Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 May 2002 16:31:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
871 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Nite quite John. Let's just look at one front.
<snip long quote which you have *already* offered elsewhere which I can't find
relevant>
Just answer this question "yes" or "no": Would the Arabs have invaded Israel
if they hadn't acted first?
> > For you to say that they "invaded" shows that
> > *you* did most of the snoozing in history class.
>
> lol How would you describe the theft of land by an army when the battle was
> mostly over?
"Mostly over"? It's never "over" for the Arabs. They proved that 6 years
later on Yom Kippur.
> > > > 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.
???..Is this the sound of squirming silence?
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) The quote demonstrated: a) Why Israel wanted the war. b) How they provoked it. (...) The battle was "mostly over". Israel was reluctant to advance substantially into Arab territory as they feared a counter attack by external powers (i.e. the (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
