TW, maybe be Jay, along who knows how many others, are confused because you misled them.
You said in post 124
Quote:
But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.
Don't think for one minute that Washington did not either approve or recommend this solution.
|
First a damning statement of the US, then a slightly modified, but still damning, statement that the US ordered or gave permission, for this war.
When Brianna asked for proof, you, in post 128, tried to shift the burden of proof to others, then said
Quote:
|
The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.
|
Hmm..obvious...that implies anyone that asks for proof of your statement, isn't as smart as you and your sources....doesn't see the big picture....doesn't understand how the middle east works. But that's evading the fact you have no proof.
In post 134, UT said in response to your trying to shift the burden of proof;
Quote:
|
So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?
|
And Brianna in post 135 again asked;
Quote:
That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb. To enact a Final Solution--tw's words.
His proof of this is that the Lebanese PM spoke in English to demand a ceasefire to Condi. How does that equal orders FROM Washington TO Israel?
|
Fair questions, I think. But then you respond in post 136
Quote:
No it was not tw's exact words and it misrepresents - big time - the Israel / American relationship. You did not read carefully
and you still do not yet understand that relationship.
If not careful with such details, then Brianna could easily arrive at obviously erroneous conclusions such as:
You see, Brianna, Israel did the reverse- traded kidnapped soldiers for prisoners. You apparently did not know basic details.
Even the most militaristic Sharon authorized such trades. You assumed without first grasping details. What I said is also significantly
different from what you summarized:
Your mistake implies insufficient grasp of numerous details in this Middle East conflict and relationships. Had you a grasp of the relationships, then you would have better comprehended what was posted, not reposted what I wrote in such gross error - AND why Israel is proxy for a Cheney doctrine.
Somehow you know better and yet don't even understand basic details of a US / Israeli relationship? Credibility? Insufficient grasp of history and facts? Your post implies, at minimum, naivety. Not an insult. Just straight technical analysis. Somehow you know what I have posted is wrong, and yet don't even know basic and obvious facts of this American / Israeli relationship.
|
Still no proof, just a tap dance worthy of the Apollo Theater, attacking the questioner and trying to direct the discourse to other issues.
Might I suggest, when asked for proof of your indictment of the US, if you had just said,..... OK, I misspoke in that first comment by saying, "But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved."
but, it's a reasonable assumption because, blah, blah, blah.
I think that, by explaining the statement was not a fact, but was a logical conclusion on your part from the information available, would have been a better solution.
Sure, I'm nit picking. Because damning statements like that stick in people's minds as fact. That's misleading the great unwashed that look up to you as the definitive trusted source of what's right and wrong in the universe. You owe it to your disciples, to lead them unerringly to the ultimate truth.
