Paris BURNS.

60 dead ….. 100 hostages ……. probably hundreds wounded …….. and Admin is posting funny Friday pics.  lol  The rest of you are jerking off somewhere.

 

They haven’t said yet …. but, it’s probably MOOSLIMS, ya think? Deport them ALL.  Yeah, riiight.  French pussies are getting the fruit of the tree they planted.

Obama spoke to our country.  I couldn’t bear to listen.  I’ll bet he tried his best to look all serious and sad.  Probably said we’ll stand by France and will help in any way possible.  I think that means we’ll bomb Mali.

NYC is taking “precautions”.  Amerikan pussies.

Well, what do say?  Should the USA!USA!USA! take in 100,000 Syrians?  Won’t that be fun?  Or should we just build a fence, and deport all the mooslim-fuks we got?


Author: Stucky

I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
142 Comments
flash
flash
November 14, 2015 9:54 am

Admin, the Brits were evacuating their own retreating cowards at Dunkirk , and as I said before, if retreating or acquiescing to a conquering force was a sign of cowardice then every nation on earth is populated by cowards.

For centuries, most of the nobles of Europe , including King John as a prince (who think was about 14) who ruled Ireland circa 1185 were French.The Norman Plantagenets , of which John was one, ruled England for 300 hundred years and not only did most not speak English , but they spent as little time the dreary island as possible , and yet every English knee bowed to their absent French masters ..Were the ancient Britains cowards as well?

Administrator
Administrator
  flash
November 14, 2015 10:02 am

Retreating and surrendering are two fucking different acts flashy.

The brits evacuated to fight another day. They evacuated 30,000 french soldiers too, who reformed under De gaulle.

The french surrendered after 6 weeks, with very little resistance and very few casualties. The french display in 1940 was a national disgrace that can never be lived down.

What can’t you get through your thick skull. Please give me anecdotes from 1185 to fight your losing battle.

Administrator
Administrator
  Administrator
November 14, 2015 10:23 am

France outlaws most gun ownership and it’s almost impossible to legally acquire a high-powered rifle such as an AK-47, so where did the weapons in the Nov. 13 terror attack—not to mention the bloody January assault by Islamic terrorists on the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo magazine and the 2012 shootings by a militant in Toulouse—come from?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/13/this-is-how-ak-47s-get-to-paris.html

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 10:01 am

Admin, when backed into a corner ,a ll you’ve got is ad hominem , but I do acknowledged it is your forte’

[imgcomment image[/img]

I’ll read the fat puffy Lying , when you read how the Drunken Lying Baron led US into not one but two world wars

Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

Administrator
Administrator
  flash
November 14, 2015 10:06 am

flash

Ad hominem my ass. That is your specialty when not cutting and pasting or bashing women. Your drivel is tiring and boring. The facts are on my side and your cut and paste knowledge is pitiful.

When will you slither off the site again because I put you in your place.

Face it. You don’t know jack shit about what happened in France in 1940. Your hatred of individuals like Churchill blinds you to the truth. But that’s alright. Everyone on this site knows who you are.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 10:40 am

Admin, I’m reading Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.I’ll get back to you on how those cowardly French Roman’s surrendered and allowed Rome to be sacked twice.

And what about those cowardly Byzantine Christian surrendering Constantinople to those invading Mohammedans …damn French cowards each and every one.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:00 am

Admin, You rabidly worship at the altar of the the genocidal war mongering psychopath Churchill who by instigating two world wars was responsible for the murderers of millions of civilians, yet you decry the lightweight warmongers Bush and Obama as the worst sort of war criminals ..LOL.. you really should get that cognitive dissonance checked out before it morphs into full blown psychosis.

Buchanan on Churchill and ilk…
“These men are not made of the same stuff as the Francis Drakes and the other magnificent adventurers who created the empire. These, after all, are the tired sons of a long line of rich men, and they will lose their empire.”110”
― Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

Administrator
Administrator
  flash
November 14, 2015 11:15 am

flash

Go crawl back under your rock. You’re embarrassing yourself with your complete and utter lack of knowledge about history. To blather that Churchill started World War II might be the dumbest fucking thing anyone has ever regurgitated on TBP.

Any newbies will be wondering why I let half wits comment.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:05 am

Funny that Britain twice in one century declared war on Germany and had to have their limey skins saved by US blood and treasure on both accessions.Another inconvenient truth for admin.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:17 am

Admins fearless self-promoting hero prepared to fight those dirty Huns. Never would he or the heroes of the logistically evacuation of Dunkirk ever throw down their arms.

I have not become the Kings First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. – Winston Churchill …. yet that is exactly what the fat old drunk fool did.

[imgcomment image[/img]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1208032/Were-troops-cowards-Churchills-concern-lack-fighting-spirit.html

But the fact was that the fall of Singapore had left him angry and depressed. A force of 100,000 British soldiers had lain down their arms, despite outnumbering the Japanese invasion force four to one. ‘They should have done better,’ he lamented.

What use was it, that he himself displayed a warrior’s spirit before the world, if those who fought in Britain’s name showed themselves incapable of matching his rhetoric?

He was not alone in his poor opinion of Britain’s fighting men. The chief of the general staff, General Sir Alan Brooke, wrote in his diary: ‘If the Army cannot fight better than it is doing at the present, we shall deserve to lose our Empire.’

Nor was the judgment a new one. Back in 1941, following defeats in Greece, Crete and North Africa, Sir Alexander Cadogan of the Foreign Office wrote: ‘Our soldiers are the most pathetic amateurs, pitted against professionals. The Germans are magnificent fighters, veritable masters of warfare. We shall learn, but it will be a long and bloody business.’

A year had gone by since then and, with the fall of Singapore, Cadogan added: ‘Our Army is the mockery of the world!’
He was confident that America’s recent entry into the war would enable Britain to survive. But how could the nation hold up its head in the world, be seen to have made a worthy contribution to victory, if the British Army covered itself with shame whenever exposed to a battle?

Still the bad news did not abate. The island of Malta was under siege. Convoys to Russia were suffering shocking losses from German air and U-boat attack. Nowhere, it seemed, did the sun shine upon British endeavours.
British machine gunners in Malta, the main base of the nation’s Mediterranean fleet

Under siege: British machine gunners in Malta, the main base of the nation’s Mediterranean fleet

Alan Brooke found the prime minister ‘often in a very nasty mood these days’. Clementine wrote to a friend in the United States: ‘We are walking through the Valley of Humiliation.’

Mary, Churchill’s daughter, noted in her diary that her father was ‘saddened – appalled by events’. An editorial in the Spectator contrasted the present mood with 1940. ‘No one can pretend that we are living through our finest hour today.’

Private conclaves of MPs, editors, retired generals and admirals discussed Churchill in the most brutal terms. Some thought he was finished and it was only a matter of a few months before his government fell.

There were many in high places who voiced the opinion that, as one Tory MP put it, ‘we cannot possibly win the war with the present PM’. But, having said that, they never actually came up with a good alternative.

The bigger problem for Churchill was in the United States – the ally who had only just joined the war against Hitler but was crucial if victory was to be won. There, a perception was growing that Britain was too yellow to fight. This worried Churchill because he suspected it might be true.

Goldorack
Goldorack
November 14, 2015 11:19 am

flash, you’re loosing your time with this human piece of shit.

“admin”??
pulling the old string of French bashing in such a day, as bodies haven’t all be picked up, just makes me puke. even more when I state that it reflects the mindset of 80% of Americans.
you hate frenchs? good for you. don’t turn information in pollution, keep your shit at home because you widely contribute to pointless rants of braindead kids, wich fuel antiamericanism in return.
today, there is people from all other the world that go in novorussia to fight against nazism, but tomorrow nobody will give a rat ass when your hellhole will burn itself, because you only show hate, just like the governments you elect for decades spread death worldwide.

as for your ww2 “knowledge”, LMAO!
you just repeat like a parrot the propaganda books writen by the victors to fit their objectives and to cover the responsability of the traitors. kind of like when your teachers told you when you were kid that french smell, drink and whatever bullshit that suit you.
you never read combat journal from german divisions, neither you read witness accounts or anything likely to bring a hint of light to your warped vision. all you know is shit from shinola, just like wikipedia you despise. you should shut the fuck up, but a pinehead like you is just unable to do so.

24 years of successful american policy in the middle east display another great achievement today in Paris. decades at playing the islamo card. for what?
don’t worry, the halasnackbars keep some good chunk of shitcake for america, i’m sure you won’t be forgotten.

don’t bother to answer, I won’t read

Administrator
Administrator
  Goldorack
November 14, 2015 11:27 am

Goldorack the Great arrives with his usual incomprehensible drivel that makes flash’s comments seem brilliant.

Oh Goldorack – please regale us with stories of the courageous glorious french resistance to the Nazi hordes.

I’ll make it easy, even for a halfwit like yourself.

Administrator
Administrator
  Administrator
November 14, 2015 11:29 am

Goldorack

I think you should have tougher gun control laws and allow more Muslims into your bankrupt socialist paradise. That should work. Diversity is your strength.

Grog
Grog
November 14, 2015 11:20 am

I’ve seen no mention of this here previously, but I was wondering about the muslim pop. here in the us, specifically, Islam among the prison population. According to Wikipedia: “In addition to immigration, the state, federal and local prisons of the United States may be a contributor to the growth of Islam in the United States. J. Michael Waller claims that Muslim inmates comprise 17-20% of the prison population in New York, or roughly 350,000 inmates in 2003. He also claims that 80% of the prisoners who “find faith” while in prison convert to Islam.[1] These converted inmates are mostly African American, with a small but growing Hispanic minority.[2] Waller also asserts that many converts are radicalized by outside Islamist groups linked to terrorism, but other experts suggest that when radicalization does occur it has little to no connection with these outside interests.[3][4][5]”. So, not only is there a continuing influx of muslims into the US, but also a continuing proselytizing of those who will probably be released at some point. Gee I wonder who those people might “tribe-up” with?

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:22 am

LOL…Admin, you of all people should know better that rely soley on the memoir of a silly-ass lying warmonger who even as an adult still played with toy soldiers for all your WII history.

Thy this for a waker-upper.

Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal

https://mises.org/library/great-wars-and-great-leaders-libertarian-rebuttal

Administrator
Administrator
  flash
November 14, 2015 11:32 am

flash

You are such a dumbass, you think The Last Lion was a memoir and not an award winning biography by William Manchester, one of the most well respected historians of our time.

Now proceed to tear down Manchester. that’s your MO.

You are so fucking predictable with your cut and paste responses.

You do realize no one ever reads your cut and paste or clicks on your links. Don’t you.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:32 am

Goldorack , I agree with admin most of the time and as far subjects of finance and modern govenrment goes, he towers above my understanding , but on this subject of the cowardice of only the French in the heat of battle, he is dead wrong. We all can’t be right all the time .Perhaps he’s still pissed over the walk in Norman subjugation of Ireland (both our ancestral homeland) that lasted for 800 years

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:45 am

Admin, you got , I took a wild guess and was busted.

I did find a review of the book though…as the great critical thinker you are , you’ll definitely be interested. I’ll put the book on my list , but as I’m currently digesting mostly ancient history, it be awhile before I get to it.

BTW, Admin.I feel your pain. You’ve already been forced to admit one of your heroes , Ole Honest Abe wasn’t all that.It’d be a terrible blow to your belief system if you had to admit the same about another hero , the self-promoting and habitual liar Churchill.

Lionizing Winston

Should We Lionize Winston?

Therefore I wonder – was Churchill selected to play this part, to ensure the transition that was desired by the Anglo-elite? Did Churchill know he was playing this part? Did he need to know? To try to find some clues, I decided to read a biography of the man: The Last Lion, by William Manchester. This volume covers the years 1874 to 1932. These years would be the critical years in my chase – if he was chosen, it happened early on, and for reasons that were visible early on.

An American is struck by the facility with which so many British intellectuals slight the man who saved their country. (P. 16)

Perhaps, being British, they have a different view. For the British, it could be concluded that Churchill was a key figure in the demise of Empire; of even a more direct and personal impact, consider the fate of the British economy in the several decades after World War II (something to consider if / when the US empire follows this same course).

Churchill certainly had a vision early on in the Second World War:

…by combining the might of the English-speaking peoples in so strong a defense of the United States and the Commonwealth that the rest of the world would be held at bay, as it had been held by the British Empire in the relatively quiescent nineteenth century. (P. 16)

For my hypothesis to hold water, it would be helpful to find evidence that some hint of this was known to the elite early on – perhaps even forty or fifty years earlier. If the characteristics that allowed Churchill to make this statement were known to those who walk in important circles early on, perhaps my wild goose chase will have a happy ending.

Wow, what am I thinking?

Manchester’s book is thick. I never thought I would read a biography of Churchill; such is the world of tin foil. I will cover the book in some detail (it will take several posts), but I am only concerned with tidbits that touch on my quest – who did Churchill know, who knew of Churchill, where might he have crossed paths with important people, what characteristics of his were visible early on that might have provided an insight into his win-at-any-cost attitude to the war (even when a fight was not necessary) – thereby ensuring that the cost would be the British Empire in favor of an American Empire – a good outcome for the Anglo-elite, not so good for too many others.

For now, an overview.

Administrator
Administrator
  flash
November 14, 2015 11:52 am

flash

That is where you are wrong again. Churchill had huge faults and made terrible blunders during his life. He wasn’t a good man and treated others poorly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t do some things that were courageous and brilliant. I don’t have heroes. I don’t worship anyone. I judge everyone on their actions.

That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t completely scorn someone because I don’t agree with them on certain subjects. You have a hatred for people which permeates your very being. I find that revolting.

So be it. You believe Lincoln was pure evil. I believe he was a flawed human being who made mistakes.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:48 am

more French cowards masquerading as American and English soldiers , I suspect.

Nearly 50,000 American and 100,000 British soldiers deserted from the armed forces during World War II. (The British were in the war much longer.) Some fell into the arms of French or Italian women. Some became black-market pirates. Many more simply broke under the strain of battle.

These men’s stories have rarely been told. During the war, newspapers largely abstained from writing about desertions. The topic was bad for morale and could be exploited by the enemy. In more recent decades the subject has been essentially taboo, as if to broach it would dent the halo around the Greatest Generation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/books/the-deserters-a-world-war-ii-history-by-charles-glass.html?_r=0

Goldorack
Goldorack
November 14, 2015 11:48 am

[imgcomment image[/img]

today in moscow…
I would fight anytime beside russians. for NJ, I would have a drink at best, if thirsty

Administrator
Administrator
  Goldorack
November 14, 2015 11:55 am

Great idea Goldorack

Join the military and get over to Syria and fight your enemy. Or would you rather stand aside and let Putin do it for you?

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 11:53 am

OK…the Irish/American turned Frenchman waves the white flag and surrenders this thread to nonsensical spew of armchair warriors on who and who aren’t war time cowards. I am surprised the Femi manboob hasn’t waded into this thread and declared all Frenchman cowards because women have vaginas.
ta ta..blokes.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 12:06 pm

OK. I’m back for one more comment. You’re wrong about me hating Churchill. I use some of his quote quite a bit, in particular , this one.[imgcomment image[/img]
and this[imgcomment image[/img]

I think he was great leader, but not a great or moral person., that’s all .

I just used Churchill to make a point. As post WWII US Army studies have shown, only about 5% of men in combat would drop a hammer on another human being.Does that mean the other 95% are cowards? I don’t think so.It merely means they are human.

Really , this is it for me. People are depending on me to cook. and won’t take my cowardice of the kitchen as an excuse.

ottomatik
ottomatik
November 14, 2015 12:19 pm

Admin- “The French haven’t shown any bravery or nobility in over a century. ”
Indochina, great bravery was exhibited at Dien Bien Phu.

NickelthroweR
NickelthroweR
November 14, 2015 12:42 pm

@Flash

After the embarassment of the two world wars (the US had very high rates of desertion, draft avoidance [a full 1/3’rd didn’t even bother to show up in WWI] cowerdice, shell shock, etc) the military had a study done to figure out why only 25% of men in combat even attempted to use their weapons while the rest stood their in fear.

This book was required reading in ROTC.

We know this to be true as we have letters from our soldiers talking about this. Take a look at Gettysburg for example. “After the Battle of Gettysburg, the discarded rifles were collected and sent to Washington to be inspected and reissued. Of the 37,574 rifles recovered, approximately 24,000 were still loaded; 6,000 had one round in the barrel; 12,000 had two rounds in the barrel; 6,000 had three to ten rounds in the barrel. One rifle, the most remarkable of all, had been stuffed to the top with twenty-three rounds in the barrel.”

That’s right, 90% of the weapons recovered were still loaded.

What puzzled our government was why the soldiers of other nations used their weapons? The conclusion was that it was necessary to dehumanize the enemy and its people to that of cockroaches or rats to get soldiers to use their weapons. By Vietnam, 90% of our soldiers would use their weapons.

NickelthroweR
NickelthroweR
November 14, 2015 1:04 pm

oops. that should be 64% still loaded. Still we have letters from soldiers talking about how they would just load guns for the “killers”.

Even at Little Big Horn, we have accounts from the Indians where they report that the soldiers fired their weapons into the air and then tried to run away.

ottomatik
ottomatik
November 14, 2015 5:11 pm

I might be confusing bravery with stupidity. It’s always better to be on the winning team.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 9:20 pm

A man with a hammer carries the sack of a eunuch ..LOL.

flash
flash
November 14, 2015 9:25 pm

Thanks for the stats, NickelthroweR..we humans aren’t cowards in so much as we are survivors.If this simple truth weren’t so, then the human race would have been extinct long ago.