Posting threadreader link for easy access.
Note: these fuckers can't even lie convincingly.
"We will then be encouraging users to aggressively (but nonviolently) confront these people."
And then IMMEDIATELY after:
"No safety for fascist enablers."
So dipshit: how are you going to "nonviolently" but "non-safely" confront Republican Donors?
Utter folly.
Honestly to pervert the vote or the election should warrant death. It is a strike against all that our forebearers fought for, suffered for, the very ideas of America and the West. Is the inheritance of human freedom not worth more than a Jaguar or a Video game?
No, No says I! We must have liberty or death, and it is only fair we apply it to those who- whatever party- would betray the trust!
Enjoy the coming swing in the overton window.
Already have been.
We are nice until we are not,
You certainly were never nice. Blood libel and apologism for enemies of America is never nice.
and for some the patience is wearing out .
Ree some more, little bitch.
Heres a poem to take heart. by Rudyard Kipling
Oh yes, The Beginnings, one of my favorites by the Great Master.
But if you knew half as much as you posture, you'd notice what the poem is ACTUALLY about: The atrocities of the Second Reich you shill so hard for, and its genocidal rulers like Kaiser Wilhelm and Ludendorff, and their coming reckoning.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_greatwar.htm
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-59211159/the-hun-is-at-the-gate-historicizing-kipling-s
It's ironic how a National-Socialist Shill, Kaiserreich Apologist, and Jew Hater is trying to appropriate Kipling's words condemning the very regime you have lionized as being a victim of the Balfour Declaration.
This is why you have never been nice, and why I do not fear your impatience.
Never denied a thing.
Your insinuations aren't very subtle.
And even this is outright not true, especially since I already detailed the retarded Jew Hatred you spewed, arguing that Israel is somehow Trump's "bosses" and that the US entered WWI over a document not even there.
Can't straw man this old mule.
Except I'm not doing that, and mere assertions that I am mean nothing.
Don't you think its seems weird with the denial about the role played by certain individuals during Holodomor that resulted in the death of millions upon millions of Ukraininan Christians.
Firstly: the Soviets were quite happy overseeing the deaths of millions upon millions of Crimean and Kazakh Muslims and Animists as well as nominal atheists and even some of the few remaining Shetl Jews in the old "Pale of Settlement."
Oh, you haven't heard of the Goloshchyokin genocide that happened at exactly the same time as the Ukrainian Holodomor and for almost the exact same reasons?
And secondly: I've dealt with Communist and Socialist shills for years. Very little surprises me or seems "weird" about their often deranged denials about the role of their lovely states and the "Peoples' Champions" in genocide.
Which brings me back to the central "JOOOZ" retardation about the Bolsheviks. Yah, a fuckton of "Jewish" Bolsheviks like Trotsky, Kaganovich, and so on partook in the murder of millions upon millions of Christians. They also took part in the murder of many Muslims, Atheists, and Jews.
And they showed little difference in doing so than the "Christian" or "Ukrainian" or "Russian" or "Latvian" Bolsheviks. Because ultimately a Bolshevik is a Bolshevik is a Bolshevik, an anti-religious, socialist, totalitarian fanatic who wanted to violently crush all religious life.
Oh, and speaking of: you ever study the murders said Bolsheviks did when liquidating the Jewish Autonomous Oblast?
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A004100660005-9.pdf
Glad its Sunday because I do get a kick out of your walls of text responses.
Glad to hear.
But "this old mule" should know that they can get kicked back.
So there where wooden doors. Hilarious.
Yes it is, especially when you remember the "wooden doors on the Gas Chamber" were mostly failed reconstructions from idiot Soviets.
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ab10-gas-chamber-fake/
Not that you can't make gastight wooden doors, and you certainly can.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html
But the most common ones for the human extermination gas chambers were steel, as shown by examples like those at Castle Hartheim (which was mostly used for Aktion T4 and captured by US Troops, both ruling out the possibility of Soviet disinformation and failed reconstruction).
Cast the lure, wiggle it just right and boop. Got em by the nose...
Or so you think.
The actual result is closer to this.
https://youtu.be/rUUmadPI35Y?t=151
But keep shilling Holocaust Denial bullshit.
Oh yes yes goyim, it's new protocols issued just this week from the Elders of Zion: All Mossad Operatives are to type with heavy vernacular, stereotypical Yiddish phrases (I told them that most Israelis are Hebrew speakers, but they told me to just roll with it). That way we can identify each other.
And above all we are never, ever to pass off as goyim or truly go undercover on The Donald pretending to be non-Israelis, non-Jews, or so on. Because how then would we oy to the vey?
And besides, we needed some way to separate ourselves out from other secret police groups, like the Russian SVR, Commie Chink MIS, and the American DNC.
But as for the deep state? Fuck the American Deep State, why would we want them? They sided with Obama!
Now let me roll my matzoh in peace.
A pretty shameful "Voxsplaining" display for historynewsnetwork.org, usually a good site.
There is a myth that the U.S. cut off aid to South Vietnam. Aid was reduced, but was still $700 million.
Firstly: you know they're going out on a limb when they are willing to admit that
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress **cut **his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Meaning that in addition to using the term "Cut", they also admit that the intended aid was slashed to less than half of the recommended.
And what's worse is the lie by omission, because apparently Hughes wants to be a dishonest fuck by only talking in dollar terms and giving a false binary that "Cut Off" can only mean reducing military aid to $0.00: much of the category of aid that was cut off.
Specifically, the policy of replacing all ARVN and South Vietnamese equipment loses on a 1:1 basis, bullet for bullet, which helped sustain South Vietnam through the ugly campaigning of 1974 (which helped buoy hopes for Vietnamization). OBVIOUSLY, this policy COULD NOT be sustained on a less than 50% budget, representing an abandonment by Congress of the Executive's terms of aid.
Which is why Hughes never bothers to bring it up.
Because he's lying by omission and has an agenda to pull, namely:
Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.
To say that this is "fanciful" is giving Hughes generosity he does not deserve, and we know that the Communists in Hanoi did not see it this way, as Moyar's examination of their documents go. The fact that Hughes goes on to try and smear this as a "stab in the back myth" and tie it to more contemporary issues shows the agenda.
But we're supposed to believe that Hughes somehow knew the outcome of the war was determined at a time when none of the leaders- including the Communist Vietnamese in the best position to judge it- did so. And in particular by glossing over the campaigns of 1974, which though disappointing showed that the RVN could sustain itself against Communist attacks with Nixon's intended policies.
And Professor Turner at the bottom of the article you linked royally destroys Hughes on these points and showcases where he twisted the truth and omitted key facts. Though frankly I think Turner is too generous by half in not doubting his sincerity. I deny its existence; it takes an overly dishonest dunderhead to argue that a 50%+ cut off is not "cutting off" aid (including the abandonment of the terms of said aid and replacement as is) just because it did not amount to a 100% cut off of aid, and it takes an illiterate in the Communist Sources to argue that the war was decided in early 1973.
Simply put, your link is as incompetent and dishonest upon close reading as can be imagined.
But many of them did flee the country to escape retaliation.
Correct, in large part BECAUSE they realized what was about to happen (in sharp contrast to the lack of a diaspora prior to 1975). Which is why I emphasized. While Southern communities and clans had generally fought on stalwartly throughout the thirty years since the British liberated Cochinchina and refused to abandon their hearths or homes (as we would expect in a Confucian society) the collapse of RVN supply in 1975 (again, NOT 1973 or 1974 like Hughes would have us believe) convinced many that all hope was lost and it was a choice between surrendering to a Stalinist despot, dying free, or fleeing.
And history vindicates their choice: after the looting of the South Vietnam would suffer a reign of terror for about 15 years and widespread famine for 20, while some communities are still being hunted down by the Vietnamese Communists and their vassals (like the Pathet Lao of Laos) for daring to resist them.
And what about Americans during our own revolution?
America could not have fought and won the revolution without getting more than 90% of our gunpowder through the Bourbon Powers of Europe. Even the bravest cannot resist beyond their means.
Did they have the ability to leave the country?
Judging from the rampant smuggling that went on (and things like John Adams and Ben Franklin running a blockade to get to their posts as Ambassadors in Europe) I would say yes.
Moreover, there's a bit of a difference. For all the abuses and tyranny of George III and his puppet parliament, they were NOWHERE near as evil or totalitarian as the Communists. For instance, the Governor General of Canada granted amnesty to most Canadians who supported the Patriots during the 1775 campaign.
The Pathet Lao still can't stop murdering people related to people who were related to people who resisted them back in the sixties.
Where would they have gone? Back to Europe?
Yes; especially given friendly countries like the Netherlands or the Scandinavian monarchies (maybe France for those who were either Catholic or willing to hold their noses).
They could also disappear into the frontier as many did, and indeed as many United Empire Loyalists would.
They could also go to as of yet unoccupied colonies, as many fugitives from British occupation in New York and the South did.
And then there was the option of going back to their homes and keeping their heads down and hoping that they didn't stand out enough to be hanged, a rather reasonable assessment given what we saw.
When faced with the choice of communism or death, the South Vietnamese chose communism. Americans, on the other hand, faced the wrath of England, the most powerful nation on the earth, and exclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death."
Bravado is cheap online, and it's even cheaper when you're drawing a comparison between a rather heavily supplied revolution against a "merely" authoritarian military occupation, to the less-than-half supported defense against a totalitarian communist invasion that holds grudges for decades. And it's particularly worth noting that at the time the Communist Vietnamese were supported by both the PRC and USSR, whose combined power was certainly on par with the British Empire.
Even the bravest cannot resist beyond their means.
You draw several comparisons between South Vietnam and South Korea. I do not wish to oversimplify the complexities of these two struggles,
Then don't link to dishonest, politically motivated fucks like Hughes.
but surely you recognize that there existed a WORLD of difference between ROK soldiers and ARVN soldiers.
No, no I don't.
And I've studied both and wargamed extensively.
The South Koreans were willing to FIGHT for their freedom;
Which South Koreans?
Because the closest comparison the ROK came to the state of the ARVN in 1975 was in the years between 1946-1950, when the military was heavily politicized and corrupt (thanks to Rhee), kept undersupplied by the US (itself undersupplying its own troops), and struggling to put down communist terrorist infiltration campaigns in the South, which they did with great difficulty and even more brutality than was the ARVN norm.
Which is why when the DKPA rolled across the border as a modernish (for the time) Soviet style combined arms force, they SHATTERED most of the ROK before them, overrunning them or making them turn and flee. Not that most US troops with similar equipment at the time fared any better (as the fate of the unfortunate TF Smith at Osan showed), but they had a higher priority for rearmament.
It took 2 years and essentially unlimited aid to reform the shattered remnants of the ROK into a roughly adequate force capable of fighting the average PLA or KPA unit on equal terms, and it took more than 20 years, the batshit crazy dictator Park, and another undeclared Korean War to get the ROK to the level of CONCEIVABLY being able to defeat the DPRK unaided.
ARVN had a better start- from a bunch of anti-Communist militias and Southern/Cochinchinese French Union troops- but it was facing a more successful domestic insurgency and an exponentially dumber Allied/US command. Oh yeah, and far greater internal divides (TFW you nearly get couped by a drug cartel invading Saigon) and also a far more hostile public opinion as the Commies got better at it. Which is why after having decent success under French tutelage their effectiveness took a massive dive after the French pull out and recovered only slightly after- again- massive US aid while dealing with idiocy from the likes of Johnson and MacNamara.
And JUST when it seems like the ARVN is growing up and proving itself capable of primary combat functions with Allied support....the propaganda mess of Tet causes more instability in US command and forces the schedule for self-sufficiency to get accelerated. And when ARVN and the allies largely succeed in that and force the Communists to the table with more effective COIN and bombing of the North in 1973, the US chalks up a "win," puts together some methods to make ARVN self-sustaining by pledges to replace lost equipment, and goes home.
Only for surprise surprise, the Communists to have been faking it, hence the campaigns of 1974. Which are mildly promising for them but ultimately unsuccessful. which- true to form- means they lick their wounds and regroup...just as Nixon's power rocked and Congress made the funding cuts.
heck, the ROKs fought in South Vietnam against the communists. ROKs loved killing Commies!
In 1968 and maybe 1953. And even then South Korea features plenty of navel-gazing BS films about the horrors of Civil War and why the Great Powers keep them divided, like the US preventing the North from eating them.
But look at them in 1950 and 1951? And you see the issues.
Heck, it's doubtful they could have held alone even in 1965.
Americans can identify with that kind of a fighting spirit and hunger for freedom.
Neither of which were very evident among most ROK units in Rhee's 1950 banana republic gendarmie.
The ARVN on the other hand were apathetic, demoralized and for the most part unwilling to defend themselves.
So like the ROK for most of the first 2-3 decades of their existence.
I hesitate to say it, but people with that kind of weak attitude are destined to be connquered.
The Japanese should have taught us that attitude can only offset so many bullets, in the same way that the Founders did not just ask to be given liberty or death, but also asked to be given gunpowder, money, and weapons ("Lock Stock and Barrel" even).
And had we faced a totalitarian British Empire as dedicated to obliterating us as the Communist North and its patrons were the South without support, we probably would have fallen too.
Ou Vey, silly Goyim. If you think it’s “Israeli Damage Control” to note that the Balfour Declaration couldn’t have caused the US entry into WWI or that Iran publicly boasts about murdering Americansbin a way Israel doesn’t, my job is that easier.
Also, I do not deny the USS Liberty (though I do deny that it was intentional) or the Lavon Affair; two great stains that the Elders of Zion have told me they regret.
Which is more than the Ayatollahs can say.
How does it feel to be so ineffective my mensch in the JIDF do not even need to shut you down?
The French and U.S. propped up South Vietnam for 30 years.
Because the USSR and the PRC had propped up the Indochinese Communists for even longer. Much like we have propped up the ROK for about 65 years while the PRC and Russia have done similar.
Maintenance is a thing.
Two years after the U.S. withdrew its military, the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam. The North anticipated it would take two years to defeat the South. They were wrong; South Vietnam collapsed in less than two MONTHS.
Again, largely because the West- and particularly the US Congress- refused to honor its bare minimum obligations to supply the South.
This is like being shocked at the DPRK conquering the ROK if the "UN" withdrew in 1954 and stopped supplying the South.
The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and inefficient.
Sure, but so was the ROK's.
Neither were intended to try and survive completely unsupported.
Their people were largely apathetic and unwilling to fight for their freedom. Of course, there were exceptions, but desertion and lack of morale was a continuous problem for the ARVN.
Sure, but this becomes a lot more evident when you realize both communist terror tactics and the fact that if you went down fighting to the last at Saigon you couldn't flee the country with your family and escape communist retaliation.
The South was by no means a saintly or perfect place blameless for its own defeat, but we screwed them far harder than before. And again, this sort of logic isn't applied to the ROK.
I bet you are dancing around, hoping no one see you.
Sure, but that's because if anyone can see me not only are they interrupting my dancing, I'd need to get my AR-15 and chase them out of my backyard.
I do have a question and you seem to know everything, and what people are allowed to know and should not disagree with or its "hateful" and anti-who-gives-a-shit.
Thanks for the compliment.
I am back working on my model of the USS Liberty. What was the colour of the israei jets that strafed the US sailors in the water. I want the diorama to be as accurate as possible. Thank you :)
Firstly: you can thank me by not being an asshole and owning up to spreading blood libel on behalf of the Kaiserreich.
Secondly: even the more estranged and aggressive proponents of the "IDF attacked the Liberty intentionally" members of the Liberty Crew argued that the Jets primarily strafed the ship, not the people in the water.
Thirdly: given standard IDF Air Force coloring, the planes probably were this slightly dusky gunmetal blue-gray.
https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/woi1.jpg
The alternative pattern used (mostly for attacks overland can be seen here.
https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/htrfghtrf.jpg
Fourthly: The fact that your research skills are so shit you concede the prowess of someone you try and demonize and denigrate is telling.
Nice way to dodge any attempt to explain your idiocy where you claimed the Balfour Declaration caused something that happened months ago.
Also: an idiot anti-European, Multicultural "Jew" is supposed to tell what?
Because if you bothered to study actual history, you'd notice that there's always been a large number of people across cultures- and including in Jewish history- that have been like that. Or are you going to ignore the "Hellenizers" who enabled the Seleucids in their attempt to destroy Israel and Judah's identity?
Scumbag people are going to scumbag, and Jewish tradition is hardly quiet about the tendency of Jews to partake in that egotistical hatred.
No worries Pede, you'd do the same for me.