This is an additional message from yesterday on the same subject: "Responding to my earlier post, our Weiser man had this to say about the Pipes analysis regarding Syria: "rabin agreed with the analysis that daniel pipes put forward.that according to itamar rabinowitch.(rabin agreed the analysis based on his own sources.he had never met pipes as far as i know.)" Isn`t it a remarkable phenomenon? I said an evaluation from 1996 had to be updated based on newer information from 2000, so our resident fool goes back to 1995 (Rabin and his sources) to support the 1996 evaluation. The man has no analytical ability whatsoever. None!" Added today: In his latest post on the subject, our wise man changes the subject as if Rabinowitch's own opinion was the relevant issue. No, it was Pipes' opinion, and still is. This is what I said before on our man: "Fagin was never able to accept the other person`s view. I would give a solid argument and, at best, Fagin would change the subject so that he could maintain his position. After one exchange, I realized that the guy was not a useful partner for discussion. I avoided initiating or responding to any of his posts. Same story with Nathan, but it just took me a few exchanges to reach this conclusion; see my posting #93 here. So Nathan, please look for another discussion partner. I am not interested. I am simply wasting my time with you. Good bye."
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Kremlin says Putin 'fully mobilized' to tackle threat from Turkey (Reuters)
from the article: The safe passage: The history of a farce