Discussion
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Oh dear. No, as already stated, you are fixating on what they said and completely ignoring what anyone else said.
I would have thought what they said was pretty important, given who they were.To be clear, you cannot study history from one point of view or from half a dozen sources. Particularly when some of those sources weren't even part of the events!
Grumfutock said:
Of course it is!!!! But not taken as the sole and only source of information!
To be clear, you cannot study history from one point of view or from half a dozen sources. Particularly when some of those sources weren't even part of the events!
You would give appropriate weighting to who was saying it and I'd suggest that those people AN referred to were a pretty important part of events.To be clear, you cannot study history from one point of view or from half a dozen sources. Particularly when some of those sources weren't even part of the events!
Scuffers said:
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.
The WMD pretence based on Saddam successfully launching 20 missiles which could reach British military bases in Cyprus as well as Israel and Nato members Greece and Turkey to justify attacking Iraq is the same pretence that the massing of Egyptian troops on the border was to annihilate Israel.
Frankly it's laughable to put forward the "survival" bluff knowing the track record that Israel holds in defeating its adversaries, and like General Peled confirmed it constituted an insult to the intelligence of anyone capable of analysing the situation, and above all an insult to the capabilities of the IDF (your heroes).
Edited by allnighter on Friday 5th September 12:12
Grumfutock said:
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.
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Of course it is!!!! But not taken as the sole and only source of information!
To be clear, you cannot study history from one point of view or from half a dozen sources. Particularly when some of those sources weren't even part of the events!
You would give appropriate weighting to who was saying it and I'd suggest that those people AN referred to were a pretty important part of events.To be clear, you cannot study history from one point of view or from half a dozen sources. Particularly when some of those sources weren't even part of the events!
Once again, let us move on.
Grumfutock said:
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Of course it is!!!! But not taken as the sole and only source of information!
To be clear, you cannot study history from one point of view or from half a dozen sources. Particularly when some of those sources weren't even part of the events!
You would give appropriate weighting to who was saying it and I'd suggest that those people AN referred to were a pretty important part of events.To be clear, you cannot study history from one point of view or from half a dozen sources. Particularly when some of those sources weren't even part of the events!
Once again, let us move on.
"Although Dayan did not take part in most of the planning before the Six-Day War of June 1967, he personally oversaw the capture of East Jerusalem during the 5–7 June fighting.[60] During the years following the war, Dayan enjoyed enormous popularity in Israel and was widely viewed as a potential Prime Minister. Link
Grumfutock said:
Really? Moshe Dayan was not part of the planning for thew six day war and wasn't even in the country when it started. How does that making him an authority on it?
Moshe Dayan was Israel's defense minister at the start of the Six day War.wiki said:
As commander of the Jerusalem front in Israel's War of Independence, Chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (1953–58) during the 1956 Suez Crisis, but mainly as Defense Minister during the Six-Day War, he became to the world a fighting symbol of the new state of Israel.[1]
You seek to minimise his comments because "he was out of the country"? I'd suggest that based on his life, his experiences, and his service to the IDF, he knew pretty much what he was talking about.Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Really? Moshe Dayan was not part of the planning for thew six day war and wasn't even in the country when it started. How does that making him an authority on it?
Moshe Dayan was Israel's defense minister at the start of the Six day War.wiki said:
As commander of the Jerusalem front in Israel's War of Independence, Chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (1953–58) during the 1956 Suez Crisis, but mainly as Defense Minister during the Six-Day War, he became to the world a fighting symbol of the new state of Israel.[1]
You seek to minimise his comments because "he was out of the country"? I'd suggest that based on his life, his experiences, and his service to the IDF, he knew pretty much what he was talking about."Moshe Dayan was covering the Vietnam War to observe modern warfare up close after his political life. In fact, he was on patrol as an observer with members of the US Marine Corps. Although Dayan did not take part in most of the planning before the Six-Day War of June 1967, he personally oversaw the capture of East Jerusalem during the 5–7 June fighting."
And yes he was Minister of Defense. Again from your own source: In office 5 June 1967 – 3 June 1974.
In case you are unaware 5 June 1967 is the day the war started so I am not sure how relevant that is.
Edited by Grumfutock on Friday 5th September 12:41
Grumfutock said:
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.
The last time you posted your revisionist view of the Six day War all you provided was a link to an article which made the same claims but had no link to any supporting referances.
Edited by Mrr T on Friday 5th September 12:52
Mrr T said:
So are you going to provide links to where these people actually made a statement supporting your position.
The last time you posted your revisionist view of the Six day War all you provided was a link to an article which made the same claims but had no link to any supporting referances.
Was that aimed at me?The last time you posted your revisionist view of the Six day War all you provided was a link to an article which made the same claims but had no link to any supporting referances.
Grumfutock said:
Not at all. I quote from your same source:
"Moshe Dayan was covering the Vietnam War to observe modern warfare up close after his political life. In fact, he was on patrol as an observer with members of the US Marine Corps. Although Dayan did not take part in most of the planning before the Six-Day War of June 1967, he personally oversaw the capture of East Jerusalem during the 5–7 June fighting."
And yes he was Minister of Defense. Again from your own source: In office 5 June 1967 – 3 June 1974.
In case you are unaware 5 June 1967 is the day the war started so I am not sure how relevant that is.
:confusing:"Moshe Dayan was covering the Vietnam War to observe modern warfare up close after his political life. In fact, he was on patrol as an observer with members of the US Marine Corps. Although Dayan did not take part in most of the planning before the Six-Day War of June 1967, he personally oversaw the capture of East Jerusalem during the 5–7 June fighting."
And yes he was Minister of Defense. Again from your own source: In office 5 June 1967 – 3 June 1974.
In case you are unaware 5 June 1967 is the day the war started so I am not sure how relevant that is.
Edited by Grumfutock on Friday 5th September 12:41
Why are you just confirming / reiterating what I said???
My link was intended to show his experience of the Israeli military throughout his lifetime. You're suggesting that his comments bear no value because he was out of the country. Do you not think that is patently ridiculous?
Grumfutock said:
How so? The original statement was about Pusan, in every additional post I said Pusan. I cant help it if you don't read the bloody things! 
Top tip: When a guy has done a job for years he tends to know a bit about it.
Top tip: because you did for a number of years does not show competence, merely perseverance.Top tip: When a guy has done a job for years he tends to know a bit about it.
You are making assumptions that you are the only one with experience in this realm, those assumptions are wrong.
Mrr T said:
Grumfutock said:
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.
The last time you posted your revisionist view of the Six day War all you provided was a link to an article which made the same claims but had no link to any supporting referances.
Edited by Mrr T on Friday 5th September 12:52
allnighter said:
traw man argument.Kindly point me to the errors in anything these leaders and officials have said. If you are going to refute an argument state why and how and present your evidence just like I presented evidence for my side of the argument. Simply stating "revisionist" because it does not agree with your opinion is a poor debating technique, and an insult to everyone's intelligence on this forum.
And where have I refuted what they have said? Once again I will try and explain. You cannot come at history with a preconceived idea of events and the rational behind the decision making, then look for proof to prop up that argument. You have to use ALL sources and points of view prior to concluding and formulating your hypothesis.Please stop laboring on the point that I am disputing they said any of it.
Once again I will stress, the whole world accepts that Israel were under threat of a massed attack, indeed as actually happened 6 years later, so trying to deny the reasons for it is a mute point. I do not need to justify Israel's actions on the 5th June 67, far more qualified people than I have already done it, written books on it and taught it in universities.
allnighter said:
Mrr T said:
Grumfutock said:
allnighter said:
Are 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.
The last time you posted your revisionist view of the Six day War all you provided was a link to an article which made the same claims but had no link to any supporting referances.
Edited by Mrr T on Friday 5th September 12:52
You have never once produced any link which shows any of these people have agreed with your position.
Yes I have check your posts. If I have missed it please prove I am wrong by posting a link.
Do not ask me to prove they did not say something that is just stupid.
Grumfutock said:
And where have I refuted what they have said? Once again I will try and explain. You cannot come at history with a preconceived idea of events and the rational behind the decision making, then look for proof to prop up that argument. You have to use ALL sources and points of view prior to concluding and formulating your hypothesis.
Please stop laboring on the point that I am disputing they said any of it.
Once again I will stress, the whole world accepts that Israel were under threat of a massed attack, indeed as actually happened 6 years later, so trying to deny the reasons for it is a mute point. I do not need to justify Israel's actions on the 5th June 67, far more qualified people than I have already done it, written books on it and taught it in universities.
contrary to your assertions I have read a lot about the six days war and have formed an opinion based on evidence before me. Now you are going around in circles trying to refute what I said using straw man. I will wait till you have something of substance to say to me. So either debate and answer the question I asked you in bold in my previous posts or refrain from diverting attention from your weak position by using false arguments.Please stop laboring on the point that I am disputing they said any of it.
Once again I will stress, the whole world accepts that Israel were under threat of a massed attack, indeed as actually happened 6 years later, so trying to deny the reasons for it is a mute point. I do not need to justify Israel's actions on the 5th June 67, far more qualified people than I have already done it, written books on it and taught it in universities.
allnighter said:
Grumfutock said:
And where have I refuted what they have said? Once again I will try and explain. You cannot come at history with a preconceived idea of events and the rational behind the decision making, then look for proof to prop up that argument. You have to use ALL sources and points of view prior to concluding and formulating your hypothesis.
Please stop laboring on the point that I am disputing they said any of it.
Once again I will stress, the whole world accepts that Israel were under threat of a massed attack, indeed as actually happened 6 years later, so trying to deny the reasons for it is a mute point. I do not need to justify Israel's actions on the 5th June 67, far more qualified people than I have already done it, written books on it and taught it in universities.
contrary to your assertions I have read a lot about the six days war and have formed an opinion based on evidence before me. Now you are going around in circles trying to refute what I said using straw man. I will wait till you have something of substance to say to me. So either debate and answer the question I asked you in bold in my previous posts or refrain from diverting attention from your weak position by using false arguments.Please stop laboring on the point that I am disputing they said any of it.
Once again I will stress, the whole world accepts that Israel were under threat of a massed attack, indeed as actually happened 6 years later, so trying to deny the reasons for it is a mute point. I do not need to justify Israel's actions on the 5th June 67, far more qualified people than I have already done it, written books on it and taught it in universities.
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
Mrr T said:
Grumfutock said:
allnighter said:
Are 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.
The last time you posted your revisionist view of the Six day War all you provided was a link to an article which made the same claims but had no link to any supporting referances.
Edited by Mrr T on Friday 5th September 12:52
You have never once produced any link which shows any of these people have agreed with your position.
Yes I have check your posts. If I have missed it please prove I am wrong by posting a link.
Do not ask me to prove they did not say something that is just stupid.
Grumfutock said:
allnighter said:
Grumfutock said:
And where have I refuted what they have said? Once again I will try and explain. You cannot come at history with a preconceived idea of events and the rational behind the decision making, then look for proof to prop up that argument. You have to use ALL sources and points of view prior to concluding and formulating your hypothesis.
Please stop laboring on the point that I am disputing they said any of it.
Once again I will stress, the whole world accepts that Israel were under threat of a massed attack, indeed as actually happened 6 years later, so trying to deny the reasons for it is a mute point. I do not need to justify Israel's actions on the 5th June 67, far more qualified people than I have already done it, written books on it and taught it in universities.
contrary to your assertions I have read a lot about the six days war and have formed an opinion based on evidence before me. Now you are going around in circles trying to refute what I said using straw man. I will wait till you have something of substance to say to me. So either debate and answer the question I asked you in bold in my previous posts or refrain from diverting attention from your weak position by using false arguments.Please stop laboring on the point that I am disputing they said any of it.
Once again I will stress, the whole world accepts that Israel were under threat of a massed attack, indeed as actually happened 6 years later, so trying to deny the reasons for it is a mute point. I do not need to justify Israel's actions on the 5th June 67, far more qualified people than I have already done it, written books on it and taught it in universities.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff