News Reporter exposes Israel on live television.

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Palestine belong to the palestinians not to the invadors who came from 120 countries supported by England that occupied Palestine in 1917 and gave Palestine to those invadors. England had no right of doing so, nor the United Nations have no right of giving a nation to other people.

The Invadors a Europpean people from Europe should leave Palestine (Middle East not Europe).
90% of World Jews are Ashkenazi Jews (AKA Europpeans) since Ashkenazi means Skythians (the Caucasian Race who lived in the Caucasus ) and later Europe. see Encyclopedia Brittanica encyclopedia 1910 for the Etymology of Ashkenazi( it is from Skythinas or Skuthi)

Half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi anyway. Following your logic the Turks should be relocated to Central Asia and Turkey given back to Armenians and Greeks and Arabs deported back to Arabia. It's funny how Muslims always want one rule for others and another for themselves.

Apparently Israel is the only country not allowed to control it's own immigration. It's usually Muslims in the West, eg Immigants, ironically criticising this but would never demand the same standards be placed on them going back to Arabia or Pakistan.

No Majority of Israelis are Ashkenazi Jews (AKA Magog). the other part of Israelis are of different non semite origin (Sephardim mainly from Spain and Morocco, and Mede the Magi of Iran who dissimulated as Jews after Jews were crushed in Palestine by the Romans) and Mizrahi, all from India (haplogroup G the original Hindi tribe of the Magi of Iran or Ancient Persia. Some small minority of Israelis or Jews are descendents of Arabs who converted to Judaism but they are barely 8% of all Jews. Even Armenians have 20% Arab origin Haplogroup J1, Kurds are 20% Haplogroup J1 Arabs, Turks are 20% Arabs J1, Pakistan is 15% Arabs J1, Ethiopia 30% J1 of ancient Arab Hyiarites and Sabaean Yemeni Arab tribe, 30% of Chechen and Caucasian mountains are J1 Arabs)
all those people have partial Arab ancestry much more than the jews and they don't claim part of Arab lands, nor they ever want to live in the desert low lands.
Jews should go back to their respective homelands. Every Jew knows where his father and mother came from Costa Rica, Poland, what have you. They can easily tracxe their generations back for ten generations, they know exactly where they come from and where is their home land. 95% of World Jewery have guaranteed homeland 90% in Ukraine and South Russia, and 5% in Spain and Morocco.

Turky was a name imposed on the nation by the victors . There are no turks in Turkey. Armenians name etymology is Aram-Han, ie the Huns who entered Aram. They enetred Turkey in 100 BC and were defeated by the Romans.
Armenians are Huns from north of the Caucasus just like Ashkenazi Jews are from the Caucasus. The Khazar Kingdom and before them the Huns ruled over the other Huns who managed to seep through the Caucasian mountains to the Land of Aram (the land west of the Euphrates all the way to Jordan (Aram being the land of stones, aram meaning stones.) Armenians have a country called Armenia.

Armenians are not Huns.

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
Except unlike Dennis Rodman Husseini was the recognised leader of the Palestinians. Completely false analogy. It would be like Bill Clinton moving to North Korea.

No, he wasn't. As I pointed out, Husseini was illegitimately appointed by the first high commissioner of Palestine, Herbert Samuel, against the actual results of the vote. Husseini was then removed from that position in 1937. When he threw his lot with the Nazis in 1941, he did so as an individual who had no authority and no position, not even illegitimate authority or position.

Palestine was with the allies, despite this one scumbag's best efforts.

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
Except unlike Dennis Rodman Husseini was the recognised leader of the Palestinians. Completely false analogy. It would be like Bill Clinton moving to North Korea.

No, he wasn't. As I pointed out, Husseini was illegitimately appointed by the first high commissioner of Palestine, Herbert Samuel, against the actual results of the vote. Husseini was then removed from that position in 1937. When he threw his lot with the Nazis in 1941, he did so as an individual who had no authority and no position, not even illegitimate authority or position.
Palestine was with the allies, despite this one scumbag's best efforts.

Husseini was the Pop of Palestinians he did not need what ever was his name.
He is the Mufti of Jerusalem equal to the Pop

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Palestine belong to the palestinians not to the invadors who came from 120 countries supported by England that occupied Palestine in 1917 and gave Palestine to those invadors. England had no right of doing so, nor the United Nations have no right of giving a nation to other people.

The Invadors a Europpean people from Europe should leave Palestine (Middle East not Europe).
90% of World Jews are Ashkenazi Jews (AKA Europpeans) since Ashkenazi means Skythians (the Caucasian Race who lived in the Caucasus ) and later Europe. see Encyclopedia Brittanica encyclopedia 1910 for the Etymology of Ashkenazi( it is from Skythinas or Skuthi)

Half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi anyway. Following your logic the Turks should be relocated to Central Asia and Turkey given back to Armenians and Greeks and Arabs deported back to Arabia. It's funny how Muslims always want one rule for others and another for themselves.

Apparently Israel is the only country not allowed to control it's own immigration. It's usually Muslims in the West, eg Immigants, ironically criticising this but would never demand the same standards be placed on them going back to Arabia or Pakistan.

No Majority of Israelis are Ashkenazi Jews (AKA Magog). the other part of Israelis are of different non semite origin (Sephardim mainly from Spain and Morocco, and Mede the Magi of Iran who dissimulated as Jews after Jews were crushed in Palestine by the Romans) and Mizrahi, all from India (haplogroup G the original Hindi tribe of the Magi of Iran or Ancient Persia. Some small minority of Israelis or Jews are descendents of Arabs who converted to Judaism but they are barely 8% of all Jews. Even Armenians have 20% Arab origin Haplogroup J1, Kurds are 20% Haplogroup J1 Arabs, Turks are 20% Arabs J1, Pakistan is 15% Arabs J1, Ethiopia 30% J1 of ancient Arab Hyiarites and Sabaean Yemeni Arab tribe, 30% of Chechen and Caucasian mountains are J1 Arabs)
all those people have partial Arab ancestry much more than the jews and they don't claim part of Arab lands, nor they ever want to live in the desert low lands.
Jews should go back to their respective homelands. Every Jew knows where his father and mother came from Costa Rica, Poland, what have you. They can easily tracxe their generations back for ten generations, they know exactly where they come from and where is their home land. 95% of World Jewery have guaranteed homeland 90% in Ukraine and South Russia, and 5% in Spain and Morocco.

Turky was a name imposed on the nation by the victors . There are no turks in Turkey. Armenians name etymology is Aram-Han, ie the Huns who entered Aram. They enetred Turkey in 100 BC and were defeated by the Romans.
Armenians are Huns from north of the Caucasus just like Ashkenazi Jews are from the Caucasus. The Khazar Kingdom and before them the Huns ruled over the other Huns who managed to seep through the Caucasian mountains to the Land of Aram (the land west of the Euphrates all the way to Jordan (Aram being the land of stones, aram meaning stones.) Armenians have a country called Armenia.

Armenians are not Huns.

Armenians and Ashkenazi Jews and Khazar are all definitely the Huns. They also have Maternal lineage since they are all one nation with the Russians the other Huns.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Husseini was the Pop of Palestinians he did not need what ever was his name.
He is the Mufti of Jerusalem equal to the Pop

I suggest you do a little more reading on the subject. The Mufti's position is nowhere near that of the pope, not even remotely. He was appointed illegitimately by the High commissioner of Palestine after losing a vote where he came in fifth of five.

You and HisRoyalJewness don't have to like it for it to be true.

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Husseini was the Pop of Palestinians he did not need what ever was his name.
He is the Mufti of Jerusalem equal to the Pop

I suggest you do a little more reading on the subject. The Mufti's position is nowhere near that of the pope, not even remotely. He was appointed illegitimately by the High commissioner of Palestine after losing a vote where he came in fifth of five.

You and HisRoyalJewness don't have to like it for it to be true.

No Mufti of the 3rd Holiest place in Islam is equal to the Pope.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
No Mufti of the 3rd Holiest place in Islam is equal to the Pope.

I can only conclude that you really have no idea what in the world you're talking about. For one, the position was created by the Ottomans in 1860. The Mufti's authority extends only over the holy places of Jerusalem - and even then he can be overridden (especially nowadays, as the position is almost purely ceremonial, appointed and removed at the decision of the Palestinian Presidency.) Islam simply does not have a "pope" figure, and if it did, it certainly wouldn't be the Mufti of Jerusalem.

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: adnanmuf
No Mufti of the 3rd Holiest place in Islam is equal to the Pope.

I can only conclude that you really have no idea what in the world you're talking about. For one, the position was created by the Ottomans in 1860. The Mufti's authority extends only over the holy places of Jerusalem - and even then he can be overridden (especially nowadays, as the position is almost purely ceremonial, appointed and removed at the decision of the Palestinian Presidency.) Islam simply does not have a "pope" figure, and if it did, it certainly wouldn't be the Mufti of Jerusalem.

the Pope position is ceremonial too?

There was always a Mufti or a holy man of the Holy place of Jerusalem. the Mufti was also a desendent of the Prophet, but the English imprisoned him, exiled him, made a warrant of his arrest worldwide. what a shame. try doing that to the bishop of Canterbury

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
Except unlike Dennis Rodman Husseini was the recognised leader of the Palestinians. Completely false analogy. It would be like Bill Clinton moving to North Korea.

No, he wasn't. As I pointed out, Husseini was illegitimately appointed by the first high commissioner of Palestine, Herbert Samuel, against the actual results of the vote. Husseini was then removed from that position in 1937. When he threw his lot with the Nazis in 1941, he did so as an individual who had no authority and no position, not even illegitimate authority or position.

Palestine was with the allies, despite this one scumbag's best efforts.

What part of "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem," do you not get?

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: adnanmuf
No Mufti of the 3rd Holiest place in Islam is equal to the Pope.

I can only conclude that you really have no idea what in the world you're talking about. For one, the position was created by the Ottomans in 1860. The Mufti's authority extends only over the holy places of Jerusalem - and even then he can be overridden (especially nowadays, as the position is almost purely ceremonial, appointed and removed at the decision of the Palestinian Presidency.) Islam simply does not have a "pope" figure, and if it did, it certainly wouldn't be the Mufti of Jerusalem.

the Pope position is ceremonial too?

There was always a Mufti or a holy man of the Holy place of Jerusalem. the Mufti was also a desendent of the Prophet, but the English imprisoned him, exiled him, made a warrant of his arrest worldwide. what a shame. try doing that to the bishop of Canterbury

May I remind you a Turk shot the Pope in 1981.

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
What part of "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem," do you not get?

I don't believe I'm the one having a problem understanding things here.

What portion of "Illegitimately appointed" do you not get?
What part of "removed from the position in 1937" are you struggling with?
What part of "Palestine was with the Allies in WW2 as a British holding" is difficult?

You're trying so hard to use this one guy's nastiness to tar millions of people. I've seen it before. sadly the facts simply are not in your favor on this.

Also, read up on Herbert Samuel, the guy who appointed al-Husseini to the position. I think it might enlighten you to why you've been told this cockamamie story.

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: adnanmuf
No Mufti of the 3rd Holiest place in Islam is equal to the Pope.

I can only conclude that you really have no idea what in the world you're talking about. For one, the position was created by the Ottomans in 1860. The Mufti's authority extends only over the holy places of Jerusalem - and even then he can be overridden (especially nowadays, as the position is almost purely ceremonial, appointed and removed at the decision of the Palestinian Presidency.) Islam simply does not have a "pope" figure, and if it did, it certainly wouldn't be the Mufti of Jerusalem.

the Pope position is ceremonial too?

Irrelevant question, the position of "Mufti of Jerusalem" is simply not comparale to the position of "Pope.' Are you really so ignorant of Islam and Roman Catholicism? Why bring these topics to an argument if you don't know how they work?

There was always a Mufti or a holy man of the Holy place of Jerusalem.

...after 1860 when the Ottomans created the position, sure. Though really it was more a position of "Museum curator" than "holy man" charged with overseeing the grounds and maintenance of the holy sites in Jerusalem.

the Mufti was also a desendent of the Prophet,

So are a lot of people. It's been seventeen hundred years and Mohammed didn't exactly keep the privates private, y'know? Still, I think ol' Temujin has him beat. But hey still, nice run for a non-Turanian

but the English imprisoned him, exiled him, made a warrant of his arrest worldwide. what a shame. try doing that to the bishop of Canterbury

Well, as soon as the Bishop (Archbishop, I think you mean) incites riots where hundreds get killed, then flees in exile to another corner of the British empire to try to overthrow the government there, I'm sure the UK will get right on that.

By the way? Archbishop of Canturbury and Mufti still aren't comparable positions. Sorry.

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
What part of "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem," do you not get?

I don't believe I'm the one having a problem understanding things here.

What portion of "Illegitimately appointed" do you not get?
What part of "removed from the position in 1937" are you struggling with?
What part of "Palestine was with the Allies in WW2 as a British holding" is difficult?

You're trying so hard to use this one guy's nastiness to tar millions of people. I've seen it before. sadly the facts simply are not in your favor on this.

Also, read up on Herbert Samuel, the guy who appointed al-Husseini to the position. I think it might enlighten you to why you've been told this cockamamie story.

So who was the legitimate leader of the Palestinians during this period?

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
So who was the legitimate leader of the Palestinians during this period?

The High Comissioner of Palestine, of whom there were ten during the period of British rule. Would you like the list, or do you think you can google it up yourself?

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: adnanmuf
No Mufti of the 3rd Holiest place in Islam is equal to the Pope.

I can only conclude that you really have no idea what in the world you're talking about. For one, the position was created by the Ottomans in 1860. The Mufti's authority extends only over the holy places of Jerusalem - and even then he can be overridden (especially nowadays, as the position is almost purely ceremonial, appointed and removed at the decision of the Palestinian Presidency.) Islam simply does not have a "pope" figure, and if it did, it certainly wouldn't be the Mufti of Jerusalem.

the Pope position is ceremonial too?

Irrelevant question, the position of "Mufti of Jerusalem" is simply not comparale to the position of "Pope.' Are you really so ignorant of Islam and Roman Catholicism? Why bring these topics to an argument if you don't know how they work?

There was always a Mufti or a holy man of the Holy place of Jerusalem.

...after 1860 when the Ottomans created the position, sure. Though really it was more a position of "Museum curator" than "holy man" charged with overseeing the grounds and maintenance of the holy sites in Jerusalem.

the Mufti was also a desendent of the Prophet,

So are a lot of people. It's been seventeen hundred years and Mohammed didn't exactly keep the privates private, y'know? Still, I think ol' Temujin has him beat. But hey still, nice run for a non-Turanian

but the English imprisoned him, exiled him, made a warrant of his arrest worldwide. what a shame. try doing that to the bishop of Canterbury

Well, as soon as the Bishop (Archbishop, I think you mean) incites riots where hundreds get killed, then flees in exile to another corner of the British empire to try to overthrow the government there, I'm sure the UK will get right on that.

By the way? Archbishop of Canturbury and Mufti still aren't comparable positions. Sorry.

"Well, as soon as the Bishop (Archbishop, I think you mean) incites riots where hundreds get killed, then flees in exile to another corner of the British empire to try to overthrow the government there, I'm sure the UK will get right on that.

By the way? Archbishop of Canturbury and Mufti still aren't comparable positions. Sorry. "

Indeed Mufti of Jerusalem and the Aqsa Mosque equal if not surpass the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So you are saying if the palestinians invaded England and thier appointed Palestinian ruler exiled the Archbishop of Canterbury and issued a warrant of his arrest because he ask the English people to revolt against the palestinian occupation of England. That is OK.?

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
So who was the legitimate leader of the Palestinians during this period?

The High Comissioner of Palestine, of whom there were ten during the period of British rule. Would you like the list, or do you think you can google it up yourself?

No, of the Palestinians not of Palestine.

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness

originally posted by: TheTengriist

originally posted by: HisRoyalJewness
So who was the legitimate leader of the Palestinians during this period?

The High Comissioner of Palestine, of whom there were ten during the period of British rule. Would you like the list, or do you think you can google it up yourself?

No, of the Palestinians not of Palestine.

That's a meaningless question. There is no "leader" of such groups. I might as well ask you who the "leader" of the Vietnamese in Australia is. Who's currently in charge of Jews? It just doesn't work that way.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Indeed Mufti of Jerusalem and the Aqsa Mosque equal if not surpass the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Not even remotely, I'm afraid.

So you are saying if the palestinians invaded England and thier appointed Palestinian ruler exiled the Archbishop of Canterbury and issued a warrant of his arrest because he ask the English people to revolt against the palestinian occupation of England. That is OK.?

I'm sorry, what? Could you rephrase the question in a more clear manner, because i can't make heads or tails of this.

so you said if the Archbishop caused trouble to invaders of Britain he should be exiled.
right?

originally posted by: adnanmuf
so you said if the Archbishop caused trouble to invaders of Britain he should be exiled.
right?

No, I said if he instigated riots where people died, then tried to overthrow the government, that the UK would likely out out a warrant for him.

When you use the phrase, "you said," it helps to give an actual representation of what the person said. It's pretty easy in text, you can just copy-paste it.