Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Has there ever been a debate that Tinmore won ??
The only debates you ZioNutters win are those that you claim victory in (among yourselves). You lose every debate on this subject based on the facts.
You are like the Baghdad Bob of debates. You claim to have won all the debates that you've actually gotten your butt kicked.
It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side. The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point. Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills. Clearly, I don't have that problem.
Has there ever been a debate that Tinmore won ??
The only debates you ZioNutters win are those that you claim victory in (among yourselves). You lose every debate on this subject based on the facts.
You are like the Baghdad Bob of debates. You claim to have won all the debates that you've actually gotten your butt kicked.
It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side. The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point. Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills. Clearly, I don't have that problem.
You clearly have a problem because you keep posting the same two or three documents which as I proved you edited the parts which disprove your claims.
The mentally ill hired false propogandist troll for PaliNazis calling others propagandists. Ha ha ha. Now that's a doozy. Do you ever work, you fuckin' bum?
Has there ever been a debate that Tinmore won ??
The only debates you ZioNutters win are those that you claim victory in (among yourselves). You lose every debate on this subject based on the facts.
You are like the Baghdad Bob of debates. You claim to have won all the debates that you've actually gotten your butt kicked.
It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side. The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point. Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills. Clearly, I don't have that problem.
You clearly have a problem because you keep posting the same two or three documents which as I proved you edited the parts which disprove your claims.
The mentally ill hired false propogandist troll for PaliNazis calling others propagandists. Ha ha ha. Now that's a doozy. Do you ever work, you fuckin' bum?
Nothing is edited at all. You proved nothing You just can't take the truth. There are not just 2 or 3 documents, there are 100s of archived official documents that support every claim I make. That's why it's so easy to demonstrate that everything you claim is a lie and propaganda.
The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.But he sure does a great job of spamming the board once he latches onto some 'document'
Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents". You are certainly entertaining. A clown so to speak.
Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they. When did the UN last pass a LAW ?
The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.
Thank you so this means that palestine never existed as a nation and never will......................The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
(COMMENT)Attacks on occupiers are not violations of international law.
They may be seen as violations of domestic laws and can be addressed by police not military action.
Still nothing about "Israel" or a "Jewish state," huh?Not!NON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.
(COMMENT)
Yes, Clause 3 of the Preamble to General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, does say this. But having said that, do not misinterpret it as some sort of "right." It is not! It is a type of criminal defense. Remember, GA/RES/ 217A (III) --- Declaration of Human Rights --- is a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the General Assembly." It does not supersede Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV (International Human Rights Law) which holds people performing actions solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, criminally accountable and subject to criminal penalties. It is not a right to use force against the Occupying Power.
(COMMENT)
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 49/148 A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994
A/RES/2105(XX) Plenary 23 A/PV.1405 20 Dec. 1965 Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
74-6-27 A/L.476/Rev.1, Rev.1Cor.1 and Rev.1/Add.1
The key word here is: "Invited" --- "More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."
This is one of the trickiest concepts ever in terms of International Politics and Diplomacy. It is not expected, in our lifetimes anyway, that any of the world powers are going to let this become international law. In terms of contemporary history, the case of Taiwan, wherein China threaten to go to war if the UN allowed and recognized Taiwan's independence from China. And of course there is the case of the Kurdish population and the want for an independent Kurdistan. More recently and through military intervention, the case of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea being annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014.
While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure.
(COMMENT)
The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) --- A Question of Palestine, is problematic. It is a non-binding Resolution that makes demands that cannot be reasonably attained.
Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
It stipulates that the Palestinians have these non-retractable rights, yet does not say:(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
Basically, it is unworkable. Given the history of the Jewish People, Israel is never going to put their fate in the hands of anti-semitic Jihadist and Fedayeen.
- Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.
- It says that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination, but does not specify the conflict resolution between what the Palestinians demand (Palestine from the river to the sea) and what is under Israeli sovereignty.
- It indicates that the Palestinians have a right to overrun the Jewish National Home in the return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. But does not indicate the solution to the Israeli Rights to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the Jewish National Home.
(COMMENT)
Well, I encourage everyone to read the Clause for themselves.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.First, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States is in fact General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), a non-binding resolution. But even if it were binding, the Declaration of Principles does not, in any fashion, support the use of force or armed struggle. It restates that (not all inclusive):
General principles and scope of application
Article 1 [ Link ] -- General principles and scope of application
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 [ Link ] common to those Conventions.
4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,
Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,
Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,
But it is also important to note what key factor are essential:
There is nothing in the ICRC Geneva Conventions that even remotely suggests that the Palestinians are authorized some use of force to resolve disputes.
Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.
Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.
Most Respectfully,
R
DID NOT NEED TO BE AS IT ENTERED INTO INERNATIONAL LAW IN 1923
Where is "Israel" or "Jewish state" mentioned?
The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
DESIGNATED MEANS NOTHING IN LAWDesignated IS NOT ratified<Roudy> the Palestinians were also designated.......Israel is an Illegal entity...........Who today would vote for an Israeli State on Palestinian Land>>>>>>>would be interesting to see.steveNON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,
Nope. The British, the League of Nations, and the Allies designated the land to be the future Jewish national home, after 700 years of Ottoman rule.
International law means everything and Israel exists in International as the Homeland of the Jews in Palestine.
Now when did the UNSC ratify Australia ?
The UN knew it had no right legally nor the authority to partition Palestine. Its own legal subcommittee established to examine the legality to do so and authority to do so concluded as much.
Attacks on occupiers are not violations of international law.P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, this is not exactly correct. A UN Security Council Resolution can have the force of law; depending on the language. It cannot be ambiguous.
(COMMENT)The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they. When did the UN last pass a LAW ?Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents". You are certainly entertaining. A clown so to speak.But he sure does a great job of spamming the board once he latches onto some 'document'
The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.
But you are absolutely right in another sense. And this goes back to the point that the Palestinians cannot use General Assembly Resolutions as an authority to further justify hostile actions; especially those that are in violation of International Humanitarian and Customary Law. The Palestinian has absolutely NO authority or right to either attack civilians or assault the Occupation Authority.
Most Respectfully,
R
They may be seen as violations of domestic laws and can be addressed by police not military action.
I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
(COMMENT)I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
So basically, you lied and now you're trying to make excuses for it.I don't have anything to hide. I don't post on any other political site.
Really? You do not? Well, that not what you allude to here:
It Gets Even More Remarkable Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let me go over to SinkorSwim and let them know that you are doing the same crap here. By the way, I have a different name there.
Kind of shakes down everything else about you, IMHO.
I suspected SinkorSwim was Phoeny's site. To confirm it was, I used that post as bait. He admitted he banned me (within a few hours) of registering. I guess you didn't quite catch the drift.
No, I did not post on Phoney's board. He banned me before I could. He can confirm it.
I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
Only the British mandate. and the arab muslims refused to share power. Also the Mandate had already designated rans Jordan for the arab muslims but they were greedy and wanted everything. So the declined to enter into talks to negotiate a settlement. They resorted to violence and were beaten back by inferior forces .
"An Arab state." Not Palestine.P F Tinmore, et al,
What dope are you smoking?
(COMMENT)I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
The Partition Plan offered self-rule over an Arab State. It was rejected by the Arab Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
Only the British mandate. and the arab muslims refused to share power. Also the Mandate had already designated rans Jordan for the arab muslims but they were greedy and wanted everything. So the declined to enter into talks to negotiate a settlement. They resorted to violence and were beaten back by inferior forces .
The Mandate did nothing of the sort. Trans-Jordania was a separate territory with a separate and different population and was reported on separately in the annual Interim Reports of the Mandatory.
I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
Only the British mandate. and the arab muslims refused to share power. Also the Mandate had already designated rans Jordan for the arab muslims but they were greedy and wanted everything. So the declined to enter into talks to negotiate a settlement. They resorted to violence and were beaten back by inferior forces .
The Mandate did nothing of the sort. Trans-Jordania was a separate territory with a separate and different population and was reported on separately in the annual Interim Reports of the Mandatory.
The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
ART. 25.
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
You were saying Abdul ? Here it is in the Mandate for Palestine in black and white
The only debates you ZioNutters win are those that you claim victory in (among yourselves). You lose every debate on this subject based on the facts.
You are like the Baghdad Bob of debates. You claim to have won all the debates that you've actually gotten your butt kicked.
It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side. The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point. Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills. Clearly, I don't have that problem.
You clearly have a problem because you keep posting the same two or three documents which as I proved you edited the parts which disprove your claims.
The mentally ill hired false propogandist troll for PaliNazis calling others propagandists. Ha ha ha. Now that's a doozy. Do you ever work, you fuckin' bum?
Nothing is edited at all. You proved nothing You just can't take the truth. There are not just 2 or 3 documents, there are 100s of archived official documents that support every claim I make. That's why it's so easy to demonstrate that everything you claim is a lie and propaganda.
STOP LYING and spamming this board. You have been told about tis before, just as you have been told about manipulating reports so hey ide with your POV. You get pulled up on them every day.
YOU ARE JUST A SPAMMER
"An Arab state." Not Palestine.P F Tinmore, et al,
What dope are you smoking?
(COMMENT)I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
The Partition Plan offered self-rule over an Arab State. It was rejected by the Arab Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
"An Arab state." Not Palestine.P F Tinmore, et al,
What dope are you smoking?
(COMMENT)I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are losing it.
(COMMENT)The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937
Do you have any documents that say different?
The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.
The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.
Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort. In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinians never declined self rule.
The Partition Plan offered self-rule over an Arab State. It was rejected by the Arab Palestinian.
Most Respectfully,
R
So basically, you lied and now you're trying to make excuses for it.I don't have anything to hide. I don't post on any other political site.
Really? You do not? Well, that not what you allude to here:
It Gets Even More Remarkable Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let me go over to SinkorSwim and let them know that you are doing the same crap here. By the way, I have a different name there.
Kind of shakes down everything else about you, IMHO.
I suspected SinkorSwim was Phoeny's site. To confirm it was, I used that post as bait. He admitted he banned me (within a few hours) of registering. I guess you didn't quite catch the drift.
No, I did not post on Phoney's board. He banned me before I could. He can confirm it.
Awww the troll couldn't post his repetitive irrelevant Islamist propaganda on another board.
What a heartbreak.
To
WHY YOU WOULD CALL ME Mohammed I know not.....I was merely stating fact.........Israel was never RATIFIED by the UN Security Council and thereby making it Unlawful.steveDesignated IS NOT ratified<Roudy> the Palestinians were also designated.......Israel is an Illegal entity...........Who today would vote for an Israeli State on Palestinian Land>>>>>>>would be interesting to see.steveNope. The British, the League of Nations, and the Allies designated the land to be the future Jewish national home, after 700 years of Ottoman rule.
Eh stick it up your Mohammad. If Israel is "illegal" then so are the dozen or more Arab Muslim shitholes carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire after 700 years of Ottoman Rule: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Yemen, etc. etc.
I didn't call you Mohammad, I said stick it up your Mohammad, Abdul. Israel was declared a state by the UN as all the other Arab Muslim shitholes formed out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. Except in the case of Isrsel, five Arab countries attacked it the day it was declared a state.
In an attempt to prevent Israel from evicting non-Jews and stealing even more land.
