Why Muslims Hate U.S. (Split from "Just War" and N

[Coyote]

Israel, through acts of terrorism, took land that wasn't theirs and that they had no legitimate claim to for religious purposes. Of course they were the aggressors.

So are you saying that after having civilian farmers and workers getting sniped at and machinegunned; after having fishing and patrol boats fired upon by the Syrians; and after having several towns shelled and one leveled by artillery fire that the Israelis were supposed to do absolutely nothing? Are you really saying that the Israelis are supposed to just sit there and pretend nothing is happening while their citizens are getting attrited away by Syria when there is no declaration of war that would account for these things?

Why is it that the Syrian Army can kill civilians all they want and you don't sem to find any fault with that, but as soon as the IDF responds to these acts of aggression it is "terrorism"? That presents a very one-sided view of things, you know...

Remember that there was no war declared by Syria, and even if there was why would that excuse the killing of civilians? Isn't that what you accuse Israel of doing? You realize that you are excusing and condoning Syrian Army attacks on Israeli civilians while condemning IDF attacks on those Syrians? Are you no longer trying to present an objective argument and taking a side openly, then?

Fine, take the land. That's not what bothers me. But when you take the land, you make it part of Israel and treat the occupants like citizens of Israel. Don't refer to it as the Occupied Terrotories, build Settlements and roads that go around Palestinian towns and cut them off, indiscriminately kill civilians and bulldoze homes, etc.

Well, in regards to the West Bank and Gaza Strip I agree with you, if you read my post in "Mike Wong's Israel Bashing" where Mike and myself both outline plans that involve Israel pulling out of the Territories and getting out of the way of a Palestinian state. The Settlements have no moral legitimacy at all.

Native Americans have greater rights than you and me, not fewer!

Their status now is not the question, the example I gave was to indicate that an emergent nation offered to share the land and it was placed before international vote which the Palestinians thumbed their noses at; the people of India, the Americas, Australia and South Africa never got any such hearing or opportunity to control the emergent power.

It doesn't matter who was there first! The Jews left a long time ago. Ever heard of Squatter's rights?

And then the Jews returned and began to purchase the land legally from absentee Ottoman landlords and local Arabs. The Jews also came and initiated Squatter's Rights of their own.

Palestine was a region of the Levant where an undefined 'nation' of people lived-- a tribal nation rather than nation as we understand it today with recognized and ratified borders,a flag, an army, a government, etc... the Jews showed up and ntended to form an actual nation in the sense reognized by the Western world.

It was an alien notion to introduce to the Middle East but their initial steps were valid and the UN partition plan reflected the legal purchases of Jews that had been trickling into the region since the 1700-1800's.

How many times have Arab civilians been attacked by the IDF? Why are the Arabs chastised so much for defending their people?

What is a Palestinian civilian who packs a bomb into a supermarket? What is a Palestinian civilian that guns down kids at a bus stop and then runs into a crowd of more Arab civilians to escape return fire? What are the Arab civilians that not only hide the terrorist in their ranks but also supply him and paint glorious pictures of him and sing praises of him after he is dead?

It is not that they defend their own people-- they "defend" their people by attacking Isralie civilians, and then hide among their own peoplel and wail and moan the barbarity when the Israelis counter-attack. They, the Palestinians who engage in terror and support terror, are the ones who want to be able to attack on whim but never suffer any consequences; to have their cake and eat it too.

Furthermore, "defending yourself from attack" is a far cry from bulldozing homes, firing rockets into residential zones, planting bombs in neighborhoods, firing on rock-throwing 10 year olds, and violating more treaties and conventions, most of which they signed, than in other nation in history.

When is a house not a house anymore but a bomb factory, a political indoctrination point, a safe house for fleeing bombers or a sniper bunker? What about a situation where a Palestinina family is living in a house and accepts the prescence of Hamas snipers operating off their roofs? Even gives them food and shelter?

The terrorists endanger the lives of their own people, or the people willingly volunteer to act as meat armor-- why does this not draw your ire? Is it just and moral to do this? Again, are Isrealis supposed to sit and do nothing while snipers pick them off one by one or bombers attack their civilian busses? Just because the Pals fortified themselves in a civilian home, knowingly endangering the homeowners?

Maybe not, but the killing had. When you have refugees that should be full citizens, that's saying a lot.

The Arabs that stayed in Israel and became citizens and lived normal lives, they got their rights to vote, run in the Knesset, and evn field candidates for Prime Minister. It's happened many times. There are several Arab MKs in the Israeli Parliament. These are the ones that stayed in and obeyed the laws like citizens.

The ones that didn't follow the laws and engaged in political violence were considerd "terrorists" just as they would be in any other country. What would a country be that bowed to the whim of every single loon with a gun or a bomb?

Yet the ones in the Occupied Territories can't vote, have free access to water, or get up each day without fearing that they may be gunned down by the IDF or have their home bulldozed without compensation. You're pointing to the minority living within Israel and shouting "See! Israel treats Arabs great," when the oppression has always been in the Occupied Territoes.

I have already agreed with you on this; the Israelis need to pull out the Settlements and return to the 1967 border (or some semblance thereof in agreement with a Palestinian gov't of some sort). But on the other hand, you also have to realize that many Palestinians really are engaing in acts of terror and they must be reigned in as much as the Settlers do.

Somre of the Palestinian groups are not just seeking liberation for the WB and GS, they seek to destroy al the Jews and have said so out loud. Hezbollah is one such group-- surely you don't advocate rewarding these types with citizenship and clemency?

When the attack failed, why didn't these refugees go back to their homes if the only reason they left was because the Saudis told them to?

Many of thehost governments insisted that it was unsafe to return to Israel and that the Arabs that remained in Israel's borders were going to be slaughtered. When this didn't happen, the Arab gov't kept the Pals in camps in squalid conditions to use as a reason to inflame world opinion and justify maintaining huge armies for internal suppression.

You're acting like the IDF even tries to minimize civilian casualties. Why isn't anyone ever punished for these "accidents"?

They're not so much "accidents" (nor are they passed off as such in Israeli media) but conscious choices of the terrorists to involve their own families and friends into the line of fire. It's as if US Army soldiers brought their wives and kids into the battlefield with them only to wail and moan about 'terrorism' when the enemy shoots at them.

When was the lat time you ever heard of a Palestinian terrorist attacking an Israeli Army camp? It almost never happens-- but they intentionally seek out civilian bus stops, hotel lobbies, dance clubs, and restaurants.

The June 2001 bombing of the Dolphinarium dance lub in Tel-Aviv killed several 14 year old schoolgirls. Was that a legitimate military strike by brave Palestinian warriors in the field of battle? Are the Israelis supposed to just say, "Oh, well, shit happens" and forget about it?

Don't preach about the asymmetery of forces. Why were guerrillas, lightly armed, able to drive out the French and Americans from Vietnam, and the Soviets from Afghanistan-- all without once resorting to terrorist car bombings in Chicago, Kiev, or Lyons?

A war, eh? So that means the Occupied Territories are sovereign nations, then?

Well, Vietnam wasn't a "war" and neither was Korea, but there sure was an awful lot of shooting and killing going on. If that isn't a war, what is?

This isn't a war, and the terrorists aren't soldiers.... and the IDF has no business shooting people with no trial.

But the terrorists get to kill all they want without trials, then?Targeting civilians on purpose, like the terrorists do, is okay; but hitting them incidentally like the IDF does is evil?

It's acceptable for the terrorists to take out their frustrations of a pack of 14 year old girls-- you seem to accept that without a second thought-- but the IDF retaliations that result are suddenly evil if a terrorist's human shield also gets killed?

And if the terroists aren't soldiers, then that means that they do not fall within the Geneva Convention protocols either. Are you sure you want to make that argument?

If the airstrike during the Clinton administration is your idea of restraint, I'd hate to see what you consider aggression.

You must be a true pacifist, then. That paltry airstrike was nothing compared to what we could have done this whole time; technically the UN Coalition has every right (maybe even the obligation) to resume Operation Desert Storm should any treaty condition be violated. We've let him violate the treaty for 11 years-- why do you condone just letting him walk?

And I still don't know why we are talking about this. What's it got to do with this discussion?

It came up; I'll drop it if you will. Admittedly it is not particularly germane.

The inspectors found mustard gas artillery shells last week.

Great. Now all he needs is a big ass railgun and he can start shelling the U.S. in no time .

Golly gee, you're right, we should just let this guy violate treaties left and right and kill anyone he feels like so long as they aren't Americans. That's plenty moral.

I'm sorry, weren't you just all over Israel for violating treaties and killing people? Why is it perfectly acceptable for Saddam but not Israel? I'd personally like all three groups (Iraq, Pals, Israel) to behave properly but you cut Iraq a lot of slack and brush it off as a non-issue-- but, by God, Israel better toe the fucking line, huh!

But it's none of our business, unlike an attack on us.

I could say the same thing about the Palestinians.... why is it than when an Arab state acts badly it gets a shrug but when Israel acts badly it's nuking time?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I think some people here don't realize of small Israel is. Look at those maps. Israel needs the extra land just as a buffer. So using conquered land as proof that Israel was the agressor is bullshit.

[Vympel]

I just provided a series of references that do show the laughable nature of the 'threat' to Israel.

By way of extension, the Soviet Union held on to Eastern Europe and created the Warsaw Pact in response to NATO- using from East Germany to Poland as buffer states. This does not make their conquest/oppression of those countries right.

[Falcon]

Falcon, I have provided evidence from authorative sources (referenced) that indicates the nature of the 1967 war. Now that I have provided it, if you wish to challenge it, the burden is on you to challenge their veracity. Simply repeating the common 'Israel was about to be annihilated so they defended themselves' myth isn't going to cut it.

Nassar asked for the removal of UN forces who were on the Israel-Egypt border (and had been since 57)
Nassar blockaded Israel through the straits of Tiran (which Israel had said in 57 that such a blockade would be a provacation of war)
Syria increased its military activity along its border and mobilized its troops
Nassar and Hussein signed a mutual defense pact
Nassar publicly called for the total destruction of Israel along with other Egyptian leaders
Total arab troop mobilization included nearly a half million soldiers, hundreds of tanks and planes. Most of Israels population was near hostile borders.

Israel asked Jordon to stay out once fighting had begun, it didn't

The international community did nothing, in fact, the removal of the UN forces probably opened the way for Egypt to build up like they did.

Syria's defense minister (later president) Hafez el-Assad: Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united

Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

"Never in human history can an aggressor have made his purpose known in advance so clearly and so widely. Certain of victory, both the Arab leaders and their peoples threw off all restraint. Between the middle of May and fifth of June, world-wide newspapers, radio and, most incisively, television brought home to millions of people the threat of politicide bandied about with relish by the leaders of these modern states. Even more blatant was the exhilaration which the Arabic peoples displayed as the prospect of executing genocide on the people of Israel ... In those three weeks of mounting tension people throughout the world watched and waited in growing anxiety--or in some cases, in hopeful expectation--for the overwhelming forces of at least Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to bear down from three sides to crush tiny Israel and slaughter her people."
- Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine

Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:
"As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."


As I said before, self serving quotes prove nothing, mine no more than yours, but don't fool yourself into believing that your 'sources' are final authorities on anything, let alone something so subjective as a war...

[Vympel]

Almost totally unreferenced, I see. My source for this:

Nassar asked for the removal of UN forces who were on the Israel-Egypt border (and had been since 57)

So?

Nassar blockaded Israel through the straits of Tiran (which Israel had said in 57 that such a blockade would be a provacation of war)

One of the central claims is that Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran, preventing access to the port of Eilat was an attempt at strangulation. Israel tried to pry open the Straits in the course of the 1956 invasion when it occupied Sinai and Sharm-el-Shaykh. However, it was compelled to terminate the occupation withouth international sanction of its right of passage. Then UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold could not ’…condone a change of the status juris resulting from military action contrary to the provisions of the Charter”. Indeed, president Eisenhower had delivered perhaps the most impassioned defense of the principle that Israel’s withdrawal must be without conditions, asking rhetorically if:

”…a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?”

Despite dire Israeli pronouncements about 'strangulation', in the real world, the picture was rather less forbidding, The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed through Haifa.



Norm Finkelstein's "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict"

Syria increased its military activity along its border and mobilized its troops
Nassar and Hussein signed a mutual defense pact
Nassar publicly called for the total destruction of Israel along with other Egyptian leaders
Total arab troop mobilization included nearly a half million soldiers, hundreds of tanks and planes. Most of Israels population was near hostile borders.

Unsubstantiated claims and paranoia. I have a direct quote from an Israeli who should know how many divisions the Egyptians had in the Sinai. A whopping two.

Israel asked Jordon to stay out once fighting had begun, it didn't

This has what to do with the beginning of the fighting?

The international community did nothing, in fact, the removal of the UN forces probably opened the way for Egypt to build up like they did.

Yeah, the huge 2 division build up. Why didn't the international community stop this juggernaut?

Syria's defense minister (later president) Hafez el-Assad: Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united.

Source please, not to mention the date.

Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

Source please, and the date.

Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

Source please, and the date. Yup those 2 divisions were ready to annihilate Israel, contrary to common sense and the beliefs of Israel's top leaders, who had been planning this war for 16 years by their own words.

Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

I didn't know Iraq was involved in that war.

Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

Source please, and the date.

"Never in human history can an aggressor have made his purpose known in advance so clearly and so widely. Certain of victory, both the Arab leaders and their peoples threw off all restraint. Between the middle of May and fifth of June, world-wide newspapers, radio and, most incisively, television brought home to millions of people the threat of politicide bandied about with relish by the leaders of these modern states. Even more blatant was the exhilaration which the Arabic peoples displayed as the prospect of executing genocide on the people of Israel ... In those three weeks of mounting tension people throughout the world watched and waited in growing anxiety--or in some cases, in hopeful expectation--for the overwhelming forces of at least Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to bear down from three sides to crush tiny Israel and slaughter her people."
- Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine

Oh yeah, this guy knows more than the Israeli leaders AT THE TIME.

Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:
"As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

Very authorative source there

As I said before, self serving quotes prove nothing, mine no more than yours, but don't fool yourself into believing that your 'sources' are final authorities on anything, let alone something so subjective as a war...

Considering who the people are in my sources, and that they are referenced (unlike your mostly unsubstantiated claims from god knows who), my sources win.

[Falcon]

The point is that anyone can get sources, mine came from a webby I found in about 5 minutes. Your sources are just as biased and unsubstaintated as some of my quotes, though some of them are factual, not opinion (or rhetoric). The information regarding troops movements, treaties, etc.. are all considered historical as far as I know, if you think different I'd be interested to know who (beyond your own bias)


btw, I'd like to know where you got your quotes from, not just who said them.

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html

[Vympel]

They are referenced, so you can look them up yourself, but they are up on several pages on the net (some are probably blatantly anti-semetic, unfortunately). I make a habit of trying not to post something unless it's fully referenced, this way hopefully anyone can look them up if they have the inclination.

Of course anyone can get sources, however there is only one set of facts. On my side, I have the Israeli civilian and military leadership in their own words. I.e. a primary source- the highest arbiter of reliability in written history. You have secondary sources at best, and unsubstantiated claims at worst- there was clearly no such huge threat to Israel, Nasser had no intention to attack. To bring up media speculation and political rhetoric before the fact as some sort of 'proof' to debunk what the Israelis themselves said about the situation(even Yitzakh Rabin for pity's sake) doesn't fly at all.

[HemlockGrey]

I think some people here don't realize of small Israel is. Look at those maps. Israel needs the extra land just as a buffer. So using conquered land as proof that Israel was the agressor is bullshit.

Iraq is smaller than America. I guess it should annex Kuwait as a buffer zone, eh?

Nassar asked for the removal of UN forces who were on the Israel-Egypt border (and had been since 57)

And?

Nassar blockaded Israel through the straits of Tiran (which Israel had said in 57 that such a blockade would be a provacation of war)

America 'blockades' Cuba. America 'blockades' Iraq. Would you sing the same tune if these nations launched a preemptive attack?

Syria increased its military activity along its border and mobilized its troops

Two divisions! Holy shit, I think my bunny slippers just ran for cover!

The USN have 5 carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf. That's akin to massing on the borders of Iraq. Would you sing the same tune if Iraq launched a preemptive attack?

Nassar and Hussein signed a mutual defense pact

So? People do this all the time.

Nassar publicly called for the total destruction of Israel along with other Egyptian leaders

Bush has publicly called for the destruction of Iraq. So?

Total arab troop mobilization included nearly a half million soldiers, hundreds of tanks and planes. Most of Israels population was near hostile borders.

Prove it. Most of their equipment was outmoded Soviet stuff anyway.

Israel asked Jordon to stay out once fighting had begun, it didn't

No, it just couldn't resist getting invaded by Israel.

The international community did nothing, in fact, the removal of the UN forces probably opened the way for Egypt to build up like they did.

Why should they have?

Syria's defense minister (later president) Hafez el-Assad: Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united

Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

"Never in human history can an aggressor have made his purpose known in advance so clearly and so widely. Certain of victory, both the Arab leaders and their peoples threw off all restraint. Between the middle of May and fifth of June, world-wide newspapers, radio and, most incisively, television brought home to millions of people the threat of politicide bandied about with relish by the leaders of these modern states. Even more blatant was the exhilaration which the Arabic peoples displayed as the prospect of executing genocide on the people of Israel ... In those three weeks of mounting tension people throughout the world watched and waited in growing anxiety--or in some cases, in hopeful expectation--for the overwhelming forces of at least Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to bear down from three sides to crush tiny Israel and slaughter her people."
- Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine

Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, on May 18, 1967:
"As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

Sources. Prove it.

As I said before, self serving quotes prove nothing, mine no more than yours, but don't fool yourself into believing that your 'sources' are final authorities on anything, let alone something so subjective as a war...

His quotes are from Israeli officials who had nothing to gain by saying that, and they are backed by verifiable sources. Yours are not. You lose.

[Vympel]

Prove it. Most of their equipment was outmoded Soviet stuff anyway.

Not to be a stickler, but my spetznaz-sense just tingled

In 1967 the Soviet stuff the Arabs had was pretty good- not nearly the total outclassing we see later on- in competent hands it kicked ass- the Israelis captured enough T-55s and T-62s (like hundreds!) that they pressed them into service- but the IDF has always owned the surrounding Arab forces- they IDF is quite the formidable military machine from a training stand point (and now from an equipment standpoint what with their Merkarvas and billions per year in US aid)

If you follow the link Falcon provided, you'll see the quality of the sources is not great- your comparisons are quite valid, and referencing rhetoric Arab rhetoric (the Israeli rhetoric wasn't exactly nice either at the time- tensions had been building over Israeli DMZ incursions) and quoting of other sources repeating the "pre-emptive attack to prevent mortal danger to Israel myth" simply doesn't cut the mustard.

[Falcon]

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Menahem Begin (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

I fail to see how this man was an authority on anything. According to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00fj0 he was a part of the national unity government during the war. He later won a nobel peace prize after 1978, so by the time he made his statement in 1982, he was probably trying to promote peace and forgiveness. I see no reason why he should be considered specially knowledgable or crediable about the war at this point in his life.

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."- Yitzhak Rabin (Israel's Chief of Staff during the Six Day War), Le Monde, February 28, 1968

You call the statements of Nassar, the Egyptian leader, as secondary, yet you take without question the opinion, the opinion, of a general. Here is yet another Nassar statement, this time to United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:

"Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents" (Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes To Israel, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972), p. 27.)

On the eve of war the Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel (Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, (NY: Random House, 1982), p. 149.)

General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General's Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."
(Le Monde, June 3, 1972)

Yet another general quote (from the same webby no doubt, which was horribly put together and looked like some cracks homepage, if I found the same one you use, and you call it a source, ha, or from 'Radio Islam' an objective site who wouldn't distort anything no doubt) General Peled was a dissenter in Israel regarding the annexation of land, so no doubt he would try to justify himself later on by presenting things from his own point of view. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is just a point of view, not a conclusive fact like you would want us to believe. Two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions, especially in hindsight. Anyone who thinks their opinion is absolutely right is either fanatically ignorent (hi you), or downright dishonest.

General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."
(Ha' aretz, March 29, 1972)

There is also no suggestion as to the context in which this quote was taken. Perhaps there was no danger of extermination because Israel was too strong, or perhaps because the threat did not exist, your quote could be interperted both ways. I assume you grabbed this off the same crappy page that you grabbed all your other quotes, or another Islam fundamentalist site.

General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General Southern Command:

"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war."
(Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection , New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, p. 558)

Another lovely quote with no context taken from 'Islam radio' or a crap site with no name, lovely

General Mordechai Hod, Commanding General, Israeli Air Force:

"Sixteen years planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it."
(New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, pp. 558-559)

This context challenged quote doesn't prove anything except that Israel had a response planned out in case invasion was imminent, bravo.

General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israeli Defence Forces:

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."
(Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972)

Same problem as the previous. Its also nice to note just how different the leaders of the arab alliance viewed things from these supposed 'experts' These Generals all supposedly talk of how Israel couldn't have been exterminated or defeated, yet that really isn't the point. The point that you should be focusing on was the intent of the arabian alliance, its stated goals, not its ability to carry them out. Cruchiev (sp?) threatened to bury America, but in the end we were the ones to throw dirt on his face.

General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Govemor, Israeli Occupied West Bank:

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger. "
(Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972)

Still no context to these quotes, just exactly why did Israeli hq not take the threat of annihilation seriously? Was it because the arabs didn't want to exterminate Israel or because they wern't able to?

Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing:

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."
(Al-Hamishmar, April 14, 1971)

Minister of Housing, wow, and he is in a position to know anything....how? I fail to see the credibility of this man, and can only say that there are other Israeli high officials who would disagree with his take on the issue. To be fair though I couldn't find much on this man at all, just that he supposedly issued this statment and that it has been plastered on every 'Islam radio' and crackpot homepage on the net...

Yigal Allon, Minister of Labor and Member of Prime Minister Eshkol's Military Advisory Committee:

"Begin and I want Jerusalem."
(Eitan Haber, Menahem Begin: The Legend and the Man , New York: Delacorte Press, 1978 , p. 271)

This doesn't prove anything except that Israel wanted Jerusalem for their trouble, which by all rights should have been a neutral UN controlled area according to the original agreement.

General Meir Amit, the former head of Military Intelligence who was head of Mossad in 1967:

"There is going to be a war. Our army is now fully mobilized. But we cannot remain in that condition for long. Because we have a civilian army our economy is shuddering to a stop. We don't have the manpower right now even to bring in the crops. Sugar beets are rotting in the earth. We have to make quick decisions... If we can get the first blow in our casualties will be comparatively light..."
( Dennis Eisenberg, Uri Dan and Eli Landau, The Mossad: Israel's Secret Intelligence Service , New York: New American Library, 1978 , pp. 160-161.)

You know what thats called? Sound military planning...

You claim that you've 'sourced' your reasoning and that its my 'burden' to supply some kind of 'proof' myself, but when you look closely your 'sources' are poorly constructed Islamic radical web pages filled with quotes of questionable context and motives.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I think some people here don't realize of small Israel is. Look at those maps. Israel needs the extra land just as a buffer. So using conquered land as proof that Israel was the agressor is bullshit.

Iraq is smaller than America. I guess it should annex Kuwait as a buffer zone, eh?

Two points:

1.) American isn't right next to Iraq. So you analogy fails.
2.) IIRC, Kuwait belongs to Iraq. It was taken away by French and British Oil companies when they were granted sovereignty. Why make one country that will hate you when you can make two that will hate each other.

<SNIP!>

Ok, you've just proven you have no concept of war. None.

The acts of the Arabs were clearly leading to war. Duh. Just like the actions of the US are clearly leading to war. Again I say, Duh. In both instances the target is justified in a preemptive attack. Granted, in the Israel's case, a preemptive attack saved many, many lives. While in Iraq's case, it would pretty much end their country's existance.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

This debate is over. I told you very clearly to knock off that strawman shit, and here you go again distorting my position. I'm not Mike Wong, I don't have a crowd to please or a website to add to. If anyone following this thread is still on the fence, it will take someone with more in-depth knowledge of the situation than I have to win them over (ie Vympel or Wong). It's now Christmas break and finals are over, so I have the time to devote to a debate like this, but I do not have the sanity. Again, I'm not Mike Wong. He has a resevoir of patience for dealing with dishonest debators like Coyote that I don't have and frankly don't want.

So are you saying that after having civilian farmers and workers getting sniped at and machinegunned; after having fishing and patrol boats fired upon by the Syrians; and after having several towns shelled and one leveled by artillery fire that the Israelis were supposed to do absolutely nothing? Are you really saying that the Israelis are supposed to just sit there and pretend nothing is happening while their citizens are getting attrited away by Syria when there is no declaration of war that would account for these things?

First of all, I doubt the veracity of these claims, considering the source, but Israel is still the aggressor for taking the land in the first place. It's like when the Native Americans were attacking U.S. settlements in the 1800s. Technically, the Natives were the attackers, but the U.S. was clearly the aggressor for taking their land. You can talk about legalities such as war declarations all day, but the fact remains that Israel started out with 6% of Palestine that they legally bought, and ended up with all of it and more through a little political maneuvering and a whole shitload of violence. That makes them the aggressors no matter who fired the first shot.

Why is it that the Syrian Army can kill civilians all they want and you don't sem to find any fault with that, but as soon as the IDF responds to these acts of aggression it is "terrorism"? That presents a very one-sided view of things, you know...

Remember that there was no war declared by Syria, and even if there was why would that excuse the killing of civilians? Isn't that what you accuse Israel of doing? You realize that you are excusing and condoning Syrian Army attacks on Israeli civilians while condemning IDF attacks on those Syrians? Are you no longer trying to present an objective argument and taking a side openly, then?

I already explained to you that "the Arabs can do no wrong" is not my position, never was my position, and frankly I don't think an honest person could have reasonably interpreted that to have been my position. This kind of dishonest shit pisses me off and I'm not going to deal with it. That's why this debate is over.

Well, in regards to the West Bank and Gaza Strip I agree with you, if you read my post in "Mike Wong's Israel Bashing" where Mike and myself both outline plans that involve Israel pulling out of the Territories and getting out of the way of a Palestinian state. The Settlements have no moral legitimacy at all.

Good. Too bad the rest of the apologists don't see things that way.

Their status now is not the question, the example I gave was to indicate that an emergent nation offered to share the land and it was placed before international vote which the Palestinians thumbed their noses at; the people of India, the Americas, Australia and South Africa never got any such hearing or opportunity to control the emergent power.

As Wong pointed out, the Arabs have never been very good at political spin-doctoring. They saw this vote for what it was, and let their refusal be used as ammunition for apologists like you.

And then the Jews returned and began to purchase the land legally from absentee Ottoman landlords and local Arabs. The Jews also came and initiated Squatter's Rights of their own.

And ended up with exactly 6% of Palestine. 6%. That's how much they bought, that's how much they legally own, and that's how much they deserve. Everything else they acquired through dishonesty and violence.

Palestine was a region of the Levant where an undefined 'nation' of people lived-- a tribal nation rather than nation as we understand it today with recognized and ratified borders,a flag, an army, a government, etc... the Jews showed up and ntended to form an actual nation in the sense reognized by the Western world.

It was an alien notion to introduce to the Middle East but their initial steps were valid and the UN partition plan reflected the legal purchases of Jews that had been trickling into the region since the 1700-1800's.

Red herring. Who gives a shit? This has nothing to do with legal land ownership as of 1947. This is why debating with you gives me a headache and ruins my afternoon.

What is a Palestinian civilian who packs a bomb into a supermarket? What is a Palestinian civilian that guns down kids at a bus stop and then runs into a crowd of more Arab civilians to escape return fire? What are the Arab civilians that not only hide the terrorist in their ranks but also supply him and paint glorious pictures of him and sing praises of him after he is dead?

It is not that they defend their own people-- they "defend" their people by attacking Isralie civilians, and then hide among their own peoplel and wail and moan the barbarity when the Israelis counter-attack. They, the Palestinians who engage in terror and support terror, are the ones who want to be able to attack on whim but never suffer any consequences; to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm not even sure if I should respond to this, since I'm sure that anyone who isn't in the Israel cheering section should see right through it without my help. Frankly, I haven't seen a more blatant example of overt racism since the WCOTC fuckstains invaded our board. Do you think there's some kind of terrorist gene in the Arabs? Do you think that every Palestinian is born different from an Israeli? Born as a died-in-the-wool terrorist or at least a terrorist supporter? Bah, I'm through wasting brain cells trying to figure out what's going on in your sick head.

When is a house not a house anymore but a bomb factory, a political indoctrination point, a safe house for fleeing bombers or a sniper bunker? What about a situation where a Palestinina family is living in a house and accepts the prescence of Hamas snipers operating off their roofs? Even gives them food and shelter?

The terrorists endanger the lives of their own people, or the people willingly volunteer to act as meat armor-- why does this not draw your ire? Is it just and moral to do this? Again, are Isrealis supposed to sit and do nothing while snipers pick them off one by one or bombers attack their civilian busses? Just because the Pals fortified themselves in a civilian home, knowingly endangering the homeowners?

See above reply.

The Arabs that stayed in Israel and became citizens and lived normal lives, they got their rights to vote, run in the Knesset, and evn field candidates for Prime Minister. It's happened many times. There are several Arab MKs in the Israeli Parliament. These are the ones that stayed in and obeyed the laws like citizens.

Just for everyone's reference, and if I remember right, there are approximately 1 million Palestinians in Israel, 6 million living in homes in the Occupied Territories, and 6 million in refugee camps. So, according to Coyote, 1 out of 13 Palestinians are law-abiding and the rest are terrorist bastards, so bulldozing their homes, bombing their houses, shooting 10 year olds, etc. are OK.

The ones that didn't follow the laws and engaged in political violence were considerd "terrorists" just as they would be in any other country. What would a country be that bowed to the whim of every single loon with a gun or a bomb?

False dilemma you dishonest prick. You know damn good and well that a country can avoid bowing "to the whim of every single loon with a gun or a bomb" without bulldozing homes and shooting rock-throwing children, but you just can't resist using weaselly little lawyer fuckstain debating tactics.

I have already agreed with you on this; the Israelis need to pull out the Settlements and return to the 1967 border (or some semblance thereof in agreement with a Palestinian gov't of some sort). But on the other hand, you also have to realize that many Palestinians really are engaing in acts of terror and they must be reigned in as much as the Settlers do.

Somre of the Palestinian groups are not just seeking liberation for the WB and GS, they seek to destroy al the Jews and have said so out loud. Hezbollah is one such group-- surely you don't advocate rewarding these types with citizenship and clemency?

False dilema and a strawman. Where does the logic start with you?

Many of thehost governments insisted that it was unsafe to return to Israel and that the Arabs that remained in Israel's borders were going to be slaughtered. When this didn't happen, the Arab gov't kept the Pals in camps in squalid conditions to use as a reason to inflame world opinion and justify maintaining huge armies for internal suppression.

I'll be waiting with baited breath for a source on these claims. And even if it were true, so fucking what? I've never held the Arab countries to be angels, that's your strawman.

They're not so much "accidents" (nor are they passed off as such in Israeli media) but conscious choices of the terrorists to involve their own families and friends into the line of fire. It's as if US Army soldiers brought their wives and kids into the battlefield with them only to wail and moan about 'terrorism' when the enemy shoots at them.

When the battlefield is your front lawn and your enemy outguns you by a factor of about infinity to 1, the circumstances are a lot different than a US Army soldier bringing their wife and kids to Iraq.

When was the lat time you ever heard of a Palestinian terrorist attacking an Israeli Army camp? It almost never happens-- but they intentionally seek out civilian bus stops, hotel lobbies, dance clubs, and restaurants.

The June 2001 bombing of the Dolphinarium dance lub in Tel-Aviv killed several 14 year old schoolgirls. Was that a legitimate military strike by brave Palestinian warriors in the field of battle? Are the Israelis supposed to just say, "Oh, well, shit happens" and forget about it?

Civilian targets are nearly always chosen in favor of military ones. It's easier and more psychologically effective. Ever heard of strategic bombing?

P.S. I do not support bombing civilians, no matter who does it. Had to put that in there so these assholes won't think I'm holding Arabs blameless again.

Don't preach about the asymmetery of forces. Why were guerrillas, lightly armed, able to drive out the French and Americans from Vietnam, and the Soviets from Afghanistan-- all without once resorting to terrorist car bombings in Chicago, Kiev, or Lyons?

Are you fucking kidding me? You've really gone off the deep end on this one. Do you really and honestly think that the Vietcong didn't use terrorism?

Well, Vietnam wasn't a "war" and neither was Korea, but there sure was an awful lot of shooting and killing going on. If that isn't a war, what is?

There's an awful lot of shooting and killing every day in Detroit, Michigan. Is that a war, too? Maybe we should have peace talks.

But the terrorists get to kill all they want without trials, then?Targeting civilians on purpose, like the terrorists do, is okay; but hitting them incidentally like the IDF does is evil?

It's acceptable for the terrorists to take out their frustrations of a pack of 14 year old girls-- you seem to accept that without a second thought-- but the IDF retaliations that result are suddenly evil if a terrorist's human shield also gets killed?

And if the terroists aren't soldiers, then that means that they do not fall within the Geneva Convention protocols either. Are you sure you want to make that argument?

You son of a bitch. Read the top of this reply. Shit like this is the reason why I don't have the patience or the sanity to debate with you.

You must be a true pacifist, then. That paltry airstrike was nothing compared to what we could have done this whole time; technically the UN Coalition has every right (maybe even the obligation) to resume Operation Desert Storm should any treaty condition be violated. We've let him violate the treaty for 11 years-- why do you condone just letting him walk?

What we could have done? Jesus holy shit eating Christ! By that logic, if I carry a gun concealed, I could pull it out and shoot someone at any time, so if I only break their kneecaps, I'm showing restraint and am a nice guy.

Golly gee, you're right, we should just let this guy violate treaties left and right and kill anyone he feels like so long as they aren't Americans. That's plenty moral.

I'm sorry, weren't you just all over Israel for violating treaties and killing people? Why is it perfectly acceptable for Saddam but not Israel? I'd personally like all three groups (Iraq, Pals, Israel) to behave properly but you cut Iraq a lot of slack and brush it off as a non-issue-- but, by God, Israel better toe the fucking line, huh!

It's none of America's fucking business what Saddam does. If he were behaving like you claim he does, it would be NATO's business, not America's. On the other hand, we're funding and arming Israel in case you hadn't noticed. Let me show everyone your position based on what you've just now said:

1. Iraq is behaving similarly to Israel.
2. We should attack Iraq.
3. We should fund and arm Israel.

Your position was never so crystal clear. Where do they find you people?

I could say the same thing about the Palestinians.... why is it than when an Arab state acts badly it gets a shrug but when Israel acts badly it's nuking time?

You were actually very close with that one. Under identical circumstances, when an Arab state acts badly it gets a shrug, when Israel acts badly it also gets a shrug. But when Israel acts badly and we're fucking funding and arming them, then it's time to fucking stop.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, concession accepted.

[Vympel]

I fail to see how this man was an authority on anything. According to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00fj0 he was a part of the national unity government during the war. He later won a nobel peace prize after 1978, so by the time he made his statement in 1982, he was probably trying to promote peace and forgiveness. I see no reason why he should be considered specially knowledgable or crediable about the war at this point in his life.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Because the man won a Nobel Peace Prize he is not credible.

You call the statements of Nassar, the Egyptian leader, as secondary, yet you take without question the opinion, the opinion, of a general.

The personal opinion of an Israeli general is worth far more than the public proclamations and rhetoric of a political leader.

On the eve of war the Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel (Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, (NY: Random House, 1982), p. 149.)

Except they weren't mobilized. Tensions had been rising and troops moving because of Israeli moves as well, you know. This included encroachements on the DMZs.

Yet another general quote (from the same webby no doubt, which was horribly put together and looked like some cracks homepage, if I found the same one you use, and you call it a source, ha, or from 'Radio Islam' an objective site who wouldn't distort anything no doubt) General Peled was a dissenter in Israel regarding the annexation of land, so no doubt he would try to justify himself later on by presenting things from his own point of view. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is just a point of view, not a conclusive fact like you would want us to believe. Two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions, especially in hindsight. Anyone who thinks their opinion is absolutely right is either fanatically ignorent (hi you), or downright dishonest.

You're fanatically stupid. You pereptrate the style over substance fallacy that because a website doesn't look as good, the sources and references on it are worthless- are you always this fucking dumb?

There is also no suggestion as to the context in which this quote was taken. Perhaps there was no danger of extermination because Israel was too strong, or perhaps because the threat did not exist, your quote could be interperted both ways. I assume you grabbed this off the same crappy page that you grabbed all your other quotes, or another Islam fundamentalist site.

More style over substance fallacies. Feel free to obtain the context.

Another lovely quote with no context taken from 'Islam radio' or a crap site with no name, lovely

More style over substance fallacies.

This context challenged quote doesn't prove anything except that Israel had a response planned out in case invasion was imminent, bravo.

Yeah, a response where territory was tripled.

Same problem as the previous. Its also nice to note just how different the leaders of the arab alliance viewed things from these supposed 'experts' These Generals all supposedly talk of how Israel couldn't have been exterminated or defeated, yet that really isn't the point. The point that you should be focusing on was the intent of the arabian alliance, its stated goals, not its ability to carry them out. Cruchiev (sp?) threatened to bury America, but in the end we were the ones to throw dirt on his face.

Except it provides cumulative evidence against a threat against Israel which justified a pre-emptive strike which tripled Israeli territory.

Still no context to these quotes, just exactly why did Israeli hq not take the threat of annihilation seriously? Was it because the arabs didn't want to exterminate Israel or because they wern't able to?

Because not enough forces had been mobilized and there was no intention to attack.

Minister of Housing, wow, and he is in a position to know anything....how? I fail to see the credibility of this man, and can only say that there are other Israeli high officials who would disagree with his take on the issue. To be fair though I couldn't find much on this man at all, just that he supposedly issued this statment and that it has been plastered on every 'Islam radio' and crackpot homepage on the net...

Yeah what does he know, your unreferenced crap is far superior, because it comes from a nicer looking webpage. What a dumbass.

This doesn't prove anything except that Israel wanted Jerusalem for their trouble, which by all rights should have been a neutral UN controlled area according to the original agreement.

Of course it doesn't prove anything.

You know what thats called? Sound military planning...

You claim that you've 'sourced' your reasoning and that its my 'burden' to supply some kind of 'proof' myself, but when you look closely your 'sources' are poorly constructed Islamic radical web pages filled with quotes of questionable context and motives.

Of course, attack the web pages the sources/referneces are on, and claim 'context' at every turn.

Diplomacy

In mid-November 1966, Israel embarked on its largest military action since the Suez war. An armored brigade of nearly 4,000 men attacked the West Bank town of Samu in the Hebron hills, methodically destroying 125 homes, a clinic, a school and a workshop, and killing eighteen Jordanian soldiers as well (one Israeli soldier was killed). This raid was strongly condemned by US ambassador Arthur Goldberg.

The ostensible purpose of the Israeli attack was to punish King Hussein for, and force him to curb, Palestinian infiltration. Guerrillas operating from Jordanian territory had killed three Israelis in October and early November. Odd Bull, Chief of Staff of UN forces in the ME at the time, recalled ”…the Jordanian authorities did all they possibly could to stop infiltration”. A UN military observer on the Israel-Jordan border noted even more emphatically that ”…Jordan’s efforts to curb infiltrators reached the total capabilities of the country”. Indeed, until the June 1967 war, more Palestinians were killed by Jordanian soldiers attempting to enter Israel than by the Israelis themselves. And, only a few months before the Samu attack, King Hussein had taken the extraordinary step of arresting most of the PLO staff in Amman and closing its offices.

The effect of the raid had provoked rifts among the Arab nations, radicalized opinion, and set its lamentably weak and hopelessly quarrelsome neighbors lurching amid mutual plots and accusations. In particular, Radio Jordan taunted Nasser for his empty rhetoric in not rising to the Kingdom’s defense and for using the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) stationed in the Sinai and Gaza as a pretext for not confronting Israel.

In early April, a border incident between Israel and Syria climaxed in a major aerial engagement. Six Syrian planes were shot down, one over Damascus. In the second week of May, Israeli officials threatened to launch a full-scale attack on Syria. General (later PM) Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, announced on Israeli radio that ‘the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government’. The Israeli chief of military intelligence menacingly warned of a ‘military action of great size and strength’ against Syria. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol declared that Israel ‘may have to teach Syria a sharper lesson’ than that of early April. The New York Times and the Jerusalem Post reported that ‘a major military clash with Syria seemed inevitable’. Secretary General U Thant observed that ”…in recent weeks, reports emanating from Israel have attributed to some high officials in that State statements so threatening as to be particularly inflammatory to the sense that they could only heighten emotions and thereby increase tensions on the other side of the lines.”. U Thant later recalled that ”…rumors of an impending blow against Syria were current throughout Israel. They reached Cairo and other Arab capitals, where they generated the belief that Israel was about to mount a massive attack on Syria….bellicose statements by Israeli leaders created panic in the Arab world.” The US State Department ‘cautioned’ Israel against the ‘unsettling effects’ of its ‘threatening statements’, and the US charge d’affaires in Cairo advised Egypt’s Foreign Minister that the Israeli threats should be taken most seriously.

Michael Brecher states flatly in his authoritative study that Israel’s Cabinet had decided in early May that if noncoercive methods of persuasion against Syria faild, it would launch a limited attack against Syria.

Coming fast on the heels of the Samu raid and the aerial battle over Syria, the Israeli threats against the Damascus regime compelled Nasser to act. Egypt had entered into a military pact with Syria the previous November. Syria was now calling on its ally to respond with more than fiery rhetoric. Radio Jordan was again mocking Nasser’s pretensions, daring the Egyptian leader to close the gulf of Aqaba.

On 14 May, Nasser moved Egyptian troops into the Sinai and subsequently requested the complete withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai, the Gaza and Sharm-el-Shayk overlooking the straits of Tiran. Nasser then announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli shipping. Nasser wanted only that UNEF readjust its deployment in the Sinai but did not desire a UNEF withdrawal, especially from Sharm-al-Shayk. Confronted with an all-or-nothing ultimatum from UN Secretary General U Thant that left him with no ‘face saving’ device, Nasser opted for a complete withdrawal.

Moshe Dayan declared afterwards:

”…the nature and scale of our reprisal actions against Syria and Jordan had left Nasser with no choice but to defend his image and prestige in his own country and throughout the Arab world, thereby setting off a train of escalation in the entire Arab region…”

Acknowledging its legality, U Thant nonetheless expressed ‘deep misgivings’ about Nasser’s decision to terminate the UNEF mission, especially in light of ‘the prevailing tensions and dangers throughout the area’. The Secretary-General did not, however, reserve criticism for Egypt alone. First, he recalled that the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC), established as part of the agreements that ended the 1948 war, had been requested by Egypt as a viable mechanism to undertake UNEF’s responsibilities. The Israeli Cabinet in late May officially rebuffed any and all such proposals. U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF envisaged that it would be stationed on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. Egypt had acceded to the General Assemhly request, Israel had not. Israel dismissed as entirely unacceptable U Thant’s suggestion that UNEF redeploy on the Israeli side of the line. Repeated entreaties by the US, Great Britain and Canada fell on deaf ears. Even an alternative proposal at the end of May to reactivate UNEF on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier and along the Gaza Strip was peremptorily dismissed by Israel.

In late May, the UN Secretary-General journeyed to Cairo personally to mediate the crisis. His minimum aim was to get both parties to agree to a ‘breathing spell’ which would allow tension to subside and give the Security Council time to deal with the underlying causes and seek solutions. In this spirit, U Thant presented Nasser with a proposal reportedly backed by the United States. Essentially, it called for a two-week moratorium in the Straits of Tiran similar to the one that U Thant had arranged during the Cuban missile crisis – Israel would refrain from sending and Egypt from inspecting ships – and a renewed effort at diplomay. A special UN representative would be appointed for the area. Egypt assented, Israel did not.

Brian Urquhart, senior UN official and WWII veteran, concluded in his memoir that:

”…Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down U Thant’s ideas…”

The United States also tried its hand at mediation. Robert Anderson (former Treasury Secretary), and Charles Yost (retired ambassador), met with Egyptian officials in late May and early June. A ‘breakthrough in the crisis’ – in Neff’s words – was apparently reached. Nasser indicated that he was open to World Court arbitration of the dispute over the Straits of Tiran, and to easing the blockade that would allow for the passage of oil pending the Court’s decision. Crucially, the Egyptian leader agreed to send his vice-president to Washington by week’s end to explore a diplomatic settlement.

The Washington meeting never happened, Israel struck two days before the meeting was to take place.

Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State writes in his memoirs:

”…we were shocked…and angry as hell when the Israelis launched the surprise offensive. They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran.”

Deception

The central rationale Israel adduced for preemptively attacking Egypt was that it faced imminent destruction, lets examine the facts. Aba Eban (Israel’s Ambassador to the UN) enumerates three threats to Israel’s “National Existance” on the eve of the June war: 1) Syrian based terrorism 2) Egyptian troop concentrations in the Sinai after the departure of UNEF 3) The blockade of the Straits of Tiran.

Syrian based terrorism

Syrian terrorism assumed two forms, bombardment of northern settlements and terrorist raids. The combined effect of these attacks was purportedly to render the ‘security predicament’ of Israel ‘acute’. Syrian shelling from the Golan Heights of Israel’s northern settlements had its provenance in the Israeli-Syrian armistice agreement that ended the 1948 war. The accord established demilitarized zones (DMZs) between the two countries. According to Odd Bull:

”…The situation deteriorated as the Israelis gradually took control over that part of the demilitarized zones which lay inside the former national boundaries of Palestine in blatant violation of the UN-brokered accord. Arab villagers residing in the DMZs were evicted and their dwellings demolished, as the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel I her favor.”

The Security Council called on Israel to let the villagers return, but Israel held fast.

”…In the course of time all the Arab villages disappeared in wide swaths of the DMZ…”

Major-General Carl Von Horn, who served as chief of staff of the UN forces before Bull, similarly recalled that, inside the Syrian-Israeli DMZs;

”…property changed hands, invariably in one direction…” so that before long ”…Israel was claiming the right to exploit all the land. Gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking the zone, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property. This deliberate poaching was bitterly resented by the Syrians. Israel’s premeditated policy was to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul.”

US consular cables from Jerusalem told much the same story. On from July 1964 stated that ”…Arabs concerned themselves basicallywith preservation situation envisioned in the UN armistice agreements while Israel consistently sought gain full control. Israel was emerging victorious largely because UN never able oppose aggressive and armed Israeli occupation and assertion actual control over such areas, and Arab neighbors not really prepared for required fighting.” The cable concluded that UN observers generally credited Syria for ”…restraint over long period in face Israel seizure control in DMZs by force or constant threat using it.”

Syrian backed Palestinian commando raids against Israel began in earnest after a radical coup in Damascus in February 1966. Incendiary rhetoric emanating from Syria – fueled by inter-Arab rivalries – urged that a “people’s war” be mounted to liberate Palestine. Yet, the basic motive behind Syrian support of the Palestinian guerrillas seems to have been rather more prosaic – the Israeli incursions in the DMZs. UNEF head Rikhye reports that the intensification of Palestinian attacks on Israel ”…resulted from the controversy over cultivation rights in the DMZs between Israel and Syria.”. Indeed, General Aharon Yaariv, head of Israeli military intelligence, frankly acknowledged a few weeks before the June war that Syria

”…uses this weapon of guerilla activity because we are bent upon establishing…certain facts along the border..”

As for the magnitude of the threat itself, in a notably sober analysis soon after the June war, former chief of Israeli military intelligence Yehoshaphat Harkabi concluded that:

’…the operational achievements in the thirty months from its debut to the Six-Day war, are not impressive by any standard, and certainly pose no danger to Israel’s national life.”

He reports that there were all of 14 Israeli casualties, 4 civilians, 4 policemen and 6 soldiers for the entire two and a half year period. Indeed, in that same time span there were more than 800 Israeli fatalities in auto accidents. Conceding – with inimitable hyperbole – that the guerrilla attacks did not affect thousands of lives or bring about a collapse of national life. Even Aba Eban goes on to acknowledge that it would be absurd to imagine that they could have endangered anything as solid as the State of Israel.

Egyptian troops in the Sinai

In the midst of its June offensive Israel informed the Security Council that it had ‘documentary proof’ that Egypt ‘had prepared the assault on Israel in all its military details’. Yet, all the available evidence at the time pointed to the conclusion that Egypt did not intend to attack. In late May, Rabin (then Chief of Staff, later Prime Minister), told the Israeli Cabinet that the Egyptian forces in the Sinai were still in a defensive posture. An exhaustive US intelligence review at the end of the month could find no evidence that Egypt was planning to attack. US President Johnson told Eban that even after instructing his ”…experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had biven them to be true, it was still their unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack” - a conclusion, also according to Eban, also reached by Israeli intelligence. Rikhye, who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not poised for an offensive. Reporting from Cairo for the New York Times on the eve of Israel’s assault, James Reston observed that Egypt ”…does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war…”. Reston’s assessment was so widely held that it was echoed by Mossad chief Meir Amit in almost identical terms:

’…Egypt was not ready for a war, and Nasser did not want war.”

”…I did not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive. He knew it and we knew it.”

- Yitshak Rabin.

“…we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

- Menachem Begin

Blockade of the Straits of Tiran


One of the central claims is that Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran, preventing access to the port of Eilat was an attempt at strangulation. Israel tried to pry open the Straits in the course of the 1956 invasion when it occupied Sinai and Sharm-el-Shaykh. However, it was compelled to terminate the occupation withouth international sanction of its right of passage. Then UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold could not ’…condone a change of the status juris resulting from military action contrary to the provisions of the Charter”. Indeed, president Eisenhower had delivered perhaps the most impassioned defense of the principle that Israel’s withdrawal must be without conditions, asking rhetorically if:

”…a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?”

Israel claimed that it had come to be mortally dependent on trade through Eilat. In a Knesset speech on the morrow of Nasser’s announcement, Prime Minister Eshkol pointed to Eilat as the port of ‘hundreds of sailing ships under dozens of flags’ and the hub of ‘a far flung network of commerce and transport’. Israel’s UN ambassador, Gideon Rafael, described Eilat as a ‘thriving port and industrial center’ with ‘considerable trade passing through this essential maritime route’. Without free passage through the Straits, Eban asserted, Israel would be ‘stunted and humiliated’. In a yet more vivid image, Eban charged that Israel was being ‘strangled’ by Nasser’s blockade as it was condemned to ‘breathe with a single lung’. ‘The choice for Israel’, Eban perorated, ‘was drastic – slow strangulation or rapid, solitary death’.

In the real world, the picture was rather less forbidding, The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed through Haifa.

Israel faced no significant threat, let alone mortal danger, in June 1967. Furthermore, diplomacy seemed – despite Israel – to be working.

[Falcon]

Well Vympl, since you offered no real critism except to mischaracterize the context of my critism I can only assume you don't wish to engage in a constructive debate, you would prefer instead to spout volumes of radically biased fundamentalist propaganda and ill-founded quotes that were given in unknown contexts. Your highly subjective material may convince those who need no convincing, but there are still some of us left who value objectivity and fairness, not the one sided bias that you've demonstrated here today. We could sit here and post our repective sides and opinions over and over again, but little would be accomplished, so unless you wish to waste both our times (which you will no doubt try to do by claiming 'victory'), there is little point in going on.

[Vympel]

Well Vympl, since you offered no real critism except to mischaracterize the context of my critism I can only assume you don't wish to engage in a constructive debate, you would prefer instead to spout volumes of radically biased fundamentalist propaganda and ill-founded quotes that were given in unknown contexts. Your highly subjective material may convince those who need no convincing, but there are still some of us left who value objectivity and fairness, not the one sided bias that you've demonstrated here today. We could sit here and post our repective sides and opinions over and over again, but little would be accomplished, so unless you wish to waste both our times (which you will no doubt try to do by claiming 'victory'), there is little point in going on.

Concession Accepted.

1- You criticized where you found the quotes, thereby engaging in a style over substance fallacy- obvious for everyone to see

2- You completely failed to respond to my reference "Image and Reality in the Palestinian Conflict" (I suggest you read it) only vaguley asserting that it was 'radically biased' (by assuming that your position is correct, of course) and 'fundamentalist propaganda' (I take it you think the writer is an Arab- no racism there eh?) and 'ill founded quotes' that are out of context (without proof, of course).

As to your claim of 'objectivity' and 'fairness' your failure to provide any constructive sources and mere reptition of historical falsehoods does not impress me.

[Falcon]

Well Vympl, since you offered no real critism except to mischaracterize the context of my critism I can only assume you don't wish to engage in a constructive debate, you would prefer instead to spout volumes of radically biased fundamentalist propaganda and ill-founded quotes that were given in unknown contexts. Your highly subjective material may convince those who need no convincing, but there are still some of us left who value objectivity and fairness, not the one sided bias that you've demonstrated here today. We could sit here and post our repective sides and opinions over and over again, but little would be accomplished, so unless you wish to waste both our times (which you will no doubt try to do by claiming 'victory'), there is little point in going on.

Concession Accepted.

Prediction fulfilled

1- You criticized where you found the quotes, thereby engaging in a style over substance fallacy- obvious for everyone to see

The only thing obvious is your desperate attempt to manufacture your 'facts' Your quotes and arguements were taken from 'Radio Islam' and people private web pages. These sites are all run by people with agendas and with propaganda in mind. Just like you would refuse to believe without question an Israeli run web page so do I object to a radical islam web page. Two people can take the same information and put opposite spins on it. Your ability to spin this information (and my ability to spin it the other way) does not prove anything conclusive for either of our cases.

2- You completely failed to respond to my reference "Image and Reality in the Palestinian Conflict" (I suggest you read it) only vaguley asserting that it was 'radically biased' (by assuming that your position is correct, of course) and 'fundamentalist propaganda' (I take it you think the writer is an Arab- no racism there eh?) and 'ill founded quotes' that are out of context (without proof, of course).

It is no more 'radically biased' than an equilivant Israeli piece. The difference is that I don't run around touting opinion as fact, such as you are trying to do.

As to your claim of 'objectivity' and 'fairness' your failure to provide any constructive sources and mere reptition of historical falsehoods does not impress me.

I am not objective, but I do try to be fair, I realize that Israel isn't lilly white, but it isn't the tyrannical monster that it has been made out to be on these forums (and by you and your radical islam web sites). As with most disputes the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but in this case I think its leaning a bit to one side. You know which one.

[Vympel]

Prediction fulfilled

Of course

The only thing obvious is your desperate attempt to manufacture your 'facts' Your quotes and arguements were taken from 'Radio Islam' and people private web pages. These sites are all run by people with agendas and with propaganda in mind. Just like you would refuse to believe without question an Israeli run web page so do I object to a radical islam web page. Two people can take the same information and put opposite spins on it. Your ability to spin this information (and my ability to spin it the other way) does not prove anything conclusive for either of our cases.

You still don't get it do you? Those quotes would be worthless if they weren't referenced. They are. Where they were found is irrelevant. At no point did I attack your sources because of the site they were on. They are of inferior historical quality- they're not primary sources.

It is no more 'radically biased' than an equilivant Israeli piece. The difference is that I don't run around touting opinion as fact, such as you are trying to do.

No, I have evidence to back up my views, you do not.

I am not objective, but I do try to be fair, I realize that Israel isn't lilly white, but it isn't the tyrannical monster that it has been made out to be on these forums (and by you and your radical islam web sites). As with most disputes the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but in this case I think its leaning a bit to one side. You know which one.

Israel is not lilly-white. However, what pisses me off is that people act like it is, and like to repeat lots of BS myths, like the 1967 self-defense in face of certain death myth. The truth IS murkier- that's the whole point, certainly murky enough to put paid to the idea that Israel has a legimitate self-defense claim to the Occupied Territories! That's the point.

[Coyote]

Forfeit now, Arthur, and it's a concession, 'cause I have argued from a sound platform and you are even more guilty of starwman attacks than I.

I told you very clearly to knock off that strawman shit, and here you go again distorting my position.

The same could be said for you, you know.

So are you saying that after having civilian farmers and workers getting sniped at and machinegunned...

First of all, I doubt the veracity of these claims, considering the source,

THIS is why I, too, have such a headache debating with you, and why I feel that I have good reasons for tagging you with the "Arabs can do no wrong" label. You doubt the veracity of the Israeli sources but accept as 100% golden and accurate any propaganda or claim of the Arabic side. You see the Palestinians as the victims so from that point onwars anything the Israelis do at all is completely out of line.

The section of Israel that abuts the 1967 Syrian border was legally granted to Israel as part of the UN partition offer. Israel had legal right to that land. Maybe you didn't like the "political maneuvering" that alloted them that land-- tough shit. The UN gave it to tham as part of a democratiocally chosen deal. The Syrians were not "the natives" that were "defending their turf" they were observers from over the border of a recognized nation that fired on civilians without provocation.

You make excuses for the Syrians' actions and wave off any of their provocations and threat to civilians as unimportant. Hence my claim that you have chosen to defend the Arab pov as preferable.

but Israel is still the aggressor for taking the land in the first place.

Are you referring to the Golan Heights or to the Occupied Territories?

You can talk about legalities such as war declarations all day, but the fact remains that Israel started out with 6% of Palestine that they legally bought, and ended up with all of it and more through a little political maneuvering and a whole shitload of violence. That makes them the aggressors no matter who fired the first shot.

Bull fucking shit. The Jews and the Palestinians were to recieve approximately equal portians of the land and it was known that Jewsih immigration ot Israel was increasing. Whyen the vote went to the UN, the Jews accepted the peaceful partition and statehoof; the Arabs attacked Jewish townships in every part of the country and called in foreign forces to help them.

Large segments of the Palestinian population also rioted as early as 1920 when, according tot eh Martin-Gilbert Routlidge Atlas of the Israeli-Arab Conflict--

"In 1919 and 1920 a total of over 10,000 Jewish Immigrants entered Palestine, most from Russia. The Arabs feared that an eventual Jewish majority would destroy their chance of independent statehood. In September of 1920, following the first ARAB RIOTS under British rule, the British authoritiesd an upper limit to Jewish immigration of 16,500 a year".(empahsis added~~ Coyote)

Apparantly the Arabs has worries that the Jews would outnumber them soon. So it matter snot that the Jews owned 6% of the land, they represented a sizable portion of the population. (Canada has twice as much land as the US, that does not automatically mean that there are more Canadian people).

And the Arabs rioted first-- they began attacks against Jews first:

"1 March 1920, in the town of Tel Hai: In an attack by large numbers of Arabs from the village of Halsa, eight Jews were killed..."

"June, 1920, town of Kinneret: As a result of Arab attacks in March and April, the Jews decided to set up their own defense force, the Hagana, to defend Jewish townships from Arabic attack."

So-- the Jews were buying land legally, which you alreadyt implied was legal and acceptable, and the Arabs reacted violently. After the Arabs rioted and killed Jews, the Jews organized to defend themselves.

So, who fired the first shot as aggressors now, you blind ass?

I already explained to you that "the Arabs can do no wrong" is not my position, never was my position, and frankly I don't think an honest person could have reasonably interpreted that to have been my position.

Okay, maybe you are not claiming that "the Arabs can do no wrong"-- but it is equally stupid to argue from the positin that "the Israelis can do nothing justifiable". Your position has been one of "the Israelis are evil" and "the Arabs are victims" without questioning a single one of the motives behind what is happening.

Well, in regards to the West Bank and Gaza Strip I agree with you...

Good. Too bad the rest of the apologists don't see things that way.

Oh, when all else fails, label. Unlike you, I have been willing to admit Israel has its faults and has performed unjust actions, but you are the uber-apologist for the Arabs, since you have done nothing but spin-doctor actual acts of Arab aggression while painting each and every single one of Israel's actions as nothing but 100% puire unadulturated and inexcusable evil terrorism.

According to you, Israel has not undertaken one single act of self-defense that could be considered justifiable. You are arguing for a position of moral absolutism where one groups opinion is 100% wrong all the time-- that is a sign of a weak damn argument indeed. I recognize the faults in the Israeli system, but even though you toot the horn of "I don't believe the Arabs are darlings" you find rationales, excuses, and appeals to victimhood to condemn all Israeli acts while avoiding the issue of Arab culpabilty entirely.

As Wong pointed out, the Arabs have never been very good at political spin-doctoring. They saw this vote for what it was, and let their refusal be used as ammunition for apologists like you.

HAWHAWHAW! So the Palestininans willingly put themselves in a war and ran off to live in squalid camps just so that one day folks like you and I could banter over it! You're right-- they did this solely for my entertainment and convenience. Good God, you seemed so much more intelligent than this when we started. Are you truly grasping at straws such as this?

The Palestinians wanted the whole enchilada for themselves and didn't like the idea of sharing, so they began to attack Jewish townships to drive off immigrants. They also attacked in 1921, 1927 (major riots, hunderds of Jews killed), 1936 through '38, and into 1947 before the Partition vote was made.

What is a Palestinian civilian who packs a bomb into a supermarket? What is a Palestinian civilian that guns down kids at a bus stop and then runs into a crowd of more Arab civilians to escape return fire?
...
It is not that they defend their own people-- they "defend" their people by attacking Isralie civilians, and then hide among their own peoplel and wail and moan the barbarity when the Israelis counter-attack. They, the Palestinians who engage in terror and support terror, are the ones who want to be able to attack on whim but never suffer any consequences; to have their cake and eat it too.

...I'm sure that anyone who isn't in the Israel cheering section should see right through it without my help. Frankly, I haven't seen a more blatant example of overt racism since the WCOTC fuckstains invaded our board. Do you think there's some kind of terrorist gene in the Arabs? Do you think that every Palestinian is born different from an Israeli? Born as a died-in-the-wool terrorist or at least a terrorist supporter?

Did you not see the part where I said "the Arab civilians that..." and the phrase, "Palestinians who engage in terror and support terror"? I did that just for you, Arthur, so you'd know that I wasn't talking about "all Arabs" but specifically the one who engage in and support terror.

And oddly enough, you get your self-righteous panties in a knot when I say "they" or "the Arabs", and go off on me as a racist; but it seems to be perfectly acceptable for you to go off on all "Israelis" as being bloodthirsty barabaric war whores. That is a sweeping, generalized condemnation and just as racist too, you dog. So who are you calling a racist now, you goddamn Terrorist apologist and racist fuck? If you can't play by your own rules, then you aren't fit to eat the corn out of my shit.

Bah, I'm through wasting brain cells trying to figure out what's going on in your sick head.

Ohhh, another appeal to emotion and labeling. Truly the tactic of someone with somethinhg worthy to say. Ah, the arrogance! Accept without question everything you say or I am "sick". How reasonable.

The terrorists (note: "the terrorists". Not "all the Arabs"~~ Coyote) endanger the lives of their own people, or the people willingly volunteer to act as meat armor-- why does this not draw your ire? Is it just and moral to do this? Again, are Isrealis supposed to sit and do nothing while snipers pick them off one by one or bombers attack their civilian busses? Just because the Pals fortified themselves in a civilian home, knowingly endangering the homeowners?

By your non-answer, are you therefore admitting that you find the willing endangerment of local civilians as a morally defensible act? Note that I am asking you, not accusing you, before you get all hyper-sensitive and start leveling more accusations and appeals to motive or pandering to emotion.

So, according to Coyote, 1 out of 13 Palestinians are law-abiding and the rest are terrorist bastards, so bulldozing their homes, bombing their houses, shooting 10 year olds, etc. are OK.

Hmm, a strawman. Isn't that what you accused me of? Yet it is acceptable for you? You can take that two-faced strawman, roll it up, and smoke it. 'Cause I said "the terrorists" don't deserve citizenship, it is you who insists that I mean "all Palestinians". You must paint me up as a racist since it is the only card you have left, but I'm not playing that game. A distortion and appeal to emotion like that, and yet you accuse me of being a dishonest debater?

What would a country be that bowed to the whim of every single loon with a gun or a bomb?

False dilemma you dishonest prick. You know damn good and well that a country can avoid bowing "to the whim of every single loon with a gun or a bomb" without bulldozing homes and shooting rock-throwing children (add hominem deleted~~ Coyote)

Did I say that it was acceptable to bulldoze homes or shoot rock-throwing children? That happens in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which I already said was indefensible. But you want to roll up all of Israel except for 6% which would essentially mean capitulating to a bunch of terrorists. Note I said "terrorists", which does not automatically imply all Arabs, just the ones participating in Terror attacks. Sigh, more labeling, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion.

The June 2001 bombing of the Dolphinarium dance lub in Tel-Aviv killed several 14 year old schoolgirls. Was that a legitimate military strike by brave Palestinian warriors in the field of battle? Are the Israelis supposed to just say, "Oh, well, shit happens" and forget about it?

Civilian targets are nearly always chosen in favor of military ones. It's easier and more psychologically effective. Ever heard of strategic bombing?

P.S. I do not support bombing civilians, no matter who does it. Had to put that in there so these assholes won't think I'm holding Arabs blameless again.

Then why did you use it to prop up your argument with me, then? I thought you said you had no audience to impress? So you apply spin and justify an Arab attack on a civilian target while condemning Israeli attacks on civilian targets? You have blatantly chosen sides here and resort to strawmwne, ad hominem, and blatant appeals to emotion to defend something which you yourself admit is morally idefensible?

Do you really and honestly think that the Vietcong didn't use terrorism?

Shucks, you're right, I forgot about all those cafes firebombed in Berkely California and all those houses bulldozed in Sheboygan. The VC terrorism was directed against US troops and the places they could b found; ie, they attacked combatants. Of course, by your application of logic, the 14 year old schoolgirls were "combatants".

There's an awful lot of shooting and killing every day in Detroit, Michigan. Is that a war, too? Maybe we should have peace talks.

A person who accuses someone else of being stupid really should make sure their own stupidity isn't so readily apparant. What are the reasons and motivatins for the shooting in Detroit? Or Jerusalem? Do I really have to explain the differences between crime and tarrorism for you now?

That paltry airstrike was nothing compared to what we could have done this whole time; technically the UN Coalition has every right (maybe even the obligation) to resume Operation Desert Storm should any treaty condition be violated. We've let him violate the treaty for 11 years-- why do you condone just letting him walk?

What we could have done...By that logic, if I carry a gun concealed, I could pull it out and shoot someone at any time, so if I only break their kneecaps, I'm showing restraint and am a nice guy.

You are truly blind. The 1991 war stopped and Saddam signed a TREATY. Part of that Treaty's stipulations were that he would open his weapons for inspection. He did not live up to that treaty; he BROKE A TREATY. That same Treaty stated that he would open himself to more military attacks if he broke the agreement. Guess what?

Now, if you think that Treaty was wrong or unjustifiable (like the Versailles Treaty, for example), that's a different debate, but the example you gave was completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Let me show everyone your position based on what you've just now said:

1. Iraq is behaving similarly to Israel.
2. We should attack Iraq.
3. We should fund and arm Israel.

Your position was never so crystal clear. Where do they find you people?

Higher on the food chain than you, apparantly. Let's see, I admit that Israel's occupation of he WB/GS is immoral, and that children should not be shot or houses randomly bulldozed; you however not only spin doctor terrorism and cross-border attacks but actually made an argument that attacking civilian children was morally acceptable as long as Palestinians did it and not Israelis. Don't try to use "weasally lawyer tactics" on me-- you used that justification as your one and only response to my example with the Dolphinarium bombing and civilian casualties.

why is it than when an Arab state acts badly it gets a shrug but when Israel acts badly it's nuking time?

My question stands.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, concession accepted.

In your wettest dreams, child.

[Falcon]

You still don't get it do you? Those quotes would be worthless if they weren't referenced. They are. Where they were found is irrelevant. At no point did I attack your sources because of the site they were on. They are of inferior historical quality- they're not primary sources.

The opinion of a general(s) is not a more primary source than the stated intentions (and actions) of the leaders of the arab nations. Your sources may also be out of context since those quotes say nothing of the setting in which they were given. I am attacking the quotes because some of them might mean something different then your interpertation of them, that is all.

No, I have evidence to back up my views, you do not.

You have subjective evidence based off of the opinions of one group of people and your interpertation of events, the same as I do. There is no ironclad 'evidence' to be had in this situation, just opinions and reasonings. The only evidence is the chain of events (which we can't even agree upon it seems), the rest is interperatation of those events by the various groups involved.

Israel is not lilly-white. However, what pisses me off is that people act like it is, and like to repeat lots of BS myths, like the 1967 self-defense in face of certain death myth. The truth IS murkier- that's the whole point, certainly murky enough to put paid to the idea that Israel has a legimitate self-defense claim to the Occupied Territories! That's the point.

See, you don't beleive there is valid military value to the Occupied Territories when there clearly is (especially was). Also, be it certian death or not, the arab alliance was hostile and probably ready to invade, you just don't mass your troops on someone's border for fun. Israel couldn't keep its army up forever, the arabs could sit and wait until their defenses sagged and then, bam.

[Vympel]

The opinion of a general(s) is not a more primary source than the stated intentions (and actions) of the leaders of the arab nations. Your sources may also be out of context since those quotes say nothing of the setting in which they were given. I am attacking the quotes because some of them might mean something different then your interpertation of them, that is all.

Taken together, they reveal no intent to military attack, as is clearly the opinion of the Israeli leadership/ top brass at the time. Your inability to recognize the difference between rhetoric (which was equally virulent on the Israeli side) and action, not to mention the evidence that indicates that it WAS just rhetoric (the 2 divisions- totally inadequate to do anything) is your problem.

You have subjective evidence based off of the opinions of one group of people and your interpertation of events, the same as I do. There is no ironclad 'evidence' to be had in this situation, just opinions and reasonings. The only evidence is the chain of events (which we can't even agree upon it seems), the rest is interperatation of those events by the various groups involved.

Did you even bother to read the Finklestein extract I posted? Probably not ...

See, you don't beleive there is valid military value to the Occupied Territories when there clearly is (especially was). Also, be it certian death or not, the arab alliance was hostile and probably ready to invade, you just don't mass your troops on someone's border for fun. Israel couldn't keep its army up forever, the arabs could sit and wait until their defenses sagged and then, bam.

1: The Arabs were not ready to invade, that's pure bullshit. As I have repeatedly stated, Nasser put up a measly two divisions (TOTALLY inadequate) as a prestige move as a show of support for Syria, who Israel was ... shall we say ... having tensions with over several matters, not least of which was Israeli violations of the DMZ.

To conclude, you conveniently ignore the evidence that undermines the self defense claim

- the total unprepardness of the Arabs to face the assault- victory was predicted by the US to take 7 days- in fact it took six. Hardly indicative of a formidable Arab invasion force- consider that much of the Arab air forces were destroyed on the ground.
- the massive increase in Israeli territory that resulted
- the subsequent colonization with settlements of that territory (which is also expressly forbidden by international law, btw)
- the opinions of leading Israelis of whether an attack was imminent
- the lack of any significant Egyptian mobilization

[Falcon]

The opinion of a general(s) is not a more primary source than the stated intentions (and actions) of the leaders of the arab nations. Your sources may also be out of context since those quotes say nothing of the setting in which they were given. I am attacking the quotes because some of them might mean something different then your interpertation of them, that is all.

Taken together, they reveal no intent to military attack, as is clearly the opinion of the Israeli leadership/ top brass at the time. Your inability to recognize the difference between rhetoric (which was equally virulent on the Israeli side) and action, not to mention the evidence that indicates that it WAS just rhetoric (the 2 divisions- totally inadequate to do anything) is your problem.

If you mass troops on someone's border, talk unendingly about destroying their country then you are inviting an attack. If Nassar actually didn't plan to attack, as you claim, then the arabs (nassar chief of all) must be the biggest morons in the history of mankind. Everything they said and did pointed to an attack and then you discredit their forces despite credible numbers (250,000 - 500,000 troops, not 'two divisions'). If a fool comes up to you, waves a gun in your face and you knock them flat on their back then thats their problem, deal with it

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Forfeit now, Arthur, and it's a concession, 'cause I have argued from a sound platform and you are even more guilty of starwman attacks than I.

I don't give a shit whether you crow victory or not. The people watching this debate will know who was in the right.

I told you very clearly to knock off that strawman shit, and here you go again distorting my position.

The same could be said for you, you know.

Let's watch his laughable attempts to justify this assertion.

So are you saying that after having civilian farmers and workers getting sniped at and machinegunned...

First of all, I doubt the veracity of these claims, considering the source,

THIS is why I, too, have such a headache debating with you, and why I feel that I have good reasons for tagging you with the "Arabs can do no wrong" label. You doubt the veracity of the Israeli sources but accept as 100% golden and accurate any propaganda or claim of the Arabic side. You see the Palestinians as the victims so from that point onwars anything the Israelis do at all is completely out of line.

By "considering the source", I meant you.

The section of Israel that abuts the 1967 Syrian border was legally granted to Israel as part of the UN partition offer. Israel had legal right to that land. Maybe you didn't like the "political maneuvering" that alloted them that land-- tough shit. The UN gave it to tham as part of a democratiocally chosen deal. The Syrians were not "the natives" that were "defending their turf" they were observers from over the border of a recognized nation that fired on civilians without provocation.

Why do you assume I smile on the Syrian's attacks? Did I ever say that? I didn't explicitly say "Israel was the aggressor, but the Syrian's shouldn't have fired on civilians" for the sake of conciseness. You already condemned the Syrians, and so I figured by not arguing against that, it would be clear that I agreed. Silly me.

You make excuses for the Syrians' actions and wave off any of their provocations and threat to civilians as unimportant. Hence my claim that you have chosen to defend the Arab pov as preferable.

Here's the first accusation in his reply that I've "taken a side", as if you can have a debate without each participant taking a side. Note the hasty generalization that everything I say must be wrong because I've "taken a side".

but Israel is still the aggressor for taking the land in the first place.

Are you referring to the Golan Heights or to the Occupied Territories?

Both. As well as all but 6% of Palestine.

You can talk about legalities such as war declarations all day, but the fact remains that Israel started out with 6% of Palestine that they legally bought, and ended up with all of it and more through a little political maneuvering and a whole shitload of violence. That makes them the aggressors no matter who fired the first shot.

Bull fucking shit. The Jews and the Palestinians were to recieve approximately equal portians of the land and it was known that Jewsih immigration ot Israel was increasing. Whyen the vote went to the UN, the Jews accepted the peaceful partition and statehoof; the Arabs attacked Jewish townships in every part of the country and called in foreign forces to help them.

Of course they accepted the partition. It was grossly biased in their favor!

Large segments of the Palestinian population also rioted as early as 1920 when, according tot eh Martin-Gilbert Routlidge Atlas of the Israeli-Arab Conflict--

"In 1919 and 1920 a total of over 10,000 Jewish Immigrants entered Palestine, most from Russia. The Arabs feared that an eventual Jewish majority would destroy their chance of independent statehood. In September of 1920, following the first ARAB RIOTS under British rule, the British authoritiesd an upper limit to Jewish immigration of 16,500 a year".(empahsis added~~ Coyote)

At first I was confused as to what this had to do with our discussion, but then I remembered that he thinks I'm the champion of the Arabs and would balk at any attempt to paint them in a bad light.

Apparantly the Arabs has worries that the Jews would outnumber them soon. So it matter snot that the Jews owned 6% of the land, they represented a sizable portion of the population. (Canada has twice as much land as the US, that does not automatically mean that there are more Canadian people).

I'm scratching my head here. Why should they get more land than they legally paid for just because there were a lot of them, and more importantly, why should they get to carve their own nation in someone's backyard in the first place? The Vasque's in Spain want their own nation, as do the Kurds, but no one takes them seriously, why should the Jews have been any different, but for the Bible?

And the Arabs rioted first-- they began attacks against Jews first:

"1 March 1920, in the town of Tel Hai: In an attack by large numbers of Arabs from the village of Halsa, eight Jews were killed..."

"June, 1920, town of Kinneret: As a result of Arab attacks in March and April, the Jews decided to set up their own defense force, the Hagana, to defend Jewish townships from Arabic attack."

So-- the Jews were buying land legally, which you alreadyt implied was legal and acceptable, and the Arabs reacted violently. After the Arabs rioted and killed Jews, the Jews organized to defend themselves.

So, who fired the first shot as aggressors now, you blind ass?

I don't know enough about pre-1947 conditions to argue here.

I already explained to you that "the Arabs can do no wrong" is not my position, never was my position, and frankly I don't think an honest person could have reasonably interpreted that to have been my position.

Okay, maybe you are not claiming that "the Arabs can do no wrong"-- but it is equally stupid to argue from the positin that "the Israelis can do nothing justifiable". Your position has been one of "the Israelis are evil" and "the Arabs are victims" without questioning a single one of the motives behind what is happening.

Yes, it is equally stupid. It is also (surprise!) a strawman. This guy thinks he can shoot down my arguments by claiming that they stem from my attitude that "the Israelis can do nothing justifiable". When I complain about certain things the Israelis have done, the implicit assumption is that I don't have a problem with anything I didn't mention specifically.

Well, in regards to the West Bank and Gaza Strip I agree with you...

Good. Too bad the rest of the apologists don't see things that way.

Oh, when all else fails, label. Unlike you, I have been willing to admit Israel has its faults and has performed unjust actions, but you are the uber-apologist for the Arabs, since you have done nothing but spin-doctor actual acts of Arab aggression while painting each and every single one of Israel's actions as nothing but 100% puire unadulturated and inexcusable evil terrorism.

Notice how his attention is focusing more on me and less on the subject at hand.

According to you, Israel has not undertaken one single act of self-defense that could be considered justifiable. You are arguing for a position of moral absolutism where one groups opinion is 100% wrong all the time-- that is a sign of a weak damn argument indeed. I recognize the faults in the Israeli system, but even though you toot the horn of "I don't believe the Arabs are darlings" you find rationales, excuses, and appeals to victimhood to condemn all Israeli acts while avoiding the issue of Arab culpabilty entirely.

"And my head I'd be a-scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain." - Wizard of Oz

As Wong pointed out, the Arabs have never been very good at political spin-doctoring. They saw this vote for what it was, and let their refusal be used as ammunition for apologists like you.

HAWHAWHAW! So the Palestininans willingly put themselves in a war and ran off to live in squalid camps just so that one day folks like you and I could banter over it!

I refuse to believe anywould could actually be this stupid! How can anyone interpret what I said as "The Palestinians willingly screwed themselves over to provide amusement for future generations of Israel apologists" and not "The Palestinians, not being good political spin-doctors, unwittingly played into the Israelis hands by refusing to cooperate outright".

You're right-- they did this solely for my entertainment and convenience. Good God, you seemed so much more intelligent than this when we started. Are you truly grasping at straws such as this?

Even if your interpretation were true, I'd rather grasp at straws than build men out of them.

The Palestinians wanted the whole enchilada for themselves and didn't like the idea of sharing, so they began to attack Jewish townships to drive off immigrants. They also attacked in 1921, 1927 (major riots, hunderds of Jews killed), 1936 through '38, and into 1947 before the Partition vote was made.

But we don't fund and arm the Palestinians. If both sides in a conflict are equally bad, then why choose one to shower with gifts?

What is a Palestinian civilian who packs a bomb into a supermarket? What is a Palestinian civilian that guns down kids at a bus stop and then runs into a crowd of more Arab civilians to escape return fire?
...
It is not that they defend their own people-- they "defend" their people by attacking Isralie civilians, and then hide among their own peoplel and wail and moan the barbarity when the Israelis counter-attack. They, the Palestinians who engage in terror and support terror, are the ones who want to be able to attack on whim but never suffer any consequences; to have their cake and eat it too.

...I'm sure that anyone who isn't in the Israel cheering section should see right through it without my help. Frankly, I haven't seen a more blatant example of overt racism since the WCOTC fuckstains invaded our board. Do you think there's some kind of terrorist gene in the Arabs? Do you think that every Palestinian is born different from an Israeli? Born as a died-in-the-wool terrorist or at least a terrorist supporter?

Did you not see the part where I said "the Arab civilians that..." and the phrase, "Palestinians who engage in terror and support terror"? I did that just for you, Arthur, so you'd know that I wasn't talking about "all Arabs" but specifically the one who engage in and support terror.

And oddly enough, you get your self-righteous panties in a knot when I say "they" or "the Arabs", and go off on me as a racist; but it seems to be perfectly acceptable for you to go off on all "Israelis" as being bloodthirsty barabaric war whores. That is a sweeping, generalized condemnation and just as racist too, you dog. So who are you calling a racist now, you goddamn Terrorist apologist and racist fuck? If you can't play by your own rules, then you aren't fit to eat the corn out of my shit.

The Israelis I've been talking about all along are the decision-makers. The politicians. The scumbags. I haven't once used Israel interchangebly with Jews, because it's the state of Israel and its policies that I object to, not Jews. You've been using terrorist, Palestinians, and Arabs almost interchangebly since this debate started.

Bah, I'm through wasting brain cells trying to figure out what's going on in your sick head.

Ohhh, another appeal to emotion and labeling. Truly the tactic of someone with somethinhg worthy to say. Ah, the arrogance! Accept without question everything you say or I am "sick". How reasonable.

"Labeling" is not the name of any logical fallacy that I'm aware of, perhaps you meant an ad-hominem attack, which my statement would only have been if I had not tried to refute your arguments. And an appeal to emotion is when a speaker tries to appeal to the emotions of the audience to support his side or refute an opponent's argument, not when someone expresses emotion during a discussion. You clearly have no grasp on logical fallacies, which is ironic considering that you use them so much.

The terrorists (note: "the terrorists". Not "all the Arabs"~~ Coyote) endanger the lives of their own people, or the people willingly volunteer to act as meat armor-- why does this not draw your ire? Is it just and moral to do this? Again, are Isrealis supposed to sit and do nothing while snipers pick them off one by one or bombers attack their civilian busses? Just because the Pals fortified themselves in a civilian home, knowingly endangering the homeowners?

By your non-answer, are you therefore admitting that you find the willing endangerment of local civilians as a morally defensible act? Note that I am asking you, not accusing you, before you get all hyper-sensitive and start leveling more accusations and appeals to motive or pandering to emotion.

Of course willing endangerment of local civilians isn't morally defensible, you numbskull. Why do I have to spell everything out for you?

So, according to Coyote, 1 out of 13 Palestinians are law-abiding and the rest are terrorist bastards, so bulldozing their homes, bombing their houses, shooting 10 year olds, etc. are OK.

Hmm, a strawman. Isn't that what you accused me of? Yet it is acceptable for you? You can take that two-faced strawman, roll it up, and smoke it. 'Cause I said "the terrorists" don't deserve citizenship, it is you who insists that I mean "all Palestinians". You must paint me up as a racist since it is the only card you have left, but I'm not playing that game. A distortion and appeal to emotion like that, and yet you accuse me of being a dishonest debater?

Actually it's not a strawman, it's taking what you said to its logical conclusion to show how absurd it is. And I would only be a dishonest debater if I said something like "why should we listen to anything a racist has to say?", since that would be an ad-hominem.

What would a country be that bowed to the whim of every single loon with a gun or a bomb?

False dilemma you dishonest prick. You know damn good and well that a country can avoid bowing "to the whim of every single loon with a gun or a bomb" without bulldozing homes and shooting rock-throwing children (add hominem deleted~~ Coyote)

This guy can't even spell ad-hominem . He also apparently subscribes to the belief that any insult is automatically an ad-hominem, whether arguments are dealt with or not.

Did I say that it was acceptable to bulldoze homes or shoot rock-throwing children? That happens in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which I already said was indefensible. But you want to roll up all of Israel except for 6% which would essentially mean capitulating to a bunch of terrorists. Note I said "terrorists", which does not automatically imply all Arabs, just the ones participating in Terror attacks. Sigh, more labeling, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion.

So no more bulldozing, no more firing on crowds, and no more punishing persons other than the person who has commited a crime? Hey, we're making some progress here.

Btw, my position is not that we should "roll up all of Israel except for 6%", I was only using that figure to prove a point. My position is simply that we should stop funding and arming Israel.

The June 2001 bombing of the Dolphinarium dance lub in Tel-Aviv killed several 14 year old schoolgirls. Was that a legitimate military strike by brave Palestinian warriors in the field of battle? Are the Israelis supposed to just say, "Oh, well, shit happens" and forget about it?

Civilian targets are nearly always chosen in favor of military ones. It's easier and more psychologically effective. Ever heard of strategic bombing?

P.S. I do not support bombing civilians, no matter who does it. Had to put that in there so these assholes won't think I'm holding Arabs blameless again.

Then why did you use it to prop up your argument with me, then? I thought you said you had no audience to impress? So you apply spin and justify an Arab attack on a civilian target while condemning Israeli attacks on civilian targets? You have blatantly chosen sides here and resort to strawmwne, ad hominem, and blatant appeals to emotion to defend something which you yourself admit is morally idefensible?

I have commited none of these fallacies, and I have not tried to defend any of these actions. I have simply poked holes in your attempt to paint Israel as better than the Arabs and suggested that we should not fund and arm Israel. That's a lot harder to deal with than your strawmen, isn't it?

Do you really and honestly think that the Vietcong didn't use terrorism?

Shucks, you're right, I forgot about all those cafes firebombed in Berkely California and all those houses bulldozed in Sheboygan. The VC terrorism was directed against US troops and the places they could b found; ie, they attacked combatants. Of course, by your application of logic, the 14 year old schoolgirls were "combatants".

No, the Viet Cong also attacked South Vietnamese civilians. Your attempt to paint Arabs as the only group low enough to attack civilians is pathetic.

There's an awful lot of shooting and killing every day in Detroit, Michigan. Is that a war, too? Maybe we should have peace talks.

A person who accuses someone else of being stupid really should make sure their own stupidity isn't so readily apparant. What are the reasons and motivatins for the shooting in Detroit? Or Jerusalem? Do I really have to explain the differences between crime and tarrorism for you now?

No grasp of humor. What a surprise.

That paltry airstrike was nothing compared to what we could have done this whole time; technically the UN Coalition has every right (maybe even the obligation) to resume Operation Desert Storm should any treaty condition be violated. We've let him violate the treaty for 11 years-- why do you condone just letting him walk?

What we could have done...By that logic, if I carry a gun concealed, I could pull it out and shoot someone at any time, so if I only break their kneecaps, I'm showing restraint and am a nice guy.

You are truly blind. The 1991 war stopped and Saddam signed a TREATY. Part of that Treaty's stipulations were that he would open his weapons for inspection. He did not live up to that treaty; he BROKE A TREATY. That same Treaty stated that he would open himself to more military attacks if he broke the agreement. Guess what?

Now, if you think that Treaty was wrong or unjustifiable (like the Versailles Treaty, for example), that's a different debate, but the example you gave was completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Fine, so the U.S. is technically justified to attack. That has no bearing on the ethics of the issue, and this silly treaty is not why we're attacking and everyone should know it.

Let me show everyone your position based on what you've just now said:

1. Iraq is behaving similarly to Israel.
2. We should attack Iraq.
3. We should fund and arm Israel.

Your position was never so crystal clear. Where do they find you people?

Higher on the food chain than you, apparantly. Let's see, I admit that Israel's occupation of he WB/GS is immoral, and that children should not be shot or houses randomly bulldozed; you however not only spin doctor terrorism and cross-border attacks but actually made an argument that attacking civilian children was morally acceptable as long as Palestinians did it and not Israelis. Don't try to use "weasally lawyer tactics" on me-- you used that justification as your one and only response to my example with the Dolphinarium bombing and civilian casualties.

Don't be ridiculous. I've never tried to spin doctor terrorism or claimed that attacking civilians was OK.

why is it than when an Arab state acts badly it gets a shrug but when Israel acts badly it's nuking time?

My question stands.

Even though I already answered it? Umm, ok. Well, then I guess I'll answer it again. Any side that's acting badly should not be funded and armed to continue doing so.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, concession accepted.

In your wettest dreams, child.

That only seemed an appropriate thing to say considering the smackdown I had just laid upon you. I should have considered that someone such as you would never conceed.

[HemlockGrey]

If you mass troops on someone's border, talk unendingly about destroying their country then you are inviting an attack. If Nassar actually didn't plan to attack, as you claim, then the arabs (nassar chief of all) must be the biggest morons in the history of mankind. Everything they said and did pointed to an attack and then you discredit their forces despite credible numbers (250,000 - 500,000 troops, not 'two divisions'). If a fool comes up to you, waves a gun in your face and you knock them flat on their back then thats their problem, deal with it

Ah, ok. So, since there are 5 carrier battle groups in the Pacific, and with all the anti-Iraqi rhetoric, I guess Saddam Hussein is justified in launching a preemptive attack and annexing whatever land he needs to use as your vaunted 'buffer zone'.

BTW, you need a source for those numbers. And no, your ass dos not count.

[Vympel]

If you mass troops on someone's border, talk unendingly about destroying their country then you are inviting an attack. If Nassar actually didn't plan to attack, as you claim, then the arabs (nassar chief of all) must be the biggest morons in the history of mankind. Everything they said and did pointed to an attack and then you discredit their forces despite credible numbers (250,000 - 500,000 troops, not 'two divisions'). If a fool comes up to you, waves a gun in your face and you knock them flat on their back then thats their problem, deal with it

Seeing as how you didn't address any arguments in the previous post, denied the facts as stated by the Chief of Staff of Israel at the time, and continue to insist with no evidence that everything they said and did pointed to attack when I have shown it did nothing of the sort,

CONCESSION ACCEPTED.

[Falcon]

If you mass troops on someone's border, talk unendingly about destroying their country then you are inviting an attack. If Nassar actually didn't plan to attack, as you claim, then the arabs (nassar chief of all) must be the biggest morons in the history of mankind. Everything they said and did pointed to an attack and then you discredit their forces despite credible numbers (250,000 - 500,000 troops, not 'two divisions'). If a fool comes up to you, waves a gun in your face and you knock them flat on their back then thats their problem, deal with it

Ah, ok. So, since there are 5 carrier battle groups in the Pacific, and with all the anti-Iraqi rhetoric, I guess Saddam Hussein is justified in launching a preemptive attack and annexing whatever land he needs to use as your vaunted 'buffer zone'.

BTW, you need a source for those numbers. And no, your ass dos not count.

You bet, Iraq is as justified as America is in doing whatever its leader and\or its people deem they must do as a nation. If Iraq deemed that the best way to defend itself from America is to launch a pre-emptive stike then that is what it should do. I don't expect a nation to roll over and die because of 'general consensus' The UN security council is only as powerful as its ability to wage war and enforce its rulings, or as powerful as nations are cooperative in abiding by its rulings. So by all means, these nations can do whatever they want.

As for the numbers, I believe I posted a webby to them back up in my previous posts, so please read up if you want the source. (My source said nearly 500,000 troops, msc tanks\planes (5000?), but another source from someone else said 250,000, so I put down both to try to be fair)