I rest my case!

[Artevelde]

which is why no one should pretend he's worth "debating".

Don't mistake disagreeing totally with someone to considering him not worth debating.

I disagree with Tinmore about most things, but he's fairly well informed, and a lot more polite than most.

There are a couple of foul-mouthed imbeciles on this forum who aren't worth debating and couldn't tell Ramat ha-Golan from Gefilte fish - but Tinmore isn't one of them.

he's a liar, a propagandist and a terrorist-supporter.

there is no debate.

people are entitled to their own opinions... not their own facts.

Oh my God! I am forced to agree with jillian! Where is the valium, xanax, anything, ...

 

[Saigon]

Tinmore is a racist anti-Semite.

We can only go by what we see online, and of course I've only been posting here for a short time, but I haven't seen him post anything racist or anti-semitic myself.

If I do, I'll consider him differently, no question.

 

[Artevelde]

i hope you can say the same re anti-semitic trash.

Anti-semitism just makes my blood boil.

Anyone who really hates Jews needs to stand on that railway line at Birkenau and then ask themselves how they would feel if that was where their parents, their children and friends had died.

I am convinced most anti-semites would rethink their position if they ever went to Auschwitz.

The first line is an unhealthy attitude, literally. If that is your attitude your life expectancy will be shortened considerable by being exposed to USMB. I despise anti-Semitism, but I'm not going to let it harm my health.

The rest is pretty naive. Most anti-Semites really mean what they say and wouldn't be changed by anything.

 

[Saigon]

So you want to start war against just about the whole world? No thanks.

It is not the task of states to fight for justice, and certainly not globally. Let states fulfill their basic functions towards their citizens. That's difficult enough.

War and conflict are natural.

No, obviously not.

By and large, I think we are now stuck with the borders we have got - which is a shame considering how appallingly inaccurate the borders of Nigeria, Ukraine/Poland, Finland/Russia, Kashmir and Mali are. They are the cause of many past wars, and many more in future. But changing them through conferences in unrealistic.

My point is that we should try to prevent countries simply taking land in future, by withholding legal recognition and isolating 'countries' which are not legitimate.

I do not accept Israel simply annexing the West Bank any more than I accept the legitimacy of the puppet states of Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria.

 

[Artevelde]

So you want to start war against just about the whole world? No thanks.

It is not the task of states to fight for justice, and certainly not globally. Let states fulfill their basic functions towards their citizens. That's difficult enough.

War and conflict are natural.

No, obviously not.

By and large, I think we are now stuck with the borders we have got - which is a shame considering how appallingly inaccurate the borders of Nigeria, Ukraine/Poland, Finland/Russia, Kashmir and Mali are. They are the cause of many past wars, and many more in future. But changing them through conferences in unrealistic.

My point is that we should try to prevent countries simply taking land in future, by withholding legal recognition and isolating 'countries' which are not legitimate.

I do not accept Israel simply annexing the West Bank any more than I accept the legitimacy of the puppet states of Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria.

Israel hasn't annexed the West Bank and doesn't really seem inclined to do so.

You are completely confusing the issue by dragging in "puppet-states", which are not real states because they cannot sustain themselves but are simply the creation of other states (like Northern Cyprus). That is a completely different issue.

So you're in favour of all countries breaking off diplomatic relations with China? Good luck with that. Pretty foolish idea.

Nobody "simply" takes land. But borders will continue to change in the future, also because of armed conflict. That's how the world works.

 

[Saigon]

So you're in favour of all countries breaking off diplomatic relations with China? Good luck with that. Pretty foolish idea.

No, of course not, and I didn't say anything even remotely like that.

You really could do without the constant stream of value judgements and putdowns, you know. There is plenty of space in the world for people to have different opinions.

 

[Artevelde]

So you're in favour of all countries breaking off diplomatic relations with China? Good luck with that. Pretty foolish idea.

No, of course not, and I didn't say anything even remotely like that.

You really could do without the constant stream of value judgements and putdowns, you know. There is plenty of space in the world for people to have different opinions.

So we should live with the fact that China has annexed Tibet and recognize this fact? And live with the fact that China is gradually extending its grasp over the Spratlys? So no withholding of recognition and isolation?

 

[Saigon]

So we should live with the fact that China has annexed Tibet and recognize this fact? And live with the fact that China is gradually extending its grasp over the Spratlys? So no withholding of recognition and isolation?

I think we have to accept the fact that Tibet has gone. I think it's terribly sad, but I just can't see China relinquishing it.

That said, I don't consider the annexation of Tibet to be legal.

I think western governments are better to simply live with the annexation, but to perhaps also indicate to China that further annexations may be opposed more vigorously.

I accept that Finland has lost Eastern Karelia to Russia (it was seized in 1944), and I don't think Finland should make a big deal about it now, but I do think Finland should stand by independent states like Estonia and be prepared to safeguard their independence.

The West Bank is differenct because some 88% of it has yet to be properly annexed. That land can be saved for the Palestinians.

 

[Artevelde]

So we should live with the fact that China has annexed Tibet and recognize this fact? And live with the fact that China is gradually extending its grasp over the Spratlys? So no withholding of recognition and isolation?

I think we have to accept the fact that Tibet has gone. I think it's terribly sad, but I just can't see China relinquishing it.

That said, I don't consider the annexation of Tibet to be legal.

I think western governments are better to simply live with the annexation, but to perhaps also indicate to China that further annexations may be opposed more vigorously.

I accept that Finland has lost Eastern Karelia to Russia (it was seized in 1944), and I don't think Finland should make a big deal about it now, but I do think Finland should stand by independent states like Estonia and be prepared to safeguard their independence.

The West Bank is differenct because some 88% of it has yet to be properly annexed. That land can be saved for the Palestinians.

These are matters of international politics and diplomacy, not legal matters.

 

[Roudy]

Ya and? Hong Kong was British territory until recently when it was handed to the Chinese. Now the people of Hong Kong have Chinese passports, and if you want to get a visa to Hong Kong you have to go through the Chinese Embassy.

Wow. So difficult for you knuckleheads to understand a simple concept.

 

[Roudy]

Of course the population of Jordan is largely Palestinian (with obviously several other smaller groups as well). As for the "Hashemite people", I didn't know you were so ignorant of history. This refers to the ruling dynasty and its clan which moved from the Hejaz to Transjordan in the 1920's to conquer a kingdom after they had been kicked out of the Hejaz by the Saudi's.

Obviously the term Hashemite refers to the dynasty - but in the interests of simplicity it makes sense to use the term for the people of Jordan who are neither Palestinian nor Bedouin.

I am very aware when dealing with posters like Roudby that he could not place Jordan on a map - the simpler things are, the more chance there is that even he can understand them.

Your own history of the Hashemites here is wildly simplistic, given you don't even mention the role played by the British in ushering the dynasty into Jordan, but I'd prefer to stick to the topic - I am not interested in you just preening your ego.

As a said before don't assume everyone is as stupid and ignorant as you are. I just posted a map out of which the homeland of the Palestinians, Jordan was carved out, you moron.

 

[Roudy]

The land belonged to the British, the Jews did not steal Arab land, they won it from the British. Case CLOSED:

Now run along, Jew hating douchebags!

Once again a Zionist deliberately distorts history in order to try to score points in some sort of silly game where they think that their pronouncements will be accepted as fact !!!

In 1917, during the First World War, Britain defeated the Ottoman Turkish forces and occupied and set up a military administration across the former Ottoman Syria. The land remained under British military administration for the remainder of the war, and beyond. The British sought to set up legitimacy for their continued control of the region and this was achieved by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922. The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[2]

Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole idea of British ownership of the land is a false premise and therefor Roudy's initial post on this thread and all of his subsequent posts are completely inaccurate and should be given the short shrift that they deserve.



Also it is interesting that even though he rested his case, he continues to argue it !!! Oh well, what can you expect from a befuddled mind

Which repeats what I said. The land was part of Ottoman Empire for 600 years and then from 1917 to 1948 under British rule. At no time was the land "Arab Land" in this 700 year period. The Arabs at no time during this 700 year period and before called themselves "Palestinians". Therefore the Jews did not take Arab land. The only people that were considered Palestinians were Jews. The Arabs started calling themselves Palestinians as of 1964.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again a Zionist deliberately distorts history in order to try to score points in some sort of silly game where they think that their pronouncements will be accepted as fact !!!

In 1917, during the First World War, Britain defeated the Ottoman Turkish forces and occupied and set up a military administration across the former Ottoman Syria. The land remained under British military administration for the remainder of the war, and beyond. The British sought to set up legitimacy for their continued control of the region and this was achieved by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922. The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[2]

Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole idea of British ownership of the land is a false premise and therefor Roudy's initial post on this thread and all of his subsequent posts are completely inaccurate and should be given the short shrift that they deserve.



Also it is interesting that even though he rested his case, he continues to argue it !!! Oh well, what can you expect from a befuddled mind

Which repeats what I said. The land was part of Ottoman Empire for 600 years and then from 1917 to 1948 under British rule. At no time was the land "Arab Land" in this 700 year period. The Arabs at no time during this 700 year period and before called themselves "Palestinians". Therefore the Jews did not take Arab land. The only people that were considered Palestinians were Jews. The Arabs started calling themselves Palestinians as of 1964.

Britain was not supposed to rule.

Britain violated the League of Nations Covenant and its own mandate. When it could not clean up its own mess it cut and ran.

 

[Roudy]

Of course the population of Jordan is largely Palestinian (with obviously several other smaller groups as well). As for the "Hashemite people", I didn't know you were so ignorant of history. This refers to the ruling dynasty and its clan which moved from the Hejaz to Transjordan in the 1920's to conquer a kingdom after they had been kicked out of the Hejaz by the Saudi's.

Obviously the term Hashemite refers to the dynasty - but in the interests of simplicity it makes sense to use the term for the people of Jordan who are neither Palestinian nor Bedouin.

I am very aware when dealing with posters like Roudby that he could not place Jordan on a map - the simpler things are, the more chance there is that even he can understand them.

Your own history of the Hashemites here is wildly simplistic, given you don't even mention the role played by the British in ushering the dynasty into Jordan, but I'd prefer to stick to the topic - I am not interested in you just preening your ego.

So I guess according to you Great Britain is inhabited by a people called Saksen-Coburgs?

I don't see why you deny obvious facts: that the population of Jordan is largely Palestinian.

Art, I respect your civility, and admire your patience with this ignorant piece of trash Saigoon, however you are being a little naive in thinking it doesn't have anti Semitic tendencies. I have seen this deceptive type many times before. Of course if you ask it what is an anti Semite it will tell you "hatred of Jews and Arabs". Which is not the definition of anti semtism. Saigoon has repeated typical anti semetic lies and garbage. The other day it said "Palestinians go back to 3000 years ago to that land". If you enjoy arguing with this ignorant nincompoop be my guest but take your blinders off.

 

[Roudy]

Once again a Zionist deliberately distorts history in order to try to score points in some sort of silly game where they think that their pronouncements will be accepted as fact !!!




The whole idea of British ownership of the land is a false premise and therefor Roudy's initial post on this thread and all of his subsequent posts are completely inaccurate and should be given the short shrift that they deserve.



Also it is interesting that even though he rested his case, he continues to argue it !!! Oh well, what can you expect from a befuddled mind

Which repeats what I said. The land was part of Ottoman Empire for 600 years and then from 1917 to 1948 under British rule. At no time was the land "Arab Land" in this 700 year period. The Arabs at no time during this 700 year period and before called themselves "Palestinians". Therefore the Jews did not take Arab land. The only people that were considered Palestinians were Jews. The Arabs started calling themselves Palestinians as of 1964.

Britain was not supposed to rule.

Britain violated the League of Nations Covenant and its own mandate. When it could not clean up its own mess it cut and ran.

Eh? Who cares. The Ottomans violated a lot of rules by invading lands as well. The point is the land was never Arab Land. If you have evidence of such put up or shut up. I posted a picture of a BRITISH PASSPORT for all douchebags like you to understand who ran that territory for almost 30 years. As I said before these were all parts of the fallen Ottoman Empire. And they were divided into about 10 or more Muslim countries. But the only one the pigs keep squealing about is Israel, the ancient homeland of the Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Which repeats what I said. The land was part of Ottoman Empire for 600 years and then from 1917 to 1948 under British rule. At no time was the land "Arab Land" in this 700 year period. The Arabs at no time during this 700 year period and before called themselves "Palestinians". Therefore the Jews did not take Arab land. The only people that were considered Palestinians were Jews. The Arabs started calling themselves Palestinians as of 1964.

Britain was not supposed to rule.

Britain violated the League of Nations Covenant and its own mandate. When it could not clean up its own mess it cut and ran.

Eh? Who cares. The Ottomans violated a lot of rules by invading lands as well. The point is the land was never Arab Land. If you have evidence of such put up or shut up. I posted a picture of a BRITISH PASSPORT for all douchebags like you to understand who ran that territory for almost 30 years. As I said before these were all parts of the fallen Ottoman Empire. And they were divided into about 10 or more Muslim countries. But the only one the pigs keep squealing about is Israel, the ancient homeland of the Jews.

It matters. Britain's violations do not negate the rights of the Palestinians.

 

[Roudy]

Conquest is the way most borders and states have been established.

True.

But there is a huge difference between Spain conquering half of South America in the 15th century, and Indonesia invading East Timor in 1976. Because the events of 1948, 1867 and 1974 are so recent, so also is our view of law and international recognition.

I hold Israels actions in regard to the OT to the same standard as I do Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh, and I see no reason to do otherwise.

How about China and Tibet? How about the Polish-German borders? How about Kosovo (conquered by Nato from Serbia)? How about the Western Sahara and Morocco? How about India and Goa? ...

Please, no Jews there. We are concentrating on those evil Jooooos only. If only Israel were destroyed then all the worlds problems would be solved. And please remeber, they don't hate Jooos.

Who cares about all those other wars and genocides that millions that are being slaughtered? If it doesn't have a Joooooooish component it doesn't count. Move along now folks, nothing to talk about here.

 

[Roudy]

How could Britain lose what it never owned?

Oh so 70,000 to 100,000 British soldiers were just vacationing there. And the Israelis weren't really fighting the Brits to gain their independence, they were fighting Arabs dressed as Brits. Happy now, imbecile? Ha ha ha.


1948 Arab

British forces in Palestine
There were 100,000 British troops deployed in Palestine "in two ground forces divisions, two independent infantry brigades, two mechanized regiments, some artillery units and a number of RAF squadrons".[69] The peak deployment was in July 1947, when 70,200 British troops were stationed in Palestine, supported by 1,277 civilian drivers and 28,155 civilian employees.[90] British forces, however, were gradually withdrawn in 1948. British High Commissioner Cunningham left Palestine on 14 May 1948[91] yet British forces overseeing the withdrawal remained in Palestine for several weeks thereafter, maintaining an enclave in and around Haifa and its port. Four Royal Air Force airmen were killed on 22 May when the Royal Egyptian Air Force struck RAF Ramat David, mistaking the airfield for one occupied by the Israeli Air Force.[92][93] The last British soldiers left Palestine on 30 June 1948.[94]
[edit]

Britain owned Palestine and just walked away from it without even giving it to anyone.

OK

100,000 British troops in an area, what's that in today's numbers, moron? And you think Britian wasn't "serious" about it's occupation and control with about 100,000 troops there? How many troops did the US deploy in the Iraq or Afganistan operation, imbecile?

Nothing you say ever makes sense. I suggest you go back to your handlers at the mosque and ask them to provide you with some new answers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh so 70,000 to 100,000 British soldiers were just vacationing there. And the Israelis weren't really fighting the Brits to gain their independence, they were fighting Arabs dressed as Brits. Happy now, imbecile? Ha ha ha.


1948 Arab

British forces in Palestine
There were 100,000 British troops deployed in Palestine "in two ground forces divisions, two independent infantry brigades, two mechanized regiments, some artillery units and a number of RAF squadrons".[69] The peak deployment was in July 1947, when 70,200 British troops were stationed in Palestine, supported by 1,277 civilian drivers and 28,155 civilian employees.[90] British forces, however, were gradually withdrawn in 1948. British High Commissioner Cunningham left Palestine on 14 May 1948[91] yet British forces overseeing the withdrawal remained in Palestine for several weeks thereafter, maintaining an enclave in and around Haifa and its port. Four Royal Air Force airmen were killed on 22 May when the Royal Egyptian Air Force struck RAF Ramat David, mistaking the airfield for one occupied by the Israeli Air Force.[92][93] The last British soldiers left Palestine on 30 June 1948.[94]
[edit]

Britain owned Palestine and just walked away from it without even giving it to anyone.

OK

100,000 British troops in an area, what's that in today's numbers, moron? And you think Britian wasn't "serious" about it's occupation and control with about 100,000 troops there? How many troops did the US deploy in the Iraq or Afganistan operation, imbecile?

Nothing you say ever makes sense. I suggest you go back to your handlers at the mosque and ask them to provide you with some new answers.

And then they walked away from their mess.

 

[Roudy]

Tinmore is a racist anti-Semite.

We can only go by what we see online, and of course I've only been posting here for a short time, but I haven't seen him post anything racist or anti-semitic myself.

If I do, I'll consider him differently, no question.

Denying the holocaust and calling 9-11 a Mossad operation? No, it's not an anti Semite. It doesn't hate blacks either, it thinks everybody should own one.