Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

by Ben Reilly Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:19 pm

WASHINGTON – Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont raised sharp criticism Tuesday of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a video clip that was broadcast during the American Jewish Committee Global Forum in Washington, Sanders also said that opposing Netanyahu doesn’t make him anti-Israel.

“We must say loudly and clearly that we oppose reactionary policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, [which] does not make anyone anti-Israel,” Sanders said. “Let me say it again. I am vigorously opposed to the reactionary racist and authoritarian policies of [US President] Donald Trump. That does not make me anti-American, and I am not anti-Israel because I oppose Netanyahu’s policies.”

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Sanders-Opposing-Netanyahu-doesnt-make-me-anti-Israel-591583

Frankly, I've never cared about the Israel-Palestinian conflict; as an American, it's basically that thing that we keep on being called upon to fix, then getting blamed for because we didn't fix it right.

But I do like what Sanders said about how criticizing the actions of the Israeli government doesn't make him opposed to Israel. I think calling people anti-semitic because they oppose Israel's policies is a cop-out and a fool's refuge.

It reminds me of those on the left who used to say that if people opposed anything Obama did, they were racist.

by Guest Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:23 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
WASHINGTON – Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont raised sharp criticism Tuesday of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a video clip that was broadcast during the American Jewish Committee Global Forum in Washington, Sanders also said that opposing Netanyahu doesn’t make him anti-Israel.

“We must say loudly and clearly that we oppose reactionary policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, [which] does not make anyone anti-Israel,” Sanders said. “Let me say it again. I am vigorously opposed to the reactionary racist and authoritarian policies of [US President] Donald Trump. That does not make me anti-American, and I am not anti-Israel because I oppose Netanyahu’s policies.”

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Sanders-Opposing-Netanyahu-doesnt-make-me-anti-Israel-591583

Frankly, I've never cared about the Israel-Palestinian conflict; as an American, it's basically that thing that we keep on being called upon to fix, then getting blamed for because we didn't fix it right.

But I do like what Sanders said about how criticizing the actions of the Israeli government doesn't make him opposed to Israel. I think calling people anti-semitic because they oppose Israel's policies is a cop-out and a fool's refuge.

It reminds me of those on the left who used to say that if people opposed anything Obama did, they were racist.

Opposing Israel policies or the Governement is not antisemitic

Looking to only boycott the worlds only Jewish nation, is very much antisemitic, based on claimed wrongs by a nation.

I oppose Benjamin Netanyahu, but why does Bernie support people that are making antisemitic comments?

by Ben Reilly Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:28 pm

I really do wonder why I don't hear more people saying that the Israelis and the Palestinians should resolve this themselves.

To go a bit further, I don't understand why they don't actually feel embarrassed that they keep having to ask for help resolving their own problems.

by Guest Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:33 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I really do wonder why I don't hear more people saying that the Israelis and the Palestinians should resolve this themselves.

To go a bit further, I don't understand why they don't actually feel embarrassed that they keep having to ask for help resolving their own problems.

Well 5 times, Palestinians could have had statehood and rejected it every single time
As their leadership hate Jews having a state than having a state themselves.
I guess because people care about the peoplle on both sides and wish to see and end to this conflict

by Original Quill Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:27 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I really do wonder why I don't hear more people saying that the Israelis and the Palestinians should resolve this themselves.

To go a bit further, I don't understand why they don't actually feel embarrassed that they keep having to ask for help resolving their own problems.

They are not asking for help; they're asking for power.

by Guest Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I really do wonder why I don't hear more people saying that the Israelis and the Palestinians should resolve this themselves.

To go a bit further, I don't understand why they don't actually feel embarrassed that they keep having to ask for help resolving their own problems.

They are not asking for help; they're asking for power.

Is that why there is another election this year?

by Original Quill Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:47 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

They are not asking for help; they're asking for power.

Is that why there is another election this year?

I'm talking about their international connections. See, James Rosenau, Penetrative Politics. Elections are an international matter.

They are each seeking the power of outsiders, who can lend moral or other pressure on the situation to their benefit.

by Guest Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Is that why there is another election this year?

I'm talking about their international connections. See, James Rosenau, Penetrative Politics. Elections are an international matter.

They are each seeking the power of outsiders, who can lend moral or other pressure on the situation to their benefit.

So you are basically claiming an antisemitic canard/conspiracy

by Original Quill Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:00 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm talking about their international connections. See, James Rosenau, Penetrative Politics. Elections are an international matter.

They are each seeking the power of outsiders, who can lend moral or other pressure on the situation to their benefit.

So you are basically claiming an antisemitic canard/conspiracy

Both sides want power.

by Guest Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

So you are basically claiming an antisemitic canard/conspiracy

Both sides want power.

If that was the case, there would not be any elections or another this year. Israeli law does not allow for any leader to cling to power. Hence your view is at worst antisemitic, based on a poor view of Jews holding power or a poor conspiracy

Countries that cling to power and use others for this, are countries like Venezuela

by nicko Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:04 am

I like Israel, they have the power to obliterate their enemies , but they don't !

by JulesV Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:32 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Sanders-Opposing-Netanyahu-doesnt-make-me-anti-Israel-591583

Frankly, I've never cared about the Israel-Palestinian conflict; as an American, it's basically that thing that we keep on being called upon to fix, then getting blamed for because we didn't fix it right.

But I do like what Sanders said about how criticizing the actions of the Israeli government doesn't make him opposed to Israel. I think calling people anti-semitic because they oppose Israel's policies is a cop-out and a fool's refuge.

It reminds me of those on the left who used to say that if people opposed anything Obama did, they were racist.

People often fail to make a clear distinction between antisemitism & antizionism. That's the root of the problem.

by Guest Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:34 pm

Jules wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Sanders-Opposing-Netanyahu-doesnt-make-me-anti-Israel-591583

Frankly, I've never cared about the Israel-Palestinian conflict; as an American, it's basically that thing that we keep on being called upon to fix, then getting blamed for because we didn't fix it right.

But I do like what Sanders said about how criticizing the actions of the Israeli government doesn't make him opposed to Israel. I think calling people anti-semitic because they oppose Israel's policies is a cop-out and a fool's refuge.

It reminds me of those on the left who used to say that if people opposed anything Obama did, they were racist.

People often fail to make a clear distinction between antisemitism & antizionism. That's the root of the problem.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:48 pm

nicko wrote:I like Israel, they have the power to obliterate their enemies , but they don't !

That's all sales advertising. Underneath that is reality: if Israel wanted to obliterate their enemies, they should try. They should stop relying on the US and other powers to do their bidding for them. Instead in relying on their own resources, they suck on the hind tit of America.

Netanyahu, like Trump, is the worst for his own cause. He cheats and then lies about it. America wouldn't endeavor to interfere in Israel's elections. Why endeavor to interfere in their defense.

But alas, Israel, for America, is like the fabled tar-baby...once you touch it, you can't get unstuck.

Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders Tar+baby1

Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders Tar+baby1

by Guest Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:55 pm

Actually the world has relied on Israel in preventing maniacs having their hands on weapons of mass destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

In 1948, when invaded from all sides, the only country that supplied them with arms, was the Czechs. The reason America has such a good relationship with Israel. Is its a first line of defense for them. So its not just about giving arms to Israel. But then as seen Quills knowledge of history is failry poor to say the least

by Original Quill Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:00 pm

We're over here. They are waaaaaaaay over there. It's none of our business.

Know how to get tar off?

by Guest Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:We're over here. They are waaaaaaaay over there. It's none of our business.

Know how to get tar off?

But you are one individual and live in a democray that supports Israel in a marjority.
So now Israeli's are tar to you? I thought you were not prejudiced?
Why are you not calling for the US to remove its bases all over the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

Or is it only Jews, that you have issue with?

by Original Quill Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:34 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:We're over here. They are waaaaaaaay over there. It's none of our business.

Know how to get tar off?

But you are one individual and live in a democray that supports Israel in a marjority.
So now Israeli's are tar to you? I thought you were not prejudiced?
Why are you not calling for the US to remove its bases all over the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

Or is it only Jews, that you have issue with?

Ehhhh...that "majority" is getting a lot thinner these days.

I live here, you don't. You don't know what's going, and how the support of the younger generation of Jews for Israel is aging. Gone are the days of the moral invincibility of Israel. As Netanyahu moves into more mundane, selfish political motives, the younger generation sees Israel as just another selfish, land-grabbing nation, out do do in the other guy. Their opinion is normalizing.

I'm not getting involved in that debate, but I am (only) commenting that times they are a-changing. You are not as sensitive as am I, as to what is going on in the US.

by Guest Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

But you are one individual and live in a democray that supports Israel in a marjority.
So now Israeli's are tar to you? I thought you were not prejudiced?
Why are you not calling for the US to remove its bases all over the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

Or is it only Jews, that you have issue with?

Ehhhh...that "majority" is getting a lot thinner these days.

I live here, you don't. You don't know what's going, and how the support of the younger generation of Jews for Israel is aging. Gone are the days of the moral invincibility of Israel. As Netanyahu moves into more mundane, selfish political motives, the younger generation sees Israel as just another selfish, land-grabbing nation, out do do in the other guy. Their opinion is normalizing.

I'm not getting involved in that debate, but I am (only) commenting that times they are a-changing. You are not as sensitive as am I, as to what is going on in the US.

So avoided the point on other countries, in fact completely dodged it and still thinking you and only you respresnt the entire US. Well I have heard that view for at least 3 decades about younger generations Israel in the hateful view point that you express and every decade the support continues. I would guess, thaat as they grow older, they grow out of the hateful stance that oyu profess against the only Jewish state.

The only conclusion i can take from this, is you hate the only Jewish state and have no objection to Americans being involved with other allied nations.

I will leave others to easily figure out what that makes you

by Guest Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:

But you are one individual and live in a democray that supports Israel in a marjority.
So now Israeli's are tar to you? I thought you were not prejudiced?
Why are you not calling for the US to remove its bases all over the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

Or is it only Jews, that you have issue with?

Ehhhh...that "majority" is getting a lot thinner these days.

As Netanyahu moves into more mundane, selfish political motives, the younger generation sees Israel as just another selfish, land-grabbing nation, out do do in the other guy. Their opinion is normalizing.

You see i really dont mind genuine criticism of israeli policies, but when you invoke antisemitic troupes, you lose all credability
What that shows is what is the problems with far left extremism being constantly taught in Universities, as the above is so wrong and even more yet again an antisemitic troupe, based on Jews and greed. That you are so far over the line being antisemitic. You fail to see that israel has constantly always given up land for peace and then what happens, when they do?

While Israel's peace agreement with Egypt has remained pretty solid, major parts of the Sinai that Israel withdrew from have since become strongholds for ISIS-associated Islamist terror groups.

The parts of Lebanon that Israel withdrew from in 2000 were immediately taken over by the Islamist terror group Hezbollah.

The Gaza Strip, which Israel withdrew from for peace in 2005, was soon taken over by the Islamist terror group Hamas.

There is a pattern here, and it isn't "land for peace." It is "land for terrorists."

But everyone "knows" that the only path for peace is for Israel to do the exact same thing, again. The supposedly peaceful Palestinian Authority, which couldn't hold onto Gaza, is going to be strong enough to stop Hamas - which defeated it in the last elections.

Mahmoud Abbas, the man of peace, is the leader of Fatah that still has armed terror groups he promised to dismantle years ago, under the umbrella Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Here they are in Gaza this week:

Not to mention that Abbas prioritizes paying terrorists over taking care of his own people.

The people who believe in Oslo-style peace are like cult members who discard all critical thinking skills to remain members. They worship the word "peace" while disconnecting it from its actual meaning. Previous failures are ignored or redirected into blaming Israel for Palestinian refusal to compromise or accept peace plans.

Even an intifada wasn't enough to wake up the world.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:09 pm

phil wrote:You see i really dont mind genuine criticism of israeli policies, but when you invoke antisemitic troupes, you lose all credability

What is your justification for calling the Israeli land grab an "antisemitic trope". You have none.

The greater question is, why do you argue that some issues should be off-limits and censored? You don't even define the distinction between arguments that are “Israel policy”, and those that are antisemetic. This is contrary to your general call on most threads, for open and free speech.

Your argument appears to be a veiled attempt to close off debate arbitrarily. Israel has conducted their land-grab right under our noses. You know that. So your resort to tabbooism essentially says, Let's not talk about that!

For obvious reasons. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:You see i really dont mind genuine criticism of israeli policies, but when you invoke antisemitic troupes, you lose all credability

What is your justification for calling the Israeli land grab an "antisemitic trope". You have none.

The greater question is, why do you argue that some issues should be off-limits and censored? You don't even define the distinction between arguments that are “Israel policy”, and those that are antisemetic. This is contrary to your general call on most threads, for open and free speech.

Your argument appears to be a veiled attempt to close off debate arbitrarily. Israel has conducted their land-grab right under our noses. You know that. So your resort to tabbooism essentially says, Let's not talk about that!

For obvious reasons.

I never claimed anything should be off the table. I said people who poorly make comparrisons to Nazi policies like lebensraum. Which was not even originally a Nazi policiy, but the policy of the Pan Germanic league. Is certainly invoking an antisemitic view point. Not only is there no offocial Israeli policy that compares to lebensraum. The people who invoke comparrisons, are doing so, in the poorest attempt to place the only Jewish state in comparrison to Nazism itself. Which is not only insulting to the 6 million Jews that died in the Holocaust. There is no view by the Isralies to wipe out the Palestinians with starvation, massmurder and death camps. Which was very much part of the lebensraum plan. That sought to starve millions of Ukranians, Belo-russians etcin order to expand Germanic expansion and goals. As seen, Israel has continually given up land for peace. Yet where Jews are settling in areas, that were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians of Jews after 1948. They destroyed Jewish temples and forced Jews out of their homes, where their families had existed for centuries. You disgustingly claim lebensraum. The only thing embarressing here, is again how you expose yourself, as not someone credible. You expose all the problems with the far left. You dont actually present a credible view point, but instead try to compare Israel to nazi policy?

As to antisemitic troupes, is very easy to explain, claiming a country is greedy and selfish, when this charge has constantly been made of Jews, ignoring they have given up lands for peace, after winning land, in defensive wars. Where Arab nations sought to destroy them. I once thought you were intellectual and fair in debate Quill, but many see you now as extreme and irrational in debate on such issues

by Original Quill Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:08 am

Lebensraum = the territory that a state or nation believes is needed for its natural development.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=pty&hsimp=yhs-pty_maps¶m2=e14f4fa0-748f-420c-97d9-ac7b43f587c0¶m3=maps_~US~appfocus84¶m4=%7bsource%7d-bb8~Chrome~lebensraum+definition~850BA6DC4A10BDB6AF8B2C103B681625¶m1=20171009&p=lebensraum+definition&type=admk

Golan Heights? The occupied territories? Southern Lebanon? Isn't that Netanyahu's plan? Or does he have an ulterior motive?

by Guest Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:55 am

Original Quill wrote:Lebensraum = the territory that a state or nation believes is needed for its natural development.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=pty&hsimp=yhs-pty_maps¶m2=e14f4fa0-748f-420c-97d9-ac7b43f587c0¶m3=maps_~US~appfocus84¶m4=%7bsource%7d-bb8~Chrome~lebensraum+definition~850BA6DC4A10BDB6AF8B2C103B681625¶m1=20171009&p=lebensraum+definition&type=admk

Golan Heights? The occupied territories? Southern Lebanon? Isn't that Netanyahu's plan? Or does he have an ulterior motive?

Even on the above defintion you are wrong and again that was not the Nazi Lebensraum policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

Settlements have been in the main by individuals themselves leaving to form new homes. Again the settlements are within disputed territory and have not been annexed by Israel. Germany invaded many lands and annexed them. The nazi policy was to exterminate millions and use the rest as slaves to for farming the laand. No such policy exists in Israel, they are not looking to murder millions or enslave them, hence zero comparrison. What you fail to grasp is the land is disputed territory and will be part of negotiations to have peace. You are also forgetting the Oslo accord, that allows Israel to control area C within thhe west bank. B and A are simple under security control, but administered by the Palestinians. Only 4% of palestinians are in Area C of the West bank, as hardly any have ever lived there

As to the Golan heights, it was territory captured in a defensive war with Syria. As seen Syria refuse to have peace with Israel. Jordan and Eygpt made up with Israel and gained peace and israel gave up lands won in war to them

5 times the Palestinians could have had a state and 5 times they have rejected this, because they do not want Israel to exist. The only thing I see here, is complete paranopia on your part. I have never supported Netanyahu or some of his polices or his goverment, what I support is the right of Israel to exist and have self determination. Hence your falsified claims, only look to deligitimise Israel and off one inidividual. Who is likely to lose the next election later this year

by Original Quill Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:45 pm

All this extraneous bullshite in order to explain a simple concept.

Lebensraum = land grabbing. Wars of conquest are wars to grab another people's land. End of...

(Maxim of science: simplest answer is the best answer.)

by Guest Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:All this extraneous bullshite in order to explain a simple concept.

Lebensraum = land grabbing. Wars of conquest are wars to grab another people's land. End of...

(Maxim of science: simplest answer is the best answer.)

So to you Poland, is Lebensraum, so is Russia, so is Romania, so is Serbia, so is Croatia, so is China etc.

Lebensraum is about living space and vast amounts of this to then colonise and liquidate the people living there. With what is left classed as slaves. I suggest you take a basic Gcse history lesson on this

by Original Quill Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:32 pm

phil wrote:Lebensraum is about living space and vast amounts of this to then colonise and liquidate the people living there.

Yep, that pretty much describes what is going on with the Golan Heights, the occupied territories, and places like southern Lebanon.

Instead of "liquidate", substitute the term "displacing" and you're bang on.

by Guest Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:Lebensraum is about living space and vast amounts of this to then colonise and liquidate the people living there.

Yep, that pretty much describes what is going on with the Golan Heights, the occupied territories, and places like southern Lebanon.

Instead of "liquidate", substitute the term "displacing" and you're bang on.

The golan heights, a territory, won in a defensive war? Which has never been delcared annexed, as half of Cypress has. Or Tibet? for example? Again how about Poland, Romania, Crimea etc to name numereous examples

Nobody has been displaced from the Golan heights, in fact its become a place for refugees from the syrian conflict

So again, i suggest you take a basic course in history

by Original Quill Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:46 pm

phil wrote:The golan heights, a territory, won in a defensive war?

Was it a defensive war, or a war of conquest? I wonder.

I might point out that Hitler described his wars of lebensraum as defensive wars, too. He claimed he was conquering nations on behalf of the German population already there, and thus in fact defending them.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck…well, you know what they say.

by Guest Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:The golan heights, a territory, won in a defensive war?

Was it a defensive war, or a war of conquest? I wonder.

I might point out that Hitler described his wars of lebensraum as defensive wars, too. He claimed he was conquering nations on behalf of the German population already there, and thus in fact defending them.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck…well, you know what they say.

And you claim to be an academic?

Syria declared war on israel

And there we have it again, claiming where israel has actually been attacked, that they are claiming defensive wars. As if to compare to nazi policy. I suggest you stop embarressing yourself. As where was the instructions in Israeli policy before being attacked by Syria, to expand israeli land into the Golan heights?

If a lefty argues like an antisemite, they generally are antisemitic

by Original Quill Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:28 pm

phildidge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Was it a defensive war, or a war of conquest? I wonder.

I might point out that Hitler described his wars of lebensraum as defensive wars, too. He claimed he was conquering nations on behalf of the German population already there, and thus in fact defending them.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck…well, you know what they say.

And you claim to be an academic?

It's not about me, ol' boy. I told you, it was about good academic form. And 'academic' is an adjective; the proper noun form is 'academician'. By misreading my post, you even incorporated your sloppy grammatical form.

phil wrote:Syria declared war on israel

And there we have it again, claiming where israel has actually been attacked, that they are claiming defensive wars. As if to compare to nazi policy. I suggest you stop embarressing yourself. As where was the instructions in Israeli policy before being attacked by Syria, to expand israeli land into the Golan heights?

If a lefty argues like an antisemite, they generally are antisemitic

I have to keep reminding you to stick to the point. It's not about me.

The Point: There are ways of maneuvering a nation into war. We did it to the Japanese in the Pacific by moving our Pacific Fleet naval base from San Diego to Hawai'i. We are doing it again to Iran. You just steer the other guys into thinking they need to, and are taking defensive measures, until they do something that looks offensive (US charges that Iran is putting missiles on boats). It's called escalation.

Israel started the 6-day war by escalation:

Encyclopaedia Britannica wrote:In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac. A similar air assault incapacitated the Syrian air force.

That's why you have to look to the motives in order to determine who is the real aggressor.

by Guest Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:32 pm

1. So you admit to being ignorant of this history, by poorly trying to go off on your ignorance here on me

2. Oh dear, we are back to your warped and quite unfounded conspiracy that the US made ther japanese attack them. To the view for the US to enter the war with Germany. One small problem with that insane and quite unfounded view, is that Hitler declared war on the US. The Japanese only attacked peral Harbour based on the success of Germany in Russia and not on aqny policy Roosevelt did. This is basic school 15 year old history and yet you present unfounded conspiracies that have been easily debunked.

3. You then use this derranged claim with the US, as a bases to claim the same with israel based off no evidence and only paranoia

4. The Golan heights is not in Eygpt, but Syria. Also the Eygptians, had blocked the straits and were planning to attack israel, hence the concept pre-emptive stike. Doh

Seriously, let me know when you have some evidence and stop being a complete paranoid loon

by Original Quill Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:37 pm

phil wrote:Oh dear, we are back to your warped and quite unfounded conspiracy that the US made ther japanese attack them. To the view for the US to enter the war with Germany. One small problem with that insane and quite unfounded view, is that Hitler declared war on the US. The Japanese only attacked peral Harbour based on the success of Germany in Russia and not on aqny policy Roosevelt did. This is basic school 15 year old history and yet you present unfounded conspiracies that have been easily debunked.

Everybody knew, at the time, that the US suckered Japan into the war. You, by contrast, were not there.

As for the excuse that Germany declared war on the US, I've just lectured you how belligerents play the escalation game and you don't process that part.

Germany, Italy and Japan were committed to a Tripartite Pact, also known as the Berlin Pact, which was an agreement between Germany, Italy and Japan signed in Berlin on 27 September 1940. It created a defense alliance between the three countries--you attack one, you attack all three:

Encyclopaedia Britannica wrote:Tripartite Pact: agreement concluded by Germany, Italy, and Japan on September 27, 1940, one year after the start of World War II. It created a defense alliance between the countries and was largely intended to deter the United States from entering the conflict.

Thus, the US had only to provoke the Empire of Japan to attack it, and the US had the excuse it needed to enter Europe's war. Moving the Pacific Fleet to Hawai'i was that provocation...it was a claim to hegemony in the Pacific, where the Japanese were under the assumption that the Pacific was their playground. And incidentally, the US had broken the Japanese code and knew the attack was coming. Ask yourself, if the aircraft carrier was the capital ship of the day (still is), and the home of the Pacific Fleet was Pearl Harbor, why were all aircraft carriers ordered by command of the Secretary of War to stay out of Pearl Harbor that weekend? Do you think they were keeping the valuable assets out of harm's way on Sunday, December 7, 1941?

You might say that Roosevelt and Churchill played Mussolini and Hitler, and got the US into the war despite four Neutrality Acts passed by the US Congress against entering Europe's War. It was what you might call a nice little bit of global jui-jitsu: use the other guy’s moves against him. The worry was that because Japan attacked the US, it would not been seen by Hitler as an aggressive move triggering their defense pact. Hitler allayed all concerns by declaring war against the US on December 10th.

You are not given to ideas, so I understand that you don't get it. But most people can think for themselves, and they understand geopolitical maneuvering.

To the US, Japan was a tool. Witness the fact that exactly 6-months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US put most the Japanese capital ships on the bottom in the Battle of Midway (Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū and Hiryū, part of the six-carrier force that had attacked Pearl Harbor six months earlier).. This neutralized both the Japanese Imperial Navy, and the Japanese Imperial Air Force (which was Navy). Newww problem, Nada. They knew they could do that, anytime, anywhere.

The remainder of your points have already been disposed of, so we need not bother again.

by Guest Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:32 pm

And the above is not based on any single piece of evidence but subjective conspiracy bullshit. So many times have I had this ridiculous debate with Quill and debunked him. I am no longer going to entertain his stupidity, but will alow experts to rubbish his bullshit instead.

Enjoy

by Original Quill Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:29 am

phildidge wrote:And the above is not based on any single piece of evidence but subjective conspiracy bullshit. So many times have I had this ridiculous debate with Quill and debunked him. I am no longer going to entertain his stupidity, but will alow experts to rubbish his bullshit instead.

What experts? History is observable and recorded fact. Do you think after four Neutrality Acts in Congress, we got into WWII by luck?

Gullible... Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content

Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders

Re: Netanyahu's definition of "peace" is a conquering Israel, says Bernie Sanders