Stop with the insults, they get you banned.Lol, Terbs clown and village idiot opens his yap again. No it’s not. Else the protest, post such as yours would seek to put as much pressure on Iran, Hamas PIJ etc
Ok, idiot.
how do you propose to ensure the ceasefire last more than a “few days” this time. And if/when it doesn’t what will you do. Other than whine more about Israel and expect them to rollover.
You can't get to lasting peace without a ceasefire first.Ceasefires are temporary measures anyway. Lasting solutions need to be found to work toward permanent peace.
Can you? Because you didn't. Those weren't terrorist attacks. That's like saying Israel's strategy will work because Rome conquered Italy.But I can. The 6-day war.
Egypt, Jordan and Syria have been relatively silent after Israel kicked all their asses.
Sadat even wanted to make peace with Israel afterwards, but the muslim extremists wouldnt allow it and assassinated him
But he’s also right. Just depends on how it’s viewed. What clearly hasn’t worked, and would be insane to keep trying is peace negotiations. What did buy some measure was declaring war. And 1967.Can you? Because you didn't. Those weren't terrorist attacks. That's like saying Israel's strategy will work because Rome conquered Italy.
I'm speaking about retaliatory attacks against a largely civilian population in response to terrorist attacks in effort to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of terrorist attacks. That was what shack had proposed. When has that ever worked?
He's not right and your entire dissertation trying to explain it is asinine. You can't claim Israel's defeat of Egypt in a conventional war is the same as retaliatory strikes against a civilian population in an attempt to turn them away from supporting terrorists. There is no "point of view" which is both sensical and where those can be equated. They are entirely separate strategies against entirely different types of belligerents that achieved an entirely different objective, which are the only 3 points involved in the argument I'm making.But he’s also right.
Lmao, your entire pretense in this is asinine. You haven’t offered any viewpoints, perspectives, or suggestions. Just your usual thus far. Almost like someone sitting in the weeds waiting to pounce on something.He's not right and your entire dissertation trying to explain it is asinine. You can't claim Israel's defeat of Egypt in a conventional war is the same as retaliatory strikes against a civilian population in an attempt to turn them away from supporting terrorists. There is no "point of view" which is both sensical and where those can be equated. They are entirely separate strategies against entirely different types of belligerents that achieved an entirely different objective, which are the only 3 points involved in the argument I'm making.
Its not a retaliatory attack against a largely civilian population, its a retaliatory attack against Hamas who hides amongst a largely civilian population.Can you? Because you didn't. Those weren't terrorist attacks. That's like saying Israel's strategy will work because Rome conquered Italy.
I'm speaking about retaliatory attacks against a largely civilian population in response to terrorist attacks in effort to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of terrorist attacks. That was what shack had proposed. When has that ever worked?
Keep chuckling at all the dead civilians. I'm sure everyone thinks it makes you as cool as you think it does.Lmao, your entire pretense in this is asinine. You haven’t offered any viewpoints, perspectives, or suggestions. Just your usual thus far. Almost like someone sitting in the weeds waiting to pounce on something.
What do you suggest DM





