noemon wrote:No you haven't...
Here more:
Certainly one of the most telling indicators in this matter was the prevalence of intermarriage. Intermarriage was even more common out in the countryside and among the military where there was not as much of a wealth and status difference between the Egyptians and Greeks. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that in almost every case the documentation shows a Greek or Macedonian man marrying an Egyptian woman and seldom an Egyptian man marrying a Greek woman. The law seems to have been that the children inherited their ethnic identification through the father. A Greek woman marrying an Egyptian man would probably be losing her status (“marrying down”). However, in the end run, Egyptian culture was always more tolerant in its outlook than the Greek.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ ... gypt_4.htm
noemon wrote:... and even if Greeks had sex with foreign women, their offspring would not have been considered a legal citizen in any ancient Greek state whether in Greece or Egypt or Persia.
To have sex and to marry are different things. A Greek man could marry any women he wanted, and the children were considered Greek. With Greek women it was different.
noemon wrote:Btw, the western Nordic world has had far less restrictions on citizenship and marriage than ancient Greeks and they still have not turned brown.
They were isolated by natural barriers in North Europe. BTW, the Goth and Vandals that conquered Tunisia and other African countries could not leave any traces, they disappeared and the sea of brown people.
noemon wrote:And there is plenty of evidence of modern Germans and English people marrying Arabs and others.
Yes, and their descendants are brown, because the racial traits of North Europeans are recessive traits.
noemon wrote:So all the historians that point out German complicity in the Armenian genocide ...
All? You were able to name a couple of historians, and what do you mean with "German complicity"? Was it the official policy of the Kaiserreich?
If yes, how could it be possible that German officers reported about this genocide?
If some German officers just decided to close an eye on the crimes of their allies, how can you call this "German complicity"?
According to your logic there was a Jewish complicity, because Jews were over represented among the Young Turks.
noemon wrote: The funny thing is that you brought this upon yourself when you started blaming the Brits, of course forgetting that the Germans were official Turkish allies.
Well, the Kaiserreich did not have any long-term strategic plans, considering the Turkey, it just happened that the Ottomans were allies of the Kaiserreich.
What to Zionists, they had long-term strategic plans about the Osman Empire, because Palestine was a province of this Empire.
In 1851, correspondence between Lord Stanley, whose father became British Prime Minister the following year, and Benjamin Disraeli, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him, records Disraeli's proto-Zionist views: "He then unfolded a plan of restoring the nation to Palestine—said the country was admirably suited for them—the financiers all over Europe might help—the Porte is weak—the Turks/holders of property could be bought out—this, he said, was the object of his life...." Coningsby was merely a feelermy views were not fully developed at that time—since then all I have written has been for one purpose. The man who should restore the Hebrew race to their country would be the Messiah—the real saviour of prophecy!" He did not add formally that he aspired to play this part, but it was evidently implied. He thought very highly of the capabilities of the country, and hinted that his chief object in acquiring power here would be to promote the return".[20][21] 26 years later, Disraeli wrote in his article entitled "The Jewish Question is the Oriental Quest" (1877) that within fifty years, a nation of one million Jews would reside in Palestine under the guidance of the British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism
And here some other Jewish sources:
In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America's influential Jewish community to support United States intervention in the war and sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war. Fears were also voiced in the Foreign Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity in Palestine the Germans would preempt them. Finally, both Lloyd George and Balfour were devout churchgoers who attached great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in their ancient homeland.
The negotiations for a Jewish entity were carried out by Weizmann, who greatly impressed Balfour and maintained important links with the British media. In support of the Zionist cause, his protracted and skillful negotiations with the Foreign Office were climaxed on November 2, 1917, by the letter from the foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild, which became known as the Balfour Declaration. This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People," and announced an intent to facilitate the achievement of this objective. The letter added the provision of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The Balfour Declaration radically changed the status of the Zionist movement. It promised support from a major world power and gave the Zionists international recognition. Zionism was transformed by the British pledge from a quixotic dream into a legitimate and achievable undertaking. For these reasons, the Balfour Declaration was widely criticized throughout the Arab world, and especially in Palestine, as contrary to the spirit of British pledges contained in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence.
On December 9, 1917, five weeks after the Balfour Declaration, British troops led by General Sir Edmund Allenby took Jerusalem from the Turks; Turkish forces in Syria were subsequently defeated; an armistice was concluded with Turkey on October 31, 1918; and all of Palestine came under British military rule.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... y/ww1.html
How Herzl Sold Out the Armenians
He supported the brutal Ottoman sultan against them, believing this would get the sultan to sell Palestine to the Jews.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.654393
And now use your brain and think about the history of the 20th century.
How could the dream of Disraeli become true, if in the history of the 20th century something went not as it was planned?
_________________________________________________________________________________
"I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them".
J. Stein