Comments on: The Liberation of Minsk 1944 Totally Looks Like The Liberation of Baghdad

By: Synth

Synth — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:46:33 +0000

There’s one problem–Minsk was liberated by the Red Army, consisting of Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians.

How many Iraqi soldiers were in the US Army that took Baghdad? Anyone know?

By: Beth

Beth — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:54:35 +0000

ASS HOLE

By: Z

Sat, 29 May 2010 16:09:56 +0000

First of all, there is no sherman in the pic, and despite higher complications and costs, the abrams has better armor, weaponry, speed, maneuverability, and technology than the sherman. A single WWII mortar round could incarcerate the sherman.

By: Z

Sat, 29 May 2010 15:55:54 +0000

NICE ONE!!!!!!

By: Z

Sat, 29 May 2010 15:55:11 +0000

Hey, is there any way to delete a comment? I just made a typo.

By: Z

Sat, 29 May 2010 15:54:11 +0000

I sceond that!

By: Z

Sat, 29 May 2010 15:51:51 +0000

Yeah!!!! To HELL with those lazy dumbass ****face bastards!!!!!!

By: EPIC!

EPIC! — Mon, 10 May 2010 20:26:00 +0000

they do look alike!

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 09 May 2010 02:50:11 +0000

ZING!

By: Huey

Huey — Sat, 08 May 2010 06:46:59 +0000

The order does matter, you ignorant computer kiddies. It comes down to grammar, not just logic.

By: Kala

Kala — Fri, 07 May 2010 20:50:55 +0000

is this …
is this even a fail ?? …

By: your smart

your smart — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:42:24 +0000

see sita, mikey was replying to lols comment. he was saying he is dumb for pointing out that the tanks are different. but good job at looking like and idiot. if someone replies to someone its shown in “blueee” get it (sarcastically) you fail

By: uni

uni — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:54:58 +0000

in art circles this is called an homage. In stupid people circles this is called “OMG coincidence!!!”

By: phoebus krumm

phoebus krumm — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:16:14 +0000

That’s what she said.

By: Lolingrobot

Lolingrobot — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:16:41 +0000

SAME FREAKING RUNNING KID. :0

By: indydegrees1

indydegrees1 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:36:36 +0000

You’re right stalker, its just a different colour.

By: 0xym0ron

0xym0ron — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:20:59 +0000

Congratulations, you just had TWINS

By: joshua

joshua — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:02:49 +0000

it like the wwII marines raising the flag pic and the firmen on sept 11 raising the flag over the rubble

By: Ditz

Ditz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:51:37 +0000

That sounds wrong on SO many levels

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:43:38 +0000

I tend to agree with you. Someone is trying to make a connection for propaganda purposes.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:41:55 +0000

It could be a KV1-85. It looks a bit lower and squatter than a T34-85. Either way it’s an artist interpretation and not a direct representation.

By: Stalker

Stalker — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:32:50 +0000

I totally agree.We all see that there is a child in front of the T-34/72.We can see the same in the next picture.Can’t they figure out another scene!?!

By: Wolftail

Wolftail — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:22:09 +0000

Even if you weren’t talking in caps, you’d be dumb as well.

By: Baz

Baz — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:40:16 +0000

Definitely is the exact same picture. Lazy bastards.

By: L

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:07:28 +0000

OMG YOU SPELLED EVERYTHING WRONG! OMG OMG OMG! YOU SUCK DOUCHEBAG! YOUSUUUUUUCK! YOU REALLY NEED TO LEARN HOW TO SPELLL! I KNOW HOW TO SPILL SO GUUD! ICANHAZ1337SP33K!!!!! ROFLBBQHANDSAUCE!

By: L

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:05:58 +0000

coincidence? I think not!

By: Negrophobic

Negrophobic — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:11:11 +0000

yea, some people might take offense to u using the “R” word, like the “itsame” guy towards the top of the thread-comments_go_here-thingy…

By: Negrophobic

Negrophobic — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:08:23 +0000

I wondur haow meny douhcebags I colud git tou repliy tuo mie coment jusst forr spleling evryething worng, ecxetp “I” fo coures…. becuzz ihtt shurr seams liek uh lott uv poeple du iht fourr noh gud danm reezin

By: Jace

Jace — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:27:35 +0000

Anal receptive = Receiving anally. itsame – have fun being anal receptive

By: Sita

Sita — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:50:12 +0000

Erm, how is this dumb? I mean really, it’s ‘totallylookslike.com. And whether or not it was on purpose, it they do totally look alike.

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:28:20 +0000

the US helped win. The Russians were the tank, the US were sort of like the healer/spellcaster.

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:27:16 +0000

I know I am late to the party here, but this guy has it right.

The Russians did use large numbers of shermans (which they called Emchas) and were generally well received.

But the tank in that painting appears to really just be a sort of approximate representation of a Russian tank. The turret looks like an American Sherman, but the chassis looks more like an IS-2. The most likely contender in my opinion is the KV-85, but that doesn’t jive 100% either. My guess is that the painting was done much later, and the artist used an anachronistic Russian tank design (I am only familiar with the designs of WWII). This is done all the time (See any WWII movie of the 70s).

By: Cat

Cat — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:52:02 +0000

Stop being so disrespectful- that’s just a stupid move. Shut up about “retarded.” And, obviously, it’s a replica with certain details changed. You agree with the person who said that the tank had changed, so what’s your issue?

By: guy

guy — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:27:57 +0000

You have failed once again by failing to read the above comment by BBB that won by informing you that your mother failed by failing to win by properly explaining to you where babies come from, approximately 9 months or so after THE BIG WIN is made.

And yes… I am in fact guilty of creating about 60% of all of the content on failblog…

By: guy

guy — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:19:28 +0000

anal preventive

By: NanAshton

NanAshton — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:10:51 +0000

Uhm. It’s supposed to look alike. And as for the retard who pointed out that the tanks are different, the tools of war do tend to differ when there are sixty years separating then. Freaking moron.

By: vanillaicecream

vanillaicecream — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:14:14 +0000

Three cheers for Tom’s clarity! It’s dire that you have to explain both the meme and the phenomenology of comedy, but I, for one appreciate your patience.

By: Art_Frane

Art_Frane — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:57:08 +0000

It’s done it before…ancient Greek statuary was used to model images for Civil War era American art…showing a lineage between the artist (American) and a government that spawned ideals near and dear to the American spirit.

By: Some Dude

Some Dude — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:01:35 +0000

Congratulations for having posted the only comment in this entire thread that is well thought out and pertinent….my own included. someone stamp a “WIN” on this one, and a “FAIL” on FistingChildhoodDreams for being unable to discern the meaning from more than 5 consecutive words.

By: face

face — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:45:22 +0000

anal incentive

By: DER

DER — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:10:25 +0000

IT IS SUPPOSED TO!!!!! DUH. YOU ARE A DOLT!!!

By: Shisno

Shisno — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:50:56 +0000

Putting it the wrong way makes it feel funny.

By: FistingChildhoodDreams

FistingChildhoodDreams — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:18:34 +0000

Saddam is still alive, don’t believe the interweb videos!!!

By: FistingChildhoodDreams

FistingChildhoodDreams — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:16:18 +0000

I’ll have seconds..

By: FistingChildhoodDreams

FistingChildhoodDreams — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:15:23 +0000

Much too long, watchyou say?

By: Mechagodzilla

Mechagodzilla — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:33:06 +0000

Who needs to be creative, when you can face phuk the original! Honestly, you can do this… But blatant plagiarism gets me kicked out of collage!?

This is a double standard good sir, a double standard!!

By: Hayley

Hayley — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:56:34 +0000

It’s art! Of course it’s supposed to look like it.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:08:24 +0000

I realize this has been covered before, but I thought I’d respond to say that the order does matter. There definitely is a difference too, in terms of whether the object is to be straightforward or to be funny. In terms of art, the most recent or perhaps “copied” piece “looks like” the piece of art that came before it. It is often funny to put it the other way around. In terms of people, if the people are contemporaries of each other (like Leonardo DiCaprio and Eric Dane), it makes most sense to say that the less famous Eric Dane “looks like” Leonardo DiCaprio. Not really funny to have it the other way around. If it is two people from different eras like Jack Black and Paul Revere, obviously the more recent Jack Black looks like the historic Paul Revere, and it might be funny to do it the other way. When it’s a coincidence, like the big sculpture that looks like a sewing machine, it’s funniest and best to say that the sculpture (not intended to look like a sewing machine) looks like a sewing machine.

In the end, totallylookslike.com can be whatever it wants to be and I don’t care. But the order does definitely matter in terms of whether they are going for comedic effect or not. Note that Failblog does not just put “FAIL” on everything, but rather some images “WIN” and the source of the “FAIL” is always carefully chosen. So here’s an example where more was considered in putting the post up.

By: phantom

phantom — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:03:49 +0000

http://www.totallywascopiedfrom.com/

Looks like it’s down right now.

By: Torus2112

Torus2112 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:52:04 +0000

Well, the US won…