The Clausewitz Failure

[P F Tinmore]

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

But different. When Britain changed from a military occupation to a Mandate in Jordan it withdrew is forces leaving behind a few advisors.

Britain did not change in Palestine. It kept its forces and occupation.

Why the difference?

 

[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.

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

You choose to ignore settler colonialism by Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders.

On the other hand, the Ottoman occupiers relinquished all rights and title to the mandate. You despise the fact that the mandate was a process to reestablish their homeland in an area that Arabs-Moslems colonized through war and conquest.

Due to their own incompetence and ineptitude, the arabs-Moslems were unable to cobble together a functioning society. However, that's a dynamic we see across the entirety of the Islamist Middle East. It's a bit of a stretch to blame the Jews for every ill considered decision, pratfall and self inflicted disaster that Arabs-Moslems stumble in to.

 

[Hollie]

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

But different. When Britain changed from a military occupation to a Mandate in Jordan it withdrew is forces leaving behind a few advisors.

Britain did not change in Palestine. It kept its forces and occupation.

Why the difference?

Britain eventually withdrew. Why the ignorance of the historical record?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

But different. When Britain changed from a military occupation to a Mandate in Jordan it withdrew is forces leaving behind a few advisors.

Britain did not change in Palestine. It kept its forces and occupation.

Why the difference?

Britain eventually withdrew. Why the ignorance of the historical record?

Nice duck.

 

[Hollie]

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

But different. When Britain changed from a military occupation to a Mandate in Jordan it withdrew is forces leaving behind a few advisors.

Britain did not change in Palestine. It kept its forces and occupation.

Why the difference?

Britain eventually withdrew. Why the ignorance of the historical record?

Nice duck.

I addressed your comment. You couldn't counter.

Nice dodge™

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If the partition of Palestine was rejected and never implemented, partitioning Palestine by force is an act of aggression.

Only if, as Rocco points out, you reject the idea of self-determination, determined by, um, you know, the culture's self.

If Israel rejects the self-determination of Palestinians does this mean the act of rejecting Palestinian self-determination actually causes the Palestinians not to have the right to self-determination? Further, that it permits Israel, within the scope of international law, to attack Palestinians and then claim that Palestine was the aggressor for trying to have self-determination in the first place, which Israel rejects?

The Yellow Bled Out of Them

Allowing self-determination for those determined to destroy them is suicidal, just like the Jews were suicidal during the rise of Naziism. Wise Jews criticized Anne Frank and her boyfriend for not making IEDs; our decadent ruling-class moralists praise her cowardly escapism because they want us to be the same way

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

First, that is a matter to be litigate --- or brought under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States where they "settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice:"

Of course none of that will happen as long as the criminal class trumps international law with power politics.

That is why there is BDS to change those dynamics.

I'm afraid the above is simply an appeal to some conspiracy theory you have invented. It's pretty typical for you to implicate a vast collection of agents with some sinister agenda as a way to make excuses for Arab-Moslem ineptitudes. As for the BDS, they really do nothing but represent themselves as just another flaming hate group. You shouldn't make the mistake of believing that the BDS Cult has any agenda other than promotion of Islamist principles that are simply insensate hatreds directed at Israel.

Israel Is Our Shield

BDS is an agency of a hostile foreign power, the Caliphate. Under the RICO Act, those traitors should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and disbanded. No more 9/10 thinking will be allowed. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

acts of aggression directed towards the Israeli newly declared territorial integrity

Which was???

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

Indeed, It was the Arab league armies (note the plural tense of armies), that were the aggressors in 1948. Similarly, arabs were the aggressors in later wars directed against Israel. Indeed, Israel certainly did "defend itself", successfully, against those Arab assaults with the arabs suffering humiliating losses.

Allah seems to have played a cruel joke on the arabs-Moslems.

Allah gave them oil and Dhimmi doormat decadence. Never underestimate the eternal enemies of our species.

 

[Shusha]

The Yellow Bled Out of Them

Allowing self-determination for those determined to destroy them is suicidal, just like the Jews were suicidal during the rise of Naziism. Wise Jews criticized Anne Frank and her boyfriend for not making IEDs; our decadent ruling-class moralists praise her cowardly escapism because they want us to be the same way

Is it okay if I disagree with you on account of moral principles while fully agreeing in terms of practical survival?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Yellow Bled Out of Them

Allowing self-determination for those determined to destroy them is suicidal, just like the Jews were suicidal during the rise of Naziism. Wise Jews criticized Anne Frank and her boyfriend for not making IEDs; our decadent ruling-class moralists praise her cowardly escapism because they want us to be the same way

Is it okay if I disagree with you on account of moral principles while fully agreeing in terms of practical survival?

Blessed Are the Meek?

Suicide is immoral. In fact, most of the moral principles the rulers preach to us are just to turn us into passive pushovers, which also translates into letting people unconnected to them push us around. They let us extend this self-hating humility just to test to see if we know our place. The unearned privilege that gives them forums to preach to us is itself immoral.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

I have proven every single one of my claims in the past, and when you could no longer prove they were false you took to calling them Israeli talking points.


SO IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, NOT ME. tHEY ARE PROVEN FULLY AND YOU CANT STAND SEEING THE PROOF.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

NO YOUR POST WAS ANSWERED, IT IS JUST THAT THE ANSWER DOES NOT MEET WITH YOUR POV

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Plenty, but you wont accept it because it destroys your POV and your brainwashing

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Which is all the time when you look at the evidence

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Then the arab muslims should stop doing it and start obeying the international law they had forced on the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

And when was it ever a 85% arab country then, as even your links show that arab muslims were less than 50% of the inhabitants at any one time.

A link proving this claim of an arab country would be the right thing here otherwise all you are doing is repeating arab muslim talking points and propaganda lies.

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine was not sovereign and independent.

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

No due to international laws and Ottoman laws going back to when they first took control. No nation/country of palestine under the Ottomans, and no nation/country of palestine under the LoN so when was it created and by what aurhority.

What rights did they have then prior to 1923 when the Jews were granted 22% and the arab muslmis 78% of the area known as palestine. So why do you support and advocate the removal of the Jews rights by force of arms if needed so that the arab muslims can lay claim to even more land that is not theirs. What ever rights you believe the arab muslims had the Jews also had and they were quicker of the mark in claiming their rights. The truth be known in 1923 they had very few rights, so you have to invent some from the late 20C and try to use them retroactively. You have even used failed Treaties and UN resolutions as if they were granting the arab muslims rights that dont apply to any other group.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

That is why they have returned and laid claim to their land of Israel. How many of the original palestinians have been mass murdered by the islamonazi's following the commands in the koran and hadiths to " KILL THE JEWS "

You do remember that we proved the arab muslims cant call them selves palestinians as that is the name given to the Jews around 70 C.E.

 

[Phoenall]

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

But different. When Britain changed from a military occupation to a Mandate in Jordan it withdrew is forces leaving behind a few advisors.

Britain did not change in Palestine. It kept its forces and occupation.

Why the difference?

Because even back then the arab muslims threatened violence if they were not handed the land so Britain left a garrison that was central to the whole of palestine, REMEMBER JORDAN WAS PART OF PALESTINE UNTIL 1946. The French kept garrisons as well in Mesopotamia under their mandates.


You really need to start reading the links we give you to understand that your islamonazi education is very lacking in some areas

 

[Phoenall]

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

But different. When Britain changed from a military occupation to a Mandate in Jordan it withdrew is forces leaving behind a few advisors.

Britain did not change in Palestine. It kept its forces and occupation.

Why the difference?

Britain eventually withdrew. Why the ignorance of the historical record?

Nice duck.

No duck, historical fact. And they left because of the escalating arab muslim violence aimed at them that they were powerless to counter