LibertatemBoard

Kings island wrote:

I can definitely see a SC condemnation of TRF and NK if this sort of vengeance raiding continues, which would of course benefit us.

Minerva wrote a successful condemnation of NK, which was very quickly repealed by the very people that had just voted for it.

The WA is a sad, sad monster.

Condealism wrote:

Hello? Have you not noticed? We can say the same for you!

yes, we have mourned such crushing losses as the tag raid on Islamic Comintern

Condealism wrote:

Why do you think our military has been so disinterested in fascist targets?

do you mean beyond the fact that you have tried to work with them on multiple, recent occasions and therefore have a compelling interest in not pissing them off?

Condealism wrote:

As long as you're picking fights with libertarians, we're more than happy to show you and your "comrades" up time and time again.

you sure did a great job of showing us up in Communist China, TICU, United Socialist Republics, Zentari, Slavija, New Republica, and Libertarians! that CAPS victory is almost a year old, and it's getting stale fast!

Condealism wrote:

But that's just it - you are losing, on multiple fronts.

l m a o

Condealism wrote:

You're ignoring what is supposedly your top priority by chasing us around, and you honestly think the fash isn't in recovery mode right now?

we're not ignoring them. we know which fascist regions are vulnerable. we're just cleaning shop right now. trust me, we aren't abandoning our antifascist roots by any stretch of the imagination. any thoughts to the contrary are ill-informed at best.

Condealism wrote:

You're invading libertarian regions out of spite, and you think this isn't raising red flags within the interregional community? You think you've won, but all you've done is slow both our sides down.

no, actually, I've been hard at work in speeding our side up. you might notice that we're able to move with incredible precision, and that knowledge is being shared with several leftist commanders.

and I'm pretty sure the interregional community knows the terminology in SC 181 that gives us legal sanction to engage in reprisal attacks.

Condealism wrote:

I'm baffled that you let us bait you into our preferred method of warfare.

I'll just leave this quote from IRC: "Condealism's preferred method of warfare: Losing over and over :P"

Okay, don't take my word for it. Didn't expect you to - I just thought you might be interested in preventing another CAPS or IS from happening, is all, and it seemed to me that you were lacking in the strategy department.

Explains why our rag-tag bunch of capitalists, conservatives, and moderates has been so effective against your supposedly well-oiled machine, at any rate. To think that the solution to all your logistical problems is staring you in the face, and you're quicker to deny it than you are the Holomodor.

Kings island wrote:

I can definitely see a SC condemnation of TRF and NK if this sort of vengeance raiding continues, which would of course benefit us.

Rather not glorify them.

Yelsim wrote:

you sure did a great job of showing us up in Communist China, TICU, United Socialist Republics, Zentari, Slavija, New Republica, and Libertarians! that CAPS victory is almost a year old, and it's getting stale fast!

And yet you proposed a SC resolution way after the fact.

Condealism wrote:

1. Red Fleet. Rumor has it that's *all* TI's packing these days.

The Red Fleet is not a branch of The Internationale, so not quite. just because there's historically been a close relationship between the Fleet and TI doesn't mean it's TI's military.

Condealism wrote:

2. You should have paid us a visit at, mmm, basically any point in time before last December. A tag raid would have been easy for you.

well, TI's delegate is executive right now. if y'all were the stunning anti-communist force you pretend to be in your long-winded stump speeches you could raid us any day.

besides, we didn't even have to raid you for you to permanently turn off your executive delegate AND lock the region when your delegate is away for an extended period of time. the amount of paranoia we are capable of creating in here is kind of hilarious

Hallo island wrote:

I'm still sticking with the fact that someone from a former eastern block country probably knows more about communism than some socially awkward edgy teenager who wants to fit in by not fitting in.

i'm not socially awkward or a teenager though :(

sorry to burst your bubble bud

Right-winged nation wrote:

Huh the embassy gay is... GAYYYYYYYYYY

Are you stoned?

Your source does not say that "Stalin did not intentionally starve Ukrainians." It says that he did, in fact, "intentionally let starving people die," but that there is not enough evidence to prove that he was targeting "specifically the ethnic Ukranians."

Really, the point you're trying to make is for naught. He intentionally starved a very large number of people, resulting in the deaths of millions. Arguing the semantics of whether or not it should be considered ethnic-cleansing is really just lessening the weight of the undeniable fact that that scumbag intentionally killed millions of people. Who cares if we can't prove he was targeting "specifically the ethnic Ukranians?"

Trf submarine group i wrote:

because the entire original argument you guys were trying to make was that Stalin intentionally killed Ukranians (which is what the Holodomor genocide question is all about - whether or not the 1933 famine was intentional and an act of genocide). When y'all lost that argument, you turned to ad hominem attacks against me as a Holocaust/Holodomor denier because that was easier than admitting you were wrong.

You're not addressing what he said. Your source stated that he intentionally let millions die, but that he did not intentionally target Ukrainians. The point is that the source you provided shows that he intentionally targeted class enemies, if not specifically Ukrainians.

Trf submarine group i wrote:

because the entire original argument you guys were trying to make was that Stalin intentionally killed Ukranians (which is what the Holodomor genocide question is all about - whether or not the 1933 famine was intentional and an act of genocide). When y'all lost that argument, you turned to ad hominem attacks against me as a Holocaust/Holodomor denier because that was easier than admitting you were wrong.

Okay and the color of an orange isn't orange 😒😒😒😒

Kings island wrote:

You're not addressing what he said. Your source stated that he intentionally let millions die, but that he did not intentionally target Ukrainians. The point is that the source you provided shows that he intentionally targeted class enemies, if not specifically Ukrainians.

and no one here addressed what I said or anything else in those sources except the cherry-picked bits that supported your pre-conceived notions about the 1933 famine (which is probably why Pevvania cited Davies/Wheatcroft in the first place. frantically googling your argument during the argument is a good way to undermine yourself) and constantly moved the goalposts. the original argument was whether Stalin did it intentionally. he didn't. no serious historian says he did. since you can't admit you were wrong about that you move the goalposts to argue something else.

Trf submarine group i wrote:

and no one here addressed what I said or anything else in those sources except the cherry-picked bits that supported your pre-conceived notions about the 1933 famine (which is probably why Pevvania cited Davies/Wheatcroft in the first place. frantically googling your argument during the argument is a good way to undermine yourself) and constantly moved the goalposts. the original argument was whether Stalin did it intentionally. he didn't. no serious historian says he did. since you can't admit you were wrong about that you move the goalposts to argue something else.

...Except that your own source says that he did. Just not specifically against Ukrainians.