Right, this is me, having a discussion with myself. You just a nice fella watching everything unfold.
hmm...straight back to personally addressing my character again in an endless loop.
you really don't seem to see it do you?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yes ... Roland is being a detacted observer, while I continue to be a complete asshole.
You shouldn't call yourself an asshole out of the blue of your own volition.. It's going to give you cancer one day.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Right, and you're not suggesting anything about mine. Uh huh.
At no point in this thread has Roland addrssed my character. Never.
I've stopped yet you seem to continue....now you're even addressing me by name specifically and perpetuating it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yes, exactly. I am still having this discussion, with ... You guessed it ... MYSELF!!
Mwahahahahahaha!!!
And what does that mean exactly?
Explain to me specifically how I'm attacking you?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Indeed. I am working on my character flaws as we speak. Very cathartic.
That would appear to be sarcastic.. for what reason exactly at this point?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Dude, cripes, come on ... Let's call it a draw. Life is too short.
Heck, I'll even concede defeat, whatever that looks like at this point.
Interestingly, this whole go-around looks kinda like a microcosm of the whole Israel-Palestine situation. Around and around and around, bad tactics, emotional reasoning ... Hot damn, this is actually kinda cool, viewed from that perspective.
Dude, cripes, come on ... Let's call it a draw. Life is too short.
Heck, I'll even concede defeat, whatever that looks like at this point.
Interestingly, this whole go-around looks kinda like a microcosm of the whole Israel-Palestine situation. Around and around and around, bad tactics, emotional reasoning ... Hot damn, this is actually kinda cool, viewed from that perspective.
You insinuated rather clearly I'm some lunatic, paranoid, angry, delusional, overly agressive muscle flexing so and so....etc.. etc.. person.
What do you claim I've insinuated directly towards you at a personal level?
Worse?
I want to see how you come to this conclusion and where you form your basis for logic and intention on these supposedly, according to you, valid observations.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You insinuated rather clearly I'm some lunatic, paranoid, angry, delusional, overly agressive muscle flexing so and so....etc.. etc.. person.
What do you claim I've insinuated directly towards you at a personal level?
Worse?
I want to see how you come to this conclusion and where you form your basis for logic and intention on these supposedly, according to you, valid observations.
Nope, I really do concede defeat at this point. I'm done with the topic. You win.
Nope, I really do concede defeat at this point. I'm done with the topic. You win.
The problem is...nobody really won anything.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Well, in a way we both did, because the antagonistic aspects of the discussion are done. They are done because I will not be participating in said aspects.
Well, in a way we both did, because the antagonistic aspects of the discussion are done. They are done because I will not be participating in said aspects.
+1 + ( -1) = 0
edit
Oh, said aspects. Ok that makes sense.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Not true. The Zionists were never viewed as the underdog in Palestine.
Keep trying.
You are so wrong there. The country had to fight off numerous arab countries from all of its borders the day after they became an independent state! If that didn't make them underdogs I don't know what could...
'Keep Trying?' .....nice touch to a ridiculous post.
You are so wrong there. The country had to fight off numerous arab countries from all of its borders the day after they became an independent state! If that didn't make them underdogs I don't know what could...
'Keep Trying?' .....nice touch to a ridiculous post.
underdogs? they used the war as an excuse to attack egypt, to take land. and they succeeded.
You are so wrong there. The country had to fight off numerous arab countries from all of its borders the day after they became an independent state! If that didn't make them underdogs I don't know what could...
'Keep Trying?' .....nice touch to a ridiculous post.
You really need to turn off the t.v and get back to your history class.
You really need to turn off the t.v and get back to your history class.
Um, it IS true that Egypt was planning on launching a war in '67. The Israelis got wind of the plan and launched a preemptive strike. I don't think its fair to cast Egypt or Syria in any sort of victim role here ...
Um, it IS true that Egypt was planning on launching a war in '67. The Israelis got wind of the plan and launched a preemptive strike. I don't think its fair to cast Egypt or Syria in any sort of victim role here ...
He was talking about 1948 not 1967.
Still, not that any of this has any relevance to the illegal occupation and Israel's ongoing crimes against humanity, but...
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/snakebite/Wars.html
'Israel began planning the re-conquest of the Sinai soon after its forced withdrawal in 1956. In 1967, as in 1956, Israel waited for favorable circumstances to put its plan into action.
In 1967, however, Israel had a greater appreciation of the necessity and utility of a sophisticated publicity campaign, waged through the international media, to convince Western opinion that any Israeli military actions could only be construed as acts of self-defense. This publicity campaign was two-pronged: stressing that the Arabs attacked Israel and that Israel was in danger of annihilation. Both presuppositions were patently false.
In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel announced to a credulous Western world that the Egyptian Air Force had initiated hostile actions. In fact, it was the Israelis who had attacked the Egyptians and destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while its fleet was still on the ground.
General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.
The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).
Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79). Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."
Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.
The Israelis followed-up their massive retaliation with stern warnings. On 11 May 1967, General Yitzhak Rabin said on Israeli radio: "The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government" (Godfrey Jansen, "New Light on the 1967 War", Daily Star, London, 15, 22, 26 November 1973). Syria sought Egypt's assistance under their Mutual Defense Pact of November 1966. Nasser could not afford to stand idly by. He ordered the removal of the small UN force stationed in Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran. This action provided the casus belli that Israel soon invoked.
Nasser's move was a gesture of solidarity with Syria and no threat to Israel's economy or its security. The closure of the Straits did not force Israel into war. Claims of economic strangulation were absurd since only 5 percent of Israel's trade depended on free movement through the Straits of Tiran. No Israeli merchant vessel had passed through the Straits during the previous two years (Michael Howard and Robert Hunter, Israel and the Arab World: the Crisis of 1967, Adelphi Papers 41, Institute for Strategic Studies, 1967, p. 24).
In sum, the threat to Israel's survival in 1967 was non-existent. According to the British newspaper The Observer, Nasser's purpose was clearly "to deter Israel rather than provoke it to a fight" (The Observer, London, 4 June 1967).
New York Times columnist James Reston reported that "Egypt does not war [...] certainly is not ready for war" (New York Times, 4 and 5 June 1967).
The Israelis themselves were perfectly aware of this, given their sophisticated military intelligence capabilities. Later, in the first few days of the war, they were so concerned that their plans for attacking Syria would be discovered that they deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, killing 33 American sailors, in an attempt to prevent it from monitoring war preparations.
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
Israeli General Peled was even more frank: "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).
Finally, in 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war (although official Zionist propaganda in the United States still does not acknowledge this fact). Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).'
What's the serious Israel obsession on this board. I think some of you all need to try day jobs.
Why are you so bothered?
Or is that you're possibly 'Last Exodus' aka 'The Face' aka 'Groucho B'?
I remember he also had a problem with people discussing the subject of U.S tax payers paying $4 Billion a year to support a crime against humanity, and to a country which is the cause of much of the strife in the Middle East where Americans are being maimed and killed, and where there's now talk of a new war against Iran which may result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Comments
Yes ... Roland is being a detacted observer, while I continue to be a complete asshole.
hmm...straight back to personally addressing my character again in an endless loop.
you really don't seem to see it do you?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Right, and you're not suggesting anything about mine. Uh huh.
At no point in this thread has Roland addrssed my character. Never.
You shouldn't call yourself an asshole out of the blue of your own volition.. It's going to give you cancer one day.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Uh huh ... Well, this is all about me, after all.
I've stopped yet you seem to continue....now you're even addressing me by name specifically and perpetuating it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yes, exactly. I am still having this discussion, with ... You guessed it ... MYSELF!!
Mwahahahahahaha!!!
It is?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
:yawn: : picks the sleep out of his eyes :
Err, o.k. Cool.
What day is it anyway?
I think its ... Hmmm .... Yes.
And what does that mean exactly?
Explain to me specifically how I'm attacking you?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Indeed. I am working on my character flaws as we speak. Very cathartic.
That would appear to be sarcastic.. for what reason exactly at this point?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Dude, cripes, come on ... Let's call it a draw. Life is too short.
Heck, I'll even concede defeat, whatever that looks like at this point.
Interestingly, this whole go-around looks kinda like a microcosm of the whole Israel-Palestine situation. Around and around and around, bad tactics, emotional reasoning ... Hot damn, this is actually kinda cool, viewed from that perspective.
Or a ring.
I always loved that Frankie goes to Hollywood video for 'Two Tribes' when they put Reagan and Gorbachev in a boxing ring and let them slug it out.
O.k, so who wants to be Reagan, and who want's to be Gorby?
Or is that a silly question?
I think I'd have to be Reagan, no? Although I don't like the dementia connotations ...
You insinuated rather clearly I'm some lunatic, paranoid, angry, delusional, overly agressive muscle flexing so and so....etc.. etc.. person.
What do you claim I've insinuated directly towards you at a personal level?
Worse?
I want to see how you come to this conclusion and where you form your basis for logic and intention on these supposedly, according to you, valid observations.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Nope, I really do concede defeat at this point. I'm done with the topic. You win.
The problem is...nobody really won anything.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, in a way we both did, because the antagonistic aspects of the discussion are done. They are done because I will not be participating in said aspects.
+1 + ( -1) = 0
edit
Oh, said aspects. Ok that makes sense.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You are so wrong there. The country had to fight off numerous arab countries from all of its borders the day after they became an independent state! If that didn't make them underdogs I don't know what could...
'Keep Trying?' .....nice touch to a ridiculous post.
You really need to turn off the t.v and get back to your history class.
Um, it IS true that Egypt was planning on launching a war in '67. The Israelis got wind of the plan and launched a preemptive strike. I don't think its fair to cast Egypt or Syria in any sort of victim role here ...
He was talking about 1948 not 1967.
Still, not that any of this has any relevance to the illegal occupation and Israel's ongoing crimes against humanity, but...
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/snakebite/Wars.html
'Israel began planning the re-conquest of the Sinai soon after its forced withdrawal in 1956. In 1967, as in 1956, Israel waited for favorable circumstances to put its plan into action.
In 1967, however, Israel had a greater appreciation of the necessity and utility of a sophisticated publicity campaign, waged through the international media, to convince Western opinion that any Israeli military actions could only be construed as acts of self-defense. This publicity campaign was two-pronged: stressing that the Arabs attacked Israel and that Israel was in danger of annihilation. Both presuppositions were patently false.
In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel announced to a credulous Western world that the Egyptian Air Force had initiated hostile actions. In fact, it was the Israelis who had attacked the Egyptians and destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while its fleet was still on the ground.
General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.
The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).
Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79). Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."
Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.
The Israelis followed-up their massive retaliation with stern warnings. On 11 May 1967, General Yitzhak Rabin said on Israeli radio: "The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government" (Godfrey Jansen, "New Light on the 1967 War", Daily Star, London, 15, 22, 26 November 1973). Syria sought Egypt's assistance under their Mutual Defense Pact of November 1966. Nasser could not afford to stand idly by. He ordered the removal of the small UN force stationed in Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran. This action provided the casus belli that Israel soon invoked.
Nasser's move was a gesture of solidarity with Syria and no threat to Israel's economy or its security. The closure of the Straits did not force Israel into war. Claims of economic strangulation were absurd since only 5 percent of Israel's trade depended on free movement through the Straits of Tiran. No Israeli merchant vessel had passed through the Straits during the previous two years (Michael Howard and Robert Hunter, Israel and the Arab World: the Crisis of 1967, Adelphi Papers 41, Institute for Strategic Studies, 1967, p. 24).
In sum, the threat to Israel's survival in 1967 was non-existent. According to the British newspaper The Observer, Nasser's purpose was clearly "to deter Israel rather than provoke it to a fight" (The Observer, London, 4 June 1967).
New York Times columnist James Reston reported that "Egypt does not war [...] certainly is not ready for war" (New York Times, 4 and 5 June 1967).
The Israelis themselves were perfectly aware of this, given their sophisticated military intelligence capabilities. Later, in the first few days of the war, they were so concerned that their plans for attacking Syria would be discovered that they deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, killing 33 American sailors, in an attempt to prevent it from monitoring war preparations.
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
Israeli General Peled was even more frank: "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).
Finally, in 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war (although official Zionist propaganda in the United States still does not acknowledge this fact). Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).'
Why are you so bothered?
Or is that you're possibly 'Last Exodus' aka 'The Face' aka 'Groucho B'?
I remember he also had a problem with people discussing the subject of U.S tax payers paying $4 Billion a year to support a crime against humanity, and to a country which is the cause of much of the strife in the Middle East where Americans are being maimed and killed, and where there's now talk of a new war against Iran which may result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.