IAEA urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Do you think the Indonesians or Malaysian youths involved in nationalistic politics are predictable in any way ?If you can understand the Indonesian and Malaysian youths involved in their national politics, it will help you to understand the volatile and unpredictable Arab mentality.
This will help you to understand the minds of the Arabs - if you have no long term experience in direct dealings or contacts or living in the Middle-east
If you believe in the logic in their preferred positions taken, I will prefer to let you be comfortable with your thoughts and not make any attempts to change it in a public forum.
There is a difference between being able to see where their logic is coming from and believing and agreeing with it.
You seemed to think it must be the same.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Muslims who are not Arabs have no blood ties with the Arabs or the Jews? Why do they consider Israel as enemies if the Arab-Israeli conflicts has nothing to do with religion?
Why would the enemies of Israel need nuclear weapons for 'defence'? They've in the past sought the destruction of Israel. They have fought and lost all three major wars with Israel. They have proven to be inept.
You insist on thinking religion is the root of the conflict. Israel exists, at least initially as a result of foreign intervention and enjoys the support of a foreign power that the people of the Arab countries have no love for.
Your arguments seemed to reinforce why they need to have nuclear weapons
-
Are you certain that Singapore cannot be a good example ?
How sure are you that Singapore's existence had come about as a natural process in the region ?
Do you seriously believe that Singapore existence is not forced on ourselves ?
Even Indonesia had refused the creation of Malaysia as it had its own plans for a greater Kalimantan - in the same manner that it took over East Timor and Papua New Guinea when Portugal pulled out its Colonial authority over these territories.
Until this day, the Philippines has not given up their claims over Sabah even when relationship between Malaysia and the Philippines remain superficially cool.
Singapore existence as an independent nation nearly did not happen except for the failed bid by the UMNO ULTRAS in causing racial riots that were supposed to have justified the "invasion" of the Royal Malay Regiments to impose martial law on this island, and to arrest the Singapore Cabinet.
It was Britain's PM Harold Wilson that "advised" Tunku Abdul Rahman of the negative consequences if the authority of the Singapore State Government is "dismissed".
If you do not believe that Singapore is not a good example, why do you think that Singapore insist on frantically building a strong SAF from Day ONE after being kicked out of Malaysia on 9 August 1965 ?
Why will Singapore insist on being the Number 1 Military Power in this region - if we are not living in the same circumstances as Israel ?
Why will Singapore spend 6 per cent of GDP on defense ?
Why have Singaporeans make all the sacrifices at 18 years of age, and until 40 to 50 years old - disrupting our careers and productive time - like the Israelis ?
For one, we're not keeping a captive population behind fences and concrete walls.
We do not own nuclear weapons and threaten attacks if our surrounding neighbours do.
Our ancestors were here before independence and were rooted with the indigenous population, while many of theirs come after.Chinese families could take refuge with the Malay families and vice versa during the racial riots yes?
We do not have a guranteed no question asked support from a military superpower.
I do not dispute your facts of history, but i question how applicable is it now and whether it would help resolve problems if decisions were still made based on experiences then and whether it would be healthy to continue to pursue policies based on assumptions made from those experiences.
There is no doubt we have the biggest stick based on population size, but we have not been particularly eager to use it either. Does that weaken our political position?
-
Atobe, what are your views on below statements by Israeli leaders?
:
Yitzhak Rabin, chief of staff of the Israeli army at the time, stated: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."[2]
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol stated: "The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military build up there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel."[3]
Modechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister at the time, stated: "All this story about the danger of extermination [of Israel in June 1967] has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of Arab territory."[4]
Menachem Begin, a cabinet minister in June 1967, stated, while prime minister, addressing Israel's National Defence College, on August 8, 1982: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."[5]
As to "Syrian provocative attacks," let us let Moshe Dayan, Israel's Minister of Defence at the time, tell us the facts as reported by Serge Schmemann:
"He [Moshe Dayan] said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... I know how at least 80 per cent of the clashes were started. We would send a tractor to plow some area, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot and then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that is how it was."http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0405/0405-OP-IZ-causesof67war.htm
Atobe just keep your reply short. Too long the post, gives me headache.
-
The Soviets also played a very dubious role in the period leading up to the war because they fed fake info to Egypt and Syria on Israeli military deployment:
Soviet disinformation tactics play a crucial role in instigating war. The Israeli air attacks over Syria put the Soviets in the position of being able to feed Syria and ultimately Egypt with disinformation about Israel’s supposed intentions such that they provoked Egypt into taking military action against Israel. Commencing on May 8, 1966, a TASS cable from Damascus made the first mention of a suspicious concentration and movement of Israeli troops sighted lately on the border with Syria.
By May 21 it was being asserted that about a third of the Israeli army was being transferred to the Syrian border. (see Isabella Ginor, The Cold War's Longest Cover Up: How and Why The USSR Instigated The 1967 War, vol. 7, Issue #3,Meria Journal, Sept. 2003) The Russian Foreign Ministry sent at least eight warning notes to Israel's diplomats, alleging Israeli troop build-up on the Syrian border, none of which was true. At one point Israeli Premier Eshkol suggested that Soviet Ambassador Sergei Chuvakhin go to the northern border and check for himself. Chuvakhin replied that his job was to communicate Soviet truths and not to test them.
-
“The repetition of these charges, together with increasingly acrimonious Soviet statements and the encouragement of Syria to undertake actions (which indeed provoked a forceful Israeli response climaxing on April 7, 1967) were part of a deliberate escalation designed to prepare the ground for harnessing Egypt to the end is in the military confrontation being prepared and to draw an Israeli strike against Egypt as well.” [9]
General Odd Bull commented that in April 1967 during the period when Russian was issuing its warnings concerning Israeli troop build up, the Israelis had agreed to a UN inspection of the Demilitarized Zones, a somewhat strange thing to do if the allegations had been true.
“The Soviet Union warned Syria about Israeli troop concentrations and the likelihood of attack. Nasser gave credence to these warnings and resolved to support Syria by concentrating Egyptian forces in Sinai….Nasser was obliged to act if his reputation in the Arab world was not to suffer because he had been subjected to a lot of criticism on the ground that he was sheltering behind UNEF. Presumably his hope was that his gestures of support for Syria would be sufficient to dissuade the Israelis from attacking Syria.”
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/6_day_war_aftermath_prof_adler_context_pt1.htm
There is a study here:
The Cold War's Longest Cover-Up: How and Why the USSR Instigated the 1967 War.
-
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
There is a difference between being able to see where their logic is coming from and believing and agreeing with it.
You seemed to think it must be the same.
As observers "without any interest in the Middle-east politics" - you and I can see the obvious difference.
Can those with direct interest see the differences ?
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Originally posted by googoomuck:Muslims who are not Arabs have no blood ties with the Arabs or the Jews? Why do they consider Israel as enemies if the Arab-Israeli conflicts has nothing to do with religion?
Why would the enemies of Israel need nuclear weapons for 'defence'? They've in the past sought the destruction of Israel. They have fought and lost all three major wars with Israel. They have proven to be inept.
You insist on thinking religion is the root of the conflict. Israel exists, at least initially as a result of foreign intervention and enjoys the support of a foreign power that the people of the Arab countries have no love for.
Your arguments seemed to reinforce why they need to have nuclear weapons
While religion is not the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the creation of the State of Israel, it has now evolved into a Jihad for the many Muslims across the globe - who were offended by the imposition of unequitable, illegal and total lack of justice in the treatment of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel.
The Muslim activists have used religion as a platform as a unifying call amongst their own faithfuls to stand up to the insufferable injustice practised by an arrogant Israel - with direct or implicit support from many Western Government.
It does not help when the political fight between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs have now been hijacked by Religious Fanatics with a larger agenda of annihilating the State of Israel and to create an Islamic Caliphate that stretched from the West Coast of Africa, across the Middle-east and Central Asia, and into the eastern most corner of Southeast Asia.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
For one, we're not keeping a captive population behind fences and concrete walls.
Do we need fences and concrete walls to hold a population captive ?
The PAP is more sophisticated in their methods then you can possibly imagine.
The minority groups have been politically disenfranchised by the standard political detoxification applied on every Singaporean, and have been further treated with more stringent and cautious policies to ensure that they do not become a force that will threaten Singapore and the politics of the PAP.
Surely, you are aware, or do you need it to be spelled out in this public forum ?
We do not own nuclear weapons and threaten attacks if our surrounding neighbours do.
You should not count this option out too early.
What make you think that such options are not already considered in the studies made by the many "Think Tanks" under the auspices of the "Inner Circle" ?
Our ancestors were here before independence and were rooted with the indigenous population, while many of theirs come after.Chinese families could take refuge with the Malay families and vice versa during the racial riots yes?
The same had happened in the Middle-east too, where Jews familiar with their Arab neighbors were similarly protecting each other in areas where one is the majority.
The same can be said of Malaysians and Singaporeans - we were one and the same people of the same ethnic diversities, social customs, culture, cuisines, languages and dialects, religions, personal ambitions and dreams for the future generations - still politics have muddied the calm waters, with others insisting on taking the short cut to political power by hijacking the powers afforded from the pulpit.
We do not have a guranteed no question asked support from a military superpower.
In this day and age - can any single superpower guarantee our existence - other then the collective powers of all nations embracing the tenets of the United Nations ?
Singapore do not depend on one single superpower, but a balance of powers for our survival - and even then, we will have to consider that any such relationship will also have spill over benefits for our neighbors and that we are not singularly the sole-beneficiary of such a relationship.
This explains for the implicit tolerance of the existence of the US Military using Singapore facilities while in transit, and spreading the benefits of the logistical support to Indonesia and Malaysia despite their strong reservations that were expressed earlier.
I do not dispute your facts of history, but i question how applicable is it now and whether it would help resolve problems if decisions were still made based on experiences then and whether it would be healthy to continue to pursue policies based on assumptions made from those experiences.
Your question should be directed to LKY and the PAP - who have constantly reminded Singaporeans the need for Singapore to be vigilant, and mindful of the vulnerability of the past.
Although the events that led to the Singapore being kicked out of Malaysia - have seldom been addressed directly, this was done as a matter of deference to the sensitivities of perception and interpretations of those events - that will surely lead to acrimony with our neighbours.
The past have always been the basis of developing our present planning for the future threats that are to be expected.
Is this not the way forward in strategic planning ?
There is no doubt we have the biggest stick based on population size, but we have not been particularly eager to use it either. Does that weaken our political position?
Is our population size so big ?
The size and quality of the SAF may provide a strategic edge when compared with the military force in the neighborhood.
Even when you dare to weild the big stick, do you think that the bigger neighbors will not have their own "Think Tanks" that would have studied the use of their large land space to absorb your entire SAF, stretching your manpower and resources thin as they draw you deeper into their hinterland ?
Can your small civilian population and economy support a NSF military force to sustain a long term strategic war designed to deplete your military manpower ?
Unfortunately, can the size of our population and the country sustain the SAF in any long term conflict - without the support of any big brother as the one that Israel has ?
When the opponent know that you are not prepared, or too eager to use the stick that they know you have - do you think that it will not weaken your political position when you are seen as nothing more then a "Paper Tiger" ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Do we need fences and concrete walls to hold a population captive ?
The PAP is more sophisticated in their methods then you can possibly imagine.
The minority groups have been politically disenfranchised by the standard political detoxification applied on every Singaporean, and have been further treated with more stringent and cautious policies to ensure that they do not become a force that will threaten Singapore and the politics of the PAP.
Surely, you are aware, or do you need it to be spelled out in this public forum ?
You should not count this option out too early.
What make you think that such options are not already considered in the studies made by the many "Think Tanks" under the auspices of the "Inner Circle" ?
The same had happened in the Middle-east too, where Jews familiar with their Arab neighbors were similarly protecting each other in areas where one is the majority.
The same can be said of Malaysians and Singaporeans - we were one and the same people of the same ethnic diversities, social customs, culture, cuisines, languages and dialects, religions, personal ambitions and dreams for the future generations - still politics have muddied the calm waters, with others insisting on taking the short cut to political power by hijacking the powers afforded from the pulpit.
In this day and age - can any single superpower guarantee our existence - other then the collective powers of all nations embracing the tenets of the United Nations ?
Singapore do not depend on one single superpower, but a balance of powers for our survival - and even then, we will have to consider that any such relationship will also have spill over benefits for our neighbors and that we are not singularly the sole-beneficiary of such a relationship.
This explains for the implicit tolerance of the existence of the US Military using Singapore facilities while in transit, and spreading the benefits of the logistical support to Indonesia and Malaysia despite their strong reservations that were expressed earlier.
Your question should be directed to LKY and the PAP - who have constantly reminded Singaporeans the need for Singapore to be vigilant, and mindful of the vulnerability of the past.
Although the events that led to the Singapore being kicked out of Malaysia - have seldom been addressed directly, this was done as a matter of deference to the sensitivities of perception and interpretations of those events - that will surely lead to acrimony with our neighbours.
The past have always been the basis of developing our present planning for the future threats that are to be expected.
Is this not the way forward in strategic planning ?
Is our population size so big ?
The size and quality of the SAF may provide a strategic edge when compared with the military force in the neighborhood.
Even when you dare to weild the big stick, do you think that the bigger neighbors will not have their own "Think Tanks" that would have studied the use of their large land space to absorb your entire SAF, stretching your manpower and resources thin as they draw you deeper into their hinterland ?
Can your small civilian population and economy support a NSF military force to sustain a long term strategic war designed to deplete your military manpower ?
Unfortunately, can the size of our population and the country sustain the SAF in any long term conflict - without the support of any big brother as the one that Israel has ?
When the opponent know that you are not prepared, or too eager to use the stick that they know you have - do you think that it will not weaken your political position when you are seen as nothing more then a "Paper Tiger" ?
Atobe, if you are going to reply to me please keep the post as short as possible. I see your reply above my head now very pain. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Atobe, what are your views on below statements by Israeli leaders?
Yitzhak Rabin, chief of staff of the Israeli army at the time, stated: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."[2]
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol stated: "The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military build up there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel."[3]
Modechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister at the time, stated: "All this story about the danger of extermination [of Israel in June 1967] has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of Arab territory."[4]
Menachem Begin, a cabinet minister in June 1967, stated, while prime minister, addressing Israel's National Defence College, on August 8, 1982: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."[5]
As to "Syrian provocative attacks," let us let Moshe Dayan, Israel's Minister of Defence at the time, tell us the facts as reported by Serge Schmemann:
"He [Moshe Dayan] said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... I know how at least 80 per cent of the clashes were started. We would send a tractor to plow some area, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot and then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that is how it was."http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0405/0405-OP-IZ-causesof67war.htm
Atobe just keep your reply short. Too long the post, gives me headache.
Does one review history with the benefit of hindsight ?
With the benefit of hindsight, one can perhaps make changes to ensure that any mistakes now identified will make it unnecessary to walk the same path again.
However, if others know that you have changed course, will others not take advantage of that knowlege and attack you ?
If you have any intention to be objective, you should read up on the events that led up to the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War, and not from those who have looked at events with the benefit of "hind-sight".
If you were involved and living each second and minutes of that threatening period that led up to the important decision to launch a Pre-Emptive Strike that became known as the Six-Day War - you would probably draw a different conclusion.
‘Events BEFORE the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War’ (*1)
‘Six-Day War : Encyclopedia (*3)
Is this short enough for you ?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
The Soviets also played a very dubious role in the period leading up to the war because they fed fake info to Egypt and Syria on Israeli military deployment:
Soviet disinformation tactics play a crucial role in instigating war. The Israeli air attacks over Syria put the Soviets in the position of being able to feed Syria and ultimately Egypt with disinformation about Israel’s supposed intentions such that they provoked Egypt into taking military action against Israel. Commencing on May 8, 1966, a TASS cable from Damascus made the first mention of a suspicious concentration and movement of Israeli troops sighted lately on the border with Syria.
By May 21 it was being asserted that about a third of the Israeli army was being transferred to the Syrian border. (see Isabella Ginor, The Cold War's Longest Cover Up: How and Why The USSR Instigated The 1967 War, vol. 7, Issue #3,Meria Journal, Sept. 2003) The Russian Foreign Ministry sent at least eight warning notes to Israel's diplomats, alleging Israeli troop build-up on the Syrian border, none of which was true. At one point Israeli Premier Eshkol suggested that Soviet Ambassador Sergei Chuvakhin go to the northern border and check for himself. Chuvakhin replied that his job was to communicate Soviet truths and not to test them.
-
“The repetition of these charges, together with increasingly acrimonious Soviet statements and the encouragement of Syria to undertake actions (which indeed provoked a forceful Israeli response climaxing on April 7, 1967) were part of a deliberate escalation designed to prepare the ground for harnessing Egypt to the end is in the military confrontation being prepared and to draw an Israeli strike against Egypt as well.” [9]
General Odd Bull commented that in April 1967 during the period when Russian was issuing its warnings concerning Israeli troop build up, the Israelis had agreed to a UN inspection of the Demilitarized Zones, a somewhat strange thing to do if the allegations had been true.
“The Soviet Union warned Syria about Israeli troop concentrations and the likelihood of attack. Nasser gave credence to these warnings and resolved to support Syria by concentrating Egyptian forces in Sinai….Nasser was obliged to act if his reputation in the Arab world was not to suffer because he had been subjected to a lot of criticism on the ground that he was sheltering behind UNEF. Presumably his hope was that his gestures of support for Syria would be sufficient to dissuade the Israelis from attacking Syria.”
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/6_day_war_aftermath_prof_adler_context_pt1.htm
There is a study here:
The Cold War's Longest Cover-Up: How and Why the USSR Instigated the 1967 War.
Are you not implying that the Soviet Union colluded with Israel ?Whose fault is it now ?
The Israelis for making an unprovoked pre-emptive attack on her Arab neighbors that started the Six-Day War - as suggested in your preceding posts; or did the Arab neighbors actually responded to the false Soviet information and had actually massed their troops to threaten Israel and caused Israel to re-act with a Pre-emptive Strike ?
You have got to make a stand somewhere, and not be wishy-washy from moment to moment.
Perhaps you should purchase or borrow the following book after reading a synopsis of the contents and broaden your knowledge of those events that led to the Six-Day War and correct your slanted views of the politcs of that region.
‘The Soviet Union and the June 1967 Six-Day War (*1)
Why did the Soviet Union spark war in 1967 between Israel and the Arab states by falsely informing Syria and Egypt that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border? Based on newly available archival sources, The Soviet Union and the June 1967 Six Day War answers this controversial question more fully than ever before.
Directly opposing the thesis of the recently published Foxbats over Dimona by Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez, the contributors to this volume argue that Moscow had absolutely no intention of starting a war.
The Soviet Union's reason for involvement in the region had more to do with enhancing its own status as a Cold War power than any desire for particular outcomes for Syria and Egypt.
In addition to assessing Soviet involvement in the June 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War, this book covers the USSR's relations with Syria and Egypt, Soviet aims, U.S. and Israeli perceptions of Soviet involvement, Soviet intervention in the Egyptian-Israeli War of Attrition (1969-70), and the impact of the conflicts on Soviet-Jewish attitudes.This book as a whole demonstrates how the Soviet Union's actions gave little consideration to the long- or mid-term consequences of their policy, and how firing the first shot compelled them to react to events.
If you have no wish to purchase the book or cannnot get it from the National Library - you can read from the following on-line reference articles:
‘Soviets engineered Six-Day War (*2)
‘The Six-Day War as a Soviet Initiative : New Evidence and Methodological Issues’ (*3)
The Six-Day War : A Retrospective (*4)
‘Israel – The Six-Day War’ (*5)
-
-
Atobe, I already toldl you reply to me in short post, why you still die die post motherfucking long post?
Stubborn like hell.
You post motherfucking long post I no mood to read and reply already lah.
-
Does one review history with the benefit of hindsight ?
hindsight what fucking hindsight?
Israeli themselves also said already.
They admitted already. They chose war.
Yitzhak Rabin, chief of staff of the Israeli army at the time, stated: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."[2]
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Atobe, if you are going to reply to me please keep the post as short as possible. I see your reply above my head now very pain. Thank you.
The post that you saw was for Stevenson101 - who has the processing capacity and ability to cut through the thick shrub and use the necessary twigs for his bonfire.It was not meant for you.
If you want small talk, can we have any serious exchange ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If you want small talk, can we have any serious exchange ?
Why not? You mean everytime you talk to people you tell grandmother story? What the hell, they talk with you one time, run away already lah.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
hindsight what fucking hindsight?
Israeli themselves also said already.
They admitted already. They chose war.
Yitzhak Rabin, chief of staff of the Israeli army at the time, stated: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."[2]
What was the date when this statement was made ?At the time, Yitzhak Rabin was the Chief of Staff - he does not make decisions and had to LISTEN to the orders made and given by his superiors - the Prime Minister and Defense Minister.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Why not? You mean everytime you talk to people you tell grandmother story? What the hell, they talk with you one time, run away already lah.
They run away ?They slinked away when they cannot face the truth.
Grandmother stories are meant for people who have empty brains and do not know their facts.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
What was the date when this statement was made ?
refer to notes in my source lor.
At the time, Yitzhak Rabin was the Chief of Staff - he does not make decisions and had to LISTEN to the orders made and given by his superiors - the Prime Minister and Defense Minister.
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol stated:
"The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military build up there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel."[3]
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
They slinked away when they cannot face the truth.
No, they scared of your grandmother stories.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
refer to notes in my source lor.
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol stated:
"The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military build up there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel."[3]
Did you look at his statements concerning the areas north, east, and west of Israel ?Looking at only one side - the south - is not exactly very brilliant.
Try the references that were given to you in my post at 4.43PM above.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
No, they scared of your grandmother stories.
Obviously they did not talk to their grandmothers and asked for the Truth from their experience with History ?Could the same be happening with you ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Did you look at his statements concerning the areas north, east, and west of Israel ?Looking at only one side is not exactly very brilliant ?
Try the references that were given to you in my post at 4.43PM above, or on Page 2 of this thread if this reply has slipped into Page 3.
Shorter post better right? People won't get turned off so easily.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Obviously they did not talk to their grandmothers and asked for the Truth from their experience with History ?Could the same be happening with you ?
what cock talking you?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Shorter post better right? People won't get turned off so easily.
Only the dim witted will turn off earlier.Are you one ?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
what cock talking you?
Only indulging with your preference to "talk song and sing cock" so that the dim light do not die off so quickly. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Only the dim witted will turn off earlier.Are you one ?
Your posts getting shorter and shorter. Good.
