What's new

What right did Britain had to grant someone els country to jews

Britannia at one time in the past had an incredible Navy
 
The British were colonials and were a super power at the time.

The Zionists apparently were choosing between Palestine and Argentina. The world would have been better off had they went on with Argentina. But that would have been worse for Argentinians.
 
The British were colonials and were a super power at the time.

The Zionists apparently were choosing between Palestine and Argentina. The world would have been better off had they went on with Argentina. But that would have been worse for Argentinians.

Always wanted to visit Buenos Aires
 
The Anglo-Saxons of UK and US believe they own the world, the universe indeed.

Dude, there aren't many Anglo-Saxons in the US anymore..they have been decreasing since the 1776 Revolutionary War when they didn't feel welcomed anymore and were displaced by millions of other groups from the European mainland...like Germans.

Stop using the stupid Anglo-Saxon moniker. It applies to Pakistan/India but not here.

Do Korean people use Shinto to describe the Chinese people in power? How silly does that sound?
 
Last edited:
Jerusalem has always caused wars. It is a holy land cursed with imminent wars

There is no permanent solution to it however we can delay the holy war for a few centuries if Israel and Palestine come to the table and agree to recognise each other with a fair split of land and let go of Jerusalem under the control of a peacekeeping Army jointly operated by Muslim, Christian and Jews
 
Wondering why no one has brought this up yet -

What right did Britain had to grant someone els country to jews/muslims/shias/sunnis/Hindus?​

* Kashmir, Hyderabad Deccan, all the Muslim ruled princely states
 
Last edited:
Dude, there aren't many Anglo-Saxons in the US anymore..they have been decreasing since the 1776 Revolutionary War when they didn't feel welcomed anymore and were displaced by millions of other groups from the European mainland...like Germans.

Stop using the stupid Anglo-Saxon moniker. It applies to Pakistan/India but not here.

Do Korean people use Shinto to describe the Chinese people in power? How silly does that sound?
So, they might not be the largest group there, but their attitudes are still the same about the world.
 
No it's not a stupid question. You are stupid with your lame whataboutism.
If a terrorist held a few people hostage, kills one, and releases the rest, and someone asks what right the terrorist had to kill the person, are you in turn going to counter that by asking what right the terrorist had releasing the remaining hostages? You're an idiot.
Do you even know what is "Whataboutism"? Or even international law for this matter?? In fact, judging from what you wrote, do you even understand the question at hand?

We aren';t talking about what makes Hamas or Israel do what they did, or what considered terrorist, we are talking about whether British had right to hand over a jurisdiction to someone in order to inherit a country. Under customary international law, you either a country of claim have an absolute right to claim over a former colony (as in UK-China-Hong Kong, Portuguese-China-Macau or US-Spain-Philippine) or a new entity emerge if no absolute claim exists (as in Indochina- North/South Vietnam, British India- India-Pakistan, Dutch East-Indie, Indonesia-East Timor, Belgium Congo-Congo-Katanga UK-Australia, US-Mexico-Texas and so on)

In the first case, the authority is very clear cut as those are treaty bound, the second case is based on terra nullius claim, as in nobody inherit the land (as it meant nobody's land), which mean everybody inherit in that land have the same right. Which usually, but not always, lead to war.

The issue is very clear, British have its right to decolonise itself, and under international law, both Jews and Arab have the same right to inherit the land, and that is NOT up to the Brits to decide, that is up to the UN, which formed the UNSCOP in order to decide this matter. You don't like that decision does not make the UK did not accustom to international law when the Brits followed it to the letter. In fact, as I said, that is the reason why international organisation such as UN did not recognize Palestine is because they are the party that did not follow the customary international law. That's fine if they win the claim on battlefield, like how North Vietnam win over the South, or Congo win over Katanga, because the other party will not exist afterward, but it doesn't work if they are the loser on that conflict.

What you said is the exact definition of "Whataboutism" again, if you do not know anything about international law and colonialisation, maybe best to listen not to speak.
 
Dude, there aren't many Anglo-Saxons in the US anymore..they have been decreasing since the 1776 Revolutionary War when they didn't feel welcomed anymore and were displaced by millions of other groups from the European mainland...like Germans.

Stop using the stupid Anglo-Saxon moniker. It applies to Pakistan/India but not here.

Do Korean people use Shinto to describe the Chinese people in power? How silly does that sound?
Dude, even Anglo Saxon are a minority in the UK, the term "Anglo-Saxon" denoted British Culture under Roman rules, which mostly ceased to exist after 1700 when the UK was invaded by both Viking and Norman

Those who were referred to as "Anglo-Saxon" is those who had name like Æthelstan or Eċġwynn, which is roots now lies in Wales and Ireland and speak what we would called "Ye-Ole-English". By the way, the term "Anglo-Saxon" literally mean British Saxon, and have a wild guess where "Saxon" come from?


That's why education is important...........
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom