FYI: how news was, and is, and will be

[Shawnee123]

I'm telling Ziva, and she'll kick all y'alls asses.

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When you say

What in particular is it about the Six Day War that meets your description? Especially since you listed it first.

The so-called pre-emptive strike, for starters.

History is written by the winners... it's always one-sided.

(By the way - I don't need to be a "History Student" to be a student of history.)

[Undertoad]

You would deny that Arab countries had amassed 225,000 troops on Israel's border at the time of this so-called pre-emptive strike.

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You would deny that Arab countries had amassed 225,000 troops on Israel's border at the time of this so-called pre-emptive strike.

I wouldn't deny anything.

Would you deny that pre-emptive strikes only ever serve to worsen (or possibly ignite what would've otherwise been posturing) a situation? Without the pre-emptive strike, diplomatic missions may've had some measure of success in de-escalating the situation.

This is what they do, though... They do the bad deed, then try to convince us that the deed was merely one of defence.

I'm not blind, to history, nor to fact. I don't deny wrong-doings, on either side. I am impartial.

[Undertoad]

225,000 troops is "posturing"? What a joke. 25,000 is posturing. Putting a tenth of a countries troops on a border, that's posturing. Putting them all on, that's war.

And Israel's war of independence was in defense of a pre-emptive strike. And when Egypt and Syria surprise-attacked six years later, this does not similarly de-legitimize their regimes to you, Sir Impartial?

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

225,000 troops is "posturing". I see.

But Israel's war of independence was in defense of a pre-emptive strike. And when Egypt and Syria surprise-attacked six years later, this does not similarly de-legitimize their regimes to you, Sir Impartial?

Should we follow the examples of history, or learn from them?

If we follow them, we're doomed to make the same mistakes.

Let's see how good you are with recent history, good sir: When did I defend the poor actions of the Arab nations? Most notably, the warring actions, or the derogatory comments by certain Arab leaders?

I've been discussing Israel, and the Jewish guilt agenda, that has, so far, encouraged Western nations to either turn a blind eye, or even offer support, to what would otherwise be deemed a deplorable, terrible act of aggression, of war.

I suggest, good sir, that you read up on what they're actually doing, over there. From an un-biased source, of course. Read both sides of the story, and tell me, then, if you believe that the people of Israel are in the right.

Again, we're talking about a group of religious radicals, not the entire population, on one side... and an entire nation, on the other... One nation, warring another nation, because of a sect of religious radicals... thinking they're above law, above order, because they can hide behind the so-called holocaust guilt. Bollocks, sir, bollocks.

[Undertoad]

I've read it continuously for the last 8 years, from all sources.

Would I deny that pre-emptive strikes only ever serve to worsen a situation? The question is not helpful. We see it in the thread. As it is in every case in the conflict, people figure out what event *they* feel was the actual pre-emptive strike. 1967, that was pre-emptive because Israel fighters were the first to take off. 1948, well that wasn't pre-emptive, because the pre-emptive act was the UN resolution.

Pretty soon the game is on and every action is *immediately* rolled back to an ideological defensive ground.

because they can hide behind the so-called holocaust guilt

Simply bullshit, has nothing to do with it if it ever really did.

[TheDaVinciChode]

The first to strike, regardless of posturing, is the aggressor in a war, as they were the first to decide that any attempts at diplomacy would fail, and that military action would be the best/only course of action.

Pre-emptive strikes may cause wars, may end wars before they start... but they're never the right choice, and they will always mark the side that takes it upon themselves to be the one to use a pre-emptive strike, as the aggressor.

Bullshit, or not, it's true. They hide behind the holocaust guilt, to get their way with the Western Governments, and the media.

People need to jump ship, and realise the atrocities being performed, right in front of their eyes... before it's too late, and they wipe them all out.

[Undertoad]

If receiving the first blow is to lose the war, and there is sufficient evidence that the first blow is about to come, you too would strike first. We ignore here the buildup to the war which made it transparently inevitable.

But again, it's part of the game. When side A is attacked, side B was warmongering! When side A is attacking, side B was acting provocatively!

Bullshit, or not, it's true. They hide behind the holocaust guilt, to get their way with the Western Governments, and the media.

How? How exactly would that happen? Would they bring a swastika to diplomatic meetings and request a bowing of the heads before any negotiations?

I notice that the countries that should have the most guilt are lukewarm to Israel, while Israel's biggest supporter has no guilt, except for entering the european theatre a tad late.

I'd also notice that in the last ten years of watching carefully, I have not heard the Holocaust mentioned in any mideast conflict news coverage, except to point out which of the actors are Holocaust deniers. I don't think this is mentioned to provoke guilt, as much as it is to point out which of the leaders are uneducated and dangerous.

I guess I'd also point to your words

Fucking Jewish media

to say that you've given here two opposing explanations here, since the Jewish media would not feel guilt over the event.

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If receiving the first blow is to lose the war, and there is sufficient evidence that the first blow is about to come, you too would strike first. We ignore here the buildup to the war which made it transparently inevitable.

But again, it's part of the game. When side A is attacked, side B was warmongering! When side A is attacking, side B was acting provocatively!



How? How exactly would that happen? Would they bring a swastika to diplomatic meetings and request a bowing of the heads before any negotiations?

I notice that the countries that should have the most guilt are lukewarm to Israel, while Israel's biggest supporter has no guilt, except for entering the european theatre a tad late.

I'd also notice that in the last ten years of watching carefully, I have not heard the Holocaust mentioned in any mideast conflict news coverage, except to point out which of the actors are Holocaust deniers. I don't think this is mentioned to provoke guilt, as much as it is to point out which of the leaders are uneducated and dangerous.

I guess I'd also point to your words to say that you've given here two opposing explanations here, since the Jewish media would not feel guilt over the event.

It's implied guilt. They play on the fact that Western Governments feel they should've done more to stop it... it's not entirely their fault, either... no, our Governments have been, and continue to, act way out of sorts, when it comes to dealing with Jewish people, since the holocaust.

The Jewish Media = Jewish Controlled Media = Used to propagate Jewish ideals/ideas, whilst making us think they're the good guys. You'll find this, a lot, in America, more so than anywhere else, other than, of course, Israel.

You're right - We have nothing to feel guilty about. Not one thing. As I have already stated; we already did more than we should've, more than anyone could've expected from us, simply by saying "no," and then acting against the Nazi aggressors... but we still feel the guilt, which has never been fully allowed to subside, largely because we're countries of large hearts.

(It's the old "if we'd come sooner, we could've stopped more" guilt trip... A decent person would say "you did more than enough," and never bring it up, ever again... a cowardly, wicked person, would ensure that it's never quite left your mind, in one way or another, so you'll always feel guilty, and thus, become their bitch, through guilt, allowing them to walk all over you, as well as anyone else they choose.)

[Undertoad]

It's implied guilt. They play on the fact

Who is They and how do they Play it?

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who is They and how do they Play it?

They use their history, and the knowledge that we feel guilt over it, to their advantage, safe in the knowledge that our guilt will keep us from seeing the true nature of their evil actions.

It's sneaky, is under-handed, it's very subtle, and it's very true.

[Undertoad]

"But you see, I'm right, because of... because of this sneaky subtle thing that only I can detect!"

[citation needed]

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"But you see, I'm right, because of... because of this sneaky subtle thing that only I can detect!"

[citation needed]

Do people still feel guilty, about the holocaust?

Do said people still give the people of Israel more leeway, than they'd (normally) give any other country?

1 + 1 = 2.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TheDaVinciChode

Do people still feel guilty, about the holocaust?

No, why should anyone in this day and age feel guilty? It would be like asking me to feel guilty about slavery that happened over 100 years ago in the US and had abolutely nothing to do with me or my ancestors.

Do said people still give the people of Israel more leeway, than they'd (normally) give any other country?

In the US, yes, most likely due to marketing of the Jewish cause and the strenght of the Jewish Lobby in the US. No because they deserve more attention.