ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
So you're waiting for possible earth-shaking future revelations before forming an opinion, are you?
I ask because that doesn't actually seem to be what you've done or what you do.
Nazi Concentration Camps
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
So you're waiting for possible earth-shaking future revelations before forming an opinion, are you?
I ask because that doesn't actually seem to be what you've done or what you do.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'll try and set this out in idiotese, so that you have a chance of understanding:Johnny Canuck2 said:
People say things.
If you remove the things people say from the full historical context in which they were said and then cite them then you're talking "ahistoric crap".
You attempt to remove the utterance from their context in order to better support your contentions.
That makes you either disingenuous or malicious.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
To call you a halfwit with a persecution complex?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
And you arrive at this conclusion...how?
I ask because your conclusion just happens to go against the historical record, but hey, I'm sure you know better.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Actually, I said that any general with sense wouldn't have committed atrocities. Criminal liability and all that.Johnny Canuck2 said:
The nut of the matter is that your scenario was even less likely than your extermination scenario, you're forever reaching, looking for one last way to make your simplistic "tough shit, Palestinians" point.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, I'm trying to make a sound point. The point is that supply and logistics tend to "buy in" the last thing that worked well, which is fine as far as it goes, but many weapons and supplies are suited to particular theatres, and aren't deployable in all eventualities.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Doctrine is meaningless without people. People are useless (in a battle) without weapons, ammunition and hardware.
you two are hilarious 
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Ability comes with practice. There are very few "born generals" of the "Alexander the Great" type (unfortunately). When the state of Israel was founded the military did not have a great deal of senior staff officer material to draw on, so necessity required then to do as best they could, to "busk it". The experience gained in the 40s fed into the 50s, and so on.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Not half as "hilarious" as your pathetic anti-Semitic whining, dickwart.Detroit City said:you two are hilarious
i'm not anti-semitic...i'm pro-equalityViolentPanda said:
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
no, you're definitely antisemitic, Detroit City - time and time again you've posted antisemitic bullshit on urban75
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
Remind me of the 'context' of a dozen leaders making comments along the lines of 'we'll commit a massacre unseen since the time of the Mongols.' And remind me why the jews shouldn't have taken that at least somewhat seriously.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
Maybe you just didn't understand the logical consequence of what you were saying.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
The historical record says their armies weren't for shit?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
You know, it's ok to say that the arab armies of the forties weren't the best, without betraying your anti zionist beliefs.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
No, you said that post WW2, any officer would be well aware of his liability vis a vis the UN and national law, and wouldn't therefore be involved in atrocities.
To which I say 'bushwah'.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
I wasn't talking anything like tough shit palestinians, I was talking about the position presented to the world by the arab leaders.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda said:
More fluff.
The war fighting doctrine of armies is often dictated by the last conflict engaged in, and gets changed 'on the fly', when a new situation presents itself. Armies are almost by definition, conservative and reactionary.
well, the term "anti-semite" is used when someone doesn't fully agree with the philosophies and/or actions of the Jewish diaspora, Israel or Zionism....invisibleplanet said:
i believe that Jews and Israel have full right to exist and prosper but I don't agree with some of their current policies. If that makes me "anti-semitic" then so be it...
UrbanBlues: "What has the State of Israel learned from the Holocaust?" In a nutshell, it certainly has learned just why a Jewish Nation HAD to be REestablished and why it must never allow itself to be that vulnerable again.
I am sure that your baiting though was in a different direction, as to insinuate that Israelis are now like Nazis. This of course is absolutely ludicrous and not only horribly demeans the memories of those 6 million Jews (and many millions of others) but also the sufferings of the "Palestinians" as well.
Untill Arab babies get dye injected into their eyeballs while alive, until Arab women are sterilised, all tatooed, butchered and gassed into oblivion, you would be better off leaving such weak analogies alone and instead concentrating on the real issues at hand.
I am sure that your baiting though was in a different direction, as to insinuate that Israelis are now like Nazis. This of course is absolutely ludicrous and not only horribly demeans the memories of those 6 million Jews (and many millions of others) but also the sufferings of the "Palestinians" as well.
Untill Arab babies get dye injected into their eyeballs while alive, until Arab women are sterilised, all tatooed, butchered and gassed into oblivion, you would be better off leaving such weak analogies alone and instead concentrating on the real issues at hand.
YMU: "Israel commits genocide to acheive a majority." This will require facts. Please provide any evvidence you have concerning a policy of genocide. Otherwise stop defaming an entire nation and people.
"Zionists spat upon Holocaust Survivors for having been so weak as to have been victimised." Not at all. in fact, Zionists alone did the most to save Jews during and after the event. They then gave them a home with no strings attached. Does not sound at all like sptting to me.
"Majority of Jews reject Israel for appropriating their history and i.d." What? Israel is simply the independant home for any Jews, save dabgerous felons, who wish t9o claim it as so. It does not twist arms or deny the existence or value of ANY non-Isaraeli Jewish community.
As for majority, the exact opposite holds true. Aside from less than 4000 Karta and a few thousand Satmar and allied groups, all religious Jews fully support the nation (in terms of organised groups and their positions). As for secular Jews, only Anarchists and similarly hard left wing Jews hold that line and they are very, very few in number.
How is this known? Aside from all polls saying so, Bonds and other financial largesse tells us this as do toruism and other related figures.
"Israelis use it as an excuse to commit genocide against 'Palestinians' to retain a demographic majority." Proof please, of a policy of genocide against anyone. Blanket condemnations are pitiful. As for the slander of genocide, atrocious in view of the recent history of the Jews as apeople.
Until Israel begins baking Arabs in creamotria, gassing them, sterilising them, tatooing them, or anything similar you should stay far away from such utter garbage.
UrbanBlues: "Some Israelis use the Holocaust as an excuse for excesses against 'Palestinians'." Really? Please offer us one example. Asa for excesses, what would the be? Checkpoints in areas spawning suicide bombers? Or do you mean executing terrorists with more than 12 bodies on their rapsheet? Hmmm...Excesses?
"Zionists spat upon Holocaust Survivors for having been so weak as to have been victimised." Not at all. in fact, Zionists alone did the most to save Jews during and after the event. They then gave them a home with no strings attached. Does not sound at all like sptting to me.
"Majority of Jews reject Israel for appropriating their history and i.d." What? Israel is simply the independant home for any Jews, save dabgerous felons, who wish t9o claim it as so. It does not twist arms or deny the existence or value of ANY non-Isaraeli Jewish community.
As for majority, the exact opposite holds true. Aside from less than 4000 Karta and a few thousand Satmar and allied groups, all religious Jews fully support the nation (in terms of organised groups and their positions). As for secular Jews, only Anarchists and similarly hard left wing Jews hold that line and they are very, very few in number.
How is this known? Aside from all polls saying so, Bonds and other financial largesse tells us this as do toruism and other related figures.
"Israelis use it as an excuse to commit genocide against 'Palestinians' to retain a demographic majority." Proof please, of a policy of genocide against anyone. Blanket condemnations are pitiful. As for the slander of genocide, atrocious in view of the recent history of the Jews as apeople.
Until Israel begins baking Arabs in creamotria, gassing them, sterilising them, tatooing them, or anything similar you should stay far away from such utter garbage.
UrbanBlues: "Some Israelis use the Holocaust as an excuse for excesses against 'Palestinians'." Really? Please offer us one example. Asa for excesses, what would the be? Checkpoints in areas spawning suicide bombers? Or do you mean executing terrorists with more than 12 bodies on their rapsheet? Hmmm...Excesses?
Spion: "Arab armies had a disadvantage of numbers." That is insane. 1 billion Muslims, 57 Nations, 32 Arab Nations not including the PA, and only 1 Jewish Nation, with 14 million Jews worldwide....Want to take a look again?
In 47 Israel has less than 2 million Jews who had just emerged collectively (and some quite literally on an individual basis) from the Hoplocaust. Yet, they managed to triumph over those astronomical odds. Blame it on the real reason, Arab incompetence and the lack of true desire for the "Palestinians" to receive their own homeland.
Then and now they use "Palestinians" as pawns.
Detroit: The term "Anti-Semitism" is ridiculous since Jews are far from being the only Semites on the planet. IT is sometimes used conveinently to foil opponents with real cocerns and criticisms but that does not negate the very real issue of "Anti-Jewishness" that is often under cover of "criticism" of Israel and/or Zionists.
For example, take this thread into consideration. Israel, a nation that can be driven its length by auto in under 4 hours (at speed limits of course), home to less than 6 million people totally, and Jews who number in the area of 14 million currently, receives all this criticism.
We have Darfur, Pakistan, Somalia, Colombia, Philippines, Indonesia, and many, many others where situations are often quite worse and yet only Israel receives this inordinate amount of negative attention?
Chalk it up to what?
While some criticisms here are worthy on their own, most are offered in a hatred of the nation and its people, and it is of course a Jewish Nation. Ergo, "Anti-Jewishness" is quite often the correct designation.
(Edited for spelling)
In 47 Israel has less than 2 million Jews who had just emerged collectively (and some quite literally on an individual basis) from the Hoplocaust. Yet, they managed to triumph over those astronomical odds. Blame it on the real reason, Arab incompetence and the lack of true desire for the "Palestinians" to receive their own homeland.
Then and now they use "Palestinians" as pawns.
Detroit: The term "Anti-Semitism" is ridiculous since Jews are far from being the only Semites on the planet. IT is sometimes used conveinently to foil opponents with real cocerns and criticisms but that does not negate the very real issue of "Anti-Jewishness" that is often under cover of "criticism" of Israel and/or Zionists.
For example, take this thread into consideration. Israel, a nation that can be driven its length by auto in under 4 hours (at speed limits of course), home to less than 6 million people totally, and Jews who number in the area of 14 million currently, receives all this criticism.
We have Darfur, Pakistan, Somalia, Colombia, Philippines, Indonesia, and many, many others where situations are often quite worse and yet only Israel receives this inordinate amount of negative attention?
Chalk it up to what?
While some criticisms here are worthy on their own, most are offered in a hatred of the nation and its people, and it is of course a Jewish Nation. Ergo, "Anti-Jewishness" is quite often the correct designation.
(Edited for spelling)
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Because Israel, unlike all the other countries that you've mentioned, has US financial backing to continue its brutalisation of the Palestinian people. In the case of Columbia, the US has been there since 1962 because it didn't like the the results of the elections that were held that same year. In Indonesia's case, the CIA gave the names of people it said were communist, Suharto's thugs killed around a million people because of their alleged communism. In each case the US has been involved and you say that Israel acts independently of the US? It needs US money to continue its programme of ethnic cleansing and to bomb 'nuclear reactors' on behalf of the US.
newharper
Manxome Tove
rachamim18 said:
From Ha'aretz Oct 15.
The soldiers spoke freely to Nofer Ishai-Karen, who served with them in the same ASHBAL platoon 20 years ago.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=14043
Memories eh R18!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Surely you mean "the Israelis", Johnny, because you can't be referring to 1947, can you?Johnny Canuck2 said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Your phrase very obviously posits (taking into account your other "contributions" on this thread) a "levelling upward" to match the high level at which Jews are living, the assumption being that Jews are somehow "getting more help than they deserve because they're Jews" (to paraphrase you).Detroit City said:i'm not anti-semitic...i'm pro-equality
That comes across as a tad Judaeophobic to me.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
In most of the histories I've read, including pointedly anti-Arab literature on the subject, the only national army that participated that was "for shit" was the Egyptian army, who were poorly equipped and supported.Johnny Canuck2 said:
That a large percentage of the irregulars/militias were "for shit" goes without saying, but the other national armies? History doesn't agree with you, Johnny.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
The full text of what I said:
"You're accusing me of "lack of ability", and yet you appear to have entirely missed the fact that post -WW2 (from 1946 in fact) EVERY officer whose nation-state was part of the UN was fully aware of their obligations under international law. That means that a politician ordering his armies to exterminate is likely to risk aggravating his military, especially the general staff. This is why most illegal actions are carried out by specialist units; it limits the possibility for "fall-out".
So, given the historical context of what you're talking about, I'll repeat: Politicians' rhetoric."
Nothing about "wouldn't therefore be involved", is there?
Whose version is more accurate, Johnny, the person who paraphrases their own words, or the person who manufactures words that weren't there in the first place?
To which I say "dissembler", "falsifier", "Jerk".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Which position? The Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, perhaps.
Google it, have a read, learn something.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Johnny, come back and argue your case when you can show you know the difference between combat doctrine, strategy and tactics, until then I'd recommend you stop making a fool of yourself, if at all possible.
Similar threads
