- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,445
- 1,311
- 140
You might try reading the entire Book from the 1st verse to the last and see what an asshole you are.
I did sweep pee, now it is your turn, if, and only if, you can read.
-
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You might try reading the entire Book from the 1st verse to the last and see what an asshole you are.
You didn't as you always posts verses from all over the place.You might try reading the entire Book from the 1st verse to the last and see what an asshole you are.
I did sweep pee, now it is your turn, if, and only if, you can read.
-
Here, retard...how Ezekiel ends.You might try reading the entire Book from the 1st verse to the last and see what an asshole you are.
I did sweep pee, now it is your turn, if, and only if, you can read.
-
I admit my efforts to convince the Israelis to change their ways is all over the place and frankly I am no longer going to try and enlighten them, hoping they will change their ways. They will not because murder in a primary gene that they only carry. This cannot be corrected; they were born with it.You didn't as you always posts verses from all over the place.
You are psychotic.
You’re psychotic.I admit my efforts to convince the Israelis to change their ways is all over the place and frankly I am no longer going to try and enlighten them, hoping they will change their ways. They will not because murder in a primary gene that they only carry. This cannot be corrected; they were born with it.You didn't as you always posts verses from all over the place.
You are psychotic.
They are like a hive of ants in you back yard. Try as you may to keep them out of your house is futile.
There is only one cure that does the trick—
View attachment 494715
-
read, sweet pee, the end.Here, retard...how Ezekiel ends.
(COMMENT)watchingfromafar said:RoccoR, based on “your objective view” were the above murders justified--?
So, when did the Palestinians get the right to sovereignty that the UN says they have?RE: Israel MUST stop receiving all USA funding
SUBTOPIC: Reasonable Man Concept
⁜→ watchingfromafar, et al,
BLUF: “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” (Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon)
(COMMENT)watchingfromafar said:RoccoR, based on “your objective view” were the above murders justified--?
Every act or event you listed happened more than a half-century ago, when acts of terrorism in Civil Wars and World Wars alike were viewed differently... Whether you talk about the Office of Strategic Services (American OSS), the Special Operations Executive (British SOE), The Maquis (French Resistance), or the Soviet Partisans, (etc, etc, etc) the entire world saw a legitimate need for such activities. Fast-Forward a couple of decades → with the creation of the United Nations and the new formation of the International Community, the world began to mature politically, socio-economically, and in (warfare being the direct evidence of failed diplomacy). And a new need arose, with the added dimension of immorality, in the form of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW)/Asymmetric Armed Insurgencies → an ancient political tool that had been evolving for more than 3000 years. Most policymakers battling various forms 4GW/Asymmetric confrontations, still today, think of it as (in Winston Churchill's words) “civilization” versus “barbarism.” After the defeat of General Gordon, towards the end of the 19th Century at Khartoum, the coalition of British and Egyptian Forces broken the Islamic State in Sudan (10,000 Enemy KIA & 13,000 Enemy WIA) at Omdurman (one day before dusk). This was of the last major battles in which an Irregular Force of Insurgents stood toe-to-toe with a heavily armed formation of regular military. Today, it is almost unheard of. When in 1935, the hero to the Palestinians (and for which their most popular rocket is named) Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, after a run of several very successful attacks against Jewish Civilians and British Railway Lines, and killing of a Colonial Police Constable, al-Qassam was said to have told his men to fight until the last (which he did). Although the story is undoubtedly embellished, the death of al-Qassam rallied many to the various Islamic Terrorist band of the time. The most notorious of those being the Palestinian Black Hand.
What makes most the Arab Palestinian Armed Resistance/Islamic Resistance different from the aforementioned European Organization is that in Europe, during WWII, the Allied movements, in general, were fighting to recover sovereign territory that the individual European Nations lost to enemy forces. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Israelis had not taken any territory that was sovereign to the Arab Palestinians. In 1948, the Israelis only assume sovereignty over the associated UN Trustee Territory. The conflict was between Israel and the aggressor Arab League Coalition. The ensuing Armistice Arrangements between Israel and the four principle Arab League nations that "occupied" the remainder of the Trustee Territory; which included the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
The Arab Palestinian terrorist attack of today, are NOT trying to recover sovereign territory they militarily lost in the defense of their nation. The Israelis have never engaged a Palestinian Army, Civil Defense Force or national security services. In fact, there was no Arab Palestinian Government anywhere to be found when the Jordanians cut all ties with territory west of the Jordan River, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
Today, the Arab Palestinian Terrorist attacks, trigger responses from Israel. There are no Israeli Forces inside the Gaza Strip, and have not been since 2005.
Every nation has a responsibility to protect its citizens and sovereign territory to the extent possible. So I will ask again, which one of the Permanent Members to the Security Council would not respond to a barrage of 4000 rockets?
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore said:So, when did the Palestinians get the right to sovereignty that the UN says they have?
Dictionary of International Law said:Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.In order to exercise sovereignty, you first have to have something (territory in this case) to be sovereign over. No one anywhere has to give up territorial control based solely on the claim: Right to Sovereignty.
If it is “inadmissible” to acquire territory through the threat or use of force, we can agree the Hamas Charter is “inadmissible”. Or, do you make an exception for Islamic terrorists?Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.In order to exercise sovereignty, you first have to have something (territory in this case) to be sovereign over. No one anywhere has to give up territorial control based solely on the claim: Right to Sovereignty.
You keep confusing military control/occupation with sovereignty.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
Hamas only operates inside its own borders.If it is “inadmissible” to acquire territory through the threat or use of force, we can agree the Hamas Charter is “inadmissible”. Or, do you make an exception for Islamic terrorists?Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.In order to exercise sovereignty, you first have to have something (territory in this case) to be sovereign over. No one anywhere has to give up territorial control based solely on the claim: Right to Sovereignty.
You keep confusing military control/occupation with sovereignty.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
Except when they infiltrate Israeli borders.Hamas only operates inside its own borders.If it is “inadmissible” to acquire territory through the threat or use of force, we can agree the Hamas Charter is “inadmissible”. Or, do you make an exception for Islamic terrorists?Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.In order to exercise sovereignty, you first have to have something (territory in this case) to be sovereign over. No one anywhere has to give up territorial control based solely on the claim: Right to Sovereignty.
You keep confusing military control/occupation with sovereignty.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
The ones they work within.Except when they infiltrate Israeli borders.Hamas only operates inside its own borders.If it is “inadmissible” to acquire territory through the threat or use of force, we can agree the Hamas Charter is “inadmissible”. Or, do you make an exception for Islamic terrorists?Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.In order to exercise sovereignty, you first have to have something (territory in this case) to be sovereign over. No one anywhere has to give up territorial control based solely on the claim: Right to Sovereignty.
You keep confusing military control/occupation with sovereignty.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
What borders do the Hamas terrorists maintain?
The ones that don’t exist.The ones they work within.Except when they infiltrate Israeli borders.Hamas only operates inside its own borders.If it is “inadmissible” to acquire territory through the threat or use of force, we can agree the Hamas Charter is “inadmissible”. Or, do you make an exception for Islamic terrorists?Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.In order to exercise sovereignty, you first have to have something (territory in this case) to be sovereign over. No one anywhere has to give up territorial control based solely on the claim: Right to Sovereignty.
You keep confusing military control/occupation with sovereignty.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
What borders do the Hamas terrorists maintain?
The Palestinians don't exist either so it is a good match.The ones that don’t exist.The ones they work within.Except when they infiltrate Israeli borders.Hamas only operates inside its own borders.If it is “inadmissible” to acquire territory through the threat or use of force, we can agree the Hamas Charter is “inadmissible”. Or, do you make an exception for Islamic terrorists?Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.In order to exercise sovereignty, you first have to have something (territory in this case) to be sovereign over. No one anywhere has to give up territorial control based solely on the claim: Right to Sovereignty.
You keep confusing military control/occupation with sovereignty.
It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
What borders do the Hamas terrorists maintain?
RoccoR says--Every act or event you listed happened more than a half-century ago, when acts of terrorism in Civil Wars and World Wars alike were viewed differently...
And of course, since they had no gold or silver they used the Shekel as currency for the purchase.Just like they bought Jerusalem from the Jebusites.
1 Israeli New Shekel equals
0.31 United States Dollar
View attachment 494608
You can not even buy a cup of coffee with an Israeli dollar.
-
Samartians that were put here by Sargon 2 in a colonialist action? Yes.RE: Israel MUST stop receiving all USA funding
SUBTOPIC: Refugees 'vs' Descendants of Refugees
⁜→ et al,
IF there are still such a thing as "Palestinian Refugees" THEN they must be older than I am.
The Palestinian Right of Return (RoR) is generally based on:
◈ Paragraph 11 • General Assembly Resolution A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948, which: "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date."◈ Paragraph 2 • General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974, which: Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."◈ Article 12(4) • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 16 December 1966, which states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."
Now none of these is really an International Order or International Law. But even if they were, there are two basic problems which present themselves.
◈ (NON-RETROACTIVITY RATIONE PERSONAE) Article 24 • Rome Statures • International Criminal Court:✧ You cannot charge and prosecute any event for a violation of law if the law did not exist at the time of the event.✧ You cannot charge and prosecute any event that happened outside the jurisdiction of the court.◈ (Return to their Homes and Property from which they have been Displaced and Uprooted 'vs' Return to their Homes and Live at Peace)✧ Descendants which never had an established residence or home at the time of the event cannot claim a home or property which they never had.✧ Ambiguous Meaning:○ One Resolution stipulates homes and property from which they were "displaced and uprooted."○ One Resolution stipulates merely to Return to their "Homes and Live at Peace."
In an official communique (6 February 1948) to the UN Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee formally stated that "the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom." Additionally it was made very clear that the Arab Palestinians intended to "drenching the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood in the lawful defense of all and every inch of it.” And the Arab Palestinians reaffirmed this position several times since then in various from by station Jihad is the only solution and armed struggle is the correct means to force their demands to be accepted. (Palestine from the River to the Sea.) The Arabs of Palestine consider the "creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is en act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination.“
WHAT does this mean? (RHETORICAL) It means that The Arabs of Palestine have NO intention of living in peace.
The Israeli position may be interpreted (by a layman like myself) as implying the Arab Palestinians have NO right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of the Jewish National, The State of Israel, or the rights, safety, and freedoms recognized by Israeli Citizens. Based on the past history of criminal and terrorist behaviors there is no reason to assume that the Arab Palestinians will accept a form of peace that does not include the dismantlement of the State of Israel and any aspect of a Jewish National Home.
Most Respectfully,
R
They lived in peace for 2500 years.
Hebron was a Jewish site of prayer since the first temple. We talk about 1000BC.the above is bull-shit!!The Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron refers to an ongoing conflict between Palestinians and Jewish settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Hebron has a Palestinian majority, consisting of an estimated 208,750 citizens and a small Jewish minority, variously numbered between 500 and 800. The H1 sector of Hebron, home to around 170,000 Palestinians, is governed by the Palestinian Authority. H2, which was inhabited by around 30,000 Palestinians is under Israeli military control with an entire brigade in place to protect some 800 Jewish residents living in the old Jewish quarter. As of 2015, Israel has declared that a number of special areas of Old City of Hebron constitute a closed military zone. Palestinians shops have been forced to close; despite protests Palestinian women are reportedly frisked by men, and residents, who are subjected every day to repeated body searches, must register to obtain special permits to navigate through the 18 military checkpoints Israel has set up in the city center.
Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron - Wikipedia
Israel is set to approve construction of settler homes in a flashpoint area of the West Bank city of Hebron for the first time since 2002, the anti-occupation group Peace Now said Tuesday.
Hebron is considered a West Bank powder-keg where around 800 Jewish settlers live under hefty Israeli army security, surrounded by around 200,000 Palestinians.
Israel to okay permits for 31 settler homes in Hebron -- watchdog | The Times of Israel
800 Jewish settlers mean they are not from Hebron but invaders using the Zionist military to force their occupation.
-