Author Topic: Latest Russian Jokes  (Read 31791 times)

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13322
  • Assembly is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #60 on: August 20, 2015, 07:35:41 AM »
... disarming the population allows such governments to impose more and more tyrannical  regimes. They also selectively start to murder the opposition. Some even selectively murder millions.

Still no links to publications supporting the new scientific theory that Hitler would not have murdered Millions if the Germans had had enough guns in their hands...? The NRA surely has some "scientists" working for them, what are they publishing with respect to this theory?


rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #61 on: August 20, 2015, 01:31:24 PM »
Well I hate to type into the search engine "NRA Hitler guns" - what will the NSA think? But curiosity got the better of me. Turns out, jj, you're in the ballpark.

NRA does in fact say - or maybe just imply, I didn't do a lot of reading - that H. used gun control to keep Germans subjectified. However more informed opinion disagrees with this. Real historians agree there was strict gun control in the Weimar republic, prior to H's rise. National Socialist party was half the reason for these laws, the other half being Communists - authorities wanted to disarm them. Later H relaxed those laws and by 1938 there was not much gun control. I can't tell if that's what you expected - it semi-agrees with your posts.

I remember (as I said, I don't particularly want to look this up, with NSA watching) that H's "Brown-Shirts" did not have guns after 1923 (the Beer Hall Putsch), because they were illegal. You have to realize he was a legitimate candidate for office and couldn't blatantly break the law, altho he did break laws and used a lot of "muscle" against his opponents. The communists took a couple shots at him (surreptitiously), in Beer Hall rallies and as he left the building; the B.S's countered with clubs and such, he was never hurt. So, actually, gun control did not prevent guns being used against him.

And now, since I've done this research to answer your question, perhaps you'll answer one for me:

"Who Cares"?
I am NaN ;)

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13322
  • Assembly is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #62 on: August 20, 2015, 05:11:01 PM »
"Who Cares"?

Maybe the poster who launched this new theory?

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10020
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #63 on: August 20, 2015, 08:28:33 PM »
I think the missing component here is what a Colt revolver was reputed to have been called, "The Great Equaliser" and while the Jewish communities around the occupied parts of Europe did in fact contribute to the resistance where they could, sad to say most did not have a Colt Revolver in hand when the Gestapo came to the door to send them off to the ovens. Now I doubt it would have changed the result by much but it sure would have spread the misery around.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #64 on: August 21, 2015, 02:16:45 AM »
"Who Cares"?

Maybe the poster who launched this new theory?

- that makes sense. I missed that post entirely, thought you had come up with it, sorry. Now the mystery is why he/she cares, but ... who cares?

[edit] @hutch, it wouldn't have changed the result but it's worth it to take a few of the b****rds with you. However these days mere guns hardly make a difference against swat teams, helicopters, predators, the whole 9 yards. If David Koresh had shot back, what difference would it make? And there was some guy in a mountain cabin in US - forget his name - he had guns, so a long-range sniper took out his wife. They would have used a cruise missile if they had to - what good is a shotgun? The Freedom Fighters in the Middle East, with AK's and home-made bombs, are extremely outclassed by a modern army. Still an AK is better than nothing.

People who think guns are for burglars are missing the point. Guns are for resisting gov'ts - either your own or foreign aggressors. These days, we ought to have bazookas and such. At least it makes the b****rds think twice before knocking on your door ...
I am NaN ;)

Donkey

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • ASS-embler
    • Donkey's Stable
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #65 on: August 21, 2015, 03:27:04 AM »
I always loved the argument that "if only the Jews were armed", well the armies of most of Europe were very well armed and had mechanized infantry and air forces to boot and they did very well didn't they ::). The fact is that Jews made up less than 1% of the German population, even armed they would have provided little resistance. In the Warsaw Ghetto uprising they only managed to kill 20 German soldiers after a month of hostilities, 13,000 Jews died and another 50,000 were sent to concentration camps, so much for the idea that resisting had any meaningful effect. The argument that arming the Jews would have changed the outcome is proved false by history, though it seems many in the gun lobby, Wayne LaPierre (head of the NRA) is the worst of them, like to rewrite history.

It cheapens the ordeal and the horror of the holocaust and those who struggled against impossible odds to play these "what if" games.

NOTE: This topic belongs in The Colosseum and will be split and moved shortly. Just deciding where the split should be

Screw it, just moved the whole thing, the politics started too early for a meaningful split
"Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere...[shudder] and I thought I saw a two." -- Bender
"It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as two". -- Fry
-- Futurama

Donkey's Stable

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10020
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #66 on: August 21, 2015, 10:04:35 AM »
I think you are picking the wrong end of the events, by the time of the Warsaw ghetto the Jewish community had already been rounded up and confined to the ghetto so they were easy pickings for artillery and air attack. It would have mattered in 1933 and slightly later with events like the "Night of broken glass". None the less the escapes from Treblinka made the point that members of the Jewish community who could fight did fight as many of those who survived the escape fought with the resistance after the escape.

Now in particular in the Baltic states where the rounding up of the Jewish community was done by locals in a very ugly and spiteful manner, a Mauser or a Luger in the hands of the victims would have shared the misery around and made the task a lot less popular. Again it would not have changed much but it sure would have upped the risks for the cowards who did the dirty work.

The notion of the "great equaliser" came from the old wild west where the little guy could defend himself from the big guy with a Colt revolver. To this extent it does level the playing field.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13322
  • Assembly is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #67 on: August 21, 2015, 11:31:36 AM »
It would have mattered in 1933 and slightly later with events like the "Night of broken glass". None the less the escapes from Treblinka made the point that members of the Jewish community who could fight did fight as many of those who survived the escape fought with the resistance after the escape.

Since we've now entered the "let's speculate and rewrite history" stage: In an atmosphere of hatred against the Jews, who were obliged to wear the yellow badge, what would have happened if Germans had had the right to arm themselves at will? "Sorry, I had to shoot this guy, he stared at my daughter" - "Well done, citizen!". Colts would have sped up the whole process, and all gun-carrying non-Jewish Germans would have become killers. Plus, any armed resistance from the part of the Jews would have given the Nazis an argument to use the artillery against them. Hitler was an a**hole, but without active support from the population he would just have been a mediocre painter.

But of course, it is understandable that U.S. citizens keep up the idea that, in case there was an evil government, they could overthrow it with colts. It is absurdly naive to believe that, but the feeling "I could shoot back if I really wanted" may ease the sufferance of knowing to be slaves of an invisible and untouchable mafia whose early manifestations were called MIC by Dwight D. Eisenhower. I will believe in this NRA bullshit when I see hords of armed Americans invade Wall Street, and not a second earlier.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #68 on: August 21, 2015, 04:50:50 PM »
Quote from: jj2007
the feeling "I could shoot back if I really wanted" may ease the sufferance of knowing to be slaves of an invisible and untouchable mafia whose early manifestations were called MIC by Dwight D. Eisenhower.

- that's right, and why not ease that suffering a little? You have plenty of sympathy for people 70 years dead, but none for those oppressed today. If "happiness is a warm gun" why not allow us at least that, useless though it is?

Quote from: jj2007
I will believe in this NRA bullshit when I see hordes of armed Americans invade Wall Street, and not a second earlier.

- Ain't gonna happen. Anyway the scum no longer hangs around Wall Street, they're in gated compounds with armed guards, in Connecticut, Long Island, overseas - utterly untouchable. Guns are a joke against them
I am NaN ;)

Farabi

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Neuroscience Fans
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #69 on: August 22, 2015, 07:48:39 PM »
You know, life is kinda funny. People can choose between bad or worse, or bad or good, but yet we choose always the worst. Once I quoted a good "Stick and Carot " verse from the quran about restraining anger, I forget the context was at war, no wonder I was so haste in pasting it. If there is no problem in people there must be problem on us. Life is tragedy, but also comedy. I wonder if said holocaust was wrong, and then we talk about phalestine, not just doesn't change anything but the jews will hopelesly start blaming theirself.

There is popular saying here: If life was easy, there would be no paradise, at best, you won a toaster. :lol:
http://farabidatacenter.url.ph/MySoftware/
My 3D Game Engine Demo.

Contact me at Whatsapp: 6283818314165

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13322
  • Assembly is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
2 U.S. Marines shoot gunman on Paris-bound train
« Reply #70 on: August 22, 2015, 08:06:22 PM »
Breaking news:
Quote
A young Moroccan armed with a Kalashnikov and a knife opened fire in a high-speed train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris Friday, injuring three people -- including two American Marines who subdued him, according to French media reports.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #71 on: August 23, 2015, 02:21:56 AM »
Quote from: farabi
There is popular saying here: If life was easy, there would be no paradise, at best, you won a toaster.

- I like that popular saying! - even tho it doesn't make a whole lot of sense

@jj,

Our world views are at variance. If a young Moroccan tries to shoot Parisians, u say "let's ban guns!". Whereas I wonder, how many of the Moroccan's fellow Muslims were killed today by drones and such, with the (at least, tacit) support of those same Parisians? Why do Parisians (and Romans, etc) join the "coalition" for these endless wars on Muslims? And - as long as they do so - why are they surprised when the victims fight back?

- These are not just rhetorical questions, I'm really puzzled by the situation. At least - to be consistent - shouldn't we ban drones also?
I am NaN ;)

Donkey

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • ASS-embler
    • Donkey's Stable
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #72 on: August 23, 2015, 02:40:07 AM »
Quote from: farabi
There is popular saying here: If life was easy, there would be no paradise, at best, you won a toaster.

- I like that popular saying! - even tho it doesn't make a whole lot of sense

@jj,

Our world views are at variance. If a young Moroccan tries to shoot Parisians, u say "let's ban guns!". Whereas I wonder, how many of the Moroccan's fellow Muslims were killed today by drones and such, with the (at least, tacit) support of those same Parisians? Why do Parisians (and Romans, etc) join the "coalition" for these endless wars on Muslims? And - as long as they do so - why are they surprised when the victims fight back?

- These are not just rhetorical questions, I'm really puzzled by the situation. At least - to be consistent - shouldn't we ban drones also?

That's quite a load of b*llsh&t, the drone attacks are not against Muslims, they are against active terrorists, it is unfortunate that civilians are killed and injured as a result but that is a byproduct of war. Those same terrorists are killing more Muslims every week guised as ISIL than all of the drone strikes in history. Why aren't the terrorists out killing members of ISIL ? The reason is they have co-opted religion as a way to draft volunteers in order to advance their own agenda whether that is good or bad for Muslims is not a factor in their planning. When there is an attack on a train in France nobody says it's the Muslim world attacking Christians and we should strike back, so why are you so quick to spout that nonsense that anti-terrorism efforts are inherently anti-Muslim ?
"Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere...[shudder] and I thought I saw a two." -- Bender
"It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as two". -- Fry
-- Futurama

Donkey's Stable

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13322
  • Assembly is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #73 on: August 23, 2015, 05:10:21 AM »
Our world views are at variance. If a young Moroccan tries to shoot Parisians, u say "let's ban guns!". Whereas I wonder, how many of the Moroccan's fellow Muslims were killed today by drones and such, with the (at least, tacit) support of those same Parisians? Why do Parisians (and Romans, etc) join the "coalition" for these endless wars on Muslims? And - as long as they do so - why are they surprised when the victims fight back?

- These are not just rhetorical questions, I'm really puzzled by the situation. At least - to be consistent - shouldn't we ban drones also?

I am closer to Edgar on this one. My specific point was that the two soldiers brought the gunman under control without carrying any guns. And yes, drones aren't any better than other means of war. Indeed, Obama's nickname over here is, whenever one talks about drones, "Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winner". He may still be an improvement over George double-u, but drone war is definitely not popular here. However, likewise it is not popular that ISIS (financed by our influential "friends" in Saudi Arabia) receives only symbolic little attacks from the U.S., while NATO partner Turkey supports them quite openly. There is a really dirty game going on there. Reducing all that to "the West attacks Islam" is more than misleading.

rrr314159

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Latest Russian Jokes
« Reply #74 on: August 23, 2015, 11:15:10 AM »
Quote from: Donkey
When there is an attack on a train in France nobody says it's the Muslim world attacking Christians ...

- no, because Europe is no longer Christian (thank G-d). But they certainly do say it's the Muslim world attacking Europe

Quote from: Donkey
... and we should strike back,

- who's "we"? Neither you nor I are European, so why do you automatically consider us on the Europe side instead of Arab? ... For the same reason "they" see us as one group: because we are. But, it's not a Christian group any more. I guess Caucasian would be the accurate label

- more important, nobody says we should strike back, because we're already striking and have been for decades

Quote from: Donkey
... so why are you so quick to spout that nonsense that anti-terrorism efforts are inherently anti-Muslim ?

- As a general rule: 1) if I say something factual or to-the-point, it's obvious why I said it. 2) If it's funny, it's a joke. 3) If it's nonsense, it's because it's a deeply-held, well-thought-out non-sensical belief. And if I'm quick to spout it, it's because I wasn't busy with something more important

- But I said nothing (nor did anyone else) about "anti-terrorist". Better way to put it: attacks on Muslims are inherently anti-Muslim

Big-picture-wise, I'm taking a longer view than u. If you look at only today, perhaps your view is sensible. But where did the "terrorists" come from: ISIS, Al Quaeda, and etc.?

Now we could go back to Xerxes, or Muhammad, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Crusades, ... but let's not overdo it. Start with 1951 - beginning of the rrr314159 era.

Two years later, without my concurrence (admittedly I was a little young to be consulted), the US and UK (Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA was a key operative) illegally and unethically engineered the deposition of Mosadeggh (democratically elected P.M) in Iran, because the oil barons wanted more money (cold war considerations were the excuse). They returned Mohammad Reza as king, who functioned as one of our "puppets". Naturally the Iranians didn't like that, and in 1979 chased him out and put the Ayatollah in charge. There's no doubt that if the West had left them to themselves they would have become more and more Westernized; instead, reacting against our heavy-handed policies, they returned to strict theocracy. Of course the new Iran hated the West (remember Embassy hostages, Jimmy Carter etc).

So, the West built up Saddam Hussein as a counter-weight, provided military support and chemical weapons, encouraged the bloody Iran-Iraq war, etc. I never disliked Saddam, figuring u have to be brutal to keep together a country of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. But be that as it may, US specifically helped him in his brutality, supported use of chemicals against his own people, so he would keep down this other enemy we'd made for the good of oil barons' bank balances.

Meanwhile Russia invaded Afghanistan and the CIA financed and trained Osama Bin Laden against them, creating the seed of al-Qaeda.

Then Saddam started looking dangerous - he might unify the Arab world (by force, partly) and be a threat to Israel. Again, lots of money was involved. In 1991 I was working for the Navy on submarine Combat Control Systems. My understanding was, they were to be used against the USSR; indeed, the idea was they would never be used, they were a deterrent. Now, USSR was a huge power with equal weaponry, which threatened (from US POV, anyway) major portions of the world: a worthy enemy. Suddenly for no good reason those subs were deployed against tiny Iraq, killing innocent civilians as well as (to my mind) innocent soldiers. Who cares about Kuwait? It was always Oil and Israel (O&I) - not, I felt, good reasons. So I had to leave, and went to private sector, writing DBase II and SQL (very boring).

This post is too long already, but other major topics include US support of Saudi Arabia dictators; and Israel: Truman early recognition thereof, which extremely alienated and amazed Arabs; Jonathan Pollard and the secret transfer of nukes to Israel; and major weapons / technology transfer in general, putting them far ahead of rest of Middle East. Don't forget Sykes-Picot Agreement, etc. And, etc.

2001, the World Trade Center. Why did those people (mostly Saudi Arabians, whose dictators we have kept in power) hate us enough to do that? To me it's totally obvious, if you know a little history. Until then Muslims hadn't attacked European-descent lands for, what, 400 years or so - while we'd slaughtered and hassled them for O&I. None of that slaughter ever did me the slightest good; I've been against it from day one. Of the 3000 deaths on 9/11, probably 2700 felt the same as me (they were "civilians"), but a good 300 were vitally involved in that aggression - they were white-collar terrorists. And as we all know,

Quote from: Donkey
...they are against active terrorists, it is unfortunate that civilians are killed and injured as a result but that is a byproduct of war.

George W. (with the help of neo-con "advisors", and undoubtedly the promise of money later on) decided to retaliate with some serious butt-kicking. Can't disagree - we were, indeed, attacked - but given the ratio of killings to that point (maybe 300,000, or 3 million, who knows, to 3000) I felt a very targeted ("surgical") response was called for. In other words, I'd say Osama had good, even admirable, reason to do it, but should be killed just on general principles. But instead we destroyed our previous pal, Saddam, who was completely uninvolved and had no WMDs. Why? Because he threatened to unify Arabs against Israel and keep their own oil, so this was a convenient excuse. We left the country (previously a modern, relatively happy place) a "rogue state", infrastructure ruined, millions dead, everybody reverting to bloody savagery. Then Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, the entire Arab world (it seems) became the target. Why? Well, we just went over that. Since Persians and Arabs have little in common except their religion, I think it's very reasonable, in this "us-against-them" context, to lump them together as "Muslims". Essentially the wars, police actions, spy actions, "regime changes", have been West ("Caucasians", if you will) against Muslims. NOT because of theology, but money (=O&I); still the label "Muslim" is not inaccurate.

So if you look at only the last 24 hours, obviously the "terrorist" in Paris is a bad guy. But considering the history of these hostilities it's another story. If you look at the last 24 hours, it's not about Christians vs. Muslims - that's irrelevant. But in an historical context, it's relevant. Look at last 24 hours, ISIS is horrible. Last decades, however, ISIS appears inevitable result of the constant aggression of the West against Middle East. You know, Gandhi would last about 5 minutes over there. As with Saddam, brutality has become necessary to hold power in that witch's brew of bombs, drones, foreign invaders, factions etc.

You call them terrorists, I call them Freedom Fighters. Perhaps we can split the difference and call them "people"?

Quote from: jj2007
My specific point was that the two soldiers brought the gunman under control without carrying any guns.

- u didn't mention that (and I didn't know it). Yes that's a very good gun-control-advocate point: guns were only the problem here, not the solution. Still it's only one incident
I am NaN ;)