What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


And, you, for that matter, do not care that I say I recognize the bias and seek corroboration from other sources?

I don't believe you.

You post this crap and then stick to it.

If you want to start a 'can we find any validity in this POV?' thread, please do so. It would be a discussion.

What you are doing, have done, and are unapologetic about is posting arguments from the lunatic fringe and then when challenged for a basis drag up neo-Nazi and anti-Semetic sources.

Some may wonder where you got the lunatic arguments from to begin with. I don't any longer.

You've fallen into a very dark place intellectually, Ned. I'm sorry you find yourself where you are. I am not sorry about calling your dumb ass to account for the bile that you seem so willing to lap up and in turn to spew.

The whole point of this exercise is see if history has been written with a pro-Brit bias in the first place. If it were not, this would be a first in all history as the victors always write history to justify themselves.

Pure crap. You haven't asked about a pro-Brit bias (which exists). You have sought to whitewash the Imperial German and Nazi German governments.

'Sure, the Kaiser and Hitler did so and so, BUT THE BRITS MADE THEM DO IT!'

No, Ned, the Brits did not force the German governments of any year to invade other countries. Your attempts to prove otherwise with the aid of neo-Nazi sources only shows where you are coming from. It says not a lot about Chamberlain, Churchill, or Asquith.

[Ned]

NYE, well your reaction does give me pause. In conducting internet research, I will be more "sensitive" in the future about quoting from anti-Semitic sites, not because I am afraid of offending the likes of you, but because I cannot do so without being smeared by the likes of you.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
NYE, well your reaction does give me pause. In conducting internet research, I will be more "sensitive" in the future about quoting from anti-Semitic sites, not because I am afraid of offending the likes of you, but because I cannot do so without being smeared by the likes of you.

They are lousy sources anyway. How can you trust them? And even if you did trust them who else will trust them?

It's safe to assume that if you can't find confirmation of a fact anywhere but on racist fringe sites then you probably shouldn't trust it.

[Ned]

Geronimo, true. In conducting reseach on the Friedman speech (which is published on the Net widely and not just on obvious anti-semite sites) I was able to quickly detect a lot of lies. (For example, he said that all or a majority of US newspapers were pro-German. But another study put it (IIRC) on the order of 120 pro-Brit, 20-pro German, and 215 pro-neutrality.) But some of what he said was true, and perhaps the thrust of what he had to say as a whole was more true than not. At the end of 1916 and early in 1917, allied fortunes were at a low ebb. It was also about this time that the Brits and the Zionists negotiated what became the Balfour declaration. The timing here is critical, though, and I haven't been able to pin down through credible sources who approached whom and exactly when about the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Geronimo, true. In conducting reseach on the Friedman speech (which is published on the Net widely and not just on obvious anti-semite sites) I was able to quickly detect a lot of lies. (For example, he said that all or a majority of US newspapers were pro-German. But another study put it (IIRC) on the order of 120 pro-Brit, 20-pro German, and 215 pro-neutrality.) But some of what he said was true, and perhaps the thrust of what he had to say as a whole was more true than not. At the end of 1916 and early in 1917, allied fortunes were at a low ebb. It was also about this time that the Brits and the Zionists negotiated what became the Balfour declaration. The timing here is critical, though, and I haven't been able to pin down through credible sources who approached whom and exactly when about the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Honestly I'd give up on that whole line of thinking.

1. It just reminds people that you appear to have started down that line of reasoning by browsing a site wholly and entirely devoted to anti semitism.

2. Who cares what this guy said or didn't say? He's one guy. Nobody is going to take his statements and be willing to make the leap that they somehow represent a group any larger than himself.

[edit I'm not trying to say that individuals can't be extremely valuable sources of historical interest. It's just that this guys only claim to fame (notoriety) is pretty much his anti-zionism. So trying to construct an argument based around his statements seems pretty futile.]

[Ned]

Geronimo, I think historians in general dismiss it because they do not believe American mass communications are "controlled" by the Jews. In this I think they are right, which is why I have come to the conclusion that whatever the Brits intended, the effect in the US was de minimis.

However, if you asked Jimmy Carter this same question, you surely would get a different answer.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
NYE, well your reaction does give me pause. In conducting internet research, I will be more "sensitive" in the future about quoting from anti-Semitic sites, not because I am afraid of offending the likes of you, but because I cannot do so without being smeared by the likes of you.

I fail to see how it is possible to smear someone who has dived into the mud and is now trying to sell the bottled product.

You've smeared yourself.

[Ned]

NYE, What I see from you is not argument based on fact on the main topic, but an effort to win the argument by discrediting the opponent. Is this your typical modus operandi?

At least molly at times tries to support his points with fact and argument and not ad hominem attacks.

BTW, moderators, how can you allow this in a moderated forum?

[notyoueither]

Let us know when you have a fact to argue with. I'm sorry, but a high school essay and unsubstantiated blather from neo-Nazidom don't count.

You long ago exhausted my charitable inclination to accept your words in good faith and to show you facts. You reply to facts with obstinance, frauds, and crap from the gutter. Then you feign indignation when people call you for your ****.

Incidently, Ecthy's waiting for some answers.

[Ned]

NYE, I must admit, I am having a hard time finding any detailed discussion of WWI on the web. It does not seem to be a hot topic. There is a lot about WWII, but nothing much on the details Etchy asked about.

In conducting the research, I was a little surprised to find that the German right wing generally blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat even though German Jews were highly patriotic and Jews worldwide admired her. The British machinations with the Zionists are to blame for this; and the Zionists should have been aware that German Jews would bear the brunt of German anger (even if they themselves were blameless) over a lost war when they did the deal with the British during the course of the war.

Once again, in a very weird twist of fate, British diplomacy caused a lot of collateral damage.

[notyoueither]

What did you research?

How to see a high school essay as a reliable source?

How to buy fake newspapers?

Neo-Nazis hate the Brits, therefore they must have good points? Oh, and what's this about an international Zionist conspiracy? The hell you say!

Why do you think anyone should take you seriously?

[notyoueither]

Oh, and Ned, Google is not a tool of groundbreaking historical research. In the hands of the wrong person, like someone who can't tell a bibliography from a primary source, it can be sort of misleading.

I'd say you've been led over the hill, into the vale, and are seriously lost in a bog.

[Geronimo]

google is fine for gaining an understanding of the current historical consensus - if you know how to vet the sites.

However as a means of synthesizing original revisionist interpretations of history it is useless without other sources to back it up. There will be too many tiny little details missing on the internet and even the ones you find on the net will usually need confirmation from other media.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

At least molly at times tries to support his points with fact and argument and not ad hominem attacks.

'At times' ?!?


Now that's what I call chutzpah.

Would you be so kind as to point out any substantive argument or point I've made without referring to Hitler's war directives, Hitler's writings, speeches, orders, treaties, dates of actions, diplomatic records, and so forth, when these were necessary ?


Then be so kind as to contrast these with all the occasions when you signally HAVEN'T done so, and should have done.

The difference will be quite apparent, even to a blind person in a coal shed at midnight on a cloudy winter's eve.

[Ned]

molly, I will grant you your point.

Will you, in turn, give me your views on what the Brits intended to accomplish with the Balfour Declaration?

Also, do you have information on who approached whom first and when?