![]() |
Quote:
As for the 'grounds', well they're pretty obvious, aren't they? Massively OTT 'collateral damage'. Sure, the IDF mightn't have listed sending a signal ('Don't F**k With Israel') among its objectives, but surely it's reasonable to suggest the opposite possibility. [This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 08, 2006).] |
Mark, Merely saying something you ‘think’ is true is an assertion. It’s the reason why I asked if he really believed it. I was not trying to score points. Stephen |
Mark, If massive collateral damage was all they wanted to do in order to demonstrate a bit of muscle then they achieved their objective in the first 24 hours. I’m sure Israel’s neighbours already know what they are up against militarily, so what’s the point? Why did the IDF pursue a protracted campaign? Why did they risk the lives of their ground forces? Stephen |
But no one suggested that that demonstration was the ONLY objective, just one of them.
|
RJ, I guess you're saying you didn't request anything on the history of the region? That's what I said I wanted to talk to you and Kevin about, but I wasn't combing carefully through the last 2 pages of posts to be certain. I thought, in fact, you had referenced historical questions as well. If not, try not to take it too hard that you were mentioned in the same breath. Kevin, if you feel the same way about being mentioned alongside RJ, my apologies to you as well.
I think you meant for me to retract something else as well, as a sort of interpersonal requirement for further discussion, but it ain't gonna happen. Still playing? If not, that's fine. Again, lots more water under the proverbial bridge again, and I am just not up to it (again.) Maybe tonight. Thanks, Dan PS, Daniel, I am not sure whether you prefer Daniel or Dan, but it occured to me today it may be the former (since, after all, that's your registered name.) Sorry if you read the short form as diminuative. I equate them since people call me Daniel mistakenly all the time, although my actual given name is Dan. |
Indeed. Saying "most obvious" is not the same as saying "only" or "sole."
And I base this thought/belief/assertion/what-have-you on the fact that Dan, Lo, Seree and I think any number of others not here on the pro-Israel side have said as much. You can phrase it as "Don't f*ck with Israel!" or as "Credible military deterrent and show of force!" but it really comes to much the same thing, and with the amount of cheering the idea has gotten, I think it's fair to say that it is one of the things Israel hoped to achieve and definitely one that can be said to have been achieved. And you don't need any mystical mummery to say it. |
Kevin, You’ve back-peddled from the “most obvious goal” to “one of the things” Make your mind up. Stephen |
Dan,
No offense taken. I usually go by Daniel these days, but people used to mostly call me Dan, and some still do, so whichever is fine. In fact I should thank you for the kind words. Janet, Thank you too. I have not heard Barenboim's lectures, but I do appreciate his efforts to bring Jews and Arabs together with music. I may not agree a lot of Edward Said's cultural analyses, but I think his work with Barenboim at least earns him my deep gratitude. Henrietta, I think this statement of yours "and what the hell has this thread proved That you all given the chance would join in." is demonstrably untrue. Given that most, if not all of us, could afford a plane ticket and the gun, there is no real barrier to us "joining in". Thus our actions prove that we wouldn't fight just because we can. Q.E.D. - Daniel |
Quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/ |
Mark,
I was just about to post the same link. Of course, you were the person who first mentioned them. Janet |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.