Several dead, many wounded in bus attack in Israel

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
And having warships thousands of miles away anchored in a harbour is a "bloquade"??

If that is fair and balanced view of the world....I would hate to see him take sides
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
How am I changing the subject and what am I attributing to you saying that you didn't?



Not trading or selling raw materials needed to make war that we disagreed with was not the US trying to provoke an attack.



We were not blocking access to anything. We were not in a position to block Japan. Japan wanted to take by force these materials and realized the only country that could possibly stand in their way of their designs was the US.

There was no blockade.



Again, the freezing of assets was protesting the Japanese aggression and invasion of Indo-China.




How did we block access to oil? It was OUR oil that we refused to sell to the Japanese because we wanted the Japanese to stop the slaughter and rape of the Far East.



THAT is a BLOCKADE!

We were in NO POSITION to blockade Japan!



Both sides of the canal? EAO... you need to look at a map dude.

And again... we did not blockade Japan. Their Navy in 1941 was more powerful than ours.



It was impossible. But if we had moved the US Fleet to Tokyo Bay they would have had every right to bomb it... just like the Arab Armies movement to the Israeli borders.



Oh please. Now you are trying to defend an indefensible position. Pearl Harbor was 4,060 Miles away. End of story.




Now you are simply being dumb. You really are. Many US Warships constantly shadowing the Japanese. Give me a break.

We were in no position to attack the Japanese Fleet. For the first six months of the war the Japanese did whatever they wished and they thumped us everywhere, on sea, air, and land.

Please... just stop making garbage up. That's all I ask... just stop with the creative history of many US ships were shadowing the Japanese ships and could have attacked within minutes. It wasn't the Cold War.



As pointed out... two separate events and reasons all together. There is one similarity... the US and the Arabs were surprised. That is all.



Of course the Japanese decided to attack first. They wanted Empire and the US was the only country that could stop them. They wanted to take the oil and raw materials by force.

The Israelis wanted to exist. I never said that the Arabs struck first in the Six Day War. But they sure were going to. DO you deny it?

In July 1941, the IJN headquarters informed Hirohito that its reserve bunker oil would be exhausted within two years if a new source was not found.
Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japan is an island nation completely dependent on oil imports. Without bunker oil, every Japanese warship and cargo ship would become useless. Their entire economy and military would grind to a halt within two years. Exactly how does cutting off Japan's access to oil not constitute a provocation?

Japan may have contemplated attacking the US or Western nations before July 1941, but the decision to attack came shortly after the US and western nations cut off their access to oil, rubber and steel and seized their bank accounts. Japan was content to buy these things. Money was not an issue for the Japanese as a result of looting and pillaging China. Seizing control of strategic oil and rubber assets became priority when their money couldn't buy them.

Compare that to the impact blocking Israel's access to the Suez canal and the Straits of Tiran. Israel has many ports on the Mediterranean. Most of their trade was on the Mediterranean side. Israel still had access to all its trading partners. Shutting down Aqaba just made trade more expensive and inconvenient. Certainly they weren't facing the same situation as the Japanese in 1941. But again, I'm not judging Japan or Israel's decision to go to war. All I'm saying is that in 1967, Israel attacked first and that Japan in 1941 had at least as much provocation for war as Israel did in 1967.

Regarding what the Arab leaders were really thinking when they made their belligerent statements against Israel.... I'm sure they wanted to defeat Israel through war, but I'd rate their chances in 1967 about as low then as it is now. I'm going to have to go with the Arabs were planning to wear down and weaken Israel through sanctions and blockades and the point of their deployments and belligerent talk was to intimidate Israel and domestic political reasons. That's just my opinion. But if the Arabs really were planning to secretly attack Israel, then why were they blabbing about it on the front pages. That's not being very secretive.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
That's just my opinion.
Correction, that's just your excuses.

But if the Arabs really were planning to secretly attack Israel, then why were they blabbing about it on the front pages. That's not being very secretive.
There was no secret, they were amassing along the borders, and stated their intent.

Why is that fact so hard for you to understand?

Why is it you ask for civil debate, but when I give it to you, you either mock or avoid my questions?

Do you or do not want to have a civil debate?
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Or was your point just a lame attempt insult and demean others like Goober?

Goober? Why would you think that I was trying to insult Goober?

You really, really are thick. Jethro Tull style.

You just don't grasp what anyone is saying. Mind like a steel trap.

Or, like they say about the Belorussian: Strong like bull, smart like tractor.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Where did I blame the Americans for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

People here seem to believe that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was not provoked and that blocking Japan's access to strategic resources and seizing their assets does constitute a provocation.

I'm not the one attributing blame here folks. I'm making the case that Japan was just as much provoked into a war with the US in 1941 as Israel was provoked into war with its Arab neighbors in 1967. Blame is a whole other issue.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
People here seem to believe that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was not provoked and that blocking Japan's access to strategic resources and seizing their assets does constitute a provocation.
I believe it was provocative. But the response was an act of war.

I'm not the one attributing blame here folks.
Yes you are.

I'm making the case that Japan was just as much provoked into a war with the US in 1941 as Israel was provoked into war with its Arab neighbors in 1967.
Was the US, or other supporters of the embargo poised on Japans borders, with the bulk of their military might, while making public statements about destroying Japan?
 
Last edited:

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Where did I blame the Americans for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

Not surprisingly imperial Japan who had never in its entire history lost a war, chose the smack down option. I'm surprised the US was surprised by Pearl Harbor. What were the Americans thinking? They should have anticipated Japan's attack in response to the West's blockade.
Your own words....then you try to cover up by saying I meant this or that...then search all over the place to find excuses or reasons for what you said...
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The Japanese used the same tactic (sudden massive attack without warning) against the US on the morning of December 7, 1941. Do you also support that surprise attack or just Israeli ones?

Also, putting soldiers on your side of the border is not an act of war. Sending soldiers across the border to bomb airfields and kill people is an act of war.

BTW, I'm not criticizing Israel's military tactics. I'm criticizing Colpy's incorrect description of that war's start. As far as I'm concerned, the Arabs and the Americans are being sore losers. The Arabs (in 1967) and Americans (in 1941) made serious tactical errors, which were exploited by the Israelis (in 1967) and Japanese (in 1941).

Colpy also mentions "Then you saw REAL ethnic cleansing, with over 750,000 Jews evicted from Arab countries."

That is an inaccurate description of Arab Jews who sold their belongings and immigrated to Israel voluntarily. But if you are going to broaden the definition of ethnic cleansing to include voluntary emigration, then why stop with just Arab countries C? Lots of Jews sold their belongings and immigrated voluntarily to Israel from Canada, the US, South America... That would make Canada and many other countries guilty of Colpy's broad definition of "ethnic cleansing" and the total number of "evicted" Jews would be much bigger.

I know people have short memories, but Colpy should be old enough to remember the contemporary Zionist usage of "Let our people go!" It refers to countries that blocked Jewish emigration to Israel. some of these countries were Arab. Not only were Arab Jews free to stay, in some cases it was illegal for them to try to leave. That's how some Arab Jews lost their property. You can read about how Zionists helped Jews escape Arab countries for yourself:
Federation helps Jews escape to Israel | The Jewish Review

BTW, I am against laws which restrict personal freedoms, including the right to emigrate. Jews who lost their property in this manner are victims of discriminatory laws, but not victims of ethnic cleansing. I agree that they should be compensated.

Context regarding Jewish emigration from Arab countries might also be helpful to understand why so many Jews emigrated from Arab countries during this time. Many Arab countries were in a state of war with the Zionist State of Israel. Zionist Jews in Arab countries found themselves stuck betweena rock and a hard place. Those Zionist Jews who materially supported or volunteered to fight with Zionists against their own country faced "discrimination" the same way Canada "discriminates" against Canadian Muslims who materially support or volunteer to fight with insurgent movements in Afghanistan against Canadian soldiers. Here in Canada we call that kind of discrimination "treason". Many Arabs viewed Zionist Arab Jews along the same way many Canadian view the Khadr family. Many Arabs who lost friends and family in the 1948 Zionist ethnic cleansing war needed little convincing to hate Jewish neighbors who sent money to help buy arms for Zionists and volunteered to kill their friends and family. Some Arab countries convicted a few Jewish citizens of treason and material support for the enemy. I bet Colpy would agree with the harsh treatment of people who commit treason or materially support the enemy, except in the case of Zionist Arab Jews supporting Zionists. In that case, punishing people for treason and material support for the enemy would be Joo-hating anti-Semitism.

BTW, I am not claiming all Arab Jews committed treason and none were victims. While most Arab Jews were sympathetic to Zionist goals, and many young Arab Jews fought alongside the Zionists against their own country, not all of them gave money or volunteered to fight against their own country. Fewer still openly expressed support for Zionist tactics which included assassinations and slaughtering entire villages like the Deir Yassin massacre. Unfortunately these innocent Arab Jews became the target of irrational fear and hate. (Not so different than the way many Westerners including Canadians irrationally hate and fear innocent Muslims today) Unlike Canada, some of these countries passed discriminatory laws against Jews during the late 1940's and early 50's similar to the discriminatory laws Israel has today against non-Jews. Similar to the way Israel treats their Arab citizens, many Arab countries also treated their Jewish citizens as second class citizens, stole Jewish property and even practiced forced assimilation like Canada did to children of First Nation peoples. I would agree that these Jews are ethnic cleansing victims and deserve compensation. For many Arab Jews, moving to Israel and getting a fully furnished Palestinian home should be considered fair compensation. All they had to do was put the former owner's family portraits out with the trash and move in. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who lost their homes and property due to Zionist ethnic cleansing have not received any compensation unlike Jewish ethnic cleansing victims. Zionists should have to compensate their ethnic cleansing victims. I also feel that any country which practiced ethnic cleansing against their Jewish citizens and stole Jewish property should also have to help compensate Zionist ethnic cleansing victims, in lieu of their victims having already been compensated by Zionists. But people who sell their belongings and move to another country are immigrants and not ethnic cleansing victims as erroneously portrayed by Colpy.

You finally figured it out, but refuse to recognize your own conclusions. If I see you are about to attack me, of course I would strike first. Israel cannot afford to lose even one war. As for Japan, if you cannot see a difference then all your so called logic is out the window. You still have no idea what ethnic cleansing really is.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Are you saying that other countries like Japan can afford to loose wars? The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree with you.

Every time people suffered oppression and injustice, the people responsible pay a terrible price if they don't voluntarily change their ways. I'm not aware of any exceptions. Nazi Germany is an example of what happens when the oppressors fight a total war to the bitter end. South Africa is an example of the oppressors having the good sense to abandon state based oppression and injustice.

The Zionist State of Israel seems bent on fighting a total war to the bitter end. That path leads to total ruin and destruction, but not the extermination of Jews. No doubt the end will involve gross atrocities and attempts at genocide. But many Jews live outside Israel and many Jewish Israelis will flee before the end.

I support Canada accepting every Israeli refugee who has clean hands. War criminals should be sent to the Hague to face justice.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Your own words....then you try to cover up by saying I meant this or that...then search all over the place to find excuses or reasons for what you said...
Are you saying that anticipate and blame mean the same thing? I disagree.


an·tic·i·pate

Verb:
1. Regard as probable; expect or predict.
2. Guess or be aware of (what will happen) and take action in order to be prepared.

blame

Verb: Assign responsibility for a fault or wrong: "the inquiry blamed the engineer for the accident".
Noun: Responsibility for a fault or wrong.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Are you saying that other countries like Japan can afford to loose wars? The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree with you.

Every time people suffered oppression and injustice, the people responsible pay a terrible price if they don't voluntarily change their ways. I'm not aware of any exceptions. Nazi Germany is an example of what happens when the oppressors fight a total war to the bitter end. South Africa is an example of the oppressors having the good sense to abandon state based oppression and injustice.

The Zionist State of Israel seems bent on fighting a total war to the bitter end. That path leads to total ruin and destruction, but not the extermination of Jews. No doubt the end will involve gross atrocities and attempts at genocide. But many Jews live outside Israel and many Jewish Israelis will flee before the end.

I support Canada accepting every Israeli refugee who has clean hands. War criminals should be sent to the Hague to face justice.

So Israel is hell bent for leather on the Genocide of Arabs So that would mean invading Egypt, Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, The Emirates, Yemen to name a few. - I recall a post you made that the problems between Arabs / Jews began in 1947 - In both of these cases, Genocide and the hate that inhabits you, you are not only in grievious error but again demonstrate your limited, and I mean severely limited knowledge of the ME.

I would imagine that reaches into other areas of your mindset as well.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Since you obviously don't want civil debate...

Are you saying that anticipate and blame mean the same thing? I disagree.
I bet you do.

Thankfully for us, not so much for you, we have an excellent grasp of the English language and grammar, context, syntax.

You can dance around single words. But we see through you easily. Your posts betray you.
 
Last edited:

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Are you saying that anticipate and blame mean the same thing? I disagree.


an·tic·i·pate

Verb:
1. Regard as probable; expect or predict.
2. Guess or be aware of (what will happen) and take action in order to be prepared.

blame

Verb: Assign responsibility for a fault or wrong: "the inquiry blamed the engineer for the accident".
Noun: Responsibility for a fault or wrong.

Blockade: 1• The isolation of a nation, area, city, or harbor by hostile ships or forces in order prevent the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce.
2• The forces used to effect this isolation.

And more semantics, and goal post moving...:roll:
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
pro·voke

1. Stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone: "the decision provoked a storm of protest".
2. Stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, esp. by arousing anger in them: "a teacher can provoke you into working harder".
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
pro·voke

1. Stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone: "the decision provoked a storm of protest".
2. Stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, esp. by arousing anger in them: "a teacher can provoke you into working harder".
It would be nice if we could provoke you to show some critical thought in your posts.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The US and Western 1941 embargo of Japan provoked the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Arab 1967 blockade of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping provoked the 1967 Israeli attack against its Arab neighbors.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
pro·voke

1. Stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone: "the decision provoked a storm of protest".
2. Stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, esp. by arousing anger in them: "a teacher can provoke you into working harder".

So in your opinion the State of Israel does not have the right to exist - The Jews should leave