Actually, there is some very serious stuff taking place - infighting in the Novorussian leadership is getting worse and worse but I need time to write up something more or less coherent. So that is for later today or tomorrow.
In the meantime, here are a few short ones:
The BBC is the best!
I saw the following to on the BBC's website yesterday:
"This was ferocious work, involving more precise firepower than the rebels could possibly muster. It's possible Russian helicopters were involved". This is priceless. Apparently, nobody in the UK (or in the Ukraine) ever bothered to explain to this civilian that all it takes is a recon group with an artillery spotter and a single MLRS strike to achieve exactly what he saw. Also, apparently nobody explained to that presstitute that this combo is exactly how the NAF managed to beat the crap of the JRF. But the best part is the "possible Russian helicopter", especially the typical modern use of the word "possible" which in modern zombified parlance is always understood as equivalent to "probable". I wish that somebody would tell the BBC that a Russian helicopter attack would do far *less* damage than a MLRS strike, but that is not the point. The point is that if the presstitute accepts that a helicopter strike is possible, why not a Russian bomber strike or even cruise missile strike? Why not accept that the Russians, who apparently have a Romulan-style "cloaking device" on their *19* maneuver battalions in Novorussia (official figure from Kiev!), also could use space-based death ray powered by a "dilithium crystals converter". This is just as "possible" as the use of Russian attack helicopters, even though neither are probable.
I also notice the doubleplusgoodthinking use of "Luhansk" rather then the crimethink "Lugansk". How totally lame...
Complete story at - The Vineyard of the Saker: On a lighter note: the BBC propaganda is still the best
In the meantime, here are a few short ones:
The BBC is the best!
I saw the following to on the BBC's website yesterday:
"This was ferocious work, involving more precise firepower than the rebels could possibly muster. It's possible Russian helicopters were involved". This is priceless. Apparently, nobody in the UK (or in the Ukraine) ever bothered to explain to this civilian that all it takes is a recon group with an artillery spotter and a single MLRS strike to achieve exactly what he saw. Also, apparently nobody explained to that presstitute that this combo is exactly how the NAF managed to beat the crap of the JRF. But the best part is the "possible Russian helicopter", especially the typical modern use of the word "possible" which in modern zombified parlance is always understood as equivalent to "probable". I wish that somebody would tell the BBC that a Russian helicopter attack would do far *less* damage than a MLRS strike, but that is not the point. The point is that if the presstitute accepts that a helicopter strike is possible, why not a Russian bomber strike or even cruise missile strike? Why not accept that the Russians, who apparently have a Romulan-style "cloaking device" on their *19* maneuver battalions in Novorussia (official figure from Kiev!), also could use space-based death ray powered by a "dilithium crystals converter". This is just as "possible" as the use of Russian attack helicopters, even though neither are probable.
I also notice the doubleplusgoodthinking use of "Luhansk" rather then the crimethink "Lugansk". How totally lame...
Complete story at - The Vineyard of the Saker: On a lighter note: the BBC propaganda is still the best
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments subject to moderation.