Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,338
Reaction score
2,719
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Hollie, IF our friend P F Tinmore were ever to accept the authority of the post-War Allied Power decisions THEN the entirety of the pro-Palestinian justification for criminal activity
(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence) and the application of that criminal activity against the Occupying Power (punishable under Customary and IHL) would completely fall apart.

We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
Who then?
Link?
The land area you call Pal’istan was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the Mandatory.
You don’t understand this?
(COMMENT)

It is not that he doesn't understand the treaty implications (Article 16) - or cannot accept the outcome - they do understand it. But they cannot admit it. The Arab Palestinians were on the wrong side of both World Wars, but they refuse to accept the consequences for their actions; or the outcome of the wars.

But he does seem to be confused when you say the "Mandatory." He absently forgets that the Principal Allied Powers at the conclusion of the Great War included the two principles of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the British-Franco Treaty of 1920.


The Allied Powers won the War.
The Allied Powers operated the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.
The Allied Powers were the participants in the 1920 San Remo Convention.
The Allied Powers agreed to the selection of the Mandatory Powers, who were, in fact, Allied Powers.
The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
One of the Allied Powers was the author of the November 2nd, 1917 Balfour Declaration.
The Allied Powers represented one party to the Treaty while the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic represented the other party.
The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.

No, I think we have come as far as we can with presenting the facts. The Arab Palestinians want the entire enchilada, without compromise, after nearly a century of being uncooperative. I think that once it is all laid out, any reasonable and prudent person will see what has happened. Isreal is not without its faults, failures and obstructionism; but nothing on the order of the Arab Palestinians.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,875
Reaction score
2,583
Points
1,815
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Hollie, IF our friend P F Tinmore were ever to accept the authority of the post-War Allied Power decisions THEN the entirety of the pro-Palestinian justification for criminal activity
(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence) and the application of that criminal activity against the Occupying Power (punishable under Customary and IHL) would completely fall apart.

We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
Who then?
Link?
The land area you call Pal’istan was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the Mandatory.
You don’t understand this?
(COMMENT)

It is not that he doesn't understand the treaty implications (Article 16) - or cannot accept the outcome - they do understand it. But they cannot admit it. The Arab Palestinians were on the wrong side of both World Wars, but they refuse to accept the consequences for their actions; or the outcome of the wars.

But he does seem to be confused when you say the "Mandatory." He absently forgets that the Principal Allied Powers at the conclusion of the Great War included the two principles of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the British-Franco Treaty of 1920.


The Allied Powers won the War.
The Allied Powers operated the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.
The Allied Powers were the participants in the 1920 San Remo Convention.
The Allied Powers agreed to the selection of the Mandatory Powers, who were, in fact, Allied Powers.
The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
One of the Allied Powers was the author of the November 2nd, 1917 Balfour Declaration.
The Allied Powers represented one party to the Treaty while the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic represented the other party.
The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.

No, I think we have come as far as we can with presenting the facts. The Arab Palestinians want the entire enchilada, without compromise, after nearly a century of being uncooperative. I think that once it is all laid out, any reasonable and prudent person will see what has happened. Isreal is not without its faults, failures and obstructionism; but nothing on the order of the Arab Palestinians.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine.
The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.

This changes the whole shtick.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,601
Reaction score
4,147
Points
1,130
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Hollie, IF our friend P F Tinmore were ever to accept the authority of the post-War Allied Power decisions THEN the entirety of the pro-Palestinian justification for criminal activity
(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence) and the application of that criminal activity against the Occupying Power (punishable under Customary and IHL) would completely fall apart.

We’re still at the place where you don’t understand that the land area you refer to as Pal’istan never belonged to any group you call Pal’istanians.
Who then?
Link?
The land area you call Pal’istan was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. They released all rights and title to the Mandatory.
You don’t understand this?
(COMMENT)

It is not that he doesn't understand the treaty implications (Article 16) - or cannot accept the outcome - they do understand it. But they cannot admit it. The Arab Palestinians were on the wrong side of both World Wars, but they refuse to accept the consequences for their actions; or the outcome of the wars.

But he does seem to be confused when you say the "Mandatory." He absently forgets that the Principal Allied Powers at the conclusion of the Great War included the two principles of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the British-Franco Treaty of 1920.


The Allied Powers won the War.
The Allied Powers operated the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.
The Allied Powers were the participants in the 1920 San Remo Convention.
The Allied Powers agreed to the selection of the Mandatory Powers, who were, in fact, Allied Powers.
The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
One of the Allied Powers was the author of the November 2nd, 1917 Balfour Declaration.
The Allied Powers represented one party to the Treaty while the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic represented the other party.
The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.

No, I think we have come as far as we can with presenting the facts. The Arab Palestinians want the entire enchilada, without compromise, after nearly a century of being uncooperative. I think that once it is all laid out, any reasonable and prudent person will see what has happened. Isreal is not without its faults, failures and obstructionism; but nothing on the order of the Arab Palestinians.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine.
The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.

This changes the whole shtick.
The territories were not transferred to the new states. You have made that nonsense claim for years. That has been addressed for you dozens of times.

Your need to invent your own version of history is a sad, desperate attempt to assuage your hurt feelings.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,875
Reaction score
2,583
Points
1,815
Books From The Human Library: The Palestinian Experience

 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,338
Reaction score
2,719
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: You still argue with near quotes from historical documents.

There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
(COMMENT)

No, not really...

The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine
(COMMENT)


You say the words, but you don't know what they mean...
EXCERPTs • Document Archive > Conventions and Treaties > San Remo Convention said:
The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"​
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.​
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​
Why should I post these particular phrases and excerpts? (RHETORICAL) Because, while there was an "intent" - the use of the cultural characteristic (Arab) or religious characteristic (Jew) was not an actual codified requirement.

The importance here is that "Palestine" means the territory to which the Mandate Applied. NOT a new state, and not a new sovereignty.

For the period over which the Government of Palestine applied, Palestinian citizens were either:

◈ Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
◈ Other persons habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.

Neither the characteristic of "Arab" or "Jew" were a requirement in either means of acquiring citizenship in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.
This changes the whole shtick.
(COMMENT)

I have always been careful NOT TO USE the implication or alternative "transfer of territory." What passed from one power (Ottoman) to another power (Allied Powers) was "Rights and Title." You will notice that I am very careful about that. Your implication that I had said or suggested something otherwise is pure disinformation by another means.

AND - I have been just as scrupulous in avoiding the usage of the term "State" or phrase "new state;" except as may have been used by the Allied Powers or the Mandatory Power.

"Territory" is a very key element in the creation of a "state." (That is to say, "a defined territory.") In the case of the Government of Palestine, the Allied Powers were careful to use the phrase: "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." The phrase is so key, that it is used word-for-word in the Article agreed upon at the convention and the Mandate for the territory. The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."

I should like to point out that your word bantering has been haphazard, to say the least.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
2,453
Points
290
"Jews shoud get off the way..."
she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.

Just that of all people on earth,
everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.

Does it make sense to you?
Israel- The more you know, the less you like.
That is because you refuse to know anything,
that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.

And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.
I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.
See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.

So what does it say about the validity of your position,
if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?
If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.

Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
or simply based on a false premise.

And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?

How is this not hypocricy?
or simply based on a false premise.
What false premise are you talking about?
That because Jews were supposedly not the first people or ever the only people in the region,it justifies calling for the elimination of their country. And that even in discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, of all the people, lest a radical minority who submits to that narrative, otherwise "Jews should get off the way".

That's just sick.

Entirely homogenous countries are rather exception than the rule,
and no one asked for that, Israel is a very colourful country.


No one uses this excuse to call for elimination of Morocco, or Greece,
and they're not homogenous, only against Israel.

And no where can you quote that in that law or any Israeli law,
this is just something you've made up as a half baked excuse to feed your obsession.
Nice deflection..
Explain...

When I asked you how does a supposed lack misrepresentation of one minority justifies a ban and boycott of another minority - your response was:

If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.

Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.
Which again, is categorically false.
The Jewish civilization is indigenous to Palestine and of all the surviving cultures,
Jewish civilization is the only indingenous civilization that remained. There's a variety of precedents of independent Jewish states and a distinct thriving civilization in this land In fact this is one of the longest coontinuous documented historic connections between a land and its people in human history.

But what can we say about Arab Palestinians?

They weren't the first people, nor ever the only people there. There's no historic precedence of an exclusive Arab Palestinian state.

So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
and yet you flip in support of an Arab Sharia state...

Therefore - why the double standard?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,338
Reaction score
2,719
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ et al,

BLUF: Ordinary thinkers tend to mentally filter out more creative alternatives and limit the number of possible solutions. In this case, we might be observing the loss of grip on situations experienced or the reality

So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
and yet you flip in support of an Arab Sharia state...
Therefore - why the double standard?
(COMMENT)

The demand for an "Arab State" - but not a capability to invasion a "Jewish State" is an example of inverse creativity prone to madness. It is at the opposite end of the spectrum from divergent thinking responsible for genius.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
2,453
Points
290
Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points.
That's when I know you cannot address anything with facts.

Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.

So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?
BS! And you know it!

That you call every Jew attacked by an Arab an 'illegal settler',
only reveals your racist and criminal agenda.

They don't have any borders, they attacked Olympic athletes in Munich,
hijack international planes, and murdered an Ameican senator

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,875
Reaction score
2,583
Points
1,815
The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."
That was before the new states were formed.

BTW, the term "new states" was a LoN designation.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,875
Reaction score
2,583
Points
1,815
Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points.
That's when I know you cannot address anything with facts.

Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.

So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?
BS! And you know it!

That you call every Jew attacked by an Arab an 'illegal settler',
only reveals your racist and criminal agenda.

They don't have any borders, they attacked Olympic athletes in Munich,
hijack international planes, and murdered an Ameican senator

You have to go back 50 years. Do you have anything in our lifetime?
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,875
Reaction score
2,583
Points
1,815
So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
So, when did all of the natives leave to be completely replaced by the Arabs?

Link?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,601
Reaction score
4,147
Points
1,130
The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."
That was before the new states were formed.

BTW, the term "new states" was a LoN designation.
What new states?

link?

You seem to have a need and desire to press the same nonsensical claims even though you know those claims are nonsensical.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,875
Reaction score
2,583
Points
1,815
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: You still argue with near quotes from historical documents.

There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
(COMMENT)

No, not really...

The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine
(COMMENT)


You say the words, but you don't know what they mean...
EXCERPTs • Document Archive > Conventions and Treaties > San Remo Convention said:
The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"​
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.​
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​
Why should I post these particular phrases and excerpts? (RHETORICAL) Because, while there was an "intent" - the use of the cultural characteristic (Arab) or religious characteristic (Jew) was not an actual codified requirement.

The importance here is that "Palestine" means the territory to which the Mandate Applied. NOT a new state, and not a new sovereignty.

For the period over which the Government of Palestine applied, Palestinian citizens were either:

◈ Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
◈ Other persons habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.

Neither the characteristic of "Arab" or "Jew" were a requirement in either means of acquiring citizenship in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.
This changes the whole shtick.
(COMMENT)

I have always been careful NOT TO USE the implication or alternative "transfer of territory." What passed from one power (Ottoman) to another power (Allied Powers) was "Rights and Title." You will notice that I am very careful about that. Your implication that I had said or suggested something otherwise is pure disinformation by another means.

AND - I have been just as scrupulous in avoiding the usage of the term "State" or phrase "new state;" except as may have been used by the Allied Powers or the Mandatory Power.

"Territory" is a very key element in the creation of a "state." (That is to say, "a defined territory.") In the case of the Government of Palestine, the Allied Powers were careful to use the phrase: "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." The phrase is so key, that it is used word-for-word in the Article agreed upon at the convention and the Mandate for the territory. The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."

I should like to point out that your word bantering has been haphazard, to say the least.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,601
Reaction score
4,147
Points
1,130
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: You still argue with near quotes from historical documents.

There area couple of serious clunkers in your post.
(COMMENT)

No, not really...

The Allied Powers agreed to put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917.
The "homeland for the Jews" was for the Jews to get Palestinian citizenship in Palestine
(COMMENT)


You say the words, but you don't know what they mean...
EXCERPTs • Document Archive > Conventions and Treaties > San Remo Convention said:
The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"​
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.​
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​
Why should I post these particular phrases and excerpts? (RHETORICAL) Because, while there was an "intent" - the use of the cultural characteristic (Arab) or religious characteristic (Jew) was not an actual codified requirement.

The importance here is that "Palestine" means the territory to which the Mandate Applied. NOT a new state, and not a new sovereignty.

For the period over which the Government of Palestine applied, Palestinian citizens were either:

◈ Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
◈ Other persons habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.

Neither the characteristic of "Arab" or "Jew" were a requirement in either means of acquiring citizenship in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory to the Allied Powers.
The territories were not transferred to the Allied Powers. They were transferred to the new states.
This changes the whole shtick.
(COMMENT)

I have always been careful NOT TO USE the implication or alternative "transfer of territory." What passed from one power (Ottoman) to another power (Allied Powers) was "Rights and Title." You will notice that I am very careful about that. Your implication that I had said or suggested something otherwise is pure disinformation by another means.

AND - I have been just as scrupulous in avoiding the usage of the term "State" or phrase "new state;" except as may have been used by the Allied Powers or the Mandatory Power.

"Territory" is a very key element in the creation of a "state." (That is to say, "a defined territory.") In the case of the Government of Palestine, the Allied Powers were careful to use the phrase: "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." The phrase is so key, that it is used word-for-word in the Article agreed upon at the convention and the Mandate for the territory. The concept is used in the "Palestine Order in Council" when it says: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."

I should like to point out that your word bantering has been haphazard, to say the least.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
The Council of the League of Nations:"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,"
As usual, you simply spam various threads with your nonsensical claims.

 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,601
Reaction score
4,147
Points
1,130
That was before the new states were formed.
Nice deflections. <—— note the plural term.

What new states?

You can continue to deflect with your spam emoticons but that does nothing but suggest you’re simply attempting to perpetuate a fraud.

___ <—— here’s a fill in the blank for your usual spam smiley face.
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,875
Reaction score
2,583
Points
1,815
That was before the new states were formed.
Nice deflections. <—— note the plural term.

What new states?

You can continue to deflect with your spam emoticons but that does nothing but suggest you’re simply attempting to perpetuate a fraud.

___ <—— here’s a fill in the blank for your usual spam smiley face.
I can't believe that you know so little.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,601
Reaction score
4,147
Points
1,130
That was before the new states were formed.
Nice deflections. <—— note the plural term.

What new states?

You can continue to deflect with your spam emoticons but that does nothing but suggest you’re simply attempting to perpetuate a fraud.

___ <—— here’s a fill in the blank for your usual spam smiley face.
I can't believe that you know so little.
Nice deflection. You’re hoping to perpetuate your usual fraud.

What new states?

Link?
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
2,453
Points
290
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ et al,

BLUF: Ordinary thinkers tend to mentally filter out more creative alternatives and limit the number of possible solutions. In this case, we might be observing the loss of grip on situations experienced or the reality

So following your logic, a demand for an Arab state should be even less legitimate,
and yet you flip in support of an Arab Sharia state...
Therefore - why the double standard?
(COMMENT)

The demand for an "Arab State" - but not a capability to invasion a "Jewish State" is an example of inverse creativity prone to madness. It is at the opposite end of the spectrum from divergent thinking responsible for genius.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
That's why I love Rudy Rochman,
and the folks from The Home.

They kinda debate not to win an argument,
but to challenge an opponent find an agreement.

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top