What does it have to fear?
hardbass
·il y a 12 jours·discuss
You were the one repeatedly saying all jews have some sort of magic connection to Israel. If I misread and you meant Israelis have a connection to that land, that still begs the question. Not everyone purportedly "Israeli" made the transition there and the question still remains valid, more concretely to people with dual citizenships.
hardbass
·il y a 12 jours·discuss
If his family immigrated in 1920, then its probably fine, they should probably have legal land ownership deeds from the British government.

Why, what is a trope about that? Dual loyalties is a valid question to ask any immigrant or person who declares himself to have his other or real home elsewhere. Which many (not all) jews often do with regard to Israel. Its the same for Chinese, Indians, Nigerians or any other group.

Dual nationals or people who feel loyalty to Israel should of course have the freedom of speech like anyone else to say they feel affinity toward any country. But the test I use to answer this question is, should their country launch a war against Israel, which side will they fight for?

>The “dual loyalties” bit is something you got out of your side’s trope archive.

That's a very pleasant accusation of course. What "side" do you think mine is?
hardbass
·il y a 12 jours·discuss
Why? Why 3000? Smells like a rationalization for a convenient number. There is no natural or scientific reason 3000 is special. That's an arbitrary self defined point they like to use. Yes, he is a second gen Polish immigrant. Its not his generation itself that is criminal by itself (though of course Netanhayhu is plenty criminal) but the original ingrate europeans who launched a series of vile terror attacks against British people to capture land that was never theirs and drive out those already living there and those with legal ownership of the land.
hardbass
·il y a 12 jours·discuss
He is a second generation illegal immigrant of course. I am not making any DNA arguments, I don't support ethnostates. That's Israel's argument, and by Israel's argument, I believe it should be completely justified to deport jews from other countries, since purportedly all jews are genetically and culturally Israeli, and its not proper for a person to have dual loyalties in terms of the countries they are loyal to.
hardbass
·il y a 13 jours·discuss
Why? Why what's special about 2000 years? Why not 100000 years? Why aren't jews protesting to return to the whatever patch of Africa everyone came out of? And why should not other countries that are hosting jews right now deport them saying its the ancestral land of natives not for jews? If we are to accept Israel's framing, then we must accept these too. Britain should kick out normans and danish blood people. American natives should kick out any white persons, etc etc.

Are you sure about netanyahu? How can you say that about a clearly polish looking person without dna test results? What percentage of his dna is Levantine? If it is 10% Levantine and 90% Steppe why is it not laughed out the room if he claims the extreme minority portion of his dna as his primary identity?