Israel's Lies

[Andylusion]

Here’s is how Tinmore works. After a poster, usually Rocco, completely dismantles Tinmores so called ‘argument’, Tinmore then asks some ridiculous question that cannot be answered or is irrelevant to the argument. Once you cannot answer that question, Tinmore claims he won the argument and accuses you of dancing around the question.

Actually, that's your M.O., not Tinmores. ...

Cool. Please show me an example then Sunni Troll

Sunni is not a troll. He has a different view. Tinmore is a troll for sure.

 

[Andylusion]

The zionist Israeli pukes have created a gigantic lie to explain how their theft of other people's land wasn't really theft. ...

The Jews have been in the land of Israel that was promised to them by G-d, since before Israel had a king.

Further, they didn't 'steal' the land. The Arabs left when the attacking Arab armies threatened to kill them if they stayed. The Arabs that did not leave, are still in Israel with their property. The ones that left Israel when Israel needed to defend itself, lost their property.

If I was in your country, and fled to the country of an invading army, your country would take my property.

Israel is fertile ground.

It wasn't before The Jews made it bloom.

View attachment 369364

That's not true. A Palestinian friend used to describe his grandfathers olive groves.

View attachment 372636
That above... did not happen under the Arabs. The Bible says that the Jews will make the desert bloom. And it did.

Was there an isolated Olive grove somewhere? Sure. Keep in mind, that this was historic Jewish lands, stolen by Romans, exiled around the world, decimated by the Ottomans, and then returned by divine providence today.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

Interestingly, there are a number of Sheiks that admit that Islam supports Israel. Because of course, it does.

The Qur'an and the Land of Israel

www.templemount.org

My personal favorite, direct from the Qur'an

If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works; unto God shall you return.… (5:54)

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

There has never been a time since the US became a country that Jews have not lived in New York State. Does that give them the right to dispossess everyone else, drive them into a concentration camp Gaza II, and establish an apartheid state in NY? Hmm..now that I think about it...

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Were the Jews living in New York 2,000 years ago? Was New York their ancient homeland for thousands of years? Was New York promised to the Jews in the Bible?

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Um..... Yeah. He did. That is exactly what G-d said would happen in Torah. That's what the prophets said would happen. That's even what Jesus himself said would happen. *AND*.... the regathering was predicted in Isaiah 11, and other places.

So the answer is..... yes. G-d willed that the Romans conquer Israel as punishment for breaking the promise made in the Torah, the book of Deuteronomy.

Everything that has happened to the Jews, and to the land of Israel, has happened exactly as G-d said it would, as predicted in the Bible. Everything.

If God says "xyz" will happen, then "xyz" will happen? If that's true then how can God get angry at the Jews and turn his face away from them for being disobedient? Aren't they just doing what God already foretold?

Also, there is something objectionable about the worship of a God who agrees to make you the Master Race as long as you are sufficiently slavish in your worship of him.

Where does it say the "master race"? What are you talking about?

And since when do you get to object to what G-d decides?

If there is no G-d... then you are objecting to nothing. In which case, there is nothing for you to object to. After all, people can make up whatever they want.

But.... if there is a G-d.... and he created everything.... then doesn't that mean he has the right to decide what he does with what he created?

I used to have the idea that I was going to be a programmer. When I wrote a program, that was my program, and I could do with it, as I saw fit. I made it. I could delete it. I could copy it, or modify it.

In fact, if I decided that one program worked better than another program, I could choose to upgrade it, and ignore the other one. In fact, I could delete the other one.

G-d.... is G-d. He has the right to do as he pleases, and you objection is irrelevant. Just like if you had a car, and you want to tear the car up. It's your car. You can do as you please with it.

Can I come and say "I object to how you are dealing with your car"? No. Cause you don't care. Because you own it. It's yours. And my opinion of what you do with your stuff is not of your concern.

G-d does not need your approval of who he blesses, and who he ignores, and who he punishes.

 

[toastman]

Here’s is how Tinmore works. After a poster, usually Rocco, completely dismantles Tinmores so called ‘argument’, Tinmore then asks some ridiculous question that cannot be answered or is irrelevant to the argument. Once you cannot answer that question, Tinmore claims he won the argument and accuses you of dancing around the question.

Actually, that's your M.O., not Tinmores. ...

Cool. Please show me an example then Sunni Troll

Sunni is not a troll. He has a different view. Tinmore is a troll for sure.

He has a link in his sig that leads to rense.com. The sig reads: “let’s stop with the Aushwitz lies”
He’s worse than a troll. But yes, I agree, Tinmore is a troll. Among other things .

 

[Andylusion]

Here’s is how Tinmore works. After a poster, usually Rocco, completely dismantles Tinmores so called ‘argument’, Tinmore then asks some ridiculous question that cannot be answered or is irrelevant to the argument. Once you cannot answer that question, Tinmore claims he won the argument and accuses you of dancing around the question.

Actually, that's your M.O., not Tinmores. ...

Cool. Please show me an example then Sunni Troll

Sunni is not a troll. He has a different view. Tinmore is a troll for sure.

He has a link in his sig that leads to rense.com. The sig reads: “let’s stop with the Aushwitz lies”
He’s worse than a troll. But yes, I agree, Tinmore is a troll. Among other things .

I know he believes some crazy stuff. But he generally a really good man, that has some very wrong views. You can talk with him honestly.

Tinmore is a troll. He will never discusses anything. Just repeats lies. You'd be better off having a discussion with a pile of Pig poop, than Tinmore.

 

[toastman]

Here’s is how Tinmore works. After a poster, usually Rocco, completely dismantles Tinmores so called ‘argument’, Tinmore then asks some ridiculous question that cannot be answered or is irrelevant to the argument. Once you cannot answer that question, Tinmore claims he won the argument and accuses you of dancing around the question.

Actually, that's your M.O., not Tinmores. ...

Cool. Please show me an example then Sunni Troll

Sunni is not a troll. He has a different view. Tinmore is a troll for sure.

He has a link in his sig that leads to rense.com. The sig reads: “let’s stop with the Aushwitz lies”
He’s worse than a troll. But yes, I agree, Tinmore is a troll. Among other things .

I know he believes some crazy stuff. But he generally a really good man, that has some very wrong views. You can talk with him honestly.

Tinmore is a troll. He will never discusses anything. Just repeats lies. You'd be better off having a discussion with a pile of Pig poop, than Tinmore.

Very true about Tinmore.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Arab Palestinians are not impacted by this at all. You have trouble distinguishing between the political theater of the Arab Palestinian re-write of history and the reality of what happened by those that were there - and made history.

You are trying to imply that the pro-reality side of the equation denies the existence of "Palestine." And they do disagree on the point that there was a "State of Palestine" at any time during the Mandate era and beyond.

YOU have to ask yourself "why" that is?

Here you go again going back to Israel's talking point that there is no Palestine.

(OBSERVATION)

​

The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:​

• "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
  
  "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
  
  "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.​

​

SOURCE: PAL/138 • 27 February 1948​

​

(COMMENT)

There was an "legal entity" called "Palestine" (so it did physically exist) but not in the form of a "state."

In Posting #196 - and - Posting #183, we discussed the "Principle of Succession" and how it would apply in the dispute between the Arab Palestinians and the decisions made by the Allied Powers through the agreement of the Treaty of Lausanne. You made a point of the fact that an Article, within the State Department Digest of International Law concluded that the "Principle of Succession" applied. WELL! This was the very application of that "Principle" as the UN and the Mandate Authority saw it then (months before the establishment of the Jewish State). You will not find anyone, in that time frame, that objected to this position. This lack of any objection is particularly true with respect to the silence from the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), Chaired by Supreme Muslim Council President Hajj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, a former Army Officer of the Ottoman Empire, and high-level NAZI Collaborator during WWII (on the side of the defeated powers in both wars).

I see no record of the establishment of a "Palestine State" between the time the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) ended (1920) and the aim to establish the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine, pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences, in a Declaration of Independence announced by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)(1988).

Pursuant to UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 • 15 December 1988, the designation of "Palestine" was used in place of the designation "PLO."

It was NOT until, through A/RES/67/19 • 4 December 2012, that the UN accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.

(Ω) No matter what you believe should have happened → No matter what justice or injustice you may believe had occurred → No matter the legal interpretations you think you understand to the contrary → historically, this is how it played out.

(SIDEBAR)

No matter the understanding you have → no matter the conspiracy you may think to exist → no matter the injustice you thing has occurred → for whatever reason, the Egyptian formed (cobbled together) regime of the All-Palestine Government (APG) ("mostly political and symbolic implications") was not recognized as a party to the events of governing. The Cable of 28 September 1948 was not acted upon in any meaningful way.




Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

In Posting #196 - and - Posting #183, we discussed the "Principle of Succession"

A basic principle of international law is that the people stay on their land. This rule was followed by Article 30 in the LoN Covenant. It was also followed by the Citizenship order of 1925 where citizenship was carried forward from the previous state. It was also followed in the text of the defunct Resolution 181. None of these created a stateless people. Other international laws reinforce this principle.

 

[Hollie]

In Posting #196 - and - Posting #183, we discussed the "Principle of Succession"

A basic principle of international law is that the people stay on their land. This rule was followed by Article 30 in the LoN Covenant. It was also followed by the Citizenship order of 1925 where citizenship was carried forward from the previous state. It was also followed in the text of the defunct Resolution 181. None of these created a stateless people. Other international laws reinforce this principle.

Yep. Back to The Treaty of Lausanne invented the country of Pal’istan

It’s been what, twelve hours since you last cut and pasted that canard?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In Posting #196 - and - Posting #183, we discussed the "Principle of Succession"

A basic principle of international law is that the people stay on their land. This rule was followed by Article 30 in the LoN Covenant. It was also followed by the Citizenship order of 1925 where citizenship was carried forward from the previous state. It was also followed in the text of the defunct Resolution 181. None of these created a stateless people. Other international laws reinforce this principle.

A basic principle of international law is that the people stay on their land.

Anything in there say you can force them to stay?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Now you are confusing the issues. (You do this quite often.) You are not adding anything of substance to the question at hand.

In Posting #196 - and - Posting #183, we discussed the "Principle of Succession"

A basic principle of international law is that the people stay on their land. This rule was followed by Article 30 in the LoN Covenant. It was also followed by the Citizenship order of 1925 where citizenship was carried forward from the previous state. It was also followed in the text of the defunct Resolution 181. None of these created a stateless people. Other international laws reinforce this principle.

(COMMENT)

I know all about Article 30 (Nationality) of the Treaty of Laussane. It has nothing whatsoever to do with territorial partitioning.

And no stateless people were created by Israel.

On the other hand, the Hashemite Kingdom created "stateless people" when it abandons the West Bank and Jerusalem.

There is great confusion if the PLO, later designate "Palestine," orphaned the former citizens of Jordan into the care of the Israelis.

(QUESTION)

What where the Arab Palestinians citizens of the West Bank (Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip when the PLO declared independence?

What nationality were the Arab Palestinians of the Gaza Strip during Egyptian Military Governorship?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Now you are confusing the issues. (You do this quite often.) You are not adding anything of substance to the question at hand.

In Posting #196 - and - Posting #183, we discussed the "Principle of Succession"

A basic principle of international law is that the people stay on their land. This rule was followed by Article 30 in the LoN Covenant. It was also followed by the Citizenship order of 1925 where citizenship was carried forward from the previous state. It was also followed in the text of the defunct Resolution 181. None of these created a stateless people. Other international laws reinforce this principle.

(COMMENT)

I know all about Article 30 (Nationality) of the Treaty of Laussane. It has nothing whatsoever to do with territorial partitioning.

And no stateless people were created by Israel.

On the other hand, the Hashemite Kingdom created "stateless people" when it abandons the West Bank and Jerusalem.

There is great confusion if the PLO, later designate "Palestine," orphaned the former citizens of Jordan into the care of the Israelis.

(QUESTION)

What where the Arab Palestinians citizens of the West Bank (Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip when the PLO declared independence?

What nationality were the Arab Palestinians of the Gaza Strip during Egyptian Military Governorship?


Most Respectfully,
R

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.


Most Respectfully,
R

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: If you go back and read my commentary, you will find that I did not challenge Professor Akram's credentials.

So, what do you have that says different?

(COMMENT)

I challenge her ability to develop original thoughts on the subject.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.


Most Respectfully,
R

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments.

That is AWESOME!!!!

Has she ever lectured on Palestinian terrorism to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.


Most Respectfully,
R

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments.

That is AWESOME!!!!

Has she ever lectured on Palestinian terrorism to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments?

I don't recall her having any studies in juvenile name calling.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: If you go back and read my commentary, you will find that I did not challenge Professor Akram's credentials.

So, what do you have that says different?

(COMMENT)

I challenge her ability to develop original thoughts on the subject.


Most Respectfully,
R

Refute away, my friend. I believe she is correct.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.


Most Respectfully,
R

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It's not an argument and just takes up bandwidth.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.


Most Respectfully,
R

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It's not an argument and just takes up bandwidth.

The truth will set you free.

Dr. Akram is a credible source.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Professor Susan M. Akram is a product of Georgetown. I inherently did trust those groomed two blocks away from the State Department. They tend to adopt the concepts held by their mentors and seldom are a source of any original thought.

I have posted this before. You must have missed it.

(COMMENT)

No, I did not miss it. I've even attended her lectures. But I am of the opinion that International Law mutates in both interpretation and application.

Much of what she has said here has not yet been ruled upon. It is opinion that is spread around... And when you look for the original source, it is often the same → even though it is repeated many times by different people. One professor teaches a concept to many students, interests, fellowships, and practitioners → and they in turn go out and repeat the one view. That is still only one source; just repeated many times over.

And like some others, especially some who wrote Amici Curiae and the accepted Supplementals → under the extension → have expressed similar opinions. It will be interesting to see what opinion the court holds.


Most Respectfully,
R

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor of Law

BA with honors, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
JD, Georgetown University
Diplome in International Human Rights,
Institut International des Droits de l’Homme, Strasbourg (France)
Masters of Studies, International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford

Areas of Interest

Immigration Law & Policy, International & Comparative Law
Biography

Professor Susan Akram directs BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, in which she supervises students engaged in international advocacy in domestic, international, regional, and UN fora. Her research and publications focus on immigration, asylum, refugee, forced migration, and human and civil rights issues, with an interest in the Middle East, the Arab, and Muslim world.


Akram’s distinguished research was recognized with a Fulbright Senior Scholar Teaching and Research Award for the 1999–2000 academic year. She has lectured on Palestinian refugees to general audiences around the world as well as to committees of the United Nations (including the High Commission for Refugees and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), the European Union, and representatives of European and Canadian government ministries and parliaments. Since September 11, 2001, she has presented widely on the USA Patriot Act and immigration-related laws and policies as well as on her work challenging standard interpretations of women’s asylum claims from the Arab/Muslim world.


With her clinic students as well as in collaboration with other legal organizations, Akram has worked on resettlement and refugee claims of Guantanamo detainees, and has been co-counsel on a number of high profile cases, including the 20+-year litigation of a case of first impression on the interpretation of one of the exclusion bars to asylum, In Re A-H-. She has taught at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and at Al-Quds and Birzeit Universities in Palestine. She regularly teaches in the summer institute on forced migration at the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, and in various venues in the Middle East on refugee law.

Read Full Bio
It is interesting to note that in my limited studies, I have drawn similar conclusions. It is nice to know that there is an agreement with someone of this stature.

So, what do you have that says different?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It's not an argument and just takes up bandwidth.

The truth will set you free.

Dr. Akram is a credible source.

I'm not convinced you recognize any truths. I suspect you will any activist as credible if the rhetoric aligns with your biases and hatreds.