J4C0B65 wrote:The land would not have been partitioned. They would have had control as long as they allowed continued Jewish immigration. However, the Palestinians did not like this and thus turned down the British offer. This made the Brits turn to Palestine and the State of Israel was created.
They were against Jewish mass immigration, not the control of land. They wanted the land without the Jewish mass immigration. Again, if the Brits had told another colony to allow mass Jewish immigration as a requirement for independence, the people of that colony would be pissed.
What the Brits did was utter fuckery. They are a foreign power occupying land. They tell the people to allow mass Jewish immigration, and the people didn't like that. Their response is to just create a Jewish state there?
J4C0B65 wrote:It doesn't need a source because it is a commonly accepted fact.
What idiocy.
Reddy wrote:How then do you interpret something directed at no one in specific (as you yourself accept) as being directed to you?
He specifically referred to the incitement of rioting, not violence by the state. I was the only person whose posts would be seen as inciting rioting, or violence against the state. The others were supporting violence by the state. He said nothing about the people endorsing violence by the state
Reddy wrote:I mean in that thread, you were the only who kept on insisting on supporting rioting and violence after Aquinas denounced those forms of incitement. Why would he bother re-denounce the others, if they've already stopped calling for violence (state or otherswise)? Did Pale or Farsun 'call for violence some more, post-Aquinas' denouncement of it?
My point is that from the first post you pointed out, he was only addressing the violence I was calling for. He specifically spoke about incitement of rioting. And by talking about people getting into trouble, obviously he was referring to me. Farsun and PaleRider couldn't get in trouble for what they were saying, since it was endorsing violence by the state, not against it.
Reddy wrote:Siggon Kristov wrote:Aquinas wrote:and partly because I'm not an expert in restraint techniques and what the police guidelines are in terms of this particular situation
It's your own sense of fairness that I'm going at, not what the police guidelines may be. These official legal rules themselves may not necessarily be good. According to PaleRider, legal guidelines say that lethal force is warranted if someone resists arrest, so let's not go strictly by legal guidelines.
Again, he is hesitant when the victims are Black/coloured people, but he gets really defensive if anyone calls for violence against agents of the white state.
You keep repeating the bold part, yet as someone pointed out in that thread, a number of officials involved in this are black, in a black majority city, black Mayor . Are they all Uncle Toms then, because if you are of that opinion, that's (IMO) in the conspiracy theory range.
I refer to Jamaica as a white state. The Prime Minister, other top politicians, the police commissioner, and 90% of the population are all Black. We inherited the institutions from the white colonial state, and they function the same way now that they did in colonial times. Black police officers, in uniform, are serving the white state. I have never personally seen a non-Black cop in Jamaica. I believe there may be some Indo-Jamaican cops, but I've never seen one. I doubt we have any Asian or white cops at all. Most cops are Black; this doesn't mean they serve Black interests. They still brutalise Black people in the interests of the white upper class and the mulatto middle class. This is documented by Black and coloured academics in Jamaica.
Reddy wrote:The violent rioting you endorsed, appears to have hurt mostly black owned businesses and black people. Dozens of people (many of them black) were murdered in the aftermath in a spike in the crime rate. It would appear in this instance that you are indirectly the tool of those who would see black folk not prospering.
And I raised the point over and over... Were the police there to protect them? There has been an absence of police protection of Black people in Black communities whenever riots are not happening. I raised this point when soysauce raised the point that you just did. I had also raised it to Aquinas in another post, after which he admitted that he didn't find it hard to believe.
Reddy wrote:Siggon Kristov wrote:Reddy wrote:I've known Aquinas since around January 2013. We have become good friends and this would have never happened if I ever thought he was intolerant/racist.
I guess that's why you will overlook most of what I am saying. He's your friend, so you're going to take his side. There isn't much point in discussing this then, because you're biased on the matter.
Whether i'm biased or not, you've failed to show anywhere where Aquinas actually endorsed 'white state violence' or whatever. Again, failure to denounce something doesn't mean he endorses it.
I don't recall saying he endorsed it, but he tolerated it much more than he tolerated me advocating for violence by the Black/coloured people against the state. If he's going to remain silent on when white people call for violence against Black/coloured people, why doesn't he shut the fuck up when I call for violence the other way around? Likewise, he jumps into mod mode when I insult SelCru, but (as predicted) he remains silent on SelCru's endorsement of Israeli violence against Palestinian people.
Reddy wrote:And he did denounce inciting violence and rioting. Isn't violence what you say that Pale and Farsun called for?
He said it in the context of what people could (and apparently what he believed they should) get in trouble for. PaleRider and Farsun were endorsing violence by the state, not against it.
Reddy wrote:Siggon Kristov wrote:Reddy wrote:no need for a distraction from the main topic. It's unlikely we will agree anyway.
I'm going to keep defending myself if you say things that make me seem like some liar. Thanks for making it clear why we won't agree, i.e. he's your friend.
I don't think you are necessarily lying or being malicious. I just think you are massively misinterpreting everything on this. You missed my point on my friendship with Aquinas, me, as a black man, I would have never become friends with Aquinas if I thought he held the views you claim you have divined from a handful of statements on that one thread. I've spoken to him hundreds of times and on many topics including race.
The worst racists are the ones who actively go out and kill people. Next to them are not the ones who are openly racist, but the ones who express subtle racism. I know Black people with racist friends, and LGBTQ+ people with homophobic friends.
As you said, we won't agree on this. You think your white friend is some saint, and I think he's a racist fucker (and I have stated exactly why I think that).
Reddy wrote:For goodness' sake, the guy is a leftwing Lib Dem!
Liberal Democrats aren't Leftist. I've written too many essays about this. Liberalism is not Leftism, and its core tenets are antithetical to Leftist ideologies. He has made it clear, in the same thread, that he supports Capitalism. We can go into detail on this in another thread if you care enough to discuss it.
