ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

[Black Dog]

Here's an interesting case.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is currently in Moscow after touring Asia rallying support for a UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions against the North for its nuclear test on October 9.

Those sanctions would involve a naval blockade to inspect and if necessary intercept ships entering or leaving North Korean ports with certain materials deemed to be of potential military use. North Korea has said it will treat any blockade as an act of war.

If we accept that Israel had the right in 1967 to launch a war based on the paper blockade of an insignificant waterway, then surely we must also accept that North korea has the right, if a blockade is enforced against them, to launch a war in self defense.

Hmm...what a bind.

But hey, Dancer, you were the one who cited the Australian legal definition of blockade earlier. I wil thus draw you attention to this excerpt:

This law requires, inter alia, that the blockade must be effective, that it is to be declared by the belligerent so that all interested parties know of its existence and that it is confined to ports or coasts occupied by the enemy. The expression is used more broadly to mean a combat operation carried out to prevent access to, or departure from the coast or waters of a hostile State.

How can a blockade that existed only on paper reasonably be said to meet the above critiriea?

[M.Dancer]

Here's an interesting case.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is currently in Moscow after touring Asia rallying support for a UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions against the North for its nuclear test on October 9.

Those sanctions would involve a naval blockade to inspect and if necessary intercept ships entering or leaving North Korean ports with certain materials deemed to be of potential military use. North Korea has said it will treat any blockade as an act of war.

If we accept that Israel had the right in 1967 to launch a war based on the paper blockade of an insignificant waterway, then surely we must also accept that North korea has the right, if a blockade is enforced against them, to launch a war in self defense.

Hmm...what a bind.

But hey, Dancer, you were the one who cited the Australian legal definition of blockade earlier. I wil thus draw you attention to this excerpt:

This law requires, inter alia, that the blockade must be effective, that it is to be declared by the belligerent so that all interested parties know of its existence and that it is confined to ports or coasts occupied by the enemy. The expression is used more broadly to mean a combat operation carried out to prevent access to, or departure from the coast or waters of a hostile State.

How can a blockade that existed only on paper reasonably be said to meet the above critiriea?

You say it existed on paper, yet Egypt had destroyers positioned in the straits. Your definition of "only paper" seems to include the maps the egyptian navy used to navigate into the straits....

[cybercoma]

Inspecting ships for military equipment that can and have been threatened to be used against American allies is a hell of a lot different than setting up a blockade, not for safety, but to disrupt or attack a target.

[Black Dog]

You say it existed on paper, yet Egypt had destroyers positioned in the straits. Your definition of "only paper" seems to include the maps the egyptian navy used to navigate into the straits....

Nope:

On the Israeli side, there was hardly any sea power to contend with; just a few obsolete torpedo boats and a number of light craft of various types, as well as two or three small landing ships. Needless to say, all this did not present a threat to the navy. On the other hand, the Israeli air force was close by, stationed in various strategic air-bases, thus presenting a formidable threat to any surface naval units in the vicinity of Sharm Al-Sheikh.

All these military movements were carried out on the understanding that war was not being contemplated. The preparations were presented as simply a political move, and thus no concern of the military commanders who, although expressing their dissent, were compelled to comply with orders. This state of affairs lasted until 23 May 1967, when all of a sudden a decision was taken to block traffic through the Straits of Tiran, leading into the Gulf of Aqaba. From then on, the outbreak of hostilities became imminent, and the situation deteriorated rapidly. Through intense political pressure from various sources combined with catastrophic misjudgement, it was decided at the highest level that Egypt would not strike the first blow.

On 5 June 1967, combat readiness in the navy had been increased to maximum alert, all units were taking defence measures with the dispersal of units and the manning of 50 per cent of anti-aircraft armament on a 24-hour basis. A detachment of three destroyers, one frigate, two submarines, and a large number of missile and torpedo boats were already stationed in the Red Sea theatre. A naval patrol was maintained off the Straits of Tiran, with a 130mm coastal artillery battery stationed at Sharm Al-Sheikh.

The rules of engagement regarding ships passing through the waterway were very complicated, and seem to have been tailored to prevent any outbreak of action against anything except unescorted ships flying the Israeli flag. In all the other naval bases, routine patrols were maintained on the outer limits of territorial waters. But on the whole, there was no offensive operational plan to follow: no instructions had been received from general headquarters in Cairo. Thus the superiority of force available to the Egyptian navy since the 1956 arms deal with the Soviet Union was not exploited.

link

That tells us that between 23 May and 5 June (the day the war started), there was no action taken on the part of the Egyptians to enforce the blockade.

Again: there's argments to be made that Israel was facing long-term threats. But to argue, as most apologists do, that Israel was in immediate danger of extinction in the summer of '67 is a fantasy of the highest order.

[Figleaf]

already explained that Egypt's blockade was not even illegal,

ah,,,sorry chump....

Insult reported to moderator.

...all you ahve said is it wasn't an act of war.....

If you don't even read my posts, why do you argue about them.

In fact, I noted above that the straight was Egyptian territorial waters.

yet you have nopthing, zilch...your proof is empty, like your arguments

Saying that my arguments are empty does change the fact that I've soundly refuted your claim that a blockade is considered a just cause for war.

I have:

-cited the law that only self-defense or UNSC resolution is a legal cause for war between states;

-noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES don't say that blockades are an act of war;

-noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES say blockades will become defined as acts of war in 2009; and

-pointed out that blockading the strait does not fit the legal definition of blockade which species the blocking of ports or shoreline.

Meanswhile you baldly assert that blockades are a just cause for war, but as I've demonstrated (without any substantial reponse from you) your supposed support for that assertion doesn't actually say any such thing.

Honestly, what do you think you're accomplishing?

[Figleaf]

...you have done a fine job apologising for terrorism and aggression.

Bravo Fibleaf!

Yeah yeah. More sleazy lies from M.Dancer. Par for the course.

[Rue]

Once again BlackDog your analysis of Israel's military history is selective and misleading.

The 1967 war goes back to 1956. At that time, Nasser prevented Israeli ships from travelling through the Suez canal and the Straits of Iran choking them off from their Iranian oil suppliers and choking off their essential maritime trade that they needed to survive. Israel was int hose days faced with Syria, Iraq and Egypt, and the entire Arab League calling for its destruction. Once this blockade happened it felt it was forced to go to war to protect its ships. Britain and France also upset at the canal being nationalized adn now facing tarrifs for using the canal, told Israel if it attacked Egypt, they would then support it. Of course it gave France and Britain a pretense to take over the canal and end the nationalization.

The US felt the way to deal with Nasser was not threw a war since Nasser was supported by the Sovietys and Eisenhower was worried about a nuclear war being triggered off.

So while history shows Lester Pearson then worked behind the scenes trying to get Britain to back down, and helped come up wiith the idea of placing peacekeeping troops in the Sinai, it was the United States who assured Israel it would have the right of access to the Straits of Tiran in return for getting Israel to end the Suez war and this is why in 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait as per the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958.

Once again in May of 1967,Nasser would create another blockade but contrary to Blackdog's comments it was not the only reason for the war and was in fact one of many incidents from 157 to 1967 leading up to the war. The blockade was contrary to what Blackdog suggested not a mere annoyance but in fact cut off once again Israel's access to oil from Iran threatening its ability to exist.

Also keep in mind in 1963, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded, then in 1964 it broke up into many factions due to continuous disagreements as to how to destroy Israel and when, and its largest group Fatah elected its leader, Yasser Arafat, as the PLO chairman and then set of its principles in the Palestine National Charter, calling for Israel's complete destruction. These principles are what the Arab League, Nasser, Syria, Iraq continuing called upon in open speeches leading up to the 1967 war.

Keep in mind it was also in 1964, terrorist attacks by PLO and Fatah started and the targets were civilians and that these attacks could not happen without the logistical support of the Syrian and Egyptian armies and the PLO had to clear every attack with Syria and Egyptian intelligence.

Egyptian President Nasser’s agenda in those days was to rally the Arab world against Israel which it saw as a puppet state of the U.S. Nasser considered the U.S. its major enemy. It was supported by the Soviets who armed it and Syria and Iraq. Keep in mind lest you think Nasser was the champion of the people, that he actually came to power thanks to the CIA and then turned roque. He openly called for the death of Jews world-wide and not just in Israel. He also was vehemently opposed to Hussein in Jordan. He and Syria and Iraq also had tried to form a United Arab Republic but that fell apart due to feuds between the Bath parties in Syria and Iraq who were dead enemies of each other. History now shows Nasser and Syria despised Arafat and used him as a dupe against Israel and hoped he would depose Hussein in Jordan for them. Hussein of course was seen as a puppet of the US and Britain. Hussein in Jordan was just as much an enemy as was Israel and the PLO was in fact more of a threat to him as the majority of Palestinians were in Jordan with Arafat and trying to kill him and take over the nation.

One of the most important elements leading up to the 1967 war was Hussein expelling Arafat and the Palestinians from Jordan. Nasser and Syria and Egypt, then Lebanon and many other Arab League nations following Nasser's lead accused Hussein of betraying the Arab cause.

The United Arab Republic of Egypt, Syria and Iraq then split up and Syria became quite angry and preoccuped with Israel over a water war-a water war that still goes on today and is the real reason for the animosity Syria has with Israel. Israel had created a water-way to take water from the Jordan River to supply the country back in the 1960's and this was what had Syria calling for Israel's end more then anything else. Precisely because of this water conflict, the Syrian army used the Golan Heights, which is 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to then shell Israel. These attacks started in 1965 forcing the people living in Israel's Huleh Valley to sleep in bomb shelters. The UN Mixed Armistice Commission in charge of peace in that region of course ignored Israel's protests but the UN would condem Israel if it shot back. Keep in mind leading up to the 1967 war, the Syrians increased these bomardments from Syria to a daily basis and no they were not a mere annoyance. They made it impossible for Israelis in the North to exist and live in peace.

As for Nasser he made a famous public speech in 1965 stating; “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.” and " the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the state of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.” These speeches are on public record.

Between 1965 and 1967 Nasser, Syria and many other Arab leaders continually repeated these kinds of speeches and Arafat escalated terrorist attacks and told the world he would destroy Israel.

On April 7, 1967 Israel retaliated against the constant Syrian bombardments by shooting down six Syrian fighter planes. Keep in mind in those days, The Soviets Armed Egypt, Syria, Iraq and so were upset Israel shot down 6 MIGS. As a result the KGB got involved and history now has revealed that they gave Damascus false informationthat Israel was engaged in a huge military and was going to attack Syria. Russia deliberately wound up Syria. In those days Russia felt Israel was a US puppet that could be destroyed by Syria and Egypt ending US influence in the region. It thought this because on paper Israel had a far tinier armed forces then any of the nations surrounding it.

Israel actually told Syria in secret this was b.s. but of course Syria would not believe them and invoked a defense treaty it still had with Egypt and asked Nasser/Egypt to come to their military assistance.

If anything thank the Russians for their meddling for igniting the war.

With this all going on, it was then on May 15, 1967, (Israel's Independence Day) that Egyptian troops headed into the Sinai and started massing on the Israeli border. The next day Nasser ordered the UN peacekeepers out.Then on May 18, Syrian troops mobilized and massed on the Golan Heights border and also on Nasser stated on the Voice of the Arabs radio station stated and again the proclomation is public record;

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

On May 20, 1967 then Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad stated on Syrian radio;

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

The blockade then came about on May 22, 1967. The closing of the straight was a deliberate tactic by Nasser to try force Israel’s hand as he had in 1956. After annoucning the blockade Nasser again went on radio and declared; "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

Interesting of course that Nasser in all of his speeches used the word Jew, not Israeli.

He also stated in his radio broadcast "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight " and "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

With all this heading to a confrontation King Hussein of Jordan panicked. He felt if he did not join the Egyptians, and Syrians, they would attack him as well and install Arafat, so he signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30 fearing if he did not, Egypt and Syria would not support him against Arafat. Interestingly Britain remained silent and it was their silence that led Hussein to believe this was the right move. Britain was still angry at the U.S. and distanced itself from the US foreign policy which was against the PLO.

On May 30, 1967 Nasser again stated:

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

As well President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq stated: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

It was in fact on June 4, Iraq officially joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab League Armies then began mobilizing and preparing for war. The entire world knew Israel was going to be attacked and all the papers sepculated on the attack date and the UN sat by in silence.

Israel had placed its troops on full alert in May of 1967 but could not keep its troops on indefinite alert for obvious psychological reasons. The Arab League would have played out the rhetoric for quite a few more months hoping to psychologically fatigue Israeli troops before attacking. Israel knew this and so on on June 5, attacked first. Teh blockade was but one of many incidents but was not a minor one.

[Black Dog]

The 1967 war goes back to 1956. At that time, Nasser prevented Israeli ships from travelling through the Suez canal and the Straits of Iran choking them off from their Iranian oil suppliers and choking off their essential maritime trade that they needed to survive.

This is nonsense for a couple of reasons. First, there's no shortage of other shipping routes to Israel. Second, in 1967, just five per cent of Israeli shipping past through the Straits of Tiran. Five per cent! Are you telling me that that five per cent was all that stood between Israel and destruction and that there's no way that it could have been rerouted?

Anyway the rest is pretty much the standard apologia. For instance, you mention the Syrian/Israeli border dispute, but omit Israel's settlment of the DMZ along the border (including bulldozing Arab villages and evicting their residents) and various other provocations (as described here by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan).

I know how at least 80 percent of all of the incidents there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we (Israel) would send a tractor to plow.in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later, even the air force, and that is how it went..We thought.that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.

You mention the Soviets misleading the Syrians, but ignore the possibility that perhaps the Russians had caught wind of the Israeli Cabinet's decision of early May '67 to go to war against Syria and transmitted the information (or an interpretation iof it) to the Syrians. Nor do you take into account that the fact of the war itself shows Israel had plans to attack Syria and its Arab allies long before the crisis hit (unles syou expect us to think they cooked up the whole thing in a matter of weeks).

You mention the expulsion of the UNEF from the Egyptian side of the Sinai, but neglect tomention that Israel refused to allow them to set up on their side of the border.

You mention nuerous proclimations by Arab leaders proclaiming their willingness to fight, but neglect to mention how ill-prepared they were to launch an attack. As Menachem Begin said:

"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Above all, you have failed to demonstrate that Israel's existence was in any way in immediate danger in the summer of '67. Most intelligence experts at the time agreed that Israel would win a war handily regardles of who struck first. The 1967 war was not one of self-defense. It was started to knock Israel's foes down a peg and to claim territory: both perfectly rational strategic motives. (Dyan again, quopted by Oren: "Our success will be judged not on the number of Egyptian tanks we destroy, but on the size of the territory we'll seize.") I'm not sure why those on the pro-Israeli side have such a problem with accepting the idea that Israel would launch a war on such grounds.

[Figleaf]

As usual, Rue has tendered an extremely lengthy and not entirely accurate collection of factoids about mid-east history. Unfortunately when waded through it fails to add up to an argument, or even a coherent story.

We know Arab leaders gave speaches against Israel. We know the 'great' powers had their own reasons for meddling. We know Arab states had defensive alliances. These are all known, and none of them (even told in exhaustive detail) change the facts of history. Israel attacked its neighbors in 1967, not the other way around.

[jbg]

In my opinion, there is another way. Israel could elect a government more palatable to the left. From 1948 to 1977, Israel was governed by the Labour party or Labour party coalitions. At that point, despite previous wars, Israel was not vilified to the extent that it is today by the left. But when Israel elected Begin and a subsequent string of like-minded right-wingers like Shamir and Sharon, Israel's reputation gradually shifted. Fear contributed to the election of these right-wingers just as it contributed to George Bush's election.

Having a neighbour next door whose elected government claims Israel has no right to exist will not eliminate that fear.

The same Begin as surrendered the Sinai for a piece of paper. And his "partner in peace" was dead within four years.

His "partner in peace" was dead because he was assassinated by a right wing Israeli.

So from your perspective Begin was not sufficiently right wing?

Anwar Sadat was murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood.

[jbg]

The real cause of the 1967 war, when you get right down to it, was Israel's ongoing border conflict with Syria. But at no point was Israel in mortal danger from any of its foes.

Oh yes. Great neighbors to have.

[normanchateau]

Anwar Sadat was murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes, you are correct. It was Yitzhak Rabin who was murdered by a right wing Israeli.

[Black Dog]

QUOTE(Black Dog @ Nov 7 2006, 01:30 PM)

The real cause of the 1967 war, when you get right down to it, was Israel's ongoing border conflict with Syria. But at no point was Israel in mortal danger from any of its foes.

Oh yes. Great neighbors to have.

Cuts both ways, sunshine.

I know how at least 80 percent of all of the incidents there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we (Israel) would send a tractor to plow.in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later, even the air force, and that is how it went..We thought.that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.

[southerncomfort]

nwar Sadat was murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood.

True. Good to have some Canadian leadership and committment for a change, Go CPC support Israel.

[M.Dancer]

already explained that Egypt's blockade was not even illegal,

ah,,,sorry chump....

Insult reported to moderator.

...all you ahve said is it wasn't an act of war.....

If you don't even read my posts, why do you argue about them.

In fact, I noted above that the straight was Egyptian territorial waters.

yet you have nopthing, zilch...your proof is empty, like your arguments

Saying that my arguments are empty does change the fact that I've soundly refuted your claim that a blockade is considered a just cause for war.

I have:

-cited the law that only self-defense or UNSC resolution is a legal cause for war between states;

-noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES don't say that blockades are an act of war;

-noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES say blockades will become defined as acts of war in 2009; and

-pointed out that blockading the strait does not fit the legal definition of blockade which species the blocking of ports or shoreline.

Meanswhile you baldly assert that blockades are a just cause for war, but as I've demonstrated (without any substantial reponse from you) your supposed support for that assertion doesn't actually say any such thing.

Honestly, what do you think you're accomplishing?

If this ain't a duplicitous and dishonest argument, I don't know what is.....

Egypt Blockades Eliat....blockades aren't an act of war...

In my mind, this poster has zero credibility. Especially considering that for 100s of years blocades have been condidered an act of war, I have to assume figleaf is playing dumb by choosing to ignore tradition, and in order to get the last word in, reports beiung called chump as an insult..

It that aboyt right, friend?

[Figleaf]

already explained that Egypt's blockade was not even illegal,

ah,,,sorry chump....

Insult reported to moderator.

...all you ahve said is it wasn't an act of war.....

If you don't even read my posts, why do you argue about them.

In fact, I noted above that the straight was Egyptian territorial waters.

yet you have nopthing, zilch...your proof is empty, like your arguments

Saying that my arguments are empty does change the fact that I've soundly refuted your claim that a blockade is considered a just cause for war.

I have:

-cited the law that only self-defense or UNSC resolution is a legal cause for war between states;

-noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES don't say that blockades are an act of war;

-noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES say blockades will become defined as acts of war in 2009; and

-pointed out that blockading the strait does not fit the legal definition of blockade which species the blocking of ports or shoreline.

Meanswhile you baldly assert that blockades are a just cause for war, but as I've demonstrated (without any substantial reponse from you) your supposed support for that assertion doesn't actually say any such thing.

Honestly, what do you think you're accomplishing?

If this ain't a duplicitous and dishonest argument, I don't know what is.....

Egypt Blockades Eliat....blockades aren't an act of war...

In my mind, this poster has zero credibility. Especially considering that for 100s of years blocades have been condidered an act of war, I have to assume figleaf is playing dumb by choosing to ignore tradition, and in order to get the last word in, reports beiung called chump as an insult..

It that aboyt right, friend?

Why would you dredge up a thread where you were so thoroughly refuted and showed yourself off so badly? Peculiar.

Anyway, your post raises nothing new and my prior posts on this thread are more than adequate disposition of your position.

One bit of advice, though, look up the definition 'duplicitous' before using it again.

[jbg]

Why would you dredge up a thread where you were so thoroughly refuted and showed yourself off so badly? Peculiar.

Anyway, your post raises nothing new and my prior posts on this thread are more than adequate disposition of your position.

One bit of advice, though, look up the definition 'duplicitous' before using it again.

"Duplicitous", at least in my version of English (you probably speak "Hanglish" or "Dion-Canadian") means sneaky or devious. Your position is, at least, disingenuous. Your view seems to be enforced suicide for Israel, Dhimmitude for Jews.

[Charles Anthony]

I do not know what is more painful: the nitter-nattering or the horrendous use of the quotations! Check out these threads:

NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes!

[M.Dancer]

Why would you dredge up a thread where you were so thoroughly refuted and showed yourself off so badly? Peculiar.

Anyway, your post raises nothing new and my prior posts on this thread are more than adequate disposition of your position.

One bit of advice, though, look up the definition 'duplicitous' before using it again.

"Duplicitous", at least in my version of English (you probably speak "Hanglish" or "Dion-Canadian") means sneaky or devious. Your position is, at least, disingenuous. Your view seems to be enforced suicide for Israel, Dhimmitude for Jews.

Duplicitous was the most polite word I could think of that still conveyed what the poster is without him getting all hurt weepy again and asking for me to be banned, again.

[Figleaf]

"Duplicitous", at least in my version of English... means sneaky or devious.

Indeed. So that proves Dancer has no idea what it means since his usage of it has no connection to that meaning.

Your position is, at least, disingenuous.

Hooey.

Your view seems to be enforced suicide for Israel, Dhimmitude for Jews.

I disagree. In fact, I can't even imagine how you come to think it 'seems' like that. Certainly the actual contents of my comments never suggested any such thing. Perhaps you are, as the psychologists say, 'projecting'.

[Figleaf]

Duplicitous was the most polite word I could think of that still conveyed what the poster is ...

Regretably for your credibilty and reputation, there is nothing in the least duplicitous about my comments. You have revealed either a willingness to make false accusations, or an profound ignorance of the concept of duplicity.

In any event, why don't you discuss ISSUES instead of pursuing vendettas against other participants here?

[M.Dancer]

In any event, why don't you discuss ISSUES instead of pursuing vendettas against other participants here?

Get over yourself, I have no interest in you or your pipsqueekness or your stupidity or the bullshit you pretend is an argument.

[Figleaf]

In any event, why don't you discuss ISSUES instead of pursuing vendettas against other participants here?

Get over yourself, I have no interest in you or your pipsqueekness or your stupidity or the bullshit you pretend is an argument.

If you have such lack interest, then I invite you to leave the subject alone.

Meanwhile, I have reported your post for it's abusive contents.

[ScottSA]

In any event, why don't you discuss ISSUES instead of pursuing vendettas against other participants here?

Get over yourself, I have no interest in you or your pipsqueekness or your stupidity or the bullshit you pretend is an argument.

If you have such lack interest, then I invite you to leave the subject alone.

Meanwhile, I have reported your post for it's abusive contents.

And I have reported you for crybabyishness more suited to a kindergarten than a BB. I have a good place for you to visit...they even pass out free soothers: http://forums.advancode.com/index.php?act=idx

[M.Dancer]

In any event, why don't you discuss ISSUES instead of pursuing vendettas against other participants here?

Get over yourself, I have no interest in you or your pipsqueekness or your stupidity or the bullshit you pretend is an argument.

If you have such lack interest, then I invite you to leave the subject alone.

Meanwhile, I have reported your post for it's abusive contents.

What a surprise.