I will not Bow!

[Hossfly]

i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.

There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions. It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous. But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.

Some people find Hinduism evil:

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058

It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.

I don't call any religion evil or cancerous. I am not a racist.

Me neither. I agree with you 100%. I hold no ill will toward any legitimate religion. I have a link about what Islam is and I'll post it another time. It sure as hell isn't any religion.

 

[Sally]

Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.

i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.

There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions. It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous. But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.

Some people find Hinduism evil:

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058

It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.

And no one has said that all Muslims are evil. There are Muslims themselves who are disgusted with what their fellow Muslims are doing. However, instead of Defeat67 spending his waking hours on different forums, what he should do, since he is in Europe, is to visit the different Muslim communities there and try to convince the young people that they should assimilate. Here in America people can over in the migrations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in huge numbers from Europe. Many of them kept the old customs, but their children became assimilated into the American culture. The children might have learned the language of their parents and certainly ate the European food their parents made, but when they went out to play or attended school, they were all Americans like the other children. It seems that in many parts of Europe the Muslim youth don't want to assimilate.

How Modernity 'Radicalizes' Western Muslims :: Middle East Forum

 

[montelatici]

When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?

Link?

LINK

V/R
R

Your link does not mention borders.

It refers you to the Resolution (Nov. 29, 1947) that defines the borders:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/28/learning/Nov29LN/Nov29LN-articleInline.jpg

 

[aris2chat]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

Palestinians did not declare a state in 1948. 1988 was the foundations for the establishment of Palestinian state, not the same as a declaring independence, nor in 1994, nor 2000.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not really problems.

A couple of problems with your post.

1) The West Bank was not part of Jordan. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank and pretended that it had but the world was not with them on that.

2) The 1949 UN armistice agreement (that Israel signed) specifically called the land west of Jordan (the Negev) Palestine. When did Israel acquire that land?

(COMMENT)

Problem 1:

• No nation intervened with the original occupation of the West Bank, by Jordan.
• And no nation intervened when Jordan announce annexation.
• And no nation refused to acknowledge Jordanian documentation of the West Bank population.
• And no nation intervened in the establishment of Government Offices in the West Bank.

I challenge your view that the "world was not with them on that." They may have said this or that, but in the final analysis, the world did nothing to oppose or retard it.

If it looks like a piece of Jordan, acts like a piece of Jordan, has representation in Parliament like a piece of Jordan, uses Passports like Jordan, pays taxes like Jordan .... I venture to say, it is Jordan.

If it is covered in the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty, then it was once Jordan, incorporated or not. Not one nation balked at the Treaty; not even the Palestinians.
​

Problem 2:

In the 1949 Armistice Agreement, the language used to describe the Territory was still derivative of the Mandate days. In the case of the term "Palestine" --- is was the practical description for the territory under the former Mandate of Palestine.

That was part of the original allotment under Part II of GA/Res/181(II). I know you don't recognize the 1947 Resolution, but the PLO did (sole representative of the Palestinian people).​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Well, there is an argument to be made here.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

Palestinians did not declare a state in 1948. 1988 was the foundations for the establishment of Palestinian state, not the same as a declaring independence, nor in 1994, nor 2000.

(COMMENT)

The All Palestine Government attempted to Declare Independence (28 September 1948) over all the territory under the former Mandate of Palestine.

It was ignored.

v/r
R

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.

I don't call any religion evil or cancerous. I am not a racist.

Me neither. I agree with you 100%. I hold no ill will toward any legitimate religion. I have a link about what Islam is and I'll post it another time. It sure as hell isn't any religion.

I have this link. Makes you go right off Islam being the "religion of peace" doesn't it.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

 

[aris2chat]

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.

What land did Israel declare?

Link?

Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance, 5708-1948 was passed during the second truce. Jordan and Egypt controlled what was left of the former mandate. Palestinians cannot declare a state on land they have no possession of.

 

[aris2chat]

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

You have nothing.

I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.

========================================

What have you got, Tinny?

As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.

And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.

Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.

It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

Yet that is precisely what the arabs/palestinians have been trying to do since '48 with every attack on Israel. Israel's gain of land was an effect of them being attacked. Threat of force and violence had already begun in'47 by the arab.

 

[montelatici]

I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.

========================================

What have you got, Tinny?

As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.

And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.

Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.

It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

Yet that is precisely what the arabs/palestinians have been trying to do since '48 with every attack on Israel. Israel's gain of land was an effect of them being attacked. Threat of force and violence had already begun in'47 by the arab.

I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.

To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America.

It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.

It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.

Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance. The same could be said about the Palestinians. But, that is something that runs counter to human nature. Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?

 

[Phoenall]

I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer. The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily. You would be banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront. Congratulations.

And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.

Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.

i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.

There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions. It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous. But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.

Some people find Hinduism evil:

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058

Maybe they do but the hatred for islam crosses all borders, all classes, all races, all religions and all cultures

 

[Phoenall]

When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?

Link?

LINK

V/R
R

Your link does not mention borders.

It does not need to as the UN realised that the borders allocated were not viable and put Israel at a disadvantage when it came to defence. This is why all Un resolutions in regards to Israel contain the line "mutually agreed borders"

 

[Phoenall]

LINK

V/R
R

Your link does not mention borders.

It refers you to the Resolution (Nov. 29, 1947) that defines the borders:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/28/learning/Nov29LN/Nov29LN-articleInline.jpg

Get it right those were the proposed borders that fell apart when the arab armies invaded. Since then the UN has stipulated "mutually agreed defensible borders"

 

[aris2chat]

It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.

Israel is defined on all maps by the 1949 armistice lines.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

Try this instead which is the original demarcation until 1967 when Un resolution 242 came into being

The partition plan was rejected by the arabs. They refused to recognize such borders.

Per the '48 Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance, land taken in the defense of it's state became part of the state.

If Israel is willing to hand over land for the creation of a palestinian state, that will come only through negotiations, not a demand by palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

Yet that is precisely what the arabs/palestinians have been trying to do since '48 with every attack on Israel. Israel's gain of land was an effect of them being attacked. Threat of force and violence had already begun in'47 by the arab.

I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.

To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America.

It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.

It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.

Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance. The same could be said about the Palestinians. But, that is something that runs counter to human nature. Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?

One extremely large difference is that the Palestinians rulers the Ottomans invited the Jews to come and settle Palestine because the arab muslims did not have the heart to work hard. Then the next rulers did the same thing with the full agreement of the arab leaders to invite Jews from all around the world to migrate and live in their new NATIONAL HOME.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

In some respects, we are in part, still applying 18th Century logic. But again, there is a mix of a much more advanced concept trying to be applied.

I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.

To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America.

It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.

It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.

Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance. The same could be said about the Palestinians. But, that is something that runs counter to human nature. Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?

(COMMENT)

Nice analogy; thoughtful and insightful.

There is a significant difference in the two sets of conditions (North American Indian 'vs' Palestinian). In the case of the New World, whether we talk about the cultures and tribes that were made extinct (ex. Beothuk Tribes, Karankawa Tribes, Mandans Tribes, Chisca Tribes, Hachaath Tribes) or other tribes that were made near extinct (ex. Algonquian, Cherokee, Cheyennes, Iroquois, Lakotas, Pima, Seminole, Sioux, and Tuscarora). In contrast, the Arab was never in danger of extinction; even the Arab Palestinian grows in numbers (not diminishing).

Secondly, while the 18th Century treatment of the North American Indian was, to be sure, a black mark in the history of the US, today, whether you look Eskimo in the far North, the Pacific Islands (Samoans and Polynesians), or the tribes of the Continental US, these indigenous cultures are revered and granted special protections culturally, territorially, and commercially. This is a by-product of social growth within the species and recognition for the special needs over time.

I spoke-out before, for the special needs of the Jewish People. A similar theory and concept applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?"

Fight like hell.

Rather than run.

Until I won.

Or until I lost.

And, if I lost...

I would make-nice with my old enemies and cut the best deal that I could, for myself, my family, and my people, and either (1) resume a peaceful life or (2) leave, if I could not rid myself of old animosities sufficiently to have that peaceful life where I was.

The Palestinians should have made such a decision in 1949.

Or 1967 at the very latest.

Palestinian intransigence and inability to face reality are the sticking points, and have been, for decades.

 

[aris2chat]

et al,

Well, there is an argument to be made here.

What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?

Palestinians did not declare a state in 1948. 1988 was the foundations for the establishment of Palestinian state, not the same as a declaring independence, nor in 1994, nor 2000.

(COMMENT)

The All Palestine Government attempted to Declare Independence (28 September 1948) over all the territory under the former Mandate of Palestine.

It was ignored.

v/r
R

four months after the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance. How they thought they could attempt to make any claim to land they controlled no part is amazing. Jordan and Egypt certainly never tried to or permit the palestinians to establish a state.
any attempt is empty without recognizing Israel as a jewish state.

 

[montelatici]

"...Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?"

Fight like hell.

Rather than run.

Until I won.

Or until I lost.

And, if I lost...

I would make-nice with my old enemies and cut the best deal that I could, for myself, my family, and my people, and either (1) resume a peaceful life or (2) leave, if I could not rid myself of old animosities sufficiently to have that peaceful life where I was.

The Palestinians should have made such a decision in 1949.

Or 1967 at the very latest.

Palestinian intransigence and inability to face reality are the sticking points, and have been, for decades.

The Christian and Muslim villages were attacked by well trained and well-armed Haganah, Irgun and other Jewish forces, The Palestinians were basically unarmed. Jordan, Egypt and Syria had the armies. I don't think you can fault them for trying to save themselves. The Native Americans resisted violently until the late 19th century (Geronimo surrendered in 1886) , almost 300 years. So, I probably agree that the best for the Palestinians would be to surrender and accept Jewish rule, but it runs against human nature.

 

[pbel]

That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.

Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW.
You guys are like the three stooges
But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!

The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.

NO they produced one of their famous ANTI SEMITIC polls with the questions weighted against Israel, and have been censured for it by the UK government

Provide a link, or is this another lie?