From: JNugent73@mail.com
On 12/08/2025 01:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2025 at 10:28:14 BST, "JNugent" wrote:
>> On 11/08/2025 09:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug 2025 at 20:20:17 BST, "JNugent" wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2025 01:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>> Point of order: they have invaded Syria, which is more relevant to
them.
>
>>>> When was that?
>>>> Are you sure you are not referring to the removal of threat to Israel
>>>> from within Syria?
>
>>> Yes I am sure. They had already annexed the Golan Heights, and now they
have
>>> occupied a large swathe of Syria surrounding this. As well as bombing
Damascus
>>> and various other places. The fact you didn't know this does not make it
>>> untrue.
>
>> Attacking a neigbouring country (eg, by launching rockets and high
>> explosives from across the border) always carries the risk that the
>> territory used for the attacks will be annexed. We used to call it
>> "conquest", though it is a different matter from invading a state with a
>> view to taking it over.
>
>> It happened to parts of Germany after WW2 and those territories are
>> still parts of Poland and Russia.
>> What's the difference?
>
> You mean between Germany occupying Poland, and Israel occupying Syria?
No. Had I meant that, that is what I would have asked. But I didn't ask
that.
Yet you say:
> Absolutely none! That was rather my point.
Which isn't evena mild attempt to answer the question I asked.
As you were well aware, the reference was to the post-1945 settlement
with Poland possessing a large part of what had been Germany and the
Soviet Union possessing another large part (though smaller than the
portion subsumed into Poland).
Was / is that acceptable?
It's a straightforward enough question, well capable of a "Yes" or "No"
answer.
Or, one supposes, an "I don't know" answer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
