yes I have fought this argument several times now. Good to see someone with a different methodolgy and analogy of examing the casus belli speak up; you don’t sit still and wait to be possibly crushed, when forces gather and have telegraphed their intentions.

That kind of logic, when applied to Israel does not apply you see.

Someone who parsed history from a non partisan approach would have figured out already, a perfect example has existed to prove the formula.

In 73 they didn't mobilize and came within a whisker of being over ran, but that kind of reflection is anathema to some.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

side track and a mischaracterization to the inth degree. And the "aroma" & "kibbutz" crack is really what this was about anyway wasn't it?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I have no idea how you manage to derive such silliness from what I posted so I'll post it again;

No sidetracking, no mischaracterisation, just a refutation of an obvious misconception that 'pre-emption' can be in any way benign.

The Yom Kippur war was intended to start with a sneak attack, nobody disputes that. It is the nonsense that previous, or later, hostilities were initiated by the Arabs which requires correcting.

It did start with a 'sneak attack' by the IAF yes. This and the overall situation ala Egyptian rhetoric, closing of the straits, kicking out unef and massing forces on gaza were not hard to read. Hence the "sneak" attack.

I am sorry it did not go the way you wished, and this is exactly on point regards everything that went wrong early on in 73. If the Israelis had mobilized and preempted they would not have had near the casualties nor come within a breath of losing Golan, nor would the Suez been breached and the front loading of 3 Egyptian inf. divisions across have occurred.


If Israeli forces massed on southern Lebanon and Hezbollah struck first, you'd be defending them to the knife re: their inherent ability to preempt a “death blow” or react to egregious saber rattling etc. that may result in their being swallowed up, in advance Israeli hostilities, you know it, I know it.

You'll never convince anyone here who has followed your circumlocutions over the years here differently.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

You're failing to focus again.

I didn't call the Zionist pre-emptive attack a 'sneak attack'. That was a blatant aggression, simply because it was a war which they initiated, regardless of what the Egyptians were saying and regardless of what they were doing inside their own territory. You know it, I know it. Pre-emption is aggression.

They've done it since and they're planning to do it again. Posts such as mine are intended to help prevent Zionist aggression. Posts such as yours are intended to support aggression.

[QUOTE=moon;1230307]You're failing to focus again.



I didn't call the Zionist pre-emptive attack a 'sneak attack'. That was a blatant aggression, simply because it was a war which they initiated, regardless of what the Egyptians were saying and regardless of what they were doing inside their own territory. You know it, I know it. Pre-emption is aggression.

[/qoute]
And you're failing to circumvent your die hard uber partisanship, and discuss anything outside that box. Par for the course.
Aggression as in the stipulations I mentioned, I guess isn’t enough aggression, you world prefer that the aggression takes place on Arab terms, then you would say; hey, they had it coming, we have been here before.

The fact that the UN refused to name Israel as the aggressor in 67 etc. of course doesn’t weigh, unless it had gone the other way, then you would be lauding it as you usually laud intl. institutions so readily that make statements finding Israel at fault for one thing or another. That’s how easy it is to dissemble your partisanship.


when in 73?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Your posts make no sense. Israel attacked Egypt. That's fact, irrespective of what the Egyptians were doing inside their own territory. America attacked Vietnam. America attacked Iraq. These are historic facts.