The topic of the thread, is "Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans?" You don't get to set the topic, you don't own the agenda, you and I are just players at the table. You didn't establish any facts with your silly racism question either; you only wanted to post insults within a frame of your own hidden agenda.
Now, I told you that every time you bring up the aluminum tubes again, I would find another place on the Cellar where you were mistaken.
In
this post, you said:
Quote:
Sharon knows nothing of the kind. Clearly you don't know the man who as Brigader General lead Israeli divisions into daring missions to take Sinai from Egypt, from nearly bringing the US and USSR into direct nuclear war (the closest the world ever came to nuclear war) in direct and intentional disregard of UN and international agreements, from invading Lebanon even in contadiction to order from both his Prime Minister and Pres Reagan, ....
Sharon has only one objective - taking land for the greater glory of Zionism. He has no change of heart. As a shrewd general, he is simply changing tactics again. The strategic objective has never changed. Changed again is the tactical objective - and how that campaign is portrayed to us.
Sharon remembers with grea personal shame that the Israeli Army forcefully removed Israeli settlement from Sinai. Likud has promised that national disgrace will never happen again. As long a Sharon and Lukid are in power, all tactics are for the conquest of occupied territories - ethnic cleansing of the land.
Until you can say - with Israeli settlement building foundations actually being removed - that right wing extremist Israelis have given up their ambitions - only then is that a reasonable speculation. For as long as any of us have understood world politics, it has always been the objective of right wing extremist Israelis to ethnic cleans the land they regard as theirs - as god has decreed.
|
Now that Sharon has defied his own political party to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza, wouldn't you have to agree that either your characterization of the man was too extreme, or your understanding of the situation was faulty?