U.N. Mideast draft

No, I think Vita is displaying either the dementia associated with early onset of alzheimers....
...or maybe a severe case of syphilis.

I don't know, but I find it boring.
 
Calabrio said:
No, I think Vita is displaying either the dementia associated with early onset of alzheimers....
...or maybe a severe case of syphilis.

I don't know, but I find it boring.
Click to expand...

I cross examined what Vitas typed with my copy of the Visettas Stone... Vitas is implying that you are a hypocrite because he thinks you are dodging his 'impervious' points while in that other thread you accused 97Silverlsc of dodging debate points. Let me know if I can be of further service in translating Vitaglyphics.
 
95DevilleNS said:
I cross examined what Vitas typed with my copy of the Visettas Stone... Vitas is implying that you are a hypocrite because he thinks you are dodging his 'impervious' points while in that other thread you accused 97Silverlsc of dodging debate points. Let me know if I can be of further service in translating Vitaglyphics.
Click to expand...

Ah. Thanks for the effort. This is a real Vitarama.;)
 
95DevilleNS said:
I cross examined what Vitas typed with my copy of the Visettas Stone... Vitas is implying that you are a hypocrite because he thinks you are dodging his 'impervious' points...
Click to expand...

Notice that neither Calabrio or Fossten has been able to give a direct factual response, backed up by links to substantiate their position. :D
 
Calabrio said:
No, I think Vita is displaying either the dementia associated with early onset of alzheimers....
...or maybe a severe case of syphilis.

I don't know, but I find it boring.
Click to expand...

That is "name calling" and a personal attack.

Would you like for me to send a missile up your ass?
 
Vitas said:
That is "name calling" and a personal attack.

Would you like for me to send a missile up your ass?
Click to expand...

That sounds like a homo attack, Calabrio. :D

I didn't know you were that way, Vitas.:eek:
 
thread_gay_midget.jpg
 
fossten said:
That sounds like a homo attack, Calabrio. :D

I didn't know you were that way, Vitas.:eek:
Click to expand...

You are both homophobic, and Calabrio says ALL Islamic people are terrorists.

What a wonderful world, from your perspective. –ROFLMAO-
 
MonsterMark said:
It is what it is. Israel earned that land thru conflict. Again, to the winner go the spoils.
Click to expand...

According to your premise, if the suicide bombers win through conflict, they win? Your premise is absurd.
 
Vitas said:
You are both homophobic, and Calabrio says ALL Islamic people are terrorists.
Click to expand...

For the record, you belligerant troll, I've never said all Islamic people are terrorists. I have said very negative things about Mohammed and that the religion is a cult, but that's very different from you claim.

Second, let's put this ridiculous thread to rest rather than have you hijack every thread in this forum.

The points have been made repeatedly. World opinion certainly does state that Israel has occupied territory since it's creation as a state. There is no denying this.

The distinction that can be made, and should be made, is that Israel was not beligerant, the aggresor, or the hostile force when any of these occupations you mention took place. They launched DEFENSIVE wars. And the territories obtained were retained only for security reasons.

The use of "occupation" implies that it was an offensive or belligernat action, and that distinction must me made when discussing Israel.

Furthermore, is it really possible to "occupy" a territory that was even a state? Perhaps you don't know this, but the Palestinians refused the divisions of Israel in 1947. Upon being granted statehood, the Arab nations in the region all launched simulataneous wars upon Israel, in an effort to destroy the Jewish state. They failed, but did manage to seize some of the territory in the Eastern part of the state.

Is Israel an occupier for taking it back from Jordan or Egyptians in '67?

Israel DID occupy parts of Egypt during the Suez Crisis. But you never brought that up.
 
Calabrio, this is what you face...
ferrous.jpg

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
 
Calabrio said:
For the record, you belligerant troll...
Click to expand...

Calabrio said:
Second, let's put this ridiculous thread to rest rather than have you hijack every thread in this forum.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disapoint you. You are wrong on both counts. You have been unable to support your "theory" and CLEARLY have engaged in attacking me with personal comments that have nothing to do with the issue, due to your inability to support your stance. Bad form dOOd. Everybody here sees through your failure, maybe even including your pals.

Calabrio said:
World opinion certainly does state that Israel has occupied territory since it's creation as a state. There is no denying this.
Click to expand...

WOW, is this FINALLY an admission on your part? After 100+ posts in this thread? What about "Fossten's" HISTORY lesson? =lol=

Calabrio said:
The distinction that can be made, and should be made, is that Israel was not beligerant, the aggresor, or the hostile force when any of these occupations you mention took place. They launched DEFENSIVE wars. And the territories obtained were retained only for security reasons.
Click to expand...

POSTED September 2nd, 2006, 10:43 PM


Until anyone of you can prove otherwise, Israel occupied Palastine in 1967:

6. The conclusion that Israel did not occupy anyone is simply not supported by the overwhelming evidence, interpreted by the International Court of Justice and the United Nations, and others. To the best of my knowledge the USA has never recognized Israel’s occupation of lands since 1967.

7. The dictionary description as of this day of Israel is:

"In the Six-Day War of 1967 Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jerusalem's Old City, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula."

http://www.bartleby.com/61/74/I0257400.html

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/sho...003#post229003

======================

The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘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.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

“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 in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html#1967

==========================

You have thoroughly ruined your own reputation by your own sword.
 
Let me get this right, you now want to debate whether or not the 1967 war was prememptive or, as you seem to be asserting, whether it was a war of aggression on the part of Israel?

Of course, my actually KNOWING military officers who fought in that war isn't going to be enough to "convince" you. So, you'll have to wait until I have a bit more free time for a detailed response.

If I work on your schedule, Vitas, I'll promise it by Midweek and then never deliver it.

And here's something else, I won't link to a propoganda website like "ifamericansknew" like you seem to have done to support the argument.
 
Calabrio said:
Let me get this right, you now want to debate whether or not the 1967 war was prememptive or, as you seem to be asserting, whether it was a war of aggression on the part of Israel?.
Click to expand...

That is the issue, as of a month ago.

Why don't you explain to me, and our readers, why you have not addressed the issue until now? Your failure to do so, coupled with your persistent personal attacks against me, makes you look like a total fool.
 
I haven't made any personal attack on you. I've just accurately labelled your behavior. If you take that personally, perhaps you should change your tone on this message board. It's probably not a bad idea, given your knack for being kicked off of other message boards. But that's up to you.

You are belligerant. And you are a message board troll. I'm confident I won't find anyone who disagrees.

Perhaps you're not happy with the schedule at which I address your illconcieved points and cut-and-past propoganda, but- that's up to me to do. I've address your claim of occupation. I've explained why I differentiate Israel's actions from the classic definition of occupation.

And next, I'll begin to address the history of the 1967 Six Day War.

Let me ask, when Egypt removed the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai Penisula, blocked Strait of Tiran to Israeli ships, essentially causing a naval blockade of that vital artery, and increased military activity on the border, you're saying this wasn't an act of aggression?

You're also saying that Nasser repeatedly making statements like, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." Shouldn't have been viewed as an aggressive statement?

Israel should have waited until being formally fired upon before launching a swift strike designed to cripple the opposing ARMIES (not just one mind you because these Arab states routinely attack Israel in packs)

Nassar was face of Pan-Arabism and had long sought the destruction of Israel. The fact he may have been aware of his army's limitations to fight a war against Israel does not mean that he still wouldn't. There's victory is defeat in the Arab world. The public was still seeking revenge and retribution for the Suez Crisis. He was also expecting Israel to have to fight a multifront war. Had his air force not been destroyed with the first day of the war, he could have inflicted massive casualities and damage on the Israel population.

And, in contrast, we have the 1973 Yom Kippor War where Israel was reluctant to strike first and suffered very heavy damage at the start of the war at the hands of Egypt and Syria.

But, just for the sake of curiosity, are you going to later tell us that Israel wasn't the target of attack at the start of the Yom Kippor War as well. That it wasn't a defensive war either?
 
Vitas said:
The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘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.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
Click to expand...

And you've shot your already nonexistent credibility yet again in the balls by quoting an anti-American, known communist and communist sympathizer.

So not only are you an ignorant troll, but apparently you are also a proponent of the works of communists and anti-Americans.

The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky

There’s a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it.
—Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, 2003

Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorism” of United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomsky’s own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today.

Two books of interviews with him published since September 11, 2001 both went straight onto the bestseller lists.[1] One of them has since been turned into a film entitled Power and Terror, now doing brisk business in the art-house movie market. In March 2002 the film’s director, John Junkerman, accompanied his subject to the University of California, Berkeley, where in a five-day visit Chomsky gave five political talks to a total audience of no fewer than five thousand people.

Meanwhile, the liberal news media around the world has sought him out for countless interviews as the most promi- nent intellectual opposed to the American response to the terrorist attacks. Newspaper articles routinely open by reminding readers of his awesome intellectual status. A profile headlined “Conscience of a Nation” in the English daily The Guardian declared: “Chomsky ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities—and is the only writer among them still alive.” The New York Times has called him “arguably the most important intellectual alive.”

Chomsky has used his status, originally gained in the field of linguistics, to turn himself into the leading voice of the American left. He is not merely a spokesman. His own stance has done much to structure left-wing politics over the past forty years. Today, when actors, rock stars, and protesting students mouth anti-American slogans for the cameras, they are very often expressing sentiments they have gleaned from Chomsky’s voluminous output.

Hence, to examine Chomsky’s views is to analyze the core mindset of contemporary radicalism, especially the variety that now holds so much sway in the academic and arts communities.

Chomsky has been a celebrity radical since the mid-1960s when he made his name as an anti-Vietnam War activist. Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. At seventy-four years of age, he is today the doyen of the American and much of the world’s intellectual left.

[snip]
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
 
Even his translator couldn't hold back the giggles listening to this moron spout off about Bush being the devil.
 
I was about to point out- look at the woman above him in that picture.

General Assembly president Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain is supposed to be the woman sitting above him, trying to hold back laughter. I assume she's laughing at Chavez.
 
Calabrio said:
General Assembly president Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain is supposed to be the woman sitting above him, trying to hold back laughter. I assume she's laughing at Chavez.
Click to expand...
I was too lazy to figure out who she was. Supposedly, a bunch of people were snickering, funny haha or funny peculiar, I do not know.
 
What's interesting to me is that his "Bush is the devil" rhetoric sounds too much like the rhetoric of the Democrats. Maybe they should let him address Congress. Then we'd see the Dems for who they really are. Be funny to see them squirm and sit on their hands.

Is anyone besides me wondering why this obviously inflammatory story is being buried by the MSM?

BTW, Danny Glover has already had his picture taken with Chavez.
 
Calabrio said:
For the record, you belligerant troll, I've never said all Islamic people are terrorists. I have said very negative things about Mohammed and that the religion is a cult, but that's very different from you claim.

Second, let's put this ridiculous thread to rest rather than have you hijack every thread in this forum.
Click to expand...

I have not hijacked any other thread. I am not a troll.

Calabrio (4.63 posts per day)

Vitas (0.84 posts per day)

Figure it out pal. -lol-

Search: Vitas and occupation:

One thread, this one.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/search.php?searchid=369840

Why do you feel that it is necessary for you to "try" to maliciously misrepresent me to try to waffle a point? Sad, but apparently true.

I see that another malicious comment that you made has disappeared without a trace of an "edit" by Bryan. Would you like me to prove it for the benefit of the rest of us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 52 (members: 1, guests: 51)
Back
Top