• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Fuck me, the So-Called BBC are discussing atrocities against the working class. What’s the real agenda here?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Wahoo said:

Waterloo had just happened.  TPTB were shitting themselves.

Pretty much the same as after WW2. Thousands of soldiers/sailors with no work and shitty living standards after twenty years of fighting. Probably saw how most of their generals were fucking useless compared to Napoleon's meritocratic ones and thought 'did the right side win'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the headline and clicked it hoping to read about some Rwandan dictator called Alibooboo. Fuck sake. I need a new figure of hate to focus on 3000 miles away , rather than the slime on my own doorstep. The bastards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, maynardgravy said:

Pretty much the same as after WW2. Thousands of soldiers/sailors with no work and shitty living standards after twenty years of fighting. Probably saw how most of their generals were fucking useless compared to Napoleon's meritocratic ones and thought 'did the right side win'?

they were usless,wellington called them the scum of the earth however he did care about them more than most rivals did.napolean thought he was alexander reincarnat and tried to take the world.however he is in the top 4 greatest generals to have ever lived in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

they were usless,wellington called them the scum of the earth however he did care about them more than most rivals did.napolean thought he was alexander reincarnat and tried to take the world.however he is in the top 4 greatest generals to have ever lived in my humble opinion.

Top 1 imo. Only Alexander comes close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, maynardgravy said:

Top 1 imo. Only Alexander comes close. 

i do see your point,but alexander actualy faught at the front nealy all the time,so did julius ceasar and shaka zulu.he looses points for that.he also promoted on merit even one of his generals was black.then theres hanibal who spent 12 months in italy.thats like the chinese sauntering around in america undefeated for 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice safe bit of virtue signalling about something that happened 200 years ago rather than tackle current issues ¬¬ The connection between the Peterloo Massacre and the foundation of the guardian put the incident on luvvie radar and they seem to have a thing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

i do see your point,but alexander actualy faught at the front nealy all the time,so did julius ceasar and shaka zulu.he looses points for that.he also promoted on merit even one of his generals was black.then theres hanibal who spent 12 months in italy.thats like the chinese sauntering around in america undefeated for 12 months.

Napoleon fought a few battles himself from the front in his youth but that's not even important to me. Alexander was handed an empire by Philip. Napoleon took his from nothing, beating coalition after coalition against enormous odds against four great powers. Napoleon 'sauntered' around `Europe for the best part of years. He was a master strategist and tactician who lost the plot after Wagram in 1810. Waterloo is a mere footnote in the Napoleonic wars, it was the Russian winter that finished him off, followed by insurmountable odds at Leipzig.

Anyway.... back OT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, maynardgravy said:

Napoleon fought a few battles himself from the front in his youth but that's not even important to me. Alexander was handed an empire by Philip. Napoleon took his from nothing, beating coalition after coalition against enormous odds against four great powers. Napoleon 'sauntered' around `Europe for the best part of years. He was a master strategist and tactician who lost the plot after Wagram in 1810. Waterloo is a mere footnote in the Napoleonic wars, it was the Russian winter that finished him off, followed by insurmountable odds at Leipzig.

Anyway.... back OT. 

tacticaly yes,but you could argue the muscket put an end to brave men lasting long.yes philip did create one greece.for alexander,but then he beat every other regional superpower  ,philip had him fight at the front often has cavlory from boyhood.naploean was good but alexander beats him particualy regarding legacy and bravery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Caravan Monster said:

Nice safe bit of virtue signalling about something that happened 200 years ago rather than tackle current issues ¬¬ The connection between the Peterloo Massacre and the foundation of the guardian put the incident on luvvie radar and they seem to have a thing about it.

has there ever been a seriese about the tollpuddle matryers,its only a metter of time until we get percy topless the return but with even more left wing spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Caravan Monster said:

Nice safe bit of virtue signalling about something that happened 200 years ago rather than tackle current issues ¬¬ The connection between the Peterloo Massacre and the foundation of the guardian put the incident on luvvie radar and they seem to have a thing about it.

They do seem to harp on about it.  11 men chewed up and spat out 200 years ago is fu k all. Death and illness were utterly common place then.  Childhood deaths huge. Deaths from simple infections enormous. 

And the unfaceable fact is the comfortable suffering free lives BBC employees and the rest of us live today, the lives that allow us to judge the actions of those 200 years ago and tell the world about it on our mobiles while we grow ever more obese, is  for the most part down to the psychopathic ruling elite that were prepared to order the gunning down of 11 working men. 

And actually they may not even have been pyschopathic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Poseidon said:

And the unfaceable fact is the comfortable suffering free lives BBC employees and the rest of us live today, the lives that allow us to judge the actions of those 200 years ago and tell the world about it on our mobiles while we grow ever more obese, is  for the most part down to the psychopathic ruling elite that were prepared to order the gunning down of 11 working men. 

Perhaps the subtext for us plebs from the MSM is that sometimes our 'betters' need to destroy a few of us if we get too uppity; because they know better, and it's for our own good anyway.

To quote moral philosopher Naz Shah on the subject:

 

pmcomposite-twinmp.jpg?strip=all&quality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, unregistered_guest said:

OK - here's one for you with her mouth shut - alongside her stirring tribute to part time sports coach and innovative jewellery pioneer, Winnie Mandela

NAZ.png?fit=540,401&ssl=1

matches of her 'football' team and necklaces of the african variety i assume (involving a knackered firestone 225x50 R17 and a litre of unleaded), maybe the necklaces are made whole by the matches and it isnt about football at all..

Edited by leonardratso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of a twist on that moral dilemma thing about the runaway train. Instead of having to choose between doing nothing and 50 people die, or pulling a lever and the train diverts, killing 1 person, not 50, try this:

A runaway train was about to kill a single person. A bystander pulled a lever that changed the points. The train now killed 50 people. Why did the bystander do this?

 

 

Because they were a liberal. A liberal will always sacrifice the majority to save a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stokiescum said:

tacticaly yes,but you could argue the muscket put an end to brave men lasting long.yes philip did create one greece.for alexander,but then he beat every other regional superpower  ,philip had him fight at the front often has cavlory from boyhood.naploean was good but alexander beats him particualy regarding legacy and bravery.

xD

Every single battle was: Get in one long phalanx line facing the enemy. March forward stabbing everything that gets in the way. When the enemy are fully engaged, charge the cavalry round the wing and hit them in the back. Effective if you have well trained, well equipped infantry and passable cavalry, but hardly requires much creative tactical thinking.

And as Maynard said, Philip developed the tactic and just passed it on.

Julius Caesar on the other hand, came from humble backgrounds and won convincingly while playing a seemingly impossible hand. Repeatedly.

If he had set out with his 50 legions rather than being publically stabbed by his "friends" on the floor of the Senate, it's likely the whole of Eurasia would have come under Roman dominion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Libspero said:

Only 11 dead..  not quite sure if that counts as a masacre by 19th century standards :/

15 people were killed and 400–700 were injured.

According to wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

45 minutes ago, jm51 said:

I thought of a twist on that moral dilemma thing about the runaway train. Instead of having to choose between doing nothing and 50 people die, or pulling a lever and the train diverts, killing 1 person, not 50, try this:

A runaway train was about to kill a single person. A bystander pulled a lever that changed the points. The train now killed 50 people. Why did the bystander do this?

 

 

Because they were a liberal. A liberal will always sacrifice the majority to save a minority.

Have you watched the Good Place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

xD

Every single battle was: Get in one long phalanx line facing the enemy. March forward stabbing everything that gets in the way. When the enemy are fully engaged, charge the cavalry round the wing and hit them in the back. Effective if you have well trained, well equipped infantry and passable cavalry, but hardly requires much creative tactical thinking.

And as Maynard said, Philip developed the tactic and just passed it on.

Julius Caesar on the other hand, came from humble backgrounds and won convincingly while playing a seemingly impossible hand. Repeatedly.

If he had set out with his 50 legions rather than being publically stabbed by his "friends" on the floor of the Senate, it's likely the whole of Eurasia would have come under Roman dominion.

 

thats why i didnt list any in any particular order,it will depend on your own criteria.you could even argue gengis would have taken all of europe.mind i think he gave up trying to take vietnam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.