Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 17:26:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
825 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > Perhaps they should never have invaded in '67?
> >
> > Well if 5 Arab armies had not attacked them they probably would not have.
>
> You should have paid more attention in history class. This is not quite true.
It was a pre-emptive strike. This does not mean that the Arabs weren't going
to attack anyway-- they were. The war was unavoidable (for Israel). Israel
wisely seized the upper hand. For you to say that they "invaded" shows that
*you* did most of the snoozing in history class.
<snip>
> > I do support Israel's right to fight back
> > though.
>
> Do the Palestinians not have the ?right to fight back??
Through the use of terror??? Please answer this specific question.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) Nite quite John. Let's just look at one front. The claimed issue for engaging Syria was that Israeli farmers were being harassed by the Syrians - they (the farmers) made a presentation to the Israeli cabinet which reportedly concluded the (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) You should have paid more attention in history class. This is not quite true. (...) Has all the land taken in '67 ever been offered back... I don't think so. (...) To a certain extent they are "oppressors". Check their human rights record! (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
