search results matching tag: 1931

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (35)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (0)     Comments (30)   

Palestinian UN Ambassador At UN

bcglorf says...

"welcomed a relatively small number of European Jewish refugees in the 30’s while under British rule"
The Jewish population in Palestine approximately doubled from 84k in 1922 to 175k in 1931, and tensions already started pretty heavily then in 1931. The Arab narrative is pretty emphatic that the invasion start in the 1920s(and unspoken, the resistance and tension internally between Jew and Arab too).


"Then in the 40’s the Jewish minority, America, and England ignored their pleas to minimize immigration, ignored immigration laws, and invited a major invasion, so many European Jews came illegally..."

Come now, don't play dumb, you left out any reason why European Jews might do this outside of 'launching an invasion'. What other motive might 1940's Jewish Europeans have had to ignore immigration laws to migrate out of Europe????


That's where your narrative and mine clash irrevocably. I count the refugee flight from 1940s Europe to be even more desperate than the plight the Palestinians in Gaza face today. I can not accept your POV where upon arriving in Palestine and facing violence and discrimination there too, that it's just plain and simply obvious that the Jewish people's are invaders and bad guys with no right to an existence in the land they fled to.

You know, unless you want to credit Trump's MAGA approach to the southern border as valid cause it's awful similar, save that the Jewish people were facing much more desperate circumstances

newtboy said:

In short-The small population of Arab natives along with a native Jewish minority welcomed a relatively small number of European Jewish refugees in the 30’s while under British rule (but with a date set for their independence by the League of Nations, a date that came and went without ever establishing a Palestinian state). Then in the 40’s the Jewish minority, America, and England ignored their pleas to minimize immigration, ignored immigration laws, and invited a major invasion, so many European Jews came illegally that the Arab natives quickly became the minority, then had all rights stripped by the now well armed invaders that now claimed their land and property…invaders that kept coming by the millions. How is that not an invasion of squatters?
It’s a complete abandonment of the Palestinian Mandate the Brits ruled under, which was allowed internationally after ww1 for the sole purpose of getting Palestine in a position to rule themselves, something the Brits failed to even try then actively sabotaged by supporting the mass immigration of millions of European Jews, and was the biggest possible “fuck off and die” to the Palestinian people that had cooperated fully with the international plan for their independent future that was unceremoniously stripped from them and handed to Israel.
From that point, details don’t matter so much. Invading occupying forces don’t get to whine because the natives won’t just go away and die….at least I’m not listening when they do. Want to stop being attacked, stop murdering innocents and taking land.

I wonder why you think Israel is not so dominant seeing as they already proved repeatedly their military dominance even when their neighbors band together. Not one of the countries you mentioned has an advanced military, they are last gen at best, really two or more generations behind, and have third world resources not trillions to spend. Iraq proved that advanced weapons beat numbers hands down every single time. Unless Iran gets a nuke capable of getting through the highest levels of missile defense on the planet, their “neighbors” (Palestines allies) pose no actual threat to Israel and a pretty minor threat to the expansionist settlers invading Palestine.

I never ignored any rolls of the neighbors supporting, arming, and instigating unrest…but those roles are minuscule compared to the actions of Israel. Nothing recruits for Hamas like the Israeli army. Nothing creates more terrorists than murderous settlers. No other factor has 1% the effect that Israel’s own actions do in creating enemies.
Murderous expansionist settlers should be eliminated with prejudice immediately. They are the biggest factor driving Israel’s murderous regime to murder more innocents.
If Israel acted civilly instead of treating the natives like the Nazis treated them, its neighbors couldn’t easily convince angry teens to pick up guns and shoot Israelis. Give the Palestinians something to lose, or they’ll have nothing to lose, a chip on their shoulder, and a clear enemy responsible for their plight. This is the official recipe for a terrorist.

Blaming the neighbors is like claiming N Carolina is RESPONSIBLE for all shootings in N Y because some guns used are procured there…nonsense. They are complicit, but minimally so. It’s the shooters motives you need to look at, not the store they use. Why are they so ready to sacrifice their lives to just shoot or throw rocks AT Israel (99/100 times hitting nothing)? Because they have nothing to lose but life in an ever shrinking ghetto ruled over by a foreign racist regime that wants them just gone and is more than happy to starve children to death and bomb refugee camps to accomplish that goal.
The neighbors didn’t invade, expel, ghettoize, and gleefully murder the Palestinian people, that was Israel.

Blaming the victims is not an argument that will win many over…and no question the Palestinian people are the TRUE and only victims.

Where are the European countries now…the same ones that facilitated the Jewish invasion should be obligated to enforce the borders, and/or take the Palestinian refugees and free them from the ghetto/prison Israel keeps them in….but none are.

Side note- I keep hearing people who support Palestinians described as anti semitic. It bears noting that European Jews, the VAST majority of Israelis, are NOT Semitic…but all Palestinians are. Being pro-Israel is actually and factually anti-Semitic.

VFX Artist Proves Pluto IS a Planet.

newtboy jokingly says...

Actually that dog’s real name was originally Rover and he was Minnie’s dog.

“ On October 23 of 1930, The Picnic was released. Pluto was Minnie's dog and was named Rover. The Moose Hunt, which came out on May 3, 1931, Pluto appeared as Mickey's pet, and was given the name "Pluto".” -Wiki

BSR said:

THIS
is
Pluto

Medicare Supplement or Medicare Advantage?Medicare Explained

BSR says...

I'll be 66 on Halloween. My mother was born on Christmas.

I was the only Hell she ever raised.

On a side note

Dad was born 12-30-1931
He died 12-31-2015

Dad was historian. On his headstone reads: I'm History

ant said:

I wonder which VS members are 65 or older right now.

Trump didn't do anything wrong

JiggaJonson says...

Oh Bob, one more thing

"Al Capone & Tax Evasion

Al Capone once said, “They can’t collect taxes from illegal money.” Because of Johnson’s work, Capone ate his own words on October 18th, 1931 when the tax man came collecting. And Capone paid in time instead of money.

On Oct. 17th, 1931 Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion.

Capone received 11 years in the “lock-up”.

--------------
--------------

Death and taxes right? Your Boi provided enough death (covid)

Hey isn't it ironic that Trumpies want him to get credit for the vaxx but also don't want to take it?

Native American Protesters Attacked with Dogs & Pepper Spray

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

Why do you insist on trying to contort things?

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.
Provide a source then, I did and it's over 16% as of 1931.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?
I observed that the Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939 was led by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Who later found himself in Germany talking with Hitler and advocating a 'solution' for Palestine ala Italy and Germany. I didn't present an opinion for you to disagree with. I presented a statement of fact which stands regardless of whether you refuse to believe in it or not.

As for partition, stop trying to win points or something, it's inescapable that the partition agreement that the Jewish Palestinians accepted when they declared independence in 1948 was the 1947 UN Partition Plan, on account of the other partition agreements having not yet come into existence yet and all.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.
I think that was addressed earlier what with Arab uprising in the 30s, and the conflict between Arab and Jewish Palestinians continuing on from then all the way till it hit an all out civil war.

Nothing I'm saying here has to justify, forgive or declare Israel a saint and Arabs the sinners. I AM however pointing out some very basic facts that refute the argument that Jewish invaders just came in from Europe and seized Palestine from the Arabs as payback for the holocaust. That simply was not what happened.

Jews were unwelcome and persecuted in Europe long before WW2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1925, and he wasn't exactly putting pen to brand new ideas nobody had been circulating in Europe already. The Zionists for their part were also busy and in action long before WW2, in no small part for reasons above. The Zionists were absolutely looking to take back 'their' homeland and by invasion if need be. That doesn't mean every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist anymore than the above makes every European and Arab nazi sympathizers. The reality was a lot more muddled and complex.

In the end, the big events driving the Arab-Jewish civil war in Palestine was as you say, an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. So on that front we are well agreed. You seem content to place 100% of the blame on the immigrants(which I must insist we refer to as refugees given they are largely European Jews between 1940-1947). I disagree. I believe I've given adequate evidence to demonstrate that the inability to live together was as much to blame on the Arab Palestinians as it was on the Jewish. If we want to blame anyone in the whole mess, the strongest blame still lies with the Axis powers for creating the refugees in the first place.

Native American Protesters Attacked with Dogs & Pepper Spray

bcglorf says...

You are factually wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

What to you count as "before" the war? Jewish population in Palestine at set times looks as below:

1890 had 43,000 making your 8%
1922 had 94,000 making 13.6%
1931, still before WW2 broke out in 39 had 175,000 making almost 17%

As for the nazi's being long gone by 1948, most obviously Hitler was still alive 3 years earlier which is hardly most people's idea of a long time. I'm afraid that even that is but the gentlest error in your statement. Palestinian tensions and revolts were ongoing in the 1930s already. Those tensions broke out into a full blown civil war in 1947.

Th 1970s two state UN mandate is obviously NOT the mandate accepted by Jewish palestinians in 1948. I can not fathom how you honestly make such a mistake? Plainly the UN Partition Plan for Palestine from 29 November 1947 as a proposed resolution to the civil war there is the mandate I meant. Given that it was a proposed resolution to a conflict that was simmering on and off throughout WW2 it hardly seems a conflict in which the Nazi's were "long gone".

Read up on Haj Amin al-Husseini, he led the Arab revolt in 1930's Palestine. He later bounced his way to Nazi germany and in 1941 declared
Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.

So no, I don't believe you can really honestly say that the Arab-Jewish tensions that led civil war in Palestine occurred in an environment were the Nazi's were a distant memory.

Stephen Colbert: Super Reagan

st0nedeye says...

Regimes supported

Juan Vicente Gomez, Venezuela, 1908-1935.
Jorge Ubico, Guatemala, 1931-1944.
Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.[citation needed]
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.[citation needed]
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.[citation needed]
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.[citation needed]
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Kingdom of Bahrain, 2012.
Saudi royal family, 2012.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, 1991-2012.[10]
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia, 1995-2012.[11]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, 2006-2012.[12]

Will Rogers on Unemployment and Hunger in a Wealthy Country

Keynesians - Failing Since 1936 (Blog Entry by blankfist)

NetRunner says...

>> ^quantumushroom:

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.


Hey, you're the one that put that article forward, not me.

I think it's impossible to actually track specific jobs created by the stimulus. You can make estimates based on theory, but that's not really evidence, either for or against.

What's a bit easier to measure is the overall employment trend. You'll love that these are Nancy Pelosi's charts, but they're based on BLS statistics (what the whole economic world uses as the source for data on employment, BTW).

Here's the chart of the recession through to May's jobs report (June's report will probably come out this week). The stimulus bill was passed in February of 2009. The trend changed immediately, with the job losses slowing, and then turning into gains.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs.


That's my point, the stimulus wasn't about creating "government" jobs, it was an attempt to reverse the unemployment trend in the private sector. Right now the biggest drag on the jobs reports coming out is job losses in the public sector.

Here's a chart showing the last year in the ongoing march of Obama's supposed socialist revival. Private sector jobs up, public sector jobs down.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board.


I know it was another thread, but that idea's been tried. Hell, it's still being done to a greater degree than it's been done since well before I was born. That idea has clearly and unambiguously been tried, and has utterly failed to produce anything like what Republicans from Reagan forward have claimed it would.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.
wiki:
<long quote about things FDR said on the campaign trail>


A couple paragraphs above that, you find a description of Hoover's actual policies:

Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs.[45] However, Hoover did pursue many policies in an attempt to pull the country out of depression. In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program to combat rampant unemployment, reduce the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs. The program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico, and continued until 1937. In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[46]

In 1931, Hoover issued the Hoover Moratorium, calling for a one-year halt in reparation payments by Germany to France and in the payment of Allied war debts to the United States. The plan was met with much opposition, especially from France, who saw significant losses to Germany during World War I. The Moratorium did little to ease economic declines. As the moratorium neared its expiration the following year, an attempt to find a permanent solution was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. A working compromise was never established, and by the start of World War II, reparations payments had stopped completely.[47][48] Hoover in 1931 urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC).[49] The NCC was an example of Hoover's belief in volunteerism as a mechanism in aiding the economy. Hoover encouraged NCC member banks to provide loans to smaller banks to prevent them from collapsing. The banks within the NCC were often reluctant to provide loans, usually requiring banks to provide their largest assets as collateral. It quickly became apparent that the NCC would be incapable of fixing the problems it was designed to solve, and it was replaced by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

That all sounds very familiar to me as modern-day Republican policy proposals -- eschew direct assistance to the unemployed, try to boost employment by deporting Mexicans, attempt to defer interest payments on foreign debts, and ask banks to put in place their own policies to fix their own shortcomings rather than resort to regulation, and stick to preserving the gold standard at all costs. The only thing out of place is tariffs, but I've seen those mentioned from the conservative rank and file in discussions about what our response to China's ascendance should be.

In the election year of 1932, with unemployment at 25% and with people throwing things at his motorcade everywhere he went, he did start engaging in a little attempt at mortgage loan stabilization and fiscal stimulus, and they did seem to make a positive impact, but were too little too late, but they weren't policies that were the centerpiece of his administration, they were things he tried to do out of desperation.

It's also quite true that FDR in 1932 ran on a platform that included promises to balance the budget, but that's because it'd been the Democratic that had always been scolds on that topic up to that point. Besides, FDR was no student of Keynes; General Theory wasn't even published until 1936. I don't really know where the ideas for FDR's New Deal came from. I'm guessing just simple populism, and maybe some Keynesian influence amongst his economic advisers.

Amazing Tsunami Footage from the Ground

criticalthud says...

>> ^guymontage:

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.
I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurren
ce
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.

The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.
If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.
More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.


fantastic. i would be very happy if science could disprove this theory. but we're still looking at probability.

Amazing Tsunami Footage from the Ground

guymontage says...

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm

Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.

I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurrence
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.


The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.

If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.

More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.

When Jimmy Wants A Drink Dont Give Him Any Lip.

harpom says...

You have to remember the time period. This film was made in 1931. Don't form an opinion of James Cagney based on this scene. To date James Cagney remains one of the best tough guys that ever existed. He went on to make so many great films. Public Enemy is an excellent film.

Visualizing Empires Decline

Rep. Todd Akin fails the pledge of allegiance

HaricotVert says...

The pledge of allegiance was a socialist invention; I hardly think liberals would be infuriated by its recitation.

To quote Wikipedia: "The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898)."

District 9 - The Aliens Arrive

cybrbeast says...

>> ^Kreegath:
So there was a spaceship hovering over Johannesburg for 20 years and no nation has even tried to deconstruct or even claim it? You'd think that the US and the Soviet Union would be the first to jump at the chance of an extraterrestrial technology advantage and would go to great lengths to get it, regardless if it had landed in either territory or not.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -Arthur C. Clarke

In the movie you already see that they have no idea how to reverse engineer the alien weapons, even though they've been trying for 20 years. My guess would be that they must have tried the same with the spaceship but also failed. They might have removed interesting bits and just let the rest of the ship hang. They also wouldn't want to break the engines because it would come crashing down on Johannesburg.

Imagine the humans of 1930 (the electron microscope was discovered in 1931) getting their hands on an iPhone. They wouldn't know what to do with it. They wouldn't even be able to see the actual circuits let alone know how they worked. It would be a long time before they could actually discover and use anything of use out of an iPhone.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists