>>My post to you was meant to highlight all the theories you presented, not so much the content. <<
Yes, but three of the theories you "highlighted", I never presented, either in words or in substance. To wit: (1) That the sailors are neo-nazis for describing events as they did; (2) that the ship fired on itself; and (3) that the ship was not there at the time it was attacked (how bizarre!).
You know I never said any of this, yet you continue to maintain I did. Why do you lie about this?
>>So you see there Chalu, your Lyndon Johnson theory makes no sense, as israel would have had to agree to attacking a ship they knew was American. <<
My theory requires no agreement with Johnson. I said Johnson put a spy ship in a war zone, and that one of the combatants engaged and sunk it, as any nation would do, and as provided under international law. Under my theory, Israel knew it was a U.S. ship, but also knew what an evil bloodthirsty b*stard Johnson was, and that he (not the sailors) was up to yet another dangerous game regarding another country's war and soldiers. Johnson willingly sacrified the sailors' lives by taking such a reckless gamble, which was a hostile act against an ally. Frankly, I have doubts you read what I said, other than the word "Johnson." otherwise you would not exhibit such a complete and utter misunderstanding.
With regard to my posts, you read things that aren't there, and don't read things that are there. Is this old age or bias? How was Sunday mass? |
