BF2S Forums Looking for Rush, Haninty counter Radio from the Left - Any Ideas ?

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

agreed, and I view Israel as the ones who have historically been attacked.

And after the start of WW2 it was the Germans being attacked, so that made them the victims, defending their stolen land like good peaceniks?

ummm no,  they were the aggressors Dilbert.

So how are you able to exclude the original Zionist aggression and conclude Israel is the victim here?
Its like ignoring Pearl Harbour and concluding the Japanese were peaceful victims throughout WW2.

I personally believe a return to 1967 borders is the best option for peace at this point.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-07 18:05:38)

lowing wrote:

Guys let me ask this:

Lets say the borders of Israel were taken back to pre-1967. Do any of you actually believe that would bring peace to the ME? I personally do not think so. Israel has a tiger by the tail. If it lets go, it is doomed.

Personally I think the Israel situation has a lot of parallels to Northern Ireland and certain colonial rebellions. I certainly don't think just going back to old borders will do a hell of a lot, not least because there are people living within the zone that would change hands that think themselves as Israeli now.

Israel has 200+ nukes ffs, on top of a monstrously powerful army for its size. They don't need military help ffs.

presidentsheep wrote:

I'd love to get drunk with you lowing and put the world to rights. I bet you're a funny drunk.

Anytime I'll show you Manhattan, cool places you wouldn'y find on your own. I have a condo there still. Don't use it.

Spark wrote:

Israel has 200+ nukes ffs, on top of a monstrously powerful army for its size. They don't need military help ffs.

Iraq had a waay larger army than Israel.  I believe Iran is still in the top 10 biggest armies of the world.  Part of Arab discontent in the GWOT was the removal of Iraq as a regional powerhouse.  They were the common foil to Iran's perceived armed forces dominance in the region.  Whether or not those armies were/are effective is another argument, but Israel needs as much help as it can get in the region in that regard.

Also, last time there was a major war Israel was attacked by a number of States in the region.

Its unlikely Israel will ever be left alone, any more than Nazi Germany would have been left alone if they'd retreated to their original borders and kept just a couple of concentration camps running.

1967 borders would be acceptable to the international community and the majority of arab nations and so is their best option.

Or they can continue to be asshats and may in part trigger the total radicalisation of the whole of the ME, in which case they could be left with a glassy crater the borders of which won't matter.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its unlikely Israel will ever be left alone, any more than Nazi Germany would have been left alone if they'd retreated to their original borders and kept just a couple of concentration camps running.

1967 borders would be acceptable to the international community and the majority of arab nations and so is their best option.

Or they can continue to be asshats and may in part trigger the total radicalisation of the whole of the ME, in which case they could be left with a glassy crater the borders of which won't matter.

Your comparison to Israel to the Nazi Germany is ironic, if not out right backwards. Israel has historical not been the aggressors. Armies massed against Israel, surrounding it, NOT the other way around.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its unlikely Israel will ever be left alone, any more than Nazi Germany would have been left alone if they'd retreated to their original borders and kept just a couple of concentration camps running.

1967 borders would be acceptable to the international community and the majority of arab nations and so is their best option.

Or they can continue to be asshats and may in part trigger the total radicalisation of the whole of the ME, in which case they could be left with a glassy crater the borders of which won't matter.

Your comparison to Israel to the Nazi Germany is ironic, if not out right backwards. Israel has historical not been the aggressors. Armies massed against Israel, surrounding it, NOT the other way around.

What army does Palestine have again?

You justified the last aggression by Israel due to a couple of rocket attacks.

This isn't just about the Palestinians, we all agree that no matter what Israel does short of mass suicide, they will not be left alone and will continue to be attacked. Pretty much proving this isn't about Israeli borders or compromise, this is about the destruction of Israel.. Pardon them if they fight to prevent it.
Israel has extended olive branches, they have tried to compromise by pulling out of Gaza and the west bank....The response they got for it was rhetoric about the defeat of Israel and their surrender compounded by rocket attacks. I don't blame Israel for getting sick of it.

DesertFox- wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its unlikely Israel will ever be left alone, any more than Nazi Germany would have been left alone if they'd retreated to their original borders and kept just a couple of concentration camps running.

1967 borders would be acceptable to the international community and the majority of arab nations and so is their best option.

Or they can continue to be asshats and may in part trigger the total radicalisation of the whole of the ME, in which case they could be left with a glassy crater the borders of which won't matter.

1967 borders pre or post Six Day War?

translation: do you mean pre or post, all of the Islamic and Arab countries that massed for an attack against Israel that got their asses kicked in less than a week and ran to the UN begging it to stop Israel before Israel over ran their capitals? god I love that

lowing wrote:

Your comparison to Israel to the Nazi Germany is ironic, if not out right backwards. Israel has historical not been the aggressors. Armies massed against Israel, surrounding it, NOT the other way around.

You keep excluding the original invasion of Palestine and the terrorisation and expulsion of the Palestinians.

As I said already, if you exclude all the aggressive act committed by the nazis then they were the victims in WW2.
This is what you're doing for the Israelis

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Your comparison to Israel to the Nazi Germany is ironic, if not out right backwards. Israel has historical not been the aggressors. Armies massed against Israel, surrounding it, NOT the other way around.

You keep excluding the original invasion of Palestine and the terrorisation and expulsion of the Palestinians.

As I said already, if you exclude all the aggressive act committed by the nazis then they were the victims in WW2.
This is what you're doing for the Israelis

Look the international community recognizes the state of Israel. The UN set it up, they didn't "invade" and, they are not going anywhere,

Israel has tried to compromise, only to be answered by attacks. No one that is against Israel is interested in peace, they are only interested in the total destruction of Israel, and that simply is not rational or acceptable.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

The UN set it up, they didn't "invade"

Incorrect, and the arab members of the UN were not part if that recognition.

Israel has never compromised, just seized more land and expelled more people - please explain how taking the whole of Palestine - as they are doing now by 'settling' the West Bank is compromise?

As I said, maybe it is a shame there are no left wing loons to counter the Glenn Becks and their revisionist bile.
Two stupid arguments don't balance out, they just misinform everyone which would probably be worse, sadly history and facts don't work in the face of Murdoch and the Neo-Con agenda.

Well you might wanna go read up on UN resolution 181.

You speak as if Israel just wakes up in the morning, has a nice breakfast and decides to go seize land. THat isn't what happens. The land is taken out of defensive action. It is land that countless attacks have been launched into Israel. It was land where armies had massed in preparation to invade Israel.

How you can blame Israel for defending itself against attacking nations, and terrorism is something I can not understand, especially since we both agree that there are no border resolutions that will bring peace for Israel.

Not really sure how you can say giving back Gaza, the West Bank, the whole Sinai Peninsula all places used to mount attacks against Israel is not compromise, but whatever.

You are correct their are few "left wing loons", most left wing commentators have their roots set in stand up comedy. Fitting in my opinion.
and f you don't think Keith Obbermann isn't a nut job, well we will just agree to disagree.

Last edited by lowing (2011-02-09 00:07:46)