When Will They Ever Learn?

[Phoenall]

See even your own C & P says the same thing they were citizens of the British Mandate of Palestine. Not British citizens or Palestinian citizens. Why do you have so much trouble understanding this simple fact

The mandate was not a place. It wasn't a state or country. It had no land or borders.

It was a temporarily appointed administration. It was not an entity that could have citizens.

WRONG again read the LoN Mandate of Palestine, and not the British Palestine mandate. Two separate and distinct treaties

Link?

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate




British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats wrong been proven to be wrong again and can only TROLL to get out of making yourself look stupid

2 distinct and separate entities and you still cant accept this,

 

[P F Tinmore]

The mandate was not a place. It wasn't a state or country. It had no land or borders.

It was a temporarily appointed administration. It was not an entity that could have citizens.

WRONG again read the LoN Mandate of Palestine, and not the British Palestine mandate. Two separate and distinct treaties

Link?

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate




British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats wrong been proven to be wrong again and can only TROLL to get out of making yourself look stupid

2 distinct and separate entities and you still cant accept this,

I see two sources for the same thing. The Avalon Project has the text of one. Where is the text for the other?

 

[Phoenall]

WRONG again read the LoN Mandate of Palestine, and not the British Palestine mandate. Two separate and distinct treaties

Link?

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate




British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats wrong been proven to be wrong again and can only TROLL to get out of making yourself look stupid

2 distinct and separate entities and you still cant accept this,

I see two sources for the same thing. The Avalon Project has the text of one. Where is the text for the other?

Not the same thing at all, two separate entities. The LoN mandate of Palestine is a treaty that became international law, the British mandate is the legal instruction to the mandatory power on what its remit is.



The document defining Britain’s obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home:

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[.][27]




Only a complete fool would not be able to see that distiction

 

[P F Tinmore]

Link?

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate




British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats wrong been proven to be wrong again and can only TROLL to get out of making yourself look stupid

2 distinct and separate entities and you still cant accept this,

I see two sources for the same thing. The Avalon Project has the text of one. Where is the text for the other?

Not the same thing at all, two separate entities. The LoN mandate of Palestine is a treaty that became international law, the British mandate is the legal instruction to the mandatory power on what its remit is.



The document defining Britain’s obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home:

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[.][27]




Only a complete fool would not be able to see that distiction

You are confused. The LoN created the mandate system and Britain was appointed to administer some of the countries under mandate that included Palestine. The LoN and Britain were two players in the same mandate. The LoN had other mandates administered by different countries.

 

[Phoenall]

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate




British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats wrong been proven to be wrong again and can only TROLL to get out of making yourself look stupid

2 distinct and separate entities and you still cant accept this,

I see two sources for the same thing. The Avalon Project has the text of one. Where is the text for the other?

Not the same thing at all, two separate entities. The LoN mandate of Palestine is a treaty that became international law, the British mandate is the legal instruction to the mandatory power on what its remit is.



The document defining Britain’s obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home:

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[.][27]




Only a complete fool would not be able to see that distiction

You are confused. The LoN created the mandate system and Britain was appointed to administer some of the countries under mandate that included Palestine. The LoN and Britain were two players in the same mandate. The LoN had other mandates administered by different countries.

And each had its own legal treaty and working rules, The mandate of Palestine was distinct from the mandate of Mesopotamia even though they were both negotiated at the same time. The LoN called the shots, Britain did as they were told. You are the one that is confused as you cant see that the mandate of Palestine is not the same as the British mandate.

 

[MJB12741]

You are sure are providing a lot of entertainment while you make a fool of yourself by posting links that confirm everything I stated. I don't get why you are being so forthcoming,but hey, thanks. LMAO

Eh, Monte. Good luck with your reading disorder. Care to try again? 'Atta boy.

Islamic era histroy of Zoroastrians of Iran through political analysis and historical letters

 

[montelatici]

You are sure are providing a lot of entertainment while you make a fool of yourself by posting links that confirm everything I stated. I don't get why you are being so forthcoming,but hey, thanks. LMAO

Eh, Monte. Good luck with your reading disorder. Care to try again? 'Atta boy.

Islamic era histroy of Zoroastrians of Iran through political analysis and historical letters

The link confirms that the Sassanids, that conquered Jerusalem were of the Zoroastrian faith, as I stated. Why do you keep making my point by posting a link that says as much. A glutton for punishment?

Or, do you think that clown dancing will change the fact that you have been made a fool of?

 

[MJB12741]

You are sure are providing a lot of entertainment while you make a fool of yourself by posting links that confirm everything I stated. I don't get why you are being so forthcoming,but hey, thanks. LMAO

Eh, Monte. Good luck with your reading disorder. Care to try again? 'Atta boy.

Islamic era histroy of Zoroastrians of Iran through political analysis and historical letters

The link confirms that the Sassanids, that conquered Jerusalem were of the Zoroastrian faith, as I stated. Why do you keep making my point by posting a link that says as much. A glutton for punishment?

Or, do you think that clown dancing will change the fact that you have been made a fool of?

Like I said, the link confirms there were indeed a few persecutions of Christians by Sassanians who were becoming Muslims by force.. However the major point is all about the Muslim land thieves invasion of Iran & the near total annihilation of the indigenous Zoroastrians. Another case of peaceful Islam at work even during ancient times, eh Monte?

 

[montelatici]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

 

[Phoenall]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

That the muslims are no different today and are still trying to invade lands that they have no legal rights to and using force to ethnically cleanse the rightful owners from the land. Like they have done to the Christians in Palestine who have been reduced to just 10% of their population of 10 years ago

 

[MJB12741]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

Right on. Some things never change. Like you say "There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests." And there is nothing peaceful about radical Islam today either.

 

[waltky]

When Will They Ever Learn?

Granny wantin' to know where all the flowers gone?

... oh, it's autumn?

... nevermind.

 

[montelatici]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

Right on. Some things never change. Like you say "There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests." And there is nothing peaceful about radical Islam today either.

There was nothing peaceful about Christianity during the British (or Spanish or French etc.) conquest of their empire. No conquests are peaceful. And today, there is nothing peaceful today about radical Christians such as the KKK, neo-Nazis etc. What is your point?

 

[MJB12741]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

Right on. Some things never change. Like you say "There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests." And there is nothing peaceful about radical Islam today either.

There was nothing peaceful about Christianity during the British (or Spanish or French etc.) conquest of their empire. No conquests are peaceful. And today, there is nothing peaceful today about radical Christians such as the KKK, neo-Nazis etc. What is your point?

I am not aware of Christians such as the KKK or neo Nazis killing us infidels all over the world. Are they?

 

[montelatici]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

Right on. Some things never change. Like you say "There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests." And there is nothing peaceful about radical Islam today either.

There was nothing peaceful about Christianity during the British (or Spanish or French etc.) conquest of their empire. No conquests are peaceful. And today, there is nothing peaceful today about radical Christians such as the KKK, neo-Nazis etc. What is your point?

I am not aware of Christians such as the KKK or neo Nazis killing us infidels all over the world. Are they?

Who are "us infidels"? Neonazis would not consider Christians infidels, would they. Neonazis indeed kill all over the world, including in the U.S. In fact, most terrorist acts in the U.S. are not perpetrated by Muslims.

"Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

"But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists..................."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

As far as Europe.

"Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t"


"The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups....Perception is not reality. Due to the right wing’s influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world. It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat–that the very survival of the Western world is at stake. Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized. Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that “(nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t

 

[MJB12741]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

Right on. Some things never change. Like you say "There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests." And there is nothing peaceful about radical Islam today either.

There was nothing peaceful about Christianity during the British (or Spanish or French etc.) conquest of their empire. No conquests are peaceful. And today, there is nothing peaceful today about radical Christians such as the KKK, neo-Nazis etc. What is your point?

I am not aware of Christians such as the KKK or neo Nazis killing us infidels all over the world. Are they?

Who are "us infidels"? Neonazis would not consider Christians infidels, would they. Neonazis indeed kill all over the world, including in the U.S. In fact, most terrorist acts in the U.S. are not perpetrated by Muslims.

"Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

"But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists..................."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

As far as Europe.

"Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t"


"The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups....Perception is not reality. Due to the right wing’s influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world. It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat–that the very survival of the Western world is at stake. Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized. Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that “(nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t

I agree not all Muslims are world terrorists. However the overwhelming number of world terrorists are Muslims.

 

[montelatici]

I guess you didn't read the statistics provided in the links. The overwhelming number of terrorists are not Muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

Right on. Some things never change. Like you say "There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests." And there is nothing peaceful about radical Islam today either.

There was nothing peaceful about Christianity during the British (or Spanish or French etc.) conquest of their empire. No conquests are peaceful. And today, there is nothing peaceful today about radical Christians such as the KKK, neo-Nazis etc. What is your point?

I am not aware of Christians such as the KKK or neo Nazis killing us infidels all over the world. Are they?

Who are "us infidels"? Neonazis would not consider Christians infidels, would they. Neonazis indeed kill all over the world, including in the U.S. In fact, most terrorist acts in the U.S. are not perpetrated by Muslims.

"Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

"But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists..................."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

As far as Europe.

"Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t"


"The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups....Perception is not reality. Due to the right wing’s influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world. It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat–that the very survival of the Western world is at stake. Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized. Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that “(nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t

Indeed, a good swift kick in the nuts.

 

[montelatici]

Excellent.

 

[Hollie]

What do Muslims have to with the Sassanids that conquered Jerusalem. My post was about Jerusalem, not the much later defeat of the Sassanids by the Arabs. There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests, what are you on about? The Arabs conquered land from the Byzantine (Christians) and the Sassanids (Zoroastrians) most of whom converted to Islam. What is your point?

Right on. Some things never change. Like you say "There was nothing peaceful about Islam during the Arab conquests." And there is nothing peaceful about radical Islam today either.

There was nothing peaceful about Christianity during the British (or Spanish or French etc.) conquest of their empire. No conquests are peaceful. And today, there is nothing peaceful today about radical Christians such as the KKK, neo-Nazis etc. What is your point?

I am not aware of Christians such as the KKK or neo Nazis killing us infidels all over the world. Are they?

Who are "us infidels"? Neonazis would not consider Christians infidels, would they. Neonazis indeed kill all over the world, including in the U.S. In fact, most terrorist acts in the U.S. are not perpetrated by Muslims.

"Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11

"But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists..................."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

As far as Europe.

"Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t"


"The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups....Perception is not reality. Due to the right wing’s influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world. It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat–that the very survival of the Western world is at stake. Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized. Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that “(nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t

Indeed, a good swift kick in the nuts.

What a bunch of silky cliche's and slogans.