Syldon

Mainly because Windows has more support. Software availability is the biggest draw to Windows. I would quite happily drop it in a heartbeat if Linux came close.

A minute to decide if there is a bike in the picture really ?

Doesn't change the fact they murdered people deliberately.

The slogan can be construed that way as I said in my post. It actually has many variations as I am led to believe.

I was giving an answer to a question that some one asked how the slogan was antisemitic. I was not using the slogan myself. In fact in hindsight I don't think I even used the slogan even in the description. The article I linked had it embedded in its title. The article referred to the slogan as a slur and explained why an MP was evicted from the Labour party in the UK.

In response to your PM

@[email protected]

Lmao no.

Also are you Jewish? Because I had family who literally survived a nazi death camp and I’m telling you, youre being antisemitic as shit. Maybe listen.

Again I did not use the slogan. I gave an explanation to its reference and why it is considered an insult by some.

Since you ask, I am not Jewish or any other religion. I was baptised RC, but now find all religion superstitious nonsense. However, if you want to place all your faith in that superstitious nonsense, then have it. I simply do not care enough to dissuade anyone from it. I do recognise the dangers of religion though. As can be viewed by the actions of Hamas and the IDF in current events.

And that war where your family survived, well my father helped in that. My father took part in the D-day landings and then on into Germany. We still hold the medals in the family to prove it.

So, in WW2, the vast vast vast majority of the fight against “evil” was done by the USSR, because the Third Reich had, as one of its pillars, the destruction of the workers’ movement and the enslavement of the Slavs. The USSR lost far more than any other party to the war because the Third Reich made the war of choice, dehumanized the Slavs, and engaged in genocidal mass murder as a choice. The USSR defeated 80% of the Third Reich’s forces.

Ignores the fact Stalin sided with Hitler and invaded Poland. The Allies also had a substantial supply train back and forth between the UK and Russia to help fight the Germany army there.

On the flip side, the American and British government and business communities were pro-fascist. They funded the rise of the Third Reich, they funded domestic and international eugenics programs, they were deeply invested in apartheid states and women’s oppression. (By way of contrast, the Brits and Americans used women as prostitutes to support the war effort while the USSR had women all over their military as snipers, tank operators, pilots, machine gunners, etc.)

Governments were shits back then across the world. As for the Eugenics, that was how the world worked. You are using the current standards to demonise the past. We know the past was broken, that is why we have change. Eugenics is still a thing today. There will always be those who think they are better than everyone else. As for using women for prostitutes, just read on how the Russians treated the German women. Or more so what is happening in Ukraine right now.

Countries have been funding partisan groups and wars for time immemorial. The enemy of your enemy is my enemy etc. The west is funding Ukraine right now. Ukraine is funding partisan groups in Russia. Russia in turn has mercenaries from all over the world. The Wagner group is active in many areas.

But then what of Japan. Before the USA nuked Japan, the USA and Japan were negotiating terms of surrender.

No they were not. The emperor of Japan refused to surrender, the Allied forces did not see the need to offer good terms. There is a famous scene in the movie Oppenheimer, where Roosevelt gets the news of the successful test of the nuclear bomb at the Potsdam summit. Good terms are at the behest of the position you are in. Japan was not in a good place.

The USA made an active deliberate choice to nuke civilians unnecessarily.

Damned if they did and damned if they didn't. The counter argument is that it has prevented the use of Nukes since then. Or rather anyone who commits to using one know exactly what they are doing. What is a certainty is that fewer died as a result of the bomb. Not the most palatable end justifies the means, I agree.

Why? Because communism was their real enemy. It was the reason they got involved in the war, it was the driving force behind their strategic decisions. They got involved against communism, they went to Germany against communism, they partitioned Germany against communism. And they nuked Japan as a show of force, or to demonstrate how bat shit they were, to create conditions of fear and restraint.

Japan was nuked in the fight against communism>? Stalin was making imperial demands. The land grab by the Russians was the beginnings of soured relations. Remember Russia was directly responsible for the UK and France entering the war when it invaded Poland.

As for the rest, no one could argue that governments have only just moved away from being shits. It is a recent thing, and not all governments are complying with the change in attitude. Judging the actions of the past by the standards of today is just a "better than thou ism". It is easy to be pompous and pious in the current environment. Not so much when the whole world is working to different values. I am 100% certain that they will be shits again should the need arise. Looking in the direction of Israel on that one.

We need the whole world to agree to not invade each other. We do not need to justify the actions of today by the misdemeanours of those in the past.

If I go to another country I follow the laws of that state. It is called respect.

It is a vague reference that they are following the route of China and Russia by ignoring and abusing the laws of western states.

That is just buying into accepting the current model where the rich can have it all at the expense of the poor. The model is the problem not the amount we have to distribute.

Did I mention them at all ?

My point was that all dogs are dangerous. Selecting breeds shows total lack of understanding. It is how the dog is reared that causes the issues. Since you cannot evaluate that by looking at a dog then it makes more sense to add a safety device for all dogs.

A total waste of time. Banning breeds has proven to be totally ineffective in the past. The common sense approach would be to make it mandatory to muzzle dogs over a certain size.

There is nothing in this that reflects the title. It's nothing more than passive propaganda. They are relying on people to just read the title and not open the link.

What is actually said is:

And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign. Nations decide themselves, and Ukraine has of course the right to decide its own path. And it's up to Ukraine and NATO Allies to decide when Ukraine becomes a member. Russia cannot veto membership for any sovereign independent state in Europe.