/k/ - Weapons

>>524881

Very old. But very, very good.

>>524881

What's a good way to make a .gif of 8:36 to 8:37 on the video?

i want more of [British Soldier laughing]

>>524927

he's a liberal cuck, like all liberal cucks.

that whole fucking thing was MUH COLONIALISM autistic screeching. they shit in the ganges and then downstream bathe in it and further downstream drink from it and cannot comprehend why they are getting sick, but those brits were real bastards because they enforced civilized laws.

"one day the population will have native Argentinian names such as Kirchner, Schultz, Messi, kohler…"

>>524959

>That must be the darkest skinned Argentinian kid ever

:D

>related video

I know very little about this war aside from it being the last gasp of the british empire and is generally considered to be proof that white people are all evil (therefor, I am certain not only was the war justified but in fact the brits didn't go far enough).

but then, I am also one of those fools who thinks israel deserves the right to exist, so what do I know?

>>524932

Why are the argentinians wearing red?

>>524978

They're as white as /pol/.

Which is to say, not very.

>>524979

Kek, yeah >>>/pol/10783987

>>524955

It just seems like far too clear-cut an issue to go full retard on like he did.

>>525075

The second man is of no benefit to the nation, he's not eve technically a part of it, he's a parasite. Of course he's rejected by it.

>>525132

>le wage slave

>>>/leftypol/

>>525132

>you can contribute to society by being on welfare

Go back to venezuela you turd.

>>524979

>>525003

>t. kikes

>>525163

>saying that mexicans aren't white makes us kikes

Fuck off, Imkikey

>>524978

Sage but if the EU really wanted to screw with the UK wouldn't they just sell a crap ton of Exocerts and jets to the argies?

>>525646

>sage

good job, buckaroo.

>>524937

ffmpeg

>>526069

Wasn't also the Argentinian capital ship sunk while trying to evacuate wreckage survivors after an issued cease fire?

>>526074

Yes. Brits have no honour.

>>526069

>Canuck flag

erytime, should've genocide the frenchies over there when we had the chance.

>>526029

Anon there have been more girls raped in the Rotherham case than in all of Germany since the start of the rapefugee invasion in 2015.

In Germany you can still count the single incidents and portray them on a map, in the UK the authorities have stopped doing that and instead count the number of muslim rape gangs.

>>526131

Argentinians are full of shit honistly, always trying to land grab and pretending they aren't evil doing it.

Hey, atleast it isnt Paraguay

>fights Argies, monkey eaters and Uruguay all at the same time

>"lol we won that"

>battles consisted of sending sick people, women, children, wounded and old people into battle to get massacred (which they late celebrate as "kid's day")

>loses an assload of territory

>years later

>fights fucking bolivia

>"lol we wont that"

>loses an assload of territory to bolivians (who were being assisted by the US)

>has a navy branch, despite being a landlocked country

>country is a corrupt hellhole with people complaining about it but not actually doing anything about it unlike Argieland who is just now uncucking itself from 12+ years of socialism and corrupt politicians

Nuke this place off the map.

>>526225

>always trying to land grab and pretending they aren't evil doing it.

Exactly; if they weren't so terribad at it then I might even accept that they could be white : ^ )

>>526069

>boo hoo, those mean ol' brits sunk my "civilian" ships

>after i sailed them 1000 miles from home

>into an active warzone

Truly despicable.

>>526074

They didn't seem to care so much about the cease-fire that was in place before they started the war. They're just crying because they lost. Remember, all of those dead Argies would still be alive if they hadn't invaded.

>>526308

Anglo sphere will always unite for the hate they share for Argentina.

>>526244

>Wow, you're so less cucked than us

We are in fact anon, despite being the main destination for the brown flood, we still manage to have less shitskins roaming our country than the UK.

>…than having to do it in organised/covered up gangs

Anon they weren't covered up, your own police helped them out of fear of being called racist.

Our police is laughing in the face of every shitskin trying to get away with a crime by calling them racist or nazi.

>>526315

Nice try Burger.

>Threaten to betray British forces & plans to the enemy.

>Constantly call for British moderation in the face of an unprovoked war of annexation.

>Use diplomatic and economic threats to prevent Britain from 'humiliating' Argentina and end the war early.

The one time we needed NATO to actually NATO (you know, that whole defensive treaty thing) and you failed us.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253926/How-US-nearly-betrayed-enemy-Secretary-State-threatened-tell-Argentina-British-troops-landing-South-Georgia.html

>>526326

>a leaf

>>526329

>a lard

>muh bacon flag

>>526326

>Argie VPN or Immigrant NuLeaf?

Let's go through your butthurt - because I'm bored and you're entertaining.

>Falklands are so much closer to Argentina.

Nobody is disputing that, retard. The distance is irrelevant, British Clay is British Clay. Are you suggesting that Texas should be Mexican territory? It is much closer to Mexico than Washington D.C.

>WAAAAH! Brits were doing bad things but they deleted the records so you can't check my claim!

The levels of irrational butthurt are off the charts Captain!

>The Argies didn't just claim an island off the coast of UK and evilly raped every blade of grass there for shits and giggles, which is what angloroaches seem to be implying ITT.

OK, if you want to be slow I'll state this clearly and openly with no implication or metaphor.

Argentina starts an illegal and undeclared war of annexation. Britain wins the war, despite having to ship men and materiel 12'000km (with our supposed allies going out of their way to make that harder for us). Having been beaten by Britain the Argies go out of their way to be wailing cunts on the subject from that point on.

Is that clear enough for you?

>you had to beg France for Exocet kill-codes

deny your enemy the use of his most effective weapon is stupid!

>you had to breach peace treaties

You mean that peace treaty that required that Argentinian forces retreat from the island? The peace treaty that they ignored and thus rendered invalid? That peace treaty?

>kill POWs and civilians

We also sacrificed 1000 virginal Scottish girls to the dark gods (you have no idea how hard it was to find that many Scottish virgins), deployed illegal warlock regiments, and raped your dog in order to ensure victory.

>you had to threaten to nuke Buenos Aires

Using your nukes as anything more than glorified presidential penis extensions is stupid! Forcing a surrender is stupid when you could have let the war keep running for the next few years!

>Argentina (was) anally raping you.

2.5-1 KDR - 2-1 injury ratio - 98-1 POW ratio - Argentinian air-force and navy take disproportionate losses compared to equivalent British forces - Argentina surrenders and loses large amount of military equipment - British presence in the region increases with the taking of Sandwich Islands and Southern Thule - Argentinian Junta dies shortly after surrender due to pressure from population following their defeat. Oh, and the oil there is ours too following the war.

Well, apparently 'anally raping' us broke Argentinas dick and lead to a heart attack causing brain damage and a radical personality shift.

>You're a joke "country"

That's rich coming from Americas hat.

>>526340

>hes proud of losing a conventional war so hard he needed to commit war crimes, get foreign aid and use nukes to get the enemy to surrender

lol

You realize that means UK can't win against any country that has nukes or ABM, or any country that has friends with those capabilities - but can lose against virtually anyone including banana republics?

Maybe we should invade you.

>>526354

>Misunderstanding the point this badly.

>TFW you're not sure if he thinks he's just 'avin a giggle, or if he's been hitting the syrup a little too hard.

>>526357

>merely pretending

>>526357

Partly I just enjoy pissing you off because you're full of yourselves and deserve it. Partly the British showing in the Falklands war was objectively humiliating, and considering we're your allies it concerns me that your military readiness has worsened geometrically since the conflict.

>>526356

This. Nothing distracts the public from problems at home quite like a foreign war. I don't blame the Argentinian people for the war, or hold it against them. It was just a standard political manoeuvre. Honestly, I'm pretty sure that "problems at home" is a big part of why the Brits put in the effort to retake the islands. God knows Thatcher had enough that she needed to distract the public from, so a nice defensive foreign war with lots of publicity was just what the doctor ordered. It's all just shitty politics.

Wasn't a secondary objective of the war to disrupt and thin the ranks of potential malcontents by conscripting a whole bunch of university students and sending them off to get shot at? Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

>>526318

You do know that NATO power must be activated correct? It was a choice to not use it on part of the UK. Only the United States has ever activated that power.

>>526401

>since the iron lady's still regarded highly these days (correct me if I'm wrong)

I think more common is people still disliking her but grudgingly admitting that at least she did one thing right.

>>526417

Fair enough, that thing's the war right?

>>526401

Northerners and millennials who weren't even born at the time dislike her for "muh coal mines" and simply because it's le based popular thing to do and get upboats on reddit.

Most southerners who were alive around the time that she was actually in office usually support her.

I personally dislike her because she was the cunt that got semi-autos banned, but I support her fucking over the trade unionists.

>>526401

The war certainly helped Thatcher maintain power in the elections. From a British perspective the Falklands war was a stunning success and a great return to form after the humiliation of the Suez Crisis and loss of the empire.

More recently Thatchers popularity can be pretty easily predicted by political leanings. Conservatives think she's a saint who saved Britain, anyone on the left thinks she was the devil incarnate. Hence why when she died she was given a fancy ceremonial funeral but the song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" from the Wizard of Oz reached number two in British music charts around the same time.

>>526436

>her early efforts to fight the actual hardcore commies in the unions and certain local governments were needed

You mean raping the working class and abolishing all the legal rights they had earned in favour of a (((handful of plutocrats))).

>>526495

When has fucking up communism ever hurt the middle class? Next you'll tell me "don't hurt the poor leaches and tick's! They're the life blood of our society!"

Unless I'm reading your post wrong that is.

>>526496

I'm unsure if this is just bait or if you legitimately believe what you just typed out.

Either way

>>>/leftypol/

>>526496

Elitist cuckservative policies and worker-purgings like the iron cunt's are the ground upon the proletariat sprouts, cultural marxism is only the fertilizer, and as a matter of fact marxism only results in laughable SJW clowns and alienation of their ideology from the working class when plutocrats' greed haven't created rugged workers with nothing to lose.

>>526495

I don't think you understand how fucked up the UK was in the 70s anon. Read up on the miners' strikes (Three-Day Weeks and essentially dictating who was allowed to govern the country is not on).

>>526503

Don't forget the rolling blackouts, and the government effectively needing to get permission from the Unions to pass laws.

>>526500

You're mistaken, I'm a patriot not a retard. (Probably my fault, 12 hour shift just done and I can't sleep.

>>526502

Truly communism is evil, but a tough stance on it doesn't make it stronger.

>>526503

>>526505

this this this and this.

people actually tend to dismiss the rise of punks as being some music fad, but england was in some dire fucking straits back in the 70s. it was a natural reaction to the unemployment and hopelessness of life in that era for cuck islanders.

thatcher bought them some time by actually strengthening the economy.

>>526511

>thatcher bought them some time by actually strengthening the economy.

I'd say long-term her later policies have fucked us over a bit, arguably they're also responsible for things like the rise of the SNP.

>>526495

>You mean raping the working class and abolishing all the legal rights they had

No, fairly certain he meant fighting commies

When there are constant blackouts, trade unions murdering people in the streets for being "scabs" and shit like stadiums being re purposed into landfill sites due to people going on strike constantly over retarded shit like the toilet roll not being their favourite brand, then I don't think it was "muh poor proletariat dindu nuffin"

>>526520

>SNP

>rise

Mild kek

>>526511

>a natural reaction to the unemployment and hopelessness of life in that era

Basically, but the punks stopped thinking with 'things are shit' rather than going on to the more interesting and useful 'why are things shit and how can we make them less shit?' leading to a reaction that was basically just childishness with garish hair dye and crappy music.

>thatcher bought them some time by actually strengthening the economy

Thatcher solved the immediate problems, specifically the power of the unions and the Civil Service perverting the course of the democratically elected government and fucking things up for the rest of us. In the long term though her actions have caused problems that we're still dealing with today and probably will be for the next few decades at least; problems that may well fuck us up completely even if everything else goes perfectly from now on.

>>526508

>but a tough stance on it doesn't make it stronger

Actually it does unless said tough stance involves hot lead and even in this case you have to have made sure you haven't disenfranchised the vast majority of your populous resulting to future commie conscripts and your logistical isolation.

>>526522

>Mild kek

Their position now (even with the setbacks of 2017) and over the last decade or two is clearly far superior to any other point in their ~90 year history anon, that's just an objective analysis of the situation. This is a really a result of the creation of a devolved Scottish parliament that they could (relatively) easily dominate politically. The creation of that is the result of a bit of a complicated process but Thatcher is key: most of the arguments at the time rested on the UK (and thus Scotland) being governed by one party despite Scotland consistently voting for other parties. In fact that argument is also what has kept the SNP winning in Holyrood, that and major incompetence from their opponents anyway (Scottish Labour in particular are a fucking joke).

Now what's interesting about this, if you know your political history, is that the SNP is itself responsible for the election of Thatcher's Conservatives. They were previously, along with Welsh nationalists, backing a Labour minority government (Scots at the time being more or less ok with the Labour party) in return for referendums on creating devolved parliaments in both Scotland and Wales. The government snuck an amendment in saying that any vote that came out yes required a minimum turnout to come into effect: the Scottish referendum in 1979 did indeed result in a yes but with only ~60% turnout there's a bit of argument about if, given shoddy accounting practices, it was even possible to have a higher turnout but the truth of that depends largely on who you ask and it's not too important so whatever and so didn't count under the new rule. Being somewhat pissed off it was quite clear that the SNP would no longer support the government and so when the Conservatives called a vote of no confidence the Labour government lost (by a single vote, in fact). This forced a new election which the Conservatives, under Thatcher, promptly won and then pursued a fairly hardline set of policies as has been discussed elsewhere ITT. For a whole load of fairly off-topic reasons this new government was rather unpopular in Scotland (particularly after its first term and growing moreso over time) but Scotland's smaller population in comparison to the UK as a whole really prevented this unpopularity having any impact. The Conservatives winning four times with both a leader and a set of policies that were wildly unpopular in Scotland did excessive damage to their reputation north of the border, only in the last year or two have they managed to shake this off; it is unlikely the Conservatives would have been so extreme had not their victory come at such a specific time due to that vote of no confidence.

Now when Labour eventually won again 18 years later they promised to have another referendum on Scottish devolution to secure votes, this passed and that's why we have a Scottish parliament where the SNP are really just big fish in a little pond again, lots of reasons for this that I won't go into. What's funny about this is that Labour had to change to a much more centrist position to win against the Conservatives, something also (eventually) unpopular with a lot of Scottish voters. So as a(n unintentional) result of the SNP taking down that Labour government back in 1979 both the Conservative party and then the Labour party had to change into forms much less appealing to the average Scottish voter to sell themselves to the average English voter: this was obviously of huge benefit to the SNP who only need to worry about a single country. They don't even need to deal with foreign policy concerns or what have you since Holyrood is just a devolved administration: they can take the moral stance on things like Catalonia because they don't need to deal with the diplomatic fallout.

tl;dr the SNP's bitching about Scotland's political views not being represented in WM is actually complaining about a situation that's a result of their own fucking actions

>>526511

I was reading about the unions literally murdering strike breakers and the lada being the best selling car for like a week.

I like british cars (t. masochist) but i dont even blame thatcher for signing the death warrant for the british motor industry, it was massively corrupt and inefficient.

>>526535

I could respect scottish independence a hell of a lot more if they werent bootlickers for transnational govt. I cannot fundamentally understand how it can jive ideologically to not be under the boot of the crown, but want to be licking the boot of the EU.

Irish situation is similar.

>>526546

>That pic

I know that intermediate cartridges were a mistake, but there is such a thing as too far the other way.

Polite sage for off topic.

>>526534

>Killing people doesn't make martyrs or cause people to shoot back.

>If we accept the communist policy's, we win.

>>526570

You dont understand, there are only two options when dealing with totalitarian systems:

1. Total subjugation under them

2. Utter annihilation of them

Anything in the middle leads to eventual subjugation.

Permitting communism to exist and only badmouthing it, makes it "cool" which youth like, and "oppressed" which kind-hearted people want to side with.

>>526578

Are we much different from them if we force our way of life on others or death? Honistly your worse then the communists and I fucking hate them.

>>526401

Unfortunately not. Maybe it's the fall of Britain to communism as of late, but she seems to be widely hated.

Damn shame, you ask me. Even went as far as to celebrate her death. She seemed pretty okay, honestly.

But, then, I'm an American, and mostly swayed by her anti-commie scum stuff, and general hardlining.

>>526583

>but she seems to be widely hated

The actions she took to combat the communist elements in society caused real damage, damage that is going to be a problem for some time to come. A large part of the reason it became so fashionable to hate her is that we're still dealing with that long term damage - particularly in Scotland and the North of England - and its easier for people to take the 'Thatcher, evil cunt, oppression REEEE!' position than look into why she did it and what she accomplished by doing it.

>>526579

Are you different from a disease if you exterminate that disease? Yes, because you are a human! "Morality" that doesn't serve the survival of a community is just a sickness of the mind.

>>526602

Could you give us some examples of that damage?

>>526607

False equivalent, these are misguided people who's being mislead. Killing them is no different than killing off an entire country with indoctrination for something you don't like. Yes I disagree that communism is horrible, no I don't think killing them is the answer as it will only make more fanatics within their ranks!

The white Russians did it the best until they changed tactics. Prove they are not who they say they are and the leadership is corrupt most likely in bed with the enemy. You'll pull more people to your side killing 5 birds with one stone. You take a person away from their ranks, you make fanatics out of your ranks, they join your ranks, they fight the cause they thought was right and they tell others of their experience and betrayal from communism. All you'll do is prove them right and it'll get bloody.

>>526607

>Could you give us some examples of that damage?

>The death of British mining.

>The death of the British steel industry.

>Dramatic reduction in car manufacturing jobs.

>Dramatic reduction in ship building jobs.

>Due to her policies and lobbying large number of jobs 'outsourced' from Britain to other countries.

The jobs lost were mostly focused in Northern England, Scotland and Wales - which are incidentally the parts of the UK where she is most hated. As investment in these regions has been spotty since her premiership many of them haven't recovered - there are still communities in these regions where unemployment rates have barely begun to recover.

>>526622

>Well thanks for being clear, fuck off to /leftypol/.

Agree*

Communism IS horrible.

>>526622

Communism is controlling the population and it's thoughts. You say you hate totalitarianism but you forget that by instituting mass murder based on political beliefs is a slippery slope. How communist is someone? Anyone who likes the idea of free healthcare but understands that it's not currently practical is a communist? Or is it only your boogyman idea of a communist you'll purge? You're just as horrible as they are.

>>526626

>Communism IS horrible.

It's not enough for you to fucking say that as a blanket condemnation, a lot of things in life are "horrible".

Do you know WHY communism is bad?

Because if you did, you wouldn't be posting such rank stupidity.

>>526627

>slippety slipe fallacy

>free™ stuff!

>>526630

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).

Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

Kill yourself

>>526631

>defining what he did

>still thinks its ok

lol

>Kill yourself

I'd much rather you, commie.

{[∵ communists/socialists do not believe property ownership

∴ they do not apply rights such as self ownership to themselves or others]

[∵ communists/socialists do not treat individuals as self contained conscious units

∴ they are incapable of making a moral judgement about a situation and cannot offer reciprocation of rights]

[∵ communists/socialists consider morality to have infinite interpretations, and thus to be useless

∴ they are not moral agents]

[∵ communists/socialists do not subscribe to the concept of value

∴ they cannot analyze reality with enough fidelity to act on reality, and so act based on imaginary axioms]

[∴| they are not persons

∴|| they are delusional, dangerous primates incapable of perceiving reality or existence of others

∴||| other animals which are capable of perceiving reality and existence of other beings (all other primates) are covered by NAP far more than communists would be

∴|||| they are a danger to themselves and others]}

{∵ they reject dialogue

∴ the preceding state cannot ever change through peaceful means, their mind can only be changed with mind altering substances, electroshock or death}

>>526627

I wonder how many of the people saying there'd be no slippery slope are the same ones who post shit like "centrist fence sitters should be first to go on the DOTR".

Why is /k/ so full of totalitarians? One would think a board about guns would value freedoms. The idea that "freedom of speech only applies as long as you agree with me" would be something I would have thought everyone would agree was abhorrent. Yet here we are debating exactly that.

>>526621

Don't forget Right to Buy anon, the greatest fuckup this country has even seen:

>We'll sell council houses to long term residents at a price far below market value to win votes!

>Councils can just reinvest the money from sales in new housing!

>Now everyone can own their own home and we'll increase the housing stock of the country!

>Except the money gained from the sale is obviously nowhere near enough to build equivalent new housing: either they have to reduce the number of new houses, reduce the quality significantly or build the new houses fucking miles away in less desirable areas (normally a mixture of all three)

>Even if they save costs any good housing stock from this second wave will itself eventually be sold in Right to Buy and the cycle repeats

>Eventually councils only have insufficient numbers of the shittiest quality housing left in the least desirable areas

>Combine this with massive unemployment issues in certain areas thanks to other Thatcher-era policies and you end up with Wales, Northern England and parts of Scotland

>Attempting to reverse this policy would require buying up all that old council housing at the actual current market rate, a wildly expensive proposition even if you could persuade people to sell (or force them with legislation)

>Constantly bitch about the fact that councils can no longer provide enough housing or balance their books Thatcher-era policy in general was to weaken local authorities because some of them, mostly in Liverpool, were fucking outright commies. The problem with that is taking the power out of the hands of local government and giving it to London just increases the over-investment and political bias London gets at the expense of the rest of the country. London's domination of the rest of the country is the single largest problem in the UK today.

Now if that wasn't bad enough:

>Eventually the houses that were sold off to their original tenants as part of Right to Buy are sold on again (the owners die or move out)

>They're generally bought up in bulk at opportune times by private landlords, often pakis, and rented out for far higher than original rents to the same original groups of poor fucks who can't afford anything else/to move away

>Sometimes councils are so lacking in housing stock they pay for the right to rent out their own old, sold-off council houses, of course at a hugely inflated rate (and if that landlord is a paki they're now a rich paki in control of a fuckton of housing)

>When the landlord is a paki they also reliably discriminate in favour of residents of their own ethnicity (often their direct relatives due to inbreeding, the rate of cousin marriage in pakis is ~55%)

>These landlords can now, through a mixture of cultural, religious and financial (they're rich and own the houses of other pakis) techniques dominate large numbers of people and dictate who they vote for

>This is why you can sometimes see the elderly paki family head walking around with entire stacks of postal votes (supposed to be used only if you are ill or otherwise unable to vote in person but widely abused), all generally for Labour

>Poor white people are thus forced to inhabit shitty new council housing in fucking worthless locations miles away from the parts of the city the poor whites used to live in or pay massive rents to paki landlords to live in a neighbourhood of pakis controlled by one family (and often members of this extended family anyway)

>This is basically Tower Hamlets

Obviously the Conservatives won't end this policy because it's both popular with voters (they get to buy their houses for stupid-cheap and who cares about the long-term?) and matches up with their privatise everything and blame resulting inefficiency on local government/commies/poor white people/anyone else policy. Labour won't end it because pakis are much more reliable voters than white people who might think for themselves or not turn up to vote: you just bribe that rich brown cunt at the head of the family and he'll ensure 100% turnout all voting for you.

>>526652

I should add a note here: for the sake of clarity Tower Hamlets specifically is actually a Bangladeshi area, not a paki area. The system is the same everywhere and other areas actually are Pakistani some other ethnicities have other 'areas' but it's mostly those two and mostly London and Birmingham but pakis and Bangladeshis do not get on despite both being Islamic pajeet rapist fucks. The distinction is thus quite important, know your enemy + divide and conquer and all that. Bangladesh used to be East Pakistan and there was a bit of a war, worth looking up for related reading.

>>526654

>>526652

>Tower Hamlets fraud

For anyone who cares more look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/judgment.pdf (bottom of p.55 onwards). The tl;dr is the mayor of Tower Hamlets was convicted of electoral fraud for all of my tl;dr post above. Of course this was only the most blatant case of many…

>>526643

People always had authorities and hierarchies since probably before we were Homo sapiens, so no matter how anti-authoritarian I am at heart I can acknowledge the necessity of authorities for a society and even totalitarian ones in times of crisis. Communism though is not simply totalitarianism, it's a disease of the mind and a crime against nature; it's making an amoralist totalitarian tyranny by perverting the concept of moral and legal authority with the lowest vices of the human psyche jeopardizing the communities' survival as a whole.

>>526634

>>526635

>It's unreasonable to think killing people for a political idea will lead to unintentionally killing other's without a clear cut definition of something that can't be misinterpreted

Fucking hardly, it happens a lot throughout history.

>>526668

>Since thread's gone on a tangent I might as well ask, What's the average british leftard's stand on the war? Do they support the Argies and ignore the fact the war was pushed by a conservative dictartorship or bite their lips and side with Thatcher.

It depends on what exact sort of left-wing you're looking at but for the views at the time:

>Militant hard left (think pro-USSR, pro-Stalinism, REVOLUTION NOW types)

Thought Argentina's claim was valid and that the use for force was good so pro-Argie, something to the effect of 'we should have already handed them over because muh colonialism, Argies did nothing wrong using military force, the brave British worker-soldiers who have to die in the inevitable defeat are necessary sacrifices' etc etc. They more or less ignored the fact Argentina was under a right-wing dictatorship (they saw and indeed still see everything in very black and white Cold War terms anyway so the innocent ex-colony couldn't have been wrong) or felt that was less important than beating the evil imperialists.

>'Touchy feely' leftists (think proto-SJW or Guardian reader, less 'revolution now' and more 'muh oppression')

Agreed with Argentina's claims but not keen on the actual use of force so anti-war but pro-Argie. Something like 'Argentina shouldn't have used military force but it's a waste of money and lives to take the islands back, also they're right about owning it anyway because nationalism is silly but maybe only when white people do it and pointing out inconsistencies in my beliefs is super-racism-sexism-ageism-buddhism it must be the patriarchy's fault…'.

>Moderate centre-left working class (probably not a group you'd classically classify as leftards)

Significantly more split but generally against both Argentina's claim and their invasion. Their opinion on the actual war was generally that it was justified but likely to end in failure common view worldwide to be fair so had reservations that it'd end up another Suez or worse. Many also saw it as Thatcher cynically gambling on a lot of dead soldiers to get re-elected in a period of unpopularity too. Favoured the war, didn't like Thatcher.

The views now are more or less the same for each group:

>Militant hard left

The same but they're much smaller in number today than they were even back in the 80s. You've also got some crazy conspiracies that the whole thing was a plot by the ebul Conservatives to get re-elected, shoot some brown people and defeat the miners' strikes somehow with capitalist future-predicting powers or something. Really the hardcore left in the UK has been getting steadily more crazy since the fall of the USSR and their major source of funding…

>Touchy feely left

Corbyn and his sort are still in favour of giving Argentina joint control or similar and view the entire thing as a waste of lives over 'flag waving' or whatever bullshit terminology they've got going on nowadays.

>Moderate centre-left

In favour of the war and keeping the islands British, particularly after they votes ~98% in favour to stay a British possession. Have shifted almost entirely to pro-War with a bit of lasting anger at the government for organising it so poorly and almost fucking things up with spending cuts.

> I always wondered this because it seems there's no way they could virtue signal anyone in this conflict, but they've surprised me before with their warped thought processes.

Virtue signalling is something more done by the touchy-feely SJW left, the militant left (a largish thing in the 80s) really do believe in the shite they say spout and don't do it just for the social aspect. It's an important distinction: SJW-types have no coherent ideology and thus rely entirely on mental gymnastics to resolve inconsistencies, militant leftists have a coherent revolutionary marxist ideology (though they obviously ignore evidence of its repeat failures in actual practice).

>>526654

The good thing about diversity is that all the vibrants hate each other.

>>526691

>The government of Isabela Martinez de Peron (Peron's third wife) was quite divisive among the left here because on one hand you had the peronists defending her because she was directly appointed by him before his death in '74, and on the other hand she was clearly a puppet of the military so the hard left despised her, so when this anti-peronist coup d'etat came along they were deluded enough to believe that it was the lesser evil.

Typical, leftists can't plan more than a few years ahead and even that's rare.

>The thing with the EEZ is that: 1) this claim alone does not sell as well as the nationalistic bullshit one so the populist left here tends to pile them up together. 2) It's a moot point because it forms part of a major problem that is the fact that Argentina's coast guard does not have the means to secure it's own fluvial borders (the Japanese and Chinese have been raiding our fishing zones for decades), which at the same time forms part of an even bigger problem which is that the Argentine military as a whole has been terribly underfunded since the carapintadas movement in '86.

I assume this underfunding is responsible for that destroyer sinking in port.

>In general the public tends to ignore the real value of the Falklands, that it allows England to have territorial claims over Antarctic territory at a time when the Antarctic treaty is close to its expiration date and there are no apparent signs of it being renewed, While at the same time securing an excellent location for a port for any future mining expeditions.

Accurate but it's the UK anon, not England. The difference is small but significant.

>>526693

The destroyer sunk due to sheer negligence, it hadn't had any sort of general maintenance since the war.

>Accurate but it's the UK anon, not England. The difference is small but significant.

I acknowledge the difference but in this case the orders come from London, not Edinburgh or Cardiff or Belfast :^)

>>526664

>i dont believe in definitions therefore no one does

Nice try commie.

>>526738

Hate to be the guy to defend disgusting Brits but Trump is no Rockwell m80

>>526626

Agree with the burger

Communism is horrible, but the whole "KILL COMMIES MUH AUTHORITARIANISM" cuckolds are just as bad.

Boot lickers keep out, I say.

>>526631

Slippery slope shouldn't be a falacy, anyway, you ask me. I mean, just look at gun control. They always say 'WE ARENT GOING TO TAKE MORE, JUST COMPROMISE, THIS IS ALL WE WANT AND THEN YOU WILL BE LEFT ALONE', while they start planning on the next takeaway regardless.

It mostly just depends on the context. You move the battlelines, and of course the enemy'll push forward.

>>526752

Oh, don't misunderstand: a communist actually trying shit should be shot. And should antifa be violently attacking people come N4, I'd happily cheer on the lads shooting the piles of radioactive trash.

But you can't kill them before they do something without destroying a free society, unfortunately.

Just punish them to the full extent you can when they inevitably fuck up, as they so love to do.

>>526752

It makes me question how millions of Russians could be fooled by an ideology this extreme and insane. You'd think a race thats been considered to be 'tough as nails' from living in such a cold and harsh climate would reject such a feminine ideology.

>>526758

From what I understand, essentially, commies went in to towns, and forced people to join them or get murdered.

>>526758

>It makes me question how millions of Russians could be fooled by an ideology this extreme and insane

The same old "desperate times call for desperate measures" reasoning which had already taken place under similar circumstances during 1789 in France. They had nothing to lose and the ideology hadn't been put into practice yet (at least not in an entire country) so couldn't/didn't foresee the consequences on the long run.

>>526762

*they couldn't/didn't

>>526758

If a peasant starves hes gonna be pissed, the Bolsheviks promised food and the illiterate mass followed suit until they were shot and starved to death in later years.

>>526765

Shit, so the Krauts were the bad guys after all

>>526770

If you really want to stretch it, you can blame the Japs for attacking Russia instead of letting Port Arthur go.

>>526770

Krauts are always the bad ones.

Remember, Marx was a kraut.

>>526774

Thought he was a kike

>>526778

You can be both.

>>526774

Yeah, keep in mind Bismarck's answer to diplomacy was to have treaties with every country insuring that if they get war declared on them, Germany would back them up, because surely no country would be stupid enough to attack one backed by Germany, and surely every country in Europe wouldn't be stupid enough to keep their own alliance and have a war on a global scale.

I am massively over-simplifying Bismarck, but you get my point.

>>526792

>>526794

Is this webm peak international shitposting?

>>526809

As much as I enjoy someone putting the boot into the frog-eaters that was kind of low energy.

>>526771

/leftypol/ makes the argument that, that was Stalinism and "not real Communism". They say it's a utopia where you get rewarded for your work and everybody is equal or some shit like that. If that's true, why is it so hated? I'm not baiting; I seriously don't know the in depth details on why it's a bad idea to try to achieve.

>>526796

What this guy said.

>>526804

You wanna know something, not ridding the vector of the disease is just as bad as not dealing with it in the first place.

>>526813

>Muh not real communism

>An argument

Pick one.

Let's assume that you're already familiar with the atrocities committed by the various Socialist governments out there, and are familiar with the economic failure that is inevitable when people try to 'rationalise'i.e. 'brute force' one of the largest, most fragile, complex, and interconnected of systems possible (the modern economy).

In order to even begin to try to build the 'dream of communism' you need a few things, but first and foremost amongst them you need an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent state. It's not a coincidence that these 'omnis' are the exact same descriptions applied to God in Christian theology. The state would need to have the knowledge, power, and benevolence of a deity; it would need to dictate every single part of your life and the life of everyone else. You don't get to decide anything from the course of your life to the opinions you hold, not even the most basic choices about your clothing, that is dictated to you by the divine wisdom of the state and the dear leader, who are true communists and only have your best interests at heart citizen, the Commissar said so.

Never mind that the party leaders live on steak and champagne while the citizens line up for bread, never mind that they live in decadent and luxurious mansions while the people are sharing a 2 bedroom apartment between 8 people, never mind that it basically just makes the 1% the state and then stops even pretending to care about the citizenry.

Never mind that at its best the system is worse than the alternatives.

In order to even try to build real communism you must declare that the citizens (i.e. me and thee) are borderline subhuman labourers who cannot even be trusted with controlling the colour of their shirt.

Before you can even try to BE communist you must become the very definition of an oppressive dystopian nightmare.

>>526829

>Marx, you can't have a Communist revolution without pants!

<According to Hegel -

>I don't care what Hegel says you need pants.

Kek'd so hard it hurts.

>That long red post

>Socialism is the dictatorship of the bureaucrat class

I didn't know that they got that close to self awareness.

>>526758

Look dumbass, it doesn't matter how anyone can be fooled for supporting communism, what matters in that equation is that the communist cadre has guns, and people don't. You don't get to choose whetever or not you are going to support communist revolution, you either support them and their insane purges or you, and your family dies. And if you are not supporting the communists enthustiastically enough, you, and your family will be purged in the inevitable upcoming "revolution" or purge when politicians in the capital notice that communism doesn't produce the results they wanted. And because, communist are unable to think rationally or take any responsibility, any failures are always caused by "foreign agents" or "bad elements" or "class traitors" or "counter revolutionaries".

Or if you are a good little communist, you just might end up purged just for the sake of filling up quotas decided last year in the capital. And holy fuck, the purges are never, ever going to stop as long as people controlling armed forces think communism is fun and cool and should be tried once more.

>>526832

To add a bit to this: remember that bolsheviks took over the revolution with underhanded tactics, and the average Russian had barely any idea what was going on exactly. People follow the path of least resistance most of the time, and you can imagine how bad the situation was if the path of least resistance is violent revolution. Those peasants thought the cityfolk will stop bothering them with this war and things will go back normal if they just help those people with the red emblems in getting rid of those pesky bureaucrats.

Also, the red army itself had lots of non-Russians too. Actually, many Hungarian POWs ended up joining them, because it gave access to weapons. And that was a useful thing if you were a Hungarian too close to an area controlled by the Czech Legion. Quite a few of them became faithful reds and took part in the Hungarian communist movement. But that's a different story.

>>526784

Bismarck actively tried to prevent Germany getting into a two-front war by mediating between Russia and Austria-Hungary, a smart move (the defensive treaties were part of this). The problem was Wilhelm II firing him then being a fucking autist and actively upsetting France, Russia and the UK all at once. It takes a special kind of retard to drive three historical enemies into an alliance with each other.

World War 1, in some form, was almost inevitable but Germany having to fight France, the UK and Russia all at once was not.

>>524881

I remember when this was first posted years ago on cuckchan. Wish I still had all the gifs and stills I took from the vid.

>>526838

>The problem was Wilhelm II firing him then being a fucking autist and actively upsetting France, Russia and the UK all at once.

That definitely didn't help - but the Austro-Hungarians dragging their feet and not being able to prosecute their war and invading the Bosnians while everyone in Europe was still in the 'Oh my god how terrible' section of the reaction to the Arch-Dukes assassination.

The whole thing was an almost comedic breakdown of every institution and agreement designed to prevent a European war, mostly due to weak men trying to pretend that they were the strong man monarchs they needed to be seen as.

>>526853

>That definitely didn't help - but the Austro-Hungarians dragging their feet and not being able to prosecute their war and invading the Bosnians while everyone in Europe was still in the 'Oh my god how terrible' section of the reaction to the Arch-Dukes assassination.

Well to be fair anyone making plans involving Austria-Hungary really should have planned for their incompetence. For example their complete betrayal of Italy not only lost them an ally but actually resulted in Italy joining the other side, a major fuck up that ironically the UK (and to a lesser extent France) would repeat in the lead up to WW2.

>The whole thing was an almost comedic breakdown of every institution and agreement designed to prevent a European war, mostly due to weak men trying to pretend that they were the strong man monarchs they needed to be seen as.

Yes, about the only good thing to come out of it was the final destruction of the Ottoman Empire and even that wasn't complete.

>>526856

>At least a cold war between France and Germany was inevitable in my opinion.

Yes, Bismarck actually didn't want to take Alsace-Lorraine because he knew it'd lead to another war but the more militaristic Junkers pushed for actual territorial gains (as if uniting Germany wasn't enough).

>As for Russia, I'm sure starting a war for more Polish clay wasn't something they or the Germans wanted. The problem was that they wanted the Balkans, and so they supported anybody there who wanted to be the tsar's lapdog. First it was Bulgaria, then Serbia. Of course the last thing AH needed was being de facto surrounded by a Russia that was constantly bombarding the population with panslavist and orthodox propaganda. And so a cold war between them was also inevitable.

Perhaps but under Bismarck they managed to come to a reasonable agreement and that could have been continued. The problem, of course, is that the moment either Germany or Russia ended up without a capable leader it would have broken down so at best you extend peace by a few decades.

>he could have at least communicated his intentions to London in a way that they don't think he wants to see their fleets on the bottom of the sea

Look up what he said to the Daily Telegraph, he was a right autist.

>>526758

>could be fooled by an ideology this extreme and insane

The main reason for commies gaining popularity among their peasants (most of population that times) was promise of giving them soil they highly lacked. But instead of private ownership this is what they got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz

Also fighting for commies often was the only good way to simply feed yourself since they were confiscating all the food they could and feeding commie army was the top priority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka

>living in such a cold and harsh climate

Even nowadays almost all the Russians of Slavic origin live compactly in the European part of the country where climate isn't harsh.

>would reject such a feminine ideology

Socialism is deeply rooted in the Russian mindset, you just don't know their history good enough.

>>526860

>For example their complete betrayal of Italy

What betrayal? Italy was part of the tripartitate alliance, and as far as I know they switched sides because they thought the other side of the Adriatic side is a better prize than some African colonies.

>under Bismarck they managed to come to a reasonable agreement

What was that agreement exactly? I'm rather weak in 19th century diplomacy before the 1890s.

>Look up what he said to the Daily Telegraph, he was a right autist.

https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Daily_Telegraph_Affair

It's a pity they didn't have the technology to record interviews live.

>>526861

>Socialism is deeply rooted in the Russian mindset

Spengler has quite numerous interesting ideas and observations, but what is relevant here is that he believes that the idea of a strong brotherhood is so ingrained in the Russian soul that the average Western European can't even begin to understand anything about Russia, simply because their thinking is so utterly alien. Is it true in your opinion?

>>526856

>Bosnia was already occupied

Ugh, facepalm moment, sorry and thanks for the correction - Gavrilo Princip being a member of 'Young Bosnia' did not help my memory there.

>Serbians were in a good position to dominate the Balkans with Russian support

Was Serbia not pretty much an unofficial Russian puppet/vassal at that point? If nothing else the Russians have never really played well with others.

>>526866

>Was Serbia not pretty much an unofficial Russian puppet/vassal at that point?

Indeed, at it wasn't even a secret. The Balkan policy of Austria-Hungary was literally just keeping Russia in check at all costs. Actually, this is why they created Albania. Although Italy too was part of that project, but that's because they wanted it as their own colony later.

>>526804

Eh, problem with McCarthy wasn't so much the legal whatnot, as it was the social nonsense around it. It's like the SJWs of today, essentially. People'd track others down with tiny communist sympathies, report them as "communists", add them to lists, and try very hard to get them to lose their jobs and such.

That's largly why the lot's frowned on.

>>526864

>their thinking is so utterly alien

I think that is bullshit tbh, and overall average Joes around the globe are more or less similar (from my experience of living in Russia and Poland/interacting with Westerners). At least they can understand each other very easily if there's at least tiny bit of a brain effort put in it.

>the idea of a strong brotherhood

"Strong brotherhood" is more of a word for Armenian, Jewish collectivism etc - tight urban diaspora that doesn't want to assimilate in another countries and specifically helps its members to prosper by fooling goyim. On the other hand Russian collectivism was invented in need and simply for the purpose of surviving, just like Asian/African collectivism. Since second kind of collectivism instead of gaining wealth mostly focuses on its pure redistribution, the only "strong" thing here is total hate.

>>526864

>What betrayal? Italy was part of the tripartitate alliance, and as far as I know they switched sides because they thought the other side of the Adriatic side is a better prize than some African colonies.

In return for Italy joining the Triple Alliance Austria-Hungary (a long-term Italian enemy) had an agreement with Italy that any actions in the Balkans would first be discussed with them and more importantly (partly explicitly in writing but moreso implicitly understood) that as a reward for fighting they'd give Italy various bits of land that it had historical claims to (mostly South Tyrol, also bits of the Balkans mostly in Croatia). Austria-Hungary failed to do both of these then under German pressure eventually sort-of offered maybe half of the originally agreed upon clay. Since the Triple Alliance was anyway a defensive treaty, had to be renewed every 5 years and had a clause not requiring Italy to go to war with the UK Italy wasn't strictly speaking required to join and so after promises of all the relevant bits of land from the UK and France eventually Italy decided that it'd have a better shot if it joined the Allies. It did so and then utterly failed to make any halfway competent attacks because Italy but it undoubtedly tied up fucktons of troops AH could have used elsewhere (and had it attacked France would have done the same with the frogs).

After WW1 ended Italy was finally given most of this territory but not much else, lasting anger at not getting more is a large part of what lead to Mussolini taking power and his later aggressive actions. That, combined with the UK negotiating a naval treaty with Germany behind Italy and France's backs, are more or less what led to the Germany-Italian Pact of Steel. Previously Italy had united with France and the UK in the Stresa Front to oppose Germany taking over Austria (partly for historical reasons and also because Italy backed the Austria Fascists while Germany backed the Austria Nazis). This is also why Germany had sent arms, mostly as a symbolic gesture, to Ethiopia. It was only in ~1938-1939 that Italy and Germany really joined up and that was only because they each had no other friends, Fascism and (early) Nazisim are actually quite different ideologies (Fascism for example lacks any racial elements) but obviously things like this have long been buried by propaganda. Now despite Italy's incompetence as a land power in WW2 its navy was quite effective. Originally France was supposed to defend against Italy while the UK dealt with Germany and any Asians, once France fell the UK had to send most of its Asian fleet to the Med, this is a large part of the reason Singapore fell (widely considered to be one of the greatest British defeats in history).

>What was that agreement exactly? I'm rather weak in 19th century diplomacy before the 1890s.

Originally the League of the Three Emperors (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia) which tried to balance disputes in the Balkans and isolate France. When that went tits up a secret treaty between Germany and Russia not to go to war if Austria-Hungary started acting silly that I cannot remember the name of off the top of my head. Bismarck's policy was firstly to keep France isolated and secondly to avoid a two front war. Keeping Russia did both (Russia being a likely French ally) and not messing with boats and colonies kept the UK away from France.

>It's a pity they didn't have the technology to record interviews live.

Another thing to understand about Wilhelm II is that his autism included buying any and all propaganda about Asian hordes. This was boosted by things like the Boxer rebellion and the Russo-Japanese war which is part of the reason he calls out the Japs by name in that interview the Japs being a British ally this was, of course, fucking stupid but there you go. Notice by the way how that article insults France, Russia, the UK, the Boers and the Japanese while also threatening naval build-up and colonial aggression. An amazing achievement from history's most damaging autist. It's a shame too because the man really did want to be friendly with the UK he just had no idea how to go about it in a non-sperg manner.

>>526884

>The best part is that he makes it sound like the average German just wants to cross the channel and slaughter Brits without any reservation, and his willpower is the only thing that can keep him on a leash. It's truly spectacular.

Oh right, so he also offended Germany. Truly he was a master at the art of diplomacy. If you want more fun read up on his actions in Morocco.

>Is this the part that pissed off the Japs? I guess there wasn't any other naval power that was far away, especially when the US Navy was still just a small fish in a big pond.

Yes, putting this in context this was only ~3 years after the Japanese fucked the Russian navy hard and he (and Germans in general) were known to be afraid of the slanty-eyed fucks. That was the first defeat of a western power by an Asian nation in fucking centuries so it was very fresh in most minds and distant seas would have been interpreted as Japan.

Germany also had colonies in Asia, in fact Japan would seize them when WW1 start.

>>526888

Again to put it into context the UK and France had finally come to an agreement about their long-standing rivalry with France getting Morocco and the UK Egypt (and some other changes in Indochina and the like that aren't so relevant to Germany). This only happened because they were both concerned about Germany and his fucking about in Morocco was supposed to end the agreement somehow rather than strengthen it.

That's also only the first time he fucked around in Morocco, the second time he literally threatened war and sent a cruiser (literal gunboat diplomacy). Remember by the way that Morocco is also a major area of Spanish interest so he was also pissing them off and it's directly across from Gib.

>It's a pity I never bothered to look him up before. All I knew was his fucked up arm and naval autism.

He fired fucking Bismarck, you don't get stupider than that. Literally firing the man responsible for Germany even existing and then ignoring all of his advice and predictions (one of which was 'the next big war' will come from some stupid thing in the Balkans).

After he abdicated and WW2 started he also sent various autistic notes to Hitler because he had deluded himself into thinking Hitler was a monarchist.

>>526889

Dear god, Wilhelm II was fucking nuts.

No wonder shit went tits up for Germany

>>526864

>It's a pity they didn't have the technology to record interviews live.

They did, kind of.

>>526765

Probably you would have seen a more moderate govt like Kerensky's emerge if lenin never went back to Russia. Not that Kerensky's govt was a utopia either.

>>526944

He was more of an autist than insane, if he'd just left the smarter people in charge (like Wilhelm I did) he'd have been fine but he felt that his being Emperor meant he could run the country, build a navy and piss off whoever he liked.

>>526947

That's pretty cool.

>>527035

>If he'd just left the smarter people in charge

Sounds a lot like our old friend Adolf

>>527058

Amphetamines, prescribed to him by his doctor.

>>527058

Well yes but at least Hitler had competence in some areas (primarily politics/oration/genuine charisma), Wilhelm didn't even have that.

>>526326

>shares a continental shelf with it

a continental shelf!

>>527365

Do you think he realises he's making the argument for Mexico annexing Canada?

>>527398

Leafs will be leafs. Does the commonwealth care if we annex Canada?

>>527400

Probably be more worried about that chink fifth column in the GVRD. The commonwealth is as about ready to fight as the crusty hag in the crown is.

>>527407

I'd say that the fifth column wouldn't be as large as you think it is. You have to realize that most Chinese don't ever speak out against anything they dont like. Not saying that the fifth column wont be large relative to Texas or Cali. ESP cali,

>>527400

Do you have the balls

:^)

>>527435

Dang. Then you should actually worry then. The initial "immigrants" in the 70s were mostly agents.

>>527453

Molotov-Ribbentop 2.0 anyone?

>>527479

Fucking leaf. I'mma explain something to you real quick. The reason China should be universally hated when the commies are around is because they've indoctrinated that jewish economic habits ('prowlness) especially wall street kikery is something to model yourself after.

>Inb4 modern grommies in china= failed jews.

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE