PHOTOS FROM INSIDE IRAN

"La N" wrote:

:
:"Vince" wrote in message
...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Weatherlawyer wrote:
: :
: :One has to remember that if it wasn't for the Germans, there wouldn't
: :have been an Israel. Like fatherland like son.
: :
:
: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to be thought stupid
: by those who did.
:
: Balfour Declaration. Look it up.
:
:
: Right
:
: UK happily giving away what didn't belong to it
:
:

Except, unfortunately for Vinnie's thesis, it sort of did. See
'Palestine Mandate'.

:
:I wasn't really familiar with the Balfour Declaration but looked it up in
:Wiki
:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...ration_of_1917
:
:Excerpt:
:"In his November, 2002 interview with the New Statesman magazine, the UK
:Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw blamed Britain's imperial past for many of the
:modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.[5]
:
:"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being
:given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given
:to the Israelis-again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable
ne," he said."
:

The history of the world (and particularly the Middle East) is
littered with the lies and double-dealing of the UK. This is not news
and is frequently behind modern troubles.

:
:Anyway, it does confirm that Weatherlawyer is wrong if nothing else.
:

Which was rather the point.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"La N" wrote:

: :"Vince" wrote in message
... : Fred J.
McCall wrote: : Weatherlawyer wrote:
: : : :One has to remember that if it wasn't for the Germans,
there wouldn't : :have been an Israel. Like fatherland like son.
: : : : Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to be
thought stupid : by those who did. : : Balfour Declaration.
Look it up. : : : Right : : UK happily giving away what didn't
belong to it : :

Except, unfortunately for Vinnie's thesis, it sort of did. See
'Palestine Mandate'.

check the dates son

Check the dates


Balfour declaration was 1917



" In the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, Britain and France had proposed
to divide the Middle East between them into spheres of influence, with
"Palestine" as an international enclave.[7] In a meeting at Deauville in
1919, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau revised this agreement,
with Palestine and the Vilayet of Mosul in modern-day Iraq falling into
the British sphere in exchange for British support of French influence
in Syria and Lebanon.[8] According to historian Ilan Pappe,

"The borders of mandatory Palestine, first drawn up in the
Sykes-Picot Agreement, were given their definitive shape during lengthy
and tedious negotiations by British and French officials between 1919
and 1922...In October 1919 the British envisaged the area that is today
southern Lebanon and most of southern Syria as being part of British
mandatory Palestine...In the East, matters were more
complicated...[Transjordan] was part of the Ottoman province of Damascus
which in the Sykes-Picot agreement had been allocated to the French."[9]

At the San Remo Conference (19–26 April 1920) the Allied Supreme
Council granted the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia to Britain
without precisely defining the boundaries of the mandated
territories.[10][11] Although the land east of the Jordan had been part
of the Syrian administrative unit under the Ottomans, it was excluded
from the French Mandate at the San Remo conference, "on the grounds that
it was part of Palestine."[12]

British victories during World War I and years of delay before formal
treaties were ratified left the bulk of this territory under British
military occupation from 1917 to 1920.

The San Remo conference was an international meeting of the post-World
War I Allied Supreme Council, held in San Remo, Italy, in 19-26 April
1920. It determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations
mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the
Middle East.

The decisions of the conference mainly confirmed those of the First
Conference of London (February 1920), and broadly reaffirmed the terms
of the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 May 1916 for the
region's partition and the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917.[13]
Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq, while France gained
control of Syria including present-day Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ration_to_1923


So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give

Vince

"Vince" wrote in message
...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"La N" wrote:

: :"Vince" wrote in message
... : Fred J. McCall
wrote: : Weatherlawyer wrote: : : :
:One has to remember that if it wasn't for the Germans, there wouldn't
: :have been an Israel. Like fatherland like son. : : : : Those
who fail to learn from history are doomed to be thought stupid : by
those who did. : : Balfour Declaration. Look it up. : : : Right
: : UK happily giving away what didn't
belong to it : :

Except, unfortunately for Vinnie's thesis, it sort of did. See
'Palestine Mandate'.

check the dates son

Check the dates


Balfour declaration was 1917



" In the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, Britain and France had proposed
to divide the Middle East between them into spheres of influence, with
"Palestine" as an international enclave.[7] In a meeting at Deauville in
1919, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau revised this agreement,
with Palestine and the Vilayet of Mosul in modern-day Iraq falling into
the British sphere in exchange for British support of French influence
in Syria and Lebanon.[8] According to historian Ilan Pappe,

"The borders of mandatory Palestine, first drawn up in the
Sykes-Picot Agreement, were given their definitive shape during lengthy
and tedious negotiations by British and French officials between 1919
and 1922...In October 1919 the British envisaged the area that is today
southern Lebanon and most of southern Syria as being part of British
mandatory Palestine...In the East, matters were more
complicated...[Transjordan] was part of the Ottoman province of Damascus
which in the Sykes-Picot agreement had been allocated to the French."[9]

At the San Remo Conference (19–26 April 1920) the Allied Supreme
Council granted the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia to Britain
without precisely defining the boundaries of the mandated
territories.[10][11] Although the land east of the Jordan had been part
of the Syrian administrative unit under the Ottomans, it was excluded
from the French Mandate at the San Remo conference, "on the grounds that
it was part of Palestine."[12]

British victories during World War I and years of delay before formal
treaties were ratified left the bulk of this territory under British
military occupation from 1917 to 1920.

The San Remo conference was an international meeting of the post-World
War I Allied Supreme Council, held in San Remo, Italy, in 19-26 April
1920. It determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations
mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the
Middle East.

The decisions of the conference mainly confirmed those of the First
Conference of London (February 1920), and broadly reaffirmed the terms
of the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 May 1916 for the
region's partition and the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917.[13]
Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq, while France gained
control of Syria including present-day Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ration_to_1923


So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give

Vince


Thank you. I'm going to read up more on this when I have the time.

- nilita

"La N" wrote:

:
:"Vince" wrote in message
...
:
: So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give
:

And yet oddly they wound up with it.

Funny how that works, don't you think?

[No, you don't, which is your problem.]

:
:Thank you. I'm going to read up more on this when I have the time.
:

Just don't ask Vinnie's advice. He'll almost inevitably mess it up.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"La N" wrote:

:
:"Vince" wrote in message
...
:
: So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give
:

And yet oddly they wound up with it.

Funny how that works, don't you think?

[No, you don't, which is your problem.]

:
:Thank you. I'm going to read up more on this when I have the time.
:

Just don't ask Vinnie's advice. He'll almost inevitably mess it up.



It's the same as a car thief stealing on demand

you sell what you don't own, so you go out and steal it

Vince

"Vince" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"La N" wrote:

:
:"Vince" wrote in message
...
:
: So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give
:

And yet oddly they wound up with it.

Funny how that works, don't you think?

[No, you don't, which is your problem.]

:
:Thank you. I'm going to read up more on this when I have the time.
:

Just don't ask Vinnie's advice. He'll almost inevitably mess it up.



It's the same as a car thief stealing on demand

you sell what you don't own, so you go out and steal it


But, Vince, why? oh, why?

- nilita, trying to remember days when kids played fair ...

La N wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"La N" wrote:

:
:"Vince" wrote in message
...
:
: So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give
:

And yet oddly they wound up with it.

Funny how that works, don't you think?

[No, you don't, which is your problem.]

:
:Thank you. I'm going to read up more on this when I have the time.
:

Just don't ask Vinnie's advice. He'll almost inevitably mess it up.


It's the same as a car thief stealing on demand

you sell what you don't own, so you go out and steal it


But, Vince, why? oh, why?

- nilita, trying to remember days when kids played fair ...


Sucking up to the Zionist vote and lying to everyone in sight toplay
both ends against the middle

"In his November, 2002 interview with the New Statesman magazine, the UK
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw blamed Britain's imperial past for many of
the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.[5]

"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were
being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were
being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us, but
not an honourable one," he said.


"At that time the British were busy making promises. Henry McMahon had
exchanged letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sherif of Mecca in 1915, in
which he had promised the Arabs control of the Arab lands, exclusive of
the Mediterranean coast. The extent of the coastal exclusion is not
clear. Hussein protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose
isolation from the Arab state or states, but did not, it seems, bring up
the matter of the Jerusalem area, which included a good part of
Palestine. This suggests either that the area of Jerusalem and Palestine
was not part of the inclusion and was promised to the Arabs, as shown in
some maps, and is believed by pro-Arab historians, or that Palestine was
included, but that Hussein did not protest. The latter version is
supported by Dr. Chaim Weizmann in his autobiography Trial and Error.
This interpretation was also convenient for the British , and was
supported explicitly by the British government in the 1922 White Paper."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...iffering_views


Vince

"Vince" wrote in message
. ..
La N wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"La N" wrote:

:
:"Vince" wrote in message
...
:
: So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give
:

And yet oddly they wound up with it.

Funny how that works, don't you think?

[No, you don't, which is your problem.]

:
:Thank you. I'm going to read up more on this when I have the time.
:

Just don't ask Vinnie's advice. He'll almost inevitably mess it up.


It's the same as a car thief stealing on demand

you sell what you don't own, so you go out and steal it


But, Vince, why? oh, why?

- nilita, trying to remember days when kids played fair ...

Sucking up to the Zionist vote and lying to everyone in sight toplay both
ends against the middle

"In his November, 2002 interview with the New Statesman magazine, the UK
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw blamed Britain's imperial past for many of
the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.[5]

"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being
given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given
to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us, but not an
honourable one," he said.


"At that time the British were busy making promises. Henry McMahon had
exchanged letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sherif of Mecca in 1915, in which
he had promised the Arabs control of the Arab lands, exclusive of the
Mediterranean coast. The extent of the coastal exclusion is not clear.
Hussein protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose isolation
from the Arab state or states, but did not, it seems, bring up the matter
of the Jerusalem area, which included a good part of Palestine. This
suggests either that the area of Jerusalem and Palestine was not part of
the inclusion and was promised to the Arabs, as shown in some maps, and is
believed by pro-Arab historians, or that Palestine was included, but that
Hussein did not protest. The latter version is supported by Dr. Chaim
Weizmann in his autobiography Trial and Error. This interpretation was
also convenient for the British , and was supported explicitly by the
British government in the 1922 White Paper."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...iffering_views



Well, scrolling up a few posts to TMO's article, he's implying in several
thousand words that worse things have been done than this in the world!
This is small potatoes, relatively speaking.

And, btw, speaking as a lawyer, in your humble opinion, is OJ going to get
acquitted again?

- nil

La N wrote:

Well, scrolling up a few posts to TMO's article, he's implying in several
thousand words that worse things have been done than this in the world!
This is small potatoes, relatively speaking.

And, btw, speaking as a lawyer, in your humble opinion, is OJ going to get
acquitted again?

- nil



he is an idiot

can't say

Vince -

"Vince" wrote in message
...
La N wrote:

Well, scrolling up a few posts to TMO's article, he's implying in several
thousand words that worse things have been done than this in the world!
This is small potatoes, relatively speaking.

And, btw, speaking as a lawyer, in your humble opinion, is OJ going to
get acquitted again?

- nil

he is an idiot

can't say

Vince -

He made bail via the cutesy named Las Vegas bail bond company "You Ring, We
Spring!"

You're right; he *is* an idjit.

- nilita , who can't get "don't taze me, bro!" out of her mind ...