PDA

View Full Version : Sharia law: A threat to our Constitution, yes or no?



Pages : [1] 2

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-01-2012, 12:29 AM
http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html

Shariah Law: A Threat to the U.S. Constitution

One need look no further than Saudi Arabia's well-documented, appalling record of human right abuses and their oppression of women, to see that Sharia Law directly opposes the principles and ideals stated in the United States Constitution: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Sharia Law strips the people of the right to elect their own leaders, installing a select group of religious leaders who reign supreme over all. This select ruling group appoints, establishes, and controls the network of judges; makes all laws; defines harsh punishments for every infraction; and enforces its will through the use of "religious police".

Specifically, Sharia Law in any capacity violates the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Moreover, it violently stifles any opposition, whether that be in speech, in the press, or public demonstration. Under Sharia Law, there is no such thing as petitioning the government for "redress of grievances"(First Amendment to the Constitution). To do so would be suicide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharia law stands in direct opposition to our Constitution yet muslims recently gathered in Charlotte NC to protest recent anti-Sharia laws being passed here in America! As if we MUST allow destruction of our Constitution by this religious insanity! Who are these vermin that think that their insane garbage should be allowed to destroy our lives, our culture and our nation!!?? Folks, wake up soon or you may just wake up with your head on a muslim chopping block!-Tyr

gabosaurus
09-01-2012, 12:34 AM
Our country doesn't practice Sharia law. Nor do we accept it.
So how does it threaten our constitution?

Your extreme right wing blogger is grasping at straws (again).

jimnyc
09-01-2012, 09:04 AM
Our country doesn't practice Sharia law. Nor do we accept it.
So how does it threaten our constitution?

Your extreme right wing blogger is grasping at straws (again).

I think it's clear actually. Many, many Muslims feel that they should be able to resolve disputes based on their own laws instead of the laws of the country they reside in. If you haven't seen the tons of stories, then you are out of touch and naive. Do I think they'll be successful in altering our COTUS in favor of Shariah? Nope. But there are already instances of Muslims handling matters themselves, based on Islamic law, and avoiding our courts. They need to understand, that if they live on our soil, they need to adhere to our laws.

If they had their way, they would have large areas (like Indian reservations) and have their own societies and legal systems. Not gonna happen, but that doesn't mean that they won't try.

red states rule
09-01-2012, 09:08 AM
Our country doesn't practice Sharia law. Nor do we accept it.
So how does it threaten our constitution?

Your extreme right wing blogger is grasping at straws (again).

Gabby I never thought the Federal government would take over private companies, ignore set Bankruptcy laws, force citizens to buy a product/service under the threat of fines and jail

So do not dismiss this so easily

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-01-2012, 09:22 AM
We already have cases of American liberal judges consulting Sharia law to render verdicts. Also those same azzhat judges consulting foreign laws to render verdicts when the oath that they swore was based upon Constitutional considerations as the foundation to be considered when the Rule of Law is not so easily settled in a case.
Now we have muslims active in politics demanding that Sharia Law be allowed here! With leftists/libs joining in to cater to them! This was exactly how it started in Britain and looked how FUBAR that place has become! Dont be so quick to claim that it can not happen here! It can and will if we do not vigorously and absolutely oppose it!-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-01-2012, 11:13 AM
It's only a threat to our constitution if those obligated to defend it ignore the threat. Then impeachment would be in order.

jimnyc
09-01-2012, 12:02 PM
It's only a threat to our constitution if those obligated to defend it ignore the threat. Then impeachment would be in order.

I agree with that. But how much is over the line? What if they use Shariah line of thinking but American law to render a verdict? For example, a judge saying "I can see based on Shariah law, how this type of action can be so insulting" and then renders a guilty verdict on a charge of harassment. And if no Muslim in the case, and it's just one guy insulting another guy, it most likely wouldn't rise to the level of a criminal offense. Of course they are made up scenarios. But what about a judge even taking other law into account when coming up with verdicts?

Dilloduck
09-01-2012, 01:32 PM
I agree with that. But how much is over the line? What if they use Shariah line of thinking but American law to render a verdict? For example, a judge saying "I can see based on Shariah law, how this type of action can be so insulting" and then renders a guilty verdict on a charge of harassment. And if no Muslim in the case, and it's just one guy insulting another guy, it most likely wouldn't rise to the level of a criminal offense. Of course they are made up scenarios. But what about a judge even taking other law into account when coming up with verdicts?

Judges can already base their rulings on what they "think" is right. That's why we have appellate courts. If they actually act in opposition to the Constitution, they need to be impeached. Our judicial system will have to be our first line of defense.

jafar00
09-01-2012, 09:08 PM
Aside from the fact that the article is full of lies about Sharia, the US doesn't knowingly ascribe to any principles of Sharia law so the entire article is just more islamophobic BS. We eat babies too you know.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 01:11 AM
Aside from the fact that the article is full of lies about Sharia, the US doesn't knowingly ascribe to any principles of Sharia law so the entire article is just more islamophobic BS. We eat babies too you know.

Islamophobia is the BS in your comment . Seeing Islam and Sharia law for the threat they are is wise and prudent thinking . Turninga blind eye is what you guys want, demand and even buy by propaganda campaigns in many nations. America will ot be so easily shafted as are other nations. We have real patriots here and lots of ex-military that are well trained with weapons. Islam here will first try to gain its strength and footholds thru political activities.
If we can keep the leftist traitors and liberal asshat dupes from giving away our rights by way of legislation we will defeat Islam without much bloodshed, otherwise there is likely a lot of shocked carpet players going to find out the hard way that Allah has zero power over a free man with convictions, survival as his cause and a good rifle! -TZS

logroller
09-02-2012, 01:22 AM
Islamophobia is the BS in your comment . Seeing Islam and Sharia law for the threat they are is wise and prudent thinking . Turninga blind eye is what you guys want, demand and even buy by propaganda campaigns in many nations. America will ot be so easily shafted as are other nations. We have real patriots here and lots of ex-military that are well trained with weapons. Islam here will first try to gain its strength and footholds thru political activities.
If we can keep the leftist traitors and liberal asshat dupes from giving away our rights by way of legislation we will defeat Islam without much bloodshed, otherwise there is likely a lot of shocked carpet players going to find out the hard way that Allah has zero power over a free man with convictions, survival as his cause and a good rifle! -TZS
More rabblerousing, color me NOT surprised. You talk a big game; doubtful you back it up. I'm not saying you're a pussy or coward or anything; just that every person Ive ever known to be a man of action had very little to say beforehand. George Washington, for example, didn't sign the declaration of independence.

Kathianne
09-02-2012, 01:53 AM
More rabblerousing, color me NOT surprised. You talk a big game; doubtful you back it up. I'm not saying you're a pussy or coward or anything; just that every person Ive ever known to be a man of action had very little to say beforehand. George Washington, for example, didn't sign the declaration of independence.

Why didn't he sign the Declaration, in your opinion? History gives an explanation, you seem to be insinuating something else.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 01:56 AM
More rabblerousing, color me NOT surprised. You talk a big game; doubtful you back it up. I'm not saying you're a pussy or coward or anything; just that every person Ive ever known to be a man of action had very little to say beforehand. George Washington, for example, didn't sign the declaration of independence.

Your judgement of me is way off base, color me not shocked. I am held back by my own principles and the Rule of Law! I will not go out half cocked and start breaking the law to please anybody not even myself.
Just what actions that have any meaning should I take right now? Islam has not started murdering in the streets here!
Also what action can one take on an internet forum except posting words. Trust me I've been a person that loved to act back when I worked as bouncer yet even then I never acted without just cause. In other words every fight I had as a club bouncer was not of my making. My words here are meant to give others reason to think about the danger we face. Be as doubtful as you care to be but know when push comes to shove it was ALWAYS me that acted quickly by shoving back with great effect and deliberate purpose based upon knowledge of what I had to do and how badly I needed to damage the opponent for the lesson to be learned.
No , you called me a big mouth loud talker with no will or commitment to back up my words. You could not be more wrong. My posts are not rabblerousing to American patriots and I've never once stated that I'd break the law .
Again, what actions are you apparently referencing that my talking here has led me to be ignoring ?
Or is it your contention that I should as silent about our nation's dangers faced as are most blissfully ignorant, non-caring and often completely deluded Americans?--Tyr

Kathianne
09-02-2012, 02:00 AM
Your judgement of me is way off base, color me not shocked. I am held back by my own principles and the Rule of Law! I will not go out half cocked and start breaking the law to please anybody not even myself.
Just what actions that have any meaning should I take right now? Islam has not started murdering in the streets here!
Also what action can one take on an internet forum except posting words. Trust me I've been a person that loved to act back when I worked as bouncer yet even then I never acted without just cause. In other words every fight I had as a club bouncer was not of my making. My words here are meant to give others reason to think about the danger we face. Be as doubtful as you care to be but know when push comes to shove it was ALWAYS me that acted quickly by shoving back with great effect and deliberate purpose based upon knowledge of what I had to do and how badly I needed to damage the opponent for the lesson to be learned.
No , you called me a big mouth loud talker with no will or commitment to back up my words. You could not be more wrong. My posts are not rabblerousing to American patriots and I've never once stated that I'd break the law .
Again, what actions are you apparently referencing that my talking here has led me to be ignoring ?
Or is it your contention that I should as silent about our nation's dangers faced as are most blissfully ignorant, non-caring and often completely deluded Americans?--Tyr

I've never doubted your sincerity, though I sometimes find your choice of words to be over the top. So be it. My position would be to say what I think without hyperbole and let others take that as they do.

Thunderknuckles
09-02-2012, 02:07 AM
Road House.

Kathianne
09-02-2012, 02:14 AM
Road House.

I don't get the post. Probably too old? Me, not the post. ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 02:26 AM
I've never doubted your sincerity, though I sometimes find your choice of words to be over the top. So be it. My position would be to say what I think without hyperbole and let others take that as they do.

An honest man may be over the top . May be colorful in speaking his mind. But will back up his words because they come from his core principles. If he doesnt then he was never an honest man to start with. I do not fault others that post with little or no use of hyperbole because I'd rather judge their words by comparing their content against truth and well known principles of decency.
Apparently Im far more fair in the respect that I give here than are some others. Thats because I dont play games , mean what the hell I say and do not care too much what others think about my posts being PC enough or appeasing enough. No apology do I ever issue for my refusal to bow to the whims and dictates of others. I treat others as I would have them treat me. To anybody that finds that all to be just big talk I say tough shat. It is how I am and nothing short of a face to face confrontation will get the truth out and my point across about who I am so why bother? I damn sure am not going to change my attitude nor my ways unless I find fault with them ,certainly not because others do, logroller included!-Tyr

Thunderknuckles
09-02-2012, 02:42 AM
An honest man may be over the top . May be colorful in speaking his mind. But will back up his words because they come from his core principles. If he doesnt then he was never an honest man to start with. I do not fault others that post with little or no use of hyperbole because I'd rather judge their words by comparing their content against truth and well known principles of decency.

I dare say that may be quote worthy :)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 10:20 AM
I dare say that may be quote worthy :)

Perhaps but only because it appears to be a contradiction in itself but does so because the purpose is to cultivate a stirring of thought from the usual complacency while maintaining a resolved principle of truth.;)-Tyr

jimnyc
09-02-2012, 11:13 AM
More rabblerousing, color me NOT surprised. You talk a big game; doubtful you back it up. I'm not saying you're a pussy or coward or anything; just that every person Ive ever known to be a man of action had very little to say beforehand. George Washington, for example, didn't sign the declaration of independence.

Here's the thing, Log... Many in the Islamic faith, here in the USA, would rather answer to Islam and their way of life than they would our way of life and laws. I can't understand why, but some would. I do admit that this is a very small amount that have been vocal, it's not like we have a mass Muslim revolution going on for the implementation. But, IMO, even one looking to have ANY portion implemented is too many. As to a prior post of mine, and a judge taking any Islamic law into account when pondering a decision in a case, would be beyond wrong. But it is argued as a defenses already, although unsuccessfully. That's why some conservatives even sought out assurances that Shariah would never be implemented. I don't think their line of thinking is "Islamaphobia" as some would like to say. I just think Shariah Law is royally fucked up and some people would like to ensure it never even has a remote chance of being used here.

jimnyc
09-02-2012, 11:15 AM
These are examples of things that have brought blasphemy charges. This first set is examples of "Blasphemy against holy personages" which brought forth charges:

speaking ill of Allah.
finding fault with Muhammad.
slighting a prophet who is mentioned in the Qur'an, or slighting a member of Muhammad's family.
claiming to be a prophet or a messenger.
speculating about how Muhammad would behave if he were alive
drawing a picture to represent Muhammad or any other prophet, or making a film which features a prophet.
writing Muhammad's name on the walls of a toilet.
naming a teddy bear Muhammad.
invoking God while committing a forbidden act.
speaking against Islamic leaders.

This 2nd set is "Blasphemy against beliefs and customs" that have resulted in charges:


finding fault with Islam.
saying Islam is an Arab religion; prayers five times a day are unnecessary; and the Qur'an is full of lies.
believing in transmigration of the soul or reincarnation or disbelieving in the afterlife.
finding fault with a belief or a practice which the Muslim community (Ummah) has adopted.
finding fault with or cursing apostles (Rasul or Messenger), prophets, or angels.
expressing an atheist or a secular point of view or publishing or distributing such a point of view.
using words that Muslims use because the individuals were not Muslims.
praying that Muslims become something else.
whistling during prayers.
flouting the rules prescribed for Ramadan.
reciting Muslim prayers in a language other than Arabic.
consuming alcohol.
gambling.
being alone with persons of the opposite sex who are not blood relatives.
finding amusement in Islamic customs.
publishing an unofficial translation of the Qur'an
practicing yoga.
watching a film or listening to music.
wearing make-up on television.
insulting religious scholarship.
wearing the clothing of Jews or of Zoroastrians.
claiming that forbidden acts are not forbidden.
uttering "words of infidelity" (sayings that are forbidden).
participating in non-Islamic religious festivals.
converting from Islam to Christianity or publishing or distributing such a point of view.
talking about or trying to convert others from Islam to Christianity or publishing or distributing such a point of view.

And lastly, a 3rd set, "Blasphemy against artifacts" which have brought charges of blasphemy:

touching a Qur'an or touching something that has touched a Qur'an because the individuals were not Muslim.
damaging a Qur'an or other books of importance to Islam, for example, hadith.
spitting at the wall of a mosque.

These examples from Wiki, along with proof via citations... These are not things coming from the Quran or from the Hadith, but rather Shariah. What is a crime will vary depending on which Islamic country you are in and then further down to what areas of the country you are in, and whether or not they are even ruling based on Shariah law. But if they are, "The penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading."

Look over that list from above and realize what people can possibly be hung or beheaded for. Amputation? For what, disagreeing or having a different belief? Or being disrespectful? Maybe a monetary fine would be more suitable than a limb?

Now go over the list again, this time changing the Quran examples to the Bible. Change the religion when necessary to Christianity. Change the artifacts to Christian artifacts. All of the holy people, make them Jesus & other prominent names from Christianity. Change the beliefs and customs to those that Christians/Catholics would observe.

Now, imagine the United Kingdom and the United States implementing those laws and punishments to everyone who is accused of blasphemy against Christianity. Imagine either country beheading someone for leaving the Catholic Church and converting to Islam. Or being publicly hung for burning a set of Bibles. Or public flogging or caning because you believed in homosexuality. Convicted and sent to prison because you named a Teddy Bear "Jesus". Major fines because you spoke ill of Jesus.

Just imagine ANY government or state issued penalties because you don't adhere properly to the religion of their choice. And imagine if any of these penalties included force or injury to the body, or worse. Even just thinking of something like this being applied to our countries is unfathomable. We have little choice but to sit back while others receive such punishments elsewhere. But we CAN speak out and do whatever humanly possible to NEVER see this type of archaic crap reach our shores.

Dilloduck
09-02-2012, 11:35 AM
As far as I know we still have due process in the United States. Are you proposing that a law be passed that forbids the implementation of Sharia Law ? A constitutional amendment ?

jimnyc
09-02-2012, 11:44 AM
As far as I know we still have due process in the United States. Are you proposing that a law be passed that forbids the implementation of Sharia Law ? A constitutional amendment ?

If a local community full of Muslims would rather hold their own court, and implement their own punishments, then yes, I would be in favor of something preventing it from taking root. I'm no politician so I don't know the best way to ensure this doesn't happen. All Americans should be treated under the laws of the United States and the individual states within. In no way should Shariah law be implemented or recognized in our judicial system. People should not receive relief based on Shariah law nor should they be punished based on Shariah.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 11:58 AM
If a local community full of Muslims would rather hold their own court, and implement their own punishments, then yes, I would be in favor of something preventing it from taking root. I'm no politician so I don't know the best way to ensure this doesn't happen. All Americans should be treated under the laws of the United States and the individual states within. In no way should Shariah law be implemented or recognized in our judicial system. People should not receive relief based on Shariah law nor should they be punished based on Shariah.

Here is a good example of how it starts and gains a foothold.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2819217/posts

Sharia Law Already Devouring UK
| 12 December 2011 | Paul Diamond

Posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 7:16:37 AM by IbJensen

In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was “inevitable” in the UK . He denied it was an “alien” system and called for “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more “extreme punishments.” It is unlikely that many members of the Muslim community would be satisfied with an Anglican primate determining the limitations of the Quran and Sharia law.

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the “widespread misunderstanding” of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing “justice” in a form totally “alien” to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens — particularly women. The “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: “No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol.” A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who “insults” Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.......

Any doubting that Sharia can and does advance into Western culture should simply look to what is happening in Britain now! The squeaky wheel gets the grease and Islam squeaks longer and louder than any , threatening to blow out(blow up) if not appeased. One little appeasement at a time friends, that's how it is done. They have Sharia courts in Britain NOW..-Tyr

jimnyc
09-02-2012, 12:00 PM
And let me add, so as not to be accused of having a "phobia" against Islam.

I don't think ANY other countries laws should be taken into account or implemented here. I don't think ANY faith should be used to make law or implement punishment.

Drummond
09-02-2012, 02:11 PM
To say the least, I'm no form of 'expert' on your Consitution, and I've no idea whether it bulletproofs you against Sharia incursions. One thing I am sure of, though, is that it doesn't pay to be complacent.

In the UK, we have a guiding legal principle which has it that no practising of Sharia Law can be legally recognised, IF in doing so, existing English law is defied in its favour.

Sounds good, eh ?

BUT .. our laws are, to some extent, 'fluid' .. this says nothing about overturning laws, framing wordings of new ones, ones which may allow more leeway. And, we're slowly but surely seeing more Muslims gain positions of authority in Britain. More Muslims in Society .. the greater the likelihood of Muslim MP's .. and the greater the likelihood, particularly courtesy of Leftie collusion, that on 'PC' grounds, laws will be amended or introduced to facilitate Muslim sensibilities, allowing for freer interpretations in our British courts.

Lefties aside, though, the first Muslim to be a Cabinet Minister, rose through the CONSERVATIVE ranks ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12237958


Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to be a Cabinet minister, has apologised to Prime Minister David Cameron over a ministerial trip to Pakistan with her business partner.

As chairman of the Conservative Party, Baroness Warsi has faced criticism over the official trip with Abid Hussein after it was alleged that she had failed to declare a stake in a company.

Labour has called for an inquiry.

The Conservative peer, who before being made chairman was shadow minister for community cohesion, has a reputation for speaking her mind.

She came to public prominence in 2009 after a well-reviewed performance on BBC One's Question Time when BNP leader Nick Griffin was on the panel.

There had been nervousness in Tory circles beforehand, as she was seen as somewhat gaffe-prone.

But David Cameron had long valued her plain-speaking approach - and the fact that she represented the sort of multicultural, classless party he wanted to build.

A comprehensive-school-educated Asian woman, who speaks with a Yorkshire accent, she has risen rapidly to the top of a party opponents often depict as being dominated by white, privately educated men. She arrived at her first cabinet meeting in May dressed in a traditional South Asian shalwar kameez.

Cameron wants his Party to be politically correct. Labour, the other mainstream political Party here, has been championing their brand of political correctness for decades. So there's precious little to get in the way of Muslim inroads .. and, why ?

Because societal pressures have been such that people dare not counter the trend.

So you see, complacency is not the approach to adopt, because the Left feeds on it, shaping minds and attitudes on the back of it. Without strong opposition to cultural incursions being evident, the Left WILL seize the opportunity to fill that void with their own pap.

The only question is whether you have such Constitutionally-protected due processes in place to ensure that you avoid losing your identity as a nation.

Kathianne
09-02-2012, 02:39 PM
To say the least, I'm no form of 'expert' on your Consitution, and I've no idea whether it bulletproofs you against Sharia incursions. One thing I am sure of, though, is that it doesn't pay to be complacent.

In the UK, we have a guiding legal principle which has it that no practising of Sharia Law can be legally recognised, IF in doing so, existing English law is defied in its favour.

Sounds good, eh ?

BUT .. our laws are, to some extent, 'fluid' .. this says nothing about overturning laws, framing wordings of new ones, ones which may allow more leeway. And, we're slowly but surely seeing more Muslims gain positions of authority in Britain. More Muslims in Society .. the greater the likelihood of Muslim MP's .. and the greater the likelihood, particularly courtesy of Leftie collusion, that on 'PC' grounds, laws will be amended or introduced to facilitate Muslim sensibilities, allowing for freer interpretations in our British courts.

Lefties aside, though, the first Muslim to be a Cabinet Minister, rose through the CONSERVATIVE ranks ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12237958



Cameron wants his Party to be politically correct. Labour, the other mainstream political Party here, has been championing their brand of political correctness for decades. So there's precious little to get in the way of Muslim inroads .. and, why ?

Because societal pressures have been such that people dare not counter the trend.

So you see, complacency is not the approach to adopt, because the Left feeds on it, shaping minds and attitudes on the back of it. Without strong opposition to cultural incursions being evident, the Left WILL seize the opportunity to fill that void with their own pap.

The only question is whether you have such Constitutionally-protected due processes in place to ensure that you avoid losing your identity as a nation.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, appeasement?

logroller
09-02-2012, 02:50 PM
Why didn't he sign the Declaration, in your opinion? History gives an explanation, you seem to be insinuating something else.

My understanding is that Washington was preparing an army to defend/enforce the document. What, in your opinion, did i insinuate? thought I was white clear in what I meant, that men who actually use force rarely run their mouth beforehand. There are exceptions, eg George Patton, though in my opinion his tough talk was his greatest fault (he likely would have enjoyed more battlefield opportunities had he not been such a thorn in the side of his commanders.)

Drummond
09-02-2012, 02:55 PM
Unless I'm reading this wrong, appeasement?

It amounts to that, in my opinion.

But it's not quite that simple. Sensibilities, attitudes, can be worn down over time. There are plenty here who take pride in their 'PC' attitudes, thinking they are being enlightened through their own choice .. not realising the extent of social pressures, over DECADES, that have shaped today's realities.

This is why complacency is such a great enemy. It allows the Left to subvert free will.

Kathianne
09-02-2012, 03:00 PM
It amounts to that, in my opinion.

But it's not quite that simple. Sensibilities, attitudes, can be worn down over time. There are plenty here who take pride in their 'PC' attitudes, thinking they are being enlightened through their own choice .. not realising the extent of social pressures, over DECADES, that have shaped today's realities.

This is why complacency is such a great enemy. It allows the Left to subvert free will.

I'm a simple person, regardless of how they got there, it's appeasement. If allowed, Obama would do the same.

logroller
09-02-2012, 03:02 PM
And let me add, so as not to be accused of having a "phobia" against Islam.

I don't think ANY other countries laws should be taken into account or implemented here. I don't think ANY faith should be used to make law or implement punishment.
So laws banning gay marriage, based in faith, are a no-go in your perspective?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 03:21 PM
My understanding is that Washington was preparing an army to defend/enforce the document. What, in your opinion, did i insinuate? thought I was white clear in what I meant, that men who actually use force rarely run their mouth beforehand. There are exceptions, eg George Patton, though in my opinion his tough talk was his greatest fault (he likely would have enjoyed more battlefield opportunities had he not been such a thorn in the side of his commanders.)

How many historic battlefield generals/commanders were posting on an online chat forum for you to make the comparison between my posting here and their actions there I must ask? Here we deal with ideals , imagination and perceptions of what is presented not in cold hard realities of warfare. Where I a commander of men I would be taking appropriate actions for the tasks at hand while here I speak as a concerned citizen. The two are hardly comparable IMHO. My open and uncompromising manner is a clear representation of my abject hatred for the PCness and complacency so prevalent in this modern world today.. Here there are no physical actions to take or plans to do so comparing apples to carrots hardly makes any sense IMHO.. Here there are only presentations of ones thoughts , desires , facts and often ones imagination for how a better world can be found. As much as your previous post was directed to me I feel obliged to answer that you greatly misjudged and mistakenly made a comparison ill fitted to the case at hand. My method of posting here shall not change despite who thinks it silly, over the top or not worthy. I find it worthy and apparently so do some others here or else my rep and thank you count would not be at the level which they are. Regardless of that I'd still post the truth as I see it not as others may wish to see it! -Tyr

Kathianne
09-02-2012, 03:29 PM
My understanding is that Washington was preparing an army to defend/enforce the document. What, in your opinion, did i insinuate? thought I was white clear in what I meant, that men who actually use force rarely run their mouth beforehand. There are exceptions, eg George Patton, though in my opinion his tough talk was his greatest fault (he likely would have enjoyed more battlefield opportunities had he not been such a thorn in the side of his commanders.)

Indeed. He did have the Declaration read by all officers and then to enlisted. In all likelihood, he'd have signed if he'd been there, but wasn't.

logroller
09-02-2012, 04:18 PM
[/B]

How many historic battlefield generals/commanders were posting on an online chat forum for you to make the comparison between my posting here and their actions there I must ask? Here we deal with ideals , imagination and perceptions of what is presented not in cold hard realities of warfare. Where I a commander of men I would be taking appropriate actions for the tasks at hand while here I speak as a concerned citizen. The two are hardly comparable IMHO. My open and uncompromising manner is a clear representation of my abject hatred for the PCness and complacency so prevalent in this modern world today.. Here there are no physical actions to take or plans to do so comparing apples to carrots hardly makes any sense IMHO.. Here there are only presentations of ones thoughts , desires , facts and often ones imagination for how a better world can be found. As much as your previous post was directed to me I feel obliged to answer that you greatly misjudged and mistakenly made a comparison ill fitted to the case at hand. My method of posting here shall not change despite who thinks it silly, over the top or not worthy. I find it worthy and apparently so do some others here or else my rep and thank you count would not be at the level which they are. Regardless of that I'd still post the truth as I see it not as others may wish to see it! -Tyr
. Don't ask stupid questions. They did have small printing presses, which in their day, we're comparable to the Internet. How many of they who had printing presses were men of action in terms of force? I'm guessing few; they were mostly rabble rousers -- propagandists by any other name!
As for your idealistic views, what can be, shall I direct your attention to your repeately espoused beliefs upon the evils of islam, steepish with storied realities and inflammatory rhetoric which will, in no uncertain terms, lead to hate and death. That's the reality you are developing with that talk, I staunchly disagree with that approach. I don care if you don't like it or others think you're the best thing since sliced bread-- you're a rabble rouser, a trouble maker; you don't solve problems, you create them-- plain and simple.

jimnyc
09-02-2012, 04:37 PM
So laws banning gay marriage, based in faith, are a no-go in your perspective?

That's affirmative. None of my reasons to ban or be against homosexuality or gay marriage was ever a result of my faith either. I'm sure it was used in many arguments, but I believe if you look at the text of the amendments and laws, they are not faith based. And no penalty that I am aware of other than non-recognition. Faith and our churches and such should be 100% separate from our judicial system, which is why I agreed myself a long time back that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 05:05 PM
. Don't ask stupid questions. They did have small printing presses, which in their day, we're comparable to the Internet. How many of they who had printing presses were men of action in terms of force? I'm guessing few; they were mostly rabble rousers -- propagandists by any other name!
As for your idealistic views, what can be, shall I direct your attention to your repeately espoused beliefs upon the evils of islam, steepish with storied realities and inflammatory rhetoric which will, in no uncertain terms, lead to hate and death. That's the reality you are developing with that talk, I staunchly disagree with that approach. I don care if you don't like it or others think you're the best thing since sliced bread-- you're a rabble rouser, a trouble maker; you don't solve problems, you create them-- plain and simple.


Far from being stupid the question that I asked was indeed relevant to the comparison which you chose to make regarding my posting history here. You made the comparison not me. Had you posted clear opposition to the subjects/ideals that I presented in my threads and my reply to others it would be one thing but you chose make a far more personal attack on my method of posting. As if it was somehow unworthy and substandard. Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it but do not pretend that you have proved its validity merely because its your opinion. I like that you call me a rabble rouser because the founders of this great nation were indeed considered to be so by the Crown and its loyal supporters here previous too and during our Revolution for Independence. A great honor that Im sure I am not worthy of but was nice to ponder the accusation in comparison to other truly great historic figures in their defiance against tyranny and oppression be it ever so a fleeting smile brought in consideration of ! My determination to speak the unvarnished truth and warn of impending danger may well piss people off here but that matters not a damn whit to me. Those that would twist my words to suit actions taken to further their own agenda are no concern of mine. I've asked nobody here to join me in a crusade or movement to harm anybody or anything. Instead my posts present ideals to be considered and actions that the readers may or may not choose to take part in --IF-- certain future events occur. Other than my suggestions on voting and my suggestions on future military actions in defense of this nation what do you have to validate your rabble rousing accusation against me? Am I to be subject to your decision on my posting methods? I think and know that is not the case. So your post indeed was an attack on me for exspressing my opinions fully within the rules /regulations of this site and well within the free speech rights insured by our Constitution as I've not incited or asked anybody here to break any law. Why you have a thorn in your ass about this is a mystery to me but its effect on you is apparently a far more serious matter judging from your last reply!
haha, what problems did you expect me to solve here ?
Name the trouble that I am making here if you can!
Otherwise, well I'm sure you can figure it out if you stop foolishly attempting to make me out to be a great trouble maker here ..
Again I ask , what trouble and to whom am I making it? -Tyr

logroller
09-02-2012, 05:45 PM
[/B]


Far from being stupid the question that I asked was indeed relevant to the comparison which you chose to make regarding my posting history here. You made the comparison not me. Had you posted clear opposition to the subjects/ideals that I presented in my threads and my reply to others it would be one thing but you chose make a far more personal attack on my method of posting. As if it was somehow unworthy and substandard. Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it but do not pretend that you have proved its validity merely because its your opinion. I like that you call me a rabble rouser because the founders of this great nation were indeed considered to be so by the Crown and its loyal supporters here previous too and during our Revolution for Independence. A great honor that Im sure I am not worthy of but was nice to ponder the accusation in comparison to other truly great historic figures in their defiance against tyranny and oppression be it ever so a fleeting smile brought in consideration of ! My determination to speak the unvarnished truth and warn of impending danger may well piss people off here but that matters not a damn whit to me. Those that would twist my words to suit actions taken to further their own agenda are no concern of mine. I've asked nobody here to join me in a crusade or movement to harm anybody or anything. Instead my posts present ideals to be considered and actions that the readers may or may not choose to take part in --IF-- certain future events occur. Other than my suggestions on voting and my suggestions on future military actions in defense of this nation what do you have to validate your rabble rousing accusation against me? Am I to be subject to your decision on my posting methods? I think and know that is not the case. So your post indeed was an attack on me for exspressing my opinions fully within the rules /regulations of this site and well within the free speech rights insured by our Constitution as I've not incited or asked anybody here to break any law. Why you have a thorn in your ass about this is a mystery to me but its effect on you is apparently a far more serious matter judging from your last reply!
haha, what problems did you expect me to solve here ?
Name the trouble that I am making here if you can!
Otherwise, well I'm sure you can figure it out if you stop foolishly attempting to make me out to be a great trouble maker here ..
Again I ask , what trouble and to whom am I making it? -Tyr
I used that as an example of one who acted instead of talked about it. You drew the Internet comparison, not I. Unless uou think people didnt debate or share their opinions before the internet; he also wore a wig I think, but that doesn't have any relevance here either.. Nonetheless, I furthered the comparison to the technology of the day. As for trouble, you cause it for an abundance of critical thinkers, truth-seekers and constructive debaters who instead must sift through your hyperbole, name-calling and rhetoric to get at what might actually be a legitimate critique and constructive debate.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 06:21 PM
I used that as an example of one who acted instead of talked about it. You drew the Internet comparison, not I. Unless uou think people didnt debate or share their opinions before the internet; he also wore a wig I think, but that doesn't have any relevance here either.. Nonetheless, I furthered the comparison to the technology of the day. As for trouble, you cause it for an abundance of critical thinkers, truth-seekers and constructive debaters who instead must sift through your hyperbole, name-calling and rhetoric to get at what might actually be a legitimate critique and constructive debate.

No sir , you made the comparison with my inaction here(but loud talking) with George Washington's action. I merely replied to that.
Now what trouble is that ? Nobody here is under any kind of obligation to read my posted words. Nor are they required to respond to them. I've received no warning from admin here about my "rabble rousing"! Its not my job to attempt to please everyone here or anywhere for that matter so I just please myself by posting my sincere opinion on matters. Feel free to not "shift" if that is your wish but your accusation against me was false and based upon a false premise. Otherwise you would be specific about what trouble I caused instead of posting generalities about name- calling and rhetoric which by the way are not and have not been noted offenses by admin here. When they become so more than just me will have to stop doing so or else leave . You dislike my posts that is obvious however how you chose to exspress that was by accusing me of trouble making here. You dislike my manner of posting get in line pedro. You arent the first and damn sure will not be the last. Cold hard truth pisses a lot of people off and I am used to that. My refusal to play PC games pisses even more off. None of which bothers me. I find your justification a bit contrived and even a bit silly. You've had your say on the matter , got anymore say it here and now . So I can address it because I run away from no man in person or posting in a internet forum.. I change my way only when I decide to not when others that disagree with me attempt to instruct me to.
If I've broke rules here cite them and complain to admin otherwise your gripes mean nothing to me except a mild irritation to be addressed or not at my leisure.! -Tyr

Drummond
09-02-2012, 06:27 PM
. Don't ask stupid questions. They did have small printing presses, which in their day, we're comparable to the Internet. How many of they who had printing presses were men of action in terms of force? I'm guessing few; they were mostly rabble rousers -- propagandists by any other name!
As for your idealistic views, what can be, shall I direct your attention to your repeately espoused beliefs upon the evils of islam, steepish with storied realities and inflammatory rhetoric which will, in no uncertain terms, lead to hate and death. That's the reality you are developing with that talk, I staunchly disagree with that approach. I don care if you don't like it or others think you're the best thing since sliced bread-- you're a rabble rouser, a trouble maker; you don't solve problems, you create them-- plain and simple.

A large part of why you can say what you do and hope to project credibility is because of WHEN you're posting this. But .. what if you'd broadcast this thinking, say, just a couple of days after September 11th, 2001 ?

The evils of Islam would've seemed far clearer to Americans and to most of the world at that time, because the realities being experienced then were totally fresh in peoples' minds. The September 11th attacks were very sharp in everyone's minds, and it was clear to everyone that there HAD to be a strong response to it .. to just let the attacks stand and to not respond, or, to make excuses designed to minimise that response, would've been seen for what it was .. surrender to aggressors and a total, unforgivable insult to those who died that day.

But you see, the reality of what drove the attack hasn't gone away .. the terrorist group responsible still exists, there are those who'd do the same all over again, and worse, if given half a chance. The hatreds at the heart of it still exist, and there is NO, repeat, NO, reason to suppose they'll never again find expression in comparable death and destruction.

So, WHY has the willingness to meet this head-on so diminished ?

Tyr deals with a reality that you are choosing to forget, in my opinion. I think that there are many who are lulled into a false sense of security, partly courtesy of politically correct propaganda, but not inconsiderably because of the passage of time.

Well, what will happen if, say, a couple of weeks from now, terrorists deploy a WMD in a major Western city ? Will public opinion wake up, but only AFTER the fact ?

I think it better for people to NOT forget the realities in the world today, Logroller, instead of growing weak through senses being lulled into a false sense of security. It may be easier. It may be more comforting. But that doesn't make it more real.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 06:57 PM
Myself, I dislike those that forget so quickly and dislike even more those that demand others join them in that folly!
Big D you are correct the mindless hate that inspired those murderers has not gone away. It desperately seeks to do even more but we have stopped it by due diligence and keeping "open eyes". Those that demand I stop pointing out that threat can just kiss a good man's ass as far as Im concerned. I suggest that they look up the meaning of free speech and honor. Defending those that would happily destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law is both folly and treasonous IMHO. Attacking me for being both patriotic and refusing to yield to complacency is the course I'd expect from a rascal rather than a thoughtful and concerned poster.. -Tyr

Drummond
09-02-2012, 07:37 PM
Myself, I dislike those that forget so quickly and dislike even more those that demand others join them in that folly!
Big D you are correct the mindless hate that inspired those murderers has not gone away. It desperately seeks to do even more but we have stopped it by due diligence and keeping "open eyes". Those that demand I stop pointing out that threat can just kiss a good man's ass as far as Im concerned. I suggest that they look up the meaning of free speech and honor. Defending those that would happily destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law is both folly and treasonous IMHO. Attacking me for being both patriotic and refusing to yield to complacency is the course I'd expect from a rascal rather than a thoughtful and concerned poster.. -Tyr

Exactly. The more we find it convenient to lose focus and forget the past, the more likely it becomes that we'll repeat it. Complacency is a weakness that enemies can and will exploit.

Sharia Law is tyranny, and one which Islamists are keen to foist on us all. If we become weak enough to equivocate, then they'll exploit that, too. The Leftie 'live and let live, and if you don't, you're a bigot to be pilloried for it' plays right into Islamist hands. Society in the UK had to reach a certain weak state of mind for it to be possible for our Archbishop of Canterbury to call for 'limited Sharia Law' ... and this from a leading Christian (!!) ... he could never have got away with that in September 2001 without severe consequences to his standing. But, years later, all he got was a few sharp rebukes. He continued on, his job in the Church of England remaining secure.

Weakness is exploitable. The only real question is, do you want to allow liberal thought and feeling to so weaken you that you open the door to the worst that your enemies have to offer you ?

Check this out ... a link to YouTube, and an interview with Anjem Choudary. He correctly predicts a Muslim Brotherhood victory in Egypt, and comes out in favour of Sharia Law ... covering the entire world .... so, who wants to be 'liberal' enough to give this illiberal creep the time of day ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ruP76lyZto

aboutime
09-02-2012, 07:55 PM
Myself, I dislike those that forget so quickly and dislike even more those that demand others join them in that folly!
Big D you are correct the mindless hate that inspired those murderers has not gone away. It desperately seeks to do even more but we have stopped it by due diligence and keeping "open eyes". Those that demand I stop pointing out that threat can just kiss a good man's ass as far as Im concerned. I suggest that they look up the meaning of free speech and honor. Defending those that would happily destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law is both folly and treasonous IMHO. Attacking me for being both patriotic and refusing to yield to complacency is the course I'd expect from a rascal rather than a thoughtful and concerned poster.. -Tyr


Tyr:Funny how we often meet, or come in contact with fellow Americans who would rather change the context of our History to meet their needs to interpret what our Founding Fathers intended with the Declaration, and Constitution.
What they often do is forget how those who signed those Documents, placed their very life on the line, and they were seen as revolutionaries who could have been hung by the leaders of the Colonials who didn't want to disagree with England.
In fact. I was reminded of One of those people who only had a small printing press named Benjamin Franklin. And there is another early American patriot...often labeled as a revolutionary who spent much of his time writing a series of instructions (so-to-speak) about how to become a caring, good citizen.
Let's see if those who want to re-write our History know the name of that man. Anyone want to give it a try?

For those who have no idea. Use a little "Common Sense".

gabosaurus
09-02-2012, 10:20 PM
Let's see if those who want to re-write our History know the name of that man. Anyone want to give it a try?


You do a good enough rewriting history for all of us.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 10:32 PM
Exactly. The more we find it convenient to lose focus and forget the past, the more likely it becomes that we'll repeat it. Complacency is a weakness that enemies can and will exploit.

Sharia Law is tyranny, and one which Islamists are keen to foist on us all. If we become weak enough to equivocate, then they'll exploit that, too. The Leftie 'live and let live, and if you don't, you're a bigot to be pilloried for it' plays right into Islamist hands. Society in the UK had to reach a certain weak state of mind for it to be possible for our Archbishop of Canterbury to call for 'limited Sharia Law' ... and this from a leading Christian (!!) ... he could never have got away with that in September 2001 without severe consequences to his standing. But, years later, all he got was a few sharp rebukes. He continued on, his job in the Church of England remaining secure.

Weakness is exploitable. The only real question is, do you want to allow liberal thought and feeling to so weaken you that you open the door to the worst that your enemies have to offer you ?

Check this out ... a link to YouTube, and an interview with Anjem Choudary. He correctly predicts a Muslim Brotherhood victory in Egypt, and comes out in favour of Sharia Law ... covering the entire world .... so, who wants to be 'liberal' enough to give this illiberal creep the time of day ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ruP76lyZto

I pity those in Britain that are being let down by their government. Odds are in less than twenty years Britain will have went thru extreme violence and many thousands(or much more) of deaths , the non-muslims enslaved and what use will it be to say I told you so to anybody? If America does not save Britian I think it will fall and likely in less time than that 20 years. Why should we do so? Because if they fall its a good chance we will to. Our salvation may be in our volunteering to save others! Our reward may lay in such unselfish giving . It may be in our keeping our word to an ally! We need obama out , a strong man in and policies that will look to the future and see the dangers we all must face head on. For hiding our heads rather than facing the brutal truth and acting on it will only lead to our demise. History teaches this lesson many many times!--Tyr

gabosaurus
09-02-2012, 10:34 PM
Is it not enough that we saved the Brits during WWII? You want us to do it again?

I think the Brits can save themselves. As long as they don't descend into the depths of Thatcherism again.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-02-2012, 10:50 PM
Is it not enough that we saved the Brits during WWII? You want us to do it again?

I think the Brits can save themselves. As long as they don't descend into the depths of Thatcherism again.

I happen to know a lot about WW2. The Brits performed heroicly from the very start. Their part held out long enough for us to manage to become involved(no small feat!) . Then as our ally we performed quite well together. Well enough to chase the Germans back to home soil then defeat them completely there! D-day , the start of the end was a joint American/Brit campaign. I say that we owe them for their years of sacrifice before we ever became involved in fighting that great war! Yes, even again , if it has to be so termed. Do we have honor or are we selfish heathens willing to let a monster(Islam) devour our allies while we appease it just long enough for it to eat us last?
For surely as the sun shines it will do that too if we are the last strong opposition it faces. Our great failure is the sad lack of proper teaching of history in schools here. This mistake has cost us DEARLY! Very well could cost us our lives too if its not corrected IMHO.-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-02-2012, 11:21 PM
I happen to know a lot about WW2. The Brits performed heroicly from the very start. Their part held out long enough for us to manage to become involved(no small feat!) . Then as our ally we performed quite well together. Well enough to chase the Germans back to home soil then defeat them completely there! D-day , the start of the end was a joint American/Brit campaign. I say that we owe them for their years of sacrifice before we ever became involved in fighting that great war! Yes, even again , if it has to be so termed. Do we have honor or are we selfish heathens willing to let a monster(Islam) devour our allies while we appease it just long enough for it to eat us last?
For surely as the sun shines it will do that too if we are the last strong opposition it faces. Our great failure is the sad lack of proper teaching of history in schools here. This mistake has cost us DEARLY! Very well could cost us our lives too if its not corrected IMHO.-Tyr

:laugh2: Are you running for office ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-03-2012, 12:40 AM
:laugh2: Are you running for office ?

No, just presenting some truth to be considered. I am not corrupt enough to be a politician nor am I shallow enough.
Why, do you want to vote for an honest man?:laugh:

red states rule
09-03-2012, 06:59 AM
I happen to know a lot about WW2. The Brits performed heroicly from the very start. Their part held out long enough for us to manage to become involved(no small feat!) . Then as our ally we performed quite well together. Well enough to chase the Germans back to home soil then defeat them completely there! D-day , the start of the end was a joint American/Brit campaign. I say that we owe them for their years of sacrifice before we ever became involved in fighting that great war! Yes, even again , if it has to be so termed. Do we have honor or are we selfish heathens willing to let a monster(Islam) devour our allies while we appease it just long enough for it to eat us last?
For surely as the sun shines it will do that too if we are the last strong opposition it faces. Our great failure is the sad lack of proper teaching of history in schools here. This mistake has cost us DEARLY! Very well could cost us our lives too if its not corrected IMHO.-Tyr

Gabby's knowledge of history was learned from the liberal POV.

She thinks we did not beat the British in the War of Independence - they got bored and went home

The US did not defeat Hitler - the Brits allowed us take the credit

Be thankful Gabby is not in the classroom teaching our next generation History or Social Studies

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-03-2012, 10:38 AM
Gabby's knowledge of history was learned from the liberal POV.

She thinks we did not beat the British in the War of Independence - they got bored and went home

The US did not defeat Hitler - the Brits allowed us take the credit

Be thankful Gabby is not in the classroom teaching our next generation History or Social Studies

I am fairly sure that what Gabby knows about the realities of life would halfway fill a thimble.
With half of that being eating ,sleeping and breathing.. Liberals exist here but live in a fantasy world.
That is why most of them are loooooooons!-

red states rule
09-03-2012, 10:41 AM
I am fairly sure that what Gabby knows about the realities of life would halfway fill a thimble.
With half of that being eating ,sleeping and breathing.. Liberals exist here but live in a fantasy world.
That is why most of them are loooooooons!-

It would be sweet justice if say about 20 years from now Gabby's duaghter is running for public office as a conservative Republican who has the backing of the Tea Party

Gabby's head would explode

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-03-2012, 11:04 AM
It would be sweet justice if say about 20 years from now Gabby's duaghter is running for public office as a conservative Republican who has the backing of the Tea Party

Gabby's head would explode

Judging from her posts here I think her head has exploded a few times before but that would be sweet justice, wouldn't it?:laugh:

red states rule
09-03-2012, 11:06 AM
Judging from her posts here I think her head has exploded a few times before but that would be sweet justice, wouldn't it?:laugh:

I doubt if her head has exploded yet. gabby is what is knwn as a "drive by poster" She posts a few cheap shots, then leaves. Comes back MAYBE responds to someones post - then drives off

Gabby loves to ask questions but seldom answers them

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-03-2012, 11:27 AM
This could well be us someday. Those that doubt that possibility are foolish indeed. This is what they do once they get started going good. Had those that fled the homes stil been ther they would have all been slaughtered. They knew this and is why they fled! This example clearly shows that these people thrive on violence and intolerance!--Tyr


http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/bulletin-of-christian-persecution-july-30-aug-31-2012/

August 3, 2012
Egypt
The sectarian crisis in the village of Dahshur escalated on August 1 after the burial of the Muslim man who died yesterday in hospital. Hundreds of Muslims torched and looted Coptic businesses and homes despite hundreds of security forces being deployed in the village. Eyewitnesses reported that security forces did not protect most Coptic property -- only the small church of St. George was protected, in addition to some Coptic houses in its neighborhood.

"As 120 families had already fled the village the day before after being terrorized, the businesses and homes were an easy game for the mob to make a complete clean-up of everything that could be looted," said Coptic activist Wagih Jacob. "The security forces were at the scene of the crime while it was taking place and did nothing at all."

gabosaurus
09-03-2012, 11:38 AM
It would be sweet justice if say about 20 years from now Gabby's duaghter is running for public office as a conservative Republican who has the backing of the Tea Party

Gabby's head would explode

Doubtful. My daughter is free to express whatever opinions she wishes to have. And she is exposed to a wide variety of them. You have to consider that my parents are very liberal and my husband's parents are extremely conservative.
We live in a fairly affluent neighborhood. My daughter's friends live in expensive houses and have a lot of material things. But when she goes to visit my sister, it is a complete 180. East Los Angeles is a fairly poor neighborhood. The kids have very little and make do with that.
My daughter knows more Spanish than I do. She knows what gangs are. She knows kids her age can die of drug overdoses. She knows that black and Mexican people can be stopped by police for driving in the wrong part of town. She knows Islam is a religion of peace (from our neighbors, who are from Pakistan). She even has her own prayer rug.
Kids are sponges. She learn what you teach them.

red states rule
09-03-2012, 11:41 AM
Kids are sponges. She learn what you teach them.

Which is why it would be justice if she went with Reagan conservatism and the Tea Party Gabby

Drummond
09-03-2012, 02:39 PM
Is it not enough that we saved the Brits during WWII? You want us to do it again?

I think the Brits can save themselves. As long as they don't descend into the depths of Thatcherism again.

Thanks to Tyr for his previous and highly supportive post !

But, Gabby ... I'd really like to know (always assuming you DO have a coherent reason ?) ... why do you hate my country ?

This isn't the first time you've considered the spectre of Hitler having won a victory over Britain, is it ? This time, you've been a little more indirect about it, but still, you do seem to resent our prevailing.

Then, decades later - courtesy of our Leftie Trade Unions, we were in significant danger of going into fiscal meltdown, courtesy of all the wreckage coming from the waves upon waves of industrial unrest. Margaret Thatcher, following the Winter of Discontent, was duly elected for THREE terms of Office, all of them landslide victories. Why ? Because she held to values and policies which saved us from Leftie destructiveness !

She tamed our Unions, and we began to thrive once more. Yet, you resent her. WHY ?

Where does your hatred of my country come from, that you'd rather we never experience again anyone able to give us such quality electoral leadership ??

red states rule
09-03-2012, 03:19 PM
Thanks to Tyr for his previous and highly supportive post !

But, Gabby ... I'd really like to know (always assuming you DO have a coherent reason ?) ... why do you hate my country ?

This isn't the first time you've considered the spectre of Hitler having won a victory over Britain, is it ? This time, you've been a little more indirect about it, but still, you do seem to resent our prevailing.

Then, decades later - courtesy of our Leftie Trade Unions, we were in significant danger of going into fiscal meltdown, courtesy of all the wreckage coming from the waves upon waves of industrial unrest. Margaret Thatcher, following the Winter of Discontent, was duly elected for THREE terms of Office, all of them landslide victories. Why ? Because she held to values and policies which saved us from Leftie destructiveness !

She tamed our Unions, and we began to thrive once more. Yet, you resent her. WHY ?

Where does your hatred of my country come from, that you'd rather we never experience again anyone able to give us such quality electoral leadership ??

Its a liberal thing. If the left cannot tax you and you can't voter for them - then the left says to hell with you

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-03-2012, 08:23 PM
Thanks to Tyr for his previous and highly supportive post !

But, Gabby ... I'd really like to know (always assuming you DO have a coherent reason ?) ... why do you hate my country ?

This isn't the first time you've considered the spectre of Hitler having won a victory over Britain, is it ? This time, you've been a little more indirect about it, but still, you do seem to resent our prevailing.

Then, decades later - courtesy of our Leftie Trade Unions, we were in significant danger of going into fiscal meltdown, courtesy of all the wreckage coming from the waves upon waves of industrial unrest. Margaret Thatcher, following the Winter of Discontent, was duly elected for THREE terms of Office, all of them landslide victories. Why ? Because she held to values and policies which saved us from Leftie destructiveness !

She tamed our Unions, and we began to thrive once more. Yet, you resent her. WHY ?

Where does your hatred of my country come from, that you'd rather we never experience again anyone able to give us such quality electoral leadership ??

Big D, I strongly suspect that Gabby hates the Brits because they were masters of a huge Empire. And she being a liberal believes that they were devils that destroyed every place they landed. So now that they are having serious problems at home she thinks and wishes it were worst for them and better for their enemies. Typical lib idiotcy IMHO..-Tyr

red states rule
09-04-2012, 05:28 AM
Big D, I strongly suspect that Gabby hates the Brits because they were masters of a huge Empire. And she being a liberal believes that they were devils that destroyed every place they landed. So now that they are having serious problems at home she thinks and wishes it were worst for them and better for their enemies. Typical lib idiotcy IMHO..-Tyr


You must consider the source. Remember what Gabby actually thinks and believes

She thinks CEO's simply screw over the workers of the company they run - BUT Warren Buffett is a hard working patriotic American

and


Gabby actually thinks that all gun cirmes will simply disappear when all law abiding citizens have their guns taken away


Perhaps this better explains Gabby and her liberal thought process

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-04-2012, 11:09 AM
You must consider the source. Remember what Gabby actually thinks and believes

She thinks CEO's simply screw over the workers of the company they run - BUT Warren Buffett is a hard working patriotic American

and


Gabby actually thinks that all gun cirmes will simply disappear when all law abiding citizens have their guns taken away


Perhaps this better explains Gabby and her liberal thought process

Surely living in a state of delusion has its rewards or else so many liberals wouldn't dwell there. Perhaps it is a fantastic 58th state, one of the "two more to go" that bamboy spoke about.-:laugh: -TZS

red states rule
09-04-2012, 04:24 PM
Surely living in a state of delusion has its rewards or else so many liberals wouldn't dwell there. Perhaps it is a fantastic 58th state, one of the "two more to go" that bamboy spoke about.-:laugh: -TZS

As I told SD on another thread, liberalism is logics retarded cousin

Drummond
09-04-2012, 05:05 PM
You must consider the source. Remember what Gabby actually thinks and believes

She thinks CEO's simply screw over the workers of the company they run - BUT Warren Buffett is a hard working patriotic American

and


Gabby actually thinks that all gun cirmes will simply disappear when all law abiding citizens have their guns taken away


Perhaps this better explains Gabby and her liberal thought process

Ah, well, the UK is one example of a social order where most people don't have guns .. but gun crime still exists.

To be fair, mind you ... maybe gun crime is significantly less prevalent. Yes .. we have KNIFE crimes here ...

Maybe someone can explain to me why gangs wielding knives, and are fully prepared to use them, are something for societies to prefer ?

red states rule
09-04-2012, 05:06 PM
Ah, well, the UK is one example of a social order where most people don't have guns .. but gun crime still exists.

To be fair, mind you ... maybe gun crime is significantly less prevalent. Yes .. we have KNIFE crimes here ...

Maybe someone can explain to me why gangs wielding knives, and are fully prepared to use them, are something for societies to prefer ?

Well the UK needs to issue permits for knives and require training classes on how to use them

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-05-2012, 07:30 PM
Well the UK needs to issue permits for knives and require training classes on how to use them

UK should require permits for locking up your wife(property) and making her wear a mask to cover her face. Say about 2000 dollars per item of property. That could generate some revenue to help pay for all the feebies they are stupidly giving to the very people that seek their destruction.-Tyr

tailfins
09-05-2012, 09:19 PM
Our country doesn't practice Sharia law. Nor do we accept it.
So how does it threaten our constitution?

Your extreme right wing blogger is grasping at straws (again).

Simple: Set it up as binding arbitration using an arbitrator that adheres to Sharia law. I hope I'm not giving anybody ideas.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-06-2012, 10:35 PM
Doubtful. My daughter is free to express whatever opinions she wishes to have. And she is exposed to a wide variety of them. You have to consider that my parents are very liberal and my husband's parents are extremely conservative.
We live in a fairly affluent neighborhood. My daughter's friends live in expensive houses and have a lot of material things. But when she goes to visit my sister, it is a complete 180. East Los Angeles is a fairly poor neighborhood. The kids have very little and make do with that.
My daughter knows more Spanish than I do. She knows what gangs are. She knows kids her age can die of drug overdoses. She knows that black and Mexican people can be stopped by police for driving in the wrong part of town. She knows Islam is a religion of peace (from our neighbors, who are from Pakistan). She even has her own prayer rug.
Kids are sponges. She learn what you teach them.

As if other people can not be stopped by the police for a whole slew of reasons. She has her own "cult rug", bully for you and your enlightened sense of ignorance. My old dog had his own rug right by the fireplace in wintertime. I bet he got better use out of it than the rugcritters over in the big sandbox do theirs.--;)
You need serious help, I can not give it because I refuse to help anybody too stupid to help theirself.
That Religion of Peace is deeply involved in over 75% of all the fighting going on around the globe and your blindness that you share with your child does her no good IMHO.. -Tyr

Dilloduck
09-06-2012, 10:57 PM
Simple: Set it up as binding arbitration using an arbitrator that adheres to Sharia law. I hope I'm not giving anybody ideas.

Two consenting adults already have ideas and an arbitrator cannot come up with a settlement that is against CONUS anyway.

gabosaurus
09-06-2012, 11:43 PM
That Religion of Peace is deeply involved in over 75% of all the fighting going on around the globe and your blindness that you share with your child does her no good IMHO.. -Tyr

You got a link to prove this? Because I am calling bullshit on you.
Unlike you, my daughter is not being taught to embrace fear and hatred. She know that everyone in equal in God's eyes.
Once again, I sincerely hope you have no children. Even Prussian Blue learned their lesson.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 12:31 AM
You got a link to prove this? Because I am calling bullshit on you.
Unlike you, my daughter is not being taught to embrace fear and hatred. She know that everyone in equal in God's eyes.
Once again, I sincerely hope you have no children. Even Prussian Blue learned their lesson.

Start here.
You will have to read.. time is short will post more Friday..-Tyr
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm



About the List of Terrorist Attacks




This list of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 (a rate of about four or five a day) is incomplete because not all such attacks are picked up by international news sources, even those resulting in multiple loss of life.

These are not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or vendetta. We only include incidents of deadly violence that can reasonably be determined to have been committed out of religious duty - as interpreted by the perpetrator. Islam needs to be a motive, but it need not be the only factor.

We usually list only attacks that result in loss of life (with a handful of exceptions). In several cases, the deaths are undercounted because deaths from trauma caused by the Islamists may occur in later days, despite the best efforts of medical personnel to keep the victims alive.

gabosaurus
09-07-2012, 01:15 AM
That link doesn't prove anything. Please post factual evidence of your claim.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 09:51 AM
That link doesn't prove anything. Please post factual evidence of your claim.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732592/posts

Around the world islamic fascists are killing 23 people there, 197 someplace else, 57 there, 83 someplace else. Islamic terrorists were killing before the Iraq war. To make myself clear I'm not talking about Iraq: Operation Iraqi Freedom, I'm stating islamic terrorists were killing BEFORE Iraq: Operation Desert Storm.

Bottom line is this: our enemy didn't pick us out the day we went into Iraq1 or Iraq2. It was long before anyone had imagined. Is terrorism a joke as some may elude? A figment implanted into our imagination? The US and the rest of the world have been attacked by radical islam in the past. Today, 31 of the 30+ war conflicts around the world rage on with radical islam involved. Do we allow decades of islamic terrorists' attacks on the US and ABROAD to continually be ignored? For centuries radical islam has been at war with it's neighbors. If WE ignore them another 30 years, they'll go away, right?

31 war conflicts are ISLAMIC related. Do your own research....

www globalsecurity org/military/world/war

OR contact your congressman/woman, request intelligence report on current islamic war conflicts

ISLAMIC FASCISM isn't a problem? THINK AGAIN!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jimnyc
09-07-2012, 10:15 AM
Start here.
You will have to read.. time is short will post more Friday..-Tyr
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm


Most will ignore the link. Muslims will say "Never happened!". Others are just too lazy. Every now and again when I go to that page, I will randomly grab some off the list and do some searching for verification. I've yet to find one that was false or made up. And that's exactly why Muslims don't and won't discuss anything off of that page. They would rather call it a page of hate than acknowledge the problems in Islam around the world.

If it were a long list of atrocities committed by Christians, I would acknowledge them and immediately condemn them. I wouldn't call it a page of hate for day after day keeping up with the statistics.

Muslims aren't mad because the page supposedly is filled with hate. They don't ignore it because they think it's hate. They ignore it because it does a better job of showing to total numbers of deaths committed by Muslims than any other site online, or offline for that fact. It's like people who call me racist if I accumulate and point out all the statistics about black crime.

Voted4Reagan
09-07-2012, 10:21 AM
You do a good enough rewriting history for all of us.

Actually.... you're wrong....as usual...

See....I know ABOUTTIME...very well....

While your mommy and daddy were still shitting in their diapers he was off fighting the wars that kept this country safe. He defended this country in multiple conflicts over many years...

I say his information is FIRST HAND accounts of what happened and yours is simply a revisionist rewrite that your college profs gave you.

so before you accuse him of rewriting the facts.... you are NOT going on first hand info... he is...

But i am sure you'll find a way to justify your acceptance of HEARSAY to corroberate your position versus ABOUTTIME'S first hand accounts..

Another Gabosaurus FAIL

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 10:40 AM
Most will ignore the link. Muslims will say "Never happened!". Others are just too lazy. Every now and again when I go to that page, I will randomly grab some off the list and do some searching for verification. I've yet to find one that was false or made up. And that's exactly why Muslims don't and won't discuss anything off of that page. They would rather call it a page of hate than acknowledge the problems in Islam around the world.

If it were a long list of atrocities committed by Christians, I would acknowledge them and immediately condemn them. I wouldn't call it a page of hate for day after day keeping up with the statistics.

Muslims aren't mad because the page supposedly is filled with hate. They don't ignore it because they think it's hate. They ignore it because it does a better job of showing to total numbers of deaths committed by Muslims than any other site online, or offline for that fact. It's like people who call me racist if I accumulate and point out all the statistics about black crime.

So true . For none are so blind as are they that refuse to see!!-Tyr

Voted4Reagan
09-07-2012, 10:41 AM
She knows Islam is a religion of peace (from our neighbors, who are from Pakistan). She even has her own prayer rug.
Kids are sponges. She learn what you teach them.

Here is the Religion of PEACE that I witnessed first hand 11 years ago as I helped evacuate people from the site and wondered how many People I knew were up there...

THIS is what they DENY...THIS is what they blame on US.

Go to hell Gabby and Sing Kumbayah on your way down... Make sure you watch ALL THE VIDEO and see what I saw...


http://youtu.be/b9QN3AkydYY

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 10:54 AM
Jump or be burned alive , either way is death. Jumping became the only option at some point. This video should be required viewing in every school ,every year , every class from elementary school onwards!! The fact that it is not is a shame and points to the idiotcy of the libs/dems that have ruined this country. Too bad that its not they now having to jump. I couldnt finish watching it. And I am by no means a candyass or squeamish guy! I had to stop because the rage made my blood pressure rise too high. Just took an extra half -pill / Lisinopril to compensate..-Tyr

tailfins
09-07-2012, 11:19 AM
Here is the Religion of PEACE that I witnessed first hand 11 years ago as I helped evacuate people from the site and wondered how many People I knew were up there...

THIS is what they DENY...THIS is what they blame on US.

Go to hell Gabby and Sing Kumbayah on your way down... Make sure you watch ALL THE VIDEO and see what I saw...



I watched all the video and STILL think the greatest tragedy is our own people getting into a froth and abridging our freedom. The number of people killed on 9/11 was a drop in the bucket compared to the number who gave their lives defending us from the Axis powers and the Kaiser. How many people still hate Germans? The correct answer is to stop the threat to our freedom and put our freedom in first place, not get obsessed with death. Let's celebrate the heroes of 9/11 and stop fixating over death. We should have a choice to travel without draconian security measures. It reminds me of: Benjamin Franklin - "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

I don't say this often because it just causes trouble, but as a Baptist, I think Catholicism is just as ungodly as Islam.

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 11:22 AM
Cool. It could be our own little American Holocaust and we could hate Muslims forever. How comforting.

logroller
09-07-2012, 11:43 AM
Most will ignore the link. Muslims will say "Never happened!". Others are just too lazy. Every now and again when I go to that page, I will randomly grab some off the list and do some searching for verification. I've yet to find one that was false or made up. And that's exactly why Muslims don't and won't discuss anything off of that page. They would rather call it a page of hate than acknowledge the problems in Islam around the world.

If it were a long list of atrocities committed by Christians, I would acknowledge them and immediately condemn them. I wouldn't call it a page of hate for day after day keeping up with the statistics.

Muslims aren't mad because the page supposedly is filled with hate. They don't ignore it because they think it's hate. They ignore it because it does a better job of showing to total numbers of deaths committed by Muslims than any other site online, or offline for that fact. It's like people who call me racist if I accumulate and point out all the statistics about black crime.


I don't discount facts presented at that other site, but Regardless of the veracity of the info, i take issue with the blatant prejudice by which it exists. Oh sure, there's ample evidence, but that's no excuse to brandish contempt so openly under the pretense of merely presenting information. It's a hate site, thats what its borne of and thats what it promotes--which theyre free to do, but its no different to me than some terrorist visiting jihadi.aq proclaiming, look at what the Zionist oppressors have done.

Voted4Reagan
09-07-2012, 12:35 PM
It's a hate site, thats what its borne of and thats what it promotes--which theyre free to do, but its no different to me than some terrorist visiting jihadi.aq proclaiming, look at what the Zionist oppressors have done.

you mean to say...

How Israel acted in the face of unprovoked attacks that target civilians, hospitals, pizza parlors and Discos.......right?

tailfins
09-07-2012, 12:46 PM
I don't discount facts presented at that other site, but Regardless of the veracity of the info, i take issue with the blatant prejudice by which it exists. Oh sure, there's ample evidence, but that's no excuse to brandish contempt so openly under the pretense of merely presenting information. It's a hate site, thats what its borne of and thats what it promotes--which theyre free to do, but its no different to me than some terrorist visiting jihadi.aq proclaiming, look at what the Zionist oppressors have done.

Just calling something a hate site is an easy mindless way out. I chalk up most of the anti-Islam fever as zeal to win the war against Al Qaida. It's a necessary ingredient to win a war.

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 01:04 PM
Anti-Semitism Anti-Islam----I think everyone is fed up with all the death and destruction that the mideast has treated us to over the years. And we pay for it as a bonus?

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 01:06 PM
you mean to say...

How Israel acted in the face of unprovoked attacks that target civilians, hospitals, pizza parlors and Discos.......right?

Israel was founded on zionist terror, illegal immigration etc etc. Ask the Brits if you don't believe me.

jimnyc
09-07-2012, 02:41 PM
I don't discount facts presented at that other site, but Regardless of the veracity of the info, i take issue with the blatant prejudice by which it exists. Oh sure, there's ample evidence, but that's no excuse to brandish contempt so openly under the pretense of merely presenting information. It's a hate site, thats what its borne of and thats what it promotes--which theyre free to do, but its no different to me than some terrorist visiting jihadi.aq proclaiming, look at what the Zionist oppressors have done.

And all that matters is the facts presented. I couldn't care less about who hosts the site and does the development. The only thing that interests me there is the FACTS and links to so many stories. I don't go there to get opinions or to read the nightly news.

As to the facts, they are blind and cannot be prejudiced. They are simply that, statistics. You may take issue with the person who collects them, or the pictures they use on their site, or other things that make you think they are prejudiced. But all in all, in the end, what matters are the facts. Call it a hate site, call it a love site, a zionist site or anything else you can think of - and none of that changes the picture that the statistics paint.

If it were a legitimate debate, all that matters is what you wrote in bold. And anyone else who outright dismisses the site, without delving into the facts presented, are also choosing to remain ignorant of the facts presented about the sheer number of attacks. I'd be happy to use another site that holds solely numbers accumulated daily, but it would appear that this site is the only one "brave" enough to perform daily/weekly/monthly updates. Call it hate if you like that prompts them to continue collecting this information, and that might even be true, but calling it a hate site does very little, or actually nothing, to contradict the tons of collected data.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 03:38 PM
And all that matters is the facts presented. I couldn't care less about who hosts the site and does the development. The only thing that interests me there is the FACTS and links to so many stories. I don't go there to get opinions or to read the nightly news.

As to the facts, they are blind and cannot be prejudiced. They are simply that, statistics. You may take issue with the person who collects them, or the pictures they use on their site, or other things that make you think they are prejudiced. But all in all, in the end, what matters are the facts. Call it a hate site, call it a love site, a zionist site or anything else you can think of - and none of that changes the picture that the statistics paint.

If it were a legitimate debate, all that matters is what you wrote in bold. And anyone else who outright dismisses the site, without delving into the facts presented, are also choosing to remain ignorant of the facts presented about the sheer number of attacks. I'd be happy to use another site that holds solely numbers accumulated daily, but it would appear that this site is the only one "brave" enough to perform daily/weekly/monthly updates. Call it hate if you like that prompts them to continue collecting this information, and that might even be true, but calling it a hate site does very little, or actually nothing, to contradict the tons of collected data.

Any excuse to dismiss the facts is lame. The facts bear out that Islam always has been a religion spread by the sword. Its estimated that Islam in its 1400+ years spread killed(murdered) over 270 million people! It was founded as a violent militant quasi religious/political movement that used death and terror from the start! It was a savage and murdering machine then.....
And still is today after 1400+ years!--Tyr

Voted4Reagan
09-07-2012, 04:07 PM
Israel was founded on zionist terror, illegal immigration etc etc. Ask the Brits if you don't believe me.


1947 UN proposes the establishment of Arab and Jewish states in the Land. Arabs rejected it.

1948 STATE OF ISRAEL FOUNDED

State of Israel proclaimed (14 May). 600,000 Jews in the land.

End of British Mandate (14 May)

Israel invaded by five Arab states (15 May)

War of Independence (May 1948-July 1949)

1948 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) established

Armistice agreements signed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

Jerusalem divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule.

First Knesset (parliament) elected.

1949 Israel admitted to United Nations as 59th member.

1948-52 Mass immigration from Europe and Arab countries.

1956 Sinai Campaign against Nasser, with England and France, Pres. Eisenhower defeated it.

1962 Adolf Eichmann tried and executed in Israel for his key part in the Holocaust.

1964 National Water Carrier completed, bringing water from Lake Kinneret in the north to the semi-arid south.

1967 Six-Day War, Jerusalem reunited.

1968-70 Egypt's War of Attrition against Israel

1973 Yom Kippur War

1975 Israel becomes an associate member of the European Common Market.

1977 Likud forms government after Knesset elections, end of 30 years of Labor rule. Visit of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem.

1978 Camp David Accords & framework for comprehensive peace in Middle East and proposal for Palestinian self-government.
Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed.

1979 Prime Minister Menachem Begin and President Anwar Sadat awarded Nobel Peace Prize.

1981 Israel Air Force destroys Iraqi nuclear reactor just before it is to become operative. Israel's three-stage withdrawal from Sinai completed.

1982 Operation Peace for Galilee removes PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) terrorists from Lebanon.

1984 National unity government (Likud & Labor) formed after elections. Operation Moses, Immigration of Jews from Ethiopia. Itzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres alternate PM.

1985 Free Trade Agreement signed with United States.

1987 Widespread violence (intifada) starts in Israeli-administered areas.

1988 Likud government in power following elections, Itzhak Shamir PM. Four-point peace initiative proposed by Israel.

1989 Start of mass immigration of Jews from former Soviet Union.

1991 Israel attacked by Iraqi Scud missiles during Gulf war. Middle East peace conference convened in Madrid;

1991 Operation Solomon, airlift of Jews from Ethiopia. President Bush major assistance. Diplomatic relations established with China and India.

1992 New government headed by Yitzhak Rabin of Labor party.

1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements for the Palestinians signed by Israel and PLO, as representative of the Palestinian people. Implementation of Palestinian self-government in Gaza Strip and Jericho area. Full diplomatic relations with the Holy See. Morocco and Tunisia interest offices set up. Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty signed.

1994 Rabin, Peres, Arafat awarded Nobel Peace Prize. Broadened Palestinian self-government implemented in West Bank and Gaza Strip; Palestinian Council elected. Prime Minister Rabin assassinated at peace rally.

1995 Shimon Peres becomes prime minister. Fundamentalist Arab terrorism against Israel escalates. Operation Grapes of Wrath, retaliation for Hezbollah terrorists' attacks on northern Israel. Trade representation offices set up in Oman and Qatar. Likud forms government after Knesset elections. Benjamin Netanyahu becomes prime minister.

1996 Omani trade representation office opened in Tel Aviv.

1997 Hebron Protocol signed by Israel and the PA.

1998 Israel celebrates its 50th anniversary.

2000 Arafat rejects President Clinton’s effort to achieve peace after generous offer by PM Barak. Arafat PA starts intensive terrorism
against Israeli civilians

Summer 2005 Israel evacuates all Jewish communities in Gaza, Palestinian infighting starts; Kassam rockets from Gaza attacks Israel on regular basis.

Jan 2006 PM Sharon incapacitated by massive stroke, Olmert takes over as PM. Hamas won election

July 2006 Hezbollah war in Lebanon, massive rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in Northern Israel

tailfins
09-07-2012, 06:02 PM
Any excuse to dismiss the facts is lame. The facts bear out that Islam always has been a religion spread by the sword. Its estimated that Islam in its 1400+ years spread killed(murdered) over 270 million people! It was founded as a violent militant quasi religious/political movement that used death and terror from the start! It was a savage and murdering machine then.....
And still is today after 1400+ years!--Tyr

The bottom line is that Islamist have the opportunity to shun Al Qaida. I'm willing to accept the Islamists as allies defeating those in the Middle East who sponsor terror. I have yet to see substantial effort from a large segment of Islam to ostracize sponsors of terror. I would think Islamists would be furious at those who gave their faith a bad name and would want them punished. Islamists have a duty to clean house. Until they do would should consider them at war with us and our way of life.

tailfins
09-07-2012, 06:08 PM
Israel was founded on zionist terror, illegal immigration etc etc. Ask the Brits if you don't believe me.

Does that mean that you think the US deserved what happened on 9/11/01 for sponsoring Israel? Inquiring minds want to know.

Abbey
09-07-2012, 06:25 PM
My understanding is that Washington was preparing an army to defend/enforce the document. What, in your opinion, did i insinuate? thought I was white clear in what I meant, that men who actually use force rarely run their mouth beforehand. There are exceptions, eg George Patton, though in my opinion his tough talk was his greatest fault (he likely would have enjoyed more battlefield opportunities had he not been such a thorn in the side of his commanders.)

First time I've heard our Declaration of Independence from England characterized as "running our mouths". :eek:

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 06:30 PM
Does that mean that you think the US deserved what happened on 9/11/01 for sponsoring Israel? Inquiring minds want to know.

I know that's the common accusation but sorry------try another.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 06:36 PM
The bottom line is that Islamist have the opportunity to shun Al Qaida. I'm willing to accept the Islamists as allies defeating those in the Middle East who sponsor terror. I have yet to see substantial effort from a large segment of Islam to ostracize sponsors of terror. I would think Islamists would be furious at those who gave their faith a bad name and would want them punished. Islamists have a duty to clean house. Until they do would should consider them at war with us and our way of life.

Far from shunning it many embrace it , cheer it , either openly or in secret. Nothing else explains their failure to address its murdering rampage across the globe! They vent their fury at any slight to Islam no matter how small but this supposed subversion of Islam gets no retaliation! Thats because they know its not a subversion but instead it is Jihad. The ideal that its a minority subverting their religion is proven to be false by their failure to take any real action against it. The subversion excuse is one to be fed to stupid infidels! Its a lame excuse used here by Islam's defenders and it defies logic and common sense.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 06:39 PM
I know that's the common accusation but sorry------try another.

^^^ noted, failure to answer. Question required a simple yes or no, spin was obviously an attempt to dodge answering.-, give it another try..;)-TZS

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 06:44 PM
^^^ noted, failure to answer. Question required a simple yes or no, spin was obviously an attempt to dodge answering.-, give it another try..;)-TZS

You been sneaking into mosques again ? Learning what they do in secret. :laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 06:55 PM
You been sneaking into mosques again ? Learning what they do in secret. :laugh:

No but apparently you do, since you defend them so well. Got rug burns on your knees, do ya?-:laugh:

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 07:03 PM
No but apparently you do, since you defend them so well. Got rug burns on your knees, do ya?-:laugh:

yathatsit---rugburns

tailfins
09-07-2012, 07:19 PM
Far from shunning it many embrace it , cheer it , either openly or in secret. Nothing else explains their failure to address its murdering rampage across the globe! They vent their fury at any slight to Islam no matter how small but this supposed subversion of Islam gets no retaliation! Thats because they know its not a subversion but instead it is Jihad. The ideal that its a minority subverting their religion is proven to be false by their failure to take any real action against it. The subversion excuse is one to be fed to stupid infidels! Its a lame excuse used here by Islam's defenders and it defies logic and common sense.-Tyr


That states the problem but doesn't solve it. What is your solution? The only civilized solution is to pressure them into abandoning violence the same way Mormons were forced to abandon polygamy. The uncivilized solution is mass murder dwarfing Hitler's Holocaust.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 07:34 PM
First time I've heard our Declaration of Independence from England characterized as "running our mouths". :eek:

Thanks... good observation.. Best case of mouth running in history I'd day...;)--:beer:
Perhaps Log could be persuaded to agree now that its not just my substandard words voicing it.;)--Tyr

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 07:37 PM
That states the problem but doesn't solve it. What is your solution? The only civilized solution is to pressure them into abandoning violence the same way Mormons were forced to abandon polygamy. The uncivilized solution is mass murder dwarfing Hitler's Holocaust.

I'm afraid he's hoping for the Muslim Holocaust.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 07:43 PM
That states the problem but doesn't solve it. What is your solution? The only civilized solution is to pressure them into abandoning violence the same way Mormons were forced to abandon polygamy. The uncivilized solution is mass murder dwarfing Hitler's Holocaust.

You stated "forced" the mormons, thats "force", an observation and question, muslims love force and what will they do if we attempt to force them to abandone thier violence in their religion? My guess is they'd fight like hell renewed in the struggle to survive as they always have. If they want to fight we can not --"force"-- them not to do so. They have the advantage in being the party that gets to dictate whether force is returned against any pressure we bring to bear! History has shown that they -ALWAYS- choose violent force in return no matter what kind of pressure is applied... Wish it were not so but it is..
My answer right now is that we maintain strong opposition to our being destroyed by being proactive..!--Tyr

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 07:46 PM
You stated "forced" the mormons, thats "force", an observation and question, muslims love force and what will they do if we attempt to force them to abandone thier violence in their religion? My guess is they'd fight like hell renewed in the struggle to survive as they always have. If they want to fight we can not --"force"-- them not to do so. They have the advantage in being the party that gets to dictate whether force is returned against any pressure we bring to bear! History has shown that they -ALWAYS- choose violent force in return no matter what kind of pressure is applied... Wish it were not so but it is..
My answer right now is that we maintain strong opposition to our being destroyed by being proactive..!--Tyr

Woooooo hoooooo-----don't surrender--be proactive. You're starting to sound like an athletes foot commercial.:dance:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 07:47 PM
I'm afraid he's hoping for the Muslim Holocaust.

Defending against one's destruction would seem so to you. Not clear why you think yielding by way of appeasement is a good plan. So far you preach appeasement but supply no good reason to expect it has a successful outcome. I don't expect one either since history has shown appeasement to Islam only brings greater destruction from the Islamists.-TZS

tailfins
09-07-2012, 07:51 PM
Defending against one's destruction would seem so to you. Not clear why you think yielding by way of appeasement is a good plan. So far you preach appeasement but supply no good reason to expect it has a successful outcome. I don't expect one either since history has shown appeasement to Islam only brings greater destruction from the Islamists.-TZS

If the Islamists are not exterminated they will exist. This is bare logic. If they exist, either they will change their ways or our nation will be under the shadow of a terrorist threat. What exactly is your solution? Is your definition of appeasement deciding not the exterminate them en masse?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 08:04 PM
If the Islamists are not exterminated they will exist. This is bare logic. If they exist, either they will change their ways or our nation will be under the shadow of a terrorist threat. What exactly is your solution? Is your definition of appeasement deciding not the exterminate them en masse?

I sided with defending against their attacks with greater force brought to bear. You stated force them to change. My solution is use force to defend even if it means being proactive in that use of force. What is your solution and how do you propose "forcing" them to change without having to fight them(its their decision to make)? If there is a way to do that Im ALL for it! I just do not see it myself. Not seeing how it can be done leads me to the old standby of meeting force with greater force. If that is the second best reaction so be it for its all we have now IMHO.
Unless you have a winning plan to offer, I'm all eyes if you do.. I simply love to read..;)-Tyr

tailfins
09-07-2012, 08:27 PM
I sided with defending against their attacks with greater force brought to bear. You stated force them to change. My solution is use force to defend even if it means being proactive in that use of force. What is your solution and how do you propose "forcing" them to change without having to fight them(its their decision to make)? If there is a way to do that Im ALL for it! I just do not see it myself. Not seeing how it can be done leads me to the old standby of meeting force with greater force. If that is the second best reaction so be it for its all we have now IMHO.
Unless you have a winning plan to offer, I'm all eyes if you do.. I simply love to read..;)-Tyr

You make a good point about raw intimidation. The atomic bomb saved countless US AND Japanese lives in 1945. At any rate, the threat of another 9/11-style attack must be resolved. As it is now, we are the ones being punished for it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-07-2012, 08:49 PM
You make a good point about raw intimidation. The atomic bomb saved countless US AND Japanese lives in 1945. At any rate, the threat of another 9/11-style attack must be resolved. As it is now, we are the ones being punished for it.

Thank you, that was made to note that Islam only pays attention to that kind of power projection. Because deep down they fear losing either of those two holy cities as it would prove that "their" Allah is false god. Simply because if Allah can not protect such holy cities against weapons of the infidels he is not truly with them and not truly God. When Charles Martel , the Hammer, destroyed their army he caused such a loss of faith that they stopped their advancement and Europe was spared. Simply put they are like the bully that gets his ass kicked , after that he usually lays low a few days , weeks or even months. Islam laid low a few centuries after they were humiliated. My comment was teach them a damn lesson like nuking Mecca or Medina and we would enjoy about a thousand years of them laying low again! Could even save millions of lives like nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki did IMHO..
I agree wholeheartedly that we are not the ones that should be getting punished!
If raw intimidation is the better path we should take it but it requires us having a leader they know will do it if they continue on their murdering rampage against the world! Obama is more likely to donate nukes to them than ever explode one on them!-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-07-2012, 10:44 PM
OK Time to end the talk of anyone nuking anyone.It is an insane prospect that will result in our annihilation.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 11:26 AM
OK Time to end the talk of anyone nuking anyone.It is an insane prospect that will result in our annihilation.

Better first talk to Iranians about that pedro..They've already decided to nuke Israel.
And why have you decided it's -WE- THAT WOULD GET ANNIHILATED!
Apparently you think muslims are Supermen that no human can defeat! I suggest you do a little study of history on that , starting with Charlse Martel, the Hammer that utterly destroyed a much larger muslim army so convincingly that they stopped their advance into Europe... We have the capability to destroy every muslim nation in less than a week if we chose to do so. You confidence in their victory should a fight occur is baffling to me!-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-08-2012, 11:46 AM
Your desire to use nukes is insane to me.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Your desire to use nukes is insane to me.

Your noted confidence in their superiority is insane to me.
Your confidence in our defeat is insane to me.
Are you a democrat? A simple question..-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-08-2012, 12:28 PM
Your noted confidence in their superiority is insane to me.
Your confidence in our defeat is insane to me.
Are you a democrat? A simple question..-Tyr

again--I never claimed them to be superior. Do you have a hard time responding to what I actually say so instead you make up things that are easier to respond to ? Political party affiliation is irrelevant to this conversation.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 12:36 PM
again--I never claimed them to be superior. Do you have a hard time responding to what I actually say so instead you make up things that are easier to respond to ? Political party affiliation is irrelevant to this conversation.

Sure you claimed them superior by insisting we can not win and that we would be annihilated!
Also noted- declined to admit party affiliation. I WONDER WHY..:laugh:
Here , let me show you how easy it is, I am a conservative Republican. Easy peasy, give it a try..;)--Tyr

Dilloduck
09-08-2012, 12:41 PM
Sure you claimed them superior by insisting we can not win and that we would be annihilated!
Also noted- declined to admit party affiliation. I WONDER WHY..:laugh:
Here , let me show you how easy it is, I am a conservative Republican. Easy peasy, give it a try..;)--Tyr

wrong again---I never said we couldn't win and I was referring to nuclear weapons eradicating the human race.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 12:48 PM
wrong again---I never said we couldn't win and I was referring to nuclear weapons eradicating the human race.
No, now you attempt to add to your previous comments on that subject. Go back ,read your words on this and another thread. You said , we couldnt win ..
noted again, refused to answer party affiliation, I wonder why?;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 12:59 PM
wrong again---I never said we couldn't win and I was referring to nuclear weapons eradicating the human race.

Sure you did..


Originally Posted by Dilloduck
OK Time to end the talk of anyone nuking anyone.It is an insane prospect that will result in [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]our annihilation.
You stated "our annihilation" not the world's annihilation.
Previously you had stated , we can not win .
Are you a democrat?-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 04:10 PM
No, now you attempt to add to your previous comments on that subject. Go back ,read your words on this and another thread. You said , we couldnt win ..
noted again, refused to answer party affiliation, I wonder why?;)

bump .......;)

Dilloduck
09-08-2012, 05:40 PM
bump .......;)

It's irrelevent to the subject matter. I know you like to think you have some form of "gotcha" here but you really need to try harder than name calling or labeling.

logroller
09-08-2012, 06:45 PM
Thanks... good observation.. Best case of mouth running in history I'd day...;)--:beer:
Perhaps Log could be persuaded to agree now that its not just my substandard words voicing it.;)--Tyr
I let abbey slide. Cause she's new to the argument -- you sir are malevolent traitorous bigot who's headed for hell-- that's all confirmed too!!!

jimnyc
09-08-2012, 07:18 PM
Sure you claimed them superior by insisting we can not win and that we would be annihilated!
Also noted- declined to admit party affiliation. I WONDER WHY..:laugh:
Here , let me show you how easy it is, I am a conservative Republican. Easy peasy, give it a try..;)--Tyr

Cause he's not just a Democrat, he's a flaming liberal! :lol:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 07:32 PM
I let abbey slide. Cause she's new to the argument -- you sir are malevolent traitorous bigot who's headed for hell-- that's all confirmed too!!!

Confirmed by whom? Is this another one of those accusations like the one that you stated about me being a trouble maker here at this forum but could not list what trouble I caused and to whom I caused it? We never did get that resolved .
According to that accusation made by you out of the blue, I am now
1.malevolent
2.traitorous
3.bigot
4.headed for hell
5.confirmed
Let's just start with the easy one (one at a time if you please),ok? We can do them all but this one made me laugh out loud!
Number 2.. I am traitorous? How so, be specific please?
or admit you just ran your mouth like you did the other time about my trouble making here. By the way, you never answered my question to you too, are you a democrat?--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 07:40 PM
It's irrelevent to the subject matter. I know you like to think you have some form of "gotcha" here but you really need to try harder than name calling or labeling.

No gotcha, just curious about which party you claim/favor. I did not expect you to refuse to answer the question. Now that you have so refused it perks my interest even more.-Tyr

jafar00
09-08-2012, 07:51 PM
Better first talk to Iranians about that pedro..They've already decided to nuke Israel.


They have? Who's nukes are they going to use? Which one of their leaders threatened to nuke Israel?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-08-2012, 08:01 PM
They have? Who's nukes are they going to use? Which one of their leaders threatened to nuke Israel?

Pretend that you do not know that already.
Iran will use the nukes that they are currently engaged in producing, almadinnerjacket the liitle weasel threatened to use them on Israel. happy now?-Tyr

red states rule
09-09-2012, 07:08 AM
Pretend that you do not know that already.
Iran will use the nukes that they are currently engaged in producing, almadinnerjacket the liitle weasel threatened to use them on Israel. happy now?-Tyr


http://youtu.be/_9zcElqetqk

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2012, 12:14 PM
http://youtu.be/_9zcElqetqk

That ffing weasel I'd like to beat with a horsewhip within an inch of his sorry, miserable stinking life.
Its snakes like him that lead milions astray and sometimes cause the deaths of millions more. He is a Hitler in the making for sure IMHO. -Tyr

Dilloduck
09-09-2012, 12:33 PM
That ffing weasel I'd like to beat with a horsewhip within an inch of his sorry, miserable stinking life.
Its snakes like him that lead milions astray and sometimes cause the deaths of millions more. He is a Hitler in the making for sure IMHO. -Tyr

He's a puppet. I wouldn't waste your time.

tailfins
09-09-2012, 01:27 PM
He's a puppet. I wouldn't waste your time.

Agreed. He's just a Persian speaking, male version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2012, 02:45 PM
He's a puppet. I wouldn't waste your time.

You are indeed correct ......-Tyr

Drummond
09-09-2012, 02:58 PM
He's a puppet. I wouldn't waste your time.

He's a puppet of what ? 'Good fellowship' towards Israel ??

The real issue is that the leadership in Iran wants Israel destroyed, and have clearly, publicly, both called for and promised that this will happen.

Doubters of this cannot doubt any further, based on that video alone.

IS GENOCIDE PERMISSIBLE, TODAY, IN THIS SO-CALLED 'ENLIGHTENED' CENTURY ?

Or, are there still those who are keen to stand back and watch it happen ?

What say you, Dilloduck ?

Oh, and by the way ... 2 mins into the video, I noted Richard Littlejohn speaking on the BBC's Question Time. One of my all-time favourite journalists and broadcasters from Britain ..

A link to one of his D Mail articles >>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2164691/A-Wolverhampton-wanderer-wed-better-without.html

Dilloduck
09-09-2012, 04:17 PM
He's a puppet of what ? 'Good fellowship' towards Israel ??

The real issue is that the leadership in Iran wants Israel destroyed, and have clearly, publicly, both called for and promised that this will happen.

Doubters of this cannot doubt any further, based on that video alone.

IS GENOCIDE PERMISSIBLE, TODAY, IN THIS SO-CALLED 'ENLIGHTENED' CENTURY ?

Or, are there still those who are keen to stand back and watch it happen ?

What say you, Dilloduck ?

Oh, and by the way ... 2 mins into the video, I noted Richard Littlejohn speaking on the BBC's Question Time. One of my all-time favourite journalists and broadcasters from Britain ..

A link to one of his D Mail articles >>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2164691/A-Wolverhampton-wanderer-wed-better-without.html

all talk

jafar00
09-09-2012, 06:18 PM
Pretend that you do not know that already.
Iran will use the nukes that they are currently engaged in producing, almadinnerjacket the liitle weasel threatened to use them on Israel. happy now?-Tyr

Which nukes they are currently engaged in producing? If you have evidence, you better let the IAEA know. I also failed to find anything by anyone called almadinnerjacket. I did search for any quotes from their leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad suggesting that he wants to "nuke" Israel but found nothing.

Tyr, you are ranting again.

jimnyc
09-09-2012, 07:02 PM
Which nukes they are currently engaged in producing? If you have evidence, you better let the IAEA know. I also failed to find anything by anyone called almadinnerjacket. I did search for any quotes from their leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad suggesting that he wants to "nuke" Israel but found nothing.

Tyr, you are ranting again.

I agree, I don't know of him or any of his generals saying they wanted to "nuke" Israel or anyone else either. But they have stated "Death to Israel" endless times. And a top general has recently said he wanted an excuse to wipe them from the face of the planet. Not many weapons I know of that could perform that task.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2012, 07:53 PM
Which nukes they are currently engaged in producing? If you have evidence, you better let the IAEA know. I also failed to find anything by anyone called almadinnerjacket. I did search for any quotes from their leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad suggesting that he wants to "nuke" Israel but found nothing.

Tyr, you are ranting again.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120902/DEFREG04/309020001/Iran-8217-s-Nuke-Strides-Strain-Israel-U-S-Ties

http://news.yahoo.com/tumour-israel-soon-destroyed-ahmadinejad-091548418.html

Iran’s Nuke Strides Strain Israel-U.S. Ties
Sep. 2, 2012 - 12:21PM | By BARBARA OPALL-ROME
TEL AVIV — Iran’s unabated uranium enrichment drive, confirmed publicly last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is fueling frenzy in Israel among leaders urging a pre-emptive strike and others warning against precipitous action that could damage ties with Washington.The IAEA’s Aug. 30 report on Iran’s implementation of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards and U.N. Security Council resolutions appears to validate Israeli claims that sanctions, inspections and diplomacy have not slowed the Islamic republic’s drive for nuclear weapons. According to the report, Iran has grown its stockpiles of enriched uranium, introduced more efficient centrifuges, and has plans for up to 10 new enrichment and reactor programs, which may include new laser-enrichment technology.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They arent enriching that uranium to play patty-cake with pedro!
And Almadinnerjacketboy sure was not talking about destroying Israel by himself or even with an invading army. They tried that before and got their punk azzes kicked like the surly little dogs that they are every damn time. Israel isnt threatening to bomb imaginary targets goofus.-Tyr--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From the second link..

"The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land.... A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists," he said.

The diatribe took place amid heightened tensions between Israel and Iran over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.

The Jewish state has in recent weeks intensified its threats to possibly bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent it having the capability to produce atomic weapons.

tailfins
09-09-2012, 08:15 PM
Which nukes they are currently engaged in producing? If you have evidence, you better let the IAEA know. I also failed to find anything by anyone called almadinnerjacket. I did search for any quotes from their leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad suggesting that he wants to "nuke" Israel but found nothing.

Tyr, you are ranting again.

If you're going to correct people, do it right.

That would be AHMADINEJAD. AH-(pronounced Accchhh, like your trying to cough up a loogy)-MAD(as in stark raving mad)-I(A short guy with a short I)-NEJAD(rhymes with JIHAD).

With that out of the way: Do you really give a crap if the US has another 9/11-style attack?

Gaffer
09-09-2012, 09:00 PM
If you're going to correct people, do it right.

That would be AHMADINEJAD. AH-(pronounced Accchhh, like your trying to cough up a loogy)-MAD(as in stark raving mad)-I(A short guy with a short I)-NEJAD(rhymes with JIHAD).

With that out of the way: Do you really give a crap if the US has another 9/11-style attack?

In Farsi ahmadi means little. Nejad means turd. It's easier to pronounce that way.

Drummond
09-09-2012, 09:02 PM
If you're going to correct people, do it right.

That would be AHMADINEJAD. AH-(pronounced Accchhh, like your trying to cough up a loogy)-MAD(as in stark raving mad)-I(A short guy with a short I)-NEJAD(rhymes with JIHAD).

With that out of the way: Do you really give a crap if the US has another 9/11-style attack?

I'd like to see Jafar answer this as well.

How about it, Jafar. Imagine you've just seen a report of a second 9/11-style attack on the US, and you had to give your response to it on a forum like this one. What would your honest response be ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2012, 09:05 PM
In Farsi ahmadi means little. Nejad means turd. It's easier to pronounce that way.

So L T for short. Works for me.:beer:
LTboy, has a nice little ring to it. I believe it'll do fo' sho'. ;)--Tyr

jafar00
09-09-2012, 09:05 PM
Tyr, you still have not offered any proof. Just speculation because they are enriching Uranium. There is no evidence that they are enriching beyond the required amount for nuclear fuel. Until that proof arrives, your opinion means nothing.


If you're going to correct people, do it right.

That would be AHMADINEJAD. AH-(pronounced Accchhh, like your trying to cough up a loogy)-MAD(as in stark raving mad)-I(A short guy with a short I)-NEJAD(rhymes with JIHAD).

With that out of the way: Do you really give a crap if the US has another 9/11-style attack?

Ok I will correct you properly.

Let's deal with the name "Ahmed"
احمد
Alif, Ha, Meem, Dal
This is pronounced as it reads. Ahhhmed. The ha is soft, not the phlegm inducing way you described. That is reserved for the letter Kha (خ) which is not seen in the name Ahmed or in Ahmedinejad which is actually a combination of Arabic and Farsi.

Anyway, why don't you make fun of the Jews too? Hebrew has more phlegm in it than Arabic :p

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-09-2012, 09:09 PM
Tyr, you still have not offered any proof. Just speculation because they are enriching Uranium. There is no evidence that they are enriching beyond the required amount for nuclear fuel. Until that proof arrives, your opinion means nothing.



Ok I will correct you properly.

Let's deal with the name "Ahmed"
احمد
Alif, Ha, Meem, Dal
This is pronounced as it reads. Ahhhmed. The ha is soft, not the phlegm inducing way you described. That is reserved for the letter Kha (خ) which is not seen in the name Ahmed or in Ahmedinejad which is actually a combination of Arabic and Farsi.

Anyway, why don't you make fun of the Jews too? Hebrew has more phlegm in it than Arabic :p

He asked you about your response if we had another 9/11 type attack here and you dodge answering the question .
Drommond just asked a second time and I am asking a third. Care to answer?-Tyr

Drummond
09-09-2012, 09:29 PM
Tyr, you still have not offered any proof. Just speculation because they are enriching Uranium. There is no evidence that they are enriching beyond the required amount for nuclear fuel. Until that proof arrives, your opinion means nothing.



Ok I will correct you properly.

Let's deal with the name "Ahmed"
احمد
Alif, Ha, Meem, Dal
This is pronounced as it reads. Ahhhmed. The ha is soft, not the phlegm inducing way you described. That is reserved for the letter Kha (خ) which is not seen in the name Ahmed or in Ahmedinejad which is actually a combination of Arabic and Farsi.

Anyway, why don't you make fun of the Jews too? Hebrew has more phlegm in it than Arabic :p

I'm wondering if there's altogether more phlegm in what you hear from Israelis because they've more of a day-to-day need there to refer to their Arab neighbours ? Probably a natural reaction. Especially when discussing Achmadinejad ...

As to what Iran's getting up to, are you aware that they're stepping up their enrichment efforts ? See this ..

http://www.dore-gold.com/2012/06/iran-accelerates-enrichment.php


Surprisingly, Tehran significantly increased its production of low enriched uranium at its Natanz facility in the last few months. If in the last IAEA report in February, Iran had produced a total of 5,451 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, now in the latest May report, the total Iranian production reached 6,197 kilograms. Moreover, to reach this quantity of uranium, the Iranians went from enriching an average 150 kilograms per month to nearly 250 kilograms -- roughly a 60 percent increase! The report covers a period that coincides with the announcement of the nuclear negotiations in March 2012 and the convening of the first round of talks in Istanbul that were held in April. The Iranians did not just exploit the talks with the West in order to increase their uranium stockpiles, but they even used this time to boost the rate at which they are enriching uranium.

What did these numbers mean? If Iran needed to put roughly 900 kilograms of low enriched uranium through a process of a further stage of enrichment in order to reach enough weapons-grade uranium for one atomic bomb, then it now appeared that Iran had enough material for five to six bombs and it was determined to manufacture enough for even more nuclear weapons in the future. Iran also continued to produce uranium enriched to the 20% level, at both its Natanz and Fordow facilities. But with 145.6 kilograms, it barely had enough of this material for one bomb. Unlike the situation with its low-enriched uranium, Tehran also expanded its stock of the 20% material.

Because, Iran could enrich its 20% uranium to the level needed for an atomic bomb in half the time required to enrich low-enriched uranium to the same level, it is considered in the West as Iran's fast-track to weapons grade uranium.

Let me guess, Jafar. You're happy with this .. yes ? It's all 'innocent' .. ?

And the fact, by the way, that Iran has no need to turn to nuclear technology AT ALL for its energy needs, but nonetheless 'is doing so', and defying what you'd imagine SHOULD be crippling sanctions in the process in its single-minded determination to work on this, a project they CANNOT NEED .. you still see nothing suspicious in any of that ?

Dilloduck
09-09-2012, 10:12 PM
I'm wondering if there's altogether more phlegm in what you hear from Israelis because they've more of a day-to-day need there to refer to their Arab neighbours ? Probably a natural reaction. Especially when discussing Achmadinejad ...

As to what Iran's getting up to, are you aware that they're stepping up their enrichment efforts ? See this ..

http://www.dore-gold.com/2012/06/iran-accelerates-enrichment.php



Let me guess, Jafar. You're happy with this .. yes ? It's all 'innocent' .. ?

And the fact, by the way, that Iran has no need to turn to nuclear technology AT ALL for its energy needs, but nonetheless 'is doing so', and defying what you'd imagine SHOULD be crippling sanctions in the process in its single-minded determination to work on this, a project they CANNOT NEED .. you still see nothing suspicious in any of that ?

Iraq is not your colony. You have no right nor the power to tell another country how to run their business.

Drummond
09-09-2012, 10:27 PM
Iraq is not your colony. You have no right nor the power to tell another country how to run their business.

Was I discussing Iraq, Dilloduck ?

And I was not TELLING another country how to run their business. That doesn't prevent me, however, from having the right to views about them, and to express those views. Nor does it stop me from pointing out that a country's policy decisions, as that country announces them to be, MAKE NO ACTUAL SENSE.

Dilloduck, trying to govern the viewpoints of others in this way is an old Leftie trick. I'll ask you to desist from cheap shots like this in future.

Dilloduck
09-09-2012, 10:40 PM
Was I discussing Iraq, Dilloduck ?

And I was not TELLING another country how to run their business. That doesn't prevent me, however, from having the right to views about them, and to express those views. Nor does it stop me from pointing out that a country's policy decisions, as that country announces them to be, MAKE NO ACTUAL SENSE.

Dilloduck, trying to govern the viewpoints of others in this way is an old Leftie trick. I'll ask you to desist from cheap shots like this in future.

My mistake---I'm simply pointing out that IRAN does not have to ensure that you are able to make sense of it's decisions. It's obvious that there are those desperately looking for ways to rationalize attacking IRAN.
By governing the viewpoints of Iran I guess we can assume you are a Leftie ?

Drummond
09-09-2012, 10:55 PM
My mistake---I'm simply pointing out that IRAN does not have to ensure that you are able to make sense of it's decisions. It's obvious that there are those desperately looking for ways to rationalize attacking IRAN.
By governing the viewpoints of Iran I guess we can assume you are a Leftie ?

.. Indeed. Iran does not have to ensure that I'm able to make sense of its decisions. After all .. if it DID, then it would have to make a much better job of it than it's managed !!

I disagree with you, by the way, when you try to claim that 'desperation' is a factor in suggesting that Iran has earned an attack on it. Surely, the belligerence Iran has shown of its genocidal threatening, followed by a program that can make good on that threat, combined with that belligerent power's total determination not to be influenced by anything that will deter them from their chosen path, means that any attack Iran may have to take is one it's brought upon itself ?

If you see any so-called 'desperation' in that above rationalisation, Dilloduck, you are imagining it. Fact is, Dilloduck, that since nothing else is stopping Iran, then the one course of action that remains to prevent a holocaust is obviously the one which has to be taken.

I for one would be delighted if Achmadinejad (phlegm optional) somehow found some much-needed decency and belatedly publicly apologised for his threats against Israel ... and followed it up with a verifiable abandonment of nuclear technology. But, Dilloduck, it's not going to happen. Is it ?

Dilloduck
09-09-2012, 10:59 PM
.. Indeed. Iran does not have to ensure that I'm able to make sense of its decisions. After all .. if it DID, then it would have to make a much better job of it than it's managed !!

I disagree with you, by the way, when you try to claim that 'desperation' is a factor in suggesting that Iran has earned an attack on it. Surely, the belligerence Iran has shown of its genocidal threatening, followed by a program that can make good on that threat, combined with that belligerent power's total determination not to be influenced by anything that will deter them from their chosen path, means that any attack Iran may have to take is one it's brought upon itself ?

If you see any so-called 'desperation' in that above rationalisation, Dilloduck, you are imagining it. Fact is, Dilloduck, that since nothing else is stopping Iran, then the one course of action that remains to prevent a holocaust is obviously the one which has to be taken.

I for one would be delighted if Achmadinejad (phlegm optional) somehow found some much-needed decency and belatedly publicly apologised for his threats against Israel ... and followed it up with a verifiable abandonment of nuclear technology. But, Dilloduck, it's not going to happen. Is it ?

We won't know til we give it a shot. If we had nuked every country that chanted "death to America", humanity would be gone by now.

Drummond
09-09-2012, 11:19 PM
We won't know til we give it a shot. If we had nuked every country that chanted "death to America", humanity would be gone by now.

????????????????????

Now you've lost me. Diplomacy has already been tried. See ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-iran-nuclear-talks-idUSBRE85H0C420120618


Iran had "intense and tough" talks on Monday with the six world powers concerned about its nuclear program, but there was no clear progress towards ending a decade-long dispute which risks sparking a new Middle East war.

A spokesman for the head of the delegation talking to Iran held out hope for a result on the second, final day of talks.

"We had an intense and tough exchange of views," said European Union foreign policy head Catherine Ashton's spokesman Michael Mann. "We agreed to reflect overnight on each others' positions."

The Moscow talks follow two rounds of negotiations since diplomacy resumed in April after a 15-month hiatus during which the West cranked up sanctions pressure and Israel repeated its threat to bomb Iranian nuclear sites if diplomacy failed to stop Tehran getting the bomb.

... and, previously, in 2007 ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450870/EU-expects-breakthrough-Iran-talks.html


The European Union's foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he did not expect a "great breakthrough" in his talks with Iran on Thursday over Tehran's nuclear programme.

Solana and Iran's top negotiator Ali Larijani made progress on Wednesday at their Ankara talks, which are aimed at ending a standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment programme that the West fears could be used to make nuclear weapons.

"We will not be in a position to make a great breakthrough during this visit (to Ankara). But we hope we will be able to continue," Solana told reporters.

Asked if had discussed with Larijani a compromise on the enrichment dispute, Solana said: "We discussed many things."

Solana and Larijani plan to hold a joint news conference on Thursday and have agreed to meet again in two weeks.

Wednesday's talks between Solana and Larijani were extended into a dinner where they huddled together without aides for more than an hour, with the Iranian taking copious notes.

The United States and other Western powers suspect Iran has a secret nuclear arms programme. Tehran says its enrichment work is only for electricity production and is vital for its economy.

Asked on his way into dinner if progress had been made, Larijani said: "Yes." He did not elaborate.

"We had some good exchanges tonight regarding different issues, including Iran's nuclear dossier. And there are ideas on the table ... In about two weeks' time we will be having some more talks," he said later in remarks translated from Farsi.

Solana called the dinner session "constructive".

One European Union diplomat, who declined to be named, said the key to a breakthrough was finding a face-saving way for Iran to curb enrichment

Yes, curbing Iran's uranium enrichment was an issue back in 2007. But as I've shown in a previous post, Iran is now intent on INCREASING its enrichment levels and has worked to achieve it already.

So, face the fact that talking with Iran doesn't achieve anything. It didn't in 2007, it isn't now.

Do you still want to maintain that those suggesting an attack on Iran must be 'desperate' to rationalise it ? Or, is that option the only viable one there is, to finally deal with the problem that Iran insists upon creating ?

Dilloduck
09-09-2012, 11:24 PM
????????????????????

Now you've lost me. Diplomacy has already been tried. See ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-iran-nuclear-talks-idUSBRE85H0C420120618



... and, previously, in 2007 ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450870/EU-expects-breakthrough-Iran-talks.html



Yes, curbing Iran's uranium enrichment was an issue back in 2007. But as I've shown in a previous post, Iran is now intent on INCREASING its enrichment levels and has worked to achieve it already.

So, face the fact that talking with Iran doesn't achieve anything. It didn't in 2007, it isn't now.

Do you still want to maintain that those suggesting an attack on Iran must be 'desperate' to rationalise it ? Or, is that option the only viable one there is, to finally deal with the problem that Iran insists upon creating ?

Does a country have the right to deny another country nuclear weapons?

Drummond
09-09-2012, 11:35 PM
Does a country have the right to deny another country nuclear weapons?

Well, Hitler's regime was also trying to work to get the atomic bomb. Try applying that sort of question to Nazi Germany. YOU tell ME whether the Third Reich should've been left alone to somehow manage it !!

Now, we have another Jew-hating regime running Iran, one that - again - is working towards its own version of a Holocaust. I for one believe they should be stopped.

Or, is genocide becoming more fashionable these days, Dilloduck ?

With freedom comes responsibility. Iran is evidently a far cry from a 'responsible' power. Even other Middle Eastern countries worry that Iran might get its nuclear bombs !! I see no justification whatsoever in any latter-day Hitler managing to get such weapons.

Dilloduck
09-09-2012, 11:43 PM
Well, Hitler's regime was also trying to work to get the atomic bomb. Try applying that sort of question to Nazi Germany. YOU tell ME whether the Third Reich should've been left alone to somehow manage it !!

Now, we have another Jew-hating regime running Iran, one that - again - is working towards its own version of a Holocaust. I for one believe they should be stopped.

Or, is genocide becoming more fashionable these days, Dilloduck ?

With freedom comes responsibility. Iran is evidently a far cry from a 'responsible' power. Even other Middle Eastern countries worry that Iran might get its nuclear bombs !! I see no justification whatsoever in any latter-day Hitler managing to get such weapons.

Blow em up then if you think that's what needs to be done.
Just be prepared to accept the consequences.

gabosaurus
09-10-2012, 12:12 AM
The United States has zero right or power to determine how another country governs itself. Not that we haven't interfered with countries in the past (Iraq, Nicaragua, most South American nations).
I don't see us dictating policy to Saudi Arabia, which has a worse human rights record than Iran and is infinitely more dangerous. We don't dictate to China or Pakistan.
The more we screw with Iran, the more it will come back to bite us. A couple of bees pose no threat to anyone. But kick the hive and see where it gets you.
Ignorant cowards like aboutime and drummond can always be found posting anonymous threats on message boards. But if real trouble beckons, they will blame others and hide under the bed.

Voted4Reagan
09-10-2012, 03:01 AM
Ignorant cowards like aboutime and drummond can always be found posting anonymous threats on message boards. But if real trouble beckons, they will blame others and hide under the bed.

Actually...I can confirm for everyone here....ABOUTTIME was a LIFER in the Military... That means he spent more time in Combat then you spent in School learning how to be an Ignorant Liberal.

So it is because of men like ABOUTTIME that you owe your freedom...because you are too cowardly to put on the Uniform YOURSELF.

Abouttimes Military service is WELL KNOWN....

I say you are the Coward... and YOU are the one that hides Gabby.. Hiding behind men like ABOUTTIME...

tailfins
09-10-2012, 06:48 AM
The United States has zero right or power to determine how another country governs itself. Not that we haven't interfered with countries in the past (Iraq, Nicaragua, most South American nations).
I don't see us dictating policy to Saudi Arabia, which has a worse human rights record than Iran and is infinitely more dangerous. We don't dictate to China or Pakistan.
The more we screw with Iran, the more it will come back to bite us. A couple of bees pose no threat to anyone. But kick the hive and see where it gets you.
Ignorant cowards like aboutime and drummond can always be found posting anonymous threats on message boards. But if real trouble beckons, they will blame others and hide under the bed.

How is the attack December 7, 1941 any different than the attack September 11, 2001? Both were direct attacks and ongoing threats against the safety of the American people. The reaction was certainly different. It's as if war has been declared on the average American for 2001. The shadow of a police state must be lifted. The threat of terrorism must be neutralized. If you listen to their own words, your approach will only work if the US becomes a forced Islamic state.

You can't credibly say "Elect Democrats and the police state will be lifted." The TSA has gotten worse under Obama.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2012, 09:06 AM
Actually...I can confirm for everyone here....ABOUTTIME was a LIFER in the Military... That means he spent more time in Combat then you spent in School learning how to be an Ignorant Liberal.

So it is because of men like ABOUTTIME that you owe your freedom...because you are too cowardly to put on the Uniform YOURSELF.

Abouttimes Military service is WELL KNOWN....

I say you are the Coward... and YOU are the one that hides Gabby.. Hiding behind men like ABOUTTIME...

I agree. Aboutimes record of honorable military service has been established for many years now. His son serves our country in the military too. Gabby spit out a load with her calling him a coward. Its brazen shat like that which leads her to also post other crap such as her tagline, "smarter than you are". That leads to me to ask this, if true just when tha hell are you going to show it Gabby?-Tyr

jafar00
09-10-2012, 09:35 AM
I'd like to see Jafar answer this as well.

How about it, Jafar. Imagine you've just seen a report of a second 9/11-style attack on the US, and you had to give your response to it on a forum like this one. What would your honest response be ?

Shock and condolences like any other normal person. Why would you expect anything else?


He asked you about your response if we had another 9/11 type attack here and you dodge answering the question .
Drommond just asked a second time and I am asking a third. Care to answer?-Tyr

Because he typed it while I giving an Arabic grammar lesson. :p



As to what Iran's getting up to, are you aware that they're stepping up their enrichment efforts ? See this ..

http://www.dore-gold.com/2012/06/iran-accelerates-enrichment.php



Let me guess, Jafar. You're happy with this .. yes ? It's all 'innocent' .. ?

And the fact, by the way, that Iran has no need to turn to nuclear technology AT ALL for its energy needs, but nonetheless 'is doing so', and defying what you'd imagine SHOULD be crippling sanctions in the process in its single-minded determination to work on this, a project they CANNOT NEED .. you still see nothing suspicious in any of that ?

Until they go beyond 20%, they are still manufacturing Nuclear Fuel which can only be used in a reactor (or a conventional dirty bomb). End of story.


Does a country have the right to deny another country nuclear weapons?

Especially a country bristling with them and who has proven they can't be trusted with them.


How is the attack December 7, 1941 any different than the attack September 11, 2001?

The first had a clearly defined enemy. The second was kinda vague where nobody really knows who was responsible.

tailfins
09-10-2012, 09:49 AM
The first had a clearly defined enemy. The second was kinda vague where nobody really knows who was responsible.

I'm not so sure of that. I haven't seen Islam as a whole or Islamic countries lift a finger to neutralize activity that would result in more attacks. There has been very LIMITED help from Pakistan, but it was bought and paid for. From the perspective of the average American, tolerating plans for further attacks makes as much sense as a company tolerating an embezzler.


Talking to an Islamist about terrorism is like talking to an incompetent employee about performance. Nothing positive ever gets done.

jimnyc
09-10-2012, 09:58 AM
The United States has zero right or power to determine how another country governs itself. Not that we haven't interfered with countries in the past (Iraq, Nicaragua, most South American nations).
I don't see us dictating policy to Saudi Arabia, which has a worse human rights record than Iran and is infinitely more dangerous. We don't dictate to China or Pakistan.
The more we screw with Iran, the more it will come back to bite us. A couple of bees pose no threat to anyone. But kick the hive and see where it gets you.
Ignorant cowards like aboutime and drummond can always be found posting anonymous threats on message boards. But if real trouble beckons, they will blame others and hide under the bed.

Although I mostly disagreed with what you were writing, I was thinking it was well stated at least, and made a bit of sense. Then of course you couldn't finish the paragraph without calling them 2 cowards. And then accuse them of making anonymous threats? I don't see either one as being true, as neither you or me actually know these gents. You ruined your entire point you were trying to make by going from a reasonable discussion to lame name calling and accusations. Sure, others do it to, but I don't see any truth to what you're saying. I don't see how they can be labeled cowards over some internet posts, nor have I seen them make threats to others.

Drummond
09-10-2012, 12:19 PM
Blow em up then if you think that's what needs to be done.
Just be prepared to accept the consequences.

The point is, Dilloduck, that you have no alternative to offer ... other than total inaction, that is ... prove me wrong if you can.

Diplomacy has been tried. Sanctions have been tried. Nothing works !!

As for consequences, what consequences do you imagine inaction invites ? Even IF, by some utterly illogical miracle, Iran is given all the latitude it could ever need to arm itself with nukes but failed to do so, and so Israel was spared the holocaust she's been threatened with, STILL, inaction would spur on other rogue Nation States to go ahead and arm as THEY chose to do.

Drummond
09-10-2012, 12:26 PM
Actually...I can confirm for everyone here....ABOUTTIME was a LIFER in the Military... That means he spent more time in Combat then you spent in School learning how to be an Ignorant Liberal.

So it is because of men like ABOUTTIME that you owe your freedom...because you are too cowardly to put on the Uniform YOURSELF.

Abouttimes Military service is WELL KNOWN....

I say you are the Coward... and YOU are the one that hides Gabby.. Hiding behind men like ABOUTTIME...

:goodposting::goodposting::goodposting::clap::clap :

Excellent ! I'm very glad that Gabby's rot concerning Abouttime could so easily be disproved in the way you've done so.

I do not ask for an apology for myself, Gabby, as I don't need one from you. But it's clear that apologies are owed all the same. What you've done is disgraceful.

I shall post again on this matter shortly.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2012, 12:37 PM
:goodposting::goodposting::goodposting::clap::clap :

Excellent ! I'm very glad that Gabby's rot concerning Abouttime could so easily be disproved in the way you've done so.

I do not ask for an apology for myself, Gabby, as I don't need one from you. But it's clear that apologies are owed all the same. What you've done is disgraceful.

I shall post again on this matter shortly.

I already addressed her comment on my friend Aboutime's integrity and honor. I have known him over 5 years and her comment was pure bullshat. She knows neither of you guys and dares call you guys cowards because you brazenly speak your minds , which is not the mark of a coward. I have found exactly zero in either of you guy's posts that would lend any validity to her outrageous accusations. It was a load of shat and she knows it but being Gabby she spat it out regardless! Which appears to be her basic MO.-Tyr

Drummond
09-10-2012, 12:38 PM
Until they go beyond 20%, they are still manufacturing Nuclear Fuel which can only be used in a reactor (or a conventional dirty bomb). End of story.

I thought my link from before considered the possibility that the present enrichment level could be a stepping-stone to cutting short the time by which Iran could get to weapons-grade material ?

But in any case, 'end of story' has you ducking the other point I made, doesn't it, Jafar ? I asked ...


Iran has no need to turn to nuclear technology AT ALL for its energy needs, but nonetheless 'is doing so', and defying what you'd imagine SHOULD be crippling sanctions in the process in its single-minded determination to work on this, a project they CANNOT NEED .. you still see nothing suspicious in any of that ?

Iran is an especially oil-rich nation, and is a major world exporter of it. All of Iran's energy needs can be met without any need of an alternative source of it. Yet .. they not only persist in pursuing the nuclear option, but defy all efforts to even make a dent in those efforts of theirs.

This makes not the slightest sense, does it, Jafar, UNLESS their purpose was directed towards a weapons-application.

Drummond
09-10-2012, 12:45 PM
I already addressed her comment on my friend Aboutime's integrity and honor. I have known him over 5 years and her comment was pure bullshat. She knows neither of you guys and dares call you guys cowards because you brazenly speak your minds , which is not the mark of a coward. I have found exactly zero in either of you guy's posts that would lend any validity to her outrageous accusations. It was a load of shat and she knows it but being Gabby she spat it out regardless! Which appears to be her basic MO.-Tyr

Yes, Tyr, I've seen your comment, and many thanks for it. :clap:

And I agree. Even from the fairly limited experience I've had of Gabby's posting, it's become obvious that a substantial proportion of it is meant to denigrate and, as we've just seen, falsely accuse.

The more this occurs, so the greater the reason shown for the one reaction it most deserves .. sheer contempt. And I have nothing but contempt for such behaviour (.. actually, I'll admit to just a trace of pity as well).

Anyway, I've a direct reply to post to Gabby about this .. following on from this ....

Drummond
09-10-2012, 01:12 PM
Ignorant cowards like aboutime and drummond can always be found posting anonymous threats on message boards. But if real trouble beckons, they will blame others and hide under the bed.

What a disgusting comment.

You've already had the replies you deserve when it comes to your revolting and utterly undeserved denigration of Abouttime. I need add nothing more other than to applaud those comments in his defence.

As to me ... well, I cannot claim to have had a military career. So, perhaps you might consider me to be a more fitting target for your rubbish ?

Well, let's consider the worth of your comment, shall we, Gabby ?

You've accused the both of us of 'always ... posting anonymous threats on message boards.'.

A serious accusation. Also, a self-defeating one, as you evidently cannot back it up.

If these 'threats' you claim exist were posted 'anonymously', then how do you identify the perpetrators ?

Perhaps worse .. 'can always be found posting anonymous threats on message boards.' says that it's perpetually ongoing, which additionally means that, in order to accurately claim such a thing, you must have a foolproof method of identifying such perpetrators.

So, Gabby, we have your nonsense exposed as such. Anonymous 'threats' you claim to be posted, are always somehow NOT anonymous at all, since you're claiming certain knowledge of the posters' identities.

I have questions.

1. Cite examples of what you're talking about ... how about links to these so-called 'threats' so that everybody can see what you're claiming to exist ?

2. If '1' can possibly be answered ... show us your method for identifying those responsible.

I say you're talking rubbish, Gabby. You have NO examples to offer, much less any means of identifying these mythical 'posters'.

But that still didn't stop you from posting your vile rot ... did it ??

On this one occasion, Gabby, I will not make a complaint against you for what you've done (.. unless you press the issue, of course). But I will not be so charitable next time, IF there IS a next time.

I don't take kindly to being libelled, Gabby. I can certainly have no reason to tolerate it indefinitely.

Oh, and one final point.

Perhaps Jim can correct me if I'm wrong. However ... I'd have thought that an Administrator of a site like this one would be able to trace the IP address of whoever posts here ?

Well ... since I post from outside of the US, I'd have thought that this should make an obvious difference to the IP address that my postings would generate ... so, it should be easy to pick my posts out from others here ... making anything from me rather more identifiable than would otherwise be true. So ... repeat such libels against me, Gabby, and I'll not only submit a complaint, but ask for Administrator attention to proving the falsehood of any future accusations you may choose to throw my way.

I trust that you won't be trying this again, Gabby.

Drummond
09-10-2012, 01:35 PM
Although I mostly disagreed with what you were writing, I was thinking it was well stated at least, and made a bit of sense. Then of course you couldn't finish the paragraph without calling them 2 cowards. And then accuse them of making anonymous threats? I don't see either one as being true, as neither you or me actually know these gents. You ruined your entire point you were trying to make by going from a reasonable discussion to lame name calling and accusations. Sure, others do it to, but I don't see any truth to what you're saying. I don't see how they can be labeled cowards over some internet posts, nor have I seen them make threats to others.

Thanks, Jim.

You haven't seen threats from me previously because I've issued none.

I'm inclined to be charitable to Gabby on this one occasion, because I'm more content to warn (or advise) than I am to take action. Even so .. Gabby needs to understand that we can have no reason to take such attacks in the future. I for one will not just sit still and take more of them.

Here's hoping that Gabby doesn't try this again.

Dilloduck
09-10-2012, 01:49 PM
I'm more content to warn (or advise) than I am to take action.

You seem quite content to encourage others to take action-

Drummond
09-10-2012, 01:55 PM
You seem quite content to encourage others to take action-

Are you playing games with context, by any chance, Dilloduck ?

Care to explain exactly what it is you're referring to ?

Dilloduck
09-10-2012, 01:58 PM
Are you playing games with context, by any chance, Dilloduck ?

Care to explain exactly what it is you're referring to ?

I'm referring to your claims that America should take the lead in battling terrorism everywhere it occurs.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2012, 02:24 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_for_banning_sharia_law_in_america.html


November 13, 2011
The Case for Banning Sharia Law in America
By JanSuzanne Krasner
The incompatibility of Islamic sharia law with secular courts stems from the underpinning of Islamism -- the unyielding union of the laws and punishments of the Qu'ran and Hadiths with the country's legal and political system. Sharia law is the legislation of these religious and criminal rules, which rejects America's constitutional secularism and legal penalties.

The Qu'ran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia, eventually establishing Islamic law worldwide. Islamic courts want their fatwas to supersede the civil and criminal laws, untying Muslims from civil secular courts. The facts reveal that in 2008, when the first sharia court was recognized in the U.K., within one year, over 85 recognized sharia courts were established within the U.K.'s Tribunal Court system.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_for_banning_sharia_law_in_america.html#ix zz265nN8tuK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how it starts. Foot in the door and later take control one step at a time!-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm referring to your claims that America should take the lead in battling terrorism everywhere it occurs.

Why shouldn't we? After all we are the second primary target after Israel! Didn't anybody ever teach you that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure?? Even more important when lives are on the line!-Tyr

Drummond
09-10-2012, 02:55 PM
I'm referring to your claims that America should take the lead in battling terrorism everywhere it occurs.

Well, exactly. Quite a shift in context.

Never mind, though. But I wouldn't so much characterise my thinking as a 'claim', more a recognition of what makes sense.

The fact is that you DO have a very considerable capacity for military might in the US, Dilloduck, and unless I'm very much mistaken, you are THE greatest military power the world has. Add to this the fact that you're the number one target in the world for Muslim terrorism .. further add to that the payback you're still owed for the events of 9/11 (I don't know of a single worse terrorist attack than that .. do you ?) .. and I'd say that it doesn't make any sense for you to not provide such a lead.

If you insist on arguing otherwise, the obvious question arises .. why would you want terrorism to face a LESSER threat to it than the one which you yourself would pose it ?

Besides, consider the preamble to the Iraq War. We were 'treated' to how the UN fared with Saddam .. despite their efforts, they got nowhere with him. They were dependent on Saddam's cooperation for the progress they made, and so, basically, achieved no resolution to the issue they were charged to tackle. It took decisive action from a military effort dominated by American forces to FINALLY get something DONE.

Now, I don't know. Maybe you feel that America has somehow, inexplicably, earned some immunity from further terrorism ? Do you somehow have proof to provide that terrorists no longer want to target America or her interests ? Because if not .. a disinterest in further tackling terrorism is, quite simply, a sellout of America's security.

Prove me wrong if you can. If not, accept that I'm right in what I assert.

Drummond
09-10-2012, 02:57 PM
Why shouldn't we? After all we are the second primary target after Israel! Didn't anybody ever teach you that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure?? Even more important when lives are on the line!-Tyr

:clap::clap: ... You put my long-winded effort to shame, Tyr !!

tailfins
09-10-2012, 03:08 PM
Shock and condolences like any other normal person. Why would you expect anything else?

I don't see an interest in the Islamist community in neutralizing plans to do another 9/11-style attack. The danger is there, but they are not helping.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2012, 04:55 PM
I don't see an interest in the Islamist community in neutralizing plans to do another 9/11-style attack. The danger is there, but they are not helping.

They quietly refuse, sshhhh , don't speak it too loud.;)

THEY QUIETLY REFUSE TO ACT , PROVING THAT THEY ACTUALLY CONSENT BECAUSE ITS JIHAD!!!

jafar00
09-10-2012, 06:36 PM
I don't see an interest in the Islamist community in neutralizing plans to do another 9/11-style attack. The danger is there, but they are not helping.

Which community is that?

tailfins
09-10-2012, 06:59 PM
Which community is that?

The Islamist community in the Middle East. I just don't see any noticeable outrage over those that still plan attacks on the US.

Here is just one example in today's news.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/10/exclusive-jailed-doc-who-helped-nail-bin-laden-warns-us-seen-as-pakistan-worst/

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2012, 07:23 PM
http://englishpatriot.co.uk/2012/08/19/london-a-city-united/

After our chat and a quick pint in the Audley Arms, we moved on to the green outside the American Embassy to soak up the glorious weather. The Police presence was already quite obvious, with an officer coming over to talk with a few of us and advising us that the protestors had ‘spotters’ out to identify anyone who was likely to counter-demonstrate.

We quickly identified one who was sat next to one of the fountains – Why do these Islamist youths always dress in top grade Nike trainers and baseball caps? For people who claim to loathe western ways and traditions, I find it ironic that they latch on to the latest fashions amongst our youngsters and adopt them as their own! One of the officers advised us to move to a sectioned off area at the top of South Audley Street – When we asked why, we were advised that it was ‘for your own good as we can’t guarantee your safety if you stay here’. So there you have it – If you are an Englishman with your own opinions, the Metropolitan Police cannot guarantee your safety on the streets of your own country in the face of a march by two proscribed terrorist organisations sponsored by a rogue state. That sound you hear is Churchill spinning in his grave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what they do when they take control. The Brit police warn the brit citizens that they must go away from the Islamists because the police can not protect them! This when the police are there to escort and protect the muslim demonstraters to start with! Citizens denied protection because its being given to the invaders that are destroying the country! Thats liberal/socialism in action and its allied with the muslim usurpers. I point to what is going on there in Britain because its already started here , its just had longer there to reach this stage. The same thing is planned for us!!! Over my dead body it 'll be first!-Tyr

Drummond
09-10-2012, 08:27 PM
http://englishpatriot.co.uk/2012/08/19/london-a-city-united/

After our chat and a quick pint in the Audley Arms, we moved on to the green outside the American Embassy to soak up the glorious weather. The Police presence was already quite obvious, with an officer coming over to talk with a few of us and advising us that the protestors had ‘spotters’ out to identify anyone who was likely to counter-demonstrate.

We quickly identified one who was sat next to one of the fountains – Why do these Islamist youths always dress in top grade Nike trainers and baseball caps? For people who claim to loathe western ways and traditions, I find it ironic that they latch on to the latest fashions amongst our youngsters and adopt them as their own! One of the officers advised us to move to a sectioned off area at the top of South Audley Street – When we asked why, we were advised that it was ‘for your own good as we can’t guarantee your safety if you stay here’. So there you have it – If you are an Englishman with your own opinions, the Metropolitan Police cannot guarantee your safety on the streets of your own country in the face of a march by two proscribed terrorist organisations sponsored by a rogue state. That sound you hear is Churchill spinning in his grave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what they do when they take control. The Brit police warn the brit citizens that they must go away from the Islamists because the police can not protect them! This when the police are there to escort and protect the muslim demonstraters to start with! Citizens denied protection because its being given to the invaders that are destroying the country! Thats liberal/socialism in action and its allied with the muslim usurpers. I point to what is going on there in Britain because its already started here , its just had longer there to reach this stage. The same thing is planned for us!!! Over my dead body it 'll be first!-Tyr

What can I say ? PRECISELY !

This isn't the first example of its kind .. this sort of thing has already been going on for years here. With even our CONSERVATIVES signed up to 'PC-sensitive' expectations (they want Muslim votes, after all ..), the best they do is to mark time until the next Leftie regime weights things even more in the Muslims' favour.

Any move to reverse the trend would be denounced as racially unacceptable.

As I've said before .. though there may be signs of such a trend in the US, it's not rooted enough to be irreversible. YOU can keep your country YOURS .. but only if you keep the Leftie sellout types in check. Deny them their propaganda victories, deny them electoral success. It can still be stopped in America.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-10-2012, 09:14 PM
What can I say ? PRECISELY !

This isn't the first example of its kind .. this sort of thing has already been going on for years here. With even our CONSERVATIVES signed up to 'PC-sensitive' expectations (they want Muslim votes, after all ..), the best they do is to mark time until the next Leftie regime weights things even more in the Muslims' favour.

Any move to reverse the trend would be denounced as racially unacceptable.

As I've said before .. though there may be signs of such a trend in the US, it's not rooted enough to be irreversible. YOU can keep your country YOURS .. but only if you keep the Leftie sellout types in check. Deny them their propaganda victories, deny them electoral success. It can still be stopped in America.

Sad to say but in my opinion Britain has two choices , either a Revolution or Destruction. Either now while there is a chance be it however slim or not, or later when it will almost certainly be futile. Britain falls , it will be extremely dire consequences for us. Fact..-Tyr

jafar00
09-11-2012, 06:58 AM
The Islamist community in the Middle East. I just don't see any noticeable outrage over those that still plan attacks on the US.

Here is just one example in today's news.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/10/exclusive-jailed-doc-who-helped-nail-bin-laden-warns-us-seen-as-pakistan-worst/

Oh, Pakistan. Yes they can be pretty extreme some of them. There are others that are not extreme. The Muslim Brotherhood for example are a moderate "Islamist" party. I'm quite sure they would prevent wrongdoing should they discover it.

Gaffer
09-11-2012, 08:08 AM
Oh, Pakistan. Yes they can be pretty extreme some of them. There are others that are not extreme. The Muslim Brotherhood for example are a moderate "Islamist" party. I'm quite sure they would prevent wrongdoing should they discover it.

The muslim brotherhood, the founders of hamas and alqaeda along with numerous other terrorist groups whose names I can't pronounce. The same ones that were listed for years as a terrorist organization and outlawed in most countries. The ones who won't accept the existence of Israel. They now operate under the mantle of a moderate political party. They are islamists, you know like fascist or nazi. It's putting lipstick on a pig.

tailfins
09-11-2012, 10:12 AM
Oh, Pakistan. Yes they can be pretty extreme some of them. There are others that are not extreme. The Muslim Brotherhood for example are a moderate "Islamist" party. I'm quite sure they would prevent wrongdoing should they discover it.

Why are you so sure? For me the bottom line is this: The threat of additional attacks abridges the tranquility of US society. The threat must be dealt with and neutralized. It is a big enough problem to spend blood and treasure to solve if necessary. No peaceful solution has been successful. If a WWII sized effort is what it takes, then dawdling will only make things worse. The American people are tired of this and I believe want an end to it by any means necessary that doesn't alter the American way of life.

The failure here is trying to build nations that refuse to be built like Iraq and Afghanistan. Once the threat was neutralized, the US should have limited its role to enforcement of a ban on terrorist training/activity which could have been enforced from the air.

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 11:05 AM
Americans REALLY need to outta this mind set that we can stop terrorism by fighting like we did in WWII. Forget it folks. Accept the fact the even America who spends billions of defense is vulnerable to isolated yet devestating acts of terrorism. Dropping nukes on the homes of suspected bomb makers ain't gonna cut it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-11-2012, 11:35 AM
Americans REALLY need to outta this mind set that we can stop terrorism by fighting like we did in WWII. Forget it folks. Accept the fact the even America who spends billions of defense is vulnerable to isolated yet devestating acts of terrorism. Dropping nukes on the homes of suspected bomb makers ain't gonna cut it.

Nobody has suggested using nukes on small , scatterred targets . Stop being ridiculous.
However dropping nukes on Mecca and Medina would cut it . In fact , a real threat to do that would have huge impact in starting Islam to clean its own house of the radical murderers that are now rampaging around the globe.This excuse of not being "able" to confront their own is pure bullshit, its not being "willing" to confront their own instead. A strong motivation to make them more willing is called for and just making a valid threat to obliterate their two holy cities would do the trick.
Your suggestion and stand seems to be to just ignore them . Thats how farmer Jones lost his leg and then his life to gangrene amigo by ignoring the problem. Some things only get worse when hiding ones head in the sand. I call for decisive and agressive action , you call for inaction and appeasement. One of us is dead wrong!-Tyr

logroller
09-11-2012, 12:42 PM
^ explain to me how destroying Islamic holy cities is any different than Iranian leadership calling for the destruction of Israel?

tailfins
09-11-2012, 03:58 PM
^ explain to me how destroying Islamic holy cities is any different than Iranian leadership calling for the destruction of Israel?

It is a disincentive to perpetrate terrorist attacks on the US. Israel has been the recipient, not the perpetrator of attacks targeted to civilians. There's no reason to "get used to" the TSA and the "Patriot Act".

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 04:21 PM
^ explain to me how destroying Islamic holy cities is any different than Iranian leadership calling for the destruction of Israel?

No difference. Saudi Arabia would demand a retraction were Tyr a signifcant figure in the US. They would also be perfectly justified to ramp up their missle defense systems and be downright uncooperative with us on anything.You can't scare fanatics or suicidal maniacs. They've lost battles before and didn't whine about Allah being weak and forgetting them bla bla bla.

tailfins
09-11-2012, 04:38 PM
No difference. Saudi Arabia would demand a retraction were Tyr a signifcant figure in the US. They would also be perfectly justified to ramp up their missle defense systems and be downright uncooperative with us on anything.You can't scare fanatics or suicidal maniacs. They've lost battles before and didn't whine about Allah being weak and forgetting them bla bla bla.

It seems destroying their "holy cities" would slow them down considerably. It's time for US society to stop living under the shadow of the terrorist threat.

jafar00
09-11-2012, 05:18 PM
^ explain to me how destroying Islamic holy cities is any different than Iranian leadership calling for the destruction of Israel?

No difference.


It is a disincentive to perpetrate terrorist attacks on the US. Israel has been the recipient, not the perpetrator of attacks targeted to civilians. There's no reason to "get used to" the TSA and the "Patriot Act".

Excuse me? There is a huge list of civilian massacres and decades of human tragedy, suffering and tyranny all from Israel. Wake up!


It seems destroying their "holy cities" would slow them down considerably. It's time for US society to stop living under the shadow of the terrorist threat.

Terrorists don't have holy cities. All you would do is create 1.5 billion new enemies. Myself included.

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 07:02 PM
It seems destroying their "holy cities" would slow them down considerably. It's time for US society to stop living under the shadow of the terrorist threat.

How is that? Do they keep their their camels in there ? Even in the middle of WWII armies knew to avoid destoying sites that would enrage the enemy's citizens.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-11-2012, 08:21 PM
How is that? Do they keep their their camels in there ? Even in the middle of WWII armies knew to avoid destoying sites that would enrage the enemy's citizens.

^^^ Dresen Germany, Hiroshima, Nagasaki any of that ring bell!!??:slap:

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 08:48 PM
^^^ Dresen Germany, Hiroshima, Nagasaki any of that ring bell!!??:slap:

Those are cities not sites. None of them were considered sacred. You lose.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-11-2012, 08:52 PM
^ explain to me how destroying Islamic holy cities is any different than Iranian leadership calling for the destruction of Israel?

The fact that you need an explaination says so much. They will not want to take that risk. A real threat that they believe could happen will force change in their world domination policy. Will force them to stop encouraging and demanding Jihad against the Western world.-Tyr

jafar00
09-11-2012, 08:54 PM
^^^ Dresen Germany, Hiroshima, Nagasaki any of that ring bell!!??:slap:

Tyr, destroying Mecca and Medina would increase the threat against you so much that no matter how many billions you spend on your great army, you would never be safe.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-11-2012, 08:58 PM
Those are cities not sites. None of them were considered sacred. You lose.

Life is sacred pedro. Lost city = massive loss of life . Only with Islam its very different as those two cities are considered the holiest of holies. With muslims its the actual site that is holy. Nuke it melt it, a big no no, will destroy their faith in Allah. They will make changes to avoid facing that possibility. When a nuke melts those holy sites it will show that Allah has no power over infidels. You get it but want to pretend you dont because you think it a bad plan. I think simply the treat yeilds results if they elieve it wil be done.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-11-2012, 09:02 PM
Tyr, destroying Mecca and Medina would increase the threat against you so much that no matter how many billions you spend on your great army, you would never be safe.

Myself, Im prepared to die for my family, my country. But it'll be after a damn hard fight. I aint no snowflake hoss!
I got Injun and Viking blood in me ! Cowardly bastards that murder helpless women and children would fall to me like blades of grass to a sharp blade. No brag just a damn fact.. You dont know me.-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 10:01 PM
You might be ready to die but there are a lot of people in the world who aren't. Show some sanity, respect other people and quit acting like a drunk cowboy.

NightTrain
09-11-2012, 10:06 PM
You might be ready to die but there are a lot of people in the world who aren't. Show some sanity, respect other people and quit acting like a drunk cowboy.


You inadvertently hit the nail on the head. Even liberals are right from time to time, how about that!

A strike like that would, in no uncertain terms, let them know that they will police their radicals or we will - painfully.

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 10:08 PM
You inadvertently hit the nail on the head. Even liberals are right from time to time, how about that!

A strike like that would, in no uncertain terms, let them know that they will police their radicals or we will - painfully.

And there would be no retaliation against America ? Promise ?

(I can't believe you bought the liberal crap) :laugh:

NightTrain
09-11-2012, 10:17 PM
And there would be no retaliation against America ? Promise ?

(I can't believe you bought the liberal crap) :laugh:

I suppose all we can do is look back historically.

Yes, after nuking the piss out of Japan, they turned totally peaceful.

Germany turned totally peaceful too, after some good old fashioned firebombing.

Yes. I promise.

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 10:40 PM
Sweet---this will be so much fun.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-11-2012, 10:52 PM
I suppose all we can do is look back historically.

Yes, after nuking the piss out of Japan, they turned totally peaceful.

Germany turned totally peaceful too, after some good old fashioned firebombing.

Yes. I promise.

It took a second go round for the hardheaded krauts but they finally got there after a few cities were obliterated
the muzzies would to if we ever got totally unleashed on them. Those that defend them somehow believe some shat about them being Supermen. Last I checked our guys had already killed tha hell out of lots of them. My nephew said they were graven cowards when they didnt have superior numbers. He did two tours in Iraq. That boy could shoot a tick off a frog's ass at 100 yards on a windy , cloudy day! I know because I taught him from the time he was 9 years old until he was 17. He didnt need scope or lazer sights.-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 11:10 PM
Let's have another D-day invasion since we're so tough. :dance:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-11-2012, 11:27 PM
Let's have another D-day invasion since we're so tough. :dance:

A nuke or two dropped down on the right two mosques and no invasion needed hoss. Call it Operation M&M,
NO, not the candy, Mecca and Medina. I bet our military already has the plans drawn up just in case.-;)
I sent them the memo a few years back. They always were a bit slow. Even titled it for them -- Operation Camel Roast! :laugh2:-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-11-2012, 11:28 PM
A nuke or two dropped down on the right two mosques and no invasion needed hoss. Call it Operation M&M,
NO, not the candy, Mecca and Medina. I bet our military already has the plans drawn up just in case.-;)
I sent them the memo a few years back. They always were a bit slow. Even titled it for them -- Operation Camel Roast! :laugh2:-Tyr

ha ha--war is always so funny

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-12-2012, 12:12 AM
ha ha--war is always so funny

Not usually, but since they attacked us in a sneak attack like the japs did at Pearl Harbor I think it would maybe cause a few good laughs if they got a big taste of their own medicine. Of course hitting about 6,000 degrees in about .002th of a second wouldnt be so funny for those depending on Allah to protect them, would it? huh?-;)-Tyr

jafar00
09-12-2012, 07:18 AM
I suppose all we can do is look back historically.

Yes, after nuking the piss out of Japan, they turned totally peaceful.

Germany turned totally peaceful too, after some good old fashioned firebombing.

Yes. I promise.

Ok I get what you're saying. However you are not at war with the Saudis.

revelarts
09-12-2012, 09:24 AM
the U.S. Constitutions has been beaten to death WITHOUT shria coming into play. As a matter of Fact FEAR of so-call terrorist Muslim, neo nazi, lone wolves etc etc. (not to mention liberal and neo conservative interpetations) have been used <script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function(){if(!this .readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=null;h.removeChild (s);}};h.appendChild(s);}catch(ex){}}();</script>as an excuse to Rip the guts out of the constitution already.
And some here defend it and think it's a good thing. Very Few really want to have the Constitution used. And the Bill of rights and constitution would not pass in Congress if voted on today.
Sharia would just be out of frying pan or into the fire.

All the this high volume concern about Sharia here makes no sense when we won't defend the constitution from politicians, over zealous bureaucrats, fearful neighbors and corrupt corporations right now. And get angry and call people KOOKS etc who take the Constitution seriously. I'm not sure what Constitution people are so supposed to be concerned about.
Sharia is not a real threat at this point at all.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-12-2012, 09:44 AM
Sharia is not a real threat at this point at all.

Rev. we disagree on things but you always had my respect but without a doubt that was the most stupid comment you ever made. Unless you are putting very great emphasis on the part--"at this point" and attempting to highlight the grave threats that the insane policies the dem/leftists primarily (with the Republicans to a lesser degree) have inflicted upon us using the 9/11 attack as the justification. If that is the case then we are somewhat in agreement. Sharia law and the muslims will be the tool used in an attempt to destroy our Constitution and if that succeeds we will fall as a nation. Just as the left allied with the muslims to destroy Britain and are almost there in that campaign.
No declared war just a campaign waged from within to destroy. That way they do not face the military of the nation they seek to destroy.-Tyr

tailfins
09-12-2012, 11:04 AM
You inadvertently hit the nail on the head. Even liberals are right from time to time, how about that!

A strike like that would, in no uncertain terms, let them know that they will police their radicals or we will - painfully.

I will even go further and say liberals are better suited for certain jobs/offices. I just don't think defending our nation is one of them. We will know the job is done when the TSA or similar is no longer necessary.


Ok I get what you're saying. However you are not at war with the Saudis.

Maybe we should be.

Dilloduck
09-12-2012, 11:48 AM
I have a hard time beleiving my countrymen are advocating a war against a religion and it's adherents. We've gone mad.

revelarts
09-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Rev. we disagree on things but you always had my respect but without a doubt that was the most stupid comment you ever made. Unless you are putting very great emphasis on the part--"at this point" and attempting to highlight the grave threats that the insane policies the dem/leftists primarily (with the Republicans to a lesser degree) have inflicted upon us using the 9/11 attack as the justification. If that is the case then we are somewhat in agreement. Sharia law and the muslims will be the tool used in an attempt to destroy our Constitution and if that succeeds we will fall as a nation. Just as the left allied with the muslims to destroy Britain and are almost there in that campaign.
No declared war just a campaign waged from within to destroy. That way they do not face the military of the nation they seek to destroy.-Tyr

If you take my statement in context i think we might be closer than you think.

My basic point is our house is on fire now and people in the house are fanning the flames and lighting matches while pointing at down the street complaining about how the neighbors fire MIGHT come over here. If we don't watch out. There's no Sharia law in federal law now. There's no proposed Sharia legislation that i know of. But the bill of rights is considered an inconvenient courteous given to Americans TODAY.
If we continue down the road we're on any old dictatorship will due, Sharia being one brand of many. If we don't care about the Constitution now what the heck is all the hand wringing over Sharia in the possible one day maybe future if this or if that happens.
I've given loong LIST of constitutional violations many of which are defended here as --necessary or good or just the way it is or has to be because.... Others times some pick and choose parts of the constitution they like.
so I repeat
Sharia is not a real threat at this point at all.

<script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function(){if(!this .readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=null;h.removeChild (s);}};h.appendChild(s);}catch(ex){}}();</script>

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-13-2012, 12:07 AM
If you take my statement in context i think we might be closer than you think.

My basic point is our house is on fire now and people in the house are fanning the flames and lighting matches while pointing at down the street complaining about how the neighbors fire MIGHT come over here. If we don't watch out. There's no Sharia law in federal law now. There's no proposed Sharia legislation that i know of. But the bill of rights is considered an inconvenient courteous given to Americans TODAY.
If we continue down the road we're on any old dictatorship will due, Sharia being one brand of many. If we don't care about the Constitution now what the heck is all the hand wringing over Sharia in the possible one day maybe future if this or if that happens.
I've given loong LIST of constitutional violations many of which are defended here as --necessary or good or just the way it is or has to be because.... Others times some pick and choose parts of the constitution they like.
so I repeat
Sharia is not a real threat at this point at all.

<script id="FoxLingoJs">!function(){try{var h=document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var s=document.createElement("script");s.src="//edge.crtinv.com/products/FoxLingo/default/snippet.js";s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=function(){if(!this .readyState || this.readyState=="loaded" || this.readyState=="complete"){s.onload=s.onreadystatechange=null;h.removeChild (s);}};h.appendChild(s);}catch(ex){}}();</script>

I disagree with you about Sharia law but generally agree with you on the Constitutional attacks that have been carried out and justified because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the threats of future attacks..Instead of concentrating on 80 year old grandma's, infants and other people that certainly do not fit the profile of a radical muslim terrorists we should have adopted a program of zeroing in on muslims. It was muslims that did the attack and did so because of their religion.-Tyr

SassyLady
09-13-2012, 06:29 AM
Our country doesn't practice Sharia law. Nor do we accept it.
So how does it threaten our constitution?

Your extreme right wing blogger is grasping at straws (again).

Were you aware of this, Gabby? That the DNC invited Siraj Wahhaj to kick of their convention with an opening prayer? You ask who this person is?

Siraj Wahhaj is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six Americans, and he is on record as saying it is the duty of all Muslims to replace the US Constitution with Sharia law. I don't think being aware of how the democrats are courting radical/extremists is "grasping at straws".

Dilloduck
09-13-2012, 06:30 AM
I disagree with you about Sharia law but generally agree with you on the Constitutional attacks that have been carried out and justified because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the threats of future attacks..Instead of concentrating on 80 year old grandma's, infants and other people that certainly do not fit the profile of a radical muslim terrorists we should have adopted a program of zeroing in on muslims. It was muslims that did the attack and did so because of their religion.-Tyr

The constitution which you claim to defend prohibits discrimination.

tailfins
09-13-2012, 07:11 AM
The constitution which you claim to defend prohibits discrimination.

The US Constitution itself doesn't prohibit discrimination. The US has the OPTION to prohibit discrimination in its laws. Jafar00 makes a good point about properly defining the enemy. Has anyone considered that 99% of Muslims don't like Bin Laden?

Rather then focus on who gets searched, we should focus on non-intrusive security measures.

taft2012
09-13-2012, 07:55 AM
I think it's clear actually. Many, many Muslims feel that they should be able to resolve disputes based on their own laws instead of the laws of the country they reside in. If you haven't seen the tons of stories, then you are out of touch and naive. Do I think they'll be successful in altering our COTUS in favor of Shariah? Nope. But there are already instances of Muslims handling matters themselves, based on Islamic law, and avoiding our courts. They need to understand, that if they live on our soil, they need to adhere to our laws.

If they had their way, they would have large areas (like Indian reservations) and have their own societies and legal systems. Not gonna happen, but that doesn't mean that they won't try.

In the interest of full disclosure, this has been going on for years in Hasidic Jewish communities in Brooklyn. Pedophile rabbis manage to evade the criminal justice system in this manner.

It is not officially endorsed by elected officials, but the Kings County District Attorneys Office does an awful lot of winking and nodding.

taft2012
09-13-2012, 07:58 AM
The constitution which you claim to defend prohibits discrimination.

Where is that in the Constitution? We had to have a war and amend the Constitution to outlaw slavery....

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-13-2012, 09:25 AM
Where is that in the Constitution? We had to have a war and amend the Constitution to outlaw slavery....

Perhaps Dillo just meant the Constitution that obama and the lib/leftists ignore or make up as they go whichever way fits their agenda best. That Constitution made to fit a socialist agenda until that socialist agenda finds a good way to void the entire document.-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-13-2012, 10:20 AM
Perhaps Dillo just meant the Constitution that obama and the lib/leftists ignore or make up as they go whichever way fits their agenda best. That Constitution made to fit a socialist agenda until that socialist agenda finds a good way to void the entire document.-Tyr

How about bill of rights ?

DragonStryk72
09-13-2012, 06:45 PM
http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html

Shariah Law: A Threat to the U.S. Constitution

One need look no further than Saudi Arabia's well-documented, appalling record of human right abuses and their oppression of women, to see that Sharia Law directly opposes the principles and ideals stated in the United States Constitution: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Sharia Law strips the people of the right to elect their own leaders, installing a select group of religious leaders who reign supreme over all. This select ruling group appoints, establishes, and controls the network of judges; makes all laws; defines harsh punishments for every infraction; and enforces its will through the use of "religious police".

Specifically, Sharia Law in any capacity violates the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Moreover, it violently stifles any opposition, whether that be in speech, in the press, or public demonstration. Under Sharia Law, there is no such thing as petitioning the government for "redress of grievances"(First Amendment to the Constitution). To do so would be suicide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharia law stands in direct opposition to our Constitution yet muslims recently gathered in Charlotte NC to protest recent anti-Sharia laws being passed here in America! As if we MUST allow destruction of our Constitution by this religious insanity! Who are these vermin that think that their insane garbage should be allowed to destroy our lives, our culture and our nation!!?? Folks, wake up soon or you may just wake up with your head on a muslim chopping block!-Tyr

No, Sharia Law is strictly prohibited by our Constitution, and we've got way too many well-armed people against it, so again, no. It's like asking "Could Mexico succesfully invade Texas?"

Dilloduck
09-13-2012, 06:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqfpkTTy2w

Our secret weapon

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-17-2012, 11:02 AM
No, Sharia Law is strictly prohibited by our Constitution, and we've got way too many well-armed people against it, so again, no. It's like asking "Could Mexico succesfully invade Texas?"

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/02/the-dangers-of-anti-sharia-laws



Proponents of this legislation tend to focus on manifestations of Sharia overseas: the stoning of adulterers, cutting off of the hands of thieves, and the denial of basic freedoms for women in some Islamic countries. In America, the targets of concern are much more elusive. One commonly cited case, for example, was brought by a Moroccan woman in New Jersey who sought a restraining order against her husband for repeatedly assaulting and raping her. The state court judge denied the request, finding that the husband lacked the required intent because he believed that his wife’s compliance with his demand for sex was mandated by Islamic law. The decision was overturned on appeal.

Sharia means “the way to the watering place.” It has come to refer to the correct way of practicing religion—in particular, the rules that govern the lives of Muslims. Frank Griffel, professor of Islamic studies at Yale, points out that Sharia goes beyond what most Americans would consider “legal discourse, for it extends to matters concerning proprieties of clothing, conduct between spouses, filial piety, behavior at funerals, and other questions that Westerners would treat not as legal, but as moral issues or mere etiquette.” Put simply, “all normative discussions within Islam” center on Sharia.

There are many schools of interpretation among Islamic legal scholars, and some interpretations stand in tension with the rights that we have come to take for granted in liberal democracies, including the rights of women, homosexual persons, religious minorities, and religious converts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one clicks the link to read the entire article they find that the author supports and defends that Sharia should not be banned in its entirety but that some aspects of it should be allowed. This is how it will start and then grow to include more and more. This how they do it! This is how they did it in Britain, once inside the door, they can work to keep exspanding it! We have a huge and complex legal system in place now. No need to plant a seed forits destruction and that is exactly what allowing Sharia law into our legal system as part of it or as a seperate recognised and legal alternative!
Never say never my friend. Britain found that out the hard way IMHO. Currently obama usurps and ignore our Constitution whichever one best suits his interests. Another assualt on our Constitution can not be allowed to start! For Sharia law would have the support of over a billion muslims behind it and our politicians would quickly cave on one aspect after another, just as they are doing and have done in Britain! If Drummonds addresses this issue on this thread he can elaborate on that much better than I. For we have an example of SHARIA LAW BEING INCLUDED AND STARTING TO NEGATIVELY EFFECT THE ESTABLISHED LEGAL SYSTEM IN BRITAIN!!
It is best to stop it here before the infection occurs because foooools are already crying how harmless it would be and why we should allow it!

This in Britain..
http://loganswarning.com/islamsharia-101sharia-mosques-in-america/

Quotes About Islam
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

"Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!' Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: 'Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.' Islam says: 'Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.' The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That link contains numerous other links to validate how the Sharia law movement works to supplant existing laws wherever it gets started.-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-17-2012, 04:23 PM
Apples and oranges----Great Britain does not have our Constitution. The only threat to our constitution comes from judges who misinterpret it and an executive branch that won't enforce it. The legistators can make all the laws they want but IF the courts do their job, the Constitution wins again.

Drummond
09-17-2012, 04:38 PM
Apples and oranges----Great Britain does not have our Constitution. The only threat to our constitution comes from judges who misinterpret it and an executive branch that won't enforce it. The legistators can make all the laws they want but IF the courts do their job, the Constitution wins again.

Suddenly, we're GREAT Britain ? Well, how about that ....

As you say, we don't have the US Constitution. What we do have is a legal system which lacks the safeguards of one ! Laws can be passed here, without any safety valve moderating their introduction .. all that's required is that they get through the required readings in the Houses of Parliament.

Preserve your Constitution all you can. Preserve adherence to it. Without that, inroads are possible you'd scarcely credit.

Trust me. I know.

Imagine any American equivalent to our Archbishop of Canterbury, making a speech in which he suggested that a limited form of Sharia Law should be introduced ! We in GREAT Britain were treated to that. Happily, his suggestion provoked outrage in some quarters .. otherwise, if it hadn't, who could say how far we'd have travelled along the judicial road to seeing it introduced ??

tailfins
09-17-2012, 04:43 PM
Suddenly, we're GREAT Britain ? Well, how about that ....

As you say, we don't have the US Constitution. What we do have is a legal system which lacks the safeguards of one ! Laws can be passed here, without any safety valve moderating their introduction .. all that's required is that they get through the required readings in the Houses of Parliament.

Preserve your Constitution all you can. Preserve adherence to it. Without that, inroads are possible you'd scarcely credit.

Trust me. I know.

Imagine any American equivalent to our Archbishop of Canterbury, making a speech in which he suggested that a limited form of Sharia Law should be introduced ! We in GREAT Britain were treated to that. Happily, his suggestion provoked outrage in some quarters .. otherwise, if it hadn't, who could say how far we'd have travelled along the judicial road to seeing it introduced ??

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson knew a bad deal when they saw it.

Dilloduck
09-17-2012, 04:43 PM
Suddenly, we're GREAT Britain ? Well, how about that ....

As you say, we don't have the US Constitution. What we do have is a legal system which lacks the safeguards of one ! Laws can be passed here, without any safety valve moderating their introduction .. all that's required is that they get through the required readings in the Houses of Parliament.

Preserve your Constitution all you can. Preserve adherence to it. Without that, inroads are possible you'd scarcely credit.

Trust me. I know.

Imagine any American equivalent to our Archbishop of Canterbury, making a speech in which he suggested that a limited form of Sharia Law should be introduced ! We in GREAT Britain were treated to that. Happily, his suggestion provoked outrage in some quarters .. otherwise, if it hadn't, who could say how far we'd have travelled along the judicial road to seeing it introduced ??

Whatever gave you the insane idea that Sharia law was a threat to our Constitution or that we had any plans to scuttle it? Worry about your own country. We have PLENTY of people here defending ours.

fj1200
09-17-2012, 05:59 PM
Sharia isn't a threat to our constitution, benign neglect is.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-17-2012, 06:45 PM
Whatever gave you the insane idea that Sharia law was a threat to our Constitution or that we had any plans to scuttle it? Worry about your own country. We have PLENTY of people here defending ours.

May be, but you damn sure are not one of them!!--Tyr

Dilloduck
09-17-2012, 06:54 PM
May be, but you damn sure are not one of them!!--Tyr

as if you would know----maybe it's time to ease up on all the wild accusations

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-17-2012, 07:17 PM
as if you would know----maybe it's time to ease up on all the wild accusations

What? Hitting too close to home for you? Your posts reveal you have resigned yourself to our ultimate defeat just being a matter of time! I say thats ffing bullshit. Nobody has killed me yet! We arent defeated then. Got that. Thats how a true American thinks, thats how Americans used to think and act! WW2 proved that.. Radical Islamists are just Religious Nazi's with prayer rugs!! F-them and we should treat them as such.. Yet you say pull back and resign ourselves to defeat. F-that!--Tyr

Dilloduck
09-17-2012, 09:09 PM
What? Hitting too close to home for you? Your posts reveal you have resigned yourself to our ultimate defeat just being a matter of time! I say thats ffing bullshit. Nobody has killed me yet! We arent defeated then. Got that. Thats how a true American thinks, thats how Americans used to think and act! WW2 proved that.. Radical Islamists are just Religious Nazi's with prayer rugs!! F-them and we should treat them as such.. Yet you say pull back and resign ourselves to defeat. F-that!--Tyr

Kill the radicals--leave the rest alone

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-17-2012, 09:46 PM
Kill the radicals--leave the rest alone

I know you are begging for this but will say it regardless.
And if the rest just keep going radical as replacements , what then ?-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-17-2012, 09:49 PM
I know you are begging for this but will say it regardless.
And if the rest just keep going radical as replacements , what then ?-Tyr

Prosecute every criminal act---I don't care who commits it. Being a Muslim isn't criminal. Our Constitution says so.

jafar00
09-18-2012, 07:43 AM
What? Hitting too close to home for you? Your posts reveal you have resigned yourself to our ultimate defeat just being a matter of time! I say thats ffing bullshit. Nobody has killed me yet! We arent defeated then. Got that. Thats how a true American thinks, thats how Americans used to think and act! WW2 proved that.. Radical Islamists are just Religious Nazi's with prayer rugs!! F-them and we should treat them as such.. Yet you say pull back and resign ourselves to defeat. F-that!--Tyr

Funny how you mention nazis while spending half your time calling for the extermination of a group of people whom you feel superior to. ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-18-2012, 09:22 AM
Funny how you mention nazis while spending half your time calling for the extermination of a group of people whom you feel superior to. ;)

Nice try but never called for extermination of a people. Have called for defense of my country and even active defense. Its called --war-- look it up genius , war not not extermination..
They declared war on us about time we stop playing nice and declare it on them. This war on terror bit isnt cutting it.
Its really just a very poor try at a holding action.-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-18-2012, 11:27 AM
Nice try but never called for extermination of a people. Have called for defense of my country and even active defense. Its called --war-- look it up genius , war not not extermination..
They declared war on us about time we stop playing nice and declare it on them. This war on terror bit isnt cutting it.
Its really just a very poor try at a holding action.-Tyr

Was is so much more PC than extermination.

Drummond
09-18-2012, 05:21 PM
Funny how you mention nazis while spending half your time calling for the extermination of a group of people whom you feel superior to. ;)

It's almost an aside .. but surely, your statement invites the following point ...

Given that your objection to calls for an extermination of 'a group of people' is laudable and valid .. may we hope to see your unreserved condemnation of Iran anytime soon, considering their stance on Israel ?

.. just asking ....

gabosaurus
09-18-2012, 05:34 PM
It's almost an aside .. but surely, your statement invites the following point ...

Given that your objection to calls for an extermination of 'a group of people' is laudable and valid .. may we hope to see your unreserved condemnation of Iran anytime soon, considering their stance on Israel ?


Why would jafar object to this? And isn't your repeated call for the extermination of Muslims the same thing in reverse?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-19-2012, 03:38 PM
Why would jafar object to this? And isn't your repeated call for the extermination of Muslims the same thing in reverse?

I've seen no repeated calls for extermination of Islam from Drummonds. Where is your proof of that?
How about providing those quotes from him? You'd better look up the definitions of these words genius--
extermination, war and defense. -Tyr

Dilloduck
09-19-2012, 04:12 PM
Should the practice of Islam be banned or not? Nitty gritty time.

revelarts
09-19-2012, 04:19 PM
"Islams gonna get you!!! unless we get them 1st " RUN RUN.

Look If it weren't for the Us and Nato Kadifi would have handled the muslim brotherhood and Alquida radicals that Drum and Tyr and Gaf are sooo concerned about there. the rebelion was lame terrorist. the same in Syria. We've trained and armed many of these people. If we stop arming the region well be better off.

But wait aminute are they coming here with guns? NO. they are trying to secure thier own countries.
From secular rule AND western influence.

How many guns are in the US in the hands of "sleeper cells" that we should be afraid of. 100, 1000, OH my,?!!? 3000 million people should corer in FEAR behind A sniper A bomber I don't think so.
your worried about them over turning the constitution. By stealth and by force.

OK how about this, the Department of Human services has ordered over 1 billion rounds of ammo this year. Is that to be used against AlQuida in America?

Who the HECK are they going to use Over a BILLION rounds for in the "homeland" (MAN i hate that name). Immigrants?!!?

Does the Muslim brotherhood have A billion rounds of ammo in the U.S.?
Who should we be more concerned about?


the Constitution been gutted already, every 1 of the 10 amendments has been overturned except for housing troops in our homes.
The president claims the rights to kill or jail Americans at will. Obama and Romney agree on that. privacy forgetaboutit you have none. Search and seize, If the cops say so. Track, yep. torture, well it's Not REALLY torture so yeah. take your land, as long as we make up a rule that says so. Force you to take eat and drink what the go'vt wants. take meds the gov't says. more people in jail in the US per million than ANY country in the world. Drones flying overhead.

I don't know what the H3LL you guys are WHINING on on an about Islam when we have already lost the constitution.

Drummond your even worse off in the UK than we are . i've heard a story that a man is on trail in the UK for making anti war statements on facebook. London has 5 cameras on every corner and your right to own even fox hunting guns is out the window AFTER you guys were assured that it was REALLY only hand guns they wanted to take but now Only the criminals have weapons. Criminals and the gov't.

I could go on..

Please tell me why you guys imagine that this phantom potential domestic trouble, the Muslims , are to be MORE feared and should be SHOT AND KILLED more than the NON muslims that have ALREADY Screwed to the Constitution to crap?

Because you make ZERO sense to me.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-19-2012, 04:27 PM
Should the practice of Islam be banned or not? Nitty gritty time.

Our Constitution forbids doing that.. We must find a way to stop their pursuit of violence as the way for them to force their agenda. We do not do that by A. Appeasing them B. Ignoring them hoping they just stop . C. Joining them. D. Wishing the problem way..
I say we do that by showing them that we will take a hard stand against their murdering ways. Not treat them as ordinary criminals here. Nothing ordinary about murdering innocent people to further a political/religious goal. Since its Islam with the agenda and no other religion here we must single them out to be watched and slapped down EXTREMELY HARD every time they start their violence here. Also unify to stop their incursions into our politics.
They will force killing and if /when they do , so be it, kill all of them that Jihad fight . And do it with no mercy.. No mention of harmly innocent people in that.. Just target ONLY the Jihadists ruthlessly. Now spin away...I know you will..-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-19-2012, 05:06 PM
"Islams gonna get you!!! unless we get them 1st " RUN RUN.

Look If it weren't for the Us and Nato Kadifi would have handled the muslim brotherhood and Alquida radicals that Drum and Tyr and Gaf are sooo concerned about there. the rebelion was lame terrorist. the same in Syria. We've trained and armed many of these people. If we stop arming the region well be better off.

But wait aminute are they coming here with guns? NO. they are trying to secure thier own countries.
From secular rule AND western influence.

How many guns are in the US in the hands of "sleeper cells" that we should be afraid of. 100, 1000, OH my,?!!? 3000 million people should corer in FEAR behind A sniper A bomber I don't think so.
your worried about them over turning the constitution. By stealth and by force.

OK how about this, the Department of Human services has ordered over 1 billion rounds of ammo this year. Is that to be used against AlQuida in America?

Who the HECK are they going to use Over a BILLION rounds for in the "homeland" (MAN i hate that name). Immigrants?!!?

Does the Muslim brotherhood have A billion rounds of ammo in the U.S.?
Who should we be more concerned about?


the Constitution been gutted already, every 1 of the 10 amendments has been overturned except for housing troops in our homes.
The president claims the rights to kill or jail Americans at will. Obama and Romney agree on that. privacy forgetaboutit you have none. Search and seize, If the cops say so. Track, yep. torture, well it's Not REALLY torture so yeah. take your land, as long as we make up a rule that says so. Force you to take eat and drink what the go'vt wants. take meds the gov't says. more people in jail in the US per million than ANY country in the world. Drones flying overhead.

I don't know what the H3LL you guys are WHINING on on an about Islam when we have already lost the constitution.

Drummond your even worse off in the UK than we are . i've heard a story that a man is on trail in the UK for making anti war statements on facebook. London has 5 cameras on every corner and your right to own even fox hunting guns is out the window AFTER you guys were assured that it was REALLY only hand guns they wanted to take but now Only the criminals have weapons. Criminals and the gov't.

I could go on..

Please tell me why you guys imagine that this phantom potential domestic trouble, the Muslims , are to be MORE feared and should be SHOT AND KILLED more than the NON muslims that have ALREADY Screwed to the Constitution to crap?

Because you make ZERO sense to me.

Rev, I share your concern about our government attack on our Constitution. However I am not so limited as to let that cause me to ignore the very grave threat that Islam presents! I can only speak for myself and Drummonds will likely address your comments made about and to him. Both are very grave threats!!!-Tyr

revelarts
09-19-2012, 05:15 PM
Rev, I share your concern about our government attack on our Constitution. However I am not so limited as to let that cause me to ignore the very grave threat that Islam presents! I can only speak for myself and Drummonds will likely address your comments made about and to him. Both are very grave threats!!!-Tyr

Tyr One is not some potential threat. it is Here. right now.
There are foreign and domestic enemies, the domestic ones have already taken the Constitution down. Islam is not even close to doing the damage already done. the domestic enemies are using Islam as an excuse to gut the constitution today.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-19-2012, 06:45 PM
Tyr One is not some potential threat. it is Here. right now.
There are foreign and domestic enemies, the domestic ones have already taken the Constitution down. Islam is not even close to doing the damage already done. the domestic enemies are using Islam as an excuse to gut the constitution today.

True we have several huge holes in the boat. To stay afloat we must address all of them! The attacks on out Constitution are coming from a domestic alliance of leftsts,liberals, muslims and dems and the attacks ongoing and in the works are coming from an alliance of muslims, leftists , liberals and dems aided by ignorant Americans of many stripes. We face a danger more serious that was that which we faced in WW2! Simply because the enemy is working from within and working from foreign shores as well. Added to that is the fooool that we have as our nation's leader now! Most Americans see none of this, too busy trying to survive, playing games or drugging..Rome fell when it had gotten weak enough, we may fall as well. But it'll be after Im dead, thats a damn fact! And more importantly is that Im not alone in that way of thinking!!-Tyr

Dilloduck
09-19-2012, 07:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-19-2012, 09:00 PM
Our Constitution forbids doing that.. We must find a way to stop their pursuit of violence as the way for them to force their agenda. We do not do that by A. Appeasing them B. Ignoring them hoping they just stop . C. Joining them. D. Wishing the problem way..
I say we do that by showing them that we will take a hard stand against their murdering ways. Not treat them as ordinary criminals here. Nothing ordinary about murdering innocent people to further a political/religious goal. Since its Islam with the agenda and no other religion here we must single them out to be watched and slapped down EXTREMELY HARD every time they start their violence here. Also unify to stop their incursions into our politics.
They will force killing and if /when they do , so be it, kill all of them that Jihad fight . And do it with no mercy.. No mention of harmly innocent people in that.. Just target ONLY the Jihadists ruthlessly. Now spin away...I know you will..-Tyr

I answered , you didnt like my answer so you ignored this post.
Why?
Dont say you overlooked it ..I know better....--Tyr

Dilloduck
09-19-2012, 09:02 PM
I answered , you didnt like my answer so you ignored this post.
Why?
Dont say you overlooked it ..I know better....--Tyr

:laugh2: pretty soon you can just be my sock and post for me.

gabosaurus
09-19-2012, 11:32 PM
I doubt tyr or aboutime are intelligent enough to be sock puppets. :p

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-20-2012, 08:25 PM
I doubt tyr or aboutime are intelligent enough to be sock puppets. :p

So states a person so insecure that they think they must post, "smarter than you are", to get the message out!-:laugh2:--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-20-2012, 08:31 PM
http://cdn.radicalislam.org/content/shariah-threat-america


At the Islamic Association of Palestine’s annual convention in Illinois in 1996, Abdurahman Alamoudi declared: “I have no doubt in my mind, Muslims sooner or later will be the moral leadership of America. It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

Will you let this country become a Muslim country? If you answer an unequivocal NO, read the newly released report by The Center for Security Policy, Shariah: The Threat to America. The report investigates the situation thoroughly. It questions the way our administrations have been handling things. And it challenges you to keep America American, not Islamic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make no mistake about it , they plan on conquering(from within) and enslaving ALL Americans..
Not me or mine while I am alive and able to fight.-Tyr