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.
Still dodging the question, huh?Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.
(COMMENT)
Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.
Most Respectfully,
ROK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.
I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortexhas formed.
Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.
I have already.Which State are the Palestinians citizens of?Still dodging the question, huh?Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.OK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?
I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex
Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.
NONE, as there is no State of Palestine.
But according to Abba's maps, it is the whole State of Israel, with Gaza and Judea and Samaria included.
Isn't he sweet in including Israel in the "State of Palestine" which does not exist?
Now, some Arabs are citizens of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.
Would you like to tell us again that the Palestinians are citizens of a place called Palestine?
I have already.Which State are the Palestinians citizens of?Still dodging the question, huh?Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex
Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.
NONE, as there is no State of Palestine.
But according to Abba's maps, it is the whole State of Israel, with Gaza and Judea and Samaria included.
Isn't he sweet in including Israel in the "State of Palestine" which does not exist?
Now, some Arabs are citizens of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.
Would you like to tell us again that the Palestinians are citizens of a place called Palestine?
Do try to keep up.
Palestinians are citizens of a PLACE called Palestine.I have already.Which State are the Palestinians citizens of?Still dodging the question, huh?Indeed, the vortex of never answered questions.I’m hearing a rush of noise to indicate the Tinmore Vortex
Indeed, answers to questions which have been delineated to you time and time again. It seems you have a need to invent your own versions of history.
NONE, as there is no State of Palestine.
But according to Abba's maps, it is the whole State of Israel, with Gaza and Judea and Samaria included.
Isn't he sweet in including Israel in the "State of Palestine" which does not exist?
Now, some Arabs are citizens of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.
Would you like to tell us again that the Palestinians are citizens of a place called Palestine?
Do try to keep up.
The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.
Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory
Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).and who would be the citizens of their respective territory.
Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.
All that, and nothing to prove that I am incorrect.The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.
This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep claiming this despite how many times you've been demonstrated to be wrong about this.
The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire did not cede the territory in question to anyone. Period. Full stop. Read the bloody treaty.
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Read that first sentence again: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever
There is no ...."in favor of", or "cedes to". Turkey renounces all rights and title. Period. Full stop. So ENOUGH with the "Ottomans ceded the land to successor States'. She did not. She renounced them.
Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory
Article 30 says no such thing.
Article 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
This states that the residents of the territory will become citizens of the sovereign to whom the territory is transferred. It in no way indicates who that sovereign is. (That sovereign, however, IS mentioned by the Parties to whom the power of decision was transferred by this Treaty.)
Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).and who would be the citizens of their respective territory.
Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.
You are jumping through Zionist hoops.RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,
I'm not trying to disagree.
(COMMENT)Neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians had Palestinian Citizenship in Palestine. No country existed and no State had yet been created.
Yes, it has been land theft.
In 1920 the British made the Jews leave their homes and lands in Gaza and not allowed to return.
In 1925 the Hashemite Arabs were gifted 78% of the Jewish homeland under the Mandate for Palestine. All Jews were expelled from those lands.
In 1929 the Arabs rioted in Hebron and who got expelled? The Jews, until 1967.
In 1948, 5 Arab Armies invaded the new State of Israel and took all of Judea, Samaria and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem stealing all of that land and expelling all of the Jews.
--------------
At some point, you and others are going to have to come to term with, Yes, it is about land, especially land controlled by Muslims which non Muslims are not allowed to have and much less become sovereign over.
You are correct, there was not "state" as in a self-governing institution. The "Government of Palestine" is the terminology of the courts (the title of the legal entity). But what is often misunderstood are:
• The Government of Palestine is the same as saying the Mandatory to which the Mandate applied.
• Whoever, the Permanent Mandates Commission and the Mandatory agreed that:
The term "Palestine" means the "territory to which the Mandate applied;" which, in turn, means the Government of Palestine.
Being a citizen of the Government of Palestine during the Mandate era could also be phrase (and still be accurate) a Citizen of Palestine. But still the legal entity was NOT self-governing and so, not a state.
Most Respectfully,
R
All that, and nothing to prove that I am incorrect.The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.
This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep claiming this despite how many times you've been demonstrated to be wrong about this.
The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire did not cede the territory in question to anyone. Period. Full stop. Read the bloody treaty.
ARTICLE 16.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Read that first sentence again: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever
There is no ...."in favor of", or "cedes to". Turkey renounces all rights and title. Period. Full stop. So ENOUGH with the "Ottomans ceded the land to successor States'. She did not. She renounced them.
Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory
Article 30 says no such thing.
Article 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
This states that the residents of the territory will become citizens of the sovereign to whom the territory is transferred. It in no way indicates who that sovereign is. (That sovereign, however, IS mentioned by the Parties to whom the power of decision was transferred by this Treaty.)
Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).and who would be the citizens of their respective territory.
Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.
Tinmore is right again:Even the citizens of non self governing territories have the right to sovereignty as the UN regularly reaffirms.
Tinmore is right again:Even the citizens of non self governing territories have the right to sovereignty as the UN regularly reaffirms.
RIGHT OF NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES TO SELF-DETERMINATION REAFFIRMED, AS FOURTH COMMITTEE APPROVES NINE DECOLONIZATION TEXTS | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
Thank-you, sir, you have been so helpful, your knowledge on these topics are enviable.
I just put the link in, sorry it came out that way. But he was right and I just posted the evidence.
Of what? I answered "no."<snip>abi, here's a good example.
Again, an excellent example of your duck and dodge. And quite frankly I am getting fucking sick of it. You missed the question that rylah asked maybe? Or is reading not your strong suit? To wit:
What do You think about the outcome of investigation, trial, sentence,
care to elaborate?
(COMMENT)You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.
(COMMENT)Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.
It is simple. How can that confuse you?
Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.
Most Respectfully,
ROK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.
The Mandates were assigned to each new state to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Now that is a reasonable question...
(COMMENT)You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.
(COMMENT)Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.
It is simple. How can that confuse you?
Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.
Most Respectfully,
ROK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.
Like all other inherited liabilities from the Ottoman Vilayets, the population of those Vilayets become citizens of the appropriate territory (as was determined by the Allied Powers) to which the various Mandates applied.
Most of the people of the Sanjak or Hauran (that would be east of the Jordan River, would fall with the newly establish Emirate (Transjordan). Most of the people living in the southern half of the Vilayet of Beirut (Sanjaks of Beruit, Acrea, Nablus, and Jerusalem) west of the Jordan River would, under the Citizenship Order, become citizens of the Government of Palestine (AKA: The territory to which the Mandate of Palestine Applied - IAW the Palestine Order in Council). The Mandate for Palestine was the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League.
• League of Nations Mandate •
The process of establishing the mandates consisted of two
phases:
1. the formal removal of sovereignty of the state previously controlling the territory
2. the transfer of mandatory powers to individual states among the Allied Powers
Most Respectfully,
R
All the Mandates did just that. They worked on infrastructure and building a Nation and when ready, each one was approved.The Mandates were assigned to each new state to render administrative assistance and advice until they could stand alone.RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Now that is a reasonable question...
(COMMENT)You are not reading it correctly. In fact, that is almost insane.
(COMMENT)Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory and who would be the citizens of their respective territory. The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.
It is simple. How can that confuse you?
Article 30 is not even in the Territorial Section of the Treaty. Article 30 does not make or relinquish title to any entity. It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless. The is the entire purpose of the Article. It does not assign dispsition of any territory.
Most Respectfully,
ROK, so what state are the Palestinians citizens of?It merely says the (in effect) no one goes stateless.
Like all other inherited liabilities from the Ottoman Vilayets, the population of those Vilayets become citizens of the appropriate territory (as was determined by the Allied Powers) to which the various Mandates applied.
Most of the people of the Sanjak or Hauran (that would be east of the Jordan River, would fall with the newly establish Emirate (Transjordan). Most of the people living in the southern half of the Vilayet of Beirut (Sanjaks of Beruit, Acrea, Nablus, and Jerusalem) west of the Jordan River would, under the Citizenship Order, become citizens of the Government of Palestine (AKA: The territory to which the Mandate of Palestine Applied - IAW the Palestine Order in Council). The Mandate for Palestine was the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League.
• League of Nations Mandate •
The process of establishing the mandates consisted of two
phases:
1. the formal removal of sovereignty of the state previously controlling the territory
2. the transfer of mandatory powers to individual states among the Allied Powers
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)You are jumping through Zionist hoops.I'm not trying to disagree.
(COMMENT)Neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians had Palestinian Citizenship in Palestine. No country existed and no State had yet been created.
Yes, it has been land theft.
In 1920 the British made the Jews leave their homes and lands in Gaza and not allowed to return.
In 1925 the Hashemite Arabs were gifted 78% of the Jewish homeland under the Mandate for Palestine. All Jews were expelled from those lands.
In 1929 the Arabs rioted in Hebron and who got expelled? The Jews, until 1967.
In 1948, 5 Arab Armies invaded the new State of Israel and took all of Judea, Samaria and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem stealing all of that land and expelling all of the Jews.
--------------
At some point, you and others are going to have to come to term with, Yes, it is about land, especially land controlled by Muslims which non Muslims are not allowed to have and much less become sovereign over.
You are correct, there was not "state" as in a self-governing institution. The "Government of Palestine" is the terminology of the courts (the title of the legal entity). But what is often misunderstood are:
• The Government of Palestine is the same as saying the Mandatory to which the Mandate applied.
• Whoever, the Permanent Mandates Commission and the Mandatory agreed that:
The term "Palestine" means the "territory to which the Mandate applied;" which, in turn, means the Government of Palestine.
Being a citizen of the Government of Palestine during the Mandate era could also be phrase (and still be accurate) a Citizen of Palestine. But still the legal entity was NOT self-governing and so, not a state.
Most Respectfully,
R
It doesn't matter. Even the citizens of non self governing territories have the right to sovereignty as the UN regularly reaffirms.
Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian, was forced into a car by Israeli settlers on an East Jerusalem street.[4][5] His family immediately reported the fact to Israeli Police who located his charred body a few hours later at Givat Shaul in the Jerusalem Forest. Preliminary results from the autopsy suggested that he was beaten and burnt while still alive....Mohammed Abu Khudair
Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir - Wikipedia
This damn settler thing is ridiculous and now an ongoing war crime for 1/2 a century.
Nice source c.u.nt! Read the inaccurate piece. The kid got into a car. His parents nor anyone knows if it was Israeli or Arab. In fact they were under strong suspicion because of providing inconsistent stories. The kid was a known homosexual and that is why they honor killed him. The video shows he willful went into the car, because he knew his killers and trusted them.
Also the article says a cousin was beaten by police. No he was apprehended with force for tossing dangerous rocks. He should have been shot by police
This case is a clear cut case of Islam abusing gays and nothing more.
Fuck Islam
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Yes, I forgot about this part of the case from 3 years ago. It could've been a honor killing because the Arab teen was gay. Burning someone alive is more of a Muslim thing, than a Jewish thing.
Teddy, that is both insulting and dishonest. Howe can I possibly comment on war criminality that supposedly took place, but that I know nothing about?Why wasn't it considered a war crime? You have selective reading. Right in line with your selective reasoning. In line with your selective application of your hate.
Please fill me in. What land are you talking about?
