Politics

RobertDyck · 2017-02-04 14:55:27

You could start by stop dropping bombs on their cities.

RobertDyck · 2017-02-04 15:16:49

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-02-04 15:20:39)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-04 23:09:20

RobertDyck wrote:

You could start by stop dropping bombs on their cities.

Its starts by them calling a halt to all terror attacks! They started it on 9/11! If we no longer need those extra security precautions at our nation's airports then the war is over. The last time I flew in an airplane was in 2001 right before the attack on 9/11. If we ever get back to the procedures that existed before that attack, then we truly know that the terror war is over! The other side let that genie out of the bottle, the unleashed the dogs of war and terrorism on us, now it is their responsibility to stuff that genie back into the bottle and undo the damage they have done to our civilization! if they can't do that, well maybe they should have thought of it before they started it. Ending the war is their job and their responsibility, since they started it on 9/11 in the first place! Do they want to come the negotiating table and put an end to the war they started? Let them!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-02-04 23:10:30)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-04 23:31:58

RobertDyck wrote:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SOd_eIICzbs/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=336&h=188&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=1d_1d7N4FULk7PcrDQD-ozZpP0E
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nSc9tC-qaz4/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=336&h=188&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=9vLHNcB-WF7HbkJ0jPjp5jQ_pdA

Not a typical Muslim. I see women like this:

and women like this:

At our airports all he time. There are more and more of them coming every year, they are demur, they are submissive to their husbands and fathers, their marriages are arranged, and the only thing the women's movement cares about now is the right to kill unborn babies. In 1865, we abolished slavery, now Muslim men are brining in women who are trained from birth to be their slaves, what does this do to liberated women when they see these "burka women" in supermarkets and airports? Do they think they have other rights than the right to kill their babies? What do you think is happening with these Muslim women while their western counterparts are aborting their children? The Muslim women are having four and five children a piece, and the girls are being trained to be submissive to their masters and eventually they will our number the western women that value their rights, women's rights will move backwards as muslims vote them back into second class status, this has happened in Iran, it has happened in Lebanon, it has happened in Egypt and other places in the Middle East.

Now what were these women doing on the 1st full day of the Trump Presidency? We had Madonna cursing and yelling obscentities to a crowd of people. There was the poor limousine owner that had his car burned by protestors in Washington DC. Unlike the Tea Party, their left wing counterparts like to burn things down, commit acts of violence and destroy property while they march! There is a lot of hate and anger here, and I think Obama and Clinton planned this whole thing in advance! And they go about cooking up stories about the Russians! What do they want? A military coup? What happens to our democratic system after that military coup? I guess it would be up to the generals wouldn't it! Was Trump really so terrible that you would rather have a military junta in his place? Has he really turned out to be the Nazi that so many people said he was?

RobertDyck · 2017-02-04 23:43:12

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

If we ever get back to the procedures that existed before that attack, then we truly know that the terror war is over!

Old saying: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." The powers that be will never let procedures get back to what existed before. For example: after the attack in Britain, airlines prohibited liquids over 100ml (3.4 ounces). There's no reason for this, you could easily test for chemicals needed for a bomb. Sulphuric acid, nitric acid, ammonia, chlorine, other strong chemicals that should never be allowed in carry-on anyway. But they won't. The reason is to force you to buy tooth paste, mouth wash, antiperspirant, and other toiletries at airport vendors at extremely inflated prices. It's about profit, not terrorism.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-02-04 23:47:55)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-04 23:55:08

That is because we haven't eliminated the Enemy! What were doing at airports is comparable to the Maginot line that France built to guard against German attack in the aftermath of World War I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
France built a wall to stop the Germans, they relied on fixed fortifications rather than on building an Army that could defeat the Germans if it came to War. Putting up security at airports is insufficient, as there are always soft targets that terrorists can find. The real way to end the war is to go out an destroy the Enemy! Make the Enemy pay through the nose for every attack they make against us, and make they pay a terrible price that they cannot sustain, and then they will learn they cannot attack us!

RobertDyck · 2017-02-05 01:10:48

Bullshit! The liquid explosive scare was just a scare. It isn't real. And it's easy to test for dangerous chemicals: nitroglycerine, TNT, RDX, HMX, etc. As well as the chemicals I already listed. Security experts have already said limiting liquids on an airplane does not provide any security, it's just to make passengers feel they're doing something.

And never forget, problems in the Middle East started when America tried to control them. America started it, they feel they're just defending themselves. Escalating will not stop anything, because they feel they're just defending themselves.

Terraformer · 2017-02-05 06:36:50

Seriously, Tom? It should be clear to everyone that we don't have security, just security theatre.

There's a game I like to play by myself in duty free whenever I'm at an airport. I call it "Are you smarter than a terrorist?". The goal is to try and figure out how to improvise weaponry from what they'll let you purchase and take on a plane. Obviously I don't actually do it, or talk about it - airport security believes stopping people mentioning a problem actually stops the problem, and I don't want to get arrested. Still, it's fun coming up with improvised flamethrowers (can you believe they sell flammable substances in airports? I'm sure I've seen it), shivs, tasers...

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-05 08:32:51

Terraformer wrote:

Seriously, Tom? It should be clear to everyone that we don't have security, just security theatre.
There's a game I like to play by myself in duty free whenever I'm at an airport. I call it "Are you smarter than a terrorist?". The goal is to try and figure out how to improvise weaponry from what they'll let you purchase and take on a plane. Obviously I don't actually do it, or talk about it - airport security believes stopping people mentioning a problem actually stops the problem, and I don't want to get arrested. Still, it's fun coming up with improvised flamethrowers (can you believe they sell flammable substances in airports? I'm sure I've seen it), shivs, tasers...

You playing the wrong game, the trick is not to stop the terrorist from what he wants to do, the trick it to retaliate for what he has done! If whoever sent the terrorists wants a war, we give him a war he cannot win! We take the war to him, and make him regret sending the terrorist in the first place. We have a list of terrorist countries that sponsor terrorism, so whenever a terrorist attack happens, we punish them until the terrorism stops! The Iranians have been chanting "Death to America" it seems forever, but we've never actually been in a war with them, we've fought their proxies, but never them! Maybe its time that changed!

Terraformer · 2017-02-05 15:05:38

I don't think a suicide bomber cares what you're going to do afterwards.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-05 20:10:56

Terraformer wrote:

I don't think a suicide bomber cares what you're going to do afterwards.

A suicide bomber is basically a Drone made out of flesh and blood, he has his programmers that send him out to kill people, presumably he I going to care what you do afterwards. The Japanese had a lot of suicide bombers, but after we dropped those two atomic bombs, they still surrendered, they all didn't want to die! The society that supported those suicide bombers (aka kamikazes, and Bonsai warriors), quit when they saw that their society might not survive if the did not surrender after those two atomic bombs. After they lost all hope for victory, no matter what the sacrifice, they gave up, this is what we need to do to the Islamic societies that support the terror war against us.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-05 20:17:33

SpaceNut wrote:

That makes us no better than the terrorist thinking as in an EYE for an EYE way of thinking.....
We are already changing parts of there culture as woman can drive in places, get education ect...
A wall is a Maginot line not just a border divider...when there are observatory posts along it.....

Actually we didn't start this war, they did! We wouldn't even be fighting it if they didn't start it against us! if there was no 9/11 attack, we would not be in Iraq, and Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein would likely still be in power or his sons would be in power or he would be overthrown, but we wouldn't have anything to do with the place unless he decided to misbehave towards his neighbors again. the United States did some terrible things to the South during the Civil War, again that war wasn't our idea, it was theirs, they wanted their secession, and we had t preserve the Union, it was a matter of survival and a nation for us! I think the moral imperative is to end the war as quickly as possible, and since the war is waged against us, the only way to end the war is to get the Enemy to stop attacking us, and they haven't stopped of their own accord. We could stop them by destroying them, if they are no more, then the war ends!

RobertDyck · 2017-02-05 20:58:59

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Actually we didn't start this war, they did!

It's more complicated than that. It started by a group of extremists wanting foreign soldiers off their soil.

Wikipedia: Al-Qaeda

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 had put...the world's most valuable oil fields were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait... Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahideen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow US and allied forces to deploy troops into Saudi territory. The deployment angered bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil.

The Wikipedia article conveniently skips over years of escalating conflict between Bill Clinton and al-Qaeda. The article is marked "This section needs expansion."

And don't blame all Muslims. Just because bin Laden wanted all Muslims to become radical, doesn't mean he had the authority to do that. In fact, under Muslim rules he didn't have authority to do squat.

Fatwas
Neither bin Laden nor al-Zawahiri possessed the traditional Islamic scholarly qualifications to issue a fatwa. However, they rejected the authority of the contemporary ulema (which they saw as the paid servants of jahiliyya rulers), and took it upon themselves.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

the United States did some terrible things to the South during the Civil War, again that war wasn't our idea, it was theirs, they wanted their secession, and we had t[o] preserve the Union, it was a matter of survival and a nation for us!

Again, bullshit! America is supposed to be the "Land of the free". That means no one is forced to be there at the point of a gun. The states joined of their own free will, they have a right to leave that way too. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, but before the Court could hear the case, some hot-heads started the war. Some northern general decided to take everything they could carry from one military base to another military base in southern territory that was under construction at that time, consolidating military might. But southern generals demanded that all military bases within southern territory must be surrendered to the Confederacy. That is an issue that should have been settled by the Supreme Court. Of course land within the Confederacy would remain part of the Confederacy, the only question was disposition of equipment. But a few hot-head generals on both sides escalated until shots were fired, and the war began. You could easily blame northern generals for trying to claim military bases within southern territory should remain owned by the north. You could blame the general who reinforced Fort Sumter. There's a lot of blame on both sides. But your comment shows you are one of the hot-heads trying to repeat the same mistakes that started the war.

GW Johnson · 2017-02-05 21:40:38

Like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden was a CIA boy during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. He led the diverse groups collectively known as the Mujahadeen for his handlers at CIA. The Mujahadeen were our proxy army against the Soviets, although they didn't really know that, nor would they have wanted that role.

We supplied them modern guns and Stinger missiles, because with vintage 19th century flintlock rifles captured from the Brits at the Khyber Pass, they were being decimated by Soviet aircraft and helo, as well as ground forces.

The anti-air thing didn't work until we also gave them decoys to draw the aircraft, so they could shoot them all down at once from behind. That actually worked. A few years of lopsided aircraft losses, and the Soviets left. Such is the nature of anti-air warfare in the open desert. War's end put bin Laden out on his own.

How do I know this? I worked on those very decoys as an employee at a contractor to the CIA. I had to understand the tactics and the strategy to do my job.

Bin Laden was fairly quiet (from our viewpoint here in the US) until the 1991 Gulf War. But he already was trouble for others. He got into the business of terrorist-training-for-hire, with training camps located in Libya, Afghanistan, and a few other places.

He trained Palestinians, IRA, Cubans, anybody who could pay. During this time he developed the extremist-religion-as-reason-to-be-a-terrorist narrative for recruiting. Which has since spread like a cancer everywhere, of its own accord.

He turned violent against us because of US troops stationed in his home country Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Whether that was "justified" is irrelevant, it was adequate justification to him. The rest is just history: two Gulf wars.

There is no one group "Al Qaeda", or one group "ISIS". There's a huge plethora of competing, fractious groups. The one thing that unites them is they hate "the west" more than they hate each other.

This sort of hate thing is middle-eastern culture millennia old, long predating Islam, actually. Although the extremist/fundamentalist forms of Islam make it much worse. THAT is what you fight.

Extremist religion is evil, no matter what brand. We've seen it for millennia. Similarly, extremist politics is also evil: having given us two world wars and a plethora of others during just the 20th century.

Now you know why I react so badly to extremist nonsense of any kind. Which is also why I am so disappointed to see extremist beliefs showing up in this thread.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-02-05 21:56:29)

Void · 2017-02-05 23:04:09

I don't like this topic but RobertDyck, I am going to have to throw a bit of water on your story.
Quote:

Again, bullshit! America is supposed to be the "Land of the free". That means no one is forced to be there at the point of a gun. The states joined of their own free will, they have a right to leave that way too. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, but before the Court could hear the case, some hot-heads started the war. Some northern general decided to take everything they could carry from one military base to another military base in southern territory that was under construction at that time, consolidating military might. But southern generals demanded that all military bases within southern territory must be surrendered to the Confederacy. That is an issue that should have been settled by the Supreme Court. Of course land within the Confederacy would remain part of the Confederacy, the only question was disposition of equipment. But a few hot-head generals on both sides escalated until shots were fired, and the war began. You could easily blame northern generals for trying to claim military bases within southern territory should remain owned by the north. You could blame the general who reinforced Fort Sumter. There's a lot of blame on both sides. But your comment shows you are one of the hot-heads trying to repeat the same mistakes that started the war.

The background of that story is:
1) Treachery from elements of the British Empire (That was you by the way, and one of my grandfathers heritages).
2) Treachery from elements of the French, and Europe in General.
3) The intentions of the South to conquer Latin America, and make as much of it southern slave territory as possible (And eventually render the northern culture(s) irrelevant.
4) An alliance of mutual protection between the USA and Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_in … _in_Mexico

The second French intervention in Mexico (Spanish: Segunda intervención francesa en México), also known as the Maximilian Affair, Mexican Adventure, the War of the French Intervention, the Franco-Mexican War or the Second Franco-Mexican War, was an invasion of Mexico in late 1861 by the Second French Empire, supported in the beginning by the United Kingdom and Spain. It followed President Benito Juárez's suspension of interest payments to foreign countries on 17 July 1861, which angered these three major creditors of Mexico.
Emperor Napoleon III of France was the instigator, justifying military intervention by claiming a broad foreign policy of commitment to free trade. For him, a friendly government in Mexico would ensure European access to Latin American markets. Napoleon also wanted the silver that could be mined in Mexico to finance his empire. Napoleon built a coalition with Spain and Britain while the U.S. was deeply engaged in its civil war.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html

April 2011 marks the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Civil War, which began when Confederate forces opened fire upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The following essay by Webster Tarpley, tells about the largely untold alliance between President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II, which by many accounts was key to the North winning the U.S. Civil War, sealing the defeat of the British strategic design.

Now in the American internals of course there would be mostly ignorant peoples in both the Northern and Southern states. Not much different than us, being given bull shit information about what was going on really, and being used as cannon fodder. However a cold claim which I cannot substantiate is that many poor southern whites while not owning slaves, had hopes that they could. Now that bit could be propaganda. For that matter there could have been whites in the northern states who had similar hopes. That and southern whites who did not like slavery.

We are often told that it was the North against the South, but really, it was the Federal government fighting British and European colonialism, retaining the loyalty of some states, and some other states having either been repulsed by the fear of being dominated, or seduced by the British and Europeans, and frankly not necessarily the highest intentions towards potential slaves.

And then we come to the question of where did black slavery come from?

The answer is Islam. The Europeans picked it up from them.

And white Europeans both in Europe and the Americas had a lot to do with getting rid of it.

And the Europeans had to force some Muslims to give up their black slaves, and in reality black slavery still exists in some parts of the Muslim world.

Sorry to have to call you out but there you go.

With apologies GW Johnson. Have very big admiration for Texas and other south locations.

P.S. By the way the alliance involved allowing the Russian white sea fleet to harbor on American shores. The Russians were afraid that their fleet would be blockaded in the White Sea, and that they would be next after the USA got re-colonized. The Russian fleet apparently reduced the temptation that the British and Europeans would actually attempt to intervene directly with military force on the side of the South.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-05 23:26:24)

RobertDyck · 2017-02-06 00:49:01

I posted this before, post #621 on page 21.
Wikipedia: Fort Sumter - Civil War

Fort Sumter is what started the Civil War. When I lived in Virginia, some locals pointed out the Civil War was not at all about slavery, it was about the right to secede. And for the most part, they're right. President Lincoln has signed at law permitting slavery to continue, but not spread to new states.

Void, you're talking about the tensions between North and South, not what started the war. The incident of Fort Sumter started the war. But if you want underlying causes, the primary issue was Southerners had dominated Congress and every president was a Southerner until Lincoln. The South resented losing power. And the North decided to take revenge; they created new taxes on products only produced in the South. The South was not willing to take it, so decided to secede.

Hmm. And today president Trump revoked funding for sanctuary cities in California. A state dependent on cheap labour for agriculture. So how much of the state economy is agriculture? Wikipedia...

So not very much. But I find this chart disturbing. How much of the economy is about actually producing something vs overhead. Real estate is not a product, it's a service that exists only to provide for some other industry. Government is pure overhead. Construction is about building something local, which is only needed if there's an economy to service. Transportation and Utilities are services. Finance and insurance, professional and technical services, education, health and other services; all services. Assuming "Information" means something that can be sold as a commodity or sold out of state, that means only 18% of the state economy is about actually making something. That sounds like a house of cards ready to collapse.

Void wrote:

And then we come to the question of where did black slavery come from?
The answer is Islam. The Europeans picked it up from them.

Nope. Europe had a long history of slavery, going back millennia. Romans enslaved white people, anyone not Roman. Europeans enslaved people from other nations/cultures long before the founding of Rome. England invaded Ireland, enslaved many and exported them to various colonies. During this period, 3/4 of the population of Ireland was either killed or exported. Many Europeans obtained passage to the Americas via indentured servitude. That means they were effectively slaves for 4 to 7 years. There were a number of Irish sent to America against their will, and Germany had a bad habit of kidnapping peasants, drafting them into the army or selling them as indentured servants. But in the 1600s in the South, plantation owners found workers just became productive after 7 years service, just when they left. In the 1500s Europe gained the habit of purchasing black slaves. Just as in Europe, African warlords raided neighbouring nations and captured their citizens as slaves. When trade with Europe began, it wasn't long before a group of slaves was sold to Europe. French and Spanish sent black slaves to their colonies long before America imported blacks. America learned of black slaves from Europe. But when America started to import black slaves, rather than treated them as people who were enslaved, they treated them as chattel. History of slavery is long and complicated. But Europeans did it long before Mohammad was born.

Void · 2017-02-06 06:56:54

My information could be broken into two main parts.

The important part was the hidden background which indicates that the real and main problem of the Civil War was yet another European effort to destroy the American Republic. And yet you completely paper that over, and do not address it at all, you then return back to the typical propaganda that has been sold to us, probably since about 1929.

The second part was very specific as to according to my readings how people of European descent became involved with Black Slavery
And then you give me an irrelevant lecture about slavery in general. I also mentioned what our current popular culture does not acknowledge, that it was the people of European descent who had a large hand in ending the black slavery business.

To my knowledge, the first modern era instance of black slavery by people of European descent occurred on the island of Cyprus. It involved a mixture of English, Italian, Greek, and French people who wanted to get into sugar cane farming. They had seen that the Arabs could do sugar cane farming with slaves. The slaves for Cyprus originally came from the Ukraine area. The word Slav is short for Slave I believe, or possibly could be.

The Turks cut off the supply of slaves from the Ukraine. White people I presume. I am not thinking the Turks did so as a benevolent gesture, but for not very much liking to facilitate European sugar cane farming.

Your description of black tribes selling other tribe captives may be some part of the source of black slaves that was resorted to, but I see you worked that over to try to guide it back to "White (Meaning Euro-America's Caucasian) Guilt" which is convenient for the ends of the worldwide lying machine which is being supported by enemies of our culture(s).

You conveniently tried to paper over the role of Arabs and so in many cases, Moslem participation in black slavery.

So, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab world, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, Southeast Africa, the Horn of Africa and certain parts of Europe (such as Iberia and Sicily). This barter occurred chiefly between the medieval era and the early 20th century. The trade was conducted through slave markets in these areas, with the slaves captured mostly from Africa's interior.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/ … n-schools/
You should read this article, but I bet you won't bother.

Arab Slave Trade Inspired Arab Racism Toward Blacks
Its important to note that Arab is not a racial classification; an Arab is almost like an American in that people classified as Arab today could be Caucasian (white people), Asiatic or even Arabized Africans. In the beginning there was some level of mutual respect between the Blacks and the more lighter skinned Arabs. However, as Islam and the demand for enslaved Blacks grew, so did racism toward Africans.
As casual association with Black skin and slave began to be established, racist attitudes towards Blacks began to manifest in Arabic language and literature. The word for slave – Abid – became a colloquialism for African. Other words such as Haratin express social inferiority of Africans.

Once some Europeans became involved in black slavery, they then were able to make sufficient profit to economically displace Europeans who did not practice Black slavery. So the process continued like a Metastasized Tumor.

Prior to the war, the south wanted to conquer Cuba, and make it slave territory. Beyond that they intended to take everything south of the Mason Dixon line for slavery. All the way down to Tierra Del Fuego
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_del_Fuego

That was opposed by the other forces, and so, yes the South did not want to be out of power, and they did not want slave territory limited.
And some of them collaborated with colonial British and Europeans, because they saw their way to power and their own colonial empires through that path.

So, was being told that they could not have Cuba and South America for slave territory a justifiable reason to do what they did? Are you really going to try to weasel word your way out of this?

And then there is this.
http://civilwarhome.com/canadaspies.htm

Confederate Operations in Canada
        From the earliest days of the Civil War the Confederacy had a secret operation in Canada with two main purposes. First, Canada provided a safe haven for Confederate prisoners of war who escaped from the prison camps in the North, and second, it served as a relay point for communications between England and the Confederacy. During the early days of the war Rose O'Neal Greenhow, of Washington, served as an intermediary between Washington and Toronto.
        On 7 April 1864, the mission of the Toronto operation was drastically changed. On that day President Jefferson Davis sent the following telegram to the Honorable Jacob Thompson, in Mississippi: "If your engagements permit you to accept service abroad for the next six months, please come here immediately." Mr. Thompson, a lawyer, statesman, ex-member of Congress, and Secretary of the Interior under President Buchanan, was above all a loyal Confederate. He quickly responded to President Davis call.
        The reason for his summoning by President Davis was that the Confederacy, in a last desperate action, wanted Thompson to go to Canada and from there direct a secret operation to create hostile activities in the Northwest, specifically another secession movement against the Union government--thereby, hopefully, the Union would sue for peace to prevent a further breakup.
        Thompson accepted the challenge and was joined in Canada by Clement Clay, an ex-senator from Alabama, who was given the title of Commissioner of the North. The action officers assigned to the effort were James P. Holcombe, a University of Virginia law professor, and Captain Thomas Henry Hines, a veteran Confederate spy (even though he was only in his early twenties).
        Why go to Toronto? By 1864, Toronto was much like Lisbon during the Second World War. Everyone had spies there and it was not infrequent that the spies traded information. In addition, C.L. Vallandingham, who was the Grand Commander of the Sons of Liberty and an outspoken sympathizer for the Confederacy, had fled from the U.S. to Canada in 1863. He purposed to detach the states of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio from the Union, if the Confederacy would move sufficient troops into Kentucky and Missouri to ensure their entry into the new Confederacy. Vallandingham wanted to form the five states into a new Northwestern Confederacy and thereby break the Union into three distinct pieces. He felt this action would force the Union to sue for peace. It is for all of these reasons that President Davis sent his powerful delegation north to Canada in the spring of 1864.
        Hines and his fellow agents did work closely with all of the Copperhead organizations in the Northwest, mainly the Knights of the Golden Circle, the Order of the American Knights, and the Sons of Liberty, in attempts to create uprisings. All that resulted from this liaison was a great deal of inflammatory talk and no action. It appears that Captain Hines, in his youthful optimism, often misread the rhetoric as a guarantee of action--action that never came to fruition.
        The following chronology summarizes the action undertaken by the Toronto operation:

But really the word Canada did not imply that specifically the Nation of Canada was plotting against the USA. The region of Canada at that time was more or less under the power of the British international objectives. I am sure many people living there were very loyal to that non-Canadian government however.

Unfortunately I sort of expect you to respond to what I say as many on this board do by first not acknowledging my points/questions even exist, and then formulating text which you can appear to win in, where it is implied that I said something other than what I said.

So, if you care to respond, at least try to maintain a coherent dialog.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-06 07:39:44)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-06 09:45:49

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Actually we didn't start this war, they did!
It's more complicated than that. It started by a group of extremists wanting foreign soldiers off their soil.
Wikipedia: Al-Qaeda
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 had put...the world's most valuable oil fields were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait... Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahideen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow US and allied forces to deploy troops into Saudi territory. The deployment angered bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil.
The Wikipedia article conveniently skips over years of escalating conflict between Bill Clinton and al-Qaeda. The article is marked "This section needs expansion."
And don't blame all Muslims. Just because bin Laden wanted all Muslims to become radical, doesn't mean he had the authority to do that. In fact, under Muslim rules he didn't have authority to do squat.
Fatwas
Neither bin Laden nor al-Zawahiri possessed the traditional Islamic scholarly qualifications to issue a fatwa. However, they rejected the authority of the contemporary ulema (which they saw as the paid servants of jahiliyya rulers), and took it upon themselves.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
the United States did some terrible things to the South during the Civil War, again that war wasn't our idea, it was theirs, they wanted their secession, and we had t[o] preserve the Union, it was a matter of survival and a nation for us!
Again, bullshit! America is supposed to be the "Land of the free". That means no one is forced to be there at the point of a gun.

And the Lincoln Administration did not force any Southerner to stay in the United States if he didn't want to, they could have fled to Mexico or South America, and some did after the Civil War.

The states joined of their own free will, they have a right to leave that way too.

They could have saved themselves and us a lot of grief if they just took their slaves and moved to South America with them. One might ask however, what about the slaves' free will?

The case was taken to the Supreme Court, but before the Court could hear the case, some hot-heads started the war. Some northern general decided to take everything they could carry from one military base to another military base in southern territory that was under construction at that time, consolidating military might. But southern generals demanded that all military bases within southern territory must be surrendered to the Confederacy.

Well you see, those Southern Generals were not part of the United States military's chain of command, they resigned their commissions from the US Military, so therefore the US Generals were not subordinate to them no matter how high a rank they held in the Confederate military.

That is an issue that should have been settled by the Supreme Court. Of course land within the Confederacy would remain part of the Confederacy, the only question was disposition of equipment.

But the United States did not cede any of that land to them, and Fort Sumter was US government property!

But a few hot-head generals on both sides escalated until shots were fired,

Well I think someone fired those cannons, they did not fire themselves, the most likely culprit was a Democrat of course!

and the war began. You could easily blame northern generals for trying to claim military bases within southern territory should remain owned by the north. You could blame the general who reinforced Fort Sumter. There's a lot of blame on both sides. But your comment shows you are one of the hot-heads trying to repeat the same mistakes that started the war.

The United States did not hand over the fort or any of the land to the Confederates, so legally they did not have a right to be there, not did they have a license for those cannons, some of which by the way was stolen property of the US Army!

You know Robert, I thought you were a Canadian, not a Southerner! Did all those escaped slaves make a mistake by fleeing to Canada? I wonder? I'm not going to use the "r-word" but I wonder what some black Canadians might think of your pro-southern point of view, or the fact that some of those southerners may have owned some of their ancestors!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-02-06 09:50:34)

RobertDyck · 2017-02-06 10:46:34

Tom, the land of Georgia is Georgia's. The land of Louisiana is Louisiana's. The United States of America is an alliance of independent states that chose to work together for common defence. In many ways the federal government of the United States has a lot less authority than Canada's. This wasn't "the King's land", it was the land of the people. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised; your attitude is the same one that took land from the Indians.

The Civil War resulted in more deaths than any war in history before it. It was the first war fought with rifles. Your attitude is what resulted in all that carnage.

Terraformer · 2017-02-06 11:21:48

However, a lot, if not most, of the states are constructs of the federal government. Hence why they have rectangular borders.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-06 13:56:28

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, the land of Georgia is Georgia's. The land of Louisiana is Louisiana's. The United States of America is an alliance of independent states that chose to work together for common defense.

Then how come your so resistant to Canada joining this "Alliance?"

In many ways the federal government of the United States has a lot less authority than Canada's. This wasn't "the King's land", it was the land of the people.

And the black slaves of Georgia were people! This position you have is a decidedly illiberal position for someone who calls himself a liberal! Are you saying people are property? I'd like to see you stand next to a black Canadian citizen and express that opinion and just look at his reaction to it, that would be amusing!

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised; your attitude is the same one that took land from the Indians.

The question is which people count as people and which don't! Now if one is going to go around buying and selling human being as slaves, what do you think their attitude towards the Indians was? The Only reason blacks were brought to America was because Indians kept on getting sick and dying whenever there was an attempt to enslave them! Also most of the land we stole from the Indians was before the Civil War and by Democratic Pro-Slave Administrations. It was during a Democratic Administration, that of James Madison that it was decided to invade your country Canada! No Republican Administration ever did such a thing!

The Civil War resulted in more deaths than any war in history before it. It was the first war fought with rifles. Your attitude is what resulted in all that carnage.

You should appreciate the sacrifices we made to eliminate slavery and to save the Union from people that wanted to corrupt it with slavery. Look what happened to the Roman Republic and Empire, they never eliminated slavery, and see how that brought down Roman Civilization!
Not to nip pick, but the Kentucky Long Rifle was used during the American Revolutionary War.
50297d1362764830-greatest-guns-great-kentucky-rifle_pg.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-06 14:01:24

Terraformer wrote:

However, a lot, if not most, of the states are constructs of the federal government. Hence why they have rectangular borders.

Could be something to that, though the only perfectly rectangular state is Colorado. Also most of those states with straight borders are west of the Mississippi.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-06 14:19:46

kbd512 wrote:

Although it's great fun to watch adults act like toddlers throwing temper tantrums, this really does need to stop for me to ever take liberals seriously again. I watched multiple videos of grown women rocking back-and-forth on the ground, screaming and crying, when declarations were made that Secretary Clinton lost the general election and also when President Trump was sworn in as our President.
Virtually every critique of President Obama's performance in office was labelled racism or bigotry by the ministry of liberal propaganda. The commentary I've read on various liberal propaganda sites masquerading as journalism clearly illustrates that the label applies equally to an unhealthy number of equally bigoted liberals who are, by their own words, every bit as hateful and spiteful as they claim conservatives are.
As far as immigration is concerned, the US has no legal obligation whatsoever to admit people to this country who have no legal right to be here to begin with. For better or worse, our elected government officials get to decide who comes here and who stays here. Every other sovereign nation on this planet has the same legal standing to enforce their borders and immigration laws. The US has been extraordinarily charitable to immigrants throughout our nation's history and I believe we should continue our long standing tradition of permitting immigrants to come here to seek a better way of life. However, there are some people who should not be permitted to immigrate to the US because they do not come here seeking a better way of life.
It is the duty and responsibility of every government to protect their own citizenry from foreigners who may harm them. President Trump placed a temporary immigration restriction on foreign nationals from certain countries who are coming into the US so that our Immigration and Customs Enforcement can formulate more effective methods for screening immigrants for the express purpose of protecting American citizens from terrorists.
Is it the slightest bit curious to anyone else here that so-called journalists are calling this so-called "ban on muslims" a "death sentence" for LGBTQ community members from those countries? Is it possible that some of the people coming here from those countries don't share our values and would murder their fellow citizens if not restrained by government? Can we stop pretending that all religions are equivalently violent towards non-believers, or even each other, at certain points in time in human history?
All the rest of this hubbub about President Trump is "Rules for Radicals" in action. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. That's the extent of the psychological sophistication of the liberal assault on President Trump.

LGBTQ is a politically correct label, I notice how frequently these labels change, the think this s improving things for the people in question to change what they are called. I personally don't like the word "Gays" because that seems to imply that they have permanent smiles plastered on their faces all the time. It is curious that liberals seem to advocate that we bring in all these illiberal people into our country, that seems to be similar to RobertDyck advocating for the South, now the Southerners at that time weren't liberal, but there was something they did advocate that Robert seems to approve of, namely the breakup of the United States of America. You know Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Party were considered liberal at the time, but it was a strong muscular liberalism, a patriotic form of liberalism, it was the sort of liberalism I have never seen in my lifetime!

The kind of liberalism I see, seems to want to tear down the United States, by weakening it from within, they want to undermine our culture, weaken our military, they say they want peace, yet they want to bring in warmongers from the Middle East and make them US citizens so they can tear down our republic from within! This is not the sort of liberal that Abraham Lincoln was, I don't know why the modern weak liberalism, that hates America became so fashionable, is it because they feel Lenin and Marx surplanted George Washington as the leading revolutionary in their minds? the American Revolution was so "Yesterday" in their mind, the new modern revolution was the Russian Revolution, that had so many cultural icons, including that t-shirt with Che Gueverra on it, they though those Soviet posters were so cool and deriguer, while frumpy old George Washington was so old fogy, so unhip and frumpy. Modern liberals like new things, no old things, they wanted class struggle, not a republic. the Soviet Union is part of the ash heap of history, it was one of those things that didn't work, yet liberals won't let go of it!

RobertDyck · 2017-02-06 15:13:59

Tom, watch the video by Hasan Piker. He points out he can disagree with a policy of Obama despite the fact he voted for him. I disagree with some actions of Obama, even though he made a lot of good promises.

I disagree with settling the issue of secession by war. The Confederacy should have had the right to secede peacefully. It was brought to the Supreme Court, and should have been settled there. That does not conflict with my disapproval of slavery. President Lincoln chose a compromise, that all new states would not be permitted slavery, but states that had slavery would be permitted to continue. This would make slavery a minority within the Union as the Union expanded. His intention was to phase out slavery peacefully. Notice the key word: "peacefully".

Also realize my discomfort with this immigration ban. Restricting immigration from an enemy country during war is legitimate. However, the problem is Trump did not say this was to halt immigration of terrorists, it was to halt immigration from Muslim countries. That was his mistake. As I already explained, Osama bin Laden did not have authority under Muslim law to issue a Fatwa, but made the declaration anyway. Osama bin Laden tried to turn this from a terrorist issue into a religious issue. He wanted all Muslims on his side. But the King of Saudi Arabia was not, and religious leaders were not. If you allow your opponent to frame this as religious, you give your opponent a vast pool of allies and potential recruits. There are more people in the word who practice the Muslim faith than Christians, so allowing this to become a religious crusade could become very very dangerous. What the "liberals" are trying to do is cut off those recruits from terrorists.

CBC: Prosecute ISIS fighters for murder, rape, slavery, torture — not just terrorism, expert says

To stop the flow of recruits to ISIS, Canada and its allies need to put captured members of the group on trial for each crime they commit rather than lumping their offences under the generic term of terrorism, says the Canadian head of a group investigating atrocities in Iraq and Syria.
Bill Wiley, executive director for the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, has been working with investigators on the ground to tie crimes such as systematic murder, rape, slavery and torture to the ISIS leadership.
He says that while putting captured ISIS fighters on trial for terrorism may be easier than prosecuting them for slavery, genocide and the persecution of minorities, it will not cut off the flow of recruits to the militant group.
"It's a relatively quick way to prosecute individuals, but … with a lot of possible joiners of these groups, if you prosecute an [ISIS] member as a terrorist, it may serve as an incentive to others to join because they'll say: 'Well, if we're terrorists, what about George Bush, what about Tony Blair and so forth,'" Wiley told CBC's Power & Politics.
"We really feel that this counterterrorism effort needs to be coupled with a criminal prosecutorial effort, which reveals groups such as the Islamic State to essentially be criminal syndicates engaged in murder, narcotics trafficking, sexual slavery and so forth — to leave aside the terrorist label wherever possible," Wiley said.

SpaceNut · 2017-02-06 17:50:29

That Gw like button was just hit.....dam thats a facebook feature....

In the case of the start of our nation we were not there 240 years ago when the battles were faught to seperate from England nor were any of us there 150 years ago when we faught with in our selfs for the slaves....
So what we need to do is figure out how to move on and to keep all peoples of this nation safe.

No matter what the race, or religion is.....

There is also a need to improve the mental health care system as those that did and those that did not make it to be part of ISIS demonstrates...

Maybe this is part of that vetting that we need is that follow on care for those that come from those nations to allow for assimulation into or way of life and not the other way around.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2017-02-04 14:55:27

Re: Politics

#427 2017-02-04 15:16:49

Re: Politics

#428 2017-02-04 23:09:20

Re: Politics

#429 2017-02-04 23:31:58

Re: Politics

#430 2017-02-04 23:43:12

Re: Politics

#431 2017-02-04 23:55:08

Re: Politics

#432 2017-02-05 01:10:48

Re: Politics

#433 2017-02-05 06:36:50

Re: Politics

#434 2017-02-05 08:32:51

Re: Politics

#435 2017-02-05 15:05:38

Re: Politics

#436 2017-02-05 20:10:56

Re: Politics

#437 2017-02-05 20:17:33

Re: Politics

#438 2017-02-05 20:58:59

Re: Politics

#439 2017-02-05 21:40:38

Re: Politics

#440 2017-02-05 23:04:09

Re: Politics

#441 2017-02-06 00:49:01

Re: Politics

#442 2017-02-06 06:56:54

Re: Politics

#443 2017-02-06 09:45:49

Re: Politics

#444 2017-02-06 10:46:34

Re: Politics

#445 2017-02-06 11:21:48

Re: Politics

#446 2017-02-06 13:56:28

Re: Politics

#447 2017-02-06 14:01:24

Re: Politics

#448 2017-02-06 14:19:46

Re: Politics

#449 2017-02-06 15:13:59

Re: Politics

#450 2017-02-06 17:50:29

Re: Politics

Board footer