Future War

[vimothy]

Come on, read what I said (twice), something like "The UK supported "Israel" before it existed". I put the quotation marks around Israel to show that I did not literally mean the country of Israel (because it didn't exist), just in case that wasn't clear I said "before it existed", twice - you can't come back and say "that wasn't support for Israel, it didn't exist then".

Yes, but so does Western (UK) support for the thing that was to become Israel (not Israel though - it didn't exist before it was founded). For example the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - did I mention that?

The Balfour Declaration was the (pretty racist, IMO) British solution to the nagging Jewish problem. Send 'em to Palestine! It doesn't equate to support for Israel.

Did the Balfour Declaration cause the rise of Islamism in the Mid East? That's a big leap.

In any case you ignored the two examples I gave: the British turning back the Exodus 1947 and the anti-British bombing campaign of Jewish terrorists during British mandatory rule of Paletine. The Jews fought the British on anti-colonialist principles. If the British supported "Israel" before it even existed, how do you account for this?

True, support wavered and there were various acts of parliament to restrict the number of Jews heading in to Palestine but these were never enforced so they were hardly that important. The Balfour Declaration is still used by someas the legal justification for the formation of the state of Israel and is argued about to this day.

Er... see above

Oh yeah, something else which should be born in mind: how do we account for the massive influx of Middle Eastern Jews into Israel in the '50s?

Even if no-one had ever coined the phrase 4GW the UK government would still have been supporting Israel before it existed as I said above. It was not relevant to the simple fact I gave.

It wasn't supporting Israel. And any way, are you seriously saying that the Balfour Declaration is the cause of Islamism? Arab anti-semiticism? Arab anti-Western sentiment?

All these Islamic radicals who supposedly rue the formation of Israel because it denied the Palestinians self-determination - don't you find it strange that they have nowhere else in the Middle East done anything to further the cause of democracy? If the Palestinians are oppressed, what of other arab countries?

Re 4GW, your perception of the Arab-Israeli conflict obviously impacts upon how you view the WoT. Indeed, this thread surely demonstrates that fact. How nuanced is the picture you've built? Who supplied you with the infomation you used to build it? etc

You certainly have to hand it to the Israelis that from when they began entering Palestine from the end of the last century (er one before that I mean) they outwitted the indigenous Arabs at almost every turn.

There have been Jews in Palestine a lot longer than that.

I suspect that people wear the one t-shirt over the other because in their lifetime Israel has been superior and it has used that superiority to oppress the Palestinians in ways that most people do not find acceptable.

I suspect that if there were that much rational behind it, people would not be waving Hezbollah banners around.

Furthermore, though more controversially I suspect, people also don't wear Israel t-shirts because they would say that when the Israelis were the underdog they were the invaders in a country that was already extant. People have less sympathy with a weak group of invaders than a weak group of people who no-longer have a country because that group of invaders proved stronger than they appeared.

Palestine was an outpost of the Ottoman Empire, not a country in its own right. Throughout the region there are ethnic and religious groups being exploited and denied political representation. Why don't people go and protest about, say, the lack of a Kurdish homeland?

The US mcsoldiers took the pictures at Abu Ghraib, they appeared on US tv - what did Islamists have to do with it?

Who profits?

They may have sought to do so but Israel made it very easy for them by doing just that. You're not really suggesting that all those civilians didn't die are you?

No of course not, I'm not a monster. I don't think I'd be here thinking these thoughts if I didn't hope for a better life for people in the Middle East.

 

[vimothy]

If you're talking to me then I would like to say that I'm not trying to rationalise or justify anything. I was simply pointing out the, I thought, fairly uncontroversial fact that regardless of the level of fundamentalism in the middle-east and its aims, Western action has tended to act to increase that fundamentalism. My main point is that this has occurred for a long time, way before September 11th, so it's totally dishonest to claim that that was some kind of starting point.
I honestly don't see how you can disagree with that Vimothy.

Because you're misdiagnosing the problem. It's not Western Imperialism, it's Islamic Imperialism.

 

[IdleRich]

"The Balfour Declaration was the (pretty racist, IMO) British solution to the nagging Jewish problem. Send 'em to Palestine! It doesn't equate to support for Israel.
Did the Balfour Declaration cause the rise of Islamism in the Mid East? That's a big leap."

No, I didn't say that, I'm not saying that. I'm just giving it as one example of Western "meddling" in the Middle East, one thing that was not going to make the UK (the West) popular (another could be the fact of British Palestine itself). An aggravating factor basically.
I referred to the BD simply to give the lie to your previous quote

"Western support of Israel is fairly recent. Jihadism or Islamism predates it by some time"

I find it very hard to belive that you don't believe the BD was in support of a nascent Israel. Of course you have to say that because otherwise you would have to admit that the above statement was incorrect so you are forced to say something that I think most people would see as absurd.

"In any case you ignored the two examples I gave: the British turning back the Exodus 1947 and the anti-British bombing campaign of Jewish terrorists during British mandatory rule of Paletine. The Jews fought the British on anti-colonialist principles. If the British supported "Israel" before it even existed, how do you account for this?"

I'm not saying that there was continual support, I'm just saying that one definite piece of pro-Israel/anti-arab action by the West in the middle-east can be clearly dated. Whatever the UK did or didn't do after that point does not matter in the least regarding your above error.

Oh yeah, something else which should be born in mind: how do we account for the massive influx of Middle Eastern Jews into Israel in the '50s?

I dunno, why do you ask?

All these Islamic radicals who supposedly rue the formation of Israel because it denied the Palestinians self-determination - don't you find it strange that they have nowhere else in the Middle East done anything to further the cause of democracy? If the Palestinians are oppressed, what of other arab countries?

I agree with that, but I guess that once again there is something of a case of "better the devil you know". Anyway, I'm not saying that Western action in the middle-east is necessarily morally wrong, I'm pointing out that it has had consequences which could have been predicted.

Re 4GW, your perception of the Arab-Israeli conflict obviously impacts upon how you view the WoT. Indeed, this thread surely demonstrates that fact

Well, of course it does, that's why I was trying to keep controversial issues to a minimum and deal with clear facts that everyone should be able to agree with (eg in 1917 Britain passed the Balfour declaration in support of soon-to-be-Israel).

There have been Jews in Palestine a lot longer than that.

Well obviously but I'm sure you know that there was a large increase in this period.

I suspect that if there were that much rational behind it, people would not be waving Hezbollah banners around.

You might be right. I'm not defending it by the way.

Palestine was an outpost of the Ottoman Empire, not a country in its own right. Throughout the region there are ethnic and religious groups being exploited and denied political representation. Why don't people go and protest about, say, the lack of a Kurdish homeland?

Perhaps they should but you must know that that's not a reason for not supporting the Palestinians.
Anyway, I really didn't want this to turn in to a debate about Israel, again the main thrust of my argument is that there has been western messing about in Middle-Eastern affairs for a very long time - this has not endeared them to the people who live there, add in a few fundamentalists who think America is the Great Satan and you have a big problem.

My simple question is "Do you deny that various Western actions have increased Islamic fundamentalism?"

"Who profits?"

I can't understand what you're saying here, obviously the photos from AG were a huge blow to US credibility but (unless you know otherwise) it was all done by the US. The US soldiers really did torture their prisoners, they themselves were dumb enough to photograph themselves and once the media (including the US and UK) had them the damage was done.

 

[vimothy]

I find it very hard to belive that you don't believe the BD was in support of a nascent Israel. Of course you have to say that because otherwise you would have to admit that the above statement was incorrect so you are forced to say something that I think most people would see as absurd.

Ok, consider this,

Mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine.

The words of Emir Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, who signed an agreement with Zionist leaders during the Paris Peace conference in 1919. Does this equate to Islamic support for Israel? Is this one of the reasons for Islamist terrorism?

Basically, I can agree that the British at one time supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (then considered a province of Syria) - however, this doesn't mean support for Israel - the British turned back European Jews fleeing the shoah and fought Jewish terrorists who demanded an end to British mandatory rule of Palestine.

 

[vimothy]

And I could qualify that statement even further ...

 

[IdleRich]

"The words of Emir Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, who signed an agreement with Zionist leaders during the Paris Peace conference in 1919. Does this equate to Islamic support for Israel? Is this one of the reasons for Islamist terrorism?"

Well no, obviously.
That seems to be part of a quote without the actual meat in it. However, even should you give the full passage I think that you would agree that there is something quite different about signing a treaty yourself as opposed to having it handed down from on high and imposed upon you.

"Basically, I can agree that the British at one time supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (then considered a province of Syria)"

Finally, maybe it would have saved a bit of time if you had said that straight away.

"however, this doesn't mean support for Israel"

I just don't know how you can say that.....but even if you won't see it surely you would recognise that it is more generally an unasked for meddling in middle-eastern affairs that might cause just a bit of resentment?

Anything more to say on how those cunning Muslims engineered Abu Ghraib or is that just going to be allowed to drop quietly from view?

 

[vimothy]

Anything more to say on how those cunning Muslims engineered Abu Ghraib or is that just going to be allowed to drop quietly from view?

There's time enough for everything, mate, don't worry. I'm just trying to juggle this with actually getting stuff done at work ...

I'm not saying that there was continual support, I'm just saying that one definite piece of pro-Israel/anti-arab action by the West in the middle-east can be clearly dated. Whatever the UK did or didn't do after that point does not matter in the least regarding your above error.

Why do you think that the Balfour Declaration is anti-arab?

Jihadism is its own master. It doesn't begin with a letter between two British Lords.

I find it very hard to belive that you don't believe the BD was in support of a nascent Israel. Of course you have to say that because otherwise you would have to admit that the above statement was incorrect so you are forced to say something that I think most people would see as absurd.

Well, not really because by what I refered to as Western support of Isreal, I meant actual support, not just a letter forty years before the country was founded. I mean aid. That's what pisses people off in this country, IMO at any rate. Of course the Balfour Declaration indicates a degree of support for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, soon to be contradicted by British actions there.

Or look at it like this: if British "support" of Israel caused a rise in Islamic extremism in the Middle East, did British opposition to or hindrance of the formation of Israel also cause a concomitant reduction in Islamic extremism?

And, is totalitarianism just the application of terrorism to the acheivement of rational political goals?

I dunno, why do you ask?

Just wondering if you would say, "the Balfour Declaration".

I agree with that, but I guess that once again there is something of a case of "better the devil you know". Anyway, I'm not saying that Western action in the middle-east is necessarily morally wrong, I'm pointing out that it has had consequences which could have been predicted.

I don't think "better the devil you know" does any real justice to it. These people are reactionary fascists, not liberals. That is all important, but you seem to forget that and import your own values into their struggle. As if jihadists want a free Palestine!

Perhaps they should but you must know that that's not a reason for not supporting the Palestinians.

But it does make the fact that Islamists are anti-imperialists rather confusing.

Anyway, I really didn't want this to turn in to a debate about Israel, again the main thrust of my argument is that there has been western messing about in Middle-Eastern affairs for a very long time - this has not endeared them to the people who live there, add in a few fundamentalists who think America is the Great Satan and you have a big problem.

I don't think that's true. What are these policies that you continually refer to? I want to know what the Mid East populations and the fundamentalists object to.

My simple question is "Do you deny that various Western actions have increased Islamic fundamentalism?"

It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but basically Islamism is a movement with roots in Islamic history (the Wahabis for e.g.) and one which is internal to Islam. It isn't caused by Western actions any more than the allies caused the rise of Nazism. Islamism began its current trajectory with the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the 19th century, predating both the founding of Israel and the Balfour Declaration. The ideas of Jihad and Fatah obviously go back much further.

What are the visions of Islamism? What are its programmes? You are not mentioning them at all.

I can't understand what you're saying here, obviously the photos from AG were a huge blow to US credibility but (unless you know otherwise) it was all done by the US. The US soldiers really did torture their prisoners, they themselves were dumb enough to photograph themselves and once the media (including the US and UK) had them the damage was done.

It's what this thread is supposed to be about!

 

[vimothy]

Also, you should consider the Six Day War if you want to look at one of the real causes of the rise of Islamism.

 

[vimothy]

That seems to be part of a quote without the actual meat in it. However, even should you give the full passage I think that you would agree that there is something quite different about signing a treaty yourself as opposed to having it handed down from on high and imposed upon you.

Who else could have signed the treaty?

Finally, maybe it would have saved a bit of time if you had said that straight away.

It's no big deal, I just meant something different by Western support of Israel - I meant the literal support which has given rise to arab asymmetry.

Anything more to say on how those cunning Muslims engineered Abu Ghraib or is that just going to be allowed to drop quietly from view?

If you think my arguments are anti-Arab then you're not paying attention.

No one "engineered" Abu Ghraib. The pornographic actions of the US troops there were certainly not in American interests, but they have provided a useful narrative for jihadists and their allies in the West. That's my point. 4GW is about stories.

 

[IdleRich]

"There's time enough for everything, mate, don't worry. I'm just trying to juggle this with actually getting stuff done at work ..."

Just checking. I'm in the same boat anyway.

"Why do you think that the Balfour Declaration is anti-arab?"

Well, how do you think most Arabs look on it? I'm sure that they consider it against them and that's what matters in terms of how it might have stirred up anger.

"Jihadism is its own master. It doesn't begin with a letter between two British Lords."

Can you stop implying that I've used words such as "begin" or "caused" regarding Jihadism and anything else at all?

"Of course the Balfour Declaration indicates a degree of support for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, soon to be contradicted by British actions there."

Once again, I made no claims for a continuity of support - although I do not accept that it was contradicted by British actions let's pretend I do because it makes no difference to what I originally said.

Or look at it like this: if British "support" of Israel caused a rise in Islamic extremism in the Middle East, did British opposition to or hindrance of the formation of Israel also cause a concomitant reduction in Islamic extremism?

Or was it just more meddling?

And, is totalitarianism just the application of terrorism to the acheivement of rational political goals?

Just wondering if you would say, "the Balfour Declaration".

These cryptic non sequiturs are losing me.

I don't think "better the devil you know" does any real justice to it. These people are reactionary fascists, not liberals. That is all important, but you seem to forget that and import your own values into their struggle. As if jihadists want a free Palestine!

That's not an argument, you're just re-stating what you have stated previously.

But it does make the fact that Islamists are anti-imperialists rather confusing.

Well, I don't think you think that Islamists are anti-imperialists so I can only assume that you're making some kind of ironical reference to some supposed belief on my part here - but I'm a total loss as to why you might think that I hold that belief.

I don't think that's true. What are these policies that you continually refer to? I want to know what the Mid East populations and the fundamentalists object to.

Well obviously you don't think that's true. Policies and actions include, off the top of my head (but are not limited to): Supporting the formation of Israel (as discussed), instating the Shah in Iran (already mentioned), precipitating the Suez-crisis, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, refusal to recognise Hamas when democratically elected and cutting funding.
On top of a large amount of military and financial support of Israel of course.
(note, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with any of those things, I'm just saying that they are going to piss people off).

"It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but basically Islamism is a movement with roots in Islamic history (the Wahabis for e.g.) and one which is internal to Islam. It isn't caused by Western actions any more than the allies caused the rise of Nazism. Islamism began its current trajectory with the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the 19th century, predating both the founding of Israel and the Balfour Declaration. The ideas of Jihad and Fatah obviously go back much further.
What are the visions of Islamism? What are its programmes? You are not mentioning them at all."

Once again you slide out of the question by pretending I said "caused" - try answering the real question (I've copied it down from above)

My simple question is "Do you deny that various Western actions have increased Islamic fundamentalism?"

 

[wheninrome]

It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but basically Islamism is a movement with roots in Islamic history (the Wahabis for e.g.) and one which is internal to Islam. It isn't caused by Western actions any more than the allies caused the rise of Nazism. I!

Of course. The treaty of Versailles imposed by the allies on Germany had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of Nazism.

Please stop mangling history to try and make it fit into this fantastical and twisted view of the world. You're only humiliating yourself further with every post.

 

[IdleRich]

"Who else could have signed the treaty?"

I can only interpret that question to mean that you didn't understand my point or perhaps I missed the point of the original quote?

"It's no big deal, I just meant something different by Western support of Israel - I meant the literal support which has given rise to arab asymmetry."

OK

If you think my arguments are anti-Arab then you're not paying attention.
No one "engineered" Abu Ghraib. The pornographic actions of the US troops there were certainly not in American interests, but they have provided a useful narrative for jihadists and their allies in the West. That's my point. 4GW is about stories.

Look, you said the second line here

The US mcsoldiers took the pictures at Abu Ghraib, they appeared on US tv - what did Islamists have to do with it?

Who profits?

What did you intend the phrase "who profits?" as an answer to "what did Islamists have to do with it?" to mean?

 

[vimothy]

Well, how do you think most Arabs look on it? I'm sure that they consider it against them and that's what matters in terms of how it might have stirred up anger.

Why would most Arabs consider the Balfour Declaration to be anything to do with them at all? And, in the context of what we're discussing, how did Arabs at the time view it?

Can you stop implying that I've used words such as "begin" or "caused" regarding Jihadism and anything else at all?

It what we're discussing, though. Where does the Islamist impulse come from?

But how can I talk about your arguement at all? "The Balfour Declaration increased existing jihadist tendencies in the Middle East"?

Or was it just more meddling?

And so therefore the lack of British support for Israel has also increased jihadist tendencies in the Middle East?

These cryptic non sequiturs are losing me.

Why don't you try answering some of my questions rather than just ignoring or dismissing them out of hand? You've missed a lot of them.

What is totalitarianism? It's relevant to the discussion because we're discussing totalitarianism - it's not a non sequitur but something which lies at the heart of the rise of Islamism in the Middle East.

Why did anti-Semitism rise up in the Middle East in the 20th century? This too relates to the very nature of Islamism.

That's not an argument, you're just re-stating what you have stated previously.

But you haven't addressed it. Nothing that you have said makes any reference to jihadist doctrines or thinkers, merely what you think they must be annoyed about. I'm trying to get you to talk about what Islamism is and what it seeks.

Well, I don't think you think that Islamists are anti-imperialists so I can only assume that you're making some kind of ironical reference to some supposed belief on my part here - but I'm a total loss as to why you might think that I hold that belief.

Because you've argued that Islamism is a reaction to Western Imperialism in the Middle East.

More to follow...

 

[vimothy]

Of course. The treaty of Versailles imposed by the allies on Germany had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of Nazism.

I didn't say nothing though, did I? What I am trying to get at is where does totalitarianism come from - is it a rational political response?

Please stop mangling history to try and make it fit into this fantastical and twisted view of the world. You're only humiliating yourself further with every post.

Why - aren't you enjoying yourself?

 

[vimothy]

My simple question is "Do you deny that various Western actions have increased Islamic fundamentalism?"

Three reponses:

Yes, Western actions have done nothing to increase Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalism plots its own course.

I don't know. How can one possibly answer a question so vague? How can this possibly be measured? You aren't even providing any evidence in support.

No, in particular Western lifestyles, their influence in the Middle East and the distaste with which the Islamist movement views them, the relative success of the West and the movement of European totalitarian doctrines into the Middle East after WWII, have been one of the chief causes in the rise of Islamic fascist movements.

 

[wheninrome]

I didn't say nothing though, did I?

Well - you did say 'something'. you said: "any more than the allies caused the rise of Nazism. I!" And thats simply one of many blatant historical errors in your posts.

What I am trying to get at is where does totalitarianism come from - is it a rational political response?

So youre trying to 'get at' a point by repeatedly making ridiculous counter factual statements? Thats a novel approach even for a right-winger.

Why - aren't you enjoying yourself?

No - its horrendously tedious to read something so misguided put forth in such a confused manner.

So tedious in fact that I cant believe I even bothered to read or reply.

 

[vimothy]

I can only interpret that question to mean that you didn't understand my point or perhaps I missed the point of the original quote?

Emir Faisal was a Syrian politician and the head of the Arab delegation at the Peace Conference. Who else would you have prefered to go?

What did you intend the phrase "who profits?" as an answer to "what did Islamists have to do with it?" to mean?

I meant that the terrorists in Iraq and worldwide stand to benefit from anything that makes America look bad and in particular from anything which makes America look hypocritical and loose te moral high ground. They didn't engineer what happened in Abu Ghraib (obviously!), but it is to their advantage. 4GW.

Well - you did say 'something'. you said: "any more than the allies caused the rise of Nazism. I!" And thats simply one of many blatant historical errors in your posts.

So the Allies caused the rise of Nazism?

So youre trying to 'get at' a point by repeatedly making ridiculous counter factual statements? Thats a novel approach even for a right-winger.

What does any of this have to do with being right or left wing? And why don't you engage with my arguments if they're so ridiculous? It shouldn't be that hard to debunk them.

No - its horrendously tedious to read something so misguided put forth in such a confused manner.

So tedious in fact that I cant believe I even bothered to read or reply.

You don't seem to be doing a very good job at it. Maybe you need more practice.

 

[IdleRich]

"Why would most Arabs consider the Balfour Declaration to be anything to do with them at all? And, in the context of what we're discussing, how did Arabs at the time view it?"

Because it was (or is viewed as) an intrinsic step in the forming of Israel and most Arabs don't like Israel.
How did they view it at the time? I don't know for certain but I can guess that they weren't too pleased about it - do you know differently?

"It what we're discussing, though. Where does the Islamist impulse come from?"

It's what you're trying to say that we're discussing. I merely said that western actions have bolstered Islamist/Jihadist strength - I thought that was something uncontroversial and I'm quite surprised that it's taken me two days of typing before your (surely soon to come) admission that this is true.

"But how can I talk about your arguement at all? "The Balfour Declaration increased existing jihadist tendencies in the Middle East"?"

Well, seeing as that's (part of) what I said it seems like a good place to begin doesn't it?

And so therefore the lack of British support for Israel has also increased jihadist tendencies in the Middle East?

I'm saying that western forces pissing around in the middle-east isn't going to be popular.

Why don't you try answering some of my questions rather than just ignoring or dismissing them out of hand? You've missed a lot of them.

The point is you're writing long passages with lots of stuff in them punctuated now and again by rhetorical questions which often seem at best tangentially related to the debate and that I often genuinely can't answer because I can't figure out what they mean. When I write I'm at least trying to keep it simple and ask you direct questions which you are deliberately not answering, I think it's unfair to say that I'm dismissing things out of hand.

What is totalitarianism? It's relevant to the discussion because we're discussing totalitarianism - it's not a non sequitur but something which lies at the heart of the rise of Islamism in the Middle East.
Why did anti-Semitism rise up in the Middle East in the 20th century? This too relates to the very nature of Islamism.

Tell me what you think here and why it is relevant?

But you haven't addressed it. Nothing that you have said makes any reference to jihadist doctrines or thinkers, merely what you think they must be annoyed about. I'm trying to get you to talk about what Islamism is and what it seeks.

But that's because you don't need to talk about an Islamist thinker to say that someone who has a bomb dropped on his house is going to be annoyed with the person who did it. If such a person then finds a load of fundamentalist nutters who hate the bombers for ideological reasons will he not be tempted to join them? That's basically the simple point I'm asking you to concede. Do you agree with me or not?

"Because you've argued that Islamism is a reaction to Western Imperialism in the Middle East."

No. I've pointed out that you cannot say that Western Imperialism has not exacerbated and strengthened the ranks of Islamism. Once again, do you disagree with this?
Just a straight answer would be nice, I would be happy now if you only answer this question with a simple yes or no answer. I've asked this in several different ways at several different times and you have never given an answer, please, please do it now.


edit: OK seems that you had a stab at answering that question while I was typing that out. Except of course you didn't.

 

[vimothy]

For the record:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour

 

[wheninrome]

So the Allies caused the rise of Nazism?

It is almost universally agreed amongst historians that the treaty of Versailles imposed by the allies on Germany was a major factor in the rise of nationalism and Nazism in Germany.

Any second level history student could tell you that.

Its this kind of historical ignorance and the constant answering of questions with further (inane) questions that does not exactly tempt me into a debate. Its almost like youre making this up as you go along.

You don't seem to be doing a very good job at it. Maybe you need more practice.

The opposite in fact. Too mush practise. I prefer to discuss things with people who respond directly to questions withlout evasion, have a firm grasp of history and actually know what they're talking about.

So good day sir! I wont be bothering you again.