Israel: Neo-Nazi in the making?

Alas - history is always written by the victors - as it was here in america with the declaration of independence - Blowing up ships in boston harbor and hiding in the woods like a bunch of guerillas vs. a conventional army seems a little terrorist to me....
Watching too much "The Patriot" for our history lessons, are we?

Saratoga, Princeton, Valley fucking Forge ... oh yeah, how about The fucking CONTINENTAL ARMY?????

* Siege of Boston
* Battle of Long Island
* Battle of Trenton
* Battle of Princeton
* Battle of Brandywine
* Battle of Germantown
* Battle of Saratoga
* Battle of Monmouth
* Siege of Charleston
* Battle of Camden
* Battle of Cowpens
* Battle of Guilford Court House
* Siege of Yorktown

... for starters.

Yes. All just a bunch of guerillas fighting the heroic British Army :rolleyes:


The American Revolutionary War was fought through conventional set-piece battles. Line up your infantry in firing lines, fire, advance. Guerilla tactics were rare and uncommon and never a matter of policy. The war would not have cost as many American lives had guerilla tactics been widely employed. Attend a re-enactment or two, or read a book. Please.

The only forces that might be considered "guerrillas" are the Minutemen and the Colonial Militia === forces, who, I might add; fought against the British Army.... not firing cannons and shot at unarmed civillians en masse as a matter of regular policy. I can give you an extensive list of current US Army formations that trace their lineage directly back to the American Revolutionary War. Partisans don't equal "guerillas".

Keep making absurd comparisions... and keep repeating the joke that "history is written by the victors".


cheers,
 

Phaeton

Banned
@ Roughneck and **********

If the two of you were to write a history of Freeones. How would you portray each other, and yourselves?
 
What it actually means is that "conventional history, the way we see our past and how we got where we are, is incredibly biased and heavily influenced by who we are. We tend to see our forefathers as heroes and their enemies as villains, and tend to write history from that slanted point of view."
You're equating the study of past events to nothing more than mere folklore.

Realise that. You just admitted to your own biases and pre-concieved notions influence your perception of history.

Even the ameteur historian knows that this whole "history will be kind to me for I intend to write it" is purest soyashit. Objective study of past events is to be done with the least amount of bias - like science, history deals with facts (and sources!) --- not opinion. One can tell the distinct difference between a book written by Thomas Glantz versus one written by David Irving.

The very fact that you brought up the pointless references to Communism and Capitalism and their "glorification", proves it - you don't care about "history", only your version of events. Hence why you (and others of your ilk), continue to reference the whole "history is written by the victors" theory.

If "history is written by the victors" - why are only "certain aspects of it" always questioned? (note: only when it suits those doing the questioning!)

Let us just pick WWII. If the history of WWII was "written by the victors", does that mean that the 'holocaust' was an invention? That concentration camps didn't exist? That the atrocity photographs were faked? The the systematic, wholesale persecution of the Jews by the Nazi regime was exaggerated? That the Japanese never tortured any PoWs? Japanese didn't conduct mass rapes in China?


Bottom line - people who care about the truth don't care who won or who didn't; but question cases and evaluate their merit independently.

I don't mind dealing with politics or philosophy - but please learn to segregate and discern them from opinion and history. We've discussed this before - remember?

History isn't "written" by anybody - history just "is". History writing is not a special privilege of 'victors' (a meaningless term for non-contemporary history anway). Anybody can write it.

Anyone who goes to the library can see hundreds of books written by the losers, from Thucydides and Xenophon through French generals in the Napoleonic wars, essays by the losers in the European revolts of 1848, William Walker's filibusters in Central America in the 1850s, Confederate generals in the American civil war, French officers in the Mexican civil war of 1957-1869, French officers in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the various losers' memoirs from the Mexican Civil War of 1910-1923, White Russian accounts, Nazi and various German accounts of WWII (not to mention numerous revisionist secondary history books), French accounts of the loss of the battles for Indochina and Algeria, American accounts of the Vietnam war, Soviet accounts of Afghanistan campaigns -- frankly, their numbers are legion.
Link

I'll answer your follow up:

the winners get to paint the losers as the evil guys and their own soldiers as the heroes, particularly in massive wars in which lands are transferred from one set of hands to another.

1. No - they don't That is what I've consistently tried to point out to you - even given you examples legion of dozens of books (just for starters). "Redecorating" history is simply not that easy - as holocaust revisionists keep finding out time and again. You're confusing "history" with "moral philosophy" again.

2. If your idea of "history" is soundbytes on TV or a paragraph from news magazines .... well. People often make fun of Americans and their "lack" of history and geographical knowledge - conveniently forgetting how little other folks know of American geography or her own history (or their own histories - but that's a different topic al together).

3. Sometimes, it IS just THAT Black and White. The moral objective of WWII could never have been clearer - while it's methods and implementation certain were murkier. I'm certainly not an "ends justify the means" guy and do not condone the horrors inflicted by the allies on axis civillians - but the moral purpose was different.


Fox, really, I hate to say this but I've been doing this for over 13 years now. Spent a small fortune - an entire bedroom stacked wall to wall with books (two walls dedicated to WWII alone). I'm not saying "I know more than you" - just saying that you're basics itself are so off - it's hard to explain. Saying "victors write history books" is a cheap cop out.


cheers,
 
To put it in a nutshell:

History is about observing various perspectives to try and arrive at an objective picture. Napoleon lost all those wars he started, and got exiled to St. Helena for it. But I notice his written works are still in print, and fairly popular too.

There are some who claim, for example:
"It was a certain leadership section in USA,craftily in political and militarily, manouvered the Germans into declaring war against them just like how they manouvered the Japanese into launching a first strike against the Americans."

I could simply demand an explanation of how Hitler was craftily manoeuvred by Roosevelt and "a certain leadership section in the USA" into declaring war against the US ... but in no way does this relate to the truth of the saying: "The victors write the history?" Are we saying that Hitler was a puerile puppet of Anglo-American imperialism?

"Victors write history". Nazi apologists seem to want to construe this as "The Allies dictated what could be written about the war". In that sense, I think I have demonstrated that it is false; many historians have examined the Nazi side of battles, decisions and ideology.

The counter argument to this usually goes:

"Well, victors write history... at least for some time. Un till shortly after the war. But as time catches up, perpahs things change".

The sweeping grandeur of the claim "The victors write the history" becomes ridiculous when accompanied by the priviso "for a short period after the end of the war, at least." That truthful addition completely undermines the gratuitously self-pitying or cynical purpose of the observation.

'The victors write the history' has no value in making judgment on a work of history because...

1) It can only have meaning in contemporary history. If I were to produce a work on, say, the Second Punic War, would I not be free to chose whether my sympathy would be with Carthage or with Rome?

2) It can only have meaning to political/military history and other conflicts where a clear winner and a clear loser can be determined. If I were to produce a work on, say, the Black death of 1347-1350 and its causes and effects, how would you determine if I were on the 'winning side' or on the 'losing side'?

3) Minority/Loser history remains a popular subject in universities today.


Thus, I don't think the truism that 'the victors write the history' has any universal value.


cheers with apologies for dragging on off-topic,
R.
 

Philbert

Banned
One must give you credit, at the very least, for having the courage to consistantly misquote history, realign facts and omit others, and generally contradict yourself from post to post. And yes, you have the courage to actually tell people like Roughneck they are this and that, what they really know, and why you know better.
Some things, like freedom of information, don't exist in most Islamic countries, and yet you seem to find "facts" that support your theories (that's all they are), yet where scholars are notorious for distrusting the popular version of events (Western countries) and hoard documents and facts like squirrels in September, you only seem to accept facts that support your negative view of all things Western.
Veterans of conflict have seen people up close and personal, under extreme stress, and know how people react for real...flight or fight up close. People who fight when flight is called for, are living on a level above the casual citizen who has plenty of time to mull over a situation and react accordingly.
reality is all there is when Humans are stripped bare of all the affectations of society.
You feel your untested theories are equal to this perspective, and all events become on a par for you, mostly intellectual exercises of event manipulation to fit your viewpoint.
Baal does the same; as he is educated and eloquant, his omission of relevant events and facts is much more difficult to discern for a regular person casually involved. Agendas call for cherry-picking information to support their agendas, not even handed treatment of events.
The fact that Jewish population in "Palestine" was much higher than Jordanian and Syrian Arabs living in what was called the "Cursed Land", and Jews have been living there in good numbers for many years before 1948, and that excavations on and near the Temple Mount reveal layer upon layer of Jewish building and history, and reveal almost no Muslim occupation of these same areas, doesn't phase history propagandists who seek to create a new past where "Palistinians" have a historical claim to land they never wanted to live in all that much.
Jews didn't march in with an army, like the Muslim conquerors did centuries past, so how did they acquire land that is now claimed to be someone else's?
By buying useless areas of land, where people had no desire to live, and creating a Western agricultural Paradise; they also created a great deal of sellers remorse among the primitive farmers that existed in small numbers in that inhospitable area...exploitable by canny leaders who lived in Paris, Rome, Berlin, and other capitals of the "decadent" West where they could live in the luxury they were accustomed to, while directing events for their own select political interests. This custom continues today...
There is so much like rearranged history to address, that I am not interested in continuing. Dreary and useless when addressing preconceptions so blatantly based on cherry picked and partial facts.
No history is complete without the transgressions of both sides; that would take even more lengthy and probably pointless effort to debate.
Suffice it to say, this situation will find it's own path in History, foolish wishing and angry exageration won't affect the ultimate outcome in Israel...but when dealing with a displaced people who for a thousand or more years have ended each Passover Seder (The Last Supper was Jesus having a Seder) with the words, spoken in every country on Earth where Jews have settled after their involuntary expulsion, "Next year in Jerusalem!", most will find that removing Israel from it's 4000 year old home is not doable.
No matter how many "freedom fighters" liquify 3 year olds on busses, or shoot nine year old girls in their homes after killing the unarmed parents, the Israelis... Muslim, Jew, and Christian alike...aren't moving to another neighborhood.
You'd think that, if they truly believed Allah wants the Islamic faith to dominate, they wouldn't have to go so far to achieve their stated goals. I mean, death if you convert? Sacrifice anyone at all for the goal, kill Muslims and infidels alike to achieve an unlikely end result? Islam is weak, and desperate to keep it's medievil hold on it's adherents.
As well, the USA and it's Allied countries, have acknowledged the Holy War rhetoric, and are finally responding to the widespread acts of civilian specific attacks the Jihad seems to prefer. As has been said, fuck with the Bull, and you get the horns.
 
Im not sure if anyone has mentioned the following.

I think people this day and age mix together culture, politics and religion way too much.

Judaism and Islam both are Abrahamic religion, which promote peace, patience and unity. after reading the SOURCES (torah and koran), I can honestly say taht NEITHER religion teaches violence, but promotes building treaties. the only time violence is allowed is in self defence. anyone who claims otherwise (muslim extremists or CNN) should read from the source and put it in context, i.e why was that verse revealed or what was the purpose of it in that time in history.

By saying that, imo, what we are seing in Palestine and Israel is clearly religion being the scapegoat for POLICAL gain. so for the love of whatever you believe in/or what is dearest to you, dont cast religion for human political greed.

ive also seen many racist digs being made and jews, and more so at muslims. I strongly suggest that they read from the sources i.e torah and quran for an anylitical viewpoint. If you do that, you will form your own informed opinion as opposed to spread hate, facism and racism on this forum and indeed in life. Im shocked to see that people will criticise, hate, preach and fight without applying their basic reasoning and reading from the actual sources. they merely believe hearsay.

In short, religion and believers of religion should not be blamed for israel palestine. it should be the ones that brainwash them and teach people that war and violence is sanctioned in their religion for political and residential purposes.
 
That's when I honestly gave up ...

There are some who claim, for example:
"It was a certain leadership section in USA,craftily in political and militarily, manouvered the Germans into declaring war against them just like how they manouvered the Japanese into launching a first strike against the Americans."
That's when I honestly gave up.
It was beyond insulting, it was laughable.

That and the War of 1812 comment, which was very much an arrogant, nationalistic, "leap before we looked" jump into the (second) invasion of Canada.
We got lucky in the Battle of New Orleans, because it was American arrogance that cost us a lot -- from Canada to DC, let alone our trade routes due to the blockade.
 
Top