▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dunno. You said free energy. It has been associated with renewables. These are neither free or cheap. They're renewables an endless source of inflation and debt. Far more than previous methods.

▲ 3 ▼
Ep0ch 3 points ago +3 / -0

Poetic Justice. The cunt. Australia. I don't mean it on anybody. But he used it against Djokovic.

If they didn't employ such cunts taking their cut. Instead ralling against it. Sport's health promotion of body not dope. It wouldn't have been like this.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hydro aren't good for the environment. They completely fuck up natural water systems. That river, fjord, spawning salmon in Norway, faster causing glacier melt. Terrible for the environment. They aren't clean. They emit. Huge run off to the waterways.

Burning coal at a plant in a forest causes what? Best thing for it. Obviously not if you fell that forest replacing it with more coal burners.

Denmark has the most expensive energy on the planet per watt. So green. Maybe not today after Ukraine. But it is a fallacy that renewable's lessen the price. Denmark also imports trash to incinerate to convert into energy, and gas. The great big renewable con. Literally deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, buses in Germany and the UK running off biofuel using sugar cane and soy coming from Brazil. They exhausted their fat friers. Now they just emit far worse than diesel.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thorium are an older model being reinvented. Not much has changed except supposed waste. They still enrich, and still produce waste. Is it more efficient, supposedly, what's being sold, but who knows or cares.

Yes nuclear is by far the best means. If you have competence and care. Renewables supplement the grid they don't replace it. Renewables simply burn more energy, costing more as the increased demand fuels consumption. They are fallible and break quickest. They are parts and maintenance and service heavy. Emitting far more than their absurd assumptions of wind, sun, water gives us electricity. Pure lies straight off the serpent's lips beguiling dumb Greta. Electricity comes from products requiring manufacture, how are they made. What impact do they have.

But electricity isn't viable for furnaces. It is a redundant method compared to fossil fuels. Burn a log or a lump of coal, no, the autistic's seethe, you need a solar power stove. It is the level of stupid today.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes and because they want to be powerful. Can't give all the monkeys fire, because they might burn you with it. Have some renewables instead. Stop using coal, because it's much cheaper and much more independent. Have some Ewaste instead, now you need to pay double to recycle it. Still not being recycled, but there's the jew trying to steal the gold back out of it. Remember it doesn't emit if the computer says it doesn't. Magically computers grew from a tree like coal does. But don't worry computers are so clean.

We were talking about needing more nuclear. Banana.

Some of the most emitting industries are concrete, circuit chips, semiconductors, and batteries, plastics, and rubber etc. But you can eat the soy bugs. Because jannie needs even more cosmetics and surgery.

It has nothing to do with the weather.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

No such thing. Renewables aren't cheap they inflate, and then that price increases much more. It is fallible. The products have no lifetime. They draw more energy not less. Everything needs energy to run. It means constant demand, debt, consumption, and escalating costs. Infrastructure doesn't grow on trees unless you're an investor, share holder. These are the cunts counting on it profiting. They don't care what you pay when they're forcing you to buy it. Because it's cheap? No. Because it makes them more money. It had nothing to do with anything else. More demand more energy. More money. Simple

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fusion, not fission. Except they haven't cracked fusion yet. Decades away from it. Despite supposed breakthroughs on harnessing for longer and hotter, it's still an expensive Christmas display. Looks pretty does shit but costs even more. Fission unlike all those Ads from the 50s about it being the future of everything, has only brought even more hyperinflation.

Renewable energy is an even greater con, and it costs. It simply causes more demand, and now it needs more energy sources, because everything is running on the grid. It isn't clean. The products Ewaste have no lifetime. But they need even more renewable sources.

This Rock needed nothing else. Today it does, it needs to find more consumption, for its human crap. They're even trying to mine asteroids sooner and dredge the ocean.

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

Perhaps. I am skeptical, outside of some of his genius. People like him turned the Matrix on. Then the population was about 2 Billion globally. There isn't free energy for the gaining 8 billion now. The mindset today is also as dumb as dixie. Today it isn't those old national societies working in sync, creating huge infrastructure cheaply and quickly and efficiently. It's the stuff of pure cunts, cuts, and extreme inflation where nothing works well, it just costs more, then they sell it again at twice the price. Until it's the only way the economy works, by waste and greed forcing demand exploiting consumption. In fact it is now simply made to break so it can cost even more. Nuclear was also supposed to be cheaper once a upon a time ago in the land of unicorns, more watts, less resources. Look how that turned out.

▲ 5 ▼
Ep0ch 5 points ago +5 / -0

There is no such thing as affordable energy. Renewable energy is a huge cost increase. It requires far more infrastructure. The infrastructure it utilises breaks quicker constantly causing increasing prices. Meanwhile everything is faster connecting on the grid causing even more demand and infrastructure and inflation. All the products still need oil and gas to manufacture.

It is simply the wetdreams of the WEF. It has nothing to do with the planet. Just their abhorrent greed. Meanwhile they sooner charge even more for the electronics they're forcing. As demand peaks there are growing global shortages for the tech needed. Chips, semi conductors, rare earth minerals and metals.

Screwed like little idiots. Thanks green peace you dumb cunts.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

The issue isn't so much of who shot it down. They've convicted a warcriminal. It's a warzone where planes were shot at prior to it being downed. At what point didn't they divert around a war zone where other civilian aircraft had been fired at days prior?

Because of the obvious conspiracy. It then provided the precedence to move against the separatists. Separatists who like much of the Ukraine then had remained aligned to Russia.

Effectively it was providing the support for Ukraine to engage against Russia. It sent arms and funding in, trying to bring the warcriminals to justice. Where it was downed was in and around separatist territory, it had to relocate to investigate. Then providing more and more support to combat Russia supporting any separatists. Of course this is while they were attacking Syria and the big debates on any involvement, boots on the ground or bombardment or support, and about removing Assad and his stockpiles of warcrimes. Where Russia supported Assad directly getting drawn into Syria.

Who knows all the facts completely. But it all stinks and always does. It's an entire tapestry of woven shit roll completely defiled. Where there are far more coincidences connecting into what has occurred. Nobody but a freaking contamination expert should touch it. Then there won't be any truth anyway from it. Just the obvious bullshit.

▲ 5 ▼
Ep0ch 5 points ago +5 / -0

Faggot movie. Superhero movies create incels, who think they have superpowers. They empower faggots and jannies and everybody else wearing their y-fronts inside out, and putting a skirt and make up on. I couldn't even watch 5 minutes of its bullshit, freaking Enternals, in another boy/girl band playing sing alone. Let alone its running time. How does anybody else manage to watch these troupes today? It's a Marvel. Saturated that market into hypocrisy of whose turn is it next to steal the milk money in yet another franchised Disney. The story is always the same, masked yfronts save the day, because they have powers. Sigh.

by pkvi
▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Historically turncoats were always treated without remorse. It was society's biggest taboo up until after WW2. Then they granted conscientious rejectors rights. Because more and more minorities refused. Despite the draft. It kept society honest. It created heroes.

But in a situation like this. It is terrible form. It sooner plays into narratives of opposing war crimes. Despite them being perpetuated here, effectively. Death or death. How low can he go. These people's shared a culture, until he came along. I also understand the past valor and a national cause. There's no retreat. But many want to survive. What I don't understand are the human shields he is using and then holding hostages and demanding ransoms, for an otherwise lost cause, war, there are only Victors.

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

I am under no obligation to agree with stupidity. In fact I rarely enter a topic to agree with it. I support the forum by debate. Seriously what's the fun in blind agreement. Open your mouth and swallow, like a good little echoing human centipede of feltchers. Better off dead.

I haven't shat on anybody. Unlike the opposite cliche of omg if you don't believe in insanity, then you'll get attacked by stupider multiple accounts of group think. Their agenda is to Larp and shill. Until little stupid kids are playing phone frens.

What happens to any threads. A bunch of stupid amusement. Look they disappear.

Regardless you don't make me look bad.

I tried to show you the rationality you've employed. Look at how that worked. So mean right. You've resorted back to the reeeeeeee sounds, of gargled sheez you swallowed off the bullshit topic. And they had nothing to do with this debate.

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

I choose what I play advocate too. No you don't tell me what to think. I make my own mind up. We did that argument already. Now we're back in another circle with you lost your marbles again. You need to entertain the ridiculous because you're not objective at choosing or finding the truth.

You haven't presented one single shred of fact against them, you have literally protested with how you don't believe in them. It has been absurd.

The Security Council doesn't rule with nukes because it's easier to fake them. What?

They injected people with radiation because it's easier to fake the bombs. Hell no.

They don't have hot wars because they agree to lose and arm more fake nukes instead. My ass.

Go back inside that asylum, somebody let the monkey out. Leave thinking to people who argue better.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

They don't share the same doctrine. They share money. When it fails, war occurs. Money causes competition causing war to occur. In fact there is as much war now as there ever has been. Nothing has changed except the stupid attitude. This war is so righteous because it made even more refugees. Therefore we must pay even more for it. Meanwhile all the World does is arm more. More war occurs. But my god can you even imagine if it didn't there would be even more people and we would be extinct anyway.

Why would that World Power have nukes and then create a security council for stopping and limiting their use? Seriously dumbass. Why would they fake nukes to rule. Instead of use nukes too rule?

Their eyeballs fell out, their skin peeled off down to the bone, they developed tumours the size of tennis balls, they got cancer, they had birth defects. There are big craters. They sued.

Here you are saying to them it was in the water? Nothing to see just dropped it in the Ocean. It was morning sickness.

What's wrong with you?

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yawn you haven't proved anything. You haven't explained why there hasn't been a hot war.

The one question I keep repeating you shrug off.

That hot war has been avoided against the will of the people Vietnam, and against Congressional approval to use nukes in the Korea war. Every time since has been avoided. Every time.

Conventional bombs aren't nukes. Nukes we both know what they're capable of. MAD. No joke. It is for their reason, people persist on opposing Vetos. It would be so simple to win a war. Just annihilate ISIS, that doctrine destroyed. Instead of stupid nukes.

I Don't come on a conspiracy forum to agree. I am not group think, echoing whatever nuts the monkeys are throwing. Are you stupid. I am an individual. I don't share your beliefs I create my own. You seem to think you have some other classism. Follow the monkey, it shits out another conspiracy, wallow in it monkeys. What are you suggesting? Ridiculous NPC.

Bikini Atol sued, horrific cancers from the fallout, big craters, marine life destroyed, it has gone to the UN repeatedly to quash nukes. No nuclear power will, none of the Security Council. Stop it.

Prove it or shut up. Literally this conversation is absurd.

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're so up your ass everything is a conspiracy, including your shit.

Nuclear weapons have been used. Bikini Atol sued. Compensation awarded. So did some of the others where tests like France conducted. Recent hypersonics by Russia huge accidents they had 3 big mistakes recently, it sent out the sniffer planes.

Haven't been used, they will sooner, at this rate of retardism.

Why hasn't there been that hot War. Come on? Why do they let China and Russia veto? War would be so much easier. Completely Bomb some Commies, like ISIS. I mean why not.

You're that dumb. Why have they denied victory until all they've done is arm more and more and more and the odds of their use is at critical mass. Even the planet doesn't want to know.

Come back after your lobotomy.

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

Baby no. How do we talk. We don't punch each other in the face. That's not talking. It is trying to beat somebody up and stop them talking. Do you see me anywhere down voting you for talking. I will up vote polite responses. I will swear or insult you in kind. But I will never be that bitch, child, or baby.

My words are honest, not poison. Sure I swear and shit. Sometimes I get it wrong. We all do. I am not attacking you, trying to censor, or beat you over the head.

Back to the topic. There hasn't been a hot war. Korea, avoided. Look at what it achieved. Nothing. Vietnam same reasons. China is now more nuclear and capable then it was. India and Pakistan. Cuban Crisis. Ukraine Russia currently.

Without nukes these wars would've been fought until victory. They could've been won. Why weren't they. Because I sit here today and listen to your bullshit instead? There are no nukes. Are there hypersonics?

It seems today another lesson is needed. That probability is rapidly increasing. Less its monkeys forget what that capability means.

I have never met such a moronic school of stupid. There are no nuclear weapons. Dumber than the dumbest. It's autism. We have seen conventional weapons almost as powerful. We have seen the fallout. We have seen the tapes. We have seen the destruction, and read the shocks. These are seen from space they are read on richter scales. Giga counters detect particles.

Why have they denied warfare and clear victory. Because they thought to end war by arming more and more. Until war has only increased. Please use them then. They might stop war. Nobody else left.

Seriously retard.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Getting tired of crap. At least be objective. Denazifying has no military or strategic value? Hmm let me think. Bullshit try again.

It was hit, whatever the reason. It is not a false flag. There is no Nato charge. They'd have to be hit. Sanctions, they're enforced. There is no rescue. More guns supplied is also inevitable.

Have other bases of operations been hit in similar strikes. Of course it's a war. They aren't surrendering either. Sometimes stuff breaks before it yields.

War-crime, the alternative is WW3, but Nato can wait around for it.

The odds are in the top percentages of it being targeted by Russia at about 90%, or higher.

There is almost zero odds it was somebody else under attack. It can happen. It doesn't when factoring they're holding out to the last man. There is no relief. It is pointless. Unless they turned into a suicide cult. No they're still fighting. Nobody is coming. The only potential was curfew, human shield, and no aid corridor. There were survivors it was also a bunker. Tiny odds, take the cyanide, the Russians will.

But who really cares. Until you start making up bullshit.

Stop down voting me. It is the epitome of ignorance. It serves no point. It just makes you stupid. You're on a conspiracy sub, censoring people or attempting it. Exactly stop it. Dumb woke cancel generation of imbeciles. A stupid bunch of faggots inhabit this forum, dumb little monkeys. They stalk and flick shit at people. Why? No point.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

What is a war-crime? Modern far-right are not. Perhaps extremists. I am not getting into history and conspiracy. I am playing Devil's advocate. Neutral. I dont take sides. Until a hot war occurs then my nation is my side. Perhaps they've committed warcrimes in Donbass on any separatists. But to try warcrimes requires warcriminals to stand trial. It takes a war. Or a coup. Etc.

Would they false flag that population there? Not probable. Why, because any support, the calvary, isn't coming. It's suicide, not completely in their code. Any reaction outcry is the same, perhaps more or less, but the same. No Valkyries by suicide. Even they have some ethics. They hold out defending as soldiers to the last man. They've been using that city and population already, as a base of operations. Digging tunnels, fortifying, etc. The theatre was marked and more likely assumed it meant they could move in an out because it had other population in it.

I don't know, but I am running the odds. They don't favour the false flag there. Try it. Above.

We can debate existing strikes, and again the odds aren't in a favour of false flags. This is war. False flags start wars. They take attacks on the other sides supporting war or observing it. Not an existing war drawn into certain, uncertain preconditions.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. Unlikely. It triggers an outcry. Perhaps they confined citizens and used them as shields. They didn't surrender. In fact the fighting there has been brutal, losses both sides. But as soldiers they'd know the calvary isn't coming. Holding out for as long as possible. Likely they simply held out within that population. Painting symbols and hoping to hide. There was likely foreign contingents among them.

To be honest it doesn't matter, what are the alternatives.

Was it a warcrime. Not something that can even be tried, currently, or at all, but can only be condemned.

Did they do it. Not probable, but not unlikely. It does call for further support, but it would regardless without it. So no. And not the rationality offered. The calvary aren't charging in, not yet in any event. Did they suicide. Not like that, the Valkyries aren't coming.

It was a theatre. A base. It also had underground facilities.

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay sharkbait. Charge.

▲ 2 ▼
Ep0ch 2 points ago +2 / -0

I am not your bruh. I have a brother. You have also insulted him. He isn't stupid.

Tell us all about your brain. Bruh. Look it's another fish in a school of stupid. Feed the sharks already.

▲ 1 ▼
Ep0ch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everything, needs ground troops. Later to hold. And also properly identify.

Tanks in an Urban environment are becoming less suited to it. But they seige it even better. They have range. It is restricted in Urban settings unless it bombards. On the field, not in the air, they are an advancing army's advantage. They enclose, surround, and eliminate other armour and mechanics and dig and hold outs by competing ranges. They are impervious to most small arms and rifles, and many mines. Obviously weapons advance to combat them. But all combat needs multiple roles, and the ability to adapt to the problems faced by an evolving battlefield. Although tanks will likely always be a component of warfare. They are mobile.

In a newer autonomous age incoming. Ground troops are needed less. Robots replace front line operations and roles. But there will always be an opponent fighting with their flesh, and there won't be any balance to it.

There are few rules in war, and the people implementing them often think to cause less causalty, but they often cause far more disaster. Have some more guns instead. Try to shoot those bombs, and obviously any soldiers dropping them. Dying happens no matter what, because the alternative of surrendering is not the reason why people fight wars. So a question of the greater good arises, preventing a much larger war or conflict, where army's often have weapons of massive destruction. What forces surrender, a few lives, or an entire city refusing to capitulate, but instead defending it too death. There are no fixes or remedy to the death and the causalties caused. They can only be presumed to be lessened. An assumption of etiquette. Excuse me politely, do you mind dying quicker, death has no formality, it isn't polite, or do you heroically defend yourself until the last stone stands?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›