219 karma · joined August 27, 2017
He's posting under the fake nick "smelly indian" because he lacks the guts to post this kind of shit under his real account :
In fact in 1997 the UK simply banned handguns.
1996: 16 children and their teacher shot dead
1997-2018: 0 shot deadFor "world news" they have virtually no links to media outside the US/Europe.
I guess they did something to stop what you describe anyway.
"Charging" them is a pantomime; Russia won't, and AFAIK legally can't, extradite them anyway.
(I'm assuming they were and are in Russia, not the US.)
After Pol Pot's genocide was stopped (by the Bad Guys, Soviet-backed Vietnam), the US (and China - its commie BFF since throwing Taiwan under the bus) supported the Khmer Rouge as the Cambodian representative in the UN until the 1990s.
You know, like having the Nazi Party represent Israel or Poland until the 1960s.
The US armed, funded and kept alive the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s, and Reagan's British poodle Margaret Thatcher even sent the SAS to train them.
"ASEAN wanted elections [in Cambodia] but the U.S. supported the return of [Pol Pot's] genocidal regime." - Singapore diplomat Bilahari Kausikan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_s...
Do you have a link to this? All I can find on Google (apart from six members of staff being fired over a "mock beheading video") is a story about 13 HSBC customers who had links to ISIS.
No, they're statements about behavior, and no more "personal attacks" than you falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, or of falsely accusing me of "ranting" about a "grand conspiracy at foot".
> This is an allusion to conspiracy.
So it's no longer a "grand conspiracy", just a mere "allusion to conspiracy"?
What's the "conspiracy" you claim I'm alluding to then?
As for Solani:
> The email from solani reiterates "If you don't want to use your real E-Mail-address, please use an address from the top-level-domain ".invalid""
They mean on posts you make to Usenet. Put that ".invalid" address in the From field on your Newsreader.
You should probably check with Solani if they display your IP address on posts though (NNTP-Posting-Host), because some news servers do.
I didn't claim you were a mod, I said you were effecting the tone of a mod ("Please don't..."), which you were.
> [I'm] wishing that the article posted didn’t trigger so many people’s so many people’s pro/anti-communism kneejerk.
At the time I replied to you, you and gnarbarian made up half the comments here, yet neither you were discussing the article. Your own posts were simply about the Holocaust, Holodomor, Mao, Hitler, etc.
The entire thread from gnarbarian's original post on should be nuked.
I don't know if it's the same Wolfenstein but I was somewhat amused to read, or see on Youtube, recently they renamed Himmler to Hoeller. (Himmel being heaven in German, and Hoelle being hell.)
AFAICS (which I didn't notice at first) sharingbuttons has a slightly different FB URL, which may not give an error:
https://facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=YOUR-URL
Compared to chrisltd's:
Not to knock an otherwise nice site (CTRL & + improves readability for me personally, though), but:
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#blahblahblah';
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
http://chrisltd.com/blog/2015/04/social-share-like-buttons-w...
You may want to start taking your own advice. Try here first:
https://www.google.com/search?q=operation+barbarossa
> It is very much uncertain if the numbers would be much different.
No, it's extremely certain the numbers would be very different, since we know what the Nazis had planned for Eastern and Central Europe. So when you've finished with the above link, move on to this one:
https://www.google.com/search?q=generalplan+ost
> arguments are only about by how much exactly
Each author, by pulling a different number out of thin air, is saying the other author of the same book is wrong. Which would be laughable if some people didn't pretend take such nonsense seriously.
I say "pretend" because I don't believe for one second anyone using those numbers sincerely believes them, any more than they sincerely care about any of the actual, genuine victims beyond using them to score political points.
> Are you going to play the well-tired card of "but Stalin (Mao, etc. etc.) were not real, proper communists?
No, I'm going to say, again, that if someone wasn't killed by Communism they should not be counted as being killed by Communism.
What's interesting is that most of the victims of Stalin's purges were "proper Communists", a fact that right-wingers who cry crocodile tears over them always forget to mention for some reason.
> Taking the last grain, including seed grain, from, peasants (e.g. Prodrazverstka [...] is exactly that -- forced famine.
Prodrazverstka is not at all that:
Bolsheviks borrowed the idea from the grain razvyorstka
introduced in the Russian Empire during World War I, in 1916.
[In 1918] the reserves of grain ran low, causing hunger among
the urban population [...] In order to satisfy minimal food
needs, the Soviet government introduced strict control over the
food surpluses of the prosperous rural households.
Lenin believed that prodrazvyorstka was the only possible way
to procure sufficient amounts of grain and other agricultural
products for the population of the cities during the civil war.
Prodrazvyorstka allowed the Soviet government to solve the
important problem of supplying the [...] urban population
> No, should I?
Then why accept any of the different numbers, that the authors themselves can't even agree are accurate, in the Black Book of Communism?
> (sigh)
If you're Jewish then just say so; don't imply it, whether it's true or not, to try and score points in an argument.
I'm not sure what point you're missing here. If you invade another country, particularly with the intention of commiting genocide there, and you get killed for doing so, you are not a victim of the country you were trying to wipe out, or its ideology, you're a victim of your own actions.
> Yes, I noticed, you seem to think that as long as you and yours are fine, it does not matter if millions of other people are killed.
Okay, explain how the lives of the majority of people in Russia would have been improved under Nazi occupation than under Communism.
> Are you saying that those who had killed more people are perfectly fine, as long as they were killing people you do not particularly approve of?
"Communism" has not killed more people. That's simply a fantasy based on an absurd publication denounced as fictitious even by its own authors.
> communists, who did kill more people
So you keep insisting. Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
> you do not consider those killed to be people [...] worth counting.
I don't believe people who were not killed by Communism should be counted as being killed by Communism.
> What does it have to do with anything?
What does any of this thread have to do with your incorrect insistence, supported by no credible source, that the famine of 1921 was a "forced famine"?
> I have heard there are quite a few people who do not think that many Jews were killed by nazis. And there are different numbers, too
And do you accept any of their different numbers?
> Who, do you think, those people really do not like to associate with?
This is you being not cagey again, I presume.
The only person who has said "deserved it" in this discussion is you, so I don't know why you're pretending to be quoting me.
I said they - people who fought on the side of the Nazis, particularly against their own country, in order to enable Nazi genocide programs - don't count as victims of Communism.
> There was no Soviet Union in 1919.
I didn't say there was a Soviet Union in 1919. There was Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1919, which as a "Soviet citizen" I assumed you would be aware of.
> It would logically follow, though, that there are some Russian citizens who were alive in 1919 among my ancestors.
How would that logically follow? You haven't said that you're Russian, despite me asking where you're from multiple times.
> I didn't know thjat not answering a question that was never asked is being cagey.
I literally just asked you - again - what part of the USSR you are from and again you didn't answer.
> Also, yes, having first-hand experience does win some arguments with ignorant kids easily.
To have even first hand memories, let alone experience, of even the most recent subjects you've talked about you'd have to be about 75 years old. Are you?
> It is you who reduces everything to treatment of Jews.
Nice to know that you think the topic of the treatment of Jews constitutes reducing an argument, even in a reply where you were criticizing the anti-Semitism of Stalin (the same Stalin who set up a Jewish homeland on Soviet soil, and was the first person in the world to recognize Israel).
Ah wait, I forgot, you're arguing the Nazis were better than Communists, aren't you. And the only way to do that is attribute all deaths on Communist soil to malice on the part of Communism (then add whatever it takes to reach "100 million") while ignoring deliberate, systematic and industrial-scale human extermination programs and policies - absolutely unheard of anywhere else in history, before or since - enacted by the Nazis.
> Not everything in life is about you.
No, the question was about you. Specifically how your life would have been improved had you lived under Nazi occupation, since you argue that what you lived under - Communism - is "quite a bit worse" (your words) than Nazism.
> Actually, Holocaust deniers go on and on that nothing happened, and if something happened it was very minor
As I said, like spending their time arguing that what the Nazis did was very minor - "they killed far fewer people" - compared to something else.
Again, what kind of person would even think of bothering to exonerate or rehabilitate the Nazis in such a way?
> Like how even the low-end estimate from those critics of The Black Book that you mention put the number of victims of communism at ~3 times that of nazis.
Hah, "those critics"? You mean the actual authors of the book.
Let's repeat how absolutely inane and insane this is:
The authors of the book could not even decide amongst themselves on which imaginary - but definitely Worse Than The Nazis(tm) - number was historically factual, to the point where they themselves denounced their own book as fictitious.
Meanwhile MAGA-heads, up to and including the White House itself, cite the number that even the authors - even you - think is going too far (not because it's made up, but because it looks made up).
So which number, from the several provided by this fine example of historical research, do you think is true?
Since only one number can be true, we know for a certain fact that most of the numbers given have to be false. So why believe any of them?
> As nicely as it wuild've fed your persecution complex, no, they would not take me, if you knowq what I mean.
I don't. What, specifically, do you mean?
You didn't mention "Kazakh famine of 1919", you mentioned "Russians, Ukrainians and Kazakhs" in reply to my posts about Nazis being classed as victims by the The Black Book Of Communism.
> I guess, not being a former Soviet citizen you have no idea what it was.
You were a Soviet citizen in 1919? Because that's the only way you know any better than I do.
What part of the USSR are you from anyway? You seem quite cagey about it, despite thinking being born in some corner of the largest state on Earth 27+ years ago somehow wins you an argument by default.
> And how good Jews had it there.
So you want to make treatment of Jews part of your Naziism is better than Communism argument too?
> does not, by any stretch of imagination mean that communists were an iota better than Nazis
Then, for the second time of asking, explain how your life would have been improved by your country being under Nazi occupation rather than living under Communism.
> Your insistence on excusing mass murder because some of those murdered might have, at some point in the future, possibly, had they survived, killed someone else
Feel free to quote anything I've written that's even remotely close to the ballpark of anything even approaching that.
> isn't much different from what Holocaust deniers do.
This from someone who could be doing literally anything on the internet, and chooses to spend time minimizing the number of people killed by the Nazis - direct quote from you: "[the Nazis] killed far fewer people" - which is exactly what Holocaust deniers do.
> Does show where antisemites come from, though.
You should probably clarify this statement, because it sounds like you're justifying people becoming anti-Semites. Are you?
Why do hodlers of cryptos get so irate then?
Anti-Semitic Ukrainian mass murderers don't count, no. Nor do Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs or any other useful idiots (that the Nazis considered untermenschen) who signed up to help Germany carry out the Final Solution and Generalplan Ost (until it was their turn).
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that if the vast majority of people, communist or not, disagree with your belief that Nazi Germany wasn't as bad as the USSR, then you might be wrong.
As a former citizen of the USSR, as you seem to claim in another post, how much better do you seriously imagine your life would have been, assuming you even made it to conception, under Nazi rule?
> Exact numbers in the Black Book might be inaccurate -- unlike Germans, Soviets did not keep precise accouinting,
So because it's not possible to know the true number it's okay to just make one (or several) up and act like it's historical fact?
> quibbling over whether it was the exact 100 million or 93 million, or maybe only 67
If a difference of 33 million doesn't matter, and is mere quibbling, what's the motivation for even bothering to come up with a number at all?
Answer: to make the argument that the Nazis and the Holocaust weren't uniquely bad.
What kind of person, do you think, would bother making the effort to do that?
Good luck finding sympathy, outside neo-Nazi circles, for actual Nazis and Ukrainian militias who mass murdered Jews.
> if the best criticism of The Black Book is
The best criticism is that it was discredited and disowned even by its own authors.
All your quote says is that some people claim one side was to blame and some people claim another side was to blame.
More interesting is that you don't consider to be a "fringe source" the far-right bible The Black Book of Communism - a publication discredited and disowned even by its main authors - which in order to fabricate a high enough death count to paint the Nazis as not so bad after all and the Holocaust as nothing special, classifies as victims the likes of Nazi/SS military personnel and anti-Semitic Ukrainian nationalist militias who murdered thousands of Jews in countless pogroms.
Your claim that it was a "forced famine" doesn't appear anywhere on that page. On the contrary, it states:
The famine's primary causes were due to severe flooding
in the Volga region in 1921, as well as the exacerbation
of the Russian Civil War.
> it is still surprising that the only links you can find are from some fringe sites
Then again, for the third time of asking, provide some non-"fringe" links that claim, as you do, that it was a "forced famine".
> If you were googling for it, maybe Google knows something interesting about you that it redirects you to nazi sites?
Then, as I asked, show me site that isn't an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi blog that agrees with you that this was a "forced famine".
Let's see a link to a credible source that states it was a forced famine then.
Edit: The only sites I can find that share your view are anti-Semitic neo-Nazi blogs like:
zionistreport.com/2016/08/video-terror-under-the-jewish-bolshevik-forced-famine-in-russia-1921-1923/
holodomorinfo.com/glossery/bolshevik-atrocities/russian-forced-famine/
Is that where you're getting your "historical knowledge"?
> Of course the link does not talk of it because is is about entirely different thing.
What is it you think the submitted link is about then?
Babe is not a bro equivalent, and here you can see plenty of men who lift using the term:
Can you list all the ethical and humane ways the "developed world" became "developed", for someone who thinks all you're arguing is China shouldn't be able to advance in the way we did, now we can't get away with it any more (in our own countries, at least; hence why we happily outsource everything from cheap phones to torture to less 'red-tapey' ones)?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/appeal-indiana-woman-convicted-ha...