The Clausewitz Failure

[Phoenall]

And you use wiki that is know to be faked on many of its entries, you can edit any entry you want once you have been accepted. Ask monte as he edits entries to meet with his POV .


Found one entry for a barrel and this was as a bomb not being rolled towards its intended target. So you dont have any evidence to support your claim again making you a LIAR


If you refuse to produce evidence why should I bother ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You do bother or else would not have suffered another hissy-fit.

"In Jerusalem, two days later, Irgun members in a stolen police van rolled a barrel bomb into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing around sixteen."
Irgun - Wikipedia

So where does it mention nails and glass, which was your claim ?

So it was sweets and congratulation cards?

SO YOU ADMIT YOU LIED ABOUT THE NAILS AND GLASS, WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU LIED ABOUT ?

No. Nails and Glass. Improvised bomb. The question, however, is why it does concern you of what the bomb was made of rather than how many people it killed. Oh, right, you give a shit about people.

I detest islamonazi LIES and PROPAGANDA spread by halfwits so they can slime the Jews, then have to add words to their links to match what they claim

 

[P F Tinmore]

Arab League to negate or breach provisions of the Non-Binding Resolution

How can you breach a non binding recommendation? They had the right to reject it and they did.

So?

 

[P F Tinmore]

forceable interruption by a conspiratorial act of aggression on the part of the Arab League,

Attempting to enforce a rejected resolution was the first act of aggression.

 

[Phoenall]

Arab League to negate or breach provisions of the Non-Binding Resolution

How can you breach a non binding recommendation? They had the right to reject it and they did.

So?

And now they are trying to use it to claim Israeli land. You cant reject something today and then want to accept it next week because your choice turned bad on you. They had their chance in 1948 to claim part of the Jewish National Home and live in peace with their neighbours, now after being whupped every time by a smaller force they want the UN to fight their wars for them and force the Jews to leave or be wiped out

 

[Phoenall]

forceable interruption by a conspiratorial act of aggression on the part of the Arab League,

Attempting to enforce a rejected resolution was the first act of aggression.

No committing genocide on the 3 Jewish tribes that owned Medina back in 627 C.E. was the first act of aggression. This led to mo'mad stating that allah had told him to "KILL THE JEWS " and it became a holy command

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think you understand the acquisition.

You keep forgetting that it is illegal to acquire territory through war.

(COMMENT)

What actually the prohibition said.

An eastern front was also opened on June 5 when Jordanian forces began shelling West Jerusalem—disregarding Israel’s warning to King Ḥussein to keep Jordan out of the fight—only to face a crushing Israeli counterattack.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

ICC Aggression Rome States:The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
​

I know people say this all the time, but the fact is, your interpretation of the "acquisition" prohibition is not accurate. The aggressor is restricted, the instigator or first use party is prohibited.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The act of acceptance by the Jewish is not aggression, but self-determination under the guidance of the UN.

forceable interruption by a conspiratorial act of aggression on the part of the Arab League,

Attempting to enforce a rejected resolution was the first act of aggression.

(COMMENT)

The Arab cannot be forced to accept a self-determination process. The does not prevent another from accepting. The act of attempting to prevent the Jewish from exercising their self-determination is improper. To use force in this attempt is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Part of what you say is correct; but not quite taking into account the ramification of what you say

1b: Their is no application of colonialism in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). There is no true Non-self Governing Territory (NSGT) any where in the Middle East. See the UN Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) Listing: Non-Self-Governing Territories

Britain itself called Palestine a non self governing "legal entity" when its governance was passed to the UNPC.
Of course the UN dropped the ball and failed to protect the people and territory under its trust. And it still sits around with its thumb up its ass.

(COMMENT)

The original boundary as set up by the recommendation was not a Non-Self-Governing-Entity. WHY? Because the Provisional Government was established.

THEN, as the Arab League Forces moved across their respective frontiers, the status of that territory changed.

• The territory for which the Israeli Forces pursued the retreating Arab League Forces was the new sovereign territory for Israel.
• The territory for which the Jordanian Arab Legion capture was a predeclared annexation (to occur in the future as planned).
• The territory for which the Egyptian 3d Army captured (the Gaza Strip) was camouflaged as the All Arab Government (APG), but was actually a Military Governorship.
​

Actually, the UN and the membership of governments, owed absolutely no "duty" to the Arab Palestinians and had no obligations to fulfill. They did not "still sits around with its thumb up its ass." That duty evaporated away as the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the tutelage --- and administrative participation, and the Steps Preparatory to Independence. They just sat around an pouted - and refused to work for a better country.

1a: Dismantling the Security Barrier/Wall presupposes that either every other country in the world have no right to control its borders and protect its citizens and territory;

The wall is not on a border.

(COMMENT)

Once again, we cover the same ground. The Israeli Security Barrier (The Wall) is a demarcation line with a single party enforcement. It denotes the frontier in which a physical and recognized change in political authority and geographical areas occurs. The Armistice Agreement are no longer valid. The two respective treaties apply with each having an Article on the issue of International Boundaries. However, the Israel Security Barrier was, in 1995, a clear frontier on which one side is enforced (Israeli) sovereignty and the other side is a political composite (Areas "A", "B" and "C").

You may refuse to recognize it; but, it is an enforced frontier. This frontier, being a demarcation, is covered under the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​

One might consider the Security Barrier a type of contemporary Marché (called a "territorial entity" today) or a demarcation line (a border between realms). In the French speaking areas like France, Belgium, a sector of Switzerland, Luxemburg and a small peace of Germany, there is a chain of stores, much like Sears, called the Le Bon Marché. In the typical European fashion of thinking about the concept, the Marché is the two sides (buyer and seller) or (good deal and not so good).

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep forgetting that it is illegal to acquire territory through war.

Assessing Punitive Damages Is the Only Way to National Security

That rule was made by countries that had themselves acquired practically all their territory through war. If the advanced countries are going to survive this century, the new rule must be the rule that got us here in the first place. Any country that attacks, as the Arabs always have, should lose territory or it will keep on doing it, as the Paleonasties have kept on doing ever since they became an imaginary nation. Whoever is preaching to you about these anti-nationalist laws is either a moron, a pacifist, or a secretly paid spokesman for the Caliphate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The act of acceptance by the Jewish is not aggression, but self-determination under the guidance of the UN.

forceable interruption by a conspiratorial act of aggression on the part of the Arab League,

Attempting to enforce a rejected resolution was the first act of aggression.

(COMMENT)

The Arab cannot be forced to accept a self-determination process. The does not prevent another from accepting. The act of attempting to prevent the Jewish from exercising their self-determination is improper. To use force in this attempt is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

 

[Shusha]

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

Self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

 

[Shusha]

Self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

I could not agree more. The Jewish people ARE the people of the place.

There is no legitimate reasonable argument to be made that the Jewish people are not a people of the place. None. Absolutely none.

 

[Shusha]

No matter the topic of the thread, and no matter where we wander in the discussions -- it always comes down to a simple denial that the Jewish people have the same rights as other people. That is the bottom line for everyone on Team Palestine.

If we could just move past that simple issue -- the solutions are easy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And it seems to me that the first step with this is to establish the EQUAL claims of both the Jewish people and the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian people.

Israel is the one causing discrimination. It is the Palestinians calling for equal rights.

 

[Hollie]

And it seems to me that the first step with this is to establish the EQUAL claims of both the Jewish people and the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian people.

Israel is the one causing discrimination. It is the Palestinians calling for equal rights.

There is, of course, a problem with your nonsense: the Hamas charter. There is nothing in the Hamas charter that even remotely suggests equal rights. Similarly, the daily hate being spewed by Hamas and the PA utterly contradicts your nonsensical banter. We know with facts and evidence that Islamism has never taught equality as it relates to Moslems and non-Moslems. At no time in islamist history have Moslems equated non-Moslems as equals.

islamist history is an open book regarding intolerance and violence directed at the kuffar. At no time in islamist history have the kuffar been considered as equals. Moslems, when in the majority, have always established their claims for a privileged position of superiority over the kuffar.

Why do you think your propaganda would be met with anything but callous disregard for such nonsense?

 

[Hollie]

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

Self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The people from someplace else describes the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebaneses land grabbers who you somehow define as Pal'istanians in your invented, mythical "country of Pal'istan".

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

Self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The people from someplace else describes the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebaneses land grabbers who you somehow define as Pal'istanians in your invented, mythical "country of Pal'istan".

Link?

 

[Hollie]

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

Self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The people from someplace else describes the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebaneses land grabbers who you somehow define as Pal'istanians in your invented, mythical "country of Pal'istan".

Link?

Nice Dodge™

 

[P F Tinmore]

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

Self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The people from someplace else describes the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebaneses land grabbers who you somehow define as Pal'istanians in your invented, mythical "country of Pal'istan".

Link?

Nice Dodge™

Well, you shovel unsubstantiated Israeli shit.

You should be able to support your claim.

 

[Hollie]

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

Self determination belongs to the people of the place not the people from someplace else.

The people from someplace else describes the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebaneses land grabbers who you somehow define as Pal'istanians in your invented, mythical "country of Pal'istan".

Link?

Nice Dodge™

Well, you shovel unsubstantiated Israeli shit.

You should be able to support your claim.

I already did.

Indeed. So, I'm anxious to see you substantiate your false claim about Arab-Moslem terrorists calling for "equal rights". Identify for us where we can find mention of equal rights in the Hamas charter.

Indeed, Identify for us where the PA has called for equal rights. Identify for us a time in Islamist history where Islamics have promoted and furthered equal rights.

Indeed, tell us about islamo-equal rights with reference to the Dhimmi status.