Zionists killed Dinosaurs & Man "was never" on Moon

[Laberia]

I believe what my eyes see and i believe what my hands and legs can do with any motherfuker can do harm to Egypt.

You arabs are dumbass. Jews crushed you like moschitos. This is the truth.

[Hexachordia]

Don't worry Jews control China as well only they cannot inflitrate your society because they still didn't stole your genes, but they created Communism so that they can rule you.

So in one hand they created Christianity, on the other Communism 1900 years later, and also created banks to hold Capitalism (which they also created btw), and all conflicts between this three was their plan all along.

There is no serious war between communism and capitalism, it is peoples nature to fight the strangers. Just the communism is made up from overwhelmingly mob people lacking educated perspectives. I see western people(not their elites) are more peaceful than our people duped by long term propagandas. But it is not peoples will ever to go to war, the elites decide, the elites often just choose to collaborate with them/jews for expedience. Jews could have their rightful places in our financial system, they are natural born mathematicians for the elites.

[BeerBaron]

It's all Jewish plan.

Because French and British cannot put a dent in Russia is also Jewish plan so that you think they cannot put a dent in Russia.

No......it's a military fact.....Moscow is covered with ABM systems, and the only weapons the UK has are on a couple subs, some tridents that are technically owned by the US.

[Egyptian]

You arabs are dumbass. Jews crushed you like moschitos. This is the truth.

ok albanana , as you say .

now go suck some serbian dick.

[Enflamme]

"7. Jews were in all position in Germany and troughout Europe in 1939, their ultimate goal was to create state of Israel one day and rule the world (why did they planned roman destruction of Judea in 70. AD? Shut up asshole), Hitler was savior of white race and he knew all this stuff about Jews so he wanted to save white race from Jews, but when Hitler lost they got their state in 1947 (wasn't that sooner than Jews expected? Shut up asshole, that is what they do, they're Zionists, they planned Hitler and Holocaust so that they can have state in 1947 and dont ask anymore why they left Judea in the first place you're boring and you didnt read enough books about this subject)."

In fact, it is simpler: the gas chambers have never existed and the revisionists have already proved it by A + B with many arguments. This is a historical lie that the allies invented to hide their mass war crime (bombing, rape, etc.)

My position about Jews >>>

[Longbowman]

No......it's a military fact.....Moscow is covered with ABM systems, and the only weapons the UK has are on a couple subs, some tridents that are technically owned by the US.

The UK has a seaborne nuclear capacity that does not 'technically belong to the US.' The UK just uses an American-made mechanism for launching it. There is always at least one British nuclear submarine somewhere at sea.

Point of interest: the only recorded kill by a nuclear submarine in history was the General Belgrano.

[Longbowman]

ok albanana , as you say .

now go suck some serbian dick.

The rest of the world knows the truth, bro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Your government lies to you. Your defeat is why you're unable to put enough troops in the Sinai to defeat ISIS; Israel doesn't allow it. That was part of your peace deal.

[BeerBaron]

The UK has a seaborne nuclear capacity that does not 'technically belong to the US.' The UK just uses an American-made mechanism for launching it. There is always at least one British nuclear submarine somewhere at sea.

Point of interest: the only recorded kill by a nuclear submarine in history was the General Belgrano.

How Washington owns the UK’s nukes

London’s nuclear dependency cuts to the heart of the US-UK Special Relationship.
By JAKE WALLIS SIMONS
4/30/15, 4:11 PM CET
Updated 5/3/15, 11:07 AM CET


LONDON — In the run-up to the British general election, there has been intense debate about the future of Trident, the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons program, which will reach the end of its serviceable life in 2026. Party leaders in the next parliament must decide whether to scrap it, replace it with a scaled-back alternative, or update it.
But there is one simple question that nobody is asking. When is an independent nuclear deterrent not an independent nuclear deterrent?

To many experts, the answer is all too obvious: when the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines depend on Washington, and when the nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam.
No British politician is addressing this issue, and it shows. Informed voters are probably familiar with the various parties’ declared stances on the Trident question, but few Britons have any idea that the United States is even involved in the program, let alone their country’s nuclear benefactor.
Instead, Trident is being presented as a purely domestic matter, and one of the few in modern British politics that puts clear ideological water between Left and Right. The Tories have pledged £100 billion ($154 billion) to upgrade the program. The insurgent Scottish Nationalists — who will probably hold the balance of power in the likely event of a hung parliament — want to scrap the weapons altogether (the nukes are based in Scotland), as do the Greens and Plaid Cymru. The remaining parties fall somewhere in between.
At a deeper political level, however, Trident cuts to the heart of the US-UK Special Relationship, and its contrasting significance for London and Washington.
In 2006, Parliament’s Select Committee on Defense presented a White Paper to Parliament containing a granular analysis of the Trident program. Although it is now almost a decade old, NATO sources have confirmed that the paper remains the benchmark for non-classified information on Britain’s nuclear weapons, as very little has changed since. And it lays bare the extent of the UK’s nuclear reliance on America.
The report makes for striking reading. The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming. And since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.
A huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly by Washington, and much of the technology that Britain produces itself is taken from US designs (the four UK Trident submarines themselves are copies of America’s Ohio-class Trident submersibles).
The list goes on. Britain’s nuclear sites at Aldermaston and Davenport are partly run by the American companies Lockheed Martin and Halliburton. Even the organization responsible for the UK-run components of the program, the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), is a private consortium consisting of one British company, Serco Group PLC, sandwiched between two American ones — Lockheed Martin and the Jacobs Engineering Group. And, to top it all, AWE’s boss, Kevin Bilger — who worked for Lockheed Martin for 32 years — is American.
The UK Government emphasizes that Britain’s Trident submarines are “operationally independent,” meaning that they have an all-British crew and take commands only from the Prime Minister, regardless of whether he is coordinating with NATO and the White House. Some believe that this safeguard is sufficient to counteract Washington’s dominance of the program.
“Just because my car is made in Japan or Germany, doesn’t mean it’s not my car to drive,” says Thomas Karako, a senior fellow with the International Security Program and the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. “Do I need to make my own filing cabinet to have an independent office?”
In this view, operational independence is “the most important thing,” and the US has no reason to use Britain’s nuclear program as a military proxy.
“It is in America’s interest to have an independent nuclear actor in the region, so that it complicates the decision-making for an aggressor,” Karako says. “Any attack on one NATO ally would raise the risk of retaliation from another under Article Five, and it’s not a case of piling all the responsibility on the United States. That will only work with operational independence.”
But some other experts are deeply skeptical about the current state of affairs. “As a policy statement, it’s ludicrous to say that the US can effectively donate a nuclear program to the UK but have no influence on how it is used,” says Ted Seay, senior policy consultant at the London-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), who spent three years as part of the US Mission to NATO.
“The fact that the US is spending so much on producing, leasing, maintaining the car — let’s talk before you drive it into a brick wall,” he says. “But this isn’t Hertz rent-a-car we’re talking about. This is the end of the world.”
Seay added: “It would also be unthinkable for the UK to launch a strike outside of NATO. There is an incredible pressure on every member to conform. I know that as an insider. If you’re thinking about launching nuclear weapons at Russia or perhaps Iran, it has to be fought out around the NATO table. To say that you could launch a unilateral attack over the heads of NATO and Washington might be theoretically true, but practically speaking it’s rubbish.”
In addition, Seay says, Washington’s influence on Trident means that it has a de facto power of veto.
“There is no uniquely British component in the whole thing,” he points out.

[Egyptian]

The rest of the world knows the truth, bro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Your government lies to you. Your defeat is why you're unable to put enough troops in the Sinai to defeat ISIS; Israel doesn't allow it. That was part of your peace deal.

1973 war? oh yeah , my government lies to me : )))

[Longbowman]

1973 war? oh yeah , my government lies to me : )))

God, Arabs are stupid. Yes, you captured 20 or 30 people, so what? The Israelis encircled 100,000 and captured 10,000.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=yo...KgDzAQ_AUIBigB

Your government is lucky to have such stupid, servile citizens. No other country would buy it.

Why does the entire rest of the world believe something different to you?