Discussion
AN, your revisionist version of history is a sham and as transparent as a the Arab intentions in 67! Please cease to come on here until you have something to say. You just bang on with the same old crazy version and go round in endless circles until your revert to abuse and name calling. I know as I have 1st hand experience of it!
Nobody is trying to project anything other than facts, you know those things that people with a real interest in history use!
As a parting shot I will leave you with an opinion of a published and respected Arab historian and professor.
According to historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan, Nasser's mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to a state of war with Israel.
Please do not bother to reply as I am really bored of your endless and crazy revisionism.
Nobody is trying to project anything other than facts, you know those things that people with a real interest in history use!
As a parting shot I will leave you with an opinion of a published and respected Arab historian and professor.
According to historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan, Nasser's mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to a state of war with Israel.
Please do not bother to reply as I am really bored of your endless and crazy revisionism.
Grumfutock said:
AN, your revisionist version of history is a sham and as transparent as a the Arab intentions in 67! Please cease to come on here until you have something to say. You just bang on with the same old crazy version and go round in endless circles until your revert to abuse and name calling. I know as I have 1st hand experience of it!
Nobody is trying to project anything other than facts, you know those things that people with a real interest in history use!
As a parting shot I will leave you with an opinion of a published and respected Arab historian and professor.
According to historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan, Nasser's mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to a state of war with Israel.
Please do not bother to reply as I am really bored of your endless and crazy revisionism.
wow! I am impressed with your quote really! Now care to answer my question with regards to UN forces not being allowed on ISRAELI soil? Or ar you going to continue to dodge the question? Incidentally I stated historical factual quotes which I did not make up whereas you use straw man! I am not interested in arguing straw man with you. Put up or shut up!Nobody is trying to project anything other than facts, you know those things that people with a real interest in history use!
As a parting shot I will leave you with an opinion of a published and respected Arab historian and professor.
According to historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan, Nasser's mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to a state of war with Israel.
Please do not bother to reply as I am really bored of your endless and crazy revisionism.
allnighter said:
what is stupid is you not checking links people post and telling people that "they asked you to prove they did not say something" where the hell did you get that from? Ref links check the wiki link i have already provided with plenty of references in the bottom of the page. Furthermore, if you do not agree with what Israeli leaders and officials said refute with evidence and good luck with that.
You mean the wiki link with this in the headline?"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)"
I agree there are lots of referances at the bottom of the article but few seem to be checkable. Wiki is not and never has been a reliable source of information.
Grumfutock said:
AN, your revisionist version of history is a sham and as transparent as a the Arab intentions in 67! Please cease to come on here until you have something to say. You just bang on with the same old crazy version and go round in endless circles until your revert to abuse and name calling. I know as I have 1st hand experience of it!
Nobody is trying to project anything other than facts, you know those things that people with a real interest in history use!
As a parting shot I will leave you with an opinion of a published and respected Arab historian and professor.
According to historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan, Nasser's mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to a state of war with Israel.
Please do not bother to reply as I am really bored of your endless and crazy revisionism.
Nobody is trying to project anything other than facts, you know those things that people with a real interest in history use!
As a parting shot I will leave you with an opinion of a published and respected Arab historian and professor.
According to historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan, Nasser's mistaken decisions to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to a state of war with Israel.
Please do not bother to reply as I am really bored of your endless and crazy revisionism.
allnighter said:
wow! I am impressed with your quote really! Now care to answer my question with regards to UN forces not being allowed on ISRAELI soil? Or ar you going to continue to dodge the question? Incidentally I stated historical factual quotes which I did not make up whereas you use straw man! I am not interested in arguing straw man with you. Put up or shut up!
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unef1backgr2.html#twoMrr T said:
You mean the wiki link with this in the headline?
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)"
I agree there are lots of referances at the bottom of the article but few seem to be checkable. Wiki is not and never has been a reliable source of information.
Ok then off you go then edit entries seeing you know more by reading one book. Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong meanwhile if I have time I will find the original source but wiki was not my only source you know that dont you?"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)"
I agree there are lots of referances at the bottom of the article but few seem to be checkable. Wiki is not and never has been a reliable source of information.
allnighter said:
Ok then off you go then edit entries seeing you know more by reading one book. Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong meanwhile if I have time I will find the original source but wiki was not my only source you know that dont you?
No idea what you mean by "edit entries". Do you mean edit the wiki? Why would I do that?Yes I have read a book and it disagreed fundamentally with your interpretation. The difference between a book and you is a book sources will have been checked by its editors to avoid errors. Wiki is not.
I love the statement "Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong". How about if they never said those things.
So what are these other sources which support your revision view.
Mrr T said:
No idea what you mean by "edit entries". Do you mean edit the wiki? Why would I do that?
Yes I have read a book and it disagreed fundamentally with your interpretation. The difference between a book and you is a book sources will have been checked by its editors to avoid errors. Wiki is not.
I love the statement "Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong". How about if they never said those things.
So what are these other sources which support your revision view.
Good luck mate!Yes I have read a book and it disagreed fundamentally with your interpretation. The difference between a book and you is a book sources will have been checked by its editors to avoid errors. Wiki is not.
I love the statement "Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong". How about if they never said those things.
So what are these other sources which support your revision view.
Grumfutock said:
Mrr T said:
No idea what you mean by "edit entries". Do you mean edit the wiki? Why would I do that?
Yes I have read a book and it disagreed fundamentally with your interpretation. The difference between a book and you is a book sources will have been checked by its editors to avoid errors. Wiki is not.
I love the statement "Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong". How about if they never said those things.
So what are these other sources which support your revision view.
Good luck mate!Yes I have read a book and it disagreed fundamentally with your interpretation. The difference between a book and you is a book sources will have been checked by its editors to avoid errors. Wiki is not.
I love the statement "Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong". How about if they never said those things.
So what are these other sources which support your revision view.
Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
Ok then off you go then edit entries seeing you know more by reading one book. Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong meanwhile if I have time I will find the original source but wiki was not my only source you know that dont you?
No idea what you mean by "edit entries". Do you mean edit the wiki? Why would I do that?Yes I have read a book and it disagreed fundamentally with your interpretation. The difference between a book and you is a book sources will have been checked by its editors to avoid errors. Wiki is not.
I love the statement "Give us your version of the quotes if they are wrong". How about if they never said those things.
So what are these other sources which support your revision view.
h besides have you got am argument to make with anything i said or are we to take everything you say at face value? Where is your argument and evidence?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? And yet we dismiss things that Nasser and Amer have said on it? Strange.
Once again, let us move on.
This shows the danger of relying on Wiki. Once again, let us move on.
Dayan became Defence Minister in May, replacing Levi Eshkol who was serving as both Prime Minister and defence minister. He was definitely in Israel when it all kicked off. As defence minister he gave the 'go' order.
He suffered an epic fall from grace after being caught flat-footed by Egypt and Syria in 1973.
The story of his life is an astonishing read. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Middle East conflict.
Edited by audidoody on Friday 5th September 16:24
audidoody said:
This shows the danger of relying on Wiki.
Dayan became Defence Minister in May, replacing Levi Eshkol who was serving as both Prime Minister and defence minister. He was definitely in Israel when it all kicked off. As defence minister he gave the 'go' order.
He suffered an epic fall from grace after being caught flat-footed by Egypt and Syria in 1973.
The story of his life is an astonishing read. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Middle East conflict.
You are correct he was in Vietnam in 66, my apologies. However there does seem to be conflicting reports on the date of his appointed Minister of Defence. According to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/153126/M... it was 1st June but others do say May. On the Knesset own website all it says in "eve of war". Dayan became Defence Minister in May, replacing Levi Eshkol who was serving as both Prime Minister and defence minister. He was definitely in Israel when it all kicked off. As defence minister he gave the 'go' order.
He suffered an epic fall from grace after being caught flat-footed by Egypt and Syria in 1973.
The story of his life is an astonishing read. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Middle East conflict.
Edited by audidoody on Friday 5th September 16:24
Either way he wasn't in post for very long prior to the outbreak of war so I would suggest his influence on the plans were very limited.
Grumfutock said:
The latest Dolphin II sub is now on the way to the IDF. That will make Iran think twice about any direct action and give Israel an off shore 2nd strike capability
Reminds me of the number of threats Israel has made to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But no, Israel genuinely wants peace.
Grumfutock said:
The latest Dolphin II sub is now on the way to the IDF. That will make Iran think twice about any direct action and give Israel an off shore 2nd strike capability
Given the combined competencies of German naval engineers and the Israeli navy, either the stern will fall off or it'll "accidentally" sink a US intelligence ship in mistake for an Egyptian destroyer. Mrr T said:
allnighter said:
wow! I am impressed with your quote really! Now care to answer my question with regards to UN forces not being allowed on ISRAELI soil? Or ar you going to continue to dodge the question? Incidentally I stated historical factual quotes which I did not make up whereas you use straw man! I am not interested in arguing straw man with you. Put up or shut up!
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unef1backgr2.html#twoThe question remains still: Taking into account Israel's so-called "fears" of an attack coming from a "suicidal" Nasser(and I do not believe he was suicidal BTW): Why did Israel refuse to allow the UNEF on its side of the border as was requested by the UN initially, and as was requested by the UN again when Nasser decided later that he did not want the UNEF on his soil anymore? What was the
Edited by allnighter on Saturday 6th September 01:00
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff