Posted on 05/05/2002 9:51:37 PM PDT by rpage3
Sure enough ... after we had captured all of it .. except the Gadsden Purchase .. from Mexico and they sure as heck weren't in any position to try to take it back (since we were sitting in Mexico City at the time).
And why should we limit it to the last century? Because you feel that's a good place to make the break and, to go back further, would expose you to having to defend the obvious consequences of your assertion?
Alsace-Lorraine remains in French possession; that was removed from Germany after WWII ... who took it from France before WWII .. who took it from Germany after WWI ... who took it from France after the Franco-Prussian War ... who took it from Germany during the Napoleonic Wars ... ad infinitum ...
Konigsburg and East Prussia remain in Polish hands.
Wales remains in English hands.
The Sudetanland remains in Czech hands, who got it after WWII ... when it was taken from Germany and given to Czechoslovakia after WWI ...
"give me a break."
Why? Why draw the line at the century? Too inconvenient?
Hey! Thanks for the warning! Only got one good ear left. .357 blast got one, don't want the other one hanging on a necklace.
You are correct also. If I'm not mistaken the former al-Husseini was Ararat's uncle.
I see ... so, if I can get you to sign your house over to me while I'm sitting in your living room and holding a gun on you, that's a "treaty"?
With regards to "changing mores", when you turn your property back over to the Indians (to display your belief that previous owners have claim to the property), then you can take the lead in supporting your assertions.
Until that time, you're just simply being a hypocrite, setting the time-span for return of conquered lands such that you don't have to be involved in the sacrifice necessary to support your beliefs.
Typically liberal .. do as I say, not as I do.
If you mean to insinuate by "treaty" that the Mexicans willingly signed over vast tracts of land in what has become the American Southwest, then I would question your scholarship.
Ah, but then, again, you don't want to discuss historical conquests ... only those since the beginning of the century.
If we really want to take it all the way, then virtually the entire Western Hemisphere is "occupied territory". It was pretty much all conquered by Spaniards, Anglos, French, and Dutch from the various indigenous peoples. Funny thing is, I don't see all of the supporters of the Palestinians over here abandoning their "illegal settlements" and going back to their ancestral European homelands.
Such hypocrisy makes it easy for him/her to argue that someone else should have to return conquered lands, yet he/she will never be forced to make such a sacrifice.
Enough said.
I heard of Palestine Jews!
Who were the 1st Palestine Arabs/Islam?
********
Arafat was born in Egypt an is a Saudi.
********
I think the Islam religion wants to take over the world and it is important to make people think there is a Palestine and that Judah is wrong. They could careless about the Jews, That is why all Arab nation is sending money to get this accomplished, and using these people there as fodder to get the job done. When the so Called "Palestine lived in their nation they would cut them off after their usefulness was over the old doctors, lawyer, and other learn were disown as citizens, and the property was confiscated and they would soon die.
I also think now it was these snakes Saudi/Islam that have all through history created and spread the lies, of how Jews were money hungry and books like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion It was the evil Saudi who would cause havoc and than blame it on the Jews? Something to Ponder!
**********************************************************************
NOW WHO WOULD GAIN BY THIS BOOK?
COULD THE NATIONS OF ISLAM BY DIVIDE THE JUDEAO/CHRISTIANS AND CONQUOR!
RUSSIAN COURT RULES 'PROTOCOLS' AN ANTI-SEMITIC FORGERY
By Michael A. Hiltzik Los Angeles Times, November 28, 1993
MOSCOW -- In what observers called a historic ruling, a Russian
court has pronounced the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" an anti-Semitic forgery -- the first such verdict in the land where the fraud originated 90 years ago.
"Up to now every country had disengaged itself from this shameful book, except Russia, where it was concocted," Tancred Golenpolsky, the publisher of the Moscow Jewish newspaper that won the ruling, said Saturday.
The court case arose 10 months ago after Golenpolsky's Jewish Gazette accused the radical nationalist group Pamyat ("Memory") of printing anti-Semitic sentiments. Fostering ethnic conflict is punishable under Russian law.
Pamyat responded with a $19,000 libel suit, saying it has nothing against Arabs, who are also Semitic. In its defense, the Gazette noted that Pamyat's newspaper published extracts from the Protocols. The document, which details purported meetings of Jewish elders at which they plotted to seize control of the whole world, became the focus of the trial.
On Friday, a Moscow district court judge ruled that the document was indeed a forgery. She turned down Pamyat's claim and fined the organization court costs of about $190. The ruling by Judge Lyudmila Belikova was hailed by the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, which provided financial support for Golenpolsky and documentary material to the court.
"The ruling today under Russian law destroys any veneer of respectability that hatemongers around the globe have tried to bestow on this hateful work," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the center's associate dean, in a statement.
Pamyat was unrepentant. "They have no decency left to say the Protocols are a fake when the entire history of Russia after 1917 is solid proof that they are genuine," said Dmitri D. Vasiliev, head of the organization, in an interview Saturday.
Referring to the fact that such communist theoreticians and luminaries as Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky were Jewish, he said: "Who made the revolution? Who ruined and sold out the country? Take time and read the Protocols; the answers are there gaping at you from every page."
But Golenpolsky argued that the significance in the ruling lies not in its prospect of eradicating anti-Semitism in Russia. "Anti-Semitism will appear every time prices on potatoes and bread go up," he said in an interview. "What's important is that law and the government will take a stand."
For most of this century, the Protocols has been a key manifesto of anti-Semitism. It was used as a pretext for Eastern European pogroms, was a centerpiece of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and permeated Nazi propaganda. It consistently surfaces across the globe as purported documentation of a Jewish conspiracy.
At the same time it has been consistently condemned by courts around the world. In 1927, an American judge ordered auto magnate Henry Ford to destroy a large printing of the book he had personally financed; as recently as 1991 the South African government banned it as an immoral publication.
Contemporary evidence shows that the Protocols were written by members of Czar Nicholas II's "Okhranka," or secret police, in 1903. Its very birth was particularly unsavory; as much as 60 percent of the document is a bald plagiarism from an anti-Semitic tract published in France around that time.
The Okhranka fashioned the document as the purported agreement of a group of Jewish elders meeting in Switzerland in 1897 to plot Jewish hegemony through the destruction of Christian civilization. It was first published in Russia on the eve, and as the instrument, of the vicious 1903 Odessa pogrom.
Judge Belikova based her ruling in part on testimony by a three-member panel of Russian academic experts who examined the document and its textual and legal history. The experts were agreed to by both sides, although Golenpolsky said his only stipulation was that they not be Jewish.
"My conclusion was that this is prima facie apocryphal and that this is an anti-Semitic document," said one of the experts, Lionel Dadiani of Moscow's Institute of Sociology, who wrote a 67-page opinion for the court.
Pamyat's Vasiliev said Saturday that he intends to bring further cases against the Jewish Gazette.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.