what happened to the großrossiya thread

[Aeson]

Are you saying we can't have more than one enemy?

[BeBMan]

Wait, wait, don't mix me in your dealings with your victims who now kill you back in return.

Ellestar I: Equates immigrants with animals.

Ellestar II: Oh don't call me a racist, I just resort to racism to enlighten other people!

Go to your victims in Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan and many other countries, and explain to them about the *rule of law*, and what law allowed you to destroy their countries and kill their innocent civilians, and that *by the law* they totally shouldn't kill you back in return.

I just think that your innocent civilians are equal to their innocent civilians. And in any case your wars kill more innocent civilians than any terrorists kill in return, so it's nothing to whine about, really. Your side does bad things, terrorists do bad things. In the end, given that all people are made equal, and a fact that NATO kills more innocent civilians than Islamist terrorist kill in return, in that conflict NATO is worse than Islamist terrorists.

Besides, NATO trained and supported practically all most prominent terrorist groups, or at least current members of terrorist groups. Your own CIA agent together with your ally's goons from Saudi's Arabia blown up WTC? Well, you suck and it's your internal NATO problem, you have no right even to whine about it, let alone invade Iraq.

You armed and funded Taliban? Well, sucks to be you. You armed and trained "opposition" in Syria, and they're now in ISIS and Al-Nusra (wing of Al-Quaeda)? Again, your fault. Turkey armed ISIS directly? Guess what, Turkey is in NATO.

So, if you create terrorists either directly (by funding, training and arming them) or indirectly (by destroying countries of innocent civilians, and so turning said civilians into terrorists), it's your problems. I won't cry even if they'll kill all of you. Why should i care? Why should a world care? As far as i'm concerned, my responsibility ends when i say you to stop doing it. And that's it. It's a world of free people, NATO is free to kill them, they're free to kill NATO, and i wish all of you insane people good luck, if that's what you freely choose to do.

Ellestar I: You are murdering people everywhere, it's the horror!

Ellestar II: Hehe, I was just kidding, actually murdering people is ok when they're not Russian (unless Stalin did it) and voted in elections.

NATO protected capitalism and organized coups, revolutions and wars all over the world. Warsaw Pact did the same, protecting communism. You still didn't explain, why doing it in Europe is magically "worse" than doing it in Asia or America, for example. Or whatever your argument is.

And by the way, USA used national guard (means, army) in 2015-2016 in USA cities. So why Soviet bloc can't do the same, anyway?

Ellestar I: Soviet morals are superior!

Ellestar II: So why can't we just do the same we complain about in regard to others?!?

Because West signed Anglo-German Naval Agreement, and then a Munich Agreement with Nazi? And while West had military alliances going, USSR didn't have any, so we tried to sign at least a NAP.

Ellestar I: The West did appeasement stuff!

Ellestar II: So we were basically forced to sign a Non-Agression Pact aka Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact aka Hitler-Stalin Pact because Molotov and Ribbentrop were foreign ministers acting on behalf of their govs led by the malicious moustache men. Also, because of Munich we had no other choice than to stab Poland in the back when it was attacked by Nazi-Germany, and take the Baltic states soon afterwards to teach them our superior morals and deport or shoot anyone who didn't see the light.

USA one is banned permanently, for example.

Ellestar I: Communist parties are banned in most western/capitalist/whatever countries!

Ellestar II: Oh look, I've found one example.

[Ellestar]

Ellestar I: Equates immigrants with animals.

Ellestar II: Oh don't call me a racist, I just resort to racism to enlighten other people!

Not really, but then again, you're programmed to interpret anything as racism. That's the point of brainwashing - instead of thinking by yourself, your brain is programmed to to shutdown on supposed "racism", and you don't think that, say, other people shouldn't rape your women, they should work if they're guests of your country and so on. It will be "racism" if you think so, or so you were told by your superiors, at least.

Then again, when your army comes to other country and destroys it for no reason, and millions die, you're programmed to think it's not "racism". Your army just kills them, and that's totally ok in your book, because, sadly, your superiors told you so.

Ellestar I: You are murdering people everywhere, it's the horror!

Ellestar II: Hehe, I was just kidding, actually murdering people is ok when they're not Russian (unless Stalin did it) and voted in elections.

It's not ok, i didn't said so. It's considered the norm that governments do it, after all, i don't see any demonstrations against wars even in democracies, right? But even if it's a fact that it's considered a norm, it's still not ok.

Ellestar I: Soviet morals are superior!

Ellestar II: So why can't we just do the same we complain about in regard to others?!?

Yup. That's exactly how it works, both sides did bad things. Then again, the right thing to break a tie, who's morals are superior, is to calc not in binary logic, but in integer values, for example.

Ellestar I: The West did appeasement stuff!

Ellestar II: So we were basically forced to sign a Non-Agression Pact aka Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact aka Hitler-Stalin Pact because Molotov and Ribbentrop were foreign ministers acting on behalf of their govs led by the malicious moustache men. Also, because of Munich we had no other choice than to stab Poland in the back when it was attacked by Nazi-Germany, and take the Baltic states soon afterwards to teach them our superior morals and deport or shoot anyone who didn't see the light.

Let's not forget that USSR and France had a pact to defend Czechoslovakia (but we didn't have land access to it so we needed Poland to cooperate). And France decided not to pull a trigger, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Soviet_Treaty_of_Mutual_Assistance

So yeah, it would have been much easier if the West didn't betray their obligations. It even had an easy option of a Triple Entente vs Hitler long before Hitler become a problem.

Then an attempt to make USSR treaty with Britain and France against Hitler failed again. It would have been hard to trust Britain and France after they betrayed several countries in a row, but something is better than nothing. Yup, we didn't have much choice. Unfortunately, USSR didn't have any good options at all.

Baltic states were part of a Russian Empire, so it's not like we occupied France, for example. And by the way, we took only our territory back, not a Poland's one.

Ellestar I: Communist parties are banned in most western/capitalist/whatever countries!

Ellestar II: Oh look, I've found one example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Banned_communist_parties

Say, Germany banned it twice, Canada banned it. But yeah, it seems West didn't ban communist parties that much. That's my mistake.

[pchang]

USA what is banned? The Communist Party? http://www.cpusa.org/about-us/

Parties that advocate the violent overthrow of the Government are banned in the US. Parties that refuse to renounce advocating for the violent overthrow of the Government are also banned in the US.

[Dauphin]

You should go test your hypothesis by going to a completely closed society on some desert island some where. They we will come vack in 20 years and see how poor and miserable you are compared to everyone else.

You mean that's what North Korea is? An experiment?

[BeBMan]

Say, Germany banned it twice, Canada banned it. But yeah, it seems West didn't ban communist parties that much. That's my mistake.

Ellestar I: Communist parties are banned in most western/capitalist/whatever countries!

Ellestar II: Oh look, now I have three

[Ellestar]

USA what is banned? The Communist Party? http://www.cpusa.org/about-us/

And it's banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

[BeBMan]

And it's banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...ol_Act_of_1954

Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it.

From your own link

[Proteus_MST]

From your own link

It seems like it is always the same 2 posters in Apolyton OT, who don't even read their own links

[Dinner]

You mean that's what North Korea is? An experiment?

According to Giancarlo it should be heaven on Earth and the people the wealthiest of all.

[Ellestar]

Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it.
From your own link

And still banned.

It seems like it is always the same 2 posters in Apolyton OT, who don't even read their own links

I know it. Actually, it was already discussed here, and i knew it before then.

[Proteus_MST]

According to Giancarlo it should be heaven on Earth and the people the wealthiest of all.

Aye ... communism and total isolation ... they must have the highest living standards in the world by now ... for every single of their citizens

And still banned.

A banned party that has an official office in New York?
As well as 2000 members?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

I am sure Stalin or Hitler wouldn't have treated banned parties so lenient ... must be tghe damned decadence in modern western democracies
Those decadent western democracies definitely should be more active in the field of persecution

[Dauphin]

According to Giancarlo it should be heaven on Earth and the people the wealthiest of all.

To be fair, their people probably do think it is.

[Giancarlo]

According to Giancarlo it should be heaven on Earth and the people the wealthiest of all.

Here he goes again. Again, I am not against trade. I'm just against you advocating that 1% of the population should get 99.9% of the wealth.

Keep it up with the veiled insults/lies.

I don't care for false correlations and people speaking for me. Don't do it again.

[Ming]

I'm just against you advocating that 1% of the population should get 99.9% of the wealth.

I guess I missed that in this thread... I don't see anybody advocating that 1% of the population should get 99.9% of the wealth.
While in your definition of free trade your opinion is that it leads to this... but nobody has said, HEY I WANT 1% of the population to have most of the money.
I thought you were against people speaking for others?