Some amazing photos giving an inkling of the extent of Soviet losses -
Most it is obvious that the crews could not have survived - Yes !

Also found executed civilians, fucking communists have not changed since
their blood stained, murderous inception.

`````````````````

Ghosts of Putin's Army: Columns of Russian armoured vehicles line the
highways out of Kyiv in 'tank graveyards' as advancing Ukrainians find
civilians shot with their hands tied behind their backs

Russian armoured vehicles on outskirts of Kyiv have been reduced to
rubble amid Ukrainian counterattacks
Dozens of burned out tanks, troop transport trucks and armoured
vehicles line the once-bustling highways
Ukrainian units report more possible war crimes after finding the
bound bodies of dead civilians in Bucha
President Zelensky warned Moscow's retreating forces left behind
'catastrophic' situations and mined homes

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10679301/Pictured-Columns-Russian-vehicles-line-highways-Kyiv-tank-graveyards.html
--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

In article <B602K.1955$O01.531@fx33.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

[...]

> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10679301/Pictured-Columns-Russian-vehicles-line-highways-Kyiv-tank-graveyards.html

What are these brick-like things esp. evident in

"A Ukrainian policeman inspects destroyed Russian heavy vehicles after Zelenskyy's
forces regained control of the village of Dmitrivka near Kyiv on Saturday"?

Are they supposed to provide some protection from anti-tank missiles?

They seem to also be trying to use improvised metal cages, just like in WW2...

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <B602K.1955$O01.531@fx33.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10679301/Pictured-Columns-Russian-vehicles-line-highways-Kyiv-tank-graveyards.html
>
> What are these brick-like things esp. evident in
>
> "A Ukrainian policeman inspects destroyed Russian heavy vehicles after Zelenskyy's
> forces regained control of the village of Dmitrivka near Kyiv on Saturday"?
>
> Are they supposed to provide some protection from anti-tank missiles?
>
> They seem to also be trying to use improvised metal cages, just like in WW2...
>

Yes, reactive armor.
Supposed to detonate on impact, preventing/deflecting the projectile
from penetrating the armor.

The US, and all major powers no doubt, developed missiles to get around
this, tandem warheads being among the most popular. Also the flight
trajectory takes it on a steep climb then dives, punching through on top
where the armor is necessarily the thinnest [cages are a futile attempt
to prevent this]
Soviet armor in particular is ill maintained, I saw a report weeks ago
that the charges in most of their reactive armor boxes were missing.
Next thing you know they'll be driving around with sandbagged tanks
which, on top of being labor intensive and not too effective, would
greatly increase their fuel consumption and exacerbate the already
shattered Soviet logistical problems.

Would stand to reason that US armor has more tricks to defeat modern
anti tank missiles, what precisely that is is speculation, obviously
they are not too chatty about the subject.
US tanks in the 1st place are quite a bit larger, heavier and more
robust than Soviet tanks, that has been a fact for decades as Russians
long ago found that lighter, cheaper more fuel efficient tanks suit
their needs better than the monsters the US deploys.

In the free ranging armor melees they envisioned in east Europe, they
thought numbers would be an overriding factor, as it was in WW2.
Maybe so, but obviously not well suited for driving down single roads in
packed columns in very hostile territory.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

JeSSe wrote:
> Some amazing photos giving an inkling of the extent of Soviet losses  -
> Most it is obvious that the crews could not have survived - Yes !
>
> Also found executed civilians, fucking communists have not changed since
> their blood stained, murderous inception.
>
> `````````````````
>
>
> Ghosts of Putin's Army: Columns of Russian armoured vehicles line the
> highways out of Kyiv in 'tank graveyards' as advancing Ukrainians find
> civilians shot with their hands tied behind their backs
>
>     Russian armoured vehicles on outskirts of Kyiv have been reduced to
> rubble amid Ukrainian counterattacks
>     Dozens of burned out tanks, troop transport trucks and armoured
> vehicles line the once-bustling highways
>     Ukrainian units report more possible war crimes after finding the
> bound bodies of dead civilians in Bucha
>     President Zelensky warned Moscow's retreating forces left behind
> 'catastrophic' situations and mined homes
>
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10679301/Pictured-Columns-Russian-vehicles-line-highways-Kyiv-tank-graveyards.html
>

Here is video footage of the devastation in liberated areas north of
Kiev caused by the Soviet war criminal invaders.
Civilians executed in the streets in true Soviet fashion, and
incinerated armored vehicles crammed full of childrens toys and cell
phones from looted Ukrainian shops.

And putin said he was there to liberate them from Nazi rule, mmm hmmm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ua1Ko6VGww

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 13:55:44 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Some amazing photos giving an inkling of the extent of Soviet losses
> - Most it is obvious that the crews could not have survived - Yes !

It's no surprise death and destruction makes you come in your pants.

Do you enjoy it as much as others do when Americans are killed ?

In article <sl12K.227512$H_t7.71669@fx40.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Yes, reactive armor.
> Supposed to detonate on impact, preventing/deflecting the projectile
> from penetrating the armor.
>
> The US, and all major powers no doubt, developed missiles to get around
> this, tandem warheads being among the most popular. Also the flight
> trajectory takes it on a steep climb then dives, punching through on top
> where the armor is necessarily the thinnest [cages are a futile attempt
> to prevent this]
> Soviet armor in particular is ill maintained, I saw a report weeks ago
> that the charges in most of their reactive armor boxes were missing.
> Next thing you know they'll be driving around with sandbagged tanks
> which, on top of being labor intensive and not too effective, would
> greatly increase their fuel consumption and exacerbate the already
> shattered Soviet logistical problems.
>
> Would stand to reason that US armor has more tricks to defeat modern
> anti tank missiles, what precisely that is is speculation, obviously
> they are not too chatty about the subject.
> US tanks in the 1st place are quite a bit larger, heavier and more
> robust than Soviet tanks, that has been a fact for decades as Russians
> long ago found that lighter, cheaper more fuel efficient tanks suit
> their needs better than the monsters the US deploys.
>
> In the free ranging armor melees they envisioned in east Europe, they
> thought numbers would be an overriding factor, as it was in WW2.
> Maybe so, but obviously not well suited for driving down single roads in
> packed columns in very hostile territory.

Thanks for the informative post.

I'm not an expert on the subject. The Israelis have developed a defense system
which attempts to destroy incoming missiles before they hit the tank:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)

In article <20220402224706.00005ebb@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> It's no surprise death and destruction makes you come in your pants.

And how do you react whenever a Boeing crashes?

Or when US COVID deaths hit one million?

What was it that you once wrote here? "We need to build a 40
feet wall around the US, and hope it rains"?

Or stating that Trump's then 10 year old son is "fair game" for
taunts and insults?

Do us a favor. I don't agree with everything Jesse writes, but at
least he's not a hypocrite. You really have no claim for the high
moral ground.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:40:11 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220402224706.00005ebb@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It's no surprise death and destruction makes you come in your
> > pants.
>
> And how do you react whenever a Boeing crashes?
>
> Or when US COVID deaths hit one million?

None of that was celebratory.

> What was it that you once wrote here? "We need to build a 40
> feet wall around the US, and hope it rains"?

I would imagine so, but in what context ?

> Or stating that Trump's then 10 year old son is "fair game" for
> taunts and insults?

Donald Trump made him fair game but you're dragging this even further off-topic.

> Do us a favor. I don't agree with everything Jesse writes, but at
> least he's not a hypocrite. You really have no claim for the high
> moral ground.

ROTFLMAO - Nor do you. So do us all a favor.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 12:41:23 +0100
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> > Or stating that Trump's then 10 year old son is "fair game" for
> > taunts and insults?
>
> Donald Trump made him fair game

And of course there's the, not so insignificant, issue of Freedom of Speech.

If you want to tell us you are opposed to Freedom of Speech, opposed to people having First Amendment rights, then go right ahead.

If you want to tell us you believe in both you will have to explain your hypocrisy in complaining when people exercising those rights.

In article <20220403124123.00007ae9@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

>> And how do you react whenever a Boeing crashes?
>>
>> Or when US COVID deaths hit one million?

> None of that was celebratory.

Yeah right.

>> Or stating that Trump's then 10 year old son is "fair game" for
>> taunts and insults?

> Donald Trump made him fair game

No he did not, and even if he would have, why should a 10 year old
boy be punished for something his father did?

> but you're dragging this even further off-topic.

I believe I'm not.

>> Do us a favor. I don't agree with everything Jesse writes, but at
>> least he's not a hypocrite. You really have no claim for the high
>> moral ground.

> ROTFLMAO - Nor do you. So do us all a favor.

I never claimed I do. I'm definitely capable of being nasty and
hateful. But at least, I will never justify insulting 10 year
olds, or celebrating when people randomly die, just because they
are the citizens of a certain nation.

If I hate people, it's because of the choices they made.

In article <20220403130201.00006a17@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

>>> Or stating that Trump's then 10 year old son is "fair game" for
>>> taunts and insults?
>> Donald Trump made him fair game

No, and as noted, irrelevant even if he would have.

> And of course there's the, not so insignificant, issue of Freedom
> of Speech.

I'm not talking about Freedom of Speech. Perhaps insulting 10 year
olds is protected by Freedom of Speech -- I have no idea. I'm talking
about behaving like a decent human being. Do you REALLY fail to see
the point?

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 12:19:11 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220403130201.00006a17@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> Or stating that Trump's then 10 year old son is "fair game" for
> >>> taunts and insults?
>
> >> Donald Trump made him fair game
>
> No, and as noted, irrelevant even if he would have.
>
> > And of course there's the, not so insignificant, issue of Freedom
> > of Speech.
>
> I'm not talking about Freedom of Speech. Perhaps insulting 10 year
> olds is protected by Freedom of Speech -- I have no idea. I'm talking
> about behaving like a decent human being. Do you REALLY fail to see
> the point?

Do you not see that applying this "decent human being" caveat on Freedom of Speech is just a back door way of limiting Freedom of Speech ?

A decent human being wouldn't call a woman a "crazy bitch" simply for holding views one disagrees with - But you do that.

Your protestations are pure hypocrisy.

In article <20220403144703.000046f0@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

[...]

>> I'm not talking about Freedom of Speech. Perhaps insulting 10 year
>> olds is protected by Freedom of Speech -- I have no idea. I'm talking
>> about behaving like a decent human being. Do you REALLY fail to see
>> the point?

> Do you not see that applying this "decent human being" caveat on Freedom
> of Speech is just a back door way of limiting Freedom of Speech ?

You're being absurd. Freedom of Speech can and is used, quite often,
to say things that most people consider revolting. Or do you consider,
for example, David Irving to be a "decent human being"?

> A decent human being wouldn't call a woman a "crazy bitch" simply for holding
> views one disagrees with -

It depends on the opinions. Would you not refer to an extreme neo-Nazi
woman as a "crazy bitch"?

If it was a Trump supporting White woman, using such language w.r.t Black
women as this filthy, racist, crazy bitch used w.r.t White women, would
you also object to her being labeled a "crazy bitch"?

Who do you think you're fooling?

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 14:33:26 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220403144703.000046f0@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I'm not talking about Freedom of Speech. Perhaps insulting 10 year
> >> olds is protected by Freedom of Speech -- I have no idea. I'm
> >> talking about behaving like a decent human being. Do you REALLY
> >> fail to see the point?
>
> > Do you not see that applying this "decent human being" caveat on
> > Freedom of Speech is just a back door way of limiting Freedom of
> > Speech ?
>
> You're being absurd. Freedom of Speech can and is used, quite often,
> to say things that most people consider revolting.

Exactly. Yet you are the one complaining about that being done.

I am still trying to figure out why you called me out for supposedly being racist and chauvinistic over some perceived insult to Beyonce yet you never call out Jesse when he calls people "kikes", "chinks", "niggers" and refers to women as "gash".

Best I can conclude is it's trolling.

In article <t2cb7m$905$1@pcls7.std.com>,
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220403144703.000046f0@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

>> A decent human being wouldn't call a woman a "crazy bitch" simply for
>> holding views one disagrees with -

> It depends on the opinions. Would you not refer to an extreme neo-Nazi
> woman as a "crazy bitch"?

?

> If it was a Trump supporting White woman, using such language w.r.t Black
> women as this filthy, racist, crazy bitch used w.r.t White women, would
> you also object to her being labeled a "crazy bitch"?

?

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 17:49:49 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <t2cb7m$905$1@pcls7.std.com>,
> Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:
>
> > In article <20220403144703.000046f0@ntlworld.invalid>,
> > The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> A decent human being wouldn't call a woman a "crazy bitch" simply
> >> for holding views one disagrees with -
>
> > It depends on the opinions. Would you not refer to an extreme
> > neo-Nazi woman as a "crazy bitch"?
>
> ?

No.

> > If it was a Trump supporting White woman, using such language w.r.t
> > Black women as this filthy, racist, crazy bitch used w.r.t White
> > women, would you also object to her being labeled a "crazy bitch"?
>
> ?

That "as this filthy, racist, crazy bitch used" is your subjective opinion which I am not going to give any credence to by answering.

And your "bitch" isn't based upon views it is derogatively based upon her being a woman.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <sl12K.227512$H_t7.71669@fx40.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, reactive armor.
>> Supposed to detonate on impact, preventing/deflecting the projectile
>> from penetrating the armor.
>>
>> The US, and all major powers no doubt, developed missiles to get around
>> this, tandem warheads being among the most popular. Also the flight
>> trajectory takes it on a steep climb then dives, punching through on top
>> where the armor is necessarily the thinnest [cages are a futile attempt
>> to prevent this]
>> Soviet armor in particular is ill maintained, I saw a report weeks ago
>> that the charges in most of their reactive armor boxes were missing.
>> Next thing you know they'll be driving around with sandbagged tanks
>> which, on top of being labor intensive and not too effective, would
>> greatly increase their fuel consumption and exacerbate the already
>> shattered Soviet logistical problems.
>>
>> Would stand to reason that US armor has more tricks to defeat modern
>> anti tank missiles, what precisely that is is speculation, obviously
>> they are not too chatty about the subject.
>> US tanks in the 1st place are quite a bit larger, heavier and more
>> robust than Soviet tanks, that has been a fact for decades as Russians
>> long ago found that lighter, cheaper more fuel efficient tanks suit
>> their needs better than the monsters the US deploys.
>>
>> In the free ranging armor melees they envisioned in east Europe, they
>> thought numbers would be an overriding factor, as it was in WW2.
>> Maybe so, but obviously not well suited for driving down single roads in
>> packed columns in very hostile territory.
>
> Thanks for the informative post.
>
> I'm not an expert on the subject. The Israelis have developed a defense system
> which attempts to destroy incoming missiles before they hit the tank:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
>

My expertise level isn't that high with armor, mostly into air and naval.
I was involved in tactical contingency planning towards the end of my
USMC career in Korea [which included as you might imagine mass artillery
strikes and armored rushes on Seoul], and since most of NK hardware was
and is of Soviet origin, learned quite a bit about their strengths and
weaknesses in short order.

Yes, would be ideal to destroy a projectile before it reaches its
target, will always be a tall order doing something like that whether
its an aircraft, tank, ship or city.
Quite a few homing systems including laser, IR, optical and more ,, I
imagine the goal of any terminal, tactical defense system would be to
reduce odds of a fatal strike and/or be optimized to effectively deal
with only the most dangerous systems, since they can never be totally
eliminated.
ie: A system that protects against laser guided systems may be useless
for IR systems, or old school bazookas for that matter, which are still
in use today.
TOW missiles are still very deadly but have [relatively] fallen out of
use with everyone wanting to upgrade to the latest tech. As
countermeasures evolve, TOW just may see a resurgence of use as they are
largely immune to any detection systems.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <20220403130201.00006a17@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Or stating that Trump's then 10 year old son is "fair game" for
>>>> taunts and insults?
>
>>> Donald Trump made him fair game
>
> No, and as noted, irrelevant even if he would have.
>
>> And of course there's the, not so insignificant, issue of Freedom
>> of Speech.
>
> I'm not talking about Freedom of Speech. Perhaps insulting 10 year
> olds is protected by Freedom of Speech -- I have no idea. I'm talking
> about behaving like a decent human being. Do you REALLY fail to see
> the point?
>

Would it surprise you to know that hippys advocacy for free speech
extends to threats to murder jewish men, woman, children, spouses [and
family pets] ?

Hippy Sez Aug 3, 2006:

> I can
> slaughter Jews if you want, and I can do it far nearer to home. I can
> deliver you a veritable bloodbath of dead Jews if you want; men, women and
> children,. Even their pets too, if that's what you want. How about we start
> with your wife ?

> You want to see blood flowing ? That can be
> arranged. Maybe I should come round and wipe the whole sickening stain of
> the Yates family away, and show you and your Zionist war-mongering buddies
> exactly what this death and destruction you are cheer-leading for really
> means ? What do you think Ron ?

here is the whole sordid affair if you've got an hour to kill and want
to see what set him off, and the aftermath

https://groups.google.com/g/uk.current-events.terrorism/c/Me98t_d6e9g?hl=en#f9adc44b21e7189a

At that time this group was vibrant, with a dozen + regular posters,
most of whom reviled hippy.
He had one attached at the hip buddy, Chris Hills, an alcoholic software
peddler, and rumor had it that they regularly engaged in sodomy.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 22:00:42 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> At that time this group was vibrant, with a dozen + regular posters,
> most of whom reviled hippy.

That's a lie.

> He had one attached at the hip buddy, Chris Hills, an alcoholic
> software peddler

Both are lies.

> and rumor had it that they regularly engaged in
> sodomy.

Not so much a rumour as something you falsely alleged.

You are simply propagandist scum. Always have been. Always will be.

In article <JMn2K.437524$SeK9.421166@fx97.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

[deleted for brevity]

Thanks, interesting stuff! I hope we will not have the opportunity
to check your work on simulating NK attacks... fat boy seems to
be running amok again.

In my previous workplace, I was briefly involved with a plan for
a tank defense system which was truly original. The idea was to
surround the tank with coils, and generate a strong AC EM field to
disperse the jet of molten metal produced by the impact of the
anti-tank missile. My group was consulted due to our knowledge in
computer simulation of physical phenomena, i.e. before building a
prototype, they wanted to know if there's a chance that it will
work in real life.

Eventually they decided not to proceed; however, although the
idea appeared to me like something from Star Trek, I did respect
the person who could come up with such a thought!

In article <fjs2K.326502$Gojc.48999@fx99.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

[...]

> Would it surprise you to know that hippys advocacy for free speech
> extends to threats to murder jewish men, woman, children, spouses [and
> family pets] ?

Hardly anything would surprise me w.r.t "Happy" (now that's a riot).

I recall one of his first posts I read, it was about the Russian
passenger jet blown out of the sky by an ISIS fraction. I was
scratching my head, saying to myself "man, this guy is STRANGE".

Then came his justification of the attacks on the then 10 year old
Barron Trump, and I just basically gave up.

> Hippy Sez Aug 3, 2006:

[...]

> here is the whole sordid affair if you've got an hour to kill and want
> to see what set him off, and the aftermath
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/uk.current-events.terrorism/c/Me98t_d6e9g?hl=en#f9adc44b21e7189a

Phew.

Sure adds a different twist to his standard "if it's us, it's bad" attitude, as
summarized by TWP; and it appears criminal, although apparently different rules
apply for newsgroup posts -- e.g. I once tried to complain to British authorities
about a certain poster who cheered the rape and murder of British infants, but
to my surprise was told it's not illegal, "since he did not advocate such
actions, merely supported them"(!?) or something of the sort. Don't know where
HH's posts fall from the legal POV. I assume he could claim he was being "ironic".

> At that time this group was vibrant, with a dozen + regular posters,
> most of whom reviled hippy.
> He had one attached at the hip buddy, Chris Hills, an alcoholic software
> peddler, and rumor had it that they regularly engaged in sodomy.

Well I wouldn't know about the sodomy part :)

IMHO HH is one of these people who profess to love humanity, but cannot
develop any human feelings towards individual people.

Add to this his enormous hatred of the West and of White people, his total
and complete inability to be even 1% objective about any issue involving
both, and you get the (sad) picture.

You and I clashed in the past over some issues, possibly will do so again
in the future, but at least I know that I'm communicating with a real
person, who can think and feel.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 11:00:51 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> fat boy seems to be running amok again.

Yet again with the childish name calling. You're little better than Jesse is.

In article <20220404141201.00003eef@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

>> fat boy seems to be running amok again.

> Yet again with the childish name calling. You're little better than Jesse is.

He's so fat, that when he goes camping, the bears hide THEIR food.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 11:36:28 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> I assume he could claim he was being "ironic".

"Hyperbolic to make a point" is how I would put it. I was illustrating the adverse consequences of what George was hoping for, the utter stupidity of someone Jewish expressing hope that I had joined with those accused of wanting to slaughter Jews -

"Maybe he took up our challenge, and joined his Hezbullah friends on the front lines. One can only hope - George"

But at least you have grasped there was a context in which it was posted which Jesse likes to pretend there wasn't. And, maybe even believes because he's so cognitively impaired he cannot comprehend that it's not how he has chosen to believe it is.

> IMHO HH is one of these people who profess to love humanity, but
> cannot develop any human feelings towards individual people.
>
> Add to this his enormous hatred of the West and of White people, his
> total and complete inability to be even 1% objective about any issue
> involving both, and you get the (sad) picture.

Whatever. You and Jesse are both fascists cut from the same cloth, have no tolerance for those who don't share your viewpoint. Your only saving grace, being better educated, is you are a more skilled propagandist and troll than Jesse is.

You both suck up to TWP because he leans to the right and you hope to bring him fully on-board with your agendas. You hate it that I pull in the opposite direction so I have to be demonised, discredited. It's indoctrination, brain-washing, grooming, radicalisation. They are the tools of your trade.

What really makes me laugh is your 'with us or against us' tribalism of whether Barron Trump was fair game or not. You demonstrate you are just another fundamentalist at heart.

In article <20220404152530.0000125b@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

[...]

>> IMHO HH is one of these people who profess to love humanity, but
>> cannot develop any human feelings towards individual people.
>>
>> Add to this his enormous hatred of the West and of White people, his
>> total and complete inability to be even 1% objective about any issue
>> involving both, and you get the (sad) picture.

> Whatever. You and Jesse are both fascists

LOL. How easy it is for you to throw words around. I'm not 1% fascist, and
you will not be able to find anything I wrote which supports your accusation.

> cut from the same cloth, have no tolerance for those who don't share
> your viewpoint.

For some of them I do, for some I don't.

> Your only saving grace, being better educated, is you are a more skilled
> propagandist and troll than Jesse is.

I'm better educated in the sciences, Jesse is better educated at other
disciplines. And in this forum, I do not troll; I meant every word in
my post.

> You both suck up to TWP because he leans to the right and you hope to bring
> him fully on-board with your agendas.

Sure, we just need TWP on-board and we'll start the revolution.

I respect TWP, he seems like a sensible "old school gentleman", he's
polite, and his comments are on point.

> You hate it that I pull in the opposite direction

Your immense hatred of everything American/West/White etc. cannot be
described as merely "pulling in the opposite direction".

> so I have to be demonised, discredited. It's indoctrination,
> brain-washing, grooming, radicalisation. They are the tools of your trade.

You are guilty of all the above. Disagree with you, and be labeled
a "fascist" etc.

> What really makes me laugh

I'm happy that you can actually laugh.

> is your 'with us or against us' tribalism of whether Barron Trump was fair
> game or not. You demonstrate you are just another fundamentalist at heart.

I *am* a fundamentalist to some extent. What does that have to do with
my opinion that it is wrong to attack and offend a 10 year old, to label
him "fair game" etc., due to something which, allegedly, his father did?
Can you just bloody admit that you were wrong, very wrong, to claim this?