New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
32
posted 17 hours ago by ScallionPancake on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +32Score on mirror )
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
PurestEvil on scored.co
10 hours ago 5 points (+0 / -0 / +5Score on mirror ) 1 child
> Anyway, I am perm banned now

I occasionally wrote something on TDW, not much, not intense. But at some day, 4 days after my last comment there, I got perma-banned. It's clear to me today that they are controlled by jewish moderators, who probably are paid to do what they do. Or they are genuine idiots and fanatics (zionists), basically Reddit moderator types.

> Even if they used to think people like me were annoying

I don't think it was up to the majority of people to consider that. There were moderators and a tiny amount of terminally online snitches who did all of that, who also started fights using the term "stormfaggots" ("Sturm" was an often used term from NS Germany, and "faggot" because you didn't suck Trump's dick as he sucks Netanyahu's). So very few people controlled the flow of information and discourse on TDW.

This forum is a clear example of the opposite. The mods are largely invisible and do not go nanny-mode over every bullshit, which is great. Just imagine they'd ban people with the reason "YOU DIDN'T LOVE HITLER ENOUGH" or "YOU BELIEVE IN THE HOLOHOAX." I also appreciate that they stopped banning retarded leftists who somehow land here for a while - it's like saving them from a pool of piranhas.

> 100% correct he went to war with Iran on behalf of the jews.

I wouldn't say everything else is just forgivable compared to that only because it's not as bad as that, but THAT went way overboard beyond what is acceptable. It's an absolute betrayal, bigger than all previous he made. And there are what, ~3 more years of him ahead? And that ultimate faggot jokes about a third term? He should be happy if he leaves office without being hung high.

> That seems like hopium because the USG would probably do a ground invasion if they could remotely sell it

Even if the US goes for a ground invasion, it won't look good. The USA has won 0% of wars alone over the past 100 years - which were actual wars, not just little bully-skirmishes. With Iran it's an actual war. Their tactic was always to have allies and pursue other means to defeat their enemies. But when it comes to the US itself waging war, it has a 0% success rate. Sure, israel is on board, but they'll be in the backseats masturbating or something, striking with a bike lock as they quickly vanish back into the crowd. They are only really good at killing civilians. The US has the main role here as the Greatest Pet™ of israel.

If this were a crusade of destruction of non-Whites, that would be different. But this is a war on behalf of their jewish masters.
devotech2 on scored.co
4 hours ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
>not just little bully-skirmishes

The US can't even win its stupid bully-skirmishes. We failed in Iraq after being there for 11 years longer than planned, we failed in Afghanistan, we failed in Vietnam, we failed in Korea. The trick for winning a war against the US is to just use asymmetrical warfare. For some reason, America completely shits itself when it's fighting insurgencies. The ironic part is that the US was founded by an insurgency.

They all read the same damned handbook that Mao created for the PLA to fight an unconventional war with Japan which has turned out to be the absolute magnum opus for asymmetrical warfare. "On protracted war". This is why the US keeps getting its shit pushed in by every insurgency known to man.

Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
bobbacringo on scored.co
32 minutes ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
The US cannot win insurgencies because the officers refuse to see where the insurgency comes from. When I was in Iraq, I proved all the money was coming from Iran. I knew where the money drops were. All we had to do was seize and kill Persians and attacks against us would stop. Nope, that might start a bigger war.


It's the same concept behind why Vietnam was dragged out. The money and resources were coming from Northern Vietnam. Take out that and the war is over. Politicians don't want to actually win. They want a dragged out war that expends more and more expensive munitions.


General William Tecumseh Sherman conducted a strategy of total war to destroy the South. This lines up with traditional doctrine from Romans. Destroy everything. If you destroy everything, and your ground forces act essentially as a locust plague, there is no insurgency. There is no insurgency because there is nothing. No food, no water, no nothing. America will not conduct war this way because of optics. Essentially it's gotten into the heads of generals that the press has a right to be on battlefields. They do not. The press is always the enemy in a warzone.
Toast message