AP's Top Editor Calls for Probe into Israeli Airstrike

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Like historically? It’s acted as an aggressor. That doesn’t mean that it was a crime or it was wrong but it is not the act of an innocent party. There are different ways to defend a country from terrorism from invasion, from aggressors trying to annhiliate your existence.

If you really believe that there can be an innocent party in a war like the one being fought in the middle east for the past 60 years then there is not really much to argue though

You win. Israel has certainly been aggressive at defending its right to exist. Had they not done so, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because there would be nothing to discuss.

Absobleepinglutely

Then why are you arguing to the contrary?

I am not. The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault. That’s the part of the neocon perspective that I am battling.

So what you said about this being a neocon issue was just generalized rhetoric?

You still have not responded to my query as to what crime Israel has committed other than to exist …

[FreeAndClear]

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Like historically? It’s acted as an aggressor. That doesn’t mean that it was a crime or it was wrong but it is not the act of an innocent party. There are different ways to defend a country from terrorism from invasion, from aggressors trying to annhiliate your existence.

If you really believe that there can be an innocent party in a war like the one being fought in the middle east for the past 60 years then there is not really much to argue though

You win. Israel has certainly been aggressive at defending its right to exist. Had they not done so, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because there would be nothing to discuss.

Absobleepinglutely

Then why are you arguing to the contrary?

I am not. The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault. That’s the part of the neocon perspective that I am battling.

So what you said about this being a neocon issue was just generalized rhetoric?

I noted that the posted was a neocon. It is of course a neocon position and has been. If he is in fact zionist jew like me then that’s fine also. But since he didn’t dispute when i first asked him whether he was a neocon, I assumed.

You are welcome by the way. For taking my time explaining a conversation to you which you failed to follow

[peek-a-boo]

@FreeAndClear

The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault.

And who gets to decide how a sovereign country should defend themselves?

[FreeAndClear]

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Like historically? It’s acted as an aggressor. That doesn’t mean that it was a crime or it was wrong but it is not the act of an innocent party. There are different ways to defend a country from terrorism from invasion, from aggressors trying to annhiliate your existence.

If you really believe that there can be an innocent party in a war like the one being fought in the middle east for the past 60 years then there is not really much to argue though

You win. Israel has certainly been aggressive at defending its right to exist. Had they not done so, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because there would be nothing to discuss.

Absobleepinglutely

Then why are you arguing to the contrary?

I am not. The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault. That’s the part of the neocon perspective that I am battling.

So what you said about this being a neocon issue was just generalized rhetoric?

You still have not responded to my query as to what crime Israel has committed other than to exist …

I did. Wrote it out and everything. @peek-a-boo even responded to it. As did you

[FreeAndClear]

@peek-a-boo

@FreeAndClear

The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault.

And who gets to decide how a sovereign country should defend themselves?

The same people who get to decide who gets credit for a drop in the unemployment rate - Random people interested in the discussion. Historians.

This can’t be a serious question

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Like historically? It’s acted as an aggressor. That doesn’t mean that it was a crime or it was wrong but it is not the act of an innocent party. There are different ways to defend a country from terrorism from invasion, from aggressors trying to annhiliate your existence.

If you really believe that there can be an innocent party in a war like the one being fought in the middle east for the past 60 years then there is not really much to argue though

You win. Israel has certainly been aggressive at defending its right to exist. Had they not done so, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because there would be nothing to discuss.

Absobleepinglutely

Then why are you arguing to the contrary?

I am not. The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault. That’s the part of the neocon perspective that I am battling.

So what you said about this being a neocon issue was just generalized rhetoric?

I noted that the posted was a neocon. It is of course a neocon position and has been. If he is in fact zionist jew like me then that’s fine also. But since he didn’t dispute when i first asked him whether he was a neocon, I assumed.

You are welcome by the way. For taking my time explaining a conversation to you which you failed to follow

Why do you think I am not following this conversation? My requests for you to clarify your posts is a clear indication that I am. And on that note, perhaps you can explain what someone being a neocon or not has to do with any of this.

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Like historically? It’s acted as an aggressor. That doesn’t mean that it was a crime or it was wrong but it is not the act of an innocent party. There are different ways to defend a country from terrorism from invasion, from aggressors trying to annhiliate your existence.

If you really believe that there can be an innocent party in a war like the one being fought in the middle east for the past 60 years then there is not really much to argue though

You win. Israel has certainly been aggressive at defending its right to exist. Had they not done so, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because there would be nothing to discuss.

Absobleepinglutely

Then why are you arguing to the contrary?

I am not. The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault. That’s the part of the neocon perspective that I am battling.

So what you said about this being a neocon issue was just generalized rhetoric?

You still have not responded to my query as to what crime Israel has committed other than to exist …

I did. Wrote it out and everything. @peek-a-boo even responded to it. As did you

Your assertions that Israel started wars was shown to be false. So what else do you have?

[FreeAndClear]

Because unwavering support of Israel no matter what it does is a neocon position. It’s part of the neocon foreign policy.

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

@peek-a-boo

@FreeAndClear

The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault.

And who gets to decide how a sovereign country should defend themselves?

The same people who get to decide who gets credit for a drop in the unemployment rate - Random people interested in the discussion. Historians.

This can’t be a serious question

Well, that certainly was not a serious reply.

[FreeAndClear]

No they have not. As I noted before the start of the six day war and who is at fault for starting it is highly disputed to this day. 1956 was another example but that has been drowned out in the six day war

[FreeAndClear]

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

@peek-a-boo

@FreeAndClear

The fact that it rightfully defended itself does not mean that it did so without fault.

And who gets to decide how a sovereign country should defend themselves?

The same people who get to decide who gets credit for a drop in the unemployment rate - Random people interested in the discussion. Historians.

This can’t be a serious question

Well, that certainly was not a serious reply.

Thank you! Your post is a great example of the not being able to help oneself crowd strikes again.

I would take my time to explain my reference to you but I already did that once. It’s tiresome

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

Because unwavering support of Israel no matter what it does is a neocon position. It’s part of the neocon foreign policy.

You’re confused. The “unwavering support” is for their right to vigorously defend their citizens and borders … to defend their right to exist as a nation by any means necessary including overwhelming military force. It does not necessary extend to all decisions made by their government.

[peek-a-boo]

@FreeAndClear

As I noted before the start of the six day war and who is at fault for starting it is highly disputed to this day.

You might have noted as much, but there is no dispute outside of LIB circles, about who started the six day war.

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

No they have not. As I noted before the start of the six day war and who is at fault for starting it is highly disputed to this day. 1956 was another example but that has been drowned out in the six day war

Your interpretation as to what initiated both the six day war and the 1956 war was shown to be false.

[FreeAndClear]

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Because unwavering support of Israel no matter what it does is a neocon position. It’s part of the neocon foreign policy.

You’re confused. The “unwavering support” is for their right to vigorously defend their citizens and borders … to defend their right to exist as a nation by any means necessary including overwhelming military force. It does not necessary extend to all decisions made by their government.

That’s the rhetoric. It’s in application Israel can do no wrong.

Please cite a specific act of the Israeli government that you have condemned in the past when it came to their defense of its citizens and its borders. If you can and i would gladly listen then the idea that they are wholly innocent is as preposterous as i have been arguing. If you can’t well that’s pretty unwaivering

[FreeAndClear]

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

No they have not. As I noted before the start of the six day war and who is at fault for starting it is highly disputed to this day. 1956 was another example but that has been drowned out in the six day war

Your interpretation as to what initiated both the six day war and the 1956 war was shown to be false.

No it hasn’t. The 1956 invasion hasn’t even been discussed. Your conclusive conclusions are just that.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@FreeAndClear

@peek-a-boo

@FreeAndClear

They started the wars.

Their neighbors started the wars with their offensive posturing.

“Posturing”. Like i said pre-emptive acts. They were not wrong to invade because of their neighbors posturing. Doesn’t mean they didn’t invade first.

Hmmm…imagine thst an American sub had intercepted and sunk the Kaga, Akagi, et al on their way to Pearl Harbor on12/06/1941.

I suppose in the strictest semantical sense you could then claim America started the war with Japan, but in the real world preemption is a real thing.

Israeli, British, and American intelligence all concluded that an Egyptian attack was imminent, so Israel preemptively took out their most formidable military asset.

[peek-a-boo]

@FreeAndClear

This can’t be a serious question

Actually you raised the question with your absurd assertion that Israel isn’t defending itself without fault. That begs the question of who gets to decide.

[FreeAndClear]

@peek-a-boo

@FreeAndClear

This can’t be a serious question

Actually you raised the question with your absurd assertion that Israel isn’t defending itself without fault. That begs the question of who gets to decide.

Historians.

Those who set policy.

Those who set funding.

Etc

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

@Samm

@FreeAndClear

Because unwavering support of Israel no matter what it does is a neocon position. It’s part of the neocon foreign policy.

You’re confused. The “unwavering support” is for their right to vigorously defend their citizens and borders … to defend their right to exist as a nation by any means necessary including overwhelming military force. It does not necessary extend to all decisions made by their government.

That’s the rhetoric. It’s in application Israel can do no wrong.

Please cite a specific act of the Israeli government that you have condemned in the past when it came to their defense of its citizens and its borders. If you can and i would gladly listen then the idea that they are wholly innocent is as preposterous as i have been arguing. If you can’t well that’s pretty unwaivering

For one, I have never supported the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank territory. I’m absolutely positive there have been other actions I would not agree with, but this discussion is about defense of the country, not internal politics. They have an absolute right to do that, including territory gained by conflict.