Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 May 2002 16:23:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
840 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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.
Wrong. Read the quotes again.
> 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.
Indeed.
> What about Egypt and Jordan?
> Explain why Israel would *want* to be attacked from all borders.
We've covered that ground before.
> >
> > >
> > > > > 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).
How many years later?
> >
> > Do you understand why Yom Kippur started?
>
> Sure, to try and get their land back *and then some* (destroy Israel).
Not quite.
>
> 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)
He got it back because he *did* attack! His attack made Israel understand
that they had to speak to him. Understand that much.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > 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.
How many times have you asked me that? I don't support terrorism.
>
> Assuming you say "no", then why are you sympathizing with them?
Because they are an oppressed people? Because international law is on their
side?
> 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.
Be careful John. The world does condemn terrorism. The world does sympathize
with the oppressed in Palestine. The world does sympathize with civilians
killed needlessly. These things are not incompatible. Condemning the methods
used by Israel does not make anyone anti-Semitic, it makes them pro-freedom.
Understand the (stark) difference!
Is your anti-Palestinian viewpoint any better that that of a anti-Semite?
>
> 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).
You say "alleged". Do you claim that these countries have not supported
terrorism?
Scott A
>
> -John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
