Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Knit Tie, when I read that "you hate Russians" I remember this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sorry guys if there are too much non-English stuff in that thread. To summarize: it is opinion of one Russian that believe that if Russia will be destroyed then God will destroy the planet because no love, goodness and beauty will remain on the Earth.

[Knit tie]

Knit Tie, when I read that "you hate Russians" I remember this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sorry guys if there are too much non-English stuff in that thread. To summarize: it is opinion of one Russian that believe that if Russia will be destroyed then God will destroy the planet because no love, goodness and beauty will remain on the Earth.

I am very tempted here quote something similar from the endless pearls Ukrainian nationalists churn out. Oh, I know, here's my favourite story: Ukrainian slodier subsists for five days on flies and own piss, is lauded as a hero.

Anyway, I was simply screwing around with mainiac by slightly adjusting his own post:

We get it, you hate Ukrainians.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am very tempted here quote something similar from the endless pearls Ukrainian nationalists churn out. Oh, I know, here's my favourite story: Ukrainian slodier subsists for five days on flies and own piss, is lauded as a hero.

Do you think it is funny? Seriously?

First: During war any soldier is a hero by definition. If country treats its soldiers, especially wounded in action in any other way that country has no right to exist. The only situation when soldier is not a hero when it is proved that he committed a war crime or deserted or betrayed

Second: He used urine to sterilize his wound. Last resort antiseptic,  better then nothing. He used rain water and his helmet to drink

Third: Yes, he consumed worms and insect, the only available food around.

Fourth: While journalist exaggerated some parts of his story (I read his interview) that look like truth. There are a chance that guy who lost his leg and returned home lies but I don't think that it is the case

[Sergarr]

Really, Knit tie? Is these both literally and metaphorically shitty anecdotes your last line of resort?

No really this is really pathetic of you. I evocate you two hours of reading Russian history.

[Knit tie]

Really, Knit tie? Is these both literally and metaphorically shitty anecdotes your last line of resort?

No really this is really pathetic of you. I evocate you two hours of reading Russian history.

Sergarr, tell me, how is Russian history related to me and UR beatsticking each other with some of the worst examples of idiocy and propaganda our respective nations have so far churned out?


I apologise to our international readers, this episode of mutual insults has now ended and we are back to our scheduled programming.

[Sergarr]

Reading Russian history is supposed to remind you how much shit soldiers have to go through for all their victories.

[Knit tie]

Reading Russian history is supposed to remind you how much shit soldiers have to go through for all their victories.

So saying that not all soldiers are heroic is now taboo? Or is it making jokes about how Ukrainian propaganda sometimes comes up with just plain silly tales that are up there with some of the Russian propaganda efforts in terms of obvious mendacity *coughcrucifiedbabycough*

[Sergarr]

Soldiers risk their lives every single moment they're on the front, Knit tie. They risk their lives so that others may be spared from death.

You clearly don't understand just how terrifying it is to be there, knowing that every single moment could be your last.

[Helgoland]

It's just that ridiculing a guy who had to subsist on insects and rainwater and had to use his own urine as an antiseptic is kinda dickish.

[Knit tie]

It's just that ridiculing a guy who had to subsist on insects and rainwater and had to use his own urine as an antiseptic is kinda dickish.

I agree. Not a nice thing to say by any means, and God knows I was not referring to the soldier's story itself, but to how overhyped this event was by the official Ukrainian media outlets. Sort of like how Russian media outlets presented the first Chechen war. Or, hell, how the official Stalin's propaganda presented the WW2, for that matter.

[XXSockXX]

Besides, there's a big difference between denying the Holocaust and insisting that the Holocaust wasn't unique to the European Jewry, that many other peoples (Armenians at the hands of Turks, most Chinese peoples at the hands of IJA, many, many peoples in Africa at the hands of each other and colonial powers, Romani at the hands of Nazis, Kurds at the hands of Saddam Hussein, the list goes on) have also been subjected to genocide and that pretending that what happened in Nazi Germany was somehow unique and unrepeatable means rendering ourselves willfully blind to any future Holocausts.

You are mixing up the terms "genocide" and "Holocaust". The Holocaust particularly means the unique event of the systematic genocide of the European Jews and nothing else. And yes, confusing the terms would probably be taken as pretty offensive by many people.

[Knit tie]

Besides, there's a big difference between denying the Holocaust and insisting that the Holocaust wasn't unique to the European Jewry, that many other peoples (Armenians at the hands of Turks, most Chinese peoples at the hands of IJA, many, many peoples in Africa at the hands of each other and colonial powers, Romani at the hands of Nazis, Kurds at the hands of Saddam Hussein, the list goes on) have also been subjected to genocide and that pretending that what happened in Nazi Germany was somehow unique and unrepeatable means rendering ourselves willfully blind to any future Holocausts.

You are mixing up the terms "genocide" and "Holocaust". The Holocaust particularly means the unique event of the systematic genocide of the European Jews and nothing else. And yes, confusing the terms would probably be taken as pretty offensive by many people.

If Holocaust is defined as the genocide of Jews at Nazis' hands, then it truly was unique by definition and it would be stupid of me to say otherwise, you are right.

[Helgoland]

It was unique in other ways as well: It was the only truly industrialized genocide, with death factories and the giant ovens, and it was one of the few genocides in which the victims were not selected on some outer characteristic (belonging to a certain ethnic or cultural group, for example) but for purely racial reasons: Even a perfectly integrated half-Jew who had no idea of his jewish descent - and thus was completely indistinguishable from those around him - was not safe.

[Knit tie]

It was unique in other ways as well: It was the only truly industrialized genocide, with death factories and the giant ovens, and it was one of the few genocides in which the victims were not selected on some outer characteristic (belonging to a certain ethnic or cultural group, for example) but for purely racial reasons: Even a perfectly integrated half-Jew who had no idea of his jewish descent - and thus was completely indistinguishable from those around him - was not safe.

Helgo, let me just say that I absolutely agree with everything you've said and stop this discussion here, because I am really feeling like I would go tapdancing on a minefield if I were to continue talking about the Holocaust - too many possibilities to be misunderstood and come off as a piece of insensitive human waste that tries to argue that Jewish genocide didn't exist, and if there are things I would never do, being a Holocaust denier is one of them.

[XXSockXX]

It was unique in other ways as well: It was the only truly industrialized genocide, with death factories and the giant ovens, and it was one of the few genocides in which the victims were not selected on some outer characteristic (belonging to a certain ethnic or cultural group, for example) but for purely racial reasons: Even a perfectly integrated half-Jew who had no idea of his jewish descent - and thus was completely indistinguishable from those around him - was not safe.

Helgo, let me just say that I absolutely agree with everything you've said and stop this discussion here, because I am really feeling like I would go tapdancing on a minefield if I were to continue talking about the Holocaust - too many possibilities to be misunderstood and come off as a piece of insensitive human waste that tries to argue that Jewish genocide didn't exist, and if there are things I would never do, being a Holocaust denier is one of them.

Like Helgo said, there are many reasons why the Holocaust is regarded as a unique event, thus deliberately equating it to other genocides is generally regarded as historical revisionism (usually of the anti-semitic kind). Not that I think you were doing that deliberately, it's just important to know the distinction. With that pointed out, I agree this tangent can end here.