the bullshitters charter
![]() | By Rich Armbach
October 4, 2011 | Share |
Armbach unfortunately for you anything I post has been fact checked
The bullshitters charter ... answer every question except the one that has been asked
COMMENTS
5 October, 2011 - 09:30 Rate this: 0 points | King George Street is not on my schedule. But if I did go there are you saying I would discover that the Israelis that are colonising the land have legal title to it ? Will I see their names there, and find that everything is kosher ? Or will I find that you are fibbing or that some Jews did buy the land but not these Jews ? Is it Jews stealing from Arabs or Jews stealing from Jews ? |
5 October, 2011 - 09:40 Rate this: 0 points | Since your mind is closed to the facts you would find precisely what you wanted to find - a reasonable person on the other hand open to the facts would find that the land legally belonged to the Jews even prior to !939. |
5 October, 2011 - 10:25 Rate this: 0 points | which Jews ? |
5 October, 2011 - 11:28 Rate this: 0 points | Construction of and residency in communities built by Jews in the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine cannot be considered acts that are either illegal, illegitimate or otherwise impermissible or thought of as "war crimes" and the such like. The right of "close settlement by Jews [Art. 6]" on the lands of the Mandate, which encompassed Judea, Samaria and Gaza, was enshrined in the League of Nations decision, itself based on a series of decisions and agreements that achieved status of international law between 1915 and 1924. Which Jews - all of us muppet! |
5 October, 2011 - 11:31 Rate this: 0 points | But surely any settlement / town / area that is exclusively for one type of people is apartheid, racist and fascist by nature? |
5 October, 2011 - 11:47 Rate this: 0 points | Did not the mandate expire ? |
5 October, 2011 - 11:59 Rate this: 0 points | Sorry Suzanna but Arabs do actually live in "settlements". Visit Pisgat Ze'ev which you would call an illegal settlement and note the signs which say "For rent - Arabs only". If you would just get the facts instead of parroting what you read on BDS pamphlets prepared for useful idiots like your good-self you would be less likely to make a fool of yourself. |
5 October, 2011 - 12:03 Rate this: 0 points | I repeat - But surely any settlement / town / area that is exclusively for one type of people is apartheid, racist and fascist by nature? |
5 October, 2011 - 12:04 Rate this: 0 points | Skovronek the Resolutions made by the great Powers at San Remo were enshrined in Article 80 of the founding Charter of the United Nations. Quote: Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. [my emphasis] You must try harder. |
5 October, 2011 - 12:06 Rate this: 0 points | Not only did it expire but... 1) The Mandate did not envisage the political sovereignty of one ethnic group 2) The Jewish settlers abrogated the Mandate by turning to terrorism against the Mandatory power 3) And further abrogated it by ignoring the provision that the rights of the native population should not be compromised by immigrant settlement. 4)And further abrogated it by declaring The State of Israel. 5)And whatever may, or may not, have been the law between 1915 and 1924 is not the law now. The Mandate has gone, The League of Nations is gone. They are irrelevant. A billion and one legal developments have superseded them. There was a time when bear baiting was legal. "Which Jews - all of us muppet!" I take it you mean that the name of every Jew in the world is on the title deeds of the Gilo land. Interesting. |
5 October, 2011 - 12:08 Rate this: 0 points | "until such agreements have been concluded...." You must try harder |
5 October, 2011 - 12:12 Rate this: 0 points | Who cares about the mandate etc? Settlements on occupied territory are apartheid, fascist, racist and all the rest. |
5 October, 2011 - 12:15 Rate this: 0 points | Suzanna, Advs3r cares. He still thinks we are regulated by Magna Carta, the Corn Laws, window taxes,The Edict of Nantes,and goodness knows what else. |
5 October, 2011 - 12:21 Rate this: 0 points | So Beit Jallah which abuts Gilo and in which no Jew who fears for his life would even venture to enter is Apartheid. Thanks for the clarification. I have told you that Arabs live on "settlements" on the other hand very few if any Jjews live in Arab villages - by your defintion that makes them Apartheid. Furthermore the Palestinians hjave stated that they want no Jjews in their new state by your definition that makes them racist fascist etc. Unfortunately it appears you have little or no knowledge of what living in the Middle East is all about. |
5 October, 2011 - 12:25 Rate this: 0 points | Armbach you do seem to have trouble with the facts when they impinge on your worldview. By the way the Magna Carta is still considered relevant even today - see These facts keep oin bumping into you - don't they? |
5 October, 2011 - 12:26 Rate this: 0 points | I don't hear of Arab only roads, Arab only settlements, all I hear is of military justice for Palestinians, civil justice for Jews, Walls built around Palestinians, permits for Palestinians, administrative detention for Palestinians . . . . it all sounds like perfect apartheid, fascism and jack boot occupation. |
5 October, 2011 - 12:27 Rate this: 0 points | Armbach you do seem to have trouble with the facts when they impinge on your worldview. By the way the Magna Carta is still considered relevant even today - see These facts keep on bumping into you - don't they? |
5 October, 2011 - 12:38 Rate this: 0 points | smile Relevant in the sense of historically important in the development of the common law but overlain, superseded a billion times. When was the last time a judge went to Magna Catrta in arriving at a legal judgment. And what about The Edict of Nantes ? |
5 October, 2011 - 13:12 Rate this: 0 points | A troll feeding frenzy - where to begin? |
5 October, 2011 - 13:46 Rate this: 0 points | "Concluded" means in this case the San Remo Resolution has been put into effect - it still has not and therefore remains extant. |
5 October, 2011 - 15:22 Rate this: 0 points | LOL |
5 October, 2011 - 15:38 Rate this: 0 points | Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded.... Hell this is excrutiating but I am feeling masochistic today The individual trusteeship you have in mind is the agreements that made up the British Mandate.Conclude....to finish to end. Those agreements are concluded, kaput , finished, are no more. Killed by a basket of things including Jewish terrorism against the mandatory power. The declaration of the State of Israel emphasised what was already the case. The project to establish a National Jewish Home in Palestine that did not entail Jewish political sovereignty, had ,for whatever reasons, failed. And the agreements that made up the commitment were no more. On your bizarre red herring analysis these agreements could not be concluded until every Jew in the world lived in Palestine. |
5 October, 2011 - 15:44 Rate this: 0 points | In other words once a Jewish state was declared the right to appeal to Balfour, San Remo, the UN charter,was foregone. All that stuff is foregone, kaput, finished Superceded by a billion over riding legally relevant developments. |
5 October, 2011 - 16:36 Rate this: 0 points | Comments for this page are now closed. |
MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
LATEST COMMENTS
- Jonathan Hoffman RE: Adieu Ken Livingstone
- happygoldfish RE: Andrew Dismore and Ken Livingstone
- Advis3r RE: Prisoners voting: time to ask who governs Britain (Express)
- happygoldfish RE: Prisoners voting: time to ask who governs Britain (Express)
- Advis3r RE: Prisoners voting: time to ask who governs Britain (Express)


Advis3r
5 October, 2011 - 08:57
Rate this:
The truth hurts. There are 40000 Jews living in Gilo if you want to know who owns it I told you where you can check that information it's in Tabu - that's to be found in the centre of Jerusalem in the building next to HaMashbir on King George Street. I frankly have no idea why you consider I should dance to your tune.
I note you say nothing about the fact that your claim that Gilo is in the fairy land called "East Jerusalem" another made up term to go with "the West Bank" is in common with much else you post a load of baloney - obviously we now know who actually is the bullsh*tter.