Discussion
Guam said:
So the same guys accusing Israelis of being Racist seem to find racism attractive from the other perspective.
This is an absolute disgrace, surely in this country we can have conflicting views without resorting to this despicable behaviour?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/507000/David-Came...
I'm not sure about the first line. This is an absolute disgrace, surely in this country we can have conflicting views without resorting to this despicable behaviour?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/507000/David-Came...
Otherwise, I agree.
If you look at the history of the idea of anti-semitism (let alone the logical meaning) it was first applied to both Jews and Arabs, before being used exclusively against Jews.
It's clearly barking mad to hate people because of an accident of birth, something over which no-one has any control, but we see it a lot on Pistonheads.
Grumfutock said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
What right to exist?
Israel is, and was, an illegal state.
So the state of Israel is illegal? That makes certain points of view way clearer!Israel is, and was, an illegal state.
It is obvious that this topic has run it's course and there is little to be gained going round in circles.
Fingers99 has revealed his take on the subject of Israel's "right to exist" prior to his recent post and comes as no surprise to me.
Grumfutock said:
Oh now your are arguing over a mere technicality! Apart from 2 battalions of infantry from the UK (which only arrived after half the battle was done) it was entirely and utterly the Americans!
So again, a crap rebuttal and I rebuff your rebuff with knobs on!
It was only the UK and the USA? You might want to tell the Canadians, South Africans, Australians, Turkish, Ethiopian, Philippine amongst others, that they were not there. In fact, the largest contingent of forces were not even American, strange that.So again, a crap rebuttal and I rebuff your rebuff with knobs on!
For a professed ex-military man, you seem to have a poor grasp of military history.
is this thread still going?
have there been any IDF beheadings?
and more genocide committed on the poor palestinians?
All I see is the apologists now trying to re-write history for the N'th time.
to use an very over-used term, until the palestinian terrorists either die or give up, the palestinians are going to suffer, however, maybe they should count themselves lucky that Israel is not ISIS.
at the end of the day, the solution to the palestinian issue is in the hands of the palestinians, until they grow up and start acting like 21 century people, they will continue to live in s
t-holes and die martyring themselves.
have there been any IDF beheadings?
and more genocide committed on the poor palestinians?
All I see is the apologists now trying to re-write history for the N'th time.
to use an very over-used term, until the palestinian terrorists either die or give up, the palestinians are going to suffer, however, maybe they should count themselves lucky that Israel is not ISIS.
at the end of the day, the solution to the palestinian issue is in the hands of the palestinians, until they grow up and start acting like 21 century people, they will continue to live in s
t-holes and die martyring themselves.QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumfutock said:
Oh now your are arguing over a mere technicality! Apart from 2 battalions of infantry from the UK (which only arrived after half the battle was done) it was entirely and utterly the Americans!
So again, a crap rebuttal and I rebuff your rebuff with knobs on!
It was only the UK and the USA? You might want to tell the Canadians, South Africans, Australians, Turkish, Ethiopian, Philippine amongst others, that they were not there. In fact, the largest contingent of forces were not even American, strange that.So again, a crap rebuttal and I rebuff your rebuff with knobs on!
For a professed ex-military man, you seem to have a poor grasp of military history.
In Pusan there were the obvious ROK units and US 8th Army. That's it, no more, no less, nobody else, that's your lot.com! As I mentioned 2 Bn from the British 27th Bde arrived later in the battle.No Canadians, No South Africans, No Australians, No Turks, No Ethiopians, No Philippines and No anyone else.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to post the unit names of this vast UN formation as I am just a silly ex soldier with a very poor grasp of military history.
Grumfutock said:
So let me try to clarify your post!
So you are saying, in all seriousness, that when a nation detects troops massing from 3 enemy countries, who all border your nation and you have recent history of attacking you, that you are NOT justified in launching a preemptive strike????
You are also saying it is garbage that when analyzing history that you don't look at events and to understand why decisions were made they look at the information known to that person at that time and gauge them in the context of that time, not some paper written 40 years after the event????
Is that correct?
I am saying a country with an effective intelligence gathering can tell if the massing of troops' stance and formation was in an attacking mode or a defensive one. In actual facts the motives behind the attack on Egypt were totally different to what was conveyed to the public.So you are saying, in all seriousness, that when a nation detects troops massing from 3 enemy countries, who all border your nation and you have recent history of attacking you, that you are NOT justified in launching a preemptive strike????
You are also saying it is garbage that when analyzing history that you don't look at events and to understand why decisions were made they look at the information known to that person at that time and gauge them in the context of that time, not some paper written 40 years after the event????
Is that correct?
The USSR was supplying Israel's neighbours with arms and this was not acceptable to a country which saw itself as a powerful new kid on the block. Israel had to affirm its position in the region as a powerful force and one way of doing it is destroying the military capabilities of your neighbours.
The USSR was playing a daring chess game with the USA in disclosing false intelligence to its Arab allies(in the the red corner) about an impending attack by Israel, and in a blue corner was a U.S. supplied and funded fighter eager to engage his opponents, only his official promoter was too busy with the Vietnam war and was late for the fight.
Meanwhile in the ring, Israel, a fighter full of confidence from previous successes, and eager to engage, took a decision to attack and give his opponent a bloody nose while he's still sitting on his corner. Afterwards, in the press conference, the same powerful fighter announces to the press that he feared for his life and his existence and that's the main reason why he hit his opponent before the official bell rang. To any reasonable person this smack of horse manure.
The above was confirmed by previous Israeli leaders whom I linked to in my previous posts, and also by Major General Mattityahu Peled, the chief of logistics for the armed forces during the war who said the "survival" argument was:
"a bluff which was born and developed only after the war ... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today." Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)." Link
Grumfutock said:
allnighter said:
Israel was hardly the 'underdog' that you are trying to portray it to have been, otherwise why did it not allow the UN on its side of the border if it feared the 'numerical disadvantage' as you put it and had borders which were weakly defended? Can you answer that very question?
Yep, real easy! The IDF, during peace time, numbered 50,000 so yes, they did have a numerical disadvantage and weakly defended borders. Even when they mobilized and were a full war fighting strength they were out numbered 2-1.perhaps you can explain to me how 50,000 regular troops defend a border, sorry 3 borders, long term, against 250,000 regular troops? They cant! Only answer is to mobilize your reservists. You cant do that long term as they are vital to civilian life.
Grumfutock said:
Oh dear. In Pusan there were the obvious ROK units and US 8th Army. That's it, no more, no less, nobody else, that's your lot.com! As I mentioned 2 Bn from the British 27th Bde arrived later in the battle.
No Canadians, No South Africans, No Australians, No Turks, No Ethiopians, No Philippines and No anyone else.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to post the unit names of this vast UN formation as I am just a silly ex soldier with a very poor grasp of military history.
Slipperier than than slippery thing, slipping on a slippery slip. In Pusan there were the obvious ROK units and US 8th Army. That's it, no more, no less, nobody else, that's your lot.com! As I mentioned 2 Bn from the British 27th Bde arrived later in the battle.No Canadians, No South Africans, No Australians, No Turks, No Ethiopians, No Philippines and No anyone else.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to post the unit names of this vast UN formation as I am just a silly ex soldier with a very poor grasp of military history.
Grumfutock said:
TBH nighter, I cant be bothered to argue over how you perceive history.
It is a fact that the Arab world was massing and Israel launch a preemptive strike. Very simple.
That's a simplistic view. The way I perceive history is based on historical facts and what other Israeli leaders and officials are stating.I did not invent what they said.It is a fact that the Arab world was massing and Israel launch a preemptive strike. Very simple.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumfutock said:
Oh dear. In Pusan there were the obvious ROK units and US 8th Army. That's it, no more, no less, nobody else, that's your lot.com! As I mentioned 2 Bn from the British 27th Bde arrived later in the battle.
No Canadians, No South Africans, No Australians, No Turks, No Ethiopians, No Philippines and No anyone else.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to post the unit names of this vast UN formation as I am just a silly ex soldier with a very poor grasp of military history.
Slipperier than than slippery thing, slipping on a slippery slip. In Pusan there were the obvious ROK units and US 8th Army. That's it, no more, no less, nobody else, that's your lot.com! As I mentioned 2 Bn from the British 27th Bde arrived later in the battle.No Canadians, No South Africans, No Australians, No Turks, No Ethiopians, No Philippines and No anyone else.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to post the unit names of this vast UN formation as I am just a silly ex soldier with a very poor grasp of military history.
Top tip: When a guy has done a job for years he tends to know a bit about it.
allnighter said:
hat's a simplistic view. The way I perceive history is based on historical facts and what other Israeli leaders and officials are stating.I did not invent what they said.
And that is why. You are so hell bent on finding arguments to justify your predetermined point of view that you are missing all the other evidence. Historians maintain a neutral point of view and look at all sides.
Anyone can cherry pick facts to prove their argument is right. I dare say I could find and quote people that would prove that the holocaust didn't happen. Doesn't make it so.
Scuffers said:
So in 50 years time, you will regard Blair's claims of WMD to be 100% accurate historical?
No more accurate than the "survival" argument developed after the war by Israel, or the same pretence, namely that gyptian forces massed on its frontiers in a position to threaten the existence of Israel and Israelis. So yes the WMDs pretence has similarities with what was stated by Israel at the time.Grumfutock said:
allnighter said:
hat's a simplistic view. The way I perceive history is based on historical facts and what other Israeli leaders and officials are stating.I did not invent what they said.
And that is why. You are so hell bent on finding arguments to justify your predetermined point of view that you are missing all the other evidence. Historians maintain a neutral point of view and look at all sides.
Anyone can cherry pick facts to prove their argument is right. I dare say I could find and quote people that would prove that the holocaust didn't happen. Doesn't make it so.
Edited by allnighter on Friday 5th September 11:48
allnighter said:
o more accurate than the "survival" argument developed after the war by Israel, or the same pretence, namely that gyptian forces massed on its frontiers in a position to threaten the existence of Israel and Israelis. So yes the WMDs pretence has similarities with what was stated by Israel at the time.
Not really no.WMDs did not exsist, unlike the Arab military build-up on the borders that did.
Please stop trying to re write history, your only making yourself look even more stupid than normal.
allnighter said:
re you refuting what Israeli leaders and officials said? If so what makes you a better expert than what Major General Mattityahu Peeled, or Begoin, or even Moshe Dayan? It's like you want proof that water is wet!
Oh dear. No, as already stated, you are fixating on what they said and completely ignoring what anyone else said.I also thing Dayan is a poor example, he was on patrol with the US in Vietnam when the war started!
Once again, enough please. Being a revisionist is not big or clever.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff