💼 Careercow Gunther Fehlinger - Platonic Ideal of a Eurocrat made flesh. Future Furher of the NATO-Reich.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Gunther responds to critisism
IMG_0022.jpeg
 
Sheik Gunther remains steadfast in his support of the brave freedom fighters of Dagestan, their only crime being shooting bullets of peace at two churches and two synagogues that left 26 people dead and almost twice as many wounded. Tweet (Archive)

Screenshot_1102.png

 

Attachments

  • lNZP-0Uk-7kuBOvT.mp4
    4.9 MB
Hillary Clinton's Ass said:
Sheik Gunther remains steadfast in his support of the brave freedom fighters of Dagestan, their only crime being shooting bullets of peace at two churches and two synagogues that left 26 people dead and almost twice as many wounded.
Click to expand...
Hey at least he's finally dropping the facade and being honest with what he really wants and supports.

It would be funny to see how he would react if theoretically some other country started arming and funding the hordes of Islamics in Austria to commit terrorist acts and overthrow the government there. I suspect he might sing a different tune but that's nothing new, the cowardly and bloodthirsty only ever want the boot to be on someone else's neck.
 
Last edited:
VargReallyDidNothingWrong said:
It would be funny to see how he would react if theoretically some other country started arming and funding the hordes of Islamics in Austria to commit terrorist acts and overthrow the government there.
Click to expand...
It's really no different from funding Communist/anti-Communist rebels during the Cold War. It's not like the Shining Path or UNITA (among others) had any hesitations about using mass terrorism and murder against civilians. The Soviets gave the Red Army Faction terrorists money and weapons and the US funded and armed Al Qaeda as well.

Doesn't make it right, just a reality.
 
Agamemnon Busmalis said:
It's really no different from funding Communist/anti-Communist rebels during the Cold War. It's not like the Shining Path or UNITA (among others) had any hesitations about using mass terrorism and murder against civilians. The Soviets gave the Red Army Faction terrorists money and weapons and the US funded and armed Al Qaeda as well.

Doesn't make it right, just a reality.
Click to expand...
Thank you for dropping into the Gunther Fehlinger thread to bring up whataboutisms about stuff the Soviets did 40-50 years ago.
 
VargReallyDidNothingWrong said:
Thank you for dropping into the Gunther Fehlinger thread to bring up whataboutisms about stuff the Soviets did 40-50 years ago.
Click to expand...
Did the morality of terrorism somehow change since the 1980s? For that matter, do you even understand what the term "whataboutism" means?

It's whataboutism when you attempt to deflect criticism by pointing to something the individual or country criticizing you is doing rather than defend your own actions or acknowledge they are wrong. All I'm saying is this has been done before so it's hardly some controversial statement - people are just acting like it is because he said the quiet part out loud!

So if Gunther says there is no problem with launching terrorist attacks against Russian civilians because they are killing civilians in Ukraine that is whataboutism. No reasonable person could defend using terrorism as a weapon against enemy civilians in war, so you have to justify it by saying the other side does something similar too.
 
Last edited:
Agamemnon Busmalis said:
All I'm saying is this has been done before so it's hardly some controversial statement - people are just acting like it is because he said the quiet part out loud!
Click to expand...
It's a pretty controversial statement to openly say "yeah we should arm loonies to kill civilians in country we don't like"

The fact that it's being stated openly on Twitter by a relatively well known EU/NATO mouthpiece/cheerleader, and not off the record by some CIA spook in a boardroom is the controversial part.

Agamemnon Busmalis said:
No reasonable person could defend using terrorism as a weapon against enemy civilians in war
Click to expand...
Gunther's country isn't even at war with Russia and he defends the use of terrorism against Russian citizens, lmao
 
VargReallyDidNothingWrong said:
It's a pretty controversial statement to openly say "yeah we should arm loonies to kill civilians in country we don't like"
Click to expand...
It is, it's a really pretty shitty thing to say after innocent people were murdered in a terrorist attack. I can't defend Gunther on this one, even if he didn't mean it to come across like that. Not really sure what else he meant, it's not like Islamists are much besides terrorists in any case.

VargReallyDidNothingWrong said:
The fact that it's being stated openly on Twitter by a relatively well known EU/NATO mouthpiece/cheerleader, and not off the record by some CIA spook in a boardroom is the controversial part.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. I really think the reasoning for this is since Russia does X, it's OK for NATO to do Y. Not good.
 
VargReallyDidNothingWrong said:
It would be funny to see how he would react if theoretically some other country started arming and funding the hordes of Islamics in Austria to commit terrorist acts and overthrow the government there. I suspect he might sing a different tune but that's nothing new, the cowardly and bloodthirsty only ever want the boot to be on someone else's neck.
Click to expand...
The Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are already financing the Islamic hordes.
 
AeroGavin Rossdale said:
On behalf on Russia in a thirty year distraction effort, per Gunther lore
Click to expand...
That's really funny because it was the Saudis, not Reagan that brought down the Soviet Union. Gunther needs a lot more coffee.

They got pissed non-OPEC nations were depressing the price of oil by producing more to offset their own cuts after the crash in the mid-80s and decided to pump all-out to push the price down so much it drove these producers out of business. The Soviets depended on high oil prices to keep the economy going (and themselves were exporting as much as possible).

Prices crashed and the rest is history. If oil prices stayed high the Soviet Union could still be around today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom