Sad Irony in History

[joespaniel]

I agree with Richard that Isreal finally seems to be "retaliating" in the most effective way. Selecting their targets carefully and purposefully.

I wonder where they got that idea from...

 

[jon78]

I'll try to answer a few of you.

http://www.great-britain.co.uk/history/post45.htm

britain was bancrupted for several reasons. and one of the reasons the situation was outta hand was because there was no food. they sent alot of food to germany (anybody wants to object on this?). ppl get very angry when there is no food.
this was the time when the brits introduced fish & ships to the world cuisine. it was simple and cheap and involved fish, hence no revolution.


it's funny for me who had relatives in c-camps during WW2 to be called a holocaust denier. and it's very interesting not to be able to argue with stuff that belongs to the jewish history. why monopolize history? have you ever heard this line before: "the winning side writes the history"? do you ever think there is a history book that claims "the truth". totally objective?

do you think your sources are objective? CNN is probably the least objective of all the western newschannels, and in the US this is the perhaps most important one as most ppl watch it.

back to the UN resolution. that's bringing the story out of it's context. correct me if I am wrong but "the jewish state" the UN resolution accepted covered nothing else than the jewish settlements current -46. how many percent of the current state of Israel is that? 2%?

now, I am aware of the palestinian uprising but I don't see the ethnical cleansing of the Palestinian ppl any different from Hitler's. how many ppl in Israel would love to see the palestinian ppl wiped out? is that not "the same thing" as the horrible "holocaust" which have NO similar magnitude in history EVER? why come they don't say that Hitler tried to wipe out the gypsie ppl? looking at the numbers this is much more true than the jews.

and NO I don't think it's fair for a nation to use arms even if necessary. I don't believe in nations either. to answer that question: I'd love to see 25 million afghans coming here. then maybe we could get something done! they could do all the boring stuff I don't want to do.

and no, I don't believe in economic aid either. I don't think it solves any problems. the reason there is developing countries is because we in this part of the world want them to remain developing countries. otherwise that t-shirt you wear would cost much more, and probably been made in the country you live in, and not nicaragua/ china or whatever it says on the back.

about the genetical similarities between the Israelis and Palestinians, of course this isn't something I can prove without having you ppl living there going to have your gene-setup examined. but it would be a great scoop if any of you is a journalist.

the only history-book I have available at the moment is forum "when happened what 1500-1990", which is not very comprehensive which makes me unable to find most of the stuff I look for. ISBN: 91-37-10047-5.

however, I'd love to read your history books. can you give me their ISBN:s please?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Richard III

I have never been more of a supporter of "Israeli retaliation" than lately, where retaliation tends to be swooping in and arresting actual planners or culprits instead of bulldozing a bunch of houses, building a settlement, bombing some random facility or cutting off all access from the OT.

I've never heard about Israeli troops bombing "random facilities" or anyone randomly. All the attacks are against specific targets. Houses are bulldozed if they're used as a military post for the Tanzim, settlments are built by people - not by the Israeli goverment, and closures are putted only if necessary and there's no other place.
Ofcource, it's much better to capture their weapons before they have a chance to use them, but it's not always possible.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by jon78
it's funny for me who had relatives in c-camps during WW2 to be called a holocaust denier. and it's very interesting not to be able to argue with stuff that belongs to the jewish history. why monopolize history? have you ever heard this line before: "the winning side writes the history"? do you ever think there is a history book that claims "the truth". totally objective?

do you think your sources are objective? CNN is probably the least objective of all the western newschannels, and in the US this is the perhaps most important one as most ppl watch it.

back to the UN resolution. that's bringing the story out of it's context. correct me if I am wrong but "the jewish state" the UN resolution accepted covered nothing else than the jewish settlements current -46. how many percent of the current state of Israel is that? 2%?

now, I am aware of the palestinian uprising but I don't see the ethnical cleansing of the Palestinian ppl any different from Hitler's. how many ppl in Israel would love to see the palestinian ppl wiped out? is that not "the same thing" as the horrible "holocaust" which have NO similar magnitude in history EVER? why come they don't say that Hitler tried to wipe out the gypsie ppl? looking at the numbers this is much more true than the jews.

and NO I don't think it's fair for a nation to use arms even if necessary. I don't believe in nations either. to answer that question: I'd love to see 25 million afghans coming here. then maybe we could get something done! they could do all the boring stuff I don't want to do.

and no, I don't believe in economic aid either. I don't think it solves any problems. the reason there is developing countries is because we in this part of the world want them to remain developing countries. otherwise that t-shirt you wear would cost much more, and probably been made in the country you live in, and not nicaragua/ china or whatever it says on the back.

about the genetical similarities between the Israelis and Palestinians, of course this isn't something I can prove without having you ppl living there going to have your gene-setup examined. but it would be a great scoop if any of you is a journalist.

the only history-book I have available at the moment is forum "when happened what 1500-1990", which is not very comprehensive which makes me unable to find most of the stuff I look for. ISBN: 91-37-10047-5.

however, I'd love to read your history books. can you give me their ISBN:s please?

Here are ome points you should think about -
A. The site you linked to doesn't say anything about a communist revolution
B. Israel isn't doing any "ethnical cleansing of the Palestinian ppl ".
C. The UN gave Israel a country with very clear borders
D. In 1947 there was a similar number of jews and Palestinians in Israel and jews lived on an area much larger then 2%. care to tell us were you got these "facts" from?
E. You agree to let 25 million afghans into Sweden but not to give them anything? That'll be the largest ethnic cleansing in history.
F. Israelis and Palestinians have very little genetic similaritis, and most of those that exist today are because many Israelis come from the same countries Palestinians came from.
G. Give me one exaple when CNN said something wrong.
H. If you have only one history book as a resource I think you shouldn't believe it too much. I use facts only after verifying them with at least three history books.

 

[jon78]

in the aftermath of the wtc-incident I studied the newsreaders voices and tones when they proclaimed the "news".

same day as a 10 minute story of a WTC-victimized family they swapped to a palestinian shot by Israelis on palestinian territory who had to wait for 15 minutes or so until the ambulance arrived, got first help and then finally got killed by a Israeli grenade thrown into the ambulance. the paramedics were killed aswell, of course. the pictures clearly made visible the bulletholes from rifles on the side of the ambulance.
the same day the Israeli army and navy shot several missiles into a palestinian refugee camp. <= observe the word refugee.

during the new york story the tone of the newsreaders where very very emotional. I have no problem with that... but when it came to the palestinian victims they were extremely rational, objective and didn't hint a single emotion in their voices. is it just me or is the media twisted out of context?

 

[jon78]

sigh. I didn't say I had one history book stupid. I have multiple sources for most of the stuff I gather. right now I am in a situation where I must prove everything which is not very easy when you're not in the comfort of your home and equipment.

secondly it's not who has RIGHT or WRONG. it is what you wish to project that matters. media isn't about telling you what happens, it's about controlling the way ppl interpret the world. it's very different to say: "the US put most japanese ppl in the US in c-camps during ww2", and "the germans put most jewish ppl in europe in c-camps during ww2". both are true. you can say what you wish. both are taken out of it's context and makes brilliant headlines in different parts of the world depending on the writers ideology. in mid and far east the american treatment of the civilian japs are often very well known. so much for objectivism.

 

[G-Man]

In this case the media really did change the facts- the situation you described never happened.

 

[jon78]

I am growing tired of this discussion and subject. are your history more "scientific" than mine?

give me the names and ISBN numbers of your history books, mr suit.

 

[IceBlaZe]

jon78, it is hard to believe how much of a hypocrit you are.
You are saying CNN were more emotional about americans dying than palestiniens dying, its just the same as this situation:
Who do you cry more for? a close relative that died (For Example: Father/Mother/Brother/Sister) or a 1000 palestiniens (which hasn't happened yet)?
Saying Israel is doing 'ethnic clensing' is not true not even in the smallest factor. Show me one OBJECTIVE and TRUSTED source that proves israel is doing ethnic clensing. And dont use distant sites about history, personally written, for objective info use sites such as britannica.com or encyclopedia.com .
If it comes for news, the news show show firstly what most touches the residents of the news channel, and the least related news latest. Why would an american be interested in a palestinien news story more than in that 3,500 victims of the WTC attack?
You are also being very racist, by saying you wouldnt mind to get one 25 million afghans to your country as long as they do all the boring stuff (Which I persume is the black work).
Isnt that the same as slavery?

'sigh. I didn't say I had one history book stupid'
'the only history-book I have available at the moment is forum "when happened what 1500-1990", '
ONLY means ONLY and excuse us from persuming ONLY MEANS ONE.
You watch your mouth before calling someone stupid after clearly saying you have only one history book.

Also, you ask why what happened to the jews gets more clear on history than what happened to the gypsies, aye?
Reason 1: Through-out history, in every age someone did something similiar as hitler to the jews (wether it was exilation, or inquistion, or massacre).
Reason 2: 'The Final Solution' and 'The Jewish Problem' were mentioned much more in hitlers speech than anything about the gypsies, what makes the jews in the center of interest of deeds.

Think about it a bit.

Hmm, talking about the UN resolution eh? Well, I have a few maps for you:
http://www.mapshift.com/flash/103israel.swf

press 1948, and then 1949: if from that you proclaim 2% something in your math's is very wrong.

Also about comparing USA-Japan and Hitler-Jews is wrong: USA did not concentrate and burn 6 million japanese (And saying they dropped The atom bomb does not relate, so dont mention it).
And dont say 'most of the jews', say 'every jew he got his hands on', that is more correct. HITLER WANTED ALL JEWS DEAD
I cant quote you from 'Mine Kampf', as I havent read it yet, but im sure its mentioned there.

History Book 1: 'Holocaust and memory', ISBN 965-227-136-5
History Book 2: 'The world and the jews in the latest generations 1920-1970', ISBN 965-227-136-5
History Book 3: 'Historic Atlas - History of humanity' (No ISBN on it)
History Boko 4: 'Encyclopedic Atlas of the world', ISBN 965-7184-07-X, and of course I use britannica and encyclopedia.com (to get free and objective info, from a reliable source).
You can always say they are all books from the zionist communist conspiracy, but that will just sound ridicolous

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by jon78
I am growing tired of this discussion and subject. are your history more "scientific" than mine?

give me the names and ISBN numbers of your history books, mr suit.

What's an ISBN number?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
History Book 1: 'Holocaust and memory', ISBN 965-227-136-5
History Book 2: 'The world and the jews in the latest generations 1920-1970', ISBN 965-227-136-5

Heh. Remind me again how much time we have until the Bagruyot?

 

[atawa]

Also about comparing USA-Japan and Hitler-Jews is wrong: USA did not concentrate and burn 6 million japanese (And saying they dropped The atom bomb does not relate, so dont mention it).

Think he wasnt comparing as much as showing how sentences can be (mis)used in propaganda.
And yes, Roosevelt also wanted to put every japanese he could het his hands on in camps, he only didnt kill them thank god.

You are also being very racist, by saying you wouldnt mind to get one 25 million afghans to your country as long as they do all the boring stuff (Which I persume is the black work).

1, why is this racist? Afgans and Swedes are the same race.
2, black work????? Hope you mean blackmarket work by this, not 'work done by blacks'.

Also, you ask why what happened to the jews gets more clear on history than what happened to the gypsies, aye?
Reason 1: Through-out history, in every age someone did something similiar as hitler to the jews (wether it was exilation, or inquistion, or massacre).

Well same thing happened to the Roma (gypsies) in the last 1000 years, and they are still being treated as secondclass citisens in most Eastern European country's.
The main reason Hitler wasnt able to kill as many Roma as jews is there werent so many left in 1941, but both tragedies are verry similar.

The reason this isnt or is mentioned verry briefly in history books is :
1, most history books we read were wrote in the west
2, Most Roma lived in eastern europe
3, In most of eastern europe people didnt care verry much about the Roma dissapearing.

HITLER WANTED ALL JEWS DEAD I cant quote you from 'Mine Kampf', as I havent read it yet, but im sure its mentioned there.

I'm sure you're right but it's not in Mein Kampf (I've read it)

And please name one history book that is completely objective, history is a subjective science so dont see that ever happening

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by atawa

1, why is this racist? Afgans and Swedes are the same race.
2, black work????? Hope you mean blackmarket work by this, not 'work done by blacks'.

1. It is racist because it is like saying 'Sure, Im willing to port 25 million afghans into my country, as long as they do the hard work!'
saying such thing is making the afghans second class man, doing all the hard work and boring work the blond and white swedes shouldn't do...
2. 'Black Work' is a term that means hard and boring work (And it has nothing to do with afro-americans). Its like building houses or chopping trees day after day - that is black work.

'and NO I don't think it's fair for a nation to use arms even if necessary. I don't believe in nations either. (a) to answer that question: I'd love to see 25 million afghans coming here. then maybe we could get something done! they could do all the boring stuff I don't want to do. (b)'

Lets phrase A and B better for jon78:
a) If a nation is under attack, it should use its military even if it means being destroyed and mass murdered, therfor not killing other people is okay even if you yourself is going to get killed.
Therfor, jon78 is actually saying self-defense is illegitimate in all reasons, at all cases.
b) I would love to see 25 million afghans ported to my country and do all the hard work for me. Hey, thats what afghans are for, right? Who cares about equality! if they come to my country, they should do all the hard work too.


'how many ppl in Israel would love to see the palestinian ppl wiped out?'

I can only comment this: Wether if you like it or not, the palestinien are our enemies, same blood or not same blood 93% of them support using terror against us and all hamas and jihad islamic supporters are in favour of the destruction of Israel.
I don't really give a **** if its justification or not, but if they want me dead, I dont want them alive either.
Which is not my opinion in this case anyway, I'm in favour for peace with the palestiniens and I promise you its a small part of the Israeli citizens who would choose burning of all palestiniens.
And even yet, even if we take your opinion, persume its true, even if its not, thinking about something and doing it is completely different.
Maybe if sometime you would read in an encyclopedia about who suggested the palestiniens to go into refugee camps and why, you would see it has no relation to ethnic clensing at all.
Saying that when a palestinien kid dies because of a mis-fired bullet, or a missed target, is ethnic clensing, is extremely ridicolous. its just like saying whenever I fight someone its just because he is different than me which is completely incorrect. We are in war against terror and terror organizations in palestine, and sometimes civilians get hurt, but it has nothing to do with ethnic clensing.

 

[Blackadder]

IceblaZe, your thread appears to be decending into a:

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
someone says 'Israel' someone must say 'middle east situation'. [/QUOTE

Your thread is about sad irony in history, so surely it need not be about Isreal alone or anything necessarily about World War 2 etc.

Other ironies:

The byzantine Empire, once a superpower, now is no more and has its captial relegated to second city by its conquerors. Even worse, the Turks claimed to the right of all Byzantines former titles, including some along the lines of Christian emperor.

Italy, a nation that once could be proud of it's Roman Empire gets kicked out of Ethiopea twice! (okay its not sad if you're not an Italian)

Korea, a country which has rarely been one, despite some of its weapons. Its ironic that it still is not united.

Tibet, once a powerful nation, is now a sector of China. (Oh how the mighty have fallen)

Macbeth will be remembered in Shakespeare as an evil person, even though he was one of Scotlands greatest peacekeepers, and it was Malcolm X (the tenth, I believe) who started a disasterous was with England. He should have been the villanised one, not the hero!

The king of Siam had a play made about him which made him appear uncivilised, stubborn and going 'etc, etc, etc' every time he talked. He was historically recorded as a great man, but who hears that in 'The king and I'?

The American civil war was supposedly fought over slavery, despite the fact a few slaving states stayed within the Union and continued slaving here I name and shame- Missouri, Kentucky, W.VA and MD). The capital is within the state MD (according to my map anyway).

Great Britain, once the greatest navel nation in the world, loses the navel war against ICELAND in the cod wars. Oh the irony! We had taken Iceland as a base during World War 2.

While so many people died in poverty, the Spanish were sinking ships full of gold, silver, even platinum due to overinflation!

People of peace like Ghandi unwittingly helped the Japanese with Quit India and fighting their oppressors(this one not being what Ghandi did violently)
Even more ironic, many of these people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King get assasinated and recieve no chance to live in a world full of peace or their ideals (well, not for long anyway)

Thats what a thread called sad irony in History should be about, and it stops all these feuds about the middle East. There is a world out there, not just the middle east, and there are more sad ironys, not just Israel!
Please make a thread entitled 'Argument about Isreal' to settle all your respective different views.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I just stated something that I saw as Ironic and it was related to Israel.
I didnt start the arguement about the middle-east situation, but it is from my right to reply to everything said about Israel.
And you are of course welcome to post any other Ironies! Who said you arent?

 

[Blackadder]

No one, I'm just sick to death of the middle east (no offence) and last time I posted only Allen replied.

Poland was partitioned by Austria, Prussia and Russia. It briefly returned but was again swallowed up. Upon its freedom after WWI, was lead by a dictator. Then it was swallowed by Germany and U.S.S.R., starting the war between France and Britain Vs Germany. After the war it fell under the shadow of the U.S.S.R.
Under the solidarity party, led by Lech Walesa, it was at last free of outside control. Then people found Lech was a terrible leader and has (at last) begun its rise to respectability. Pretty ironic, considering Poland was once Europes greatest superpower when it was Poland-Lithuania and the largest country in Europe.

 

[jon78]

judging by the last posts there are more interesting threads than the one regarding middle east... this is the last post by me (I promise)... then I'll stick to the game.

let's say that I hire 1000 swedish ppl. INSTEAD of afghans or other non-swedish speaking ppl. that would be very racist in my eyes. if I would hire 1000 non-swedish speaking ppl it would be the opposite. I can't for my life get your point when you call that operanda racist...

now, sweden has for 6 months a year a very harsh climate with cold nights well below zero. homeless ppl simply don't manage... their skin cracks open. you simply have to get yourself a home before the winter arrives. most immigrants understands this very fast, and they take works that ppl who have lived here all their lives doesn't appriciate as "real labour"... at fast food joints, pizza restaurants, clerks, cleaners etc.

now, swedish politics is very awkward, not to say stupid. it's very expensive for an entreprenour, like myself, to hire other ppl. right now in europe we have a tremendous problem with childbirth. we doesn't raise enough children to pay for all the stuff we have. so the governments have issued "childbirth programmes" (yeah, really!) to stimulate european childbirth.

this is very racist at least in my eyes. there is millions of children all over the world who would love to come here and europe is just shutting them out because they aren't "european".

it's simply a matter of ideas. I think it is much better to simply open up all borders, let ppl move around like they please and make this economically possible by quitting all forms of wellfare.
of course this would place the native population in an advantage over the immigrants, but only for a starting period.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Cutting all wellfare and letting everyone work wherever they want without any special permissions will crash world economy and create un-changable social gaps. I think its a ridicolous extremely capitalistic idea, that totally destroys the chance for equality in the world and the current forms of governments. but thats just me.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by jon78
now, swedish politics is very awkward, not to say stupid. it's very expensive for an entreprenour, like myself, to hire other ppl. right now in europe we have a tremendous problem with childbirth. we doesn't raise enough children to pay for all the stuff we have. so the governments have issued "childbirth programmes" (yeah, really!) to stimulate european childbirth.

this is very racist at least in my eyes. there is millions of children all over the world who would love to come here and europe is just shutting them out because they aren't "european".

it's simply a matter of ideas. I think it is much better to simply open up all borders, let ppl move around like they please and make this economically possible by quitting all forms of wellfare.
of course this would place the native population in an advantage over the immigrants, but only for a starting period.

It's not racist at all. If your goverment would only do this project for one group of people in your country THEN it would've been racist. There's a big difference betwen race and nationality that you don't seem to understand.
Also, people in western countries have worked very hard to make their countries the way they are today. You're saying they should give this all up because other people didn't work as hard?

 

[Blackadder]

More sad ironies for general knowledge.

Prussia

Dirstly, the original inhabitants were natives called Prussians. I say original because that 'nation' was absorbed by the territory hungry Germans. The prussian language vanished in the 17th century . Prussia, even while under its new German masters must have hit bad times, because soon they found themselves vassels of Poland Lithuania, held via their fellow Germans in neighbouring Teutonic Order lands.

Then came the famous Brandenburg-Prussia and Prussia was in the spotlight again. It was under Prussia, after all, that Germany was unified. So where in Germany is Prussia now?
It isn't! After the second world war, Russia took a third( or was it two?) of Poland's eastern land and compensated by giving them chunks of East Germany. So west Prussia is in Poland now. The east remained with Russia after the fall of communism and explains why if you look at a map, you often see a patch of land the same colour as Russia with one major city, Kaliningrad.

I read in a magazine (so it may not be true) that Kaliningrad was ranked the worst place in Europe.


As with what jon78 said, according to a Swedish friend, your politics is messed up. I heard it was the leftwing party that voted against the Euro and the right voted for it (or something like that)