3 days ago-2 points(+0/-0/-2Score on mirror)2 children
I think you've got this a little mixed up. The article/tweet is talking about bond debts owed by Tsarist Russia from 1916, which the Bolsheviks cancelled in 1918, and now an American investment firm (which presumably is now holding those bonds) is suing the modern Russian government for that debt. But your title seems to imply that the Bolsheviks (who were the ones who owed/cancelled that debt, and who are now not in power anymore) are suing "descendants" of the Tsarists (who lost responsibility of that debt when the Bolsheviks took power, and were mostly all killed off or erased from significance anyway).
Seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
The jews (Bolsheviks) who overthrew Tsarist Russia are now suing the modern Russian government (the descendants of the slaughtered Tsarists) to pay them $225bn.
Seems like history isn't your strong suit, cocksucker.
Right, because the jews believe in our borders; because they define themselves by our flags and our nationalities. Go neck yourself, you kike. Every fucking time you come here to make excuses for jews and pitch disinformation. We see you, kike!
Replying to myself to provide an analogy to help anyone understand this:
The situation in the article/tweet would be like if your parent died, and you were the executor of their estate, and you refused to pay off any of their outstanding debts. Then when you died, your child became executor of your estate, which still theoretically owes your parent's unpaid debt. The creditor then sues your child for that debt.
The post title, however, describes this as you (who are dead) suing your parent (who is dead) for your parent's unpaid debt (which you were never owed). See how this makes zero sense?
Seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
Seems like history isn't your strong suit, cocksucker.
The situation in the article/tweet would be like if your parent died, and you were the executor of their estate, and you refused to pay off any of their outstanding debts. Then when you died, your child became executor of your estate, which still theoretically owes your parent's unpaid debt. The creditor then sues your child for that debt.
The post title, however, describes this as you (who are dead) suing your parent (who is dead) for your parent's unpaid debt (which you were never owed). See how this makes zero sense?