Trump's new claims would have been nothing short of apologizing Hitler's invasion that started WWII

[WestCanMan]

On 7/15/2024 at 11:24 AM, gatomontes99 said:

Threads like this are why Trump was shot at.

This thread is chock full of people who believe every bit of drivel that they hear from the Demis and the MSM, and now they're pretending not to know about all of the dangerous rhetoric and calls to action.

[CouchPotato]

On 6/21/2024 at 6:11 PM, myata said:

Hitlers won't stop. We know it. They lie, and they know it.

 

We all know Putin is a thug. No one is arguing that he is a good guy. But the guy has been in power for a quarter of a century. He is almost 71 now. Hitler died in his 50s. Putin is not Hitler. There is no indication he is going to become like Hitler.

People saying that the west is guilty of provocation in the Ukraine war are not condoning it. If Russia and China began courting Canada into an alliance, it would not go over to well in the US either. I am not saying they would respond the way Putin did. But you know, it's probably better not to do it in the first place, whether the response is justified or not. Avoiding war with Russia used to be a huge deal.

[myata]

17 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

Hitler died in his 50s. Putin is not Hitler. There is no indication he is going to become like Hitler.

Are you looking at what he's actually doing, in the reality? Or listening to some speeches, or reading some bull? Find one difference between what Hitler was doing in 1939 and Putin, now. This is objective, factual reality what does it tell you?

Every single neighbor of Russia was invaded and brutally subdued, many multiple times. How does seeking safety and protection against brutality and invasions amount to "provocation"? NATO itself was established to keep people of Europe safe from Russia: is its very existence "a provocation" then? Putin sure thinks so - be careful whose bull you're taking in.

Is trying to be safe from a psycho bully next door "a provocation"? You sure know the answer: only in the psycho's mind, and world. You've got to choose one.

17 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

Hitler died in his 50s.

He didn't "just die" - you forgot what happened to him? Forgetting these lessons of history can bring the whole thing right back. And who promised that the outcome is always guaranteed?

Edited July 17, 2024 by myata

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

Are you looking at what he's actually doing, in the reality? Or listening to some speeches, or reading some bull? Find one difference between what Hitler was doing in 1939 and Putin, now. This is objective, factual reality what does it tell you?

Every single neighbor of Russia was invaded and brutally subdued, many multiple times. How does seeking safety and protection against brutality and invasions amount to "provocation"? NATO itself was established to keep people of Europe safe from Russia: is its very existence "a provocation" then? Putin sure thinks so - be careful whose bull you're taking in.

Is trying to be safe from a psycho bully next door "a provocation"? You sure know the answer: only in the psycho's mind, and world. You've got to choose one.

He didn't "just die" - you forgot what happened to him? Forgetting these lessons of history can bring the whole thing right back. And who promised that the outcome is always guaranteed?

You just have no idea hat Hitler was really like or you wouldn't be making such cartoonish comments.

[impartialobserver]

#verifythis

Between now and Nov. 6.. the OP will create 9 more threads that compare Trump (or whoever he/she does not like) to Hitler, Nazis, etc. He/she does it for shock value

as someone who has read Mein Kempf, Zweites Buch, and a lot of other stuff written by Hitler himself or about him.. Trump bears little to no resemblance to Hitler in his ways. 

[myata]

There's no need for predictions: the facts are right before everyone's eyes. We know who is acting step in step with Hitler back in days before the last war. And we know who expressed understanding and deep admiration for him. So what's there to predict, anyone who can see and think for themselves can know it.

Blind won't see and dumb couldn't think. Where is any news or surprise in it?

Edited July 17, 2024 by myata

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

There's no need for predictions: the facts are right before everyone's eyes. We know who is acting step in step with Hitler back in days before the last war. And we know who expressed understanding and deep admiration for him. So what's there to predict, anyone who can see and think for themselves can know it.

Blind won't see and dumb couldn't think. Where is any news or surprise in it?

What we know is you're a spammer and a loon. 

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What we know is you're a spammer and a loon. 

So how many threads do you predict that Myata will create between now and Nov. 6 that compare Trump (or whoever he/she does not like) to Hitler or the Nazis

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

So how many threads do you predict that Myata will create between now and Nov. 6 that compare Trump (or whoever he/she does not like) to Hitler or the Nazis

 

it's hard to say, i can barely understand him at the best of times. 

Harmonics! Anathema! Hitlers gonna hittle! Lie wombat! Before our eyes! Achtung? Gesundheit!!

-myata

How would you even count that?

 

[myata]

51 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So how many threads do you predict

The excuse for turning off the eyes and the brain, consciously and voluntarily? Why bother - the reward is always automatic and quick.

[myata]

So we've got a new question for the dead brain crowd: is NATO in itself "a provocation"?

The bloodthirsty dictator thug Vlad certainly sees it this way. Let's see who'll agree with him and praise his virtue and genius (that was literal by the way). Live.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

So we've got a new question for the dead brain crowd: is NATO in itself "a provocation"?

You ARE the brain dead crowd  But seeing as you actually asked a real question in real english i'll indulge you.

"threat" is in the perception of the beholder.  Of course in many respects nato is supposed to be  a 'threat',  that's the whole point.  "If you attack any of us the rest will jump on you and blow you to sh*t."   Nato is by it's nature a 'deterrent'  construct and you can't have deterrence without threat. And it is  a very significant military power.  So if you see it as a threat then i guess it's a threat from your perspective. 

I don't think nato would be used offensively but in truth there's no way to know over time. Things change.

29 minutes ago, myata said:

Let's see who'll agree with him and praise his virtue and genius (that was literal by the way).

So you're saying you literally think he's virtuous and a genuis?

You are one weird guy.

 

[CouchPotato]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

So we've got a new question for the dead brain crowd: is NATO in itself "a provocation"?

The bloodthirsty dictator thug Vlad certainly sees it this way. Let's see who'll agree with him and praise his virtue and genius (that was literal by the way). Live.

"Provocation" can be used in a sense that is more practical and tactical than moral. It's not always about whether one is justified in feeling provoked. There are times when it's important how the thug sees things, whether or not we like him. If a criminal takes a group of people hostages, for instance, we have professionals that commununicate with them. They have to be tough enough not to give into their demands while also taking care not to "provoke" them to act rashly. I am not saying this is exactly analogous to what is going on here, but I think you can concede that the use if the term "provocation" with reference to a thug does not always equate to being an apologist.

We were told Trump would start WW3 before he was elected in 2016. And then a lot of people were saying it even moreso when he started calling Kim Jong-Un "little rocket man" and bragging that America's nuclear button was bigger. I wasn't so concerned because I think Trump was just chirping back at a leader who was trying to act big.  It was North Korea not Russia. And it all turned out fine. But anyways, that's just my opinion. In any case, I don't think people being critical of Trump and worrying that he might provoke WW3 were doing so because they are Kim Jong-Un apologists.

[myata]

OK we have the first one. Let's try to understand it, an honest try. Let's say we, the folk in the town set up a police unit to keep us safe from a local violent psycho who has a long history violence and brutality. This can be perceived as a threat, right?

Wait, who can it be perceived as such by? Who would want to confuse an objective threat (does police threaten law abiding citizens - no, it's there to protect against psychos, thugs and other scum) with a "perception" of it - by who? by the thug or psycho, else?

So does he think this way from the perspective of a normal citizen, or that of an aggressive psycho? Who wants to forget the difference? Who wants to ignore the existence of the law, treaties the psycho only has to refrain from aggression and there will be no objective threats, fact.

NATO never threatened Russia: fact. NATO never invaded or occupied Russia: fact. Russia many times invaded and occupied lands that belong to her neighbors: many facts.

Who wants to lie? But there's more:

Was Hitler "provoked by perception" by Poland's defense pact with the Great Britain before WWII?

Can there be truth to Putin feeling "provoked" by the very existence of the organization that was made to keep people safe from him and his ilk?

Be careful handing you brain to lying cults and gurus. It'll take you to where you wouldn't recognize who you are anymore in no time at all. And nothing of it is a prophesy: all already happened.

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, myata said:

OK we have the first one. Let's try to understand it, an honest try. Let's say we, the folk in the town set up a police unit to keep us safe from a local violent psycho who has a long history violence and brutality. This can be perceived as a threat, right?

Wait, who can it be perceived as such by? Who would want to confuse an objective threat (does police threaten law abiding citizens - no, it's there to protect against psychos, thugs and other scum) with a "perception" of it - by who? by the thug or psycho, else?

So does he think this way from the perspective of a normal citizen, or that of an aggressive psycho? Who wants to forget the difference? Who wants to ignore the existence of the law, treaties the psycho only has to refrain from aggression and there will be no objective threats, fact.

NATO never threatened Russia: fact. NATO never invaded or occupied Russia: fact. Russia many times invaded and occupied lands that belong to her neighbors: many facts.

Who wants to lie? But there's more:

Was Hitler "provoked by perception" by Poland's defense pact with the Great Britain before WWII?

Can there be truth to Putin feeling "provoked" by the very existence of the organization that was made to keep people safe from him and his ilk?

Be careful handing you brain to lying cults and gurus. It'll take you to where you wouldn't recognize who you are anymore in no time at all. And nothing of it is a prophesy: all already happened.

I see you're back to gibberish.

I'm trying to ferret out what  the hell you're talking about. it's not easy.

A police force is not a military force. It is strictly there to keep the peace and enforce the law.

Nato is in fact a military force. It is quite capable of attacking, as much as it is defending.  It's not like an Abrams only comes with a reverse gear.

When the warsaw pact (soviet nato) put gear and men on the borders of friendly nations for 'defense', nato very clearly considered it a threat.   When russa tried to arm the cubans with nukes AFTER the us tried a failed invasion/coup there america was prepared to go to war over it. 

When there is an army on your border, it is not unreasonable to consider it to be a threat. That's where negotiations come in. 

If you're trying desperately to somehow work back to putin and his invasion of ukraine  i believe personally his goal was conquest and expansion, but it is entirely possible he thought that the west would rearm them and that they would become a threat.  I don't think the evidence supports that but its entirely possible he felt that way 

At the end of the day tho, all we can know for sure is that you're an illiterate boob who can't clearly articulate the time of day never mind a coherent thought. 

[myata]

Right. This is because there's no difference between an aggressive psycho; facts: Baltic states, end 1930s, Poland, 1939, Finland, 1940, a plethora of aggressions and invasions against neighbors post WWII, Baltic again 1990, Georgia, Moldova, Chechnya and so on and on; and a normal peaceful citizen (). Yes the list is empty: NATO never threatened Russia; it never invaded it; and it never took a square inch of land from it.

Yet someone here wants it to look the same: equivalent. Police "threatens" the psycho only because he goes about robbing and beating his neighbors, poor thing. He, poor thing "feels threatened and provoked". Are you about to feel for him, already?

Then, a logical question: why do they want to do that? Why drawing equality between a brutal violent psycho and peaceful people who want only to be safe in their own homes? Who, what idea or interest this false equivalence serves?

The idea is simple here: we have to forget what we know and who we are. All of it, even the most obvious.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, myata said:

Right. This is because there's no difference between an aggressive psycho; facts: Baltic states, end 1930s, Poland, 1939, Finland, 1940,

Those aren't facts. Those are states and dates.  There's no point being made there. It's just gibberish.

Why don't you stop spamming the board and actually make a clear argument. 

[myata]

This is what we know: there's no equivalence between a psycho bandit and law-abiding people.

Psycho does not have the privilege to attack; nor to expect to be allowed to attack innocent people with impunity whenever he chooses or likes.

Psycho loser becomes a psycho criminal the moment they violate the law and cross other people's property. This much we know, and I hope remember still.

Those who want us to think for the psychos of the world and like them must have their reasons. They are not the principles of the normal people. Now we can still think and remember what can happen if we forget who we are and what we know.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

This is what we know: there's no equivalence between a psycho bandit and law-abiding people.

That doesn't mean anything though.  You make nonsense statements like that without context OR logical or reasoned argument.   And "psycho" and "bandit" are just terms you seem to have pulled out of your ass because it makes you feel better.  Nobody even knows what you're talking about?  Trump? Putin? Hitler? Your aunt petunia? J. Jonah Jamison? 

Quote

Those who want us to think for the psychos of the world and like them must have their reasons.

Who wants that.  who's out there advocating that we should like "think for" psychos of the world?  give me an example of them saying we should like psychos. 

Honestly you're the only person with mental health issues i can think of at the moment.  Just effing say what you mean. 

[myata]

So the key questions we have: who thinks, and wants us to think on behalf of a lawless criminal, an aggressive recidivist psycho bandit?

Why do they want to do that? What interest they have in it, and from it?

What if agree to accept this lawless, aggressive psycho mentality as normality? How would it change - not the psycho, but us?

[User]

1 hour ago, myata said:

What if agree to accept this lawless, aggressive psycho mentality as normality? How would it change - not the psycho, but us?

Dear diary...

 

 

[myata]

21 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

but I think you can concede that the use if the term "provocation" with reference to a thug does not always equate to being an apologist.

Yes I can concede to that. But this is a general statement, and the next is, how and is it applicable to the situation at hand. Should Hitler's feelings have been taken into account, would it have changed anything? No, he was bent on conquering the world, it would have only weakened the resistance. Putin was bent on diminishing NATO, it's clear from his ultimatums. That is also an objective, factual reality, not so?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

So the key questions we have: who thinks, and wants us to think on behalf of a lawless criminal, an aggressive recidivist psycho bandit?

Why do they want to do that? What interest they have in it, and from it?

What if agree to accept this lawless, aggressive psycho mentality as normality? How would it change - not the psycho, but us?

So you couldn't answer any of my questions. 

So basically you're admitting you were lying and full of shit?   Fair enough

Why do you spam this forum?

[myata]

Why do the liars want to speak for and on behalf of the pathological, recidivist psycho bandit?

What's in it for them?

The questions one cannot ignore, because they just can change who we are. And they did, already in history. But this time around, we knew.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Why do the liars want to speak for and on behalf of the pathological, recidivist psycho bandit?

What's in it for them?

The questions one cannot ignore, because they just can change who we are. And they did, already in history. But this time around, we knew.

This kind of spam right there is why people write stuff like 'dear diary' in reply.   Just talk to people like a normal person and have a discussion. 

Honestly you seem like the pathological psycho to me - why not at least say who you're talking about? FFS boy - use your words!