Discussion
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Ukraine does not have nukes, how is that relevant ?
So you need buffer zones in case of strategic full scale conventional attack, coming from some undetermined location, but not Gaza, even if they are 25 miles away.
The attackers will not plan to win the war, because if they do, Israel will nuke them. Thus you need buffer zones.
No comment.
Look we are going round in circles here. It isn't an undetermined location, I have said as per 73! If Israel gave everything back then YES it would come from 25 miles away! And why would you attack if you don't plan to win! It is widely believe that Israel had nukes in 1969, they certainly had the ability for a "dirty bomb" in 1963. However they didn't use either in 67 or 73. So you need buffer zones in case of strategic full scale conventional attack, coming from some undetermined location, but not Gaza, even if they are 25 miles away.
The attackers will not plan to win the war, because if they do, Israel will nuke them. Thus you need buffer zones.
No comment.
I am going to leave it there. You wont be convinced and to be honest you seemed a little to wrapped up in "land grabs" and recent events to see what I am saying.
Grumfutock said:
Look we are going round in circles here. It isn't an undetermined location, I have said as per 73! If Israel gave everything back then YES it would come from 25 miles away! And why would you attack if you don't plan to win! It is widely believe that Israel had nukes in 1969, they certainly had the ability for a "dirty bomb" in 1963. However they didn't use either in 67 or 73.
I am going to leave it there. You wont be convinced and to be honest you seemed a little to wrapped up in "land grabs" and recent events to see what I am saying.
I can see what you are saying but it is illogical and rambling. I will leave it there. I am going to leave it there. You wont be convinced and to be honest you seemed a little to wrapped up in "land grabs" and recent events to see what I am saying.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumfutock said:
Look we are going round in circles here. It isn't an undetermined location, I have said as per 73! If Israel gave everything back then YES it would come from 25 miles away! And why would you attack if you don't plan to win! It is widely believe that Israel had nukes in 1969, they certainly had the ability for a "dirty bomb" in 1963. However they didn't use either in 67 or 73.
I am going to leave it there. You wont be convinced and to be honest you seemed a little to wrapped up in "land grabs" and recent events to see what I am saying.
I can see what you are saying but it is illogical and rambling. I will leave it there. I am going to leave it there. You wont be convinced and to be honest you seemed a little to wrapped up in "land grabs" and recent events to see what I am saying.
enioldjoe said:
But you continue to bang this very one sided drum ( it seems to be a favourite comment), pointing the finger at Israel' s fault in this and yet fail to admit what's really going on with Fatah 
. Do *you* accept there are these strategic goals on both sides with this issue?
(I don't deny that what Mr Net has said true.)
Fatah have recognised Israel's right to exist. Fatah have accepted a 2-state solution. Fatah have accepted all the per conditions that Israel placed on them for peace talks. In return Israel have continued expanding the current Settlements and building new ones.. Do *you* accept there are these strategic goals on both sides with this issue?(I don't deny that what Mr Net has said true.)
That is primarily why I think Israel carries most of the blame.
Grumfutock said:
Of course not. As we were discussing the Arab world and history I would think that it is obvious where it might come from. You are the one that has ruled out another Arab massing, not I.
Once again I will ask the question, having been bitten 3 times do you honestly think Israel will take the chance?
Which is a bit like saying we were attacked twice by Germany. Therefore it's in our long term interests to continue occupying Germany. And honestly it's really really not because we are trying to annexe Germany because we think ahold gave it to us, it's for "strategic military reasons"Once again I will ask the question, having been bitten 3 times do you honestly think Israel will take the chance?
Israel is far far stronger now (in comparison to its neighbours) than it was in '73 or '67. Suggesting it "needs" to occupy the WB for military reasons is balderdash.
Alpinestars said:
Countdown said:
Buffer zones. Alpinestars said:
Countdown said:
Buffer zones. The buffer zones will provide time for the Israeli military to prevent that situation happening by trading homes, people and some dodgy kebab stalls, for time.
The settlers, handily being close by, will also help by throwing themselves onto the enemy's tanks as a sort of biological anti-reactive armour tactic.
The IDF regularly lose the keys to the nuclear launch suitcase, (using a Toyota keyring does not help) so this will buy time to find the keys.
Clever bunch these Israelis.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 23:11
Countdown said:
Alpinestars said:
Countdown said:
Buffer zones. TheRealFingers99 said:
allnighter said:
sreal wants to be left in peace to get on with its expansionist policy and lead a quiet life in grabbing more land for itself.As Bjork's song goes....sssshhhhh!
I think you missed the [irony][/irony] tags! Anyway, Bjork is surely an Icelander, not an Israeli?
Is she? That renders my comment totally irrelevant now and off topic! damn.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Are these just sound bites I wonder? Perceptions of the U.S are shaped by the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. How can the U.S be seen as the 'honest broker' when they are arming Israel with the very weapons that kill and maim Palestinian civilians? Surely this negative perception is playing in the hands of extremism in the whole region.This has clear implications for U.S. engagement in the region and beyond when there is a clear lack of leadership in M.E peace efforts. The U.S is being watched by both its allies and its foes who are judging America's credibility in the foregn policy arena.
The longer the Israeli-Palestnian conflict goes on the less relevant the U.S are perceived by everyone whether friends or enemies.
JP quotes former US special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Martin Indyk: “It’s very hard to make the argument that America now has a strategic interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” here.
Maybe Clinton will have the [metaphor]balls[/metaphor] to put the pressure on.
Maybe Clinton will have the [metaphor]balls[/metaphor] to put the pressure on.
So allnighter, 3 more pages go by and it has been a complete day since your lies and my challenge for you to prove it. I suggested that you put up or shut up. You have managed to post in that time, drivel and childish comments, so you are on here and active.
I assume from your lack of posting said evidence of my alleged meme that you are wrong and you lied.
Nice to know the sort of chap I am dealing with.
I assume from your lack of posting said evidence of my alleged meme that you are wrong and you lied.
Nice to know the sort of chap I am dealing with.
Edited by Grumfutock on Monday 1st September 06:38
Grumfutock - I think you should let it go...
Anyway, http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/bibi-enough-i-beg-y...
Anyway, http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/bibi-enough-i-beg-y...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff