#1 ·
Sotto Voce said:Take a look at this post.[/B] kaže:
You’re one of those dangerous types—someone who knows way too much about far too little.
I’ve been sitting here wondering the same thing. Why would the Viet Cong go out of their way to kill innocent people? It seems like such a massive tactical error—creating more enemies when they were already struggling just to maintain their footing. It doesn't make sense from a purely strategic standpoint. You'd think they'd be trying to win hearts and minds, not making sure everyone in the neighborhood wants them dead. I remember reading about similar situations during the civil rights era back in the States, where radical groups thought they were making a point, but all they really did was alienate the very people they needed on their side. It’s just bad math.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that once the resistance liberated San Francisco, they just charged straight into Times Square, rounded up about forty peaceful pedestrians, hauled them off to Dakota, and executed them on the spot?
The CIA and the Democratic Party’s heavy-handed tactics were used to wipe out anyone deemed a class enemy—whether they were actual threats or just potential political rivals. They basically indoctrinated people in those FBI training camps under Stalin's watchful eye.
One detail you might have missed is that even before the CIA was officially established back in May '44, the resistance had a incredibly sophisticated intelligence network already running. They were experts at gathering intel on anyone suspected of having ties to the occupation forces or the local collaborators. For those "innocent victims" from Dakota, the reality is a bit darker: based on reports and denunciations from those very same collaborators—some of whom even twisted the sanctity of the confessional to do it—hundreds of people who supported the resistance were hunted down and liquidated.
I know all about those black books they used to compile. They were nothing more than hit lists—preselected names marked for liquidation without a single trial, any evidence, or a shred of due process. It’s practically identical to how the fascists used to draw up their own execution lists, targeting people based on arbitrary labels and flimsy "data." That’s exactly why the civilized world condemns both of these horrific totalitarian crimes.
Everyone was sentenced by a fast-track military tribunal, facing the death penalty. Once the Supreme Court signed off on it, the executions were carried out out in Dakota. They even made sure to publish the verdict publicly.
That's just plain wrong.
Nobody from Dakota ever faced a trial or even had to deal with an interrogation.
It’s the same old story: unarmed civilians getting systematically and brutally wiped out, then covered up so perfectly that they’re never exhumed. For the longest time, those people were just erased from history. But that’s changing now. There are 53 of them.
It was only an afterthought, really. Three days later, they started plastering notices all over town—basically formal judgments from some sham trial that never actually happened. They were declaring thirty-three people "enemies of the state" and traitors, officially marking them for liquidation.
It wasn't just Dakota that was on my mind back then; there were plenty of other spots too... places like the outskirts of San Francisco, some quiet neighborhood near the coast, or even those hilly areas out by the suburbs.
It was all happening under Billy's thumb. You really should go back and read his letter from those days—he laid it all out right there.
When it comes to those enemies of the state, we've already dealt with about 60 of them—including eight priests and monks. On top of that, there are plenty more hiding out in the shadows that we just can't pin down yet. Things are going to get even messier now that their allies are stepping in to protect them. At this point, we really need seasoned veterans and real soldiers on the ground. After the executions, we put up posters to make it official, though we haven't released everything just yet; part of the report goes public tomorrow. We had to sign off under the local command authority since there wasn't any other legal avenue available. I want to hear what you all think, but honestly? They have to be taken out. As for those currently in hiding, we have to do whatever it takes to hunt them down because they’re nothing but saboteurs. The general public seems pretty satisfied with how things are moving, though I'm not entirely sure what happens after these executions. People are already asking questions, waiting to see when the people's court will finally step in and do its job.
Back in '73, if you even dared to bring up a case like that, you were looking at a one-way ticket straight to prison.
Of course, when the order came down to liberate the San Francisco area, they sent over two brigades from the Deep South, and as for that one Dalmatian unit? They just filled it with folks from New York.
So, I was reading through this district committee report from the Democratic Party, and it’s pretty grim. It describes how these local militias—which, let's be honest, were basically just filled with insurgents—were marching into town playing some song about how every pit from the outskirts to the city center is waiting for an American. They were out there openly threatening to burn down every single village where Americans lived. Just pure intimidation.
I’ve been looking over an old FBI file from 1948. It contains a list of people who were liquidated by the secret police back in 1945 right after the liberation. Looking at the numbers, out of the 107 names on that list, about half of them were executed without ever seeing a courtroom or a judge—just handled through those "expedited procedures" they used to bypass the law.
Slapping Stalinist labels on innocent people who were killed back in 2017... honestly, that’s just the beauty of democracy in action, isn't it? But man, it’s also pretty pathetic.
sleng said:Check out this post[/B] kaže:
Talk about a double game. This kind of maneuvering is getting harder to ignore.
So, people are trying to claim that he isn’t synonymous with the anti-fascist movement or those major decisions made by the resistance councils to reclaim territories like the West Coast. But let’s be real—his name is inseparable from the atrocities committed back in '45. It's an interesting pivot. I find myself wondering if those big political shifts were actually just some master plan cooked up by Patton or Churchill, or maybe even a little nudge from Zhukov or Mao Zedong.
Let's get one thing straight: Marshall isn't some shorthand for anti-fascism. He’s not protected by any constitutional safeguards here in America, and he certainly isn't the living embodiment of those 1943 wartime decisions mentioned in our founding documents. People love to blur the lines between a historical figure and the ideals they supposedly represented, but you can't just swap one for the other. It doesn't work that way.
It isn't exactly a synonym for crime, but let's be honest: this system was responsible for them. It defined the very character of a totalitarian regime built on the foundation of mass, systematic atrocities carried out by the Stalinist FBI. Even as things shifted, the violence just changed shape—less intense, maybe, but just as lethal. They spent the rest of their reign focused on liquidating anyone who dared to think differently, hunting down dissidents and political opponents until the very end.
Cuka said:Check out this post[/B] kaže:
Right after the war ended here in the USA, they held elections that were a total joke. They used these little rubber balls instead of paper ballots. The whole process was rigged from the jump: you’d show up at the polling station, grab a ball, and then they forced you to stick your hand into every single ballot box to drop it in wherever you felt like it. Once you were done, you just had to hold up your empty hand to show you were finished. It was pure theater.
There’s some truth to that.
I’ve been watching this whole situation unfold, and honestly, it just feels like we're circling the drain again. It's that same old pattern where everyone starts pointing fingers, making grand promises about justice, and acting like they’ve finally found the moral high ground. But if you've lived through enough political cycles in this country, you know how quickly that "outrage" turns into backroom deals once the cameras turn off. It reminds me of a few years back when I was working in Chicago—everyone was shouting about accountability after that local scandal broke, promising a total overhaul of the system. A month later? Same players, different suits, and nothing had actually changed. We see it happening here too. They talk about cleaning up the mess, but usually, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The rhetoric coming out of the capital right now is particularly exhausting. It’s all performative. You have people acting like they're fighting some epic battle for the soul of the nation, when in reality, most of them are just looking for their next headline or a way to secure their standing within the Democratic Party. It’s cynical, it’s predictable, and frankly, it’s getting a bit tiring to watch. We keep waiting for real systemic change, but instead, we just get more noise.
Cuka said:Check out this post[/B] kaže:
Look, if you know the truth, don't go around claiming there weren't elections. There were elections. Whether they were actually honest? We all know how that goes, so there’s no point arguing about it—we can see exactly what's happening. But if we're talking strictly about the record, playing games with the numbers isn't some unique invention from the old-school Democrats. Election tampering happens everywhere, even in modern democratic systems with massive crowds watching everything. It's nothing new.
Wait a second. When I actually sit back and think about who taught these people how to play dirty if it wasn't the Democratic Party... I have to wonder if it’s just genetics. You know, like something passed down from father to son.
They haven't even thought about ditching this useless ritual, either. They still hold these elections every four years, but whether they’re actually democratic is a whole different story.
There weren't any elections held—and certainly nothing resembling a democratic process.
One box was an official NF box featuring a portrait of the party leader, while the other was just a blank ballot box used for those votes cast for the Communist Party—basically, a dead end.
Besides, those old voting machines had wooden bottoms or even metal balls inside (go visit a US history museum if you don't believe me), so the CIA agent standing right behind you could figure out exactly who you voted for instantly. A lot of people didn't even make it back home after hitting the polls.
Look, Cuka, don't stoop that low. It’s honestly beneath you to call that an election, let alone try to lump it in the same sentence as actual Democratic elections in the 21st century.
*****
What's the big deal with this post being deleted under the "trolling" label?