Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

The Lusitania, as a passenger ship that presented no threat to a submarine, could not legally be sunk either with or without warning. The German attack was a clear and unarguable violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

Try to let it sink in that the sinking of the Lusitania was a war crime. There is no other possible interpretation.

He simple ignores that his own countrymen discovered that the Lusitania carried millions of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill tens of thousands of Germans and hence was a legitimate target, as even the Daily Mail confesses.

 

[Hans]

But the Germans of that time had no idea it was carrying that material. They attacked a civilian ship.

 

[9/11-investigator]

But the Germans of that time had no idea it was carrying that material. They attacked a civilian ship.

Hans markets himself as a clearvoyant.

Maybe the airconditioner is not working in Bahrain?

Why would the Germans provoke the US without a good reason?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html
Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

See?

The real interesting questions of course are:

1) how the did Germans know that the Lusitania contained contrabande?
2) who put the contrabande in the Lusitania?

Answer-1: very likely 'leaked' intentionally to provoke the attack. I mean having the Balfour declaration in your pocket is one thing, the next problem to be solved is getting Germany into a war with the US.
Answer-2: even I am reluctant to say 'the Jews', after all the sinking of the Lusitania happened 2 years before the Balfour declaration.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He simple ignores that his own countrymen discovered that the Lusitania carried millions of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill tens of thousands of Germans and hence was a legitimate target, as even the Daily Mail confesses.

There's no need to ignore any such thing. The Lusitania, as a civilian passenger ship, was not a legitimate target for an undeclared attack, and could not by law be sunk, even though her cargo is well-known to have included small arms ammunition intended for use by the British Army against the German Army. I suggest you study the Hague Conventions, which are an infinitely more authoritative source for the nature and content of international law than a poor-quality, sensationalist tabloid newspaper.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

Yep, Jews. Here my blog:

http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

Support blog:

http://911notes.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the warning.

 

[dafydd]

"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

The eternal English inferiority complex (based in reality) towards the Germans.
Still alive and kicking in English people today, cheering for the Argentinian soccer team while it plays Germany (4-0 ).

And they will even ally themselves with the biggest mass murderers in history to get the Germans down and then make up stories afterwards to make themselves look good... English.... Angelen und Sachsen themselves, 2nd hand Germans, immigrants to the British Isles from Germany after the Roman era, probably meaning losers ('huddled masses') from Germany trying to build a living elsewhere.

Don't you English understand what a deadly combination historical WW/H-word revisionism, the internet and the crumbling of the multicultural ideal will mean for the future and moral standing of your country?

It's British,not English. The rest of the post is brainless crap too.Par for the course for an ignorant neo-nacho like you.

 

[9/11-investigator]

There's no need to ignore any such thing. The Lusitania, as a civilian passenger ship, was not a legitimate target for an undeclared attack, and could not by law be sunk, even though her cargo is well-known to have included small arms ammunition intended for use by the British Army against the German Army. I suggest you study the Hague Conventions, which are an infinitely more authoritative source for the nature and content of international law than a poor-quality, sensationalist tabloid newspaper.

Dave

Country A delivering war material to country B, which is at war with country C, is a clear act of war of country A towards country C.

Whatever The Hague says.
(Dave has yet to prove his statement that 'The Hague' opposed the actions of the Germans without proof. I suggest Dave studies the Hague Conventions)

 

[VonKleist]

"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

Have you actually read Emrys Hughes' book? Or did you just copy-paste this quote from some website without checking whether the book's title was even correct or not?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Have you actually read Emrys Hughes' book? Or did you just copy-paste this quote from some website without checking whether the book's title was even correct or not?

Ah, I see gareth has recovered from the smashing defeat against Germany!

The quote is everywhere on the internet, do you really doubt that the quote is in said book (1955)? That's a non-starter.

If I were you I would JREF-style demand 'proof' that Churchill really said it.

Meanwhile, this poster says it all:

http://www.hschamberlain.net/timeline/lusitania.jpg

 

[VonKleist]

Ah, I see gareth has recovered from the smashing defeat against Germany!

Why would I be recovering? You think I am either Argentinian, English or Australian?

The quote is everywhere on the internet, do you really doubt that the quote is in said book (1955)? That's a non-starter.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you had read the book. The edition you've just linked to has a different title to the one you copy-pasted.

Here's another quote from Emrys Hughes' book:

In 1935 Churchill said: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we could find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations".

-"Winston Churchill in war and peace" Emrys Hughes, p. 139)

 

[gtm]

"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

The eternal English inferiority complex (based in reality) towards the Germans.
Still alive and kicking in English people today, cheering for the Argentinian soccer team while it plays Germany (4-0 ).

And they will even ally themselves with the biggest mass murderers in history to get the Germans down and then make up stories afterwards to make themselves look good... English.... Angelen und Sachsen themselves, 2nd hand Germans, immigrants to the British Isles from Germany after the Roman era, probably meaning losers ('huddled masses') from Germany trying to build a living elsewhere.

Don't you English understand what a deadly combination historical WW/H-word revisionism, the internet and the crumbling of the multicultural ideal will mean for the future and moral standing of your country?

What a load of unpleasant guff.

The future & moral standing of my country is in good hands thanks very much. You shouldn't worry about us - we've got it covered.

 

[dafydd]

What a load of unpleasant guff.

The future & moral standing of my country is in good hands thanks very much. You shouldn't worry about us - we've got it covered.

Yes,and we don't need advice from ignorant goons like him.He should crawl back in his rat hole,just like his glorious Fuhrer did.

 

[9/11-investigator]

As for why America got involved, I'd just like to suggest that the greatest disappointment in history for the conspiracy theorist must be the comprehensive admission by the German government that the Zimmerman telegram was genuine. Still, Zimmerman sounds Jewish, and I'm sure that's all that counts.

Zimmerman does not sound Jewish at all, but refers to an honest 'Aryan' occupation: Carpenter. Jewish names often refer to money: Goldman, Silverstein, Rubin, Pearl, Safire, Lendman, etc.

Interesting, this Zimmerman telegram. Could you elaborate about it? As I said I am here also to learn new things about WW1.

Thanks in advance!

 

[9/11-investigator]

The future & moral standing of my country is in good hands thanks very much. You shouldn't worry about us - we've got it covered.

Not sure if you refer to Israel or England (are Scotland and Wales still part of the British empire?)?

gtm informed us earlier:

...As an Englishman of party jewish descent...

 

[dafydd]

Zimmerman does not sound Jewish at all, but refers to an honest 'Aryan' occupation: Carpenter. Jewish names often refer to money: Goldman, Silverstein, Rubin, Pearl, Safire, etc.

Interesting, this Zimmerman telegram. Could you elaborate about it? As I said I am here also to learn new things about WW1.

Thanks in advance!

You really are so ignorant,and as another Jewish Zimmerman once sang,''It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.''

 

[dafydd]

Not sure if you refer to Israel or England (are Scotland and Wales still part of the British empire?)?

Don't be so stupid.Scotland and Wales are part of Britain.Still,we are getting used to supplementing your meagre knowledge.Stick around,you might learn something.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Country A delivering war material to country B, which is at war with country C, is a clear act of war of country A towards country C.

Nope. It has always been recognised in international law that neutral countries may supply war material to combatants and that this is not a hostile act. Again, check the Hague Conventions.

Whatever The Hague says.
(Dave has yet to prove his statement that 'The Hague' opposed the actions of the Germans without proof. I suggest Dave studies the Hague Conventions)

It sounds to me like you know virtually nothing about international law, and are hoping not to be caught out.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

Nope. It has always been recognised in international law that neutral countries may supply war material to combatants and that this is not a hostile act. Again, check the Hague Conventions.



It sounds to me like you know virtually nothing about international lawanything, and are hoping not to be caught out.

Dave

Fixed

 

[Dave Rogers]

Interesting, this Zimmerman telegram. Could you elaborate about it? As I said I am here also to learn new things about WW1.

http://tinyurl.com/3xqas4l

Dave

 

[gtm]

Not sure if you refer to Israel or England (are Scotland and Wales still part of the British empire?)?

gtm informed us earlier:

We do have jewish british citizens - the two things are not mutually exclusive. In the Netherlands you used to have a vibrant jewish community. We all know what happened to them.

I'm not Jewish (my mother wasn't one) but yes I have jewish antecedents via my fathers family.