Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,592
- 290
- Banned
- #61
Soviet Union is not taught in schools!
- Thread starter anotherlife
- Start date
Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,592
- 290
- Banned
- #62
No...do you feed those teens chained in your basement...teach?
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walterwww.history.com
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
Ok, no arguments. this is a good standard if kept consistent.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
Last edited:
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
Primarily Jewish?
Like German royalty ruling Russia,
and Jewish persecutions under Stalin and Beriya?
You do realize that Jews in Russia composed the most famous Russian songs,
painted the most iconic Russian works, and that it were Jews who fought to revive the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union? A Soviet Jew who converted to Christianity himself and droves of other Jews, Russians and pretty much most of the dissidents who were thirsty for re-connection with the G-dly.
I know your propaganda, have been fed by it myself, I know the point you're going to make about KGB and NKVD, but the fact is although being over-represented, they did it as Russians, and in the name of a Russian revolution, a class war, alll ethnicities were involved and all suffered alike. A Georgian would jail fellow Georgian, a Jew fellow his fellow Jew and vice verca. Fact is, in most cases of horrific conduct you'll point out, there were as much other ethnicities occupying no less high positions of execution and ideology. And they did it following seeking national self determination, Lithuanians, Polish, Jews on the other hand by abandoning their nationality for the ideological promise of a chance them becoming fully equal, once assimilated into the Russian society by joining the revolution.
To say the Russian Revolution was primarily influenced by Jews, is an insult to intelligence.
A convenient simplistic view to appeal to prejudice, but facts show otherwise.
Last edited:
Bleipriester
Freedom!
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 45,134
- 38,811
- 3,615
You don't exactly try to hide it.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.
Glad we cleared that out.
Last edited:
Bleipriester
Freedom!
Examples?
Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,592
- 290
- Banned
- #70
Jews have a distinct ability to accept no blame.
You gloss over everything in an emotional ball...of nothing. Good talk.
Bleipriester
Freedom!
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.
Glad we cleared that out.
For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
Emotional ball?
Kinda like your resorting to irrational gibbetish to excuse your mental deficiency.
Same way the Russian pogroms started,
appeal to prejudice with typical Passover blood libel,
the court investigation later found the main suspect wasn't even a Jew,
but that didn't bother the hot headed village folk to start with him before pillow feathers started flying in the air... so if you want to start blame games, you'll find it very easy to slip into the answering end of the argument, I'm ready to play - but don't whine later.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,424
- 28,259
- 2,180
AGAIN, the topic of this fucking thread is NOT your absurd, illogical, pussy-weak fear of Jewish people, you pathetic fucking loser. Grow up or shut the fuck up, idiot weakling.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.
Glad we cleared that out.
For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?
Give me some context.
What year is this?
Bleipriester
Freedom!
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.
Glad we cleared that out.
For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?
Give me some context.
What year is this?
WWI. See the helmet.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.
Glad we cleared that out.
For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?
Give me some context.
What year is this?
WWI. See the helmet.
The American entry into World War I came on April 6, 1917, after a year long effort by President Woodrow Wilson to get the United States into the war. Apart from an Anglophile element urging early support for the British, American public opinion sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among Irish Americans, German Americans and Scandinavian Americans,[3] as well as among church leaders and among women in general. On the other hand, even before World War I had broken out, American opinion had been more negative toward Germany than towards any other country in Europe.[4] Over time, especially after reports of atrocities in Belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner RMS Lusitania in 1915, the American people increasingly came to see Germany as the aggressor.
As U.S. President, it was Wilson who made the key policy decisions over foreign affairs: while the country was at peace, the domestic economy ran on a laissez-faire basis, with American banks making huge loans to Britain and France — funds that were in large part used to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Until 1917, Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the United States Army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. He did, however, expand the United States Navy.
In 1917, with the Russian Revolution and widespread disillusionment over the war, and with Britain and France low on credit, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe,[5] while the Ottoman Empire clung to its possessions in the Middle East. In the same year, Germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare against any vessel approaching British waters; this attempt to starve Britain into surrender was balanced against the knowledge that it would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. Germany also made a secret offer to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in an encoded telegram known as the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by British Intelligence. Publication of that communique outraged Americans just as German U-boats started sinking American merchant ships in the North Atlantic. Wilson then asked Congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and Congress voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.[6] On December 7, 1917, the U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary.[7][8] U.S. troops began arriving on the Western Front in large numbers in 1918.
United States in World War I - Wikipedia
Bleipriester
Freedom!
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.
Glad we cleared that out.
For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?
Give me some context.
What year is this?
WWI. See the helmet.
The American entry into World War I came on April 6, 1917, after a year long effort by President Woodrow Wilson to get the United States into the war. Apart from an Anglophile element urging early support for the British, American public opinion sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among Irish Americans, German Americans and Scandinavian Americans,[3] as well as among church leaders and among women in general. On the other hand, even before World War I had broken out, American opinion had been more negative toward Germany than towards any other country in Europe.[4] Over time, especially after reports of atrocities in Belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner RMS Lusitania in 1915, the American people increasingly came to see Germany as the aggressor.
As U.S. President, it was Wilson who made the key policy decisions over foreign affairs: while the country was at peace, the domestic economy ran on a laissez-faire basis, with American banks making huge loans to Britain and France — funds that were in large part used to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Until 1917, Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the United States Army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. He did, however, expand the United States Navy.
In 1917, with the Russian Revolution and widespread disillusionment over the war, and with Britain and France low on credit, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe,[5] while the Ottoman Empire clung to its possessions in the Middle East. In the same year, Germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare against any vessel approaching British waters; this attempt to starve Britain into surrender was balanced against the knowledge that it would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. Germany also made a secret offer to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in an encoded telegram known as the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by British Intelligence. Publication of that communique outraged Americans just as German U-boats started sinking American merchant ships in the North Atlantic. Wilson then asked Congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and Congress voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.[6] On December 7, 1917, the U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary.[7][8] U.S. troops began arriving on the Western Front in large numbers in 1918.
United States in World War I - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The funny thing that the Germany embassy placed "ads" in many US newspapers that warned of traveling in ships like the Lusitania, which travel through the war zone, but only two of them printed it.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,389
- 4,952
- 290
It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.
"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."
.Balfour Declaration letter written
On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter
And?
Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.
No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".
Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:
and its the same old rotten stench.
Enemies everywhere
I like mine dumb and predictable.
But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.
I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.
If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.
So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?
How does it work?
No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?
Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.
Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.
We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.
You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.
It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.
And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?
There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.
Germany was also the quickest to go down.
Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.
And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.
That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".
Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.
No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".
Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.
No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.
That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.
Glad we cleared that out.
For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?
Give me some context.
What year is this?
WWI. See the helmet.
The American entry into World War I came on April 6, 1917, after a year long effort by President Woodrow Wilson to get the United States into the war. Apart from an Anglophile element urging early support for the British, American public opinion sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among Irish Americans, German Americans and Scandinavian Americans,[3] as well as among church leaders and among women in general. On the other hand, even before World War I had broken out, American opinion had been more negative toward Germany than towards any other country in Europe.[4] Over time, especially after reports of atrocities in Belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner RMS Lusitania in 1915, the American people increasingly came to see Germany as the aggressor.
As U.S. President, it was Wilson who made the key policy decisions over foreign affairs: while the country was at peace, the domestic economy ran on a laissez-faire basis, with American banks making huge loans to Britain and France — funds that were in large part used to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Until 1917, Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the United States Army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. He did, however, expand the United States Navy.
In 1917, with the Russian Revolution and widespread disillusionment over the war, and with Britain and France low on credit, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe,[5] while the Ottoman Empire clung to its possessions in the Middle East. In the same year, Germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare against any vessel approaching British waters; this attempt to starve Britain into surrender was balanced against the knowledge that it would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. Germany also made a secret offer to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in an encoded telegram known as the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by British Intelligence. Publication of that communique outraged Americans just as German U-boats started sinking American merchant ships in the North Atlantic. Wilson then asked Congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and Congress voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.[6] On December 7, 1917, the U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary.[7][8] U.S. troops began arriving on the Western Front in large numbers in 1918.
United States in World War I - Wikipedia
The funny thing that the Germany embassy placed "ads" in many US newspapers that warned of traveling in ships like the Lusitania, which travel through the war zone, but only two of them printed it.
Ok and?
I don't think it's anywhere serious to focus on "ads" as cause of war.
Life is much more complicated than that, especially developments leading to such events.
Germans were one of the most integral communities of the Russian society,
their decline started with the reforms of Alexander II.
Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,592
- 290
- Banned
- #79
No Jews...no Communism.
Tijn Von Ingersleben
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2018
- 8,558
- 2,592
- 290
- Banned
- #80
We are not talking Czarist Russian pogroms, (once gain, lack of introspection) we are talking about the Soviet Union. We are talking about THAT union and the role that Jews played in the mass murder and imprisoning of millions of Christian Russians.
You are a 'tribe' are you not? You are bound by a common blood, are you not? Then take responsibility for the blood you let.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump Has Skipped All but 12 of His Daily Intelligence Briefings- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 25
-
11 Percent of Columbia Library Arrestees Identify as They/Them—Nearly 7 Times America's Trans Population
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 15
-
