Yasser Arafat Dead

[Wartenberg]

btw. id appreciated it if the guy who banned me would please unban me. its not a big problem for me to get a new ip but i just would prefer to resume posting with my von Landenhausen acc. 

[hismajesty]

im still here har har har. but im not going to argue with you guys anymore since idont see any chance to win this since my english is not that good.

but to make 1 thing clear: i dont hate jews i just am very opposite to israel. (no answers/replys please)

So, you just hate the most centralized Jewish settlement in the world? Pretty much the same to me, seeing as how you want to dump all the residents into the sea.

btw,

Location:     Stoke, Staffordshire, England

You, being from England, can't use your English skills as an excuse imho. You're 17 so can obviously comprehend what we say. No, no, the reason you can't win is because you don't have any facts and are basing all your attacks on a biased opinion with no factual backing.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

in short, you got served, biatch!

[Hazard]

Landen, nobody despises you for being anti-Israel. They despise you because you have no intelligent reason for it.

Dxo, many native Hawaiians liked the new government. Read up on that website before you start saying more ignorant things.

[Wartenberg]

Landen, nobody despises you for being anti-Israel. They despise you because you have no intelligent reason for it.

my reason is the unjustice which happened/happens to the palastinian ppl. if you think thats not intelling, you're arrogant.

im still here har har har. but im not going to argue with you guys anymore since idont see any chance to win this since my english is not that good.

but to make 1 thing clear: i dont hate jews i am just very opposite to israel. (no answers/replys please)

So, you just hate the most centralized Jewish settlement in the world? Pretty much the same to me, seeing as how you want to dump all the residents into the sea.

i said no answers/replys plz. but btw i dont feel myself as a jew. moreover karl marx was jew and a anti-semite. so even this would be possible har har.

btw,

Location:     Stoke, Staffordshire, England

You, being from England, can't use your English skills as an excuse imho. You're 17 so can obviously comprehend what we say. No, no, the reason you can't win is because you don't have any facts and are basing all your attacks on a biased opinion with no factual backing.

mate, im living in england only since 5months now, ok?? and unforrunately im sharing my flat with a ukrainian guy D:. however: my norsk, swedish, dutch, german, russian and norwegian is much better than my english. and i dont count english as one of the launguage i really master. but its enough to get banned and btw. my native language the one with which i grew up is Dietsch (its lil bit like yiddisch). now go and use google to find out what Dietsch is. @-P SO I AM NOT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER

[dxoigmn]

Dxo, many native Hawaiians liked the new government. Read up on that website before you start saying more ignorant things.

Oh, that's why ~21,000 native Hawaiians, who were able to vote, signed a petition against annexation, and the census that year estimated ~39,000 native & mix-blood Hawaiians?  Yeah, they really liked the new government. 

If anyone is being ignorant, it's you.  I know the history of this country, especially when it comes to indigenous peoples.

[Hazard]

Dxo, many native Hawaiians liked the new government. Read up on that website before you start saying more ignorant things.

Oh, that's why ~21,000 native Hawaiians, who were able to vote, signed a petition against annexation, and the census that year estimated ~39,000 native & mix-blood Hawaiians?  Yeah, they really liked the new government. 

If anyone is being ignorant, it's you.  I know the history of this country, especially when it comes to indigenous peoples.

Oh you do? Would you care to outline your studies for us? Also, would you care to cite your sources that you got all of this information from, because honestly without any kind of hard evidence for me to check, those statistics are worthless. Check out that website I gave you if you want hard evidence, which is something that you aren't giving me. I'd be willing to bet at this point you're just making things up.

Also, if that statistic is true, you are overlooking the some 18,000 Hawaiians who did support the annexation. The point is the US government had no control over what the provisional government did.

[dxoigmn]

Oh you do? Would you care to outline your studies for us? Also, would you care to cite your sources that you got all of this information from, because honestly without any kind of hard evidence for me to check, those statistics are worthless. Check out that website I gave you if you want hard evidence, which is something that you aren't giving me. I'd be willing to bet at this point you're just making things up.

Also, if that statistic is true, you are overlooking the some 18,000 Hawaiians who did support the annexation. The point is the US government had no control over what the provisional government did.

Ahh, so our true colors show.  You really don't know anything about the issue but rather are scouraging the internet for facts to support what you believe.  You can question my background all you want but there is no denying fact.  And here is your fact: http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/hawaii_petition_1897/hawaii_petition_1897.html A government website about the peition against annexation.

About your second little blurb.  You say some 18,000 Hawaiians supported the annexation, but the petition was signed by those who were of age.  This means that children did not sign.  Who knows how many children where actually there, but I'm willing to bet roughly that many, maybe a little less.  OHA data from 1984 says a little less than half of the native hawaiian population were under age.

No, maybe the US government didn't have control over the provisional government.  But haven't you stated before that it is the United States' job to correct the wrongs in the world?  Or perhaps their interest in a pacific naval base was of more interest than the rights of native peoples?

[Hazard]

I've studied the issue. Have you? You've shown your true colors by completely ignoring facts I have presented to you and obviously have not researched the link I gave you. Also, I have not "scoured the internet" for these facts as you claim, all of that information was presented to me in my American Foreign Relations class at Jesuit.

So you mean to suggest that every person underage would have stood against the annexation? Thats not the case, I'm sure. In fact I'd bet that the younger generation probably would have sided more with the revolutionaries and those after change except for those who just did what their parents though.

Haven't you argued before that it is not the United State's job to correct problems in the world?

Are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy in the United States government to withold assistance to the monarchy in order to annex the region and build a base? This isn't true. Read and research what I give you. When President Cleveland took office he fired Minister Stevens and denied the annexation and attempted to restore the Queen to her throne, but President Dole would not allow it. If you want to bitch and moan about Hawaii, draft a letter to the Dole corporation. And yes, it is true Grover Cleveland tried to restore Liliukolani to the throne. Check out another government site here to see that this is FACT.

[dxoigmn]

I've studied the issue. Have you? You've shown your true colors by completely ignoring facts I have presented to you and obviously have not researched the link I gave you. Also, I have not "scoured the internet" for these facts as you claim, all of that information was presented to me in my American Foreign Relations class at Jesuit.

So you mean to suggest that every person underage would have stood against the annexation? Thats not the case, I'm sure. In fact I'd bet that the younger generation probably would have sided more with the revolutionaries and those after change except for those who just did what their parents though.

Haven't you argued before that it is not the United State's job to correct problems in the world?

Are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy in the United States government to withold assistance to the monarchy in order to annex the region and build a base? This isn't true. Read and research what I give you. When President Cleveland took office he fired Minister Stevens and denied the annexation and attempted to restore the Queen to her throne, but President Dole would not allow it. If you want to bitch and moan about Hawaii, draft a letter to the Dole corporation. And yes, it is true Grover Cleveland tried to restore Liliukolani to the throne. Check out another government site here to see that this is FACT.

Let's take some quotes from all the sources you have posted:

The administration of President Benjamin Harrison encouraged the takeover [of the monachry], and dispatched sailors from the USS Boston to the islands to surround the royal palace.

Hawaiians who were loyal to their queen tried to come to her defense and stop the revolution.  When they arrived in Honolulu, however, American troops confronted them.

Oh please with the crap about children going against their parents.  That is bullshit and you know it.  You're even basing that entire agruement on opinion, nothing concrete or anything you could possibly prove, therefore it is obsolete.  I'm not saying anything about a conspiracy, I'm saying Hawaii was stolen by American plantation owners, and the United States stood to do nothing but further their interest at the cost of the native Hawaiian's sovereignty.  I have not ignored any facts, all you have presented me is information that I already know.  Yet, I have presented information that you knew nothing of.  Therefore I ask, who is more ignorant?

[Hazard]

The administration of President Benjamin Harrison encouraged the takeover [of the monachry], and dispatched sailors from the USS Boston to the islands to surround the royal palace.

The administartion, by which it is meant the United States Minister to Hawaii John Stevens. This is not the President, or the American public. You also have ignored that President Cleveland renounced this act as dispicable, fired Stevens, and attempted to restore the Queen to the throne. You ignore it because it doesn't fit with what you think happend.

Hawaiians who were loyal to their queen tried to come to her defense and stop the revolution.  When they arrived in Honolulu, however, American troops confronted them.

Misguided American troops on illegal orders from a man who did not represent the United States as he was ordered. His actions were found unlawful, don't ignore that. The actions of Stevens were overturned by Cleveland, stop ignoring it.

Oh please with the crap about children going against their parents.

Thats not the argument. The argument is I'm sure some of the younger generation would have truly supported the new government as it brought unprecedented prosperity to Hawaii.

You're even basing that entire agruement on opinion, nothing concrete or anything you could possibly prove, therefore it is obsolete.

You're basing your argument on opinion and loosely connected generalized facts. Your argument is equally obsolete in this case.

the United States stood to do nothing but further their interest at the cost of the native Hawaiian's sovereignty

Read the site I gave you. It clearly states that President Grover Cleveland overturned the actions of the former administration and attempted to restore the Queen to power. He never took military action, are you arguing he should have? You have constantly argued that the United States should not be the world police, so are you saying that we should have done so in this case?

have not ignored any facts, all you have presented me is information that I already know.  Yet, I have presented information that you knew nothing of.  Therefore I ask, who is more ignorant?

You have ignored it. You have clearly not studied the websites I have given to you, that is clearly ignoring the facts. I present you hard evidence to back up what I am saying, and you say it doesn't count because you have something that says this. You have presented me no new information, just the standard rhetoric and nothing that isn't contained in the sites I have presented you. In this case, you sir are the more ignorant.

[dxoigmn]

You have ignored it. You have clearly not studied the websites I have given to you, that is clearly ignoring the facts. I present you hard evidence to back up what I am saying, and you say it doesn't count because you have something that says this. You have presented me no new information, just the standard rhetoric and nothing that isn't contained in the sites I have presented you. In this case, you sir are the more ignorant.

I'm not going to bother with the issue anymore because it's clear that you are ignorant of the issue.  Native Hawaiian's didn't want to be annexed, therefore the US annexing Hawaii without the consent of the indigenous peoples is blatently wrong.

[Hazard]

And I disagree and have facts to back it up, but you are so convinced that what you learned in school was the only possible answer that you refuse to accept any other possibilities. Thats ignorance.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

I cite Texas.

[Hazard]

I cite Texas.

Good example.