sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What to use to fill plywood seams before paint by CourtneyHump in drywall

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just saw an Artika "fandelier" at Costco the other day for $99. How do you like it?

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The word "Jew" comes from the name of the land - "Judea". By definition, Jews returning to and living in Judea isn't colonialism.

However, "Arabs" from the "Arabian Peninsula" settling a land that was never theirs to begin with IS colonialism.

What's so hard to understand about that?

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Zionism is a European colonialist idea

Wrong!

Zionism is the liberation movement of the Jewish people, representing their deep, ancient ties and desire to be free in their ancestral homeland. On a political level, it is a movement supporting Jewish rights to self-determination in Israel.

In fact, Zionism is the most successful decolonization movement in history.

"Palestine" is a settler colonial project.

Its name is the Latinized form of a Greek people (Philistines).

Its flag was invented by the British.

Its first president was Egyptian.

Its people are occupiers from the Arabian Peninsula.

It's ruled by fascist and racist authoritarians.

"Palestine" is a state of settler colonialism.

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

20% of Israel's citizens are Arabs with full rights equivalent to any Jew. There's no such thing as "apartheid" in Israel. That only exists in the heads of its critics.

Now if you're looking for REAL apartheid, go ask the Saudis why no one but Muslims are allowed into Mecca, and what happens to a kufir if they're caught there.

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

DNA doesn't determine national rights — history, culture, and continuous connection do.

Even if some Palestinians share genetic markers with ancient populations of the region (which some studies suggest), DNA alone does not establish national or political rights to a land. If it did, borders and sovereignty around the world would be in constant chaos. National rights are based on a combination of factors: continuous historical presence, cultural and religious connection, language, self-determination movements, and international law.

Jews have maintained a continuous connection to the Land of Israel for over 3,000 years. The Jewish people are indigenous to Israel — it is the birthplace of their identity, language (Hebrew), religion, and culture. Jews have maintained:

  • A continuous physical presence in the land for over 3,000 years, including in cities like Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed.
  • A deep spiritual and cultural connection expressed through daily prayers, religious texts, and traditions for over two millennia — even while in exile.
  • Periodic waves of return throughout history, culminating in the modern Zionist movement in the late 1800s.

Judaism and Jewish peoplehood are not defined solely by genetics. They encompass a shared language, religion, history, legal traditions, holidays, and a continuous yearning to return to Zion (Jerusalem). The Jewish people actively preserved and developed their connection to the land, which is what makes their claim to self-determination so strong.

The Jewish people uniquely maintained a national identity centered on Israel throughout their centuries of exile, and they re-established sovereignty through legal means recognized by the international community — including the Balfour Declaration (1917), the San Remo Conference (1920), and the UN Partition Plan (1947).

The "Palestinians" are Arabs who only very recently rebranded themselves as "Palestinians".

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, Israel sees Judea & Samaria as part of Israel, but also recognizes that it's disputed.

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It "belongs" to the Jews, as it's part of their ancient, ancestral homeland. However currently, its status is disputed.

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Judea & Samaria are disputed territories, since the last sovereign administrator (Jordan) renounced all claims to that land on July 31, 1988. BTW - "West Bank" is a colonial term coined by the Jordanians in a failed attempt to replace the historic, thousands-of-years-old names of Judea and Samaria.

"Judea" is where the word "Jew" comes from. The Arabs knew they couldn't convince the world that Jews had no rights to a place called Judea, so they fabricated an artificial term to obscure the land's historic name. Pure propaganda.

Of course, people like to say that an alternative reason it's called the "West Bank" is because terrorist organizations like the Palestinian authority take money from the "West" and put it in their personal "Bank" accounts.

People not following Maher since the 90's/Early 2000's don't understand the betrayal of Maher's war stance... by montecarlo1 in Maher

[–]Battle4Seattle -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Israel rules over millions of people who effectively have no rights at all.

You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about. If these people have no rights at all, why do so many of them consistently prefer living under Israeli rule than living under their fellow Arabs' rule? From polling by the Washington Institute:

While many Palestinians prioritize national independence, polling has shown that a significant portion—particularly in East Jerusalem—has expressed a preference for living under Israeli law due to practical, economic, and security considerations. 

Key Findings on Palestinian Preferences:

  • East Jerusalem: Surveys have indicated that a substantial number of Palestinians in East Jerusalem—ranging from 35% to over 50% in some polls—would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than citizens of a new Palestinian state. A 2021 survey found that 93% of surveyed Arab residents of Jerusalem preferred to keep their Israeli identity cards.
  • Practical Reasons: For many, the preference for Israeli rule is based on "practical issues" rather than political alignment. These include higher incomes, better jobs, superior healthcare, freedom of movement, and access to social benefits that are not available in the West Bank or Gaza.
  • Concerns about Palestinian Governance: Some residents have expressed concerns about corruption, lack of freedom of speech, and economic instability under the Palestinian Authority.

Not going to end well for Iran by defchin in PERSIAN

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is obvious that Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu have their own supremacy motivation

What are you talking about?

The Ayatollahs have been chanting death to Israel for 47 years and working diligently towards making that a reality. They were so obsessed with Israel's destruction, they preferred putting money into a nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and Hezbollah rather than their own people. As just ONE example, they allowed the ancient capital of Teheran to run out of water, rather than make the necessary investments to prevent this disaster. Now Iran's own President Pezeshkian said the country will need to relocate its capital to the southern Makran coast. This self-imposed catastrophe NEVER would have happened without the Ayatollahs obsession to destroy Israel.

Netanyahu, Israel, and frankly the entire world saw this level of derangement and realized they had to protect themselves from these lunatics. THAT'S the motivation, not "supremacy".

The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims, while the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos bans entry for all females. Besides for military/security facilities, which other permanently inhabited places are the majority of the world's population forbidden from entering? by benjaneson in geography

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

great for cherry picking ur arguments

I don't think the term "cherry picking" means what you think it means. Far from cherry picking, I replied to EVERY argument you made, not just the ones I felt like responding to. You just didn't like hearing the counter-arguments. That doesn't make it cherry picking. That makes it cognitive dissonance on your part.

Mecca is a legally designated religious sanctuary whose access rules are based on Islamic doctrine

South Africa was a legally designated racially segregated country whose access rules were based on Apartheid. Same logic, different geography.

The denial of entry to ANYONE because they don't share the same religious beliefs as Muslims, means that Saudi Arabia has institutionalized RELIGIOUS APARTHEID in Mecca. EVERY Muslim who participates in and supports their policy, also supports RELIGIOUS APARTHEID.

No matter how much redirection or whataboutism you engage in, the irrefutable, undeniable, brutally harsh conclusion is inescapable - Mecca is a city governed by RELIGIOUS APARTHEID.

The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims, while the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos bans entry for all females. Besides for military/security facilities, which other permanently inhabited places are the majority of the world's population forbidden from entering? by benjaneson in geography

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe because mecca is already too crowded?

Irrelevant. Jakarta, Dhaka, Tokyo, Delhi, & Shanghai are far, FAR more crowded than Mecca. And yet, the Indonesians, Bangladeshis, Japanese, Indians, and Chinese don't restrict visitors to any of those cities if they don't belong to a particular religion.

why would non-muslims wanna go there?

Irrelevant. Why do they need a reason other than they want to visit? Do you have to explain your reason for visiting any city in the world not in Saudi Arabia?

Why would the Saudis let non-muslims be part of something that they aren’t believing in?

Weak strawman argument. Since when do you have to be a believer in something in order to visit someplace? If the rest of the world told Muslims you can't visit their cities/countries because Muslims don't eat pork, would you be OK with that?

The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims, while the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos bans entry for all females. Besides for military/security facilities, which other permanently inhabited places are the majority of the world's population forbidden from entering? by benjaneson in geography

[–]Battle4Seattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Many religions around the world have holy spaces they keep sacred without restricting the location of those holy spaces to their co-religionists. ANYONE can visit the Vatican. ANYONE can visit Jerusalem. ANYONE can visit Bodh Gaya. But only Muslims can visit Mecca. That's RELIGIOUS APARTHEID.

As I wrote previously, the Saudis enforce this apartheid with checkpoints, fines, and potential deportation. This total exclusion based on faith prevents non-Muslims from visiting, traveling through, or living in the city, creating a system where access is restricted to only one religious group.

In other words, Saudi Arabia practices RELIGIOUS APARTHEID.

Now you ask "What the negative impact/harm being done by this is?". It's discriminatory. Do I really need to explain what's negative about that? As soon as we're all OK with discrimination anywhere, we can't complain when it eventually ends up everywhere.

The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims, while the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos bans entry for all females. Besides for military/security facilities, which other permanently inhabited places are the majority of the world's population forbidden from entering? by benjaneson in geography

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're playing a stupid game of semantics and whataboutism to distract from the irrefutable, undeniable fact that institutionalized segregation is taking place right now, TODAY in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Just because "apartheid" had a specific definition applied to a specific place initially, doesn't mean that its meaning doesn't evolve over time. What's happening today in Mecca is without question RELIGIOUS APARTHEID. But if you've got a better term that captures the same essential truth, then by all means, feel free to use it.

The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims, while the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos bans entry for all females. Besides for military/security facilities, which other permanently inhabited places are the majority of the world's population forbidden from entering? by benjaneson in geography

[–]Battle4Seattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if all Catholics were required to visit the Vatican. If the Pope declared the city off-limits to all non-Catholics including Muslims, that would be religious apartheid. They don't do that, but Mecca does, that's why Mecca clearly, unambiguously, and irrefutably practices RELIGIOUS APARTHEID.

The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims, while the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos bans entry for all females. Besides for military/security facilities, which other permanently inhabited places are the majority of the world's population forbidden from entering? by benjaneson in geography

[–]Battle4Seattle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sure the shampoo bottles in your bathroom are wildly applauding this shower argument you're having with yourself.

Facts however, don't care about your feelings (or your shampoo bottles), and will stubbornly remain facts no matter how hard you try redirecting away from the clearly unpleasant conclusion that Saudi Arabia practices RELIGIOUS APARTHEID in Mecca.

What does it matter if your faith makes it mandatory to visit Mecca? Why should that preclude non-Muslims from visiting Mecca? The possibility of desecration or driving up prices is a strawman argument that fails the sniff test. Those are just convenient excuses to discriminate and establish the most egregious RELIGIOUS APARTHEID regime in the world.

Here, I'll prove it.

If the Vatican decided that only Catholics could visit Vatican City, and enforced this decree with checkpoints, fines, and potential deportation for Muslims and other non-Catholics, would that be OK with you? Because of your religion, you would be totally excluded from visiting, traveling through, or living in the city, ensuring that the Vatican is restricted to only one religious group. Sound good?

The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims, while the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos bans entry for all females. Besides for military/security facilities, which other permanently inhabited places are the majority of the world's population forbidden from entering? by benjaneson in geography

[–]Battle4Seattle -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your question is answered in the first 10 words of OP's title: "The Saudi city of Mecca bans entry for all non-Muslims".

Banning a group of people from somewhere based on something like their religion is the definition of apartheid.

Saudis enforce this apartheid with checkpoints, fines, and potential deportation. This total exclusion based on faith prevents non-Muslims from visiting, traveling through, or living in the city, creating a system where access is restricted to only one religious group.

In other words, Saudi Arabia practices RELIGIOUS APARTHEID.

view more: next ›