Minichan

Topic: The best thing about the end of the congressional black caucus is that they were hyper pro-Israel.

Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #134,571

You won't hear about this from the left-wing antizionists, but the CBC was solidly pro-genocide.

Time to crack some districts up!

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,432,489

Funny how no country in the world wants to take in Palestinian refugees.

https://www.theconservative.online/palestinian-asylum-seekers-ask-the-danes

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,496

@previous (B)
What about South Africa?

https://youtu.be/Htt3lxSIYco

Anonymous C double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,500

Israel helped the white South Africans get a nuclear bomb, which the white South Africans had to disassemble by hand when the blacks took over the government because they didn’t think through step 2.

Step 1. Create a nuclear bomb to stop the blacks who live in the same cities as you from rising up in your own country.

Step 2. ?????

Step 3. Profit (they never got to step 3)

Anonymous C triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,502

That nuclear shit might have worked on the Japanese, but that’s never gonna work on black people, we cannot get sunburned.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,521

@1,432,500 (C)

> Israel helped the white South Africans get a nuclear bomb, which the white South Africans had to disassemble by hand when the blacks took over the government because they didn’t think through step 2.
>
> Step 1. Create a nuclear bomb to stop the blacks who live in the same cities as you from rising up in your own country.
>
> Step 2. ?????
>
> Step 3. Profit (they never got to step 3)

I don’t believe the Apartheid government ever planned to bomb its own country. It was a status and Cold War thing. They had a much more insidious Project Coast, which included bioweapons and sterilization agents.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,523

@previous (D)
They waited too long on the sterilization agents. Even Hitler admired how fast the US rolled those out. Explains why the US is the only one that succeeded in the end.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,525

@previous (E)
Given everything that happened historically, it’s a bit curious there are twice as many Africans as Europeans. Africans were hated by Europeans and had a lower population for hundreds years, then in the 1990s, Africa’s population matched Europe and now there are twice as many somehow. People seem to ignore the population aspect of the whole thing, but it is really interesting how for hundreds of years, Europe dominated Africa and Europe had a higher population, then within half a century of independence, now there are twice as many Africans as Europeans, Europe’s birth rate is below replacement, and Africa’s is still well above it. Based on everything that happened historically, you’d think the Africans would have been wiped out like the Native Americans, but somehow the opposite seems to be occurring.

Anonymous F double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,526

And the really interesting part of that, is the only sub Saharan African country that doesn’t have a high birth rate is the one with the highest ethnically European population, South Africa.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,528

@1,432,525 (F)
Imagine 50 regular people had to fight 100 dwarfs (99.999% genetically similar, dwarfism can be caused by a single nucleotide change).

Also the 50 normals have advanced satellites, sigint, and nukes.

Who wins?

Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,529

@previous (A)
That runs into the same problem apartheid South Africa ran into. You can’t kill people in the same room with you using a weapon designed to destroy the whole city.

Anonymous F double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,530

Nuclear weapons are powerful weapons, sure, but they’re strategically useless. That’s why nobody has used one since 1945.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,531

@1,432,529 (F)
The DoD has been focusing on SigInt and urban warfare.

The nukes are just to dissuade a foreign power from aiding the dwarfs.

Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,533

Especially in the context of a continent. Africa isn’t unified under a single government. Dropping the nuclear weapons on Japan worked because Japan is a homogenous country that was led by one emperor. So if the emperor told everybody to surrender, they would surrender, and even then some people kept fighting anyway. Africa is incredibly diverse, there are a lot of countries in Africa, even inside of a country in Africa, there will be dozens of different languages and religions and ethnic groups, etc. So for example, if you dropped a nuclear bomb in Cape Town, who has the authority to tell everybody in Africa that they’ve surrendered? Nobody has that authority. It would be a stupid decision, it would just convince African countries they all need nuclear weapons now.

Anonymous F double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,534

@1,432,531 (A)
If it cost the US 2 trillion USD to occupy Afghanistan and Afghanistan has 44 million people, but Africa has 1.5 billion people, how expensive do you think occupying Africa would be?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,535

@1,432,533 (F)
We wouldn't have needed to nuke Japan if they were balkanized to the degree Africa is.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,536

@1,432,534 (F)
Who cares? The hegemon can tax the world in various ways.

The standard of living in the US will stay high enough that even the most anti-imperialist niggers will refuse to leave.

Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 14 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,537

@1,432,535 (A)
That doesn’t make any sense. That would just make Japan more difficult to invade.

Anonymous F double-posted this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,538

@1,432,536 (A)
Well, if you don’t care how your goals will be accomplished, they might not get accomplished.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,539

@1,432,537 (F)
No, lol.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,540

@1,432,538 (F)
I explained how they'd be accomplished: The US will continue to tax the world because it is hegemon.

Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 31 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,541

@1,432,539 (A)
If Japan wasn’t a unified country, in order to invade Japan, the United States would have actually had to invade Japan. The reason why the United States claimed they dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan is because they didn’t want to suffer the American losses that would come from invading Japan.

Anonymous F double-posted this 1 month ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,542

@1,432,540 (A)
The United States can’t impose taxes on African countries.

Anonymous F triple-posted this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,544

The thing about Africa and nuclear weapons, is that South Africa has the capability to produce a nuclear weapon without enriching uranium. They have enough enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons, but they choose not to. If the United States actually tried to conquer Africa, it wouldn’t take years for Africans to create nuclear weapons, the timeframe would probably be weeks or months.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,545

@1,432,489 (B)
They're almost as subversive and obnoxious as their Jewish oppressors.

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,546

guess you saw the news regarding the decision

Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,547

Because really, to make a gun type bomb isn’t that complicated. The complicated part is getting the uranium, you can use steel or tungsten carbide as a neutron reflector and then you can use conventional explosives to fire one mass of uranium at another mass of uranium through a tube. The reason why the manhattan project was so expensive was because of how expensive enriching uranium is, but countries sell enriched uranium to other countries, so there are countries that possess highly enriched uranium that don’t have any enrichment capacity.

Anonymous F double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,548

Like Ghana for example, Ghana used to have highly enriched uranium from China. They returned it to China. But still, there are some untrustworthy countries in the world. There could be things people don’t know about.

Anonymous G replied with this 1 month ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,551

@previous (F)
I'd sooner trust Ghana with nuclear weapons than that fuckass zionist occupation in Palestine.

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 11 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,602

@1,432,529 (F)

> That runs into the same problem apartheid South Africa ran into. You can’t kill people in the same room with you using a weapon designed to destroy the whole city.

There are a couple of interesting and hard to get books about South Africa’s dirty war in the 1970s-1980s. They had some nasty tactics and assassination methods. Regardless, Apartheid was never going to “win” due to demographics.

For all the talk of sanctions a country can survive that doesn’t evenly distribute financial and economic benefits. You can have some level of autarky for consumer goods and illicit trade networks for the rest. This would fail horribly in a larger country.

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,622

@1,432,551 (G)

> I'd sooner trust Ghana with nuclear weapons than that fuckass zionist occupation in Palestine.

TBH I’ve heard people say Ghanaians are pretty chill. They definitely don’t have the us vs the world mentality the Israelis have.
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.