The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[Katman]

I am sure you see a lot of patterns that dont exist thats what makes you a conspiracy theorist. The pattern is you are wrong pages ago yet you still troll on.......

Perhaps you should learn how to actually comprehend the words that you read - instead of just reading words and immediately putting your own retarded spin on them.

[TheDemonLord]

Do you really think 500 men were sufficient to maintain peace?

Are you admitting that a large scale Military Intervention was needed?

Because if you are...

[Katman]

Are you admitting that a large scale Military Intervention was needed?

Because if you are...

A peacekeeping mission is not a military intervention.

At least, not in the sense that you're hoping to make it.

[Katman]

And if you plan to insist that a peacekeeping mission is indeed a military intervention, name me one single genuine peacekeeping mission that I have ever critised the deployment of troops to.

[husaberg]

A peacekeeping mission is not a military intervention.

At least, not in the sense that you're hoping to make it.

Its became apparent You have no sense or it seems sense of shame, Bravo, go on give us three more pages of denial of the obvious

And if you plan to insist that a peacekeeping mission is indeed a military intervention, name me one single genuine peacekeeping mission that I have ever critised the deployment of troops to.

I love the way you claim to have never criticized a UN peace keeping mission deployment a page after he criticized a UN peace keeping mission to Rwanda. Epic

Considerably more peace keepers than were committed would have made a considerable difference to the outcome.

Before you attempt to claim you are criticizing the deployment, A deployment includes the number of people deployed. But hey,but until you were told the UN had 3000 troop there you never even knew they did.

[Katman]

I love the way you claim to have never criticized a UN peace keeping mission a page after he criticized a UN peace keeping mission to Rwanda. Epic

Like I said, try to actually comprehend the words you read.

[husaberg]

Like I said, try to actually comprehend the words you read.

As predicted
Not only that you initially claimed there was no peace keeping force at all.

[Katman]

As predicted
Not only that you initially claimed there was no peace keeping force at all.

Like I said, care to show us where?

[husaberg]

Like I said, care to show us where?

Us? which personalty missed out on the answer last time you asked the same question.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131119588
but then again even when you twigged admitted its existence you claimed it was 1/10th the size it actually was when the genocide started anyway.

[Katman]

So you are prepared to admit that millions of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs as well as Dwarfs and the handicaped and were methodically systematically killed in concentration camps in gas chambers and worked and staved to death under the orders of top German hierarchy then. Beacause that was the Holocaust

I absolutely agree that a great many Jews died during their incarceration in concentration camps.

It's the scale and manner of the deaths that I've come to question.

[husaberg]

I absolutely agree that a great many Jews died during their incarceration in concentration camps.

It's the scale and manner of the deaths that I've come to question.

That is exactly whats makes you a holocaust denier s proven in the UK high court in Irving vs Lipstadt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving...guin_Books_Ltd
You remember that case where the guy you claim was an expert was made to look a fool.
In Court they proved
that Irving is an apologist for and partisan of Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of evidence; the manipulation and skewing of documents; the misrepresentation of data and the application of double standards to the evidence, in order to serve his own purpose of exonerating Hitler and portraying him as sympathetic towards the Jews;
that Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial, who has on numerous occasions denied that the Nazis embarked upon the deliberate planned extermination of Jews and has alleged that it is a Jewish deception that gas chambers were used by the Nazis at Auschwitz as a means of carrying out such extermination;
that Irving, in denying that the Holocaust happened, has misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs;
that Irving has allied himself with representatives of a variety of extremist and anti-semitic groups and individuals and on one occasion agreed to participate in a conference at which representatives of terrorist organisations were due to speak;
that Irving, in breach of an agreement which he had made and without permission, removed and transported abroad certain microfiches of Goebbels's diaries, thereby exposing them to a real risk of damage.
that Irving is discredited as an historian
He also in court had to admit there was gas chambers at Auschwitz and that millions died as a result of executions. Not just disease or malnutrition as you have claimed.

On the issue of Auschwitz, the judge states "My conclusion is that the various categories of evidence do 'converge' in the manner suggested by the Defendants... Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied upon by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale

[Katman]

THat is exactly whats makes you a holocaust denier s proven in the UK high court in Irving vs Lipstet.
You remember that case where the guy you claim was an expert was made to look a fool.
He also in court had to admit there was gas chambers at Auschwitz and that millions died as a result of executions.

Dude, you can foam at the mouth all you like.

I'm as entitled to question official versions of matters of history as you are to swallow them.

[husaberg]

Dude*, you can foam at the mouth all you like.

I'm as entitled to question official versions of matters of history as you are to swallow them.



*Retarded fuckstain.

You can question anything you like other than the fact you are clearly a holocaust denier.
You also cant question the fact your opinion is not supported either by the expert you choose as being an expert
or any of the evidence that a reasonable intelligent person would consider being available or sufficient.

So just to refresh your memory when i said you denied the holocaust occurred it was because you are a holocaust denier.
So any objections that it is not true are on your part again incorrect

The Rwandan genocide took place from the beginning of April 1994 till mid July.

On April 21 the UN Security Council decided to reduce the peace keeping force from 2500 to 270.

Whats even more funny is your total acceptance that the genocide took place given to complete denial regarding the holocaust.

W hitch brings us back to what evidence the Rwandan genocide occurred that is different than the evidence that shows the holocaust occurred then?
or do you just pick and choose despite the evidence based on the number of Jews involved?

[TheDemonLord]

A peacekeeping mission is not a military intervention.

At least, not in the sense that you're hoping to make it.

Ah Yes,

Peacekeeping Troops, with peacekeeping rifles, that fire peacekeeping bullets...




Here's a question then: You've opposed Military interventions in other areas - and now you are claiming that you don't oppose peacekeeping missions.

What philosophically is the difference?

From my Point of view - It's Soldiers, Armed with Guns (and some cases, bigger guns, backed up by larger military assets) in a Foreign land, using Force (or implied force). Putting aside the RoE (Rules of Engagement, because the Military could adopt the Peacekeepers RoE and vice versa) - I see very little difference between the two.

[Katman]

Here's a question then: You've opposed Military interventions in other areas - and now you are claiming that you don't oppose peacekeeping missions.

What philosophically is the difference?

Seriously?

Are you telling me you don't recognise the difference between a peacekeeping mission and the act of going to war?