Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 May 2002 15:07:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1069 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > 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?
>
> The quote demonstrated:
> a) Why Israel wanted the war.
> b) How they provoked it.
Israel tricked the Syrians. Fine. The purpose was to control the Golan
Heights so as to provide a safe buffer between her and Syria. It was a
completely *defensive* strategy. Has Israel used this strategic advantage
against Syria in an offensive way? Would Syria have continued to use this land
against Israel offensively had it been allowed to retain it?
But your little story only talks about Syria. What about Egypt and Jordan?
Explain why Israel would *want* to be attacked from all borders.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> 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 USSR). When they heard that the UN was about to call for a ceasefire
> (supported by the USSR), they made a rapid advances into Jordan (the West
> Bank) and Egypt (Sinai).
Which they have returned, BTW (Sinai).
>
> Do you understand why Yom Kippur started?
Sure, to try and get their land back *and then some* (destroy Israel).
Interestingly, Sadat failed in that attack at great military cost, and yet he
was able to get all of Sinai back to Egypt at Camp David without a single shot
being fired (except, I guess, for the ones that assassinated him)
> >
> >
> > > > > > 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?
>
> Not quite John, I answered this "point" in my reply to Mike.
You stated that you believe they have the right to fight back. I'm wondering
whether you think that that right specifically includes the use of terrorism.
A simple yes or no.
Assuming you say "no", then why are you sympathizing with them? If the world
would *condemn* them and their use of terror, then they would be motivated to
change their tactics. But just the opposite is occuring. People *sympathize*
with their plight and even *admire* the extent to which they will go to "obtain
their freedom" (suicide), never once considering the ramifications (innocent
women and children murdered in such attacks). It's absolute insanity. Or it's
veiled anti-semitism. Either way, it's wrong.
And please don't bring up alleged terrorist violations of the US or Israel
anymore because all of that is irrelevant (unless you are trying to argue
somehow that 2 wrongs make a right).
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) Wrong. Read the quotes again. (...) Indeed. (...) We've covered that ground before. (...) How many years later? (...) Not quite. (...) He got it back because he *did* attack! His attack made Israel understand that they had to speak to him. (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
