London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference? Nothing

[Roudy]

Like you keep telling everybody that there was a Palestinian nation, and that it sits right under Israel today. You are a lunatic.

Do you have something to the contrary?

Do you have proof for your claim?

Sure.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

No historical evidence, just some liberal nutjob's "interpretation", who happens to live in Michigan, the one state in the US with the most Muslims. What a surprise! Let me know when you have something legit.

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do you have something to the contrary?

Do you have proof for your claim?

Sure.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

No historical evidence, just some liberal nutjob's "interpretation", who happens to live in Michigan, the one state in the US with the most Muslims. What a surprise! Let me know when you have something legit.

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

 

[Hollie]

Do you have proof for your claim?

Sure.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

No historical evidence, just some liberal nutjob's "interpretation", who happens to live in Michigan, the one state in the US with the most Muslims. What a surprise! Let me know when you have something legit.

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

Another occurrence of The Tinmore'Vortex™. Tinmore's "prove it isn't", challenge as he presses the case for his invented Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land.

 

[Roudy]

Do you have proof for your claim?

Sure.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

No historical evidence, just some liberal nutjob's "interpretation", who happens to live in Michigan, the one state in the US with the most Muslims. What a surprise! Let me know when you have something legit.

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

No historical evidence, just some liberal nutjob's "interpretation", who happens to live in Michigan, the one state in the US with the most Muslims. What a surprise! Let me know when you have something legit.

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

 

[Hollie]

No historical evidence, just some liberal nutjob's "interpretation", who happens to live in Michigan, the one state in the US with the most Muslims. What a surprise! Let me know when you have something legit.

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

That's so silly. This desperation of yours regarding your fantastical Pally'land is getting, umm, just a little creepy and a great deal more concerning.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

That's so silly. This desperation of yours regarding your fantastical Pally'land is getting, umm, just a little creepy and a great deal more concerning.

Do you have anything to refute my post?

I didn't think so.

 

[Hollie]

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

That's so silly. This desperation of yours regarding your fantastical Pally'land is getting, umm, just a little creepy and a great deal more concerning.

Do you have anything to refute my post?

I didn't think so.

Firstly, the Great Satan™ does not by virtue of its Joooo controlled media, congress or banks, the ability to grant statehood to Disneyland or your invented Magical Kingdom of Pally'Land.

Stop the madness, Bunky. You're making a fool of yourself.

HICHINO UYENO v. ACHESON | 96 F.Supp. 510 (1951) | Leagle.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

That's so silly. This desperation of yours regarding your fantastical Pally'land is getting, umm, just a little creepy and a great deal more concerning.

Do you have anything to refute my post?

I didn't think so.

Firstly, the Great Satan™ does not by virtue of its Joooo controlled media, congress or banks, the ability to grant statehood to Disneyland or your invented Magical Kingdom of Pally'Land.

Stop the madness, Bunky. You're making a fool of yourself.

HICHINO UYENO v. ACHESON | 96 F.Supp. 510 (1951) | Leagle.com

Where does any of this refute my post? BTW I find an agreement.

There is sound international authority for the view that military occupation of a country does not ipso facto terminate the life of the country as a separate entity.​

Palestine remains a state even if it is occupied.

 

[Hollie]

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

That's so silly. This desperation of yours regarding your fantastical Pally'land is getting, umm, just a little creepy and a great deal more concerning.

Do you have anything to refute my post?

I didn't think so.

Firstly, the Great Satan™ does not by virtue of its Joooo controlled media, congress or banks, the ability to grant statehood to Disneyland or your invented Magical Kingdom of Pally'Land.

Stop the madness, Bunky. You're making a fool of yourself.

HICHINO UYENO v. ACHESON | 96 F.Supp. 510 (1951) | Leagle.com

Where does any of this refute my post? BTW I find an agreement.

There is sound international authority for the view that military occupation of a country does not ipso facto terminate the life of the country as a separate entity.​

Palestine remains a state even if it is occupied.

Link?


".... because I say so".

That's a very persuasive argument. It probably gets little questioning at the madrassah.

From my link:

"So doing, it is obvious that the words "foreign state" are not words of art. In using them, the Congress did not have in mind the fine distinctions as to sovereignty of occupied and unoccupied countries which authorities on international law may have formulated. They used the word in the sense of "otherness". When the Congress speaks of "foreign state", it means a country which is not the United States or its possession or colony, — an alien country, — other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a "foreigner" means an alien, non-American."


So. Kindly identify where the Great Satan™ has, by virtue of its magical Joooo powers, the ability to grant statehood.

Link?

 

[Roudy]

No historical evidence, just some liberal nutjob's "interpretation", who happens to live in Michigan, the one state in the US with the most Muslims. What a surprise! Let me know when you have something legit.

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

Yeah, a citizen of Palestine in 1935 meant you are a British subject, numbnuts!

Your document says so clearly:

"Having received the passport, the plaintiff sought to obtain a visa to visit Palestine, which was then under the League of Nations mandate to the British Government"

You are a lunatic and and your entire cause is a fraud, that's why Palestinian animals resort to the same terroristic behavior as the London ISIS terrorists.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There is a huge difference you moron. The Palestinian people are locked behind a wall and the terrorist pussies in the idf bomb them regularly.

So you're saying the terrorist in Europe are wrong?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

That's so silly. This desperation of yours regarding your fantastical Pally'land is getting, umm, just a little creepy and a great deal more concerning.

Do you have anything to refute my post?

I didn't think so.

Firstly, the Great Satan™ does not by virtue of its Joooo controlled media, congress or banks, the ability to grant statehood to Disneyland or your invented Magical Kingdom of Pally'Land.

Stop the madness, Bunky. You're making a fool of yourself.

HICHINO UYENO v. ACHESON | 96 F.Supp. 510 (1951) | Leagle.com

Where does any of this refute my post? BTW I find an agreement.

There is sound international authority for the view that military occupation of a country does not ipso facto terminate the life of the country as a separate entity.​

Palestine remains a state even if it is occupied.

Link?


".... because I say so".

That's a very persuasive argument. It probably gets little questioning at the madrassah.

From my link:

"So doing, it is obvious that the words "foreign state" are not words of art. In using them, the Congress did not have in mind the fine distinctions as to sovereignty of occupied and unoccupied countries which authorities on international law may have formulated. They used the word in the sense of "otherness". When the Congress speaks of "foreign state", it means a country which is not the United States or its possession or colony, — an alien country, — other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a "foreigner" means an alien, non-American."


So. Kindly identify where the Great Satan™ has, by virtue of its magical Joooo powers, the ability to grant statehood.

Link?

OK, where in here does it say that Palestine is not a state?

There is sound international authority for the view that military occupation of a country does not ipso facto terminate the life of the country as a separate entity.​

States do not cease to exist just because they are occupied.

India was India before, during, and after British occupation.

Iraq was Iraq before, during, and after US occupation.

The same for countries occupied during WWII.

Palestine is no different.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I know, it is not from israelibullshit.il so it doesn't count.

Again, do you have something to the contrary?

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

Yeah, a citizen of Palestine in 1935 meant you are a British subject, numbnuts!

Your document says so clearly:

"Having received the passport, the plaintiff sought to obtain a visa to visit Palestine, which was then under the League of Nations mandate to the British Government"

You are a lunatic and and your entire cause is a fraud, that's why Palestinian animals resort to the same terroristic behavior as the London ISIS terrorists.

You are reverting back to bullshit Israeli talking points.
----------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923.

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Someone with a Palestinian passport needed a visa to enter Britain.

 

[Shusha]

Except none of the states were states. Syria wasn't a state. Lebanon wasn't a state. Jordan wasn't a state. Iraq wasn't a state. And "Palestine" (now Israel) wasn't a state.

They were territories under British stewardship. If they were states there would have been no need for the stewardship nor the Mandates. The Mandate indicated that a necessary transition had to occur before independence and recognition.

 

[Hollie]

That's so silly. This desperation of yours regarding your fantastical Pally'land is getting, umm, just a little creepy and a great deal more concerning.

Do you have anything to refute my post?

I didn't think so.

Firstly, the Great Satan™ does not by virtue of its Joooo controlled media, congress or banks, the ability to grant statehood to Disneyland or your invented Magical Kingdom of Pally'Land.

Stop the madness, Bunky. You're making a fool of yourself.

HICHINO UYENO v. ACHESON | 96 F.Supp. 510 (1951) | Leagle.com

Where does any of this refute my post? BTW I find an agreement.

There is sound international authority for the view that military occupation of a country does not ipso facto terminate the life of the country as a separate entity.​

Palestine remains a state even if it is occupied.

Link?


".... because I say so".

That's a very persuasive argument. It probably gets little questioning at the madrassah.

From my link:

"So doing, it is obvious that the words "foreign state" are not words of art. In using them, the Congress did not have in mind the fine distinctions as to sovereignty of occupied and unoccupied countries which authorities on international law may have formulated. They used the word in the sense of "otherness". When the Congress speaks of "foreign state", it means a country which is not the United States or its possession or colony, — an alien country, — other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a "foreigner" means an alien, non-American."


So. Kindly identify where the Great Satan™ has, by virtue of its magical Joooo powers, the ability to grant statehood.

Link?

OK, where in here does it say that Palestine is not a state?

There is sound international authority for the view that military occupation of a country does not ipso facto terminate the life of the country as a separate entity.​

States do not cease to exist just because they are occupied.

India was India before, during, and after British occupation.

Iraq was Iraq before, during, and after US occupation.

The same for countries occupied during WWII.

Palestine is no different.

Link?

What a hoot. This desperate need of yours to insist that your invented "country of Pally'Land" is more than the description of a geographic area is really a pathology you need help to resolve.

What's interesting is to see you caught up in your self-created
Tinmore Vortex™

 

[Hollie]

No bullshit, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the Palestinian terrorist animals are no different than the London terrorist animals.

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

Yeah, a citizen of Palestine in 1935 meant you are a British subject, numbnuts!

Your document says so clearly:

"Having received the passport, the plaintiff sought to obtain a visa to visit Palestine, which was then under the League of Nations mandate to the British Government"

You are a lunatic and and your entire cause is a fraud, that's why Palestinian animals resort to the same terroristic behavior as the London ISIS terrorists.

You are reverting back to bullshit Israeli talking points.
----------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923.

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Someone with a Palestinian passport needed a visa to enter Britain.

You mean a Pal'istanian passport issued by Britain... therefore a British passport.

You do remember the attempted fraud that was perpetrated earlier by the "Pally'land is a country", cabal, right?

The photo of a Pal'istanian" passport that when turned over clearly displayed "British Passport".

 

[P F Tinmore]

Except none of the states were states. Syria wasn't a state. Lebanon wasn't a state. Jordan wasn't a state. Iraq wasn't a state. And "Palestine" (now Israel) wasn't a state.

They were territories under British stewardship. If they were states there would have been no need for the stewardship nor the Mandates. The Mandate indicated that a necessary transition had to occur before independence and recognition.

The Mandates were assigned to the successor states. Check your timeline. The British Mandate for Palestine did not start until 3 months after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
---------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

The Mandates were to hold those territories in trust and to help them to create the institutions required to achieve independence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Pfffft!

Do you have some proof of that?

I didn't think so.

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

Yeah, a citizen of Palestine in 1935 meant you are a British subject, numbnuts!

Your document says so clearly:

"Having received the passport, the plaintiff sought to obtain a visa to visit Palestine, which was then under the League of Nations mandate to the British Government"

You are a lunatic and and your entire cause is a fraud, that's why Palestinian animals resort to the same terroristic behavior as the London ISIS terrorists.

You are reverting back to bullshit Israeli talking points.
----------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923.

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Someone with a Palestinian passport needed a visa to enter Britain.

You mean a Pal'istanian passport issued by Britain... therefore a British passport.

You do remember the attempted fraud that was perpetrated earlier by the "Pally'land is a country", cabal, right?

The photo of a Pal'istanian" passport that when turned over clearly displayed "British Passport".

Being the trustee for the territory, it was Britain's responsibility to provide such services to the people in their trust.

 

[Hollie]

That's something you need to prove, dufus...should be easy to google a map or find a document that says "State of Palestine" on it.

Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.12

KLETTER v. DULLES | 111 F.Supp. 593 (1953) | Leagle.com

Yeah, a citizen of Palestine in 1935 meant you are a British subject, numbnuts!

Your document says so clearly:

"Having received the passport, the plaintiff sought to obtain a visa to visit Palestine, which was then under the League of Nations mandate to the British Government"

You are a lunatic and and your entire cause is a fraud, that's why Palestinian animals resort to the same terroristic behavior as the London ISIS terrorists.

You are reverting back to bullshit Israeli talking points.
----------------
With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923.

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​

Someone with a Palestinian passport needed a visa to enter Britain.

You mean a Pal'istanian passport issued by Britain... therefore a British passport.

You do remember the attempted fraud that was perpetrated earlier by the "Pally'land is a country", cabal, right?

The photo of a Pal'istanian" passport that when turned over clearly displayed "British Passport".

Being the trustee for the territory, it was Britain's responsibility to provide such services to the people in their trust.

Britain was trustee for the terriritory, yes, the geographic area knows as Pal'istan. And the fraud of the Pal'istanian passport was exposed as such.