UK: Islamic supremacists planting "the seeds of an Islamic emirate" under Sharia

These are certainly not the Mustard Seed of parable.

How would good 'ole, all American Muslim Zhudi Jasser explain this away?

Bill O'Reilly would axe Zudhi the next time he has him on the program, but probably Bill would be too busy licking Zudhi's shoes to work in that important question.

John, they're declaring their secession from the UK--that IS declaring civil war! But this is a good thing. Can anyone now doubt their intentions? What an opportunity to kick ass and restore order (synonymous actions when dealing with muslims).

For those "officials" who've brought in millions of these degerates, then coddled them: DId you really think it wouldn't come to this? With muslims, it will ALWAYS come to this.

Here's your chance, UK: Round 'em up--ship 'em out!

From the guardian article, "Muslims cannot fight Islamaphobia alone".
So this poor deluded gay fool still thinks that muslims are just dying to get rid of homophobia from their midst. How far from the real truth can you be? Homophobia is a part and parcel of islam. When ahemidinijad said there were no gays in Iran he meant it, cause if there were any they were soon gone. No amount of ripping off and destroying anti gay posters in muslim areas is going to change islam or the koran.

It's terrifying so many Gays don't see exactly what Islam means for us in very plain language. It means death. And yet we somehow re-actively defend this ideology because the so-called "right wingers" are "racists" and the Islamists are victims. Sure Christians might have intolerant beliefs towards gays, but at least they don't preach death -- even the Westboro Baptist Church.

The wool has been pulled over our collective Gay eyes. I only hope by the time we realize as a majority what Islam is really about it isn't too late, but I fear it will be. At least Christians get to be dhimmis. We get thrown off a mountaintop.

Interesting that some of these people are now referring to THEMSELVES as "Islamists."

Two can play that game. From now count me as a self-declared Judeo-Christianist.

*** 33:21 ***

George Bernard Shaw, Carly Fiorina and Mahatma Gandhi may not think much Judeo-Christianistism, but there's a market out there.

Somewhere.

"The UK needs another Churchill to be saved, not another pathetic appeaser Neville Chamberlain, who bowed to Hitler!"

The U.K. needs another Churchill as much as a dead man needs a hot compress.

Had the British followed the policy of Lord Salisbury, there would not have been any First World War, no Hitler, no Second World War, and no Muslim mass invasion. The Germans would have beaten France and then Russia if Great Britain had stayed out of the continental conflicts and remained in 'Splendid Isolation':

"Isolation is much less dangerous than the danger of being dragged into wars which do not concern us." (Lord Salisbury, 1896).

For as long as he had served the queen, Lord Salisbury had sought to keep Britain free of power blocks. His policy was not one of isolation from Europe ... but isolation from the Europe of alliances. Britannia would rule the waves but stay out of Europe's quarrels. Said Salisbury, "We are fish."

Among the British and Churchillian errors were:

* The secret decission of a tiny cabal in the inner cabinet in 1906 to takle Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France.

* The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that mutilated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler.

*Britain's capitulation, at Churchill's urging, to American pressure to server the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her into the path of militarism and conquest.

*The greatest mistake in British histoty: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939, ensuring the Second World War.

If you think it was disgusting how Neville Chamberlain bowed to Hitler you should know that Churchill bowed even deeper to the monster Stalin:

When Churchill first met Stalin in Moscow in 1942, he tried to explain to the Man of Steel how the terrible toll on British ships and sailors had forced a pause in convoys to Murmansk. Stalin responded by insulting Churchill to his face:

"This is the first time in history that the British navy has ever turned tail and fled from the battle. You British are afraid of fighting. You should not think that the Germans are supermen. You will have to fight sooner or later. You cannot win a war without fighting.”

This abuse exceeded anything Chamberlain had taken from Hitler and came out of the mouth of a Bolshevik butcher who had been Hitler's willing partner in the rape of Poland and Hitler's enabler in his attack on the West. When Britain had been fighting alone, Stalin was aiding Nazi Germany and accusing Britain and France of having started the war.

When Stalin brought up Churchill's role in 1919 as the champion of Allied intervention in Russia, Churchill asked, “have you forgiven me?”

The ex-seminarian replied, “All that is in the past. It is not for me to forgive. It is for God to forgive.”

On his return from that September 1942 trip to Moscow, Churchill told in Parliament that his countrymen were truly fortunate to be allied to so great a man:

“... Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humor which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom, and a complete absence of illusions of any kind.”

Churchill was right about that last part. As the Man of Steel used to say: “A sincere diplomat is like dry water or wooden iron.”

Be careful about what you wish for. ;-)

Yes Katharina, what you say is correct. There is a "gathering storm" and the need for a credible, articulate leader who speaks without a forked-tongue, has never been greater for the once-proud, British people. Unfortunately, Britain is still in the blinkered-grip of idealism and the (crumbling) edifice of 'multi-culturalism', unable to re-establish its native identity. It dithers with shame and embarrassment in a 'post-colonial' shadow of self-loathing; is suffocated by political 'correctness' and the loss of its standing, on the world-stage. It has all the presence of a ghost in a weed-garden. How hard would it be to invoke a "Dunkirk-Spirit"? Extremely hard!

That said, British roots run deep and its core-values have been intrinsic in shaping the contemporary world today. It still has a major role to play if only it could focus correctly and cease its pandering to the 'borrowed-plummage' of collective-relativism, it could become a player again.

The British-Bulldog should put its teeth back in, defend its realm, stand firm and lead by example. It could once-more put the great back into Britain.

And the rest of you out there who appear eager to denigrate Britain and its failure to act should look-inward and get your own houses in order. Some of the posters on here come across as trite-contritionists unaware that their own pants are on fire!!!!

We're all in this together, are we not?

Hello, Ole,

As usual, I learned a lot from your phillipic on Churchill. Of course, I have to think about it.

The British decision of 1906 you brought up to jump into any war on the side of France brings to mind the US action in Libya, which as far as I can see, lacks any rationale whatsoever, even the thin reasoning for the Iraqi and Afghan invasions.

But, I don't see how Salisbury and Churchill can be contraposed. Even if Salisbury was correct, Churchill had to deal with the world that existed after World War I. Churchill was responsible for the catastrophic tactical blunder of the Gallipoli invasion, but I don't think he had a hand in the broader blunders of the decision to go to war, and to impoverish Germany with reparations.

I read a book, The Imperial Conspiracy, detailing the long-term planning by the Japanese emperor for the systematic conquest of Asia and parts of the Pacific. I seriously doubt if any insult by Britain such as you described could seriously affect the course that Japan was already running full bore down.

As far as Churchill's kowtowing to Stalin, it sounds pretty indefensible. Except, Churchill did say he would make a pact with the devil against Hilter, and obviously did. Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech would seem to indicate he was not entranced by Stalin or by Communism, but I think it could be argued he was not about to pursue a fight with Stalin under those circumstances.

Having said that, I agree with your obvious admiration for the philosophy that a great country is best off by not getting involved in disputes which don't concern it. The US would be far better off without the invasion of Iraq or the occupation of Afghanistan. I think a brief invasion of Afghanistan was very much in our interest, as Afghanistan had hosted an attack against the US.

Nice dream, brother!

'Battle of Tours above says-"'So Archbishop Rowan Williams was right? A little 'Sharia' is unavoidable for Britain? Who'd have believed it, except readers of JW? "

Dhimmi Archbishop Rowan Williams is a spineless religious head. He overpowered the able and strong willed Bishop Nazir Ali and became Arch bishop.Bishop Nazir Ali was the first to point out the "no go areas" of Britain,in which a white man could not enter the Muslim- held areas . He received death threats from Muslims for this. Such a bold and dedicated convert from Pakistani Muslim back ground was not given a chance to become the Archbishop of Canterbury,and this made him dejected and he resigned.

Bishop Michael hasn't given up or disappeared from the scene. He is finding plenty of things to do.

He is still entitled to be called a Bishop - a sort of 'Bishop at large'.

I met him here in Australia just last year when he paid us a visit: warning people about Islam and Islamisation, just like his colleague, Patrick Sookhdeo. (They work together: Bishop Michael wrote the foreword to Dr Sookhdeo's book "Freedom to Believe: Challenging Islam's Apostasy Law").

Like Dr Sookhdeo he engages in quite a lot of lobbying and advocacy, a good deal of it - I suspect - 'behind the scenes'.

Milsa,

"The United States considers lumberjack Bajram Asllani one of its most wanted men but, because of Kosovo's unusual international status, it is unable to extradite ands interrogate him."

Actually, if this guy is our worst enemy, we probably don't have too much to worry about.

Hi, Ronald,

Thanks for your informed comments about the wars, Churchill, and the fateful decisions that lead to the fall of the British Empire and the weakening of the West.

There is much to admire in the fighting spirit of Churchill where surrender is not an option, and compromise close to treason. As a war leader inspiring and galvanizing the people he was unparalleled. In the end what Churchill won was clearly a Pyrrhic victory.

His policy of bellicose engagement would bring Britain into war with Germany until, by 1945, Britain was too weak to play the role any longer. She would lose her empire because of what Lord Salisbury had said in 1877 was “the commonest error in politics … sticking to the carcass of dead politics.”

You object to Churchill's part in taking Great Britain to war in 1914:

“But, I don't see how Salisbury and Churchill can be contraposed. Even if Salisbury was correct, Churchill had to deal with the world that existed after World War I.”

You seem to forget, that Churchill together with foreign secretary Edward Grey were the leaders of the tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet who had worked tireless since 1906 to take Britain to war against Germany, should she invade France. Grey was the statesman most responsible for the abandonment of 'splendid isolation' and for the secret alliance with France, but Churchill followed with enthusiasm right beside him.

On July 25, 1914 when it appeared that Grey's call for a conference of ambassadors to halt the slide to war might succeed, Churchill “exclaimed moodily that it looked after all as if we were in for a 'bloody peace'.

“Churchill was the only minister to feel any sense of exultation at the course of events”, writes biographer John Charmley. On July 28, he had written his wife Clementine: “My darling one & beautiful: Everything tends toward catastrophe & collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?”

At 11 P.M., August 4, as the ultimatum expired and the moment came when Britain was at war, a tearful Margot Asquit left her husband to go to bed, and as she began to ascend the stairs, “I saw Winston Churchill with a happy face striding towards the double doors of the Cabinet room.”
Lloyd George was sitting within with his disconsolate prime minister when, as he later told a friend:

“Winston dashed into the room, radiant, his face bright, his manner keen, one word pouring out after another how he was going to send telegrams to the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and God knows where. You could see he was a really happy man.”

Churchill was exhilarated. Six months later, after the first battle of Ypres, with tens of thousands of British soldiers in their graves, he would say to Violet Asquith, “I think a curse should rest on me – because I am so happy. I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment and yet – I cannot help it – I enjoy every second.“

Said Sir Maurice Hankey, “Churchill was a man of a totally different type from all his colleagues. He had a real zest for war. If war there must needs be, he at least could enjoy it.”

A year earlier, in his book “Pillars of Society”, A. G. Gardiner had written prophetically of the young First Lord:

“He sees himself moving through the smoke of battle – triumphant, terrible, his brow clothed with thunder, his legions looking to him for victory, and not looking in vain. He thinks of Napoleon; he thinks of his great ancestor. Thus did they bear themselves; thus in this rugged and most awful crisis, will he bear himself. It is not make-believe, it is not insincerity; it is in that fervid and picturesque imagination there are always great deeds afoot with himself cast by destiny in the Agamemnon role. … He will write his name big in the future. Let us take care he does not write it in blood.”

You admit Churchill's 'blunder at the Gallipoli invasion' but that is only one fateful mistake in a long row of blunders. Churchill urged a blockade of the Dardanelles while Turkey was still neutral. He broke all the rules of war. Churchill had been prepared to blockade Antwerp before the Germans invaded, so he brushed aside international law, mined the North Sea, and imposed upon Germany a starvation blockade that violated all previous norms of civilized warfare. In the war's first week, Churchill had wanted to occupy Ameland, one of the Dutch Frisian Islands, though Holland was neutral. To Churchill, writes Martin Gilbert, “Dutch neutrality need be no obstacle.” In December 1914, he recommended that the Royal Navy seize the Danish Island of Bornholm, though Denmark, too, was neutral.

Yet it had been Berlin's violation of Belgium's neutrality that Churchill invoked as a moral outrage to convince Lloyd George to support war on Germany and that had brought the British people around to support war.

You should also consider the change that had taken place in the character of the First Lord, now relishing “this glorious delicious war”, from the twenty-six-year-old MP who had stood with his late father against the folly of excessive armaments. Said young Churchill to the House of Commons in May 1901:

“A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which, if we are ever to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand, perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentration to one end of every vital energy of the community (and) can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of the people will be more terrible than the wars of kings. ...”

Young Churchill's brilliant mind analyzed the consequences of Britain's involvement in major continental wars with impressive clarity. Alas, his ability to think rationally when he acquired political power was overshadowed by his hearts desire for unrestrained war, regardless of the price to be paid in blood, destruction of morality and civilization.

More to follow …

Ole,

You make a very convincing case. Not to mention extremely interesting.

" Alas, his ability to think rationally when he acquired political power was overshadowed by his hearts desire for unrestrained war"

Taking what you say, it sounds like Churchill knew the activity of war very well, and decided that this was the direction he wanted to pursue his career.

So, your case is that

1) Churchill was explicitly aware of the consequences of war (from his 1901 speech);

2) was cognizant of the moral conduct of war (condemnation of German violation of neutrality)

3) consciously chose to violate any morality or convention while pursuing wartime aims (occupying territory of neutral countries, and blockading civilians)

4) actively pursued policies designed to involve Britain in wars, despite the fact that Britain's vital interests were not involved

and

5)derived great joy and satisfaction from the wartime activity which he had been instrumental in making necessary.

It's a pretty devastating case.

Let me ask you a question, though. You mentioned previously that if Britain had not intervened in World War I in 1914, that Germany would have beaten France and Russia.

Would this have been a safe situation for Britain, if Germany won the war so unequivocally? Germany would have been a huge power just across the English channel, with no viable opposition. Germany would have the option of building up its navy at leisure and attacking Britain anytime it chose. Who would Britain be able to ally itself with then?

I think Churchill considered the conquest of France by Germany to be against vital British interests, and by vital, I mean the survival of Britain as an independent country. I'm trying to think of an alternative view, where Britain would not be in mortal danger with a strong, victorious Germany right across the channel, in control of France and without Russian opposition.

I can't see any way where Britain would not be existentially threatened under such a scenario.

I agree with not tolerating the so-called Sharia zones in Britain and any other country in Europe.

I was referring to the guy who is living in Bosnia with his family on welfare who is on the US most-wanted list. The Bosnian government said if the US government wants him, he must have done something wrong.

I simply said, this guy does not seem so dangerous, from the article you referred us to:

"Alleged jihadist wanted by FBI lives openly in Kosovo"

http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/11/24/idINIndia-53115020101124

The guy is an unemployed lumberjack living openly in a shack with his family. I think if we somehow managed to miss picking up this guy and throwing him in Guantanamo, the US would probably manage to survive.

Ronald,

You summarize my position very well in your five points.

“it sounds like Churchill knew the activity of war very well, and decided that this was the direction he wanted to pursue his career.”

Indeed he did. Winston Churchill had been a poor student, except for love of history and mastery of the English language. After five years at Harrow, and three tries, he had been accepted at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. There he excelled, departing in December 1894 eighth in his class.

In October 1896, the young cavalry officer of the 4th Hussars arrived in Bombay. In four years, he would be elected to Parliament.

During his first leave from India, Churchill sailed to Cuba to observe the Spanish in action against the rebels. On return, he learned of a punitive expedition to be led by Sir Bindon Blood to the North-west Frontier to put down a Pashtun uprising on the Afghan border. A year earlier, Churchill had extracted from Sir Bindon a promise to take him along if there was to be fighting. Winston returned from the expedition after six weeks to write “The Story of the Malakind Field Force”, dedicating the book to Sir Bindon. The Prince of Wales sent a note to the young author praising his work.

Churchill then had his mother, a famous beauty, intercede with Prime Minister Salisbury to have him assigned to the army of General Kitchener, who was starting upriver to the Sudan to avenge the death of General “Chinese” Gordon by the Mahdi's army at Khartoum. At Omdurman, Churchill rode in the last cavalry charge of the empire. He would claim to have slain up to half a dozen enemy and came home to write “The River War” containing a very precise description of the Islamic culture. However, in the book he also charged Kitchener with dishonorable treatment of wounded Dervishes.

His moral integrity seemed intact at this time.

But it was the Boer War that made Churchill famous. Traveling to South Africa as a correspondent, he was riding an armored train to the front when it was derailed by Boer commandos under Louis Botha, who took him prisoner. Held with captured British officers in Pretoria – the Boers rejected his protest that he was a journalist and a noncombatant – Churchill escaped. When news, as told by he himself, reached London, he became an international figure. He returned to South Africa, saw action at the humiliating British defeat at Spion Kop, marched to the relief of Ladysmith, and came home one of the most famous young men in the world. Weeks before his twenty-sixth birthday, he was elected to Parliament. There he would remain, with two brief interludes, for sixty-four years.

So, yes, Churchill knew the activity of bloody war very well from education and personal experience, but he did not seek a military career but a political one.

“Let me ask you a question, though. You mentioned previously that if Britain had not intervened in World War I in 1914, that Germany would have beaten France and Russia.

Would this have been a safe situation for Britain, if Germany won the war so unequivocally? Germany would have been a huge power just across the English channel, with no viable opposition. Germany would have the option of building up its navy at leisure and attacking Britain anytime it chose. Who would Britain be able to ally itself with then?”

Most likely there would not have been any major European war in 1914 if Britain had stayed out of the conflict and used diplomacy on the German ambitions to built a High Sea Fleet, and the French ambitions to take back land lost in the 1870 war.

The Austrians did not want a European war. Vienna wanted a short, sharp war to punish Serbia for murdering the heir to the throne and to put an end to Serb plotting to pull apart their empire. For they suspected that Belgrade's ambition was to gather the South Slavs into a united nation where Serbia would sit at the head of the table.

The Austrian ultimatum had been drafted in anticipation of certain rejection, to justify an Austrian declaration of war. But on July 26, Serbia accepted nine of Austria's ten demands, balking only at Vienna's demand to send a delegation to Belgrade to oversee the investigation and prosecution of the conspirators who had murdered the arch duke. Yet, even on this point, the Serbs agreed to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice.

The German Kaiser was relieved and elated. Austria had scored a brilliant diplomatic coup and he could not see what more she wanted. “It was a capitulation of the most humiliating sort”, exclaimed the Kaiser. “With it disappears every reason for war.”

But when the Austrian ambassador in Belgrade received the Serb reply, he picked up his packed bags, boarded the first train out, and, once over the frontier, telephoned Vienna. When news hit that Serbia had failed to submit to all ten Austrian demands, crowds were in the streets clamoring for war. On July 27, the Austro-Hungarian empire declared war. On the twenty-eights, Belgrade was shelled from across the Danube.

But in London, writes historian Robert Massie, “even after Austria declared war and bombarded Belgrade, few in Britain had an inkling that within seven days, England would enter a world war. The man in the street, the majority in the Cabinet and House of Commons still saw the crisis as a distant furor over 'Serbian murderers'.

“The Cabinet was overwhelmingly pacific”, says Churchill. “At least three-quarters of its members were determined not to be drawn into a European quarrel, unless Great Britain were herself attacked, which was not likely.”

Grey and Churchill believed that if France was attacked, Britain must fight. But Britain had no treaty alliance with France. Indeed, why had Britain remained outside the Franco-Russian alliance if not to retain her freedom of action? Gladstone had stayed out of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, and the Liberals wanted Asquith to stay out of this war. Of eighteen ministers who had participated in the Cabinet meeting on Saturday, August 1, twelve opposed war. A Liberal caucus in the House had voted 4 – 1 for neutrality. The Manchester Guardian spoke of “an organized conspiracy to drag us into war.”

For Britain, World War I was not a war of necessity but a war of choice. The Germans did not want war with Britain, nor did they seek to destroy to British Empire. They feared a two front war against a rising Russian Empire and a France resolute upon revenge for 1870 and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Berlin would have paid a high price price for British for British neutrality.

It was a grave mistake not realistic to examine what kind of agreement it was possible to make with Germany to the mutual benefit and security of both countries.

Part of the reason for the diplomatic inaction was British Germanophobia. Britain resented the rise of Germany and feared that a defeat of France would mean German preeminence in Europe and the eclipse of Britain as an economic and world power.

In 1907, preparing for the Hague Conference on disarmament, U.S. Secretary of state Elihu Root sent Ambassador Henry White to London to ascertain British views. According to Allan Nevins, Root's biographer, White was “startled” by what he heard into the stark realization that a European war involving Britain was a possibility. White had several conversations with Balfour, one of which was overheard by White's daughter, who took notes:

Balfour (somewhat lightly):
“We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and take away our trade.”

White: “You are a very high-minded man in private life. How can you possibly contenplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which has a good a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.”

Balfour: “That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war.”

White: “I am shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles.”

Balfour (again lightly): “Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.”

Imperial Ambition and Opportunism. The British war party saw France and Russia as being the cost in blood of land battle in Europe while the Royal Navy, supreme at sea, ravaged Germany's trade, seized her markets, and sank the High Fleet, as the empire gobbled up every German colony from Togoland to the Bismarck Archipelago. A war where France and Russia fought the German army, while Britain did most of her fighting outside Europe, or at sea, matched perfectly the ambitions and strengths of the British Empire.
Thus, in early August 1914, a Cabinet that had come to power in public revulsion against an imperial war in South Africa was happily poring over maps, plotting the plunder of Germany's colonies, as Asquith mused to his colleagues, “We look more like a gang of Elizabethan buccaneers than a meek collection of black-coated Liberal Ministers.”

Again the First World War was an unnecessary conflict. Unnecessary because the train of events that lead to its outbreak might have been broken at any point during the five weeks that preceded the first clash of arms, had prudence or common goodwill found a voice.

Had the Austrians not sought to exploit the assassination of Ferdinand to crush Serbia , they would have taken Serbia's acceptance of nine of their ten demands as vindication. Had Czar Nicolas II been more forceful in rescinding his order for full mobilization, Germany would not have mobilized, and the Schlieffen Plan would not have begun automatically to unfold. Had the German Kaiser and Bethmann realized the gravity of the crisis, just days earlier, they might have seized on Grey's proposal to reconvene the six-power conference that resolved the 1913 Balkan crisis. The same six ambassadors were all in London, including Germany's Prince Lichnowsky, an Anglophile desperate to avoid war with Britain.

Had Grey himself conveyed to Lichnowsky, more forcefully and “just a few says earlier”, that Britain would likely be drawn into a European war, writes one historian”, Berlin almost certainly would have changed its position more quickly and firmly. Austria might then have deferred its declaration of war, and Russia would have little reason to mobilize.” The Great War might have been averted.

And it is in Britain's decisions and actions we should look more closely. For it was the British decision to send an army across the Channel to fight in Western Europe, for the first time in exactly one hundred years, that lead to the defeat of the Schleiffen Plan, four years of trench warfare, America's entry, Germany's collapse in the autumn of 1918, the abdication of the Kaiser, the dismemberment of Germany at Versailles, and the rise to power of a veteran of the Western Front who, four years after the war's end, was unreconciled to his nation's defeat. “It cannot be that two million Germans should have fallen in vain”, cried Adolf Hitler in 1922. “No, we do not pardon, we demand – vengeance.”

Britain turned the European war of August 1 into a world war. For, while the wave of public sentiment against the invasion of “brave little Belgium” swept Parliament over the brink and into war, Grey, Haldane, Churchill, and Asquith had steered her toward the falls other reasons of their own imaginary design.

It should be clear that no vital British interest were threatened if Germany won the conflict. That was an illusion based upon Germanophobia, opportunism and amorality. Britain bears a heavy burden of responsibility for not engaging diplomatically to contain the conflict.

I hope this is sufficient to make you reconsider your conclusion:

“I can't see any way where Britain would not be existentially threatened under such a scenario.”

Deepest apologies. The Carlson book I had in mind was in fact not 'The Plotters', but his earlier book "Under Cover".

"Of course, one little thing that Ole Hartling is hoping we forget about, is that Germany was allied with Muslim Turkey...

Presumably Ole Hartling would much prefer a world without Israel...Israel whose coming-to-be, though impeded by the British at virtually every turn, nevertheless could not have happened had Allenby and others not ended Turkish Muslim rule over 'Palestine'."

Dumble...
That's very interesting, and I have bookmarked your reference to "The Barbarism of Berlin".

However, I can't help thinking that your contribution is another discussion altogether. Ole Hartling was writing on the question of whether it was in the vital interests of Britain to become involved in World War I, and whether Churchill was acting in the interests of the British, or out of his own lust for wartime action, when he pressed the British government to involve itself in the disputes of France and Germany.

He made what to me was a strong case that the British inner cabinet was thinking that they could take a relatively inexpensive military route to extending their empire by grabbing Germany's expanding commercial network.

Hartling also made the case that Britain could have taken steps which most likely would have avoided World War I altogether.

This really had very little to do with the moral character of the Germans. Chesterton is, rightfully, critical of the German attack on Belgium, but Hartling points out that Churchill was more than willing to invade the territories of neutral countries when it served the British strategic interests.

As far as the creation of Israel, remember that the Holocaust was perhaps the most devastating tragedy in Jewish history. The roots of the Holocaust, as opposed to German, French, or even British antisemitism, lies in the horrific reparations imposed on Germany, bringing into being the Nazi government, and the personal history of Adolph Hitler, as shaped by his World War I experiences in the trenches.

Recall that Italy had a fascist government, similar to Germany's in many respects, but Italy did not specifically target Jews until taken over by the Nazis.

In other words, much as I admire Israel, from the standpoint of Jewish survival, it would have been far preferable for the European Jews to have not been slaughtered, even if that meant that the Jewish presence in the Middle East were even now, part of a province of the Ottoman empire.

”Of course, one little thing that Ole Hartling is hoping we forget about, is that Germany was allied with Muslim Turkey.
Germany knew all about the genocide of the Armenian Christians; Germans actually saw it happening.”

Just one little thing my opponent seems to forget is that the starting date of the Armenian genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915.

Also my good opponent should ask herself who among the major european powers had traditionally and for the longest period been in alliance with the ottomans?

The answer is of course France, from 1536, and the anti-Habsburg policies of Elizabeth I (1533–1603) also created an Anglo-Ottoman rapprochement, as a result of which England was given promises of military assistance and was awarded with a commercial treaty. This cooperation continued in the 17th century as well.

Actually in 1911, the Turks had sounded out Great Britain on an alliance, but Churchill, ”with the arrogance of his class in that time, had replied that they had ideas above their station.” He warned the Turks “not to alienate Britain which 'alone among European states … retains supremacy at sea.'”

Churchill's insults should prove costly. On August 2, 1914, Germany and Turkey signed a secret alliance and in 1915 Turkish troops inflicted on British and Anzac troops at Gallipoli one of the greatest Allied defeats of the war.

Churchill's affront to the Turks was “an almost unbelievable act”, writes William Manchester, that tore down “a British bulwark and thereby set the stage for a disaster whose chief victim would be he himself.”

My opponent put forward another intelligent question:

“And here's an interesting question: had World War One never happened, would the Ottoman Empire have fallen?
Would the Muslims have lost Jerusalem?”

Yes, the Ottoman Empire was doomed and would have fallen for almost the same reasons the Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated into a number of independent states.

To my knowledge the Muslims never lost more than half of Jerusalem. Even Israel recognize that.

Another reflection from the abyss of magical thinking:

“Presumably Ole Hartling would much prefer a world without Israel...Israel whose coming-to-be, though impeded by the British at virtually every turn, nevertheless could not have happened had Allenby and others not ended Turkish Muslim rule over 'Palestine'.”

Presumably my opponent did not notice my strong democratic position and consistent advocacy for Israel's right to defend itself inside secure and defensible borders.

I would prefer a word where democracies did not make alliances with dictatorships because of short sighted advantages, but primarily supported each other. The most fatal alliance was not the German-Ottoman but the ability of the Ottoman Empire to play major European powers against each other for hundred of years and thus preventing the creation of a united Christian and later democratic front to dismantle the Ottoman regime and dispel all Turkish settelers from Europe. France and Britain is most to blame – not Germany!

I am in complete agreement with the analysis by Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia, just to clear up any further misunderstandings and prevent emotional rantings.

"I do not think Chesterton was deceived about the disease that had infected Prussia...and much more than Prussia, ..."

What disease is that? Prussian militarism seeking world domination? Jew hatred? Germans as Supermen with a divine right to conquer? Or what?

Let us look at the facts.

In defense of the British declaration of war on Germany, it is often said that Britain had to save the world from "Prussian militarism" - the relentless drive for world domination of the Teutonic warrior race.

Yet in retrospect, this appears a modern myth not unlike the infamous Black Legend, in which the English once held that only evil emanated from Catholic Spain. Looking back on the century 1815 - 1914, from Waterloo to the Great War, Germany appears to have been among the least militaristic of European Powers.

In the period Britain fought 10 wars, Russia 7, France 5, Austria 3, and Germany 3.

From 1871 to 1914, the Germans under Bismarck and the Kaiser did not fight a single war. While Britain, Russia, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Spain, and the United States were all involved in wars, Germany and Austria had clean records. And if Germany had not gone to war in fourty-three years, and the Kaiser had never gone to war in his twenty five years on the throne, how can one call Germany - as British statesmen did and British historians still do - the "Butcher-bird of Europe"?

In the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great had been an ally of Pitt. During his reign, 1740-1786, "Prussia spent fewer years at war ... than any other major European power." In the Nepoleonic wars, Prussia had been overrun and almost vanished from the map and Prussians under Field Marshal Gebhard von Blücker had come to Wellington's rescue at Waterloo.

In the three wars Prussia fought between 1815 and 1914, the first was provoked by Denmark in 1864 and involved disputed duchies. The second, in 1866 with Austria, over the same duchies, was a "Teutonic" civil war of seven weeks, and a far less bloody affair than the American civil war.
On Bismarck's advice, the King of Prussia left the Hapsburg empire intact and denied himself a triumphal parade through Vienna.

The third was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, declared by Napoleon III, who thought he could emulate his great ancestor and march to Berlin.

What were Prussia's territorial gains from the only wars she fought in the century after Waterloo? Two small duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. Is this the record of a butcher-bird nation hell-bent on world domination?

In 1914, Churchill denounced Wilhelm II as a Prussian warlord out to take over the world. Yet the Kaiser had never fought a war in his twenty-five years in power and he had never seen a battle. In the two Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911, it was he who had backed down. The German army had never fought the English and indeed had not fought a battle in nearly half a century.

As I wrote above, Churchill, however, was already a veteran of wars. He had seen action with Sir Bindon Blood on the Northwest Frontier at the border to Afghanistan. He had ridden with Kitchener's cavalry in the massacre of the Dervishes at Omdurman in the Sudan. He had been captured riding in an armored train in the first days of the Boer War, been held as POW, escaped, and then marched with the British army to the relief of Ladysmith.

Britain had engaged in many more wars than Germany in the century before Sarajevo, and Churchill had himself seen more war than almost any soldier in the German army.

Those are the facts, so spare us for more nonsense about the 'disease that had infected Prussia'. The use of such a terminology is distasteful, and utterly racist.

I was not talking about 'race'.

When I spoke of a 'disease' I was writing metaphorically, to describe a *philosophical* or a *cultural* sickness. Ideas, not genes. Bad ideas being put forward and then people choosing, for whatever reason, to accept them and act them out. And bad ideas can be embraced by small, weak nations just as readily as by large, strong ones; being small and weak is no guarantee of virtue (neither, of course, is size and strength).

And you can't avoid the fact that Nietzsche was a German, and wrote in German. I'm not saying that 'being German' determined what he thought - far from it, after all, J S Bach was German; and I have German ancestors myself. But the simple historic fact is that Nietzsche was German, and that's where his destructive ideas first began to take root and, seemingly, fell on many receptive ears.

Usually it is Muslims, who, when presented with unpleasant facts, resort to the most primitive and best known defense mechanism – DENIAL. People simply ignore unpleasant facts, they filter out data and content that contravene their self-image, prejudices, and preconceived notions of others and of the world.

Honestly, I did not expect a brilliant and well informed debater like dumbledoresarmy regressing to denial to keep her prejudices and preconceived notions about my person intact:

“Hartling seems able to view with equanimity or even with regret (?) the idea of an alternative history of the twentieth century that would have "meant that the Jewish presence in the Middle East [would be] even now, part of a province of the Ottoman empire."
since he presumably thinks that being a non-Muslim, or indeed specifically Jewish, inhabitant of an Ottoman empire province was, of course, just fine and dandy...no different from being an inhabitant of a free non-Muslim nation?”

It was RonaldB and not me who wrote:

“In other words, much as I admire Israel, from the standpoint of Jewish survival, it would have been far preferable for the European Jews to have not been slaughtered, even if that meant that the Jewish presence in the Middle East were even now, part of a province of the Ottoman empire.”

Probably inspired by Ronald's scenario of a surviving Ottoman Empire the opponent posed a direct question to me:

“And here's an interesting question: had World War One never happened, would the Ottoman Empire have fallen?
Would the Muslims have lost Jerusalem?”

I gave the following answer to the two questions:

“Yes, the Ottoman Empire was doomed and would have fallen for almost the same reasons the Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated into a number of independent states. 

To my knowledge the Muslims never lost more than half of Jerusalem. Even Israel recognize that.”

A clear case of denial. And, I suspect, also condensation: “an essential process in dream work and more generally in primary-process thinking. We tend to view it as a way of attributing, to a person or representative object, characteristics and properties that, from the point of view of latent thoughts, belong to other persons or objects.”

It works like this. Ronald contradicts and irritate the opponent by supporting the arguments put forward by Ole.

Unconsciously in the primary-process thinking Ole and Ronald becomes identical. I suggest that the opponent tries to engage her secondary-process of thinking:

“the logical thinking of the ego that enables it to perform its executive functions, including separating internal fantasy from external reality, creating accurate internal representations, judging the results of one's actions, locating events in linear time, solving problems, tendency to delay gratification by regulation of actions based on instinctual demands, and communicating clearly.”

I will not deny that it was gratifying writing this comment. ;-)

Ipso facto - and yes, you ARE ipsofacto, I am convinced, no matter how vehemently you may deny it, your declared nationality, your posting style and the kinds of sources you use and promote ( still using Patrick Buchanan as one of your main definitive sources for the 20th century history of the Anglosphere? I recall Wellington calling you out on that one), give you away.

And what is with the sneering, the sarcasm, point-scoring and pop psychology? Though, since you've made it plain that you thoroughly dislike me and are **DELIGHTED** to seize a chance to destroy my credibility as a poster here by representing me as unhinged mentally, let me say honestly, the feeling is mutual. I don't trust you. I never have and I never will. I like and trust many, many other people in this forum...but not you. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You're NOT on my 'people from jihadwatch I wish I could invite to a dinner party' list.

Has it occurred to you, as you wrote that 'cat got your tongue' piece of schoolyard crowing, that my not coming back to this thread for days, may have been for any number of reasons entirely unrelated to my assumed collapse or retreat caused (so you suppose ) by your crushing reply? Which reply indeed, I didn't see or read at all. I posted the posting of July 16 11.08 and feeling no need to say anything else, moved on to other things (not just to other, newer threads, but to all manner of things that took me right away from the internet altogether); the only reason I saw your reply at all is that I do sometimes, after having been away for a day or two or three, stroll back through old threads, not necessarily to revisit old arguments with specific people, but out of pure curiosity ...and because hostile *Muslim* posters sometimes go through 'planting' nasty comments at the tail-end of old threads, hoping no-one will notice. My habit of occasionally rereading old threads has enabled me, at times, to help Marisol get rid of things we don't need.

Now, to speak generally, on the subject of a. the Ottoman Empire and b. the Shoah.

*You* profess to be sure that the Ottoman Empire would have fallen even if World War One had not happened. But you can't know for certain that that would have happened, or even if it did, that it would have happened in the same way. I think the Ottoman Empire weakened itself considerably by picking the wrong horse to back in WWI and therefore accelerated its own collapse; without WWI it might have hung around a good while longer, causing even more trouble. And they were massacring the Armenians in the 1890s, and the Bulgarians well before that, so the genocide of the Armenians might not necessarily have been averted by WWI not happening. Muslim entities have a historic habit of repeatedly mass-murdering portions of their dhimmi populations.

As for the Shoah.

Given that WWI *happened* it still does not follow that the Shoah was inevitable. What if Hitler had been among the dead of WWI?

And again, granted the existence and rise of Hitler, and the unloosing of the Shoah, there is still no necessity for it to have killed as many Jews as it did.

Thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of Jews could have escaped, who otherwise perished, simply because in the late 1930s the Arabist Islamophiles in the British Foreign Office and elsewhere, slammed tight shut the gates of Mandatory Palestine against those desperate, terrified Jews who were trying to flee from Europe.

It is the foot-dragging of Britain's rulers over the terms of the Mandate during the entire period that they had it - their persistent refusal to promote or facilitate (and indeed their active **discouragement** and finally outright *obstruction* of) Jewish settlement in Mandatory Palestine, and at the same time, their connivance with the Arab Muslims at every turn, and winking at the massive illegal immigration of *Arabs* (all Muslim) into the same Mandatory Palestine, that is the *real* sin for which the UK of the early 20th century can and should be castigated. *That** Muslim-appeasing process of discouragement and limiting of Jewish entry into Mandatory Palestine, which culminated in the infamous 'White Paper' of 1939, is what Britain should regret.

That's what *I* condemn.

Ole Hartling wrote, among many other false and silly things:

Just one little thing my opponent seems to forget is that the starting date of the Armenian genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915.
..............................

What *absolute rot*. The Armenian genocide was conducted in several successive waves, the earliest taking place in the late 19th century, and the last ending in 1922 with the destruction of the city of Smyrna.

By 1915, the genocide had been going on for *at least twenty-five years*.

Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris" is a good history of this horrific period.