BS: Caliphate

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:20 AM

Do "Thousands of UKIP, BNP and English Defense League see British Muslims as legitimate targets for attack too?" Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:09 AM

According to A&E statistics, police crime figures etc, yes. Not just potentially, but hate crime reality.

I have no issue with accepting the dangers in radicalised disaffected young men. I lost a colleague in 7/7 and was at Kings Cross at the time myself. But alarmist crap misrepresented in the media just serves to divide the society some are trying to harmonise. You aren't going to solve domestic risk by wondering if the nice man in the corner shop has a nephew with a rucksack. The likes of Michael can sit there all day with the door locked shitting their trousers if that's what they want to do, but some of us see that as letting a few thugs win some weird victory or other.

As I said, Muslims are fighting Islamists, not opportunist politicians, not government agencies justifying their existence and hawking ideas for a bigger budget and influence.



Michael, shut up, you know I'm not talking to you. {snigger}

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:41 AM

"According to A&E statistics, police crime figures etc, yes. Not just potentially, but hate crime reality. "

Not quite Musket - "Thousands of UKIP, BNP and English Defense League see British Muslims as legitimate targets too"

You then attempt to pass hate crime statistics off as an argument supporting your point of view.

2009 - there were a total of 52,028 recorded "hate crimes" in England Wales and Northern Ireland. The vast bulk of those were put down to "racial" attacks only 2,083 of them were incidents where the religion was the reason for the attack.

Why pick 2009? Iraq and Afghanistan both still running at full tilt

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:57 AM

" mind-made-up-so-no-facts-please "
You have produced no solid evidence of your own Mike, other than your distaste for Burkahs(you certainly have not responded to the possible reasons for Islamism, and as for a solution, you seem happy to leave that to the boys in uniform.
Everything else appears to be alarmist volcano-squatting
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:20 AM

Err.. No. Passing off opinions on this subject just gets Keith and other childish fools screaming that you can't have opinions unless you can find "eminent" people on the internet to put it in words for you. I am capable of forming my own, which makes it difficult to engage with them.

My opinion is just that. The facts I gave merely reflect some of what helped me form my opinion. Considering the criteria for forms of hate attack, culture and religion are in different categories, as I found out in court when giving evidence on behalf of the local A&E (I was on call director at the time of the admissions after a hate attack on a house) so I do have a bit of an inkling of what I speak about, even though, unlike some here, I know my limitations on the subject.

2014. Iraq and Afghanistan in extra time period, awaiting the penalty shoot out.

I repeat, as it gets ignored.. The risk from home grown fanatics is there, present and proven. The extent is not tested, whilst the test of the exact opposite is not just proven, but filling prisons as we speak. Successive governments use risk of terror to curtail freedoms in society so it is best to have a slight amount of sceptical assessment rather than wade in with it presented as irrefutable facts as Keith does. He lacks the intelligence to look beyond what he googles, but I am somewhat disappointed in Teribus. His views are sometimes suspect but hitherto I thought his intellect was sound.

You know, your inference that I used such figures cynically says more about you than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:20 AM

"The vast bulk of those were put down to "racial" attacks only 2,083 of them were incidents where the religion was the reason for the attack."


The MAJORITY of which were against Jews, even though the proportion of the population the is Jewish is much smaller than the proportion that is Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:51 AM

Speaking of opinions I think that having heard them repeated hundreds of times over and over ad nauseam we are, by now, quite familiar with everyone's opinion on these matters. By now it's just repeating the same shit which some of us don't even bother reading as that horse died a long time ago. I am much more interested in hearing the opinions of informed people. YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:47 AM

"I am much more interested in hearing the opinions of informed people"
Aren't we all - nothing more tedious than a long stream of cut-'n-pastes and links to ultra-extremist web-sites.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:03 AM

My posts are "alarmist", Jim, if that's the word you choose, because, I repeat, I am alarmed. If you're not, that's up to you, & goody for you and I hope it keeps fine for you; and your children & grandchildren... But this is not a very sanguine hope if you & all your well-meaning but oh·so·priggish lot insist on keeping your heads down there in the sand.

That's all. No good going on. Time will tell···

···but I shan't be there to see the outcome; nor any descendant of mine as I am childless.

Regards as ever

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:37 PM

Nice one Bruce. Making assumptions about the victims when the point was about the perpetrators.

Not everybody is as gullible as Michael, as gormless as Keith or as blinded as yourself. Some people are capable of reading a post for what it says, without silly twisting by those with an agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:37 PM

You still have produced no facts for your alarmism - rather like the man on Oxford Street with his. 'THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH' placard.
Name-calling still doesn't hack it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 02:24 PM

Oh the catholics hate the protestants and the protestants hate the catholics and the hindus hate the moslems and everybody hates the jews but during national brotherhood week...

We used to be able to sing about this stuff.

Facts for alarmism include my father being killed by terrorists back in 1983 when they invented the carbomb in Beirut and nothing, I mean nothing, has been learned by Americans in the decades of anti-American terrorism since. To the point where many people still think 9/11 was the start of it all.

People should be alarmed, yes, but not just if they are Americans nowadays.

It, being the WWIII being waged since Nov. 1979 or earlier, is truly is turning into the barbarians versus the civilized and that is why it bothers me when people only mind the racism inherent in the wrong-way causation (that you have to be a moslem to be a radical islamist doesn't mean that if you are a moslem you have more than a minuscule chance of being a terrorist) and not the general fact that It's not just the moslems who should object to terrorism being linked to islam. But as I've said, that is a subject for the radical islamic thread, and not this one, which I am trying to limit to talking about the idea of a global moslem global mpire that isn't rooted in territory.

No homeland for the palistinians is unfair since the jews have taken theirs, I think. If there is going to be a Caliphate it should be rooted in a PLACE, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 02:26 PM

What you mean, "Facts"? The fact is that I am alarmed. If you mean "reasons", then say so. Any days papers will provide you with plenty of material to choose from. Start with those of 10 September 2001. Then 3 Nov 2004. Proceed to 8 July 2005. Perm any dates up to, & beyond, 23 May 2013...

Bit more there to work on, seems to me, that your Oxford St sandwichman had.

And what 'names' am I supposed to have called you -- other than such as ref your obtuse pigheadedness in refusing to see what is manifestly before you here?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 02:32 PM

Mrrzy,

The Palestinians have HAD a state since 1923 or so.

77% of the Mandate Palestine territory, in violation of the treaty creating the Mandate, was split off and made into the Arab Homeland of TransJordan, where NO Jews were allowed to settle or even own property. This was accepted by the Arabs. The British did this when there were riots between the Jews and Muslims.

The REAMAINING 32+ % of the original Mandate were to be the Jewish homeland as specified in the treaties.

In 1948, THAT (Jewish Homeland) land was divided, but the Arabs would not accept any division less than ALL for the Moslems, so they attacked the Jews. Jordan occupied the West bank, and removed all of the Jewish population that had been there previously.


The Arabs LOST, and have been demanding the unconditional surrender of Israel ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 02:49 PM

None of which is a reason to mistrust the Muslim community as a whole.
There are infinitely more attacks on Muslims than there are by Muslims, indicating that the Muslim population has far more to fear from the indigenous population than we have to fear them.
All this is a fair indication that we need to mend fences - your hatred and mistrust is doing exactly the opposite - you are not attempting to reason how the problem can be solved - you are the problem.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:01 PM

If they came to us and asked to negotiate, as you keep urging, to 'mend fences', & really mean it, everybody on here, at least, would I am sure be delighted. As would all rational, well-intentioned people.

Can you see it happening, Jim?

Honest, now...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:20 PM

The palistinians have had a state since prehistory, actually, but we (the rest of the world) don't recognize it as a place today... and yes, they lost, but they still seem to be there and not be israeli, so what are they? Stateless? Citizens of Jordan etc? If they could belong to a greater nation that wasn't jewish, wouldn't they want to? And if so, why aren't they hip to the idea of the Caliphate? Are they the wrong kind of moslem, Ali v. Omar?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:42 PM

More than 92% of Jordanians are Sunni Muslims.


Jordan 

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:05 PM

Mrrzy makes, it seems to me, a good point. I would in some respects go further. The establishment of the mandate was never by lawful authority, only the result of power. The relevant Arab peoples were freed from the oppression of the Ottoman Empire by its collapse. The lawful right of a fresh conqueror, terrified by Zionist terrorists, to impose - by agreement with other invading colonial powers - a new religious homeland in lands that had been Arab since time immemorial has never been clear to me.

Equivalently, the establishment of a caliphate would be an unacceptable imposition of a theocracy on many independent people. A murrain upon religion!

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 12:44 AM

Bully! I mean that in the British, approving way, BTW, not the American bad way!

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:09 AM

"The establishment of the mandate was never by lawful authority, only the result of power."
.,,.
How so, Richard? It was established at the end of WW1 by the League of Nations, after General Allenby had captured the territory from the Turks, prior to which it had for several hundred years been part of the Ottoman Empire. After that, even before the League came into being, the British were regarded as being responsible for it, whence the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in response to a request from Weizmann after he had expressed desire for his people, rather than himself, to be rewarded for his contributions to the Allied victories {see Chaim Weizmann in Wikipedia}. The staying on of the British after the League was dissolved led to all sorts of complications which need not be gone into here, leading up to the declaration of Israeli statehood in 1948; when another narrative takes over as we all know ad nauseam from googol threads. Arab residents who had remained there were, & remain, full citizens of Israel. Try googling Arab [or "Palestinian"] Members Of Knesset, for instance.

Richard has to a considerable extent got hold of the wrong end of some stick it seems to me.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:35 AM

"Can you see it happening, Jim? "
I can see no other solution Mike - you certainly haven't come up with an alternative.
The present Government have said as much - the the Muslim population have to become involved in 'combating terrorism'
British Muslims have shown themselves ready to play a full part in British life - far readier than I would have thought given the circumstances and the history of racism shown towards them - if it can't happen, it will have been because of that history.
I won't ask for your alternative because you've already told us that it's not your job.
Fine - leave it to the boys in uniform - it's worked well enough in the past!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:58 AM

Quite, Jim. You see no other solution; and this solution is unattainable, I fear.

If the Palestinians even wanted to negotiate, 'mend fences' as you put it, which I take leave to doubt, Hamas & ISIS & all such Arabist militant movements would step in & scare them off by threatening to kill their leaders if they took even a step towards the negotiation table. You know this is true.

I'm as unhappy about it all as you are; but you shouldn't be so scornful of me, really, I think, for saying I can't think of a solution to a problem to which I honestly do not believe there is one. I have quoted 12th Night in this particular before; make no apology for doing so again --

"Oh, Time, thou must untangle this, not I.
'Tis too hard a knot for me to untie"

And so say, unhappily, all of us!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:10 AM

I think you make my point for me, MtheGM. Nobody who purported to do so had proper right to give any part of Arab land to Zionists (or to anybody else). The only people who could do that would have been a properly established government of the Arab peoples.

What would you say if the UN decided that the Celts deserved a homeland in Surrey or Essex?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:17 AM

Of the two, Essex. Mrs Musket stands to inherit land in Surrey and we can't have property prices depressed, what?

Actually, that was a bit daft. Bridge makes a goo...   good po......poi..........poinnnnnnnn....

Oh bugger it.

Bridge makes a good point.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:43 AM

Richard: My position is, as you can extrapolate from my posts in all threads on this topic for years, equivocal, one of complete ambivalence. But the only place to start is here. Do not, please, be like the yokel in the joke asked for directions and replying "Well, you can't start from here". It's the only place to start, without going into the ins-and-outs, moral or historical, of how we got here. Whether we should admire or denounce those early Russian-Jewish pioneers who just moved in and founded Kibbutz Daganiyah; whether Lord Balfour should have made his 1917 Declaration to reward Weizmann for help in winning WW1; what the British Mandate authorities should have done; whether negotiation was ever possible; what would have happened if the 1948 partition plan had been accepted by all sides ~~ all these are vain conjectures -- as vain as trying to re-establish Celtic rule over Essex.

There Israel is, like it or not. Its enemies are not going to accept its presence. It isn't going to go away.

Hence my reply to Jim a couple of posts back. Here we jolly well are, Nowhere to go from here. But we have got to go somewhere.

So -- somebody's move.

Whose?

And whither?

You tell me...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: GUEST,keith A at Lochearnhead
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 06:56 AM

Someone could say that the Arab people have rather a lot of land apart from that tiny little sliver, and it is hardly worth another eighty years of killing just to try to get that silly little bit back from people with nowhere else to go anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:26 AM

Richard,

If the treaties ending WW I and the countries created are not valid, I think that you should look at how many nations you have just made illegal- Lebanon, Jordan (twice over!), Syria,Iraq,Much of eastern europe,etc.

If you insist that ONLY Israel is illegal, while the others are OK, then you fall under the EU definition of an Anti-Semite.

Mandate Palestine was as legal ( and not more so) as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq)

"The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the First Conference of London (February 1920). The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Under the agreement, Great Britain granted France 25 percent of the oil production from Mosul and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[12]

Recognizing that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria and Lebanon, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone.""

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM

Richard,

"lands that had been Arab since time immemorial"

You mean that there were not previous Jewish states in that region- that were destroyed " never by lawful authority, only the result of power. " ?


Or is it that you CHOOSE to look ONLY at the timescale you desire?

If 2200 years is too long, then so is 600.

If 47 years ( since 1967) is too short , then so is 66 (since 1948)

So either Israel has historical precedent, or it has right of conquest.




Which are you claiming is valid????

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:54 AM

No Bruce. The treaties to which you refer could not lawfully give land that had reverted to the Arabs on the fall of the Ottoman Empire to anyone else.

19-8 (or 20) to now is a very big difference to the time scale from when you assert that the Jews left the relevant area. You say 2200 years. The Ottoman Empire was established in about 1300 - about 700 years back from now, 600 from then.

So the Zionists did not control what is now Israel (under any view of the borders) for 1500 years. That negates any valid claim they had to the area.

Mither - we have to stop meeting like this!

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:02 AM

So you agree that in 3467 Arabs will lose all rights any part of the West Bank?


All Israel has to do is wait it out...

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:09 AM

"The treaties to which you refer could not lawfully give land that had reverted to the Arabs on the fall of the Ottoman Empire to anyone else.
"

So the nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan are no more valid than Israel is.

All set up by the Mandate Powers.


Non-democratic governments at the time they were formed.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:14 AM

Being displaced doesn't remove rights as indigenous people NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY ARE DISPLACED FOR. If people do not lose their indigenous status through being displaced, and people do not subsume indigenous status through conquering indigenous people and "replacing them," then the Arabs are not indigenous to the ancestral lands of the Jewish people. Jews have been there for three thousand years and everything that makes them Jews began there."

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:30 AM

"You see no other solution; and this solution is unattainable, I fear. "
Then there are only the options I have mentioned - send them all back or gas them all.
I was referring to how any problems arising from returning Jihadists to Britain should be dealt with.
Trying to enlist the general Muslim population has never been tried, in spite of the goodwill that has always been forthcoming.
It seems to me that those who are not prepared to try it, or not prepared to come up with their own suggestions are the problem, not them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:54 AM

"Then there are only the options I have mentioned - send them all back or gas them all."

.,,.
But you are well aware that these are not 'options' at all, aren't you, Jim? As Penelope Keith as Margot used to say innocently in The Good Life: "You're making fun, aren't you?"

In fact, tho, you are just being deliberately provocative. It's actually a dishonest bit of rhetoric, Jim. I assert that we have a problem without an evident solution; so you can imply that I have suggested your two putative non-'options' when I have not even implied either in any manner whatever.

You may try to deny it, to yourself as well as to us; but that is a typical Jim Carroll mode of argument; and if you hadn't realised that before, realise it now, for crying out loud. And then realise you will really have to do better. All of a piece with your notorious 'here to steal our jobs' accusation, which you had to climb down from with some fatuous piece of evasion about its being a 'rhetorical assertion attained by following the impetus of the argument", or some such silliness.
.,,.

"Trying to enlist the general Muslim population has never been tried, in spite of the goodwill that has always been forthcoming"

A dubious assertion, I think. Look at the part played in our national life by many prominent Muslims, who have come forward with goodwill, and been embraced by the nation as a whole --

from Wikipedia

"Muslims are playing an increasingly prominent role in political life.[67] There are currently eight Muslim MPs[68] and twelve Muslim Peers (there have historically been about fourteen, starting with Lord Stanley, a peer that lived in the 19th century). The majority of British Muslims vote for the Labour Party,[69] however there are some high profile Conservative Muslims, including Minister for Faith and Communities and former Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party Sayeeda Warsi and Economic Secretary to the Treasury Sajid Javid,[70] described by The Guardian as a 'rising star' in the Tory party.[71] The Guardian stated that "The treasury minister is highly regarded on the right and would be the Tories' first Muslim leader."
British Muslims are well represented in various media positions across different organisations. Notable examples include Mehdi Hasan, the political editor of the UK version of The Huffington Post[73] and the presenter of Al Jazeera English shows The Café and Head to Head,[74] Mishal Husain, a British news presenter for the BBC, currently appearing on BBC World News and BBC Weekend News, Rageh Omaar, special correspondent with ITV and formerly Senior Foreign Correspondent with the BBC and a reporter/presenter for Al Jazeera English,[75] and Faisal Islam, economics editor and correspondent for Channel 4 News'.'[76]
There are several Islamic television channels operating in the UK, including Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International (MTA International),[77][78] Ummah Channel,[79] and Ahlebait TV."

Does all this suggest the universal failure you suggest, Jim, to make any accommodation with that section of our demographic? If others prefer to live in enclaves in Bradford, Southall, Leicester, or wherever, then what are you yourself doing about trying to bring them forward into the mainstream as the ones named above have done?

Just asking --

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:09 AM

Perhaps after

"If others prefer to live in enclaves in Bradford, Southall, Leicester,"

I should insert

"or set out to reject with violence our institutions and lifestyle, and instead convert their energies into fighting and threatening us, murdering our citizens, &c, as a small but vocal and disproportionately effective minority have done, and are still doing from their present jihadi strongholds in Syria"

and then resume from

"then what are you yourself doing about trying to bring them forward into the mainstream as the ones named above have done?"

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:12 AM

Bruce: There will come a time at which continued occupation gives legitimacy, yes. It isn't yet. For example the Irish were ruled by the English for several hundred years but on this forum are widely thought to have been in the right in ejecting the UK from the Republic of Ireland. Conversely, we would I think widely accept the succession to UK governance that was rooted in the Norman Conquest (a vile piece of genocide - about 94% of the then English upper classes (and nearly so) were exterminated). A Latin claim to rule over what was the Roman Empire would be thought laughable.

Bobad - yes they do. See above. You want the Welsh in Essex? If there is no cutoff date (or at least soft floor) then the takeover by Israel of Canaan (if the Bible is right about that) makes the Israelites the invaders of an earlier pan-Semitic population. The diaspora represented an abandonment of rights to dominate the area, quite long enough ago to be valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:18 AM

And this all without prejudice to my stated and acknowledged alarm as to the future, stemming from your (individually & as a type) complacent refusal to take account of the effect and influence liable to be achieved by that minority I adduce, and trying to discount it as an ineffectual non-threat. Just ask the widows Van Gogh and Rigby how ineffectual and worthy of ignoring and discounting this minority is.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 10:25 AM

"If there is no cutoff date..."

Pray tell us what is this "Cutoff date"?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 01:25 PM

Richard,

If the treaties ending WW I and the countries created are not valid, I think that you should look at how many nations you have just made illegal- Lebanon, Jordan (twice over!), Syria,Iraq,Much of eastern europe,etc.

If you insist that ONLY Israel is illegal, while the others are OK, then you fall under the EU definition of an Anti-Semite.

Mandate Palestine was as legal ( and not more so) as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq)

"The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the First Conference of London (February 1920). The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Under the agreement, Great Britain granted France 25 percent of the oil production from Mosul and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[12]

Recognizing that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria and Lebanon, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone.""

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 01:46 PM

Did you not read my earlier answer, Brucie?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 01:55 PM

And my reply was:




"The treaties to which you refer could not lawfully give land that had reverted to the Arabs on the fall of the Ottoman Empire to anyone else.
"

So the nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan are no more valid than Israel is.

All set up by the Mandate Powers.


Non-democratic governments at the time they were formed."




Did you not read my earlier answer, Dickie?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:03 PM

No interest in Ibrahim's caliphate actions, financing and successes?

All this stuff about treaties belongs in the threads on that subject.

Iran is sending more fighter jets to the Iraq government, to fight the caliphate. Iran also offered help to Lebanon to fight the threat.

ISIS has taken over six Syrian oil fields (one with 75,000 bbl/day capacity) and a pumping station.

Threatening to Iraq and its Shias is the fact that some Syrian Sunnis are turning to ISIS.

ISIS has taken large areas in Syria and Iraq, but the BBC asks, whether they can rule what they have taken.
The tribes of the region are occupied with the Syrian civil war, so cannot be effective against ISIS.

ISIS is well-armed, well-funded, and intolerant. No real opposition in the lands they have taken.

The Saudi government, Sunni, is not funding ISIS, but they cannot block individual donations.

ISIS levels about $8 million/month on local businesses. It has the funds of the banks in conquered Mosul.

ISIS will continue to control large areas for some time to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:23 PM

It seems people around here are not too interested in ISIS because there are no Jews involved...........yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:31 PM

The Jews in Iraq (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים בָּבְלִים, Babylonian Jews, Yehudim Bavlim, Arabic: يهود العراق‎ Yahūd al-ʿIrāq) is documented from the time of the Babylonian captivity c. 586 BC. Iraqi Jews constitute one of the world's oldest and most historically significant Jewish communities.

The Jewish community of Babylon included Ezra the scribe, whose return to Judea in the late 6th century BC is associated with significant changes in Jewish ritual observance and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Talmud was compiled in Babylonia, identified with modern Iraq.[2]

From the Babylonian period to the rise of the Islamic caliphate, the Jewish community of Babylon thrived as the center of Jewish learning. The Mongol invasion and Islamic discrimination in the Middle Ages led to its decline.[3] Under the Ottoman Empire, the Jews of Iraq fared better. The community established modern schools in the second-half of the 19th century.[4]

In the 20th century, Iraqi Jews played an important role in the early days of Iraq's independence. Between 1950-52, 120,000-130,000 of the Iraqi Jewish community (around 75%) were transported to Israel in Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.[5]
…..

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:32 PM

more on Iraqi Jews

In 1948, the country was placed under martial law, and the penalties for Zionism were increased. Courts martial were used to intimidate wealthy Jews, Jews were again dismissed from civil service, quotas were placed on university positions, Jewish businesses were boycotted (E. Black, p. 347) and Shafiq Ades (one of the most important anti-Zionist Jewish businessmen in the country) was arrested and executed for allegedly selling goods to Israel, shocking the community (Tripp, 123). Additionally, like most Arab League states, Iraq forbade any legal emigration of its Jews on the grounds that they might go to Israel and could strengthen that state. At the same time, increasing government oppression of the Jews fueled by anti-Israeli sentiment together with public expressions of anti-semitism created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. 1948, the year of Israel's independence was a rough year for the Jews of Iraq:

In July 1948, the government passed a law making all Zionist activity punishable by execution, with a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment,
On August 28, 1948, Jews were forbidden to engage in banking or foreign currency transactions,
In September 1948, Jews were dismissed from the railways, the post office, the telegraph department and the Finance Ministry on the ground that they were suspected of "sabotage and treason,"
On October 8, 1948, the issuance of export and import licenses to Jewish merchants was forbidden,
On October 19, 1948, the discharge of all Jewish officials and workers from all governmental departments was ordered,
In October, the Egyptian paper, El-Ahram, estimated that as a result of arrests, trials and sequestation of property, the Iraqi treasury collected some 20 million dinars or the equivalent of 80 million U.S. dollars,
On December 2, 1948, the Iraq government suggested to oil companies operating in Iraq, that no Jewish employees be accepted.[16]
"With very few exceptions, only Jews wore watches. On spotting one that looked expensive, a policeman had approached the owner as if to ask the hour. Once assured the man was Jewish, he relieved him of the timepiece and took him into custody. The watch, he told the judge, contained a tiny wireless; he'd caught the Jew, he claimed, sending military secrets to the Zionists in Palestine. Without examining the "evidence" or asking any questions, the judge pronounced his sentence. The "traitor" went to prison, the watch to the policeman as reward." (Haddad, p. 176).[17]

In 19 February 1949 , Nuri al-Said acknowledged the bad treatment that the Jews had been victims of in Iraq during the recent months. He warned that unless Israel would behave itself, events might take place concerning the Iraqi Jews.[18]

The great emigration to Israel[edit]
By 1949, the Iraqi Zionist underground had become well-established (despite many arrests), and they were smuggling Iraqi Jews out of the country illegally at a rate of 1,000 a month.[19] Hoping to stem the flow of assets from the country, in March 1950 Iraq passed a law of one year duration allowing Jews to emigrate on condition of relinquishing their Iraqi citizenship. They were motivated, according to Ian Black, by "economic considerations, chief of which was that almost all the property of departing Jews reverted to the state treasury" and also that "Jews were seen as a restive and potentially troublesome minority that the country was best rid of." (p. 91) Israel was initially reluctant to absorb so many immigrants, (Hillel, 1987) but eventually mounted an airlift in March 1951 called "Operation Ezra and Nehemiah" to bring as many of the Iraqi Jews as possible to Israel, and sent agents to Iraq to urge the Jews to register for immigration as soon as possible. Between 1948 and 1951 121,633 Jews left the country, leaving 15,000 behind.[20]

From the start of the emigration law in March 1950 until the end of the year, 60,000 Jews registered to leave Iraq. In addition to continuing arrests and the dismissal of Jews from their jobs, this exodus was encouraged by a series of bombings starting in April 1950 that resulted in a number of injuries and a few deaths. Two months before the expiration of the law, by which time about 85,000 Jews had registered, another bomb at the Masuda Shemtov synagogue killed 3 or 5 Jews and injured many others. The law expired in March 1951 but was later extended after the Iraqi government froze the assets of departing Jews, including those who had already left. During the next few months, all but a few thousand of the remaining Jews registered for emigration, spurred on by a sequence of further bombings that caused few casualties but had great psychological impact. In Operation Ezra and Nehemiah, some 120,000 Jews were airlifted to Israel via Iran and Cyprus.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:37 PM

The history of the Jews of Iraq began, in fact, with the exile of the Jews of Palestine by the Assyrians and, later, the Babylonians. The deportation of Palestinian Jewry to Babylon occurred in three waves:
1.        The Exile of Samaria (721 B.C.E.), in which ten Hebrew tribes were exiled by the Assyrians.
2.        The Exile of Jehoiachin (597 B.C.E.), in which ten thousand inhabitants of Jerusalem were brought to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar.
3.        The Exile of Zidqiah (586 B.C.E.), which marked the end of the Kingdom of Judah, the ruin of Jerusalem and the destruction of King Solomon's first temple. About forty thousand Jews were exiled by the Babylonians during that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:44 PM

And what of the "Caliphate of Ibrahim?????

Old history can be found in books and on the net.

Were the Neanderthals the first "tribe" in Iraq's current area?

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:48 PM

"A dubious assertion"
Tell that to the Muslims who live in fear of having ptrol poured through their letter boxes, or have to board up their windows, or accompany their children to school for fear of them being attacked....
Or those whose sons fall victim of the recognised institutional racism in the police force.
None of those Muslims you mentioned as being afforded privileges in Britain would com anywhere near to being affected by any of this - these are not the people who need to be won over.
I didn't respond to you when you replied to my question of how many Muslims you had met by telling me of those you knew at Uni
Rather like the judge at the Lady Chatterly trial asking the jury if they would be happy if their servants read the book.
We appear to live in different world Mike.
"Van Gogh and Rigby how ineffectual and worthy of ignoring and discounting this minority is."
How about you asking the family of Bijan Ebrahimi (who?) beaten and burned to death for trying to stop white yobs from vandalising his home - or the many thousands of Muslims who live in fear for their safety, their property, even their lives.
If you have no answer and are nor even to consider suggestions, you are little more than a rabble-rouser whose only contribution is to gve support to the thugs
Jim Carroll

http://www.voanews.com/content/anti-muslim-attacks-nearly-double-in-britain/1832260.html

MUSLIM WOMEN IN BRITAIN

Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:48 PM

Now the Caliphate will drive out ( or kill) the Christians and then the remaining Islamic groups that do not agree with them.

And they are not even the ones who lived in Iraq- Most supporters of the Caliphate seem to be from Syria.