Right, or why they'd need to put a bond number ON the birth certificate rather than just writing it somewhere else.

Like I said, I think they intentionally make things look sketchy just to give people something to talk about.

I feel like they kind of do this stuff just to leave little breadcrumb trails for people to find and talk about.

Kind of like how there's this whole subgroup that thinks the Jewish wall is actually Roman, so I guess there are people kissing it thinking they're Actually pledging allegiance to Rome and that all of the Jews are working for Rome - but then the Jews are all thinking that everyone's kissing it for them....

> nearly 900 feet long and weighing almost as much as an aircraft carrier

All well, no real difference, borders are always moving anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wow they've been at it for a while... Or is this Polish?

> you posted here as a supposed guru

Right right, that is EXACTLY what I said...

Even if real, nukes are very much not in the interest of Israel to use, because Iran is just mountains and mountains - and no amount of nukes can destroy that many mountains. Israel on the other hand is a nice flat desert with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem - which are extremely nukeable.

Okay, I see. So there's about a page in that essay about Britain being a nuclear power and what happens in a civil war scenario.

It seems your contention is that anybody who mentions nuclear weapons without the disclaimer that they don't believe in them is therefore an NPC and unworthy of being paid attention to.

But isn't that literally every military strategist on the planet? Sure you could argue that there are secret strategists writing secret documents for their government - but out of anything you can actually read, BASICALLY EVERYBODY gives some consideration to the nuclear question.

I think if you want to understand the dynamics of war, and answer questions like "what can the British people do right now?", rejecting ALMOST ALL military writing is just not an effective strategy.

Here's an example of raising noise. There's no actual argument here, it's just attempting to discredit but without any structure to it.

> He wrote extensively about HG Wells bombs

It's possible, but I don't recall ever reading that, but fine. And what? A lo of people have done that.

> said bbc said it's real so must be real then

This is rhetoric. It's not meant to make a case that can be proven, it's meant to appeal to emotion by making something look stupid.

> This is Tommy Yakety Yaxley level stuff

IDK even what that is, weird references, not plain English, NOT making a claim that could be proven or refuted.

> Does no one even try to educate him?

Grandstanding, "There Ought To Be A Law" type of rhetoric... No claims.

> act like a scared little girl

What are we even talking about at this point. There's no argument, no claim, there never was, it's all appeals to emotion and related mumbojumbo.

This type of rhetoric is consistent with what you see when someone is trying to manipulate you. Now I recognize that manipulative rhetoric leaks into the culture and people start just using it without meaning to, so the robust assumption is that this was written in good faith.

But I'm going to say to Sam: Up your game, state your case in clear facts.
And to everyone else: REJECT this kind of emotional rhetoric with prejudice, because if you don't then you are opening yourself up to being manipulated.

"Altifa" and "jewanon" are ones that you yourself made up, right?

I never understood the point.. did you expect anybody to read that and not just go "oh this is truthbait cringeposting again" ?