mp.net is closing?

They could not be discussed because these are conspiracy theories that nobody believes in except a bunch of fringe crackpots.

Even most professional historians with anti-US sentiments don't believe them to be true.

Official pro-US stance of mp.net is not something to be like - especially for pro-Russian folks - but speaking honestly, would you like some Baltic folks to come here and start spewing some BS about Russia? Like that Russians shot down Polish presidenial plane which is what Polish nationalists claim? Well known historical facts like crimes of communism are avoided here and if someone claims that NAF could have shoot down MH17 by mistake (a hypothesis that holds at least some plausibility), he's immediately scolded by 75% of the forum

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:They could not be discussed because these are conspiracy theories that nobody believes in except a bunch of fringe crackpots.

Even most professional historians with anti-US sentiments don't believe them to be true.

They are a proven fact, Tonkin was made up by NYT and US and there was never a vietnamese gunboat attacking US vessels in Tonkin, same with SS Louisiana, a civilian ship the US with weapons has send into german waters during WW1.

Conspiracy Theories are that what comes out of Washington, Saddam has nukes proven fact that the US has made up this conspiracy theory and was disproven, Assad has used Sarin gas against his own people, conspiracy theory made up by US and via turkey ISIS/FSA/AL-CIAda have killed syrian civilians with self made chemical weapons, proven.

Proven by whom?

BRW: I edited my post. You may like to reply to the second part too.

Honestly I don't feel much pity for Saddam Hussein. He deserved the fate he met regardless of the reasons for the invasion (Shiites were overjoyed when he was overthrown - and used to cheer US troops driving through Shiite cities in southern Iraq)

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:They could not be discussed because these are conspiracy theories that nobody believes in except a bunch of fringe crackpots.

Even most professional historians with anti-US sentiments don't believe them to be true.

Official pro-US stance of mp.net is not something to be like - especially for pro-Russian folks - but speaking honestly, would you like some Baltic folks to come here and start spewing some BS about Russia? Like that Russians shot down Polish presidenial plane which is what Polish  nationalists claim? Well known historical facts like crimes of communism are avoided here and if someone claims that NAF could have shoot down MH17 by mistake (a hypothesis that holds at least some plausibility), he's immediately scolded by 75% of the forum

No one avoids here crimes and it was certainly not communism the country was called UDSSR or USSR Union of Social Soviet Republics, it never reached communism to no defintion not by leninism, marxism or any former version of democratic communism, technocratic communism or centralistic communism. This crimes have been discussed here several times. There is also ZERO plausibility how NAF could have shotdown MH-17 without possesing any capability to do so. Proven fact, BUK that the west and ukrops portray till this day as a russian one, was never in east ukraine nor in russia, it was a hoax made up by west, the BUK was proven with Satellite evidence that it was driving through WEST ukraine in a city that was held untill this very day at all time by kiew junta.

Physically there is no possiblity for them to shoot down MH17, but entirely ignorance and everyone just stops using their brains, that Ukraine had entire BUK Systems in that region deployed, not just Launchers without radars, but commanding posts, distribution network and observer radars, but of course only some non existent West Ukraine BUK could have shot it down that was alledgley send by Putin himself to kill those poor innocent civilians.

Use your brain, Who benefits from killing civilians? If russia or rebels shot it down what purpose would that have? Why did they not blame instantly the West but no it was the exact other way around. It is already beyond doubt of anybody who owns and uses his brain, The US with their disgusting puppets have the black box, one fucking year absolutley no evidence shown that the russians did it, Kiew is on the investigation team that has the right given to VETO any publication if they want another indication that Ukrops did it, Kiew does not publish Tower controll conversation between pilot and Kiew, another big indicator that Ukrops did it, the West has only shit out of their disgusting gutters that they have so much freaking evidence that Russia and Putin did it, not a single shit was shown, another proof.

Use your brain simple as that. Not a single indicator points towards NAF or Russia, not a single one.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Proven by whom?

BRW: I edited my post. You may like to reply to the second part too.

Honestly I don't feel much pity for Saddam Hussein. He deserved the fate he met regardless of the reasons for the invasion (Shiites were overjoyed when he was overthrown - and used to cheer US troops driving through Shiite cities in southern Iraq)

You conspiracy theorist, you are switching the issue here. Fact is fact and a proven fact the US made up a conspiracy theory about nukes of saddam, never existed never proven, never had any chemical weapons and that is proven. Same conspiracy nuthead theories about iran having nuke bombs to wipe out isreal, while israel has illegal nukes proven fact by their own guy who is under house arrest for life time.

It does not fucking matter what or who saddam was, that is not up to discussion here, stop jumping to avoid reality.

I asked who proved that the sinking of Lusitania and Gulf of TOnkin incident were false flag ops. Who did the investigation? What materials did they gather as evidence? What are (were0 their qualifications? These are all crucial questions - magnificent claims require magnificent proofs.

Nukes in Israeli hands are harmless. They never used them and never said they want to. In Iran several high ranking clerics said that if they had nuclear bombs, they'l nuke Israel. (Muslims believe that the Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims kill all Jews)

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I asked who proved that the sinking of Lusitania and Gulf of TOnkin incident were false flag ops. Who did the investigation? What materials did they gather as evidence? What are (were0 their qualifications? These are all crucial questions - magnificent claims require magnificent proofs.

Nukes in Israeli hands are harmless. They never used them and never said they want to. In Iran several high ranking clerics said that if they had nuclear bombs, they'l nuke Israel. (Muslims believe that the Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims kill all Jews)

You fucking joking?

What could they fucking gather about Tonkin if there was NEVER an existing gunboat sinking an US vessel. You can't gather what never existed. You do not need any qualification if you can't find a never existing ship. Go research for yourself, because i am sick of this nonsense with you, everything that i link becomes a "conspiracy theory" regardless of the source because you attack the poster not the message.

No one in Iran said that, there was a purposed missquoting and miss translation of Akhmadinejad, to portray Iran as some lunatic country. Iran has a very well documented history of defensive policy. I have shown here hundreds of evidence of Israeli nutheads who want to mass murder arabs and persians because they see them as subhumans, but of course little iran who is non to warmonger in ME is the problem. Proof that shit or fuck off, i am annoyed by this constant repeating bullshit of western propaganda that have absolutley no roots with reality.

Werewolf wrote:

You fucking joking?

What could they fucking gather about Tonkin if there was NEVER an existing gunboat sinking an US vessel. You can't gather what never existed. You do not need any qualification if you can't find a never existing ship. Go research for yourself, because i am sick of this nonsense with you, everything that i link becomes a "conspiracy theory" regardless of the source because you attack the poster not the message.

The US have never claimed that any of their vessels were sunk by any gunboat, that you think so is a good indication that this is a conspiracy theory.

This is what went down in real life: USS Maddox fought with three Vietnamese torpedoboats the first day (I think that we have a Vietnamese member here who can confirm this). The next day they TOUGHT they were in a battle, but it looks like they were not, and that second battle is the controversial one.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I asked who proved that the sinking of Lusitania and Gulf of TOnkin incident were false flag ops. Who did the investigation? What materials did they gather as evidence? What are (were0 their qualifications? These are all crucial questions - magnificent claims require magnificent proofs.

Nukes in Israeli hands are harmless. They never used them and never said they want to. In Iran several high ranking clerics said that if they had nuclear bombs, they'l nuke Israel. (Muslims believe that the Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims kill all Jews)

The NSA did. There was no attack on 4th August. That was Gleiwitz on its most pure form.

Dforce wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

You fucking joking?

What could they fucking gather about Tonkin if there was NEVER an existing gunboat sinking an US vessel. You can't gather what never existed. You do not need any qualification if you can't find a never existing ship. Go research for yourself, because i am sick of this nonsense with you, everything that i link becomes a "conspiracy theory" regardless of the source because you attack the poster not the message.

The US have never claimed that any of their vessels were sunk by any gunboat, that you think so is a good indication that this is a conspiracy theory.

This is what went down in real life: USS Maddox fought with three Vietnamese torpedoboats the first day (I think that we have a Vietnamese member here who can confirm this). The next day they TOUGHT they were in a battle, but it looks like they were not, and that second battle is the controversial one.

They actually claimed they werd attacked and maintained that version until 2005. That allowed for.a absolutely disproportionate reaction, including 11 years of open war and 3 million killed civilians.Looks quite conspirational to me, only that ths was a.US plan.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
They actually claimed they werd attacked and maintained that version until 2005. That allowed for.a absolutely disproportionate reaction, including 11 years of open war and 3 million killed civilians.Looks quite conspirational to me, only that ths was a.US plan.

That might be, but I was correct when I said that no ships losses were ever claimed by the US, and when I said that USS Maddox DID fight Vietnamese torpedo boats. Do you not agree?

In history incidents leading to declaration of war are rarely "causes" in themselves. Usually there's buildup of tensions years before the actual war and the incident is just a trigger.

US military presence in Vietnam was building up since early 1960s and it would continue regardless of some meaningless naval skirmish.

I will repeat the main points about MH17 here:

1) The Kiev regime accused Russia of sending the rebels Buk systems. They did this since they knew the Buk that the rebels
had seized after the Ukr army ran off from one of its bases in DNR controlled territory was not functional.

2) If the rebels had a fully functional Buk as claimed by the Kiev regime, then they would have known precisely that MH17 is
a civilian aircraft and would have been able to track it quite well.

3) By (2) it would require the rebels to deliberately target a civilian aircraft which they knew was flying above 10 km and was
highly unlikely to be a regime transport plane.

4) There is no motive for (3) aside from 1984 style hate smear of the rebels as subhumans who are pure evil.

Fred333 wrote:Banned for "pimping" his own site, after action review. A bit harsh if you ask, I was not a big fan of his ideas and worldview (US fuck yeah, nuke everyone who doesn't agree with us), but banning him like that was a bit uncalled for. Plus is an example of those policies that stiffle life on the forum. As a funny sidenote, the after action review has a mp.net complaint thread largely mirroring this one (including disgruntled members formerly privy to the vetted threads complaining about the way mods ran things behind the scene), but then from the nato ***** perspective.

Book v Puff ..
I miss the day. good time  

Killbd go AAF. my friend  

JohninMK wrote:This thread is probably read by those at themess. Must make interesting reading. I'm still lost in an infraction system black hole over there, infractions long expired but not publicly 'banned' just locked out.

Let Dforce DTA do the job

He can talk hollis help

Dforce wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
They actually claimed they werd attacked and maintained that version until 2005. That allowed for.a absolutely disproportionate reaction, including 11 years of open war and 3 million killed civilians.Looks quite conspirational to me, only that ths was a.US plan.

That might be, but I was correct when I said that no ships losses were ever claimed by the US, and when I said that USS Maddox DID fight Vietnamese torpedo boats. Do you not agree?

Oh but there was damage on 2nd of August, only the Incident that triggered the war was on on the 4th of August. And that night there was no attack from DRV. To the contrary, the only attack was from the US without any provocation, not only that, but they even topped it up with plane strikes.

Once again, your claim has little bearing on the conspiratorial value of the said "Incident".

Just for good measure and as here dear Hollis can't protect you from the Truth, I present you Operation 34A. Yeah baby, Conspiracy to engage in an offensive action, covert war and finally Gleiwitz part two, later described as "triggering a shooting war" by McNamara.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070202053550/http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHandrade.htm

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:In history incidents leading to declaration of war are rarely "causes" in themselves. Usually there's buildup of tensions years before the actual war and the incident is just a trigger.

US military presence in Vietnam was building up since early 1960s and it would continue regardless of some meaningless naval skirmish.

That's BS. In VietNam the buildup of "tensions" was typically nonexistent. There was no desire to actually engage in a second war from the DRV leadership against another military (super) power. What happened is that the Americans understood poorly the situation under the logic that communists would use a domino movement, then a grasshopper movement to topple "friendly regimes". Furthermore, there was real discontent in Viet Nam for reasons the US didn't want to understand. Among them was the cheap rice flowing from Thailand, that was devastating South Vietnamese peasantry along with a roll back on independence reforms from Diem (notably landlords and proto-latifundia as well as Catholic patronage).

The idea that there was a purely communist led invasion is absurd, especially since Diem himself pissed off half of the former non-communist Minh leadership. Before killing them off. Diem created the conditions for a face off with the NLF and later the purely Commie Viet Cong.

For the rest, nothing sticks. VietNam was textbook idiocy from people who had never been under fire in the same circumstances.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Dforce wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
They actually claimed they werd attacked and maintained that version until 2005. That allowed for.a absolutely disproportionate reaction, including 11 years of open war and 3 million killed civilians.Looks quite conspirational to me, only that ths was a.US plan.

That might be, but I was correct when I said that no ships losses were ever claimed by the US, and when I said that USS Maddox DID fight Vietnamese torpedo boats. Do you not agree?

Oh but there was damage on 2nd of August, only the Incident that triggered the war was on on the 4th of August. And that night there was no attack from DRV. To the contrary, the only attack was from the US without any provocation, not only that, but they even topped it up with plane strikes.

Once again, your claim has little bearing on the conspiratorial value of the said "Incident".

Just for good measure and as here dear Hollis can't protect you from the Truth, I present you Operation 34A. Yeah baby, Conspiracy to engage in an offensive action, covert war and finally Gleiwitz part two, later described as "triggering a  shooting war" by McNamara.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070202053550/http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHandrade.htm

I am not sure if it is me you are adressing, since I have not said anything about what you are discussing. My point was quite simple, I just corrected Werewolf in his false assumption that the US claimed to have lost a ship. Or would you say thet DID in fact claim that?

Dforce wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Dforce wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
They actually claimed they werd attacked and maintained that version until 2005. That allowed for.a absolutely disproportionate reaction, including 11 years of open war and 3 million killed civilians.Looks quite conspirational to me, only that ths was a.US plan.

That might be, but I was correct when I said that no ships losses were ever claimed by the US, and when I said that USS Maddox DID fight Vietnamese torpedo boats. Do you not agree?

Oh but there was damage on 2nd of August, only the Incident that triggered the war was on on the 4th of August. And that night there was no attack from DRV. To the contrary, the only attack was from the US without any provocation, not only that, but they even topped it up with plane strikes.

Once again, your claim has little bearing on the conspiratorial value of the said "Incident".

Just for good measure and as here dear Hollis can't protect you from the Truth, I present you Operation 34A. Yeah baby, Conspiracy to engage in an offensive action, covert war and finally Gleiwitz part two, later described as "triggering a  shooting war" by McNamara.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070202053550/http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHandrade.htm

I am not sure if it is me you are adressing, since I have not said anything about what you are discussing. My point was quite simple, I just corrected Werewolf in his false assumption that the US claimed to have lost a ship. Or would you say thet DID in fact claim that?

What you did post:

Dforce wrote:The US have never claimed that any of their vessels were sunk by any gunboat, that you think so is a good indication that this is a conspiracy theory.*

This is what went down in real life: USS Maddox fought with three Vietnamese torpedoboats the first day (I think that we have a Vietnamese member here who can confirm this). The next day they TOUGHT they were in a battle, but it looks like they were not, and that second battle is the controversial one.**

* YOu're implying that there was no conspiracy from the US, since no boat was sank, but that the conspiracy comes from Werewolf because of a memory fail. The fact that Werewolf doesn't recall the exact situation, actually doesn't change anything from the real conspiracy.

Hence:

** The fact that the USS MAddox was on a DESOTO patrol (including eavesdropping on DRV navy), has a distinctive feature. The Maddox knew which boats were out and which were in, since they were listening to DRV posts. Furthermore, the Maddox wasn't there haplessly, it was there to bolster the efforts of OP34A. IF it went under attack the Maddox would have been able to pinpoint which vessel approached easily. As it had done two days before.

SO once again, there's a conspiracy in here fully. It isn't just what Werewolf is saying, it was. I'll give you and advice I've given to a lot of people back at MP.net. Words have meanings, don't think you can fox your way out of this one.

On a side note, we see here that what the US did to the DRV has an uncanny similarity with what you accuse Russia of doing in Ukraine. Dare I say that copying is the ultimate form of flattery?

KoTeMoRe wrote:
* YOu're implying that there was no conspiracy from the US, since no boat was sank, but that the conspiracy comes from Werewolf because of a memory fail. The fact that Werewolf doesn't recall the exact situation, actually doesn't change anything from the real conspiracy.

No, I am implying that talk about sunken ships when in fact no such claims were made tend to be the material of conspiracy theories.

Dforce wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
* YOu're implying that there was no conspiracy from the US, since no boat was sank, but that the conspiracy comes from Werewolf because of a memory fail. The fact that Werewolf doesn't recall the exact situation, actually doesn't change anything from the real conspiracy.

No, I am implying that talk about sunken ships when in fact no such claims were made tend to be the material of conspiracy theories.

Broken telephone issue do not cover the real conspiracy...

It's like saying that claiming that the US accused Saddam to have nukes ready to fire, somehow nullifies the fact that the US did in fact accused Saddam of having an up an running WMD program which served as the pretext to f*** shit up in Iraq. While there was no such thing and the US knew it.

Furthermore I quoted you fully and outlined your own pre-conceptions and taboos. I posted a link that makes sure that the whole "we thought we were under attack" was bull. The Maddox pulled a Gleiwitz and the rest is history. So what about controversial engagement? Isn't that how Russia does it these days...No Russians in Ukraine in reverse similarity with Vietnamese Attack against us?

See this is the beauty of RD.net...there are things you can talk about without pulling the I'm American, Mod and offended...

JohninMK wrote:This thread is probably read by those at themess. Must make interesting reading. I'm still lost in an infraction system black hole over there, infractions long expired but not publicly 'banned' just locked out.

Yeah me too, although I have no idea where you can actually see until when your infraction is supposed to last. Could be it already expired, could be I still have a couple of months to go. Seems to have happened to a lot of guys, XJ220, AIG, Mak Sim, all have been infracted for a very long time already.

When a forum bans ppl for their views, minor reasons, or unjust reasons, ppl quit posting there. When Mods allow persons who hold their views to abuse persons who don't but not vice versa, then ppl quit posting. It isn't worth it. If I can't take up for myself for fear of getting banned, then it isn't worth it.

Edit to add: which in my opinion is what happened to Al-R. His response was awe-some, and shoot. He got banned for it.

So, hows the latest events going down on that site?

Drowning in froth?

Rodinazombie wrote:So, hows the latest events going down on that site?

Drowning in froth?

Certain people who were active in the Syrian War thread are mad at the 'Russian invasion' of the Syrian War thread.
Some fight against it, others like kalerab left the thread.