Search Results
6/18/2025, 1:38:45 AM
>>63855085
>No, don't think I will. I think you should get a better grasp on how war works.
You're the type of person that would go to a casino with a fixed budget, lose your house gambling and would delude yourself into thinking you you didn't just lose your house
>Yes, it is. The IDF were still fighting for Suez City when the UN rolled in. It's debatable what exactly they "captured," let alone if it's as much as what Egypt captured on the east bank.
Suez City was bound to fall when the Egyptain 3rd army would run out of water. It was encircled.
>No they didn't. You can clearly see that on the UNEF II map to the right in the image I originally posted. Your forces had to pull back across the Suez and leave the western bank until you returned the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt.
Our forces were advancing. 3rd Egyptian army was about to fall, militarily, Israel fucked Egypt up. To the point the Egyptians had to cry to the USSR to intervene.
>Whataboutism that has nothing to do with the war itself.
Lol, you talk about Sadat's delusional definition of a victory - crossing the canal and capturing ten centimeters of the Sinai (while disregarding anything that happened after that), claim that because Egypt achieved this goal, Sadat won politically, but completely ignore the political prices Sadat and Egypt paid (recognizing Israel, getting assassinated). This isn't whataboutism if you talk about political victories, I know you Irish are fucking terrible at making arguments, so it may be hard to grasp why it isn't. Pretty easy to win any war with the way you describe, just declare some stupid irrelevant war goal, and ignore all of the prices you paid for temporarily achieving this goal.
>This might surprise you Israelis but most of the Arabs states wouldn't have a problem with you if you didn't occupy land illegally and didn't attack them for no reason.
Talking in terms of "illegal occupation" in defense of Arabs, people who got 21 countries via exactly that, lol
>No, don't think I will. I think you should get a better grasp on how war works.
You're the type of person that would go to a casino with a fixed budget, lose your house gambling and would delude yourself into thinking you you didn't just lose your house
>Yes, it is. The IDF were still fighting for Suez City when the UN rolled in. It's debatable what exactly they "captured," let alone if it's as much as what Egypt captured on the east bank.
Suez City was bound to fall when the Egyptain 3rd army would run out of water. It was encircled.
>No they didn't. You can clearly see that on the UNEF II map to the right in the image I originally posted. Your forces had to pull back across the Suez and leave the western bank until you returned the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt.
Our forces were advancing. 3rd Egyptian army was about to fall, militarily, Israel fucked Egypt up. To the point the Egyptians had to cry to the USSR to intervene.
>Whataboutism that has nothing to do with the war itself.
Lol, you talk about Sadat's delusional definition of a victory - crossing the canal and capturing ten centimeters of the Sinai (while disregarding anything that happened after that), claim that because Egypt achieved this goal, Sadat won politically, but completely ignore the political prices Sadat and Egypt paid (recognizing Israel, getting assassinated). This isn't whataboutism if you talk about political victories, I know you Irish are fucking terrible at making arguments, so it may be hard to grasp why it isn't. Pretty easy to win any war with the way you describe, just declare some stupid irrelevant war goal, and ignore all of the prices you paid for temporarily achieving this goal.
>This might surprise you Israelis but most of the Arabs states wouldn't have a problem with you if you didn't occupy land illegally and didn't attack them for no reason.
Talking in terms of "illegal occupation" in defense of Arabs, people who got 21 countries via exactly that, lol
Page 1