fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
Who cares...*yawn*
U.N. Mideast draft
- Thread starter Vitas
- Start date
Who cares...*yawn*
....troll, being a troll doesn't mean you actively participate in the discussions.
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
Thus, you, vitas, are a troll.
By the way, the ball is in your court if you want to contribute anything to this discussion. I've told you the situation prior to the six day war. Clearly aggressive actions on the part of Israel.
Even if Nasser didn't intend on an invasion force in the immediate future, despite having the UN forces removed,the blocking of Israel ships would have crushed the economy and caused massive shortages.
The Six Day was a preemptive strike resulting from aggressive actions.
And it's really nice when Chavez uses the same author as you did to support his argument. Noam Chomsky is a fool, a liar, and a enemy of America and Israel.
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
There more definitions listed, but there's no reason to post them all.
Thus, you, vitas, are a troll.
By the way, the ball is in your court if you want to contribute anything to this discussion. I've told you the situation prior to the six day war. Clearly aggressive actions on the part of Israel.
Even if Nasser didn't intend on an invasion force in the immediate future, despite having the UN forces removed,the blocking of Israel ships would have crushed the economy and caused massive shortages.
The Six Day was a preemptive strike resulting from aggressive actions.
And it's really nice when Chavez uses the same author as you did to support his argument. Noam Chomsky is a fool, a liar, and a enemy of America and Israel.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Under your definition, when you, and Fossten, crawled onto my thread with assertions that you are unable to substantiate, you both are trolls. Thank you for clarifying the issue.
Cf:
fossten said:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=227724#post227724
Calabrio said:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=227724#post227724
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Look who's having trouble defining words. Wanna borrow my Vitas-to-English Dictionary?
Would you like to run a poll next Vitas? That seems to be popular, who's a bigger "troll", you or I...and maybe Sparky.
Now, you've had every single issue you've brought up addressed in detail. Interestingly enough, now that you've gotten what you asked for, you fee compelled to instead focus on the "troll" issue.
The issue outstanding was your claim that the 1967 Six-Day War was an aggressive war designed by the Israelis. Unfortunately you don't elaborate and explain "why." If it had been about territory, they could have simply kept the massive expansion that resulted from the Suez Crisis, rather than going the peaceful route and having peacekeepers installed in the penisula.
Here's the reality. Egypt was engaged in hostile and aggressive behavior. They removed the UN peacekeepers from the border. They had troop build ups. They blocked shipping into Israel, which was crippling their economy and infastructure. Was Egypt going to attack immediately? Probaby not. Why? because the blockade would weaken the Israeli state without even having to fire a shot. However, another cooridnate multi-country attack Israel was coming. By destroying the Egyptian air force within the first hours of the war, Israel determined the outcome of the war and saved their cities and civilians.
Do you still maintain that the '67 was aggressive or that it was, as I have repeated ascerted, that it was defensive.
Now, you've had every single issue you've brought up addressed in detail. Interestingly enough, now that you've gotten what you asked for, you fee compelled to instead focus on the "troll" issue.
The issue outstanding was your claim that the 1967 Six-Day War was an aggressive war designed by the Israelis. Unfortunately you don't elaborate and explain "why." If it had been about territory, they could have simply kept the massive expansion that resulted from the Suez Crisis, rather than going the peaceful route and having peacekeepers installed in the penisula.
Here's the reality. Egypt was engaged in hostile and aggressive behavior. They removed the UN peacekeepers from the border. They had troop build ups. They blocked shipping into Israel, which was crippling their economy and infastructure. Was Egypt going to attack immediately? Probaby not. Why? because the blockade would weaken the Israeli state without even having to fire a shot. However, another cooridnate multi-country attack Israel was coming. By destroying the Egyptian air force within the first hours of the war, Israel determined the outcome of the war and saved their cities and civilians.
Do you still maintain that the '67 was aggressive or that it was, as I have repeated ascerted, that it was defensive.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Hey, bud, in case you didn't realize you're probably casting your pearls before swine, I think we should institute a "Don't feed the trolls" policy.
What do you think?
You can either not deprive the trolls or you can drown them.
And Vitas doesn't want to address the aggressive actions of the Egyptians prior to the Six Day War, he can comment on the failure that is become the ineffectual, short term false 'peace' put into place by the UN a month ago.
Perhaps he's still looking for a "www.crazylunatic.com" website to find a Noam Chomsky quote to stomp us all.
U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil
NY TIMES
September 25, 2006
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TIBNIN, Lebanon, Sept. 24 — One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.
They say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it. They cannot do any of this, they say, because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese Army.
The job of the United Nations force, and commanders in the field repeat this like a mantra, is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese Army. They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.
The Security Council resolution, known as 1701, was seen at the time as the best way to halt the war, partly by giving Israel assurances that Lebanon’s southern border would be policed by a robust international force to prevent Hezbollah militants from attacking. When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force’s deployment would help “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.”
But the resolution’s diplomatic language skirted a fundamental question: what kind of policing power would be given to the international force? The resolution leaves open the possibility that the Lebanese Army would grant such policing power, but the force’s commanders say that so far, at least, that has not happened.
“There’s a lot of misunderstanding what we are doing here,” said Lt. Col. Stefano Cappellaro, an Italian commander with the San Marco Regiment.
The force, known as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, now has 5,000 troops on the ground, including 1,000 from Italy, and is stepping gently as it tries to carve out a role in a country that is feeling its way through the postwar period. It is early in the United Nations mission, but officials say that their most difficult task, and one they are adamant about achieving, is not being drawn into any power struggles between the religious and political factions in Lebanon. “We will not get involved in any domestic or regional politics,’’ said Milos Strugar, senior adviser to the force.
The force is larger and better equipped than an earlier Unifil contingent, which has been on the border with Israel for years. But at the moment, the Lebanese government and the United Nations have a similar agenda in trying to win the trust of the Lebanese people and not have the force become a tool of political factions looking to incite domestic conflict. The goal is to be viewed as a peacekeeping force, not an occupier.
So while there may have been some expectation that the international force would disarm or restrain Hezbollah, or search for hidden weapons caches, the commanders on the ground say very clearly that those tasks are not their job for now. “We will advise, help and assist the Lebanese forces,” said Col. Rosario Walter Guerrisi, commander of the San Marco Regiment, referring to the Lebanese Army.
But the challenges facing their determined neutrality are significant and often beyond their control. In Syria, for example, President Bashar al-Assad was reported in the Lebanese news media to have told a visiting Lebanese delegation that the strengthened United Nations force, with its heavy European contingent, resembled a force from NATO. In Lebanon, the United Nations force found its credibility questioned when German officials said that their country would contribute to the naval patrols off the coast of Lebanon as a means to protect Israel.
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has also questioned the purpose of the expanded force.
“Thus far, I have not heard any country participating in the Unifil say that it sent its sons and soldiers to defend Lebanon and the Lebanese,” he said in a speech Friday before hundreds of thousands of his supporters. “They are ashamed of us, brothers and sisters. They are ashamed of saying they came to defend us, but they talk about defending Israel.”
Hezbollah has so far acted in accordance with the cease-fire terms of 1701, which prohibits the deployment of weapons south of the Litani River, close to the Israeli border.
When the United Nations Security Council passed 1701, which set up the cease-fire, it outlined basic principles with few specifics. One of those principles was that militias were to be disarmed in compliance with earlier agreements and resolutions. It did not say, though, that the United Nations force would carry that out.
Hezbollah, the only militia that did not lay down its weapons after the Lebanese civil war ended, has made it clear that it is not going to surrender those weapons now. And Sheik Nasrallah made it clear that the international forces had better not even think about trying.
In Israel, skepticism about the effectiveness of the enlarged United Nations force has always been high, particularly about disarming Hezbollah or enforcing the arms embargo on it. Israeli military officials have said that if they find evidence that trucks from Syria are resupplying rockets and launchers to Hezbollah, Israel will be justified in bombing those trucks. Israel also notes that Unifil is barely 5,000 troops now, just 3,000 more than the old Unifil, still a long way from the 15,000 foreseen in the U.N. resolution.
The United Nations officials here say their primary duty, and the one that carries the most long-term benefits for both sides, is to help strengthen the Lebanese Army. At the moment, officials say the first priority is to make sure that all of the Israeli Defense Forces withdraw from land occupied during the war. United Nations officials said the process should be completed by the end of the month. The process involves weekly meetings along the border to set up a schedule that allows Israel to withdraw and the United Nations forces to move in, followed by the Lebanese forces. So far 85 percent of Israel’s forces have withdrawn, the United Nations said.
The formula for ending the war was also contingent on the state’s asserting its authority in the south, primarily by dispatching 15,000 Lebanese troops to the area. The resolution called for the Lebanese Army to be supplemented by up to 15,000 foreign troops. Officials say that the ultimate size of the foreign force will be determined based on need — and one United Nations adviser said that meant it was unlikely the number of troops would ever exceed 10,000.
But however large the force, its officers said it would never be large enough if the population began to view it as an occupying force. The United Nations first set up an international force here in 1976, and so the people of the region are accustomed to seeing foreign troops in the blue berets of the United Nations.
But the new troops have stepped into Lebanon at a particularly tense time, as Hezbollah and the American-supported government are jockeying for position and power. If the Lebanese government did decide to expand the responsibilities of the troops now, they would risk turning them into targets of attack. These forces are much better equipped than past forces, and that has people a bit nervous about their mission.
“If these troops are going to clash with the resistance, they are going to clash with the people,” said Abu Rowda Noureddin, 64, as he collected free blankets and food supplies from the Red Crescent Society. He lives in the village of Burj Qalawiyah, a community of just 1,000 year-round residents in southern Lebanon that took heavy fire from Israeli jets.
The village is about 70 miles from Beirut and a short drive from a base staffed by Italian forces. Like most residents of neighboring villages, the people were essentially ignored by their government for many years. There is one school, no high school and few jobs. Villagers said that five times since 1972 the Israeli military had invaded their village, and so even those who said they did not count themselves as Hezbollah members said they counted themselves as Hezbollah supporters.
“The people here will fight against anybody who tries with force to take Hezbollah’s weapons away,’’ said Ibrahim Noureddin, another villager.
Up the hill, past houses pocked by shrapnel, the mukhtar, a kind of village administrator, was busy taking an inventory of the damage to crops and olive and fruit trees. He said that the Italian forces recently gave his community $3,000 to buy aluminum and glass to repair the school, which was damaged in an Israeli raid. “It was a very nice gesture on the part of the Italians,” he said.
But like everyone else, he said that for the forces to remain welcome they must demonstrate they are there to protect the Lebanese from Israel — not to police the Lebanese on behalf of Israel.
Not far away, on a busy road heading toward Beirut, Colonel Cappellaro stood beside two armored personnel carriers and 11 of his soldiers as cars sped by. He said that they were conducting a “static point,” as opposed to a checkpoint. If they saw anything suspicious they would notify the Lebanese Army. But the Lebanese Army was a good way up the road. At this point, he said, it would be impossible for the two forces to actually staff a check point together.
“When you don’t know each other’s procedures, you can not overlap,” he said before climbing into his jeep and driving off.
And Vitas doesn't want to address the aggressive actions of the Egyptians prior to the Six Day War, he can comment on the failure that is become the ineffectual, short term false 'peace' put into place by the UN a month ago.
Perhaps he's still looking for a "www.crazylunatic.com" website to find a Noam Chomsky quote to stomp us all.
U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil
NY TIMES
September 25, 2006
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TIBNIN, Lebanon, Sept. 24 — One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.
They say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it. They cannot do any of this, they say, because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese Army.
The job of the United Nations force, and commanders in the field repeat this like a mantra, is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese Army. They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.
The Security Council resolution, known as 1701, was seen at the time as the best way to halt the war, partly by giving Israel assurances that Lebanon’s southern border would be policed by a robust international force to prevent Hezbollah militants from attacking. When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force’s deployment would help “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.”
But the resolution’s diplomatic language skirted a fundamental question: what kind of policing power would be given to the international force? The resolution leaves open the possibility that the Lebanese Army would grant such policing power, but the force’s commanders say that so far, at least, that has not happened.
“There’s a lot of misunderstanding what we are doing here,” said Lt. Col. Stefano Cappellaro, an Italian commander with the San Marco Regiment.
The force, known as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, now has 5,000 troops on the ground, including 1,000 from Italy, and is stepping gently as it tries to carve out a role in a country that is feeling its way through the postwar period. It is early in the United Nations mission, but officials say that their most difficult task, and one they are adamant about achieving, is not being drawn into any power struggles between the religious and political factions in Lebanon. “We will not get involved in any domestic or regional politics,’’ said Milos Strugar, senior adviser to the force.
The force is larger and better equipped than an earlier Unifil contingent, which has been on the border with Israel for years. But at the moment, the Lebanese government and the United Nations have a similar agenda in trying to win the trust of the Lebanese people and not have the force become a tool of political factions looking to incite domestic conflict. The goal is to be viewed as a peacekeeping force, not an occupier.
So while there may have been some expectation that the international force would disarm or restrain Hezbollah, or search for hidden weapons caches, the commanders on the ground say very clearly that those tasks are not their job for now. “We will advise, help and assist the Lebanese forces,” said Col. Rosario Walter Guerrisi, commander of the San Marco Regiment, referring to the Lebanese Army.
But the challenges facing their determined neutrality are significant and often beyond their control. In Syria, for example, President Bashar al-Assad was reported in the Lebanese news media to have told a visiting Lebanese delegation that the strengthened United Nations force, with its heavy European contingent, resembled a force from NATO. In Lebanon, the United Nations force found its credibility questioned when German officials said that their country would contribute to the naval patrols off the coast of Lebanon as a means to protect Israel.
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has also questioned the purpose of the expanded force.
“Thus far, I have not heard any country participating in the Unifil say that it sent its sons and soldiers to defend Lebanon and the Lebanese,” he said in a speech Friday before hundreds of thousands of his supporters. “They are ashamed of us, brothers and sisters. They are ashamed of saying they came to defend us, but they talk about defending Israel.”
Hezbollah has so far acted in accordance with the cease-fire terms of 1701, which prohibits the deployment of weapons south of the Litani River, close to the Israeli border.
When the United Nations Security Council passed 1701, which set up the cease-fire, it outlined basic principles with few specifics. One of those principles was that militias were to be disarmed in compliance with earlier agreements and resolutions. It did not say, though, that the United Nations force would carry that out.
Hezbollah, the only militia that did not lay down its weapons after the Lebanese civil war ended, has made it clear that it is not going to surrender those weapons now. And Sheik Nasrallah made it clear that the international forces had better not even think about trying.
In Israel, skepticism about the effectiveness of the enlarged United Nations force has always been high, particularly about disarming Hezbollah or enforcing the arms embargo on it. Israeli military officials have said that if they find evidence that trucks from Syria are resupplying rockets and launchers to Hezbollah, Israel will be justified in bombing those trucks. Israel also notes that Unifil is barely 5,000 troops now, just 3,000 more than the old Unifil, still a long way from the 15,000 foreseen in the U.N. resolution.
The United Nations officials here say their primary duty, and the one that carries the most long-term benefits for both sides, is to help strengthen the Lebanese Army. At the moment, officials say the first priority is to make sure that all of the Israeli Defense Forces withdraw from land occupied during the war. United Nations officials said the process should be completed by the end of the month. The process involves weekly meetings along the border to set up a schedule that allows Israel to withdraw and the United Nations forces to move in, followed by the Lebanese forces. So far 85 percent of Israel’s forces have withdrawn, the United Nations said.
The formula for ending the war was also contingent on the state’s asserting its authority in the south, primarily by dispatching 15,000 Lebanese troops to the area. The resolution called for the Lebanese Army to be supplemented by up to 15,000 foreign troops. Officials say that the ultimate size of the foreign force will be determined based on need — and one United Nations adviser said that meant it was unlikely the number of troops would ever exceed 10,000.
But however large the force, its officers said it would never be large enough if the population began to view it as an occupying force. The United Nations first set up an international force here in 1976, and so the people of the region are accustomed to seeing foreign troops in the blue berets of the United Nations.
But the new troops have stepped into Lebanon at a particularly tense time, as Hezbollah and the American-supported government are jockeying for position and power. If the Lebanese government did decide to expand the responsibilities of the troops now, they would risk turning them into targets of attack. These forces are much better equipped than past forces, and that has people a bit nervous about their mission.
“If these troops are going to clash with the resistance, they are going to clash with the people,” said Abu Rowda Noureddin, 64, as he collected free blankets and food supplies from the Red Crescent Society. He lives in the village of Burj Qalawiyah, a community of just 1,000 year-round residents in southern Lebanon that took heavy fire from Israeli jets.
The village is about 70 miles from Beirut and a short drive from a base staffed by Italian forces. Like most residents of neighboring villages, the people were essentially ignored by their government for many years. There is one school, no high school and few jobs. Villagers said that five times since 1972 the Israeli military had invaded their village, and so even those who said they did not count themselves as Hezbollah members said they counted themselves as Hezbollah supporters.
“The people here will fight against anybody who tries with force to take Hezbollah’s weapons away,’’ said Ibrahim Noureddin, another villager.
Up the hill, past houses pocked by shrapnel, the mukhtar, a kind of village administrator, was busy taking an inventory of the damage to crops and olive and fruit trees. He said that the Italian forces recently gave his community $3,000 to buy aluminum and glass to repair the school, which was damaged in an Israeli raid. “It was a very nice gesture on the part of the Italians,” he said.
But like everyone else, he said that for the forces to remain welcome they must demonstrate they are there to protect the Lebanese from Israel — not to police the Lebanese on behalf of Israel.
Not far away, on a busy road heading toward Beirut, Colonel Cappellaro stood beside two armored personnel carriers and 11 of his soldiers as cars sped by. He said that they were conducting a “static point,” as opposed to a checkpoint. If they saw anything suspicious they would notify the Lebanese Army. But the Lebanese Army was a good way up the road. At this point, he said, it would be impossible for the two forces to actually staff a check point together.
“When you don’t know each other’s procedures, you can not overlap,” he said before climbing into his jeep and driving off.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Yeah, I'm still waiting to be 'flattened' in THIS thread.
Vitas: Would you like me to flatten you around midweek?
Me: Go for it, big boy.
Vitas: You are now flattened.
Vitas: See how I flattened you in the above statement?
It's been a few pages since he's responded to anything on topic. And it's been weeks since he's even cut and paste an argument.
So, you either starve him or drown him. When confronted, you might notice he's not nearly as bold. Besides a few defensive attempts to use the "rubber/glue" defense- he's been pretty subdued. When you ignore him, he seems compelled to act up. He must confuse being ignored with being intimidated by.
So VITAS-
This thread demonstrates your lack of understanding on many levels. First, regarding the failed UN resolution that the Europeans have failed to fufill and can't be enforced. And after that, you're claim that the Israelis were acting purely aggressively at the start of the Six Day War.
When ever you're ready to respond, I'm sure someone will be around, waiting to correct and explain things to you.
So, you either starve him or drown him. When confronted, you might notice he's not nearly as bold. Besides a few defensive attempts to use the "rubber/glue" defense- he's been pretty subdued. When you ignore him, he seems compelled to act up. He must confuse being ignored with being intimidated by.
So VITAS-
This thread demonstrates your lack of understanding on many levels. First, regarding the failed UN resolution that the Europeans have failed to fufill and can't be enforced. And after that, you're claim that the Israelis were acting purely aggressively at the start of the Six Day War.
When ever you're ready to respond, I'm sure someone will be around, waiting to correct and explain things to you.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
And finally, your lack of understanding of the English language.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
I never made that claim, but since YOU bring it up, PROBABLY it is true.
What I said is:
1: That the war needs to be stopped now, for obvious reasons
2: The parties need to negotiatiate
3. BOTH parties have UNCLEAN hands.
You both tried to prove me wrong. So far you are both spinning around, with your heads ready to spin apart. Prove where I am wrong, dudettes.
I will return here after mid-October.
Vitas said:
You seem to have no grasp of reality. No one is spinning around, no one appears to have changed their positions in anyway. You can continue to lie to yourself but that doesn't strengthen your arguments. If anything, it only makes us question your emotional stability.
After all this time, that was the response you constructed? That was pathetic and it hardly constitute a face saving measure on your part. Of course, saving face must not be an issue with you given the lack of respect and credibility you've earned.
"The war needed to be stopped." With a false peace? The terms of the peace treaty are already not being fulfilled. The European peace keepers aren't coming, Hezbollah IS NOT going to disarm, and the UN will not be disarming those terrorists either. The issue wasn't "whether we want peace," the issue is that a false peace was thrust upon the Israelis. A false peace usually leads to more intense violence at a later date.
You said the parties needed to negotiate. Well, that didn't happen. Hezbollah hasn't negotiated with Israel. They haven't reached a compromise. Hezbollah wasn't disarmed. And right now there are only about 5k peace keepers, NOT 15k. For the record, before the cease fire, there were about 3k UN reps there. So, Hezbollah is simply rearming and celebrating their "victory" after standing up to the Israeli army. Now we have emboldened terrorists with a new fundraising PR victory. Good job!
And you end with saying both parties have unclean hands. This statement has no meaning, but it doesn't matter. Hezbollah doesn't have a legit grievance with Israel. Nor can they be negotiatied with in good faith. They are not interested in co-existing with the Israelis. The destruction of the Jewish state is at the foundation of their existance, it's at the core.
Further more
You DID claim that the '67 war was offensive. I have CLEARLY demonstrated how wrong you were.
See you next month... perhaps in time you'll get better at this. You're all bravado without anything to back it up with.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Looking forward to it. Are you going to continue to call me "names" as others have claimed, when you cannot substantiate your
P-R-O-P-O-G-A-N-D-A? Wanna play Hard Ball?
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?
“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...
Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html#1967
You tell us.
Vitas said:
You're the guy swinging and missing, not me.
If you had something to ad, you'd have done so over the past month. The fact is, you're all bark. You seem to think that bravado is the same as actually having an argument.
Make your case or just let the thread fall from the front page.
Prove me wrong.
Tell me where I'm repeating "propoganda."
I challenge you. I encourage you try.
Enlighten me, you belligerent antagonist.
Even the back-pedalling post you made earlier tonights doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of reality.
You threaten to play hard ball but apparently you don't have the balls carry through with it. And try you're intimidation crap somewhere else, with someone else. It won't work.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Vitas said:
Here you go, sunny.
Vitas said:
You've posted that before. I've thoroughly address that post already.
I then explained the ENTIRE situation, not some crap pulled off a kook website. As if the lame website wasn't discrediting enough, you make it even worse by quoting Noam Chomsky.
You are not posting an arugment. First of all, you're posting opinions. Second, they have no context.
You must stink of desperation right now. Stop embarrassing yourself.
If you want to continue to play, you'll probably have to read the actual HISTORY of that conflict. Even better, you can try to do what I've done, actually study the history of the region.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Clear LINK, please.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
NO LINK? You even cannot substantiate your own claim?
You lose.
ROFLMAO
Vitas said:
Strke three, Vitas.
Maybe you're better suited to play whiffle ball?
What "claim" am I not substantiating?
I haven't stated anything that was subjective.
The history of the 1967 Six Day War is established history. You can find it in any encyclopedia or any book on the region. I have several on hand, if you'd like some suggested readings I can list some. Unfortunately for you, none of them are picture books, so you may have some trouble reading them.
The status of the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon is fact, not opinion.
Make your case, Vitas, or go on your way.
If I've said anything that is unsupported by reality, it should be easy to prove. And you shouldn't have to quote a known liar like Noam Chomsky to do so.
And if there's a specific FACT that you disagree with, show me where I'm wrong.
ADDITIONAL POINT: This is a debate, not a test of google efficiency. I don't NEED to find kook websites to support my positions, as you apparently need to. I've actually already studied these things. I KNOW the history of the six day war. I know the history of the Suez Crisis, of the Yom Kippur War, ect. I don't need to research it in order to have a conversation with you. Clearly, you have no such background in international affairs. You're desire to use my familiarity with the subject, and my lack of reliance on fringe internet websites as a way of discrediting me is absolutely foolish. Perhaps if you were a little better read you wouldn't have to resort to linking to kook websites in order to prop up your claims.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Did Israel "attack" in 1967. You have acknowledged that they did.
Did Israel occupy Palesestine in 1967?
Did Israel ever attack lands to secure a water supply. Yes or no?
My statement IS that both parties have unclean hands.
Do a Google on how many times Israel has attacked. My very dear Jewish friend laughs at your immature theories.
Vitas, do you figure if you throw enough stuff against the wall something will stick?
You started this thread in support of the false peace brought about by the UN.
My case has been made, repeatedly. You're inability to respond can only be taken as evidence you recognize this.
Every point you have made has been discredited.
Where as EVERYTHING I have said I has been supported with facts.
I'll give you one more opportunity, otherwise I'll request that this thread just be locked. It's a waste of time, you have nothing to offer.
Either state your position and then support it. Not with crazy links but with reason and facts.
Or state, SPECIFICALLY, what I have said that is incorrect and then correct it.
You're last post is irrelevant and I'm not going to go chasing every whiffle ball you come up with.
You started this thread in support of the false peace brought about by the UN.
My case has been made, repeatedly. You're inability to respond can only be taken as evidence you recognize this.
Every point you have made has been discredited.
Where as EVERYTHING I have said I has been supported with facts.
I'll give you one more opportunity, otherwise I'll request that this thread just be locked. It's a waste of time, you have nothing to offer.
Either state your position and then support it. Not with crazy links but with reason and facts.
Or state, SPECIFICALLY, what I have said that is incorrect and then correct it.
You're last post is irrelevant and I'm not going to go chasing every whiffle ball you come up with.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
1,2,3...
1: That the war needs to be stopped now, for obvious reasons
2: The parties need to negotiatiate
3. BOTH parties have UNCLEAN hands.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
oh, geez, louise
Oh, geez, louise:
negotiate
cut
;
Oh, geez, louise:
negotiate
cut
;