The Clausewitz Failure

[Phoenall]

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

No all you have is islamonazi propaganda that you cant substantiate

You are ducking my post.

WRONG it is you ducking the answers that you dont like

 

[P F Tinmore]

Trustees don't own anything. The administration, not the actual Palestinian territory, was transferred.

Not that it matters. The UNPC was a no show and did not defend the territory or people under their trust.

You're learning... albeit at a crippled snail's pace.

There was no territory owned by Pal'istanians and there was no "country of Pal'istan" in spite of insistence to the contrary. So, it seems your flailing about is only for melodramatic affect.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

Sidestepping Tinmore dance moves.

Truly, you need some new slogans to dump into the thread when you're utterly befuddled.

You spew Israeli talking points without offering any proof that they are true.

What Israeli talking points are those then, show were they have been used ?

You are the one who posted them with no proof that they are true.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

No all you have is islamonazi propaganda that you cant substantiate

You are ducking my post.

WRONG it is you ducking the answers that you dont like

You are still ducking.

 

[Hollie]

When the Mandate was terminated, the territory transferred to the UN Trusteeship under the Administration of the UN Palestine Commission.

Trustees don't own anything. The administration, not the actual Palestinian territory, was transferred.

Not that it matters. The UNPC was a no show and did not defend the territory or people under their trust.

You're learning... albeit at a crippled snail's pace.

There was no territory owned by Pal'istanians and there was no "country of Pal'istan" in spite of insistence to the contrary. So, it seems your flailing about is only for melodramatic affect.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

Sidestepping Tinmore dance moves.

Truly, you need some new slogans to dump into the thread when you're utterly befuddled.

You spew Israeli talking points without offering any proof that they are true.

That's funny. Your "israeli talking points" slogan is getting old, Bunky.

Regarding your invention of the "country of Pal'istan" and your refusal to acknowledge history, I'm under no obligation to prove anything regarding your ignorance of the facts.

The facts are: the geographic area called Pal'istan was exactly that, a geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks until they relinquished all rights and title. There was never a "country of Pal'istan" no matter how desperately you want that to be.

See how that works? You are the one making unsubstantiated claims, let's call them 'desperate Islamist talking points". You are the one tasked with supporting your claims. You haven't.

 

[Hollie]

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

No all you have is islamonazi propaganda that you cant substantiate

You are ducking my post.

WRONG it is you ducking the answers that you dont like

You are still ducking.

Nice dodge™

 

[Hollie]

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

No all you have is islamonazi propaganda that you cant substantiate

You are ducking my post.

You are ducking my post™

Nice dodge™

Choose one.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Trustees don't own anything. The administration, not the actual Palestinian territory, was transferred.

Not that it matters. The UNPC was a no show and did not defend the territory or people under their trust.

You're learning... albeit at a crippled snail's pace.

There was no territory owned by Pal'istanians and there was no "country of Pal'istan" in spite of insistence to the contrary. So, it seems your flailing about is only for melodramatic affect.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

Sidestepping Tinmore dance moves.

Truly, you need some new slogans to dump into the thread when you're utterly befuddled.

You spew Israeli talking points without offering any proof that they are true.

That's funny. Your "israeli talking points" slogan is getting old, Bunky.

Regarding your invention of the "country of Pal'istan" and your refusal to acknowledge history, I'm under no obligation to prove anything regarding your ignorance of the facts.

The facts are: the geographic area called Pal'istan was exactly that, a geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks until they relinquished all rights and title. There was never a "country of Pal'istan" no matter how desperately you want that to be.

See how that works? You are the one making unsubstantiated claims, last call them 'desperate Islamist talking points". You are the one tasked with supporting your claims. You haven't.

You still have no proof, huh?

 

[Hollie]

You're learning... albeit at a crippled snail's pace.

There was no territory owned by Pal'istanians and there was no "country of Pal'istan" in spite of insistence to the contrary. So, it seems your flailing about is only for melodramatic affect.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

Sidestepping Tinmore dance moves.

Truly, you need some new slogans to dump into the thread when you're utterly befuddled.

You spew Israeli talking points without offering any proof that they are true.

That's funny. Your "israeli talking points" slogan is getting old, Bunky.

Regarding your invention of the "country of Pal'istan" and your refusal to acknowledge history, I'm under no obligation to prove anything regarding your ignorance of the facts.

The facts are: the geographic area called Pal'istan was exactly that, a geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks until they relinquished all rights and title. There was never a "country of Pal'istan" no matter how desperately you want that to be.

See how that works? You are the one making unsubstantiated claims, last call them 'desperate Islamist talking points". You are the one tasked with supporting your claims. You haven't.

You still have no proof, huh?

As I 'splained to you, the historical record is supported as "proof".

So, we're on the horns of a dilemma here. The facts are: the geographic area called Pal'istan was exactly that, a geographic area controlled by the Ottoman Turks until they relinquished all rights and title. There was never a "country of Pal'istan" no matter how desperately you want that to be.

I'm under no obligation to prove something that didn't exist, (your invention of a "country of Pal'istan"), didnt exist.

The mythical "country of Pal'istan" is of your invention. You claim it existed. Why can't you provide support for your statements?

 

[Shusha]

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

Once again, this claim amounts to the idea that the mere presence of Jewish people in a place constitutes aggression.

 

[Shusha]

WOW, more unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

Show when my claims have ever been Israeli talking points

"Israeli talking points" is just a way of being dismissive of Team Israel, as though our points have no value. And of course he does it when he can't address the actual point made.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

Once again, this claim amounts to the idea that the mere presence of Jewish people in a place constitutes aggression.

Not really. It is the settler colonialism that is the problem.

 

[Hollie]

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

Once again, this claim amounts to the idea that the mere presence of Jewish people in a place constitutes aggression.

Not really. It is the settler colonialism that is the problem.

That is nothing more than another of your silly slogans. You do get angry and emotive when your arguments fail but your retreat to slogans and clichés you steal from YouTube videos is poor cricket, laddie.

 

[Shusha]

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

Once again, this claim amounts to the idea that the mere presence of Jewish people in a place constitutes aggression.

Not really. It is the settler colonialism that is the problem.

Thank you for confirming the truth of my point. The mere presence of Jews constitutes aggression.

 

[RoccoR]

√P F Tinmore, et al,

This is because I respect the time period and the implied meaning.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, --- they are facts; to be sure. In one context they can event be true. But your implications are 180º out of phase with what those facts actually mean.

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

(COMMENT)

As explained in my Posting #191 (including the Map)., as well as in my Posting #196, your interpretation of the meaning is not factual --- not factual at all ---- not even close.

Yes we can say there is a truth here! --- This is true only to the degree that you understand that any military engagement --- by the unauthorized advance of armed forces --- into any territory in the former Mandate of Palestine is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

former Mandate of Palestine​

Why do you keep using that propaganda term. You can just as accurately use former mandate for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, but I don't think you ever have. Why not?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no self-governing nation in the territory to which the Mandate applied. However, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq were all sovereign and independent; Palestine was not sovereign and independent.

At the beginning of 1949, there was virtually no governing entity known as "Palestine." The Government of Palestine dissolved when the Mandate terminated, Israel was declared, Jordan captured and occupied the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip came under the administration of the Egypt Military Governorship. By mid-1950, further changes were made yet again.

The Question is: In 1949 which one of these does not belong with the other?

• Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq

∆ ANSWER: Palestine

√ WHY?: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq are sovereign and Independent; able to stand alone.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

Why don't we take a good look at the rabbit hole you just opened up. WHY is the presence of Jewish people considered to be aggression by Arab Muslims?

I mean, just look at the positive changes which have come about as a direct result of the return of the Jewish people to that land in terms of the quality of life for everyone. And that despite the conflict. Imagine if there had been none!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

Once again, this claim amounts to the idea that the mere presence of Jewish people in a place constitutes aggression.

Not really. It is the settler colonialism that is the problem.

That is nothing more than another of your silly slogans. You do get angry and emotive when your arguments fail but your retreat to slogans and clichés you steal from YouTube videos is poor cricket, laddie.

It is not a slogan. It is how you get from a 95% Arab country to a Jewish state. Settler colonialism is the process.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine was not sovereign and independent.

Due to Britain's military occupation/Mandate. That did not negate their rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I mean, just look at the positive changes which have come about as a direct result of the return of the Jewish people to that land

Like the Palestinians getting the boot. I don't think the Palestinians would call that positive.

 

[Shusha]

Like the Palestinians getting the boot. I don't think the Palestinians would call that positive.

The Palestinians who remained in Israel have a better quality of life in all ways.

Those who actively chose to create a conflict where there wasn't one are responsible for the fall out of that action.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Always someone else at fault.

Palestine was not sovereign and independent.

Due to Britain's military occupation/Mandate. That did not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

All of them were once under Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R