Catalonia

[TomKalbfus]

Nobody is asking you to justify terrorism. 

 Well you said,

And you have yet to show any appreciation of why this might lead them to support terrorism against the Israeli state that has so cruelly dispossessed them of land and livelihood.  

 

My answer is, no I cannot appreciate why someone would turn to evil and start murdering innocent civilians just because they feel they've been victimized. if someone steals my wallet, I don't take my revenge out on random individuals on the street. Think about what terrorism is. Terrorists deliberately target the innocent, it is not that they are targeting someone else and some innocent victim gets in the way and are killed, they are deliberately targeting innocent people, that is what terrorists do! There is no justification for that!

[exchemist]

 Well you said,

My answer is, no I cannot appreciate why someone would turn to evil and start murdering innocent civilians just because they feel they've been victimized. if someone steals my wallet, I don't take my revenge out on random individuals on the street. Think about what terrorism is. Terrorists deliberately target the innocent, it is not that they are targeting someone else and some innocent victim gets in the way and are killed, they are deliberately targeting innocent people, that is what terrorists do! There is no justification for that!

Anyway, I look forward to the day when the Native Americans come to your house, brandishing a copy of a holy text that says the land belongs to them, and tell you to get out and go "back" to England, because you speak English.   :)

Edited October 19, 2017 by exchemist

[TomKalbfus]

Anyway, I look forward to the day when the Native Americans come to your house, brandishing a copy of a holy text that says the land belongs to them, and tell you to get out and go "back" to England, because you speak English.   :)

It is not what the Dead Sea Scrolls say, but the fact that they exist, were found in Israel and were shown to be older than Islam, that matters, it showed that Jews lived there before there were any Muslims to lay claim to the region, it is the ancestral home of Judaism, are you going to deny this? Arabs claim it based on a story that Muhammad flew up into Heaven on a winged horse! What does the science say about the possibility of a winged horse? I guess we are living in a realm of fantasy to accept such creatures. I used to play Dungeons and Dragons, and their was an entry on the Monster Manual for Pegasus, and it is the basis of that Monster Manual entry than Muslims claim Jerusalem? Do you know the difference between fantasy and reality? We live in the real world, real things shouldn't happen because people think we live in a World of Fantasy, such as the World of Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, we live in the real world, there their are no witches, spells, or dragons, and real people shouldn't blow themselves up and kill other people because they think they live in a fantasy world where they think such things exist!

[exchemist]

It is not what the Dead Sea Scrolls say, but the fact that they exist, were found in Israel and were shown to be older than Islam, that matters, it showed that Jews lived there before there were any Muslims to lay claim to the region, it is the ancestral home of Judaism, are you going to deny this? 

Just as the USA is the "ancestral home" of Native Americans. 

 

You cannot argue the dead sea scrolls give the Jews the right to chuck the Arabs out of the modern day Holy Land - where they have lived for generations - unless you are personally willing to accept being driven to the airport and handed a one-way ticket to England, by Native Americans. The logic is identical. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by exchemist

[TomKalbfus]

Just as the USA is the "ancestral home" of Native Americans. 

 

You cannot argue the dead sea scrolls give the Jews the right to chuck the Arabs out of the modern day Holy Land - where they have lived for generations - unless you are personally willing to accept being driven to the airport and handed a one-way ticket to England, by Native Americans. The logic is identical. 

Well the Jews could and the Native Americans couldn't. The Native Americans did try terrorism to get their wish, they murdered lots of settlers in many cases, but that just made the Federal Government treat them harder. There were some liberals complaining about the treatment of the Indians way back even in the 19th century, but every time some Indians murdered some white settler family, that didn't help their case with the American Public. You ever watch those old time Westerns involving Indians, you know the ones produced in the 1950s and earlier? How were those Indians portrayed? Why do you think they were portrayed that way, as "Savage Indians?" You think there was some truth to that? Do you think Palestinians killing people, innocent people really helps their cause? Does it do anything for them? How did India get its independence from the British Empire, was it through violence and attacking British citizens?

[TomKalbfus]

Just as the USA is the "ancestral home" of Native Americans. 

 

You cannot argue the dead sea scrolls give the Jews the right to chuck the Arabs out of the modern day Holy Land - where they have lived for generations - unless you are personally willing to accept being driven to the airport and handed a one-way ticket to England, by Native Americans. The logic is identical. 

 

Do you believe in squatters rights then? Palestine was not an independent country when the Jews settled there, it was a part of the British Empire. There were some Arabs living there, but they were living all over the Middle East! The Jews regarded Israel as uniquely theirs Israel is the place spoken of in the Bible, the Arabs just flew in like vultures and settled there to pick over the corpse left by the Roman Empire, Arabs inhabited a wide swath or territory that included Israel, and they wanted it to be all Islamic, they live in those artificial states carved out by the victorious Europeans out of the Ottoman Empire. Many Arabs despised the Turks, but the Europeans wanted that region broken up, and some Arabs didn't care much for those states they ended up living in. Palestinians were just Arabs living in the area, but when the Jews showed up, they suddenly became Nationalistic, but the only basis for that nationalism was in hating and driving out the Jews, if they ever succeeded, they would try to join the Ulm and live under a Caliph. Muslims seem to like empires and dictators, they find democracy to be only a means to get their dictator in control and shut out other would be dictators. Arab politics is identity politics, they one of their own on power.

[exchemist]

Do you believe in squatters rights then? Palestine was not an independent country when the Jews settled there, it was a part of the British Empire. There were some Arabs living there, but they were living all over the Middle East! The Jews regarded Israel as uniquely theirs Israel is the place spoken of in the Bible, the Arabs just flew in like vultures and settled there to pick over the corpse left by the Roman Empire, Arabs inhabited a wide swath or territory that included Israel, and they wanted it to be all Islamic, they live in those artificial states carved out by the victorious Europeans out of the Ottoman Empire. Many Arabs despised the Turks, but the Europeans wanted that region broken up, and some Arabs didn't care much for those states they ended up living in. Palestinians were just Arabs living in the area, but when the Jews showed up, they suddenly became Nationalistic, but the only basis for that nationalism was in hating and driving out the Jews, if they ever succeeded, they would try to join the Ulm and live under a Caliph. Muslims seem to like empires and dictators, they find democracy to be only a means to get their dictator in control and shut out other would be dictators. Arab politics is identity politics, they one of their own on power.

If you would insist on staying in your house in the USA, you believe in what you call squatters' rights yourself.  

[Buffy]

If you would insist on staying in your house in the USA, you believe in what you call squatters' rights yourself.

Hey exchemist, let's go start an encampment on Tom's lawn. Bet he'd tell us to "get off'a" it though....and probably call the police.

 

 

Legalism breeds a sense of entitlement that turns us into complainers, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

Hey exchemist, let's go start an encampment on Tom's lawn. Bet he'd tell us to "get off'a" it though....and probably call the police.

 

 

Legalism breeds a sense of entitlement that turns us into complainers, :phones:

Buffy

Well, if you are a Native American, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. He or his ancestors stole the land from them, pretty recently in fact. 

[Maine farmer]

 Muslims seem to like empires and dictators, they find democracy to be only a means to get their dictator in control and shut out other would be dictators. Arab politics is identity politics, they one of their own on power.

Gee, they sound a lot like Trump supporters. 

[TomKalbfus]

Well, if you are a Native American, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. He or his ancestors stole the land from them, pretty recently in fact. 

Look at it this way, what is the population of Native Americans in United States? I looked it up, there are about 3 million native Americans in the United States, about one for every 130 non-native Americans, there is 3.8 million square miles in the United States, so each native American gets at least 1 square mile of land. There are 640 acres of land in a square mile, does that seem like an efficient distribution of resources? We could set up a feudal system where each native American is the lord of an estate with 130 non-native Americans working the land as peasants under them, does that seem right to you?

[Maine farmer]

The Native Americans did try terrorism to get their wish, they murdered lots of settlers in many cases, but that just made the Federal Government treat them harder. There were some liberals complaining about the treatment of the Indians way back even in the 19th century, but every time some Indians murdered some white settler family, that didn't help their case with the American Public. You ever watch those old time Westerns involving Indians, you know the ones produced in the 1950s and earlier? How were those Indians portrayed? Why do you think they were portrayed that way, as "Savage Indians?" You think there was some truth to that? Do you think Palestinians killing people, innocent people really helps their cause? Does it do anything for them? How did India get its independence from the British Empire, was it through violence and attacking British citizens?

The Native Americans were usually attacking settlers in retribution for the white men violating treaties ( a.k. a. trespassing, which can get you shot even today in some "white" areas.) and killing Native Americans.  There was also the time the Mormons committed a massacre and blamed the "Indians"  who had welcomed and befriended them.  The "white" settlers could be rather savage.  

[TomKalbfus]

The Native Americans were usually attacking settlers in retribution for the white men violating treaties ( a.k. a. trespassing, which can get you shot even today in some "white" areas.) and killing Native Americans.  There was also the time the Mormons committed a massacre and blamed the "Indians"  who had welcomed and befriended them.  The "white" settlers could be rather savage.  

Attacking white settlers, any white settlers is racism is it not? Also there was a lot more land than just what the Indians needed to support themselves. There are 3 million Indians today, and if you divided all the land in the United States equally among them, then each person would have 1 square mile of land to support himself or 640 acres of land. Does any human being really need 640 acres of land to put food on the table?

[Maine farmer]

Attacking white settlers, any white settlers is racism is it not? 

Initially, many tribes were welcoming to the white men, and the white men taught the Native Americans what savagery really was.  Who do you think invented scalping?  It was the British who paid a bounty for "Indian" scalps!  The natives were defending their way of life and their hunting grounds, and the white settlers were blazing a path of destruction, almost completely destroying the buffalo on which many natives depended on in the process.  (And today we continue to foul the waters.)

 

 Does any human being really need 640 acres of land to put food on the table?

 

So do you favor doing away with property rights for white landowners if they don't "need" the land?  That sounds rather a lot like communism.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Farming guy

[TomKalbfus]

Initially, many tribes were welcoming to the white men, and the white men taught the Native Americans what savagery really was.  Who do you think invented scalping?  It was the British who paid a bounty for "Indian" scalps!  The natives were defending their way of life and their hunting grounds, and the white settlers were blazing a path of destruction, almost completely destroying the buffalo on which many natives depended on in the process.  (And today we continue to foul the waters.)

 

 

So do you favor doing away with property rights for white landowners if they don't "need" the land?  That sounds rather a lot like communism.

I guess your "sarcasm detector" is broken, eh? What do you think is the difference between the Third World and the First World? I'll tell you what it is, its property rights. What investor is going to invest in Nigeria is he can't be sure about keeping his land after paying for it? How does he know the government isn't just going to swoop in and nationalize the property after he's made some investments and improvements? That is why businesses don't get created, and jobs don't get made! The main advantage the Third World has over the first is cheap labor, the disadvantage as far as the investor is concerned is lack of respect for private property by socialist governments. Asia seems to do better than Africa in this regard! Do you think its unfair that the rich guy is getting richer? if he doesn't get richer, he doesn't hire anybody! No jobs and everybody stays poor!

Edited October 21, 2017 by TomKalbfus

[Maine farmer]

I guess your "sarcasm detector" is broken, eh? What do you think is the difference between the Third World and the First World? I'll tell you what it is, its property rights.

Yet you think it's perfectly okay for the whites to take the land from the Native Americans.  

 

 Do you think its unfair that the rich guy is getting richer? if he doesn't get richer, he doesn't hire anybody! No jobs and everybody stays poor!

When the rich get richer by stealing the property, get the government to steal the property for them, and then proceed to trash the property and foul the waters, then it becomes not only "unfair", but unjust as well.  When property rights are granted only to the wealthy it has the effect of preventing others from enriching themselves and creating jobs for themselves.  Rich people don't get and remain rich by paying good wages for the jobs they claim credit for creating.  How many times has Trump used bankruptcy to get out of paying people who did jobs for him?  

 

I'm not wealthy, but when we have a problem on the farm, I have a list of people in my smartphone who will be there in a pinch to help us out. These are people we do business with, but they are also our friends, and we treat them with the respect they deserve by paying them in full in a timely manor.  This ensures us a mutually beneficial business relationship that will enrich us all.

[GAHD]

On the core topic:This largely reminds me of Quebc's various votes to leave Canada.

I'm not entirely versed on the politics of spain, other than a general malaise for their culture. That being said: there are several historical instances of a federal government trying to stop local governments from leaving a "bad deal." Certain things like the Boston Tea Party ring similar to some of the wealth-redistribution practices I've just read about Re: Spain and Catalonia. Brexit also comes to mind as a more recent event in a similar veign.

On a moral level, legally obstructing a "vote to self govern" smells bad. It's reminiscent of a few other pre-revolution moves. AFAICT, they're trying peaceful law and paper, they got responded to peaceful paper by armor and force. That's...disturbing.

Really, why not let them loose? Is it because they really ARE pulling the weight of a dysfunctional autocracy in the rest of spain, and losing them would force the country to be productive or go bankrupt?