|
|
|
|
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 3:35:03 PM |
My ability to read is fine however, your ability to define what is meant by Israel has a right to exist seems a bit messed up.
Apparently it isn't since you first asked:
Define 'right to exist?'
When my question never even brought up the meaning of "right to exist" (something even a 6th grader could grasp from the question, but, apparently, you couldn't)
and...
You couldn't even quote the question correctly.
You quoted it as:
Mungojoe Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)?
When the actual question was:
by... Israel has a right to exist. Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)? or... Do you mean Israel specifically as a jewish homeland?
Why don't you simply admit you are "outgunned" in the debate (which, apparently, even a 6th grader could accomplish given your consistent lack of ability to understand even simple points and questions) instead of continually embarrassing yourself like this?
P.S. I'm on vacation and will be for another 2 months. I'm not the least bit tired and your use of abject stupidity as a debating strategy won't wear me down in the least. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 6:50:11 PM | Msg: 106 by mungojoe:
Love of Zion (which, I suppose, could be referred to as pure or true zionism) can only serve as a positive for Judaism as a whole while being quite benign for everyone else (and in some ways an example), unlike the radical/revisionist political Zionism that is the present issue. Consider that Britain was running Israel from 1917 to 1948, when the government of the state of Israel was being put together. Consider that it was Britain who handed over control of the then Palestine to radicalist anti-religious Eastern European Jews, who had no idea of what the Arabs were like, and who could not hope but to come into conflict with religious Middle Eastern Arabs. Consider that General Allenby enraged the Arabs almost to apoplexy by saying that the conquest of Jerusalem in 1917, which was only in the efforts of the Allies to defeat the Germans, as Israel was under Ottoman rule, who side with the Germans in World War I, was, "the end of the crusades". Consider that Lawrence of Arabia promised, on behalf of the British government, that the Arabs would get their own state, in return for the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans, and then completely ignored their promise. Consider that when the British encouraged Jews to emigrate into Israel, they didn't even ask the Arabs if there was any way they could come to a compromise and live in harmony. Consider that there were plenty of Jews who were living in Israel already, living in harmony with the Arabs, to such an extent that many Arabs and Jews grew up together, as if their families were one household, with an Arab grandmother, and a Jewish grandmother, and that if there was anyone who knew how to live in harmony with Arabs, it was them, and they were completely ignored by the British when it came to leadership of Israel. Then consider that Lord Balfour, who drew up the Balfour Declaration, was a known huge anti-Semite, who wanted the Jews out of Britain. Consider that during World War I, the Germans needed access to oil for their tanks and planes, and this could have been provided easily by the Ottoman Empire, in huge amounts, along with millions of able-bodied men. Consider that the Allies split up the Ottoman Empire, the same way that Germany was split up. Does it occur to you that Germany was split up, because after 2 World Wars from the same country, that the Allies thought that the only way to stop Germany being a threat, was to "divide and conquer"? Does it occur to you that the Allies thought the same after World War I, that the Ottoman Empire was a threat to Europe, and so decided to split it up, to "divide and conquer"? Does ANY of the things that went on between 1917 and 1948 make any sense if you wanted peace there? Doesn't ALL of the things that went on between 1917 and 1948, make huge sense, if you wanted continuous conflict there?
Doesn't it mate a lot of sense, that considering how America, Britain, France and Russia, ALL had to work together to defeat the Germans in World War I, that when it came to splitting up the Ottoman Empire, that was split up between Britain, France and Russia, all of which split their mandates into even smaller countries, that they also did this as a joint idea?
The whole situation was cooked up, to make war in the Middle East. The message of Europe and America to Palestine, the Jews, and the Arabs, was, "divide and conquer". Europe and America divide, and Europe and America conquer. Lo and behold, they buy their oil from the Saudis, have been invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and now, Iran seems a likely target. Does this not tell you who is the conqueror here?
It sure sounds a conspiracy theory. But you've seen just how many things that I wrote, that are well-known. You can look them all up. I suggest you do. But there is even more than I've written. The problem with it all, is that it makes no sense, not if you are going to try to make peace. But if you want conflict there....
I certainly agree that, if Israel were a secular democracy, void of radical/revisionist political Zionism, that it would, in short order, become just another heterogenous state along NA lines. I'm not so sure that would be a good thing given Judaism's historical difficulties as a minority population. There is NO chance of that. For one, Jerusalem is held as the most important holy site in the world, to the 3 most popular religions found in Europe and the Middle East. You'd have more chance of turning the White House to Canada to be used as a brothel. Second, there was already a model for that. The Ottoman Empire, in which Israel resided, was a multi-religious, multi-cultural society, run along multi-cultural secular designs. There was no way Europe or American wanted a repeat of THAT. Third, most secular democracies are either in the First World, living off the labour and natural resources of developing countries, or they ARE developing countries, with the majority in abject poverty, and only an extremely tiny minority living a good standard of living. Fourth, how long do you think it would have been, before the Arabs would have pointed out they are not being represented in a secular democracy, just like they felt they were denied their cultural and religious identity under the Ottomans? It's a nice idea. But I really don't see how it would have been all that easy. Now, the die has been cast, and too much blood has been spilt on both sides. You're not going to get the Arabs to lay down their arms until they see an entire regime change, a revolution, one that guarantees that all their old foes will be cast out, and only those Jews who will treat Arabs with respect will be in any form of power.
I really wouldn't have much of a problem with Israel being a theocratic state (democracy can survive in such a state though not of the US kind), even though that too would be falling short of the mark (by man re-establishing Israel rather than the Messiah but that would be an issue entirely for the heart of the individual) as long as it was the wish of the people and the Palestinians had the choice between remaining there or within a sovereign (and unoccupied) Palestinian state. I know a Palestinian from Gaza. He knows I'm Jewish. We know a lot of the same people. Many have said extremely anti-Semitic things to me. One, who has issues, even said that he would kill me if I stood near him. I cannot think of any time when this Palestinian from Gaza has been anti-Semitic to me. About the only conflict we had, was that he looked very angry during the Gaza conflict just gone, and I could not blame him. But he's just like anyone else. All he wants, is to work, to have job, to have a girlfriend. If a Palestinian from Gaza is LESS anti-Semitic to me than most other people, then I seriously doubt that most Palestinians really want to kill Jews at all. But there have been plenty of suicide bombers in Israel. In the 4.5 years I was there, there were loads. So there are some people that want the Palestinians and the Jews to be at each other's throats.
The same goes for most Jews I knew there. I knew so many Jews who were angry at the Knesset, because they wouldn't let the soldiers shoot even rubber bullets at people chucking loads of sharp stones at them, when these stones were killing soldiers, but were happy to have an all-out war. All most Jews I met, wanted, was that if someone was trying to kill them, that they got the chance to defend themselves, and the same was true of soldiers, and leave the rest of the Arabs in peace.
That's why I think the whole situation is contrived. It's got to be, when most of these people on both sides, just want something reasonable, and yet these people are being pushed again and again into conflicts, using entirely irrational methods to anyone who wants peace.
Sorry that I've written so much. But it's such a complicated issue, that it's taken me years and years to find out these sort of things, and piece it all together, and it really gets me angry, when I think about how much the situation has been set up to make 2 groups of people fight each other for other's amusement and profit. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 8:27:55 PM |
So there are some people that want the Palestinians and the Jews to be at each other's throats.
I can't find any real reason to disagree with you one that. Some of them from Israel, some from the Arab countries but the biggest are thousands of miles away. Hell, we've seen some of them here, or at least their unwitting progeny.
There is NO chance of that.
I wasn't actually commenting on the possibility of it, just that under those circumstances it would have become a heterogeneous society, as you said:
"a multi-religious, multi-cultural society, run along multi-cultural secular designs"
and I have no doubt you are correct that those referred to in the first quote wanted no part of that and still don't.
I also agree that it could not become that today without a complete change in the personalities running the gov't (the "regime change" you mention) which is what I was referring to by "void of radical/revisionist political zionism". | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 8:29:36 PM | The simple fact is Israel exists and shows no signs of going away. This is a basic truth Israel-haters stubbornly fail to either comprehend or purposely ignore.
The Palestinians have neither the power or enough support to wipe Israel off the map, so negotiation for what little land they can still carve for their own is their only viable option, but that option is dwindling to nothing by the day.
The sad truth is if they would have accepted the original partition back in the late 40's, they'd have much more land than they'd ever be able to get now, if at all.
The longer they're represented by intransigent, radical groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and championed by anti-Jewish theocracies like Iran, I see little hope for them. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 8:47:48 PM |
The simple fact is Israel exists and shows no signs of going away. This is a basic truth Israel-haters stubbornly fail to either comprehend or purposely ignore.
The Palestinians have neither the power or enough support to wipe Israel off the map, so negotiation for what little land they can still carve for their own is their only viable option, but that option is dwindling to nothing by the day.
The sad truth is if they would have accepted the original partition back in the late 40's, they'd have much more land than they'd ever be able to get now, if at all.
The longer they're represented by intransigent, radical groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and championed by anti-Jewish theocracies like Iran, I see little hope for them.
Hmmmm...
So I was correct when I wrote:
"And your patent unwillingness to clarify, and come to some mutual agreement on, the ground rules which YOU requested makes it abundantly clear that you are both unwilling and incapable of conducting your argument with intellectual honesty.
It also makes it abundantly obvious that you don't have a leg to stand on unless you are allowed to "cheat" and "stack the deck" in your favour by dictating the terms of the debate.
Feel free to come back when you are prepared to clarify the ground rules and actualy engage in an honest debate.
Personally, I don't think you will do so or even that you are intellectually capable of doing so."
I'll wait in case you have a change of heart, I've got lots of spare time on my hands over the next couple of months. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 9:26:18 PM |
Define 'right to exist?' was intended to link your bullshit to the waffling of Clinton when he was under fire ("define sex.") I suppose that given the lies you have to keep track of that this went right over your head.
Mungojoe
P.S. I'm on vacation and will be for another 2 months. I'm not the least bit tired and your use of abject stupidity as a debating strategy won't wear me down in the least.
Two months vacation huh? Figure that we will have forgotten about the lie of your military service on the Golan by then?
Have a good one ''General!' | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 9:58:34 PM | Mungo, your "ground rule" is simple: complete dismantling of Israel and restoration of Palestinians to their former land.
This is patently unrealistic and absurd. Something you fail time and again to face.
You don't accept Israel's existence so obviously won't even consider a two-state solution. Your intransigence and hatred of Israel is profound, and as such your mind will "never" be open to the needed steps for reconciliation. With you it's all or nothing. In that you're no better than Hamas and Hezbollah and do the Palestinian cause great harm. You want the Palestinians to continue to suffer in misery and hopelessness to satisfy this hate you possess, and that is not only ghoulish but masochistic.
Just what do you have left to offer in the debate? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 10:02:28 PM |
was intended to link your bullshit to the waffling of Clinton when he was under fire ("define sex.")
Are you changing your "contention" AGAIN, Fannie dear? Can't you stick with just one? Is it ADD or are you just trying to weasel out of your mistake again.
Two months vacation huh?
Once again you misunderstand (quelle surprise)
I'm not going away, I just won't get tired of giving you a butt-whuppin'.
Mungo, your "ground rule" is simple: complete dismantling of Israel and restoration of Palestinians to their former land.
Please quote the exact phrase where I said this, otherwise it's just more evidence that you have no ability to debate with intellectual honesty.
You don't accept Israel's existence so obviously won't even consider a two-state solution.
Please show where I have said that. Show us the quote, please, do, I'm eager to see it.
Oh, wait... You can't, can you?
Once again you prove you can't actually debate the topic on it's merits without "stacking the deck" in you favour.
With you it's all or nothing. In that you're no better than Hamas and Hezbollah and do the Palestinian cause great harm. You want the Palestinians to continue to suffer in misery and hopelessness to satisfy this hate you possess, and that is not only ghoulish but masochistic.
Well, technically, if that were true, it would be "sadistic" not "masochistic".
Now, once again, please show us all where I have ever said any of that tripe you just listed.
Can you do it?
Oh, wait, this is just more of you proving that you don't have a leg to stand on and can't support your argument unless you get to control the debate.
So, are you ready to discuss the groundrules WHICH YOU REQUESTED or was I right about you?
| |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/7/2009 10:44:50 PM | Mungojoe
Once again you misunderstand (quelle surprise)
I'm not going away, I just won't get tired of giving you a butt-whuppin'.
I understood Mungojoe, I too have 24/7 access to the net so will be checking in every now and then to see if you have been able to fabricate some supporting material for your lies about your military service. Pers0nally, I find it detestable that in this day and age you would belittle the contributions of so many brave people by pretending to have served but, to each his own.
Oh, and as for the 'butt whuppin', I noticed all the points you dropped when I destroyed them two pages ago.
So, tell us all about your service in the Golan.
 | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 12:38:56 AM | How's the time off going Mungo? Can you clarify this item up for us?
I had to duck enough IDF rounds while there to have a, well, somewhat more realistic picture of it than most natural-born North Americans
Must have been hell. What was the war like grampa? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 1:22:20 PM | Now that you seem to have realized the futility of your constantly shifting "contentions" (if they were Depends, you would be broke by now, you've changed them so often) perhaps we can move on to some of those other points you are under the delusion of having "destroyed" ( I still laugh everytime I read that part).
Mungojoe the '56 Suez Crisis, it was Israel who did the attacking. After Egypt conducted a virtual blockade of Israel by cutting off the Red Sea and ability to use the Suez.. All in violation with the Armistice of 1949.
Once again, the closing of the Straits was a purely symbolic act. The port of Eliat has never been a landing point for strategic materials as the port and waterway is too shallow for the deep-water ocean-going tankers needed to carry such goods.
Even as an "international waterway" within Egyptian territory, it is up to Egypt to determine what constitutes "innocent passage" through it's territorial waters. The movement of strategic materials (if they had actually BEEN moving through the port of Eilat) to a nation with whom you are technically at war is FAR from "innocent passage" any more than a Soviet spy trawler moving through the Florida Keys would have been. Any lawyer with experience in maritime law can tell you that.
As a second point, the Suez is a wholly inland waterway, not legally subject to "right of innocent passage" within the territory of Egypt and was run by a private corporation.
The 1888 Convention you cite is not applicable to Egypt. It was a convention between the United Kingdom, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia and the Ottoman Empire and NO OTHER NATION. Any guarantees given by the Ottomans died with the Ottoman Empire.
This is clearly indicated by the precedent set by the British and French in their various closings of the canal to ships from specific countries on several occassions (ex. Denying passage to the Russian Baltic Fleet when attempting to reinforce their Pacific Fleet during the Russo-Japanese war).
Neither does the Armistice of 1949 guarantee these waterways to Israel.
It is hardly a casus belli or even aggressive action for a nation to exercise its legitimate sovereign rights within its own territory according to international law and precedent.
Clearly lacking a legitimate casus belli, there is no question that Israel was the aggressor in the 1956 Suez Crisis
grampa
At least I have proof that I can get laid. And you? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 5:41:58 PM | You don't even accept Israel's right to exist, so of course "any" action she does is
illegal, illegitimate, and unacceptable, so why are you still arguing? There is no
circumstance where they can fairly defend themselves with you, so why bother?
If you disagree, give me at least "one" major conflict they've been involved in where
it "wasn't" their fault, and the reasons why? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 6:50:20 PM |
You don't even accept Israel's right to exist
You've attributed this to me on several occassions and each time I have challenged you to quote the specific line where I said that.
So far you have been unable to do so.
Again, please quote the statement from me that supports it, if you can.
Now...
If you think you can shame me into something... well, you are very wrong... just ask Fandango, he's tried to use it to draw me off on a wild tangent and failed miserably at it.
Are you prepared to negotiate the groundrules which you requested in msg 113?
I'm ready to do that, I've said so many times. When you become capable of doing so, let me know (but won't hold my breath).
I can keep this up as long as you can, likely longer, since I'm on vacation for the next 2 months. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 7:13:02 PM | Then SAY so???? You continually refuse to do it after repeated attempts by me and
others to pin your stance down. That is tacit agreement that you "don't" believe Israel
should exist. If you don't agree, just give the word.
Fan is trying to pin your service record down. In all the posts I've read you've
repeatedly avoided that discussion, too.
Just in case you think I'm practicing a double standard, I told you I accept the
Palestinian right to a homeland and a two-state solution.
I'll go further: Israel has made its share of mistakes. It could have certainly been less
heavy-handed in their treatment of Palestinians at times throughout their history.
They could have negotiated with their enemies a bit fairer and with more nuance at
critical junctions that could have softened global opinion and mitigated violence
(though nothing they could have done would have completely eliminated it, sans laying
down their arms and allowing total submission). They could have had a less
discriminatory and more inclusionary policy to promote and accept the less radical
Palestinians into the framework and fabric of Israeli society instead of being so
parochial and fearful of terrorists in their midst. They could have avoided some
aspects of the present dilemma of settlements in disputed territories if they had a
strong policy in place that mandated the restriction (though not sure if any Israeli
politician would have survived the public outcry).
Are you willing to be just as critical of the Palestinian leadership? (I'm not holding "my" breath) | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 7:13:53 PM | Mungojoe
At least I have proof that I can get laid.
Yes I imagine the bottom feeders go for lines and lies like;
'You remind me of my Grandma except I haven't slept with you yet. '
'I had to duck enough IDF rounds while there to have a, well, somewhat more realistic picture of it than most natural-born North Americans '
'Mind if i stand here until it's safe where i farted? '
'I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).'
'I may not be the best looking here, but I'm the only one talking to you. '
'I too have been there, in a military capacity with UNTSO. Except the only people who took pot-shots at me weren't Arab or Palestinian, they were IDF and acting under orders.'
| |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 8:12:47 PM | | Whether the apartheid torture state has a right to exist may be a moot point in twenty years. According to a CIA report (Global Research 13 March 2009) the regime occupying Jerusalem will fade into the pages of time owing to: " An inexorable movement away from a two state to a one state solution, as teh most viable model based on democratic principles...." | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 8:40:49 PM |
You continually refuse to do it after repeated attempts by me and
others to pin your stance down.
I've offered any number of times. It is you who refuse.
To wit:
msg 113 motownmaniax
Let’s get some simple agreements out of the way first.
Israel has a right to exist.
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.
msg 115 mungojoe Sorry dude, you don't get to arbitrarily define any debate with your own definitions and givens. So let's clear some of this up... by... Israel has a right to exist. Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)? or... Do you mean Israel specifically as a jewish homeland? and... by... Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others. Do you mean that you may attack first on any provocation and not be considered the aggressor?
msg 117 motownmaniax
Mungo is automatically disqualified debating my previous question since he doesn't believe in Israel's right to exist in the first place. Agreement on that basic point is critical, for the obvious reason if one doesn't even accept a nation's legitimacy, how can they impartially debate concepts of aggression and self-defense? No scenario would be accepted and blame will "always" default back to Israel (Israel-haters like mungo will ultimately play the de rigeur "Israel is lie and shouldn't even have been formed!" card as the backstop when all else fails).
No offense, "dude".
msg 120 mungojoe Sorry dude, but I won't allow you to dictate the terms and conditions of the debate with your own self-defined givens/definitions. I asked you to define two of your givens/definitions so that we can proceed from a common point of reference and mutually agreed upon givens and definitions. I will ask again... Let’s get some simple agreements out of the way first.
Israel has a right to exist.
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others. So let's clear some of this up... by... Israel has a right to exist. Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)? or... Do you mean Israel specifically as a jewish homeland? and... by... Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others. Do you mean that you may attack first on any provocation and not be considered the aggressor?
msg 123 motownmaniax
Mungo, I have stated I recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinians, their right to a homeland, and a two-state solution. But you and others continually and vehemently reject the same with Israel, and don't hide the hope of having Israel wiped out, Israeli's slaughtered, and everything returned to previous, pre-Israel history.
Israel is there to stay. They're not going to jump into boats and flee and unilaterally give up a nation Jews have fought and died for over 60+ years. To pretend otherwise is not only blind but stupid.
I submit your way of thinking will "never" resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and apparently has the goal of making never-ending war last to perpetuity. As the article I provided above points out, this stubborn insistence on all or nothing is condemning more generations of Palestinians to the prospect of having no land left to negotiate over? But you keep beating a dead horse. I'm sure Palestinians will thank you at the end of the day when they'll have nothing to show for all that chest-pounding.
To me, "your" way is NO way to constructively approach the problem and perversely revels in the misery and hopelessness of the Palestinian cause. Just who is the obstructionist to peace? I think the answer is obvious.
msg 125 mungojoe
And your patent unwillingness to clarify, and come to some mutual agreement on, the ground rules which YOU requested makes it abundantly clear that you are both unwilling and incapable of conducting your argument with intellectual honesty.
It also makes it abundantly obvious that you don't have a leg to stand on unless you are allowed to "cheat" and "stack the deck" in your favour by dictating the terms of the debate.
Feel free to come back when you are prepared to clarify the ground rules and actualy engage in an honest debate.
Personally, I don't think you will do so or even that you are intellectually capable of doing so.
msg 129 motownmaniax
The simple fact is Israel exists and shows no signs of going away. This is a basic truth Israel-haters stubbornly fail to either comprehend or purposely ignore.
The Palestinians have neither the power or enough support to wipe Israel off the map, so negotiation for what little land they can still carve for their own is their only viable option, but that option is dwindling to nothing by the day.
The sad truth is if they would have accepted the original partition back in the late 40's, they'd have much more land than they'd ever be able to get now, if at all.
The longer they're represented by intransigent, radical groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and championed by anti-Jewish theocracies like Iran, I see little hope for them.
msg 130 mungojoe
Hmmmm...
So I was correct when I wrote:
"And your patent unwillingness to clarify, and come to some mutual agreement on, the ground rules which YOU requested makes it abundantly clear that you are both unwilling and incapable of conducting your argument with intellectual honesty.
It also makes it abundantly obvious that you don't have a leg to stand on unless you are allowed to "cheat" and "stack the deck" in your favour by dictating the terms of the debate.
Feel free to come back when you are prepared to clarify the ground rules and actualy engage in an honest debate.
Personally, I don't think you will do so or even that you are intellectually capable of doing so."
I'll wait in case you have a change of heart, I've got lots of spare time on my hands over the next couple of months.
msg 132 motownmaniax
Mungo, your "ground rule" is simple: complete dismantling of Israel and restoration of Palestinians to their former land.
This is patently unrealistic and absurd. Something you fail time and again to face.
You don't accept Israel's existence so obviously won't even consider a two-state solution. Your intransigence and hatred of Israel is profound, and as such your mind will "never" be open to the needed steps for reconciliation. With you it's all or nothing. In that you're no better than Hamas and Hezbollah and do the Palestinian cause great harm. You want the Palestinians to continue to suffer in misery and hopelessness to satisfy this hate you possess, and that is not only ghoulish but masochistic.
Just what do you have left to offer in the debate?
msg 133 mungojoe
Oh, wait, this is just more of you proving that you don't have a leg to stand on and can't support your argument unless you get to control the debate.
So, are you ready to discuss the groundrules WHICH YOU REQUESTED or was I right about you?
msg 137 motownmaniax
You don't even accept Israel's right to exist, so of course "any" action she does is
illegal, illegitimate, and unacceptable, so why are you still arguing? There is no
circumstance where they can fairly defend themselves with you, so why bother?
If you disagree, give me at least "one" major conflict they've been involved in where
it "wasn't" their fault, and the reasons why?
msg 138 mungojoe
Now...
If you think you can shame me into something... well, you are very wrong... just ask Fandango, he's tried to use it to draw me off on a wild tangent and failed miserably at it.
Are you prepared to negotiate the groundrules which you requested in msg 113?
I'm ready to do that, I've said so many times. When you become capable of doing so, let me know (but won't hold my breath).
I can keep this up as long as you can, likely longer, since I'm on vacation for the next 2 months.
YOU ASKED for groundrules and I tried to clarify them.
Your responses since then have been NOTHING but your own wild and unsupportable imaginings about what you think my beliefs are.
My beliefs will become clear when you are prepared to indulge in sufficient intellectual honesty to negotiate the ground rules that YOU ASKED FOR.
YOU WANTED groundrules and I agreed to discuss them with you. We aren't going to move forward until that happens no matter what you state your position on Palestine is.
Oh, and I'm particularly fond of that little line where you tried to dictate that I'm not "allowed" to debate your question because I wouldn't let you dictate the groundrules. Hilarious, I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Fan is trying to pin your service record down. In all the posts I've read you've
repeatedly avoided that discussion, too.
As for our dear little Fannie (or is that Packer?), I have no intention of indulging his wild little off-topic tangents that he's pulled out of his ass just because he's trying to distract from getting his ass kicked on the topic under discussion so, all I have to say on that is: suck it up big boy. | |
|
| |
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 10:28:54 PM | Hey Mungo, what is so impossibly hard about writing, “I accept Israel’s right to exist”?
Are you brain-dead or just confused with the meaning of the written word? There are
remedial classes in English if you need some refreshing…lol. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 10:37:06 PM | Even Egypt, the POL and Jordan who were at war with Israel did it. Mungojoe must be a hard case. Needs a vacation or something.
:roll:
Here, watch this;
I accept the right of the Palestinian people to exist as a nation and, if they choose to name it so, I accept the right of Palestine to exist.
There. Whew! That wasn't so hard. Now all we have to do is work out the details on how we figure this should all be done so at least we, here on this forum, can agree on something
| |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/8/2009 11:42:13 PM |
you yourself decided to bring up military service as a point of discussion
Really?!? I did?!?
I've questioned, or rather should I say, you've called into question, your reading comprehension... your skill at analyzing strategic and tactical options... your memory for things you would have learned... your intelligence... and probably a few other things too but...
I haven't brought up either your or my military service in this discussion.
If I have... then where ?
Show me where I've brought up either your or my military service in this discussion, the exact quote.
You can't because it's not there... This is just some wild tangent you pulled out of your ass to distract from the ass-kicking.
If you were one of those people who are SO incredibly desperate and hopelessly untalented as to go searching back through almost 2 years of posts and even other websites in order to pull some wild, off-topic tangent out of your ass you might find some mention in another discussion there but...
...not in this discussion (unless you're prone to seeing things that don't exist).
So suck it up, big boy.
Hey Mungo, what is so impossibly hard about writing, “I accept Israel’s right to exist”?
Are you brain-dead or just confused with the meaning of the written word? There are
remedial classes in English if you need some refreshing…lol.
So let me just clarify this here...
Are you dropping YOUR request for these ground rules...
Let’s get some simple agreements out of the way first.
Israel has a right to exist.
Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.
...and agreeing that none of them have any role in or bearing on the discussion?
Or...
Are you prepared to negotiate the groundrules YOU requested with intellectual honesty? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/9/2009 12:47:06 AM | Mungojoe
Really?!? I did?!?
Oh yes, you did. Not only that but you degraded thousands of former soldiers while pretending to sanctify military service and, also pretending to actually having served in an army at some point in time which, makes your bullshit all the more despicable.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/12397539datingPostpage11.aspx
If you recall, when Nurbydiver, a vet proud of his service, felt that possibly you never served. You retorted;
Mugojoe retorting.........
Actually, I have, for several years, Army to be exact and in the Canadian Army, also for several years and a tour as a UN peacekeeper on the Golan (where the IDF likes to shoot and bomb peacekeepers with uncanny regularity).
And, added more in another post;
Mungojoe
Considering you are writing this on the 65th anniversary of D-Day, you should have a bit more shame and respect for members of both forces. Your disrespect for the members of the Canadian Forces is despicable and not worthy of comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Nurbydiver realized his comments were wrong, and apoligised.
Let me apologize to current and former members of the CF,
I then said;
I'm twenty years Army, eight of them Airborne with four tours of the ME, last one during the Gulf War. Misunderstanding accepted.
And this is where you show your true colors. Using my service record, brief as it may appear in a the one line post above, you, the guy who is supposedly sticking up for vets, use it as a weapon with which to personally attack me for my thoughts;
Mungojoe
Of course, I don't realy expect you to get all that.
Why? Simply because after finding out I was in the army for 20 years unlike you, you felt that;
Mungojoe
were starting to get a bit of insight into where the behaviour that got our airborne regiment got shut down comes from. 2 Commando, perhaps?
You brought this up again in this thread to attack my ideas and this, Mungojoe, is where you tied it all in;
Mungojoe
Your comments remind me of the ignorant *sswipe thugs that infected 2 Commando, resulting in the disbanding of CAR
And now, because of all this, you are a free fire zone as you not only cannot recognize Israel's right to exist under any circumstances (which is fair enough under free thought and speech as we practice on these forums) but, feel that military vets are simple fodder for your selfish ideas. You probably never served in any army and, as for the bull about 'Ranger' I can check that one out in an hour as I was CDN Pathfinder and have the connections to do so, provided you wish to allow me to verify. If you don't, then I can give you the e mail and you can send the info yourself and they can second hand the affirmation back to me which will gain you an apology from myself for doubting you as we all know that a Ranger or CDN Pathfinder never lies. As for the Golan, you've had ample opportunity to provide the incidences of Israel deliberately, and under orders shooting and bombing Observers and Peacekeepers yet have provided squat.
In any case, I wish you were on vacation all the time as this is entertaining, watching you and Motown duke it out, knowing your full of it under all the faux indignation and righteous bull. I've also seen your echo chamber and, the same bull you gave them. That they bought it doesn't mean it works, I take you about as seriously as I do the new 'Stooges' movie.:roll:
Wondering, when you were 14 and the Yom Kippor ended, what was it like being the youngest Observer - ever? | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/9/2009 1:42:53 AM | There you go calling your reading comprehension into question again.
Your comments remind me of the ignorant *sswipe thugs that infected 2 Commando, resulting in the disbanding of CAR
"Your comments" magically become "you"?
"remind me" somehow magically becomes "are one"?
Dude, that's more than just you calling your reading comprehension into question, that's you calling your overall intelligence into question.
But I guess these little statements were more prophetic than a Nostradamus quatrain:
"You can't because it's not there... This is just some wild tangent you pulled out of your ass to distract from the ass-kicking."
"If you were one of those people who are SO incredibly desperate and hopelessly untalented as to go searching back through almost 2 years of posts and even other websites in order to pull some wild, off-topic tangent out of your ass..."
Evidence?
<a href="http://forums.plentyoffish.com/12397539datingPostpage11.aspx">http://forums.plentyoffish.com/12397539datingPostpage11.aspx</a>
You can't even defend your own arguments in this discussion so now you're trying to pull in other threads? You're even quoting people who have not been a part of this discussion. You could not have done more to prove me right if you had planned on it.
This isn't just a wild, off-topic tangent... it's a DESPERATE, HOPELESSLY wild, off-topic tangent pulled from the deepest recesses of your colon.
My God, dear, how hopelessly desperate ARE you to stoop to such a dishonest, dishonorable and unmanly level just to snatch some small crumb from the lion's mouth?
Really, dude, this is just getting sad now...
And now, because of all this, you are a free fire zone
Yeah, whatever dude.
| |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/9/2009 6:01:22 AM |
Yeah, whatever dude.
Wow. You belittle other's service, play faux war hero, get caught lying and then, try to place blame on guy who asks you to prove it.
I suppose to you this is normal but believe it or not, most people don't run around pretending to be something they are not. | |
|
| US Sucked Into Israeli - Iran Conflict
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:52:19 AM | To answer the OP, Israel will do whatever it thinks necessary to defend itself and won’t give a da*n what the US thinks, wants, or dictates. If that means taking out an Iranian nuclear reactor or facility, they’ll do it. It’s always been that way with their leadership in such times of national survival (they don't take marching orders from Washington over such issues).
If you think that would be an act of war and Israel is simply over-reacting to an Iranian threat that doesn’t exist, let’s switch the scenario.
What if Israel has repeatedly threatened Iran's existence as a matter of national policy, explicitly funded, armed, and supported terrorist organizations bent on destroying Iran, and continually defied international and UN sanctions/resolutions specifically targeting their nuclear program. In such circumstances I would have NO problem with Iran sending over jets to take out Israeli nuclear installations. They would be completely justified. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
