Freed Terrorist Killed American Citizen, US 'Concerned'

[P F Tinmore]

Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, said that when about 50 soldiers and border police officers entered the camp at 3 a.m., they faced gunshots as well as rocks, firecrackers and explosive devices.

Yes, we already know you support violence.

Israel was the one who was attacking.

The Palestinians were defending themselves.

Indeed, I support self defense.

 

[MHunterB]

Rocco, this is where we differ.

You believe in imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns, money, and political power.

I believe in popular sovereignty where the rights of the people are inherent and not subject to the whims of power.

You mean like the right of Jewish citizens to retain their citizenship, homes, possessions and land in countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.......?

You don't see it as 'whims of power' for a government to legislate away the rights of its citizens of a 'minority' group to practice their religion (ie, the Baha'i community in Iran - which religion was *founded* in Iran)?

 

[toastman]

Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, said that when about 50 soldiers and border police officers entered the camp at 3 a.m., they faced gunshots as well as rocks, firecrackers and explosive devices.

Yes, we already know you support violence.

Israel was the one who was attacking.

The Palestinians were defending themselves.

Indeed, I support self defense.

As you say....Crock of crap

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco, this is where we differ.

You believe in imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns, money, and political power.

I believe in popular sovereignty where the rights of the people are inherent and not subject to the whims of power.

You mean like the right of Jewish citizens to retain their citizenship, homes, possessions and land in countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.......?

You don't see it as 'whims of power' for a government to legislate away the rights of its citizens of a 'minority' group to practice their religion (ie, the Baha'i community in Iran - which religion was *founded* in Iran)?

If you have been following my posts you would know that I have always supported that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, we already know you support violence.

Israel was the one who was attacking.

The Palestinians were defending themselves.

Indeed, I support self defense.

As you say....Crock of crap

when about 50 soldiers and border police officers entered the camp at 3 a.m.

Indeed.

 

[toastman]

Israel was the one who was attacking.

The Palestinians were defending themselves.

Indeed, I support self defense.

As you say....Crock of crap

when about 50 soldiers and border police officers entered the camp at 3 a.m.

Indeed.

So the soldiers entered the camp for no reason ? Just to start shit ?? Get your head out your but Tinnie

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What we believe as being right (or wrong) --- is often different in the face of the reality of human government.

Rocco, this is where we differ.

You believe in imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns, money, and political power.

I believe in popular sovereignty where the rights of the people are inherent and not subject to the whims of power.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, what was perceived to be "right" at the time (turn of the 19th to 20th Century) was to extend the protective umbrella over the homeless Jewish People, a people that had been subject to persecution for hundreds of years. Not withstanding the independent persecution from the Nazi Regime, approximately 33% of the entire culture of the Jewish population eradicated; the Allied Powers and the UN had to overcome the Arab League and Arab Palestinian from exercising the "tyranny of the majority" (by Arabs) over the vulnerable minority (Jews). The Arabs (League & Palestinians) place their interests so far above those of an individual culture to be saved (Jews) that a choice had to be made. It was clear that without direction, the Arab culture was not going to independently see the need for the humanitarian solution (unless it directly applied to them and for their benefit). And while the Allied Powers attempted to balance the needs of the few with the wants of the many, there seemed no way to please every segment, or to enlighten the Arab culture. The Arab culture insisted then, as they do today, they are the "majority" and their wants out weighs the needs of the "minority."

The Arab Palestinian, in the exercise of the "tyranny of the majority" rule has caused more wars and human hardship in the fight over sovereign territory that was never their territory to begin with. While they may have lived on the land, they may have owned the land, they never ruled the land.

I don't believe in what you call "imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns." But by the same token, I don't believe in a "tyranny of the majority" that claims any measure of violence is acceptable to suppress the development of a culture under preservation in favor of their own.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What we believe as being right (or wrong) --- is often different in the face of the reality of human government.

Rocco, this is where we differ.

You believe in imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns, money, and political power.

I believe in popular sovereignty where the rights of the people are inherent and not subject to the whims of power.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, what was perceived to be "right" at the time (turn of the 19th to 20th Century) was to extend the protective umbrella over the homeless Jewish People, a people that had been subject to persecution for hundreds of years. Not withstanding the independent persecution from the Nazi Regime, approximately 33% of the entire culture of the Jewish population eradicated; the Allied Powers and the UN had to overcome the Arab League and Arab Palestinian from exercising the "tyranny of the majority" (by Arabs) over the vulnerable minority (Jews). The Arabs (League & Palestinians) place their interests so far above those of an individual culture to be saved (Jews) that a choice had to be made. It was clear that without direction, the Arab culture was not going to independently see the need for the humanitarian solution (unless it directly applied to them and for their benefit). And while the Allied Powers attempted to balance the needs of the few with the wants of the many, there seemed no way to please every segment, or to enlighten the Arab culture. The Arab culture insisted then, as they do today, they are the "majority" and their wants out weighs the needs of the "minority."

The Arab Palestinian, in the exercise of the "tyranny of the majority" rule has caused more wars and human hardship in the fight over sovereign territory that was never their territory to begin with. While they may have lived on the land, they may have owned the land, they never ruled the land.

I don't believe in what you call "imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns." But by the same token, I don't believe in a "tyranny of the majority" that claims any measure of violence is acceptable to suppress the development of a culture under preservation in favor of their own.

Most Respectfully,
R

So let's just kick the Palestinians out of their homes, start a never-ending war, and call them terrorists if they complain. Who came up with this hair-brained idea?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What we believe as being right (or wrong) --- is often different in the face of the reality of human government.

Rocco, this is where we differ.

You believe in imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns, money, and political power.

I believe in popular sovereignty where the rights of the people are inherent and not subject to the whims of power.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, what was perceived to be "right" at the time (turn of the 19th to 20th Century) was to extend the protective umbrella over the homeless Jewish People, a people that had been subject to persecution for hundreds of years. Not withstanding the independent persecution from the Nazi Regime, approximately 33% of the entire culture of the Jewish population eradicated; the Allied Powers and the UN had to overcome the Arab League and Arab Palestinian from exercising the "tyranny of the majority" (by Arabs) over the vulnerable minority (Jews). The Arabs (League & Palestinians) place their interests so far above those of an individual culture to be saved (Jews) that a choice had to be made. It was clear that without direction, the Arab culture was not going to independently see the need for the humanitarian solution (unless it directly applied to them and for their benefit). And while the Allied Powers attempted to balance the needs of the few with the wants of the many, there seemed no way to please every segment, or to enlighten the Arab culture. The Arab culture insisted then, as they do today, they are the "majority" and their wants out weighs the needs of the "minority."

The Arab Palestinian, in the exercise of the "tyranny of the majority" rule has caused more wars and human hardship in the fight over sovereign territory that was never their territory to begin with. While they may have lived on the land, they may have owned the land, they never ruled the land.

I don't believe in what you call "imperialist sovereignty where rights are handed out by people with guns." But by the same token, I don't believe in a "tyranny of the majority" that claims any measure of violence is acceptable to suppress the development of a culture under preservation in favor of their own.

Most Respectfully,
R

So let's just kick the Palestinians out of their homes, start a never-ending war, and call them terrorists if they complain. Who came up with this hair-brained idea?

Is that really the way you view this conflict ?? Are you that feeble minded Tinmore?
What you just wrote is something a 5th grader would say if he was describing the conflict

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember, it was the Arab Palestinian that started the conflict.

So let's just kick the Palestinians out of their homes, start a never-ending war, and call them terrorists if they complain. Who came up with this hair-brained idea?

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinian had not started the conflict, there would not have been a refugee column.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

SOURCE: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement

Do you remember what I wrote about old "Izz?"

"Izz al-Din al-Qissam was killed by British Police in Palestine on November 20, 1935; after a decade (plus) of anti-Jewish/Zionist and anti-Mandate terrorism operations. In 1930 al-Qassam formed the Palestinian Black Hand after the 1929 Palestine Western Wall Uprising riot.

In this case, HAMAS says it starts with al-Qassam, who had been operating the Palestinian Black Hand for 15 years before HAMAS alleges the struggle starts in 1939. Yes, it changes the view of history."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember, it was the Arab Palestinian that started the conflict.

So let's just kick the Palestinians out of their homes, start a never-ending war, and call them terrorists if they complain. Who came up with this hair-brained idea?

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinian had not started the conflict, there would not have been a refugee column.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

SOURCE: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement

Do you remember what I wrote about old "Izz?"

"Izz al-Din al-Qissam was killed by British Police in Palestine on November 20, 1935; after a decade (plus) of anti-Jewish/Zionist and anti-Mandate terrorism operations. In 1930 al-Qassam formed the Palestinian Black Hand after the 1929 Palestine Western Wall Uprising riot.

In this case, HAMAS says it starts with al-Qassam, who had been operating the Palestinian Black Hand for 15 years before HAMAS alleges the struggle starts in 1939. Yes, it changes the view of history."

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians started the conflict when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

You are a hoot!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Jewish did not come to Palestine without proper authority. You know that.

The Palestinians started the conflict when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

You are a hoot!

(COMMENT)

It was not an invasion. And even if it was an invasion, it would have been the Mandatory's problem, and not the Palestinians concern. Immigration and the Security of the Mandate of Palestine was the responsibility of the Mandatory, not the Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Bloodrock44]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember, it was the Arab Palestinian that started the conflict.

So let's just kick the Palestinians out of their homes, start a never-ending war, and call them terrorists if they complain. Who came up with this hair-brained idea?

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinian had not started the conflict, there would not have been a refugee column.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

SOURCE: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement

Do you remember what I wrote about old "Izz?"

"Izz al-Din al-Qissam was killed by British Police in Palestine on November 20, 1935; after a decade (plus) of anti-Jewish/Zionist and anti-Mandate terrorism operations. In 1930 al-Qassam formed the Palestinian Black Hand after the 1929 Palestine Western Wall Uprising riot.

In this case, HAMAS says it starts with al-Qassam, who had been operating the Palestinian Black Hand for 15 years before HAMAS alleges the struggle starts in 1939. Yes, it changes the view of history."

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians started the conflict when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

You are a hoot!

Munich '72

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Jewish did not come to Palestine without proper authority. You know that.

The Palestinians started the conflict when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

You are a hoot!

(COMMENT)

It was not an invasion. And even if it was an invasion, it would have been the Mandatory's problem, and not the Palestinians concern. Immigration and the Security of the Mandate of Palestine was the responsibility of the Mandatory, not the Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

So some foreigners said it was OK to take over Palestine. Well then, that makes it OK.

I wonder if they could get that pig to fly in the US.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Jewish did not come to Palestine without proper authority. You know that.

The Palestinians started the conflict when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

You are a hoot!

(COMMENT)

It was not an invasion. And even if it was an invasion, it would have been the Mandatory's problem, and not the Palestinians concern. Immigration and the Security of the Mandate of Palestine was the responsibility of the Mandatory, not the Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

So some foreigners said it was OK to take over Palestine. Well then, that makes it OK.

I wonder if they could get that pig to fly in the US.

You're like a fuckin broken record, you know that? How many time do we have to explain to you that the Jewish immigrants were INVITED by the British. The same British who controlled the land. The same British who not only invited them, but FACILITATED immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say they couldn't come? Did the Palestinians win the land from the Ottoman Empire ?
I'm starting to think you suffer from a memory problem..

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm tempted to say: "Well --- YES!"

So some foreigners said it was OK to take over Palestine. Well then, that makes it OK.

I wonder if they could get that pig to fly in the US.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory is neither a foreigner or an external influence.

The Mandatory has the responsibility to work towards the Mandate Objective and protect the indigenous population.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine

And here we are traveling the big circle. We could never satisfy the Arab and meet the intent of the objective (establishment of the Jewish National Home).

“His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine themselves merely because Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. The proposals contained in the present memorandum are designed to give the two peoples and opportunity of demonstrating their ability to work together for the good of Palestine as a whole and so providing a stable foundation for an independent State.”

“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.

... ... ... We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

There you go again, Rocco, with your imperialist view that the native people have no rights. That all rights are controlled by foreign powers.

“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.

Indeed, Britain came up with this incredibly stupid plan that has created never ending war with decades of death and destruction.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No one took any "rights" away from the Arab Palestinian that they did not corrupt when they opened up hostilities.

There you go again, Rocco, with your imperialist view that the native people have no rights. That all rights are controlled by foreign powers.

“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.

Indeed, Britain came up with this incredibly stupid plan that has created never ending war with decades of death and destruction.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) didn't come up with the plan. The Plan came from the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP).

There is no case for "imperialism;" involving the extension of authority and control of one state or people over another. It was the UN (a convention of states) that extended authority over an territory (formerly a portion of the Ottoman Empire) that have no (Arab) states. In fact, it was the UN/LoN and the Allied Powers that set the condition to form Arab States were there were none before.

There is no question that the Arab of the Middle East perceived the Allies as having renounced the promises they had made to the Arabs at the beginning of their struggle for independence, imposing a mandate system which they claimed was nothing less than colonization. Yet, in the ensuing decades, no one colony of an Allied Power was established. Instead, what we see is the formation of four (4) exclusive Arab States (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq). This does not count the reconstitution of Egypt, the the creation of the Sudan, or the conversion of Kuwait and Yemen with independence; or four more exclusive Arab states. No where in the Middle East or Persian Gulf is there any real example of peace and stability except for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the nations formed under it umbrella (the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman).

Whatever side you choose to align with, there is no rolling back the clock. The State of Israel (alla 1948) "is." The State of Palestine (alla 1988) "is." Mulling over the decisions of a half century ago will not change it, no matter who is right or wrong. No State (Israel or Palestine) can handle or tolerate mass immigration that Palestine experienced and not have an expectation of conflict. And again, the "right of return" is just such another mistake under contemplation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

No one took any "rights" away from the Arab Palestinian that they did not corrupt when they opened up hostilities.

You always get that back assward. It was the Zionists who went to Palestine to take over their country. It was the Zionists who were the aggressors.

 

[Hossfly]

No one took any "rights" away from the Arab Palestinian that they did not corrupt when they opened up hostilities.

You always get that back assward. It was the Zionists who went to Palestine to take over their country. It was the Zionists who were the aggressors.

Who told you that lie, Tinmore?