More of the same?

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Feb 7, 2007 at 18:27

Of the two of us, only one has done everything possible to change the subject: namely you. I have pointedly reasserted my position and you have dilligently avoided doing anything other than try to fog the issues at hand.

For the fifth, sixth or seventh time (I'm losing count here )......

You may have 'the impression" that I am a reasonably intelligent person, but I can say with little doubt that your inability to construct a coherent argument based on fact rather than hyperbole and your greater inability to actually confront points that you do not like with anything other than generalised propaganda as a rebuttal places you very far down the food chain indeed. You obviously swim in the shallow end with the likes of Infidel (an appropriate handle given it's association with the word 'infidel-ity".

You have previously conceded, after much resistance, that the British did, in fact, take Palestine from the Turks during World War I. As anybody with a basic knowledge of history can tell you, this led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 which in turn led to League of Nations mandate for Palestine, which in turn led to mass immigration of Jews to Palestine which in turn led to the eventual forming of the state of Israel. Given that the British capture of Palestine was the first link in this chain is therefore as clear as the nose on your face that 'Without the British, the Jews would have 0% of Palestine." This is what happened. Your argument? Speculation about what might, but didn't, happen. Unless you imagine that the 80,000 Jews living in Palestine in the period just prior to WWI would have spontaneously taken the region singlehandedly? Not likely. Let's stick to what DID happen, as uncomfortable as it may be for you.

What changed the previous thousand years of Jewish impotence in terms of Israel as a homeland? The above.

Tell which part of the above central paragraph is incorrect and you may go some way to correcting the impression that you've hitherto given of being a loud and ignorant bag of wind. Quite how two sentences form a 'rant' is a further illustration of just how estranged from reality you truly are.

When engaging in debate it is quite clear that you are of the school that wears people down with obtuseness rather than by any alacrity with words. This is an effective strategy when dealing with your betters, but obviously has the unfortunate consequence of giving you an estimation of your intellectual worth that clearly has no foundation in reality. You will have the last word, I am sure, but as a result of your lack of intellectual acuity - not because of it.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".