Wait, wasn’t the OP a question about Israel? How is the subject now changed to OOOOHHHHH, but the Arab Muslim countries are even worse!!! Well, they’re supposed to be, right? I mean, isn’t Israel supposed to be a better place, democracy, equality, and all that?
The idea that Jews need a homeland to protect themselves from a second Holocaust never really made sense. The Nazis slaughtered the Romani, too, and nobody gave them a country. That being said, the Jews have their own state now, so however silly the underlying belief, it still has to be taken into account.
I don’t understand. Perhaps the Romani would feel more safe in a country of their own.
Coincidentally, nobody (in fact, the same nobody) also didn’t give the Jews a country.
The British did. And, it was theirs to give, not land on which the Jews had any other claim but current, and recent, occupation.
Do Israeli’s feel safer in Israel than Jews feel in the United States?
As someone who Hitler would have considered Jewish, I feel pretty secure in this country,
Except I do because I responded to a real statement and not the distortions.
The persoon made specific statements as “as a single religious is fundamental to the laws of that land”. And that it is hard for non-muslims to get visas to the Saudi kingdom. These were not accurate statements.
. The majority of labourers are not muslims. It is not hard to get ordinary visa to the Saudi Arabia by religion, it is only for religious visits that there is some religous problem. To go for business or work the only concerns for them is your solvability, like america. The other cooments you make are not relevant to the accuracy of the comment on the visa, that was the only object of my comment. They are straw mens.
I confuse no thing at all. The law in Syria is based on the Code Civil. Anyone who knows really the law of Syria knows this. The only aspects of the law of Syria that do rely on the religious law are the personal law - the law on family things that are in reality governed by the religious law of each recognised community. You cite later that the constituion calls on Islamic law as a primary inspiration as your. Evidence that there is Islamic jurisprudence you will not find as it is not true, it is Code Civil and some Soviet law influences that is the dominant. The Islamic law is just the dressing on this, it has no reality. That is of course one reason the Ikhouane hate so much the system
it is not and that you are ignorant of the phrase personal law tells me that you know only of this subject from American and certain types of political partisans sources as anyone who know the code civil knows this term. If you do not know this term, it says you do not know these law system,except only by some specific kinds of comments of accuracy that should be strongly doubted.
there is no nonsense despite your habit of insulting. My response was on the statement I quoted. This is like the other points, it is making scarey statements but have no connection. This is demonstrated here:
. Yes in the personal law, just like it has Maronite cathlic code and Orthodox code as part of its system. But the primary source of law is code civil with common law influences.
It is only in not having knowledge d believing very prejudiced summaries that someone canwrite that Muslim law is the primary source of law. ithis is not very relevant to to real subject and I will not pursue being attacked.
So whites aren’t entitled to have countries of their own? Please explain.
Oh, yeah, that’s gonna work. :rolleyes:
What, more?!
What is a “white” person?
Let’s use the definition you guys use for affirmative action. You don’t seem to have any confusion about who’s white when it comes to taking things away from whites.
Then again, considering the Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill fiascos, I suspect the left is very, very badly confused about the whole subject of race.
What do you mean “you guys”?
Have you got something against Muslims?
Fictional. The British granted limited rights for Jews to immigrate to certain areas in the Mandate, but did not give anybody a state. In fact, British officers were instrumental to the Arab Legion’s push to obliterate the nascent state.
Just a hint, but when you’re trying to hide your errors behind bullshit dodges about fictional “distortions”, it’s best not to distort someone’s argument. The actual claim was that it’s difficult to visit Saudi Arabia. Tourist visas haven’t been granted for SA entry for a couple years now, IIRC, and the reasons that are valid for visiting the country generally require sponsorship and/or, yep, religious reasons. You might also want to learn what a strawman argument is, as you are seeing them where they don’t exist.
Well, other than the facts and your claims. You’ve confused those.
Dex was correct when he said “a single religious belief is fundamental to the laws of that land” (which you are distorting, naturally), as the President of Syria is required to be a Muslim, even if we ignore the constitutional statement of Islamic jurisprudence. You can try to argue in the teeth of the facts, but anybody rationally analyzing the issue will agree that having Islam be the required religion for the President created a situation where “a single religious belief is fundamental to the laws of that land.”
I’m not ignorant of it, I was pointing out that you were babbling. The actual law is the Syrian Law of Personal Status of 1953. Of course, you missed nary a beat in spewing nonsense about “partisan political sources.” If I was going to adopt your tacticts, I’d now toss out nonsense about “prejudice”. But instead I’ll simply point out that you’re making the quite common error of bringing a kazoo to a gun fight and arguing from a position of ignorance. And to clear up your ignorance, the Law of Personal Status is not “based on … each religion present”. What’s the phrase? Oh yeah, it says you do not know these law system,except only by some specific kinds of comments of accuracy that should be strongly doubted.
Fight your ignorance.
Nope, your claims are still chock full o’ bull. You claimed that Iraq’s law was based on "each religion present ". Of course, as I cited, it’s actually illegal to enact any law which diverges from Islam. Yet again, as you’re distorting what’s actually happened while claiming that you’ve somehow been misrepresented, here’s the quote from the cite you ignored "In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, among others, it is also forbidden to enact legislation that is antithetical to Islam. "
Do you mean like white slavers were not confused as to who was black, or whites were not confused as to who the original inhabitants of the Americas were, when they got here?
Who are the “you guys” you are referring to?
I do not need any hints or other disguised insults or bullying. The statement was quoted and clear, and it is what I responded to.
. No, he wrote to get visa, with the implication that it is because of religion. Anyone can go read those words. You now are making excuses and elaboraations to defend a viiew and prejudice, and disguise the confusion between the religious visas for holy site visits (that are hard even for the muslim to get) and the visas for other visits, which have no thing to do with religion at all.
I am tired of the insulting attacks and name calling hat for some reason are tolerated from you by the moderators, it makes any discussion unpleasant and is only a mask to ignorance.
Of course, as proven it wasn’t what you were responding to, since you distorted it and were arguing against a strawman to spew yet more nonsense about ‘ignorant Americans’. And if debating is something that you view as “bullying”, you should probably not visit GD.
Yet another hint: when caught in an error, do not then invent another bit of nonsense to compound your mistake. You and I are the only ones to use the word “visa” in this thread, and you’re the first. Because you were distorting the actual argument. What’s the phrase? Oh yeah. Anyone can go read those words. In fact, they can look at the first post in the thread where anybody wrote “to get a visa”. Another free hint, it was yours.
I already called you on this bullshit dodge. Evidently when you’re beaten on the facts, all you can is vomit forth fictitious claims of “prejudice”. Of course, as already pointed out, Saudi Arabia doesn’t give out tourist visas these days. Visas are not issues for visiting, as Dex correctly stated. They are issued for business and work, to visit close relatives, and for transit and religious visits by Muslims.
Of course, you didn’t acknowledge any of your mistakes I’ve caught you in, and keep accusing people of “prejudice” for proving you wrong. I bet there’s a good phrase to describe such a dodge. Oh yeah!
Well, sure, if they’re bedraggled oppressed refugees of the War on Christmas or something…
Strictly speaking the world, in the form of the UN General Assembly, made Israel a state. With the support of the Soviet Union and the strong opposition of the Arab nations. The debate in the General Assembly is very illuminating.
Sure they are. Show us where “whites” have been persecuted for centuries for being “white,” (or where anyone outside Zimbabwe is persecuting them, now), and we’ll get right on that.
On the other hand, since the vast majority of “non-white” people in the U.S. were brought here by “whites” to perform labor to enrich the “whites,” (or were driven from their ancestral lands by encroaching “whites”), it is pretty clear that there has never been a majority view in the U.S. that it should be a country of “whites,” so that point is utterly irrelvant to a discussion of U.S. policy. And, given that any number of people who are now “white” were not originally “white” when they arrived, (Irish, Italians, etc.), whatever definition of “white” that might be proposed for a homeland would seem to be a bit too unstable to be successful as a national marker.