Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army

I think you are getting the terms Arab and muslim mixed up. An Arab is someone from parts of northern Africa and the Middle East. There are non arabs in that part of the world (for instance, many tribes in Iraq do not identify as Arab).

Does that clear it up a little? I am not being sarcastic, I think you simply have those two terms mixed up.

Dont use Wikipedia as a source. It is flawed.

Sorry Buddy, but the Very Title of this thread could be considered in Violation.  Not neccasraly by me, But lets face it because of a few (like 3 or 4) we just dont get to talk about this stuff here.

Your option to butt out, someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to post ?

The title of the thread, which you would have known if you had actually bothered to read the link, is what the muslim shooter himself had said - So now muslims are racist against themselves ?
I've heard about everything now sheesh

muslim is a type of religous faith ( like being christain or  jewish is)--- arab is racial / ethnic term for arabic type people from a certain region --- not all muslims are arabs and not arabs are muslim -- although many are.

the christain faith says thou shall not kill * but how many christain soldiers of german background fought in WW2 against --fellow "christian germans" in the germany  army -- and unlike him they could not to their commanders --refuse to deploy and resign their commission , and walk away "scott free" and not have to go to "war" --

once you put on the uniform of the us military  --you go and fight those whom your ordered to by your commanders -- since thats what your being "paid" to do -- fight any and all threats foreign and domestic

muslim is a type of religous faith ( like being christain or  jewish is)--- arab is racial / ethnic term for arabic type people from a certain region --- not all muslims are arabs and not arabs are muslim -- although many are.

the christain faith says thou shall not kill * but how many christain soldiers of german background fought in WW2 against --fellow "christian germans" in the germany  army -- and unlike him they could not to their commanders --refuse to deploy and resign their commission , and walk away "scott free" and not have to go to "war" --

once you put on the uniform of the us military  --you go and fight those whom your ordered to by your commanders -- since thats what your being "paid" to do -- fight any and all threats foreign and domestic

  ok I ll eguate muslim with Islam now. Bummer, I was hoping to keep them seperate but I see now that a muslim is justa s much a religious killer as a Islam (if hes devout) thanks for clearing that up.

  Concernig the word KILL in the bible, there are diffrent extremes, to kill in self defense and to kill in cold blood are 2 diffrent things.

no in the bibles original text --its thou shall not murder * -- kill and murder have two very differant meanings biblically speaking.

one can kill but not murder --- ie by accident your cart runs over someone--did  you kill him yes but you did not "murder" him

murder implies evil intent --you meant to cause harm for some foul reason -- say you stabbed a guy to make it easier to rob him --he dies --you "murdered" him

thru modern PC word twisting the wording was changed in today modern bible to "thou shall not kill " from the original --"thou shall not murder"

words have very exact meanings ( they why theres so many of them) -- this means this and that means that --changing the words around changes the whole context and meaning of the message.


Islam --simply means --submit to the will of god -- you can be of any faith and be "Islam"

what the terrorist are are "RADICAL muslim extremist" -- those who can not co exist with non muslims in peace --they must "force convert" the world into their point of veiw -- be muslim or die--is their motto

in that way they are no differant than any other extremist thug group --nazis ,ect,ect --we want to rule the world group --except that they are using their "religion" as a mask to work under.

Why build up an intolerant dictatureship, when you got the finest democracy and free country in the world ?? ?? ?? ??  

I don´t get it !!!  

Sorry Buddy, but the Very Title of this thread could be considered in Violation.  Not neccasraly by me, But lets face it because of a few (like 3 or 4) we just dont get to talk about this stuff here.


Most importantly, anyone found posting personal attacks, or hateful, or defaming, or racist comments, or other content in violation of our Terms Of Use WILL BE BANNED. Thank you for your help in maintaining a COURTEOUS, and family friendly atmosphere here at TreasureNet!

I agree, alot of the people posting here are to blame for the political forum not existing anymore, if these people keep it up, I figure "everything else" will be the next to go!
I think one of them is that one old woman that used to pretend to be a man...

murder implies evil intent --you meant to cause harm for some foul reason -- say you stabbed a guy to make it easier to rob him --he dies --you "murdered" him

So by your thinking Christians that kill abortion doctors are "killing" not "murdering" and it's ok because they think their intent is righteous.

Gotcha.

abortionist do what to what would become SEPERATE human being if allowed to be born ?
-- why does a woman have the right to kill as of yet unborn child but not have the right to kill a "born child"
 A WOMAN CAN SAY -- I DO NOT WISH TO BE A MOTHER --"NOW ABORT IT "(no matter what the man who is the father has to say on the issue -- she wins-- keep it or kill it ) --- but a man can not say --I DO NOT WISH TO BE A FATHER " I ABORT"--

 its not like the "fetus" is not going to be a human is it ? if let alone it will be a human will it not? -- who made woman GOD with her alone to decide who lives and who dies upon her whim?

So are you excusing those who kill doctors in the name of their faith?

so your excuseing those that kill the baby within their belly?

I work in the medical field. I am also a male. While abortion is a whole different argument, I can say this:

I would never leave a woman in a situation where an abortion was necessary, but as long as there are as many unwanted children in foster care and adoption agencies as there are, I cannot in good conscience declare what a woman cannot do with her body.

Take that as you will.

Talk about grasping at straws, you people that keep bringing up the abortion doctors killed by evil Christians thing.

What have there been, maybe 3 of them killed in the past 20 years ? ,,, Vs untold 1,000's killed by muslims.

who made woman GOD with her alone to decide who lives and who dies upon her whim?

Well, uh, according to the Bible, God set this up, so maybe God should have given men more control over that part of childbirth, hrrm?

Talk about grasping at straws, you people that keep bringing up the abortion doctors killed by evil Christians thing.

What have there been, maybe 3 of them killed in the past 20 years ? ,,, Vs untold 1,000's killed by muslims.

So I should just ignore one human life as unimportant because it tarnishes your religion, and concentrate on your enemies murders instead.

Touching, really.

Talk about grasping at straws, you people that keep bringing up the abortion doctors killed by evil Christians thing.

What have there been, maybe 3 of them killed in the past 20 years ? ,,, Vs untold 1,000's killed by muslims.

So I should just ignore one human life as unimportant because it tarnishes your religion, and concentrate on your enemies murders instead.

Touching, really.

Perhaps you could at least have the respect to remember why they are "enemies" in the first place

Talk about grasping at straws, you people that keep bringing up the abortion doctors killed by evil Christians thing.

What have there been, maybe 3 of them killed in the past 20 years ? ,,, Vs untold 1,000's killed by muslims.

So I should just ignore one human life as unimportant because it tarnishes your religion, and concentrate on your enemies murders instead.

Touching, really.

Perhaps you could at least have the respect to remember why they are "enemies" in the first place

Nice, again, let's focus on only one group of murders, not the ones *you* don't want to focus on, right?

As if one is more important than the other because *you* say so.

Sorry, morals don't work that way, murder is murder.

Talk about grasping at straws, you people that keep bringing up the abortion doctors killed by evil Christians thing.

What have there been, maybe 3 of them killed in the past 20 years ? ,,, Vs untold 1,000's killed by muslims.

So I should just ignore one human life as unimportant because it tarnishes your religion, and concentrate on your enemies murders instead.

Touching, really.

Your odds of getting blown up by a muslim homicidal maniac are far, far higher than getting killed by a nutty Christian anti abortion maniac - Perspective, its a wonderful thing !

Talk about grasping at straws, you people that keep bringing up the abortion doctors killed by evil Christians thing.

What have there been, maybe 3 of them killed in the past 20 years ? ,,, Vs untold 1,000's killed by muslims.

So I should just ignore one human life as unimportant because it tarnishes your religion, and concentrate on your enemies murders instead.

Touching, really.

Your odds of getting blown up by a muslim homicidal maniac are far, far higher than getting killed by a nutty Christian anti abortion maniac - Perspective, its a wonderful thing !

Given my outspoken nature and activities against religion I am certain my perspective is very different than yours.

GOD set up woman TO HAVE children -- the killing of their as of yet unborn child is their twisted ideal of "their right" to play GOD --(deciding who shall live and who shall die)-- since things that get pregnant are by both GOD' S command " be fruitful and multipy" and if one doesn't beleive in GOD -- common sense --ie "natures basic design" is that things supposed to have their offspring not kill them off --we human beings have "free will" to choose to do either good or evil --however we are supposed to do good --rather than commit evil acts if we seek favor in the eyes of GOD.

GOD set up woman TO HAVE children -- the killing of their as of yet unborn child is their twisted ideal of "their right" to play GOD --(deciding who shall live and who shall die)-- since things that get pregnant are by both GOD' S command " be fruitful and multipy" and if one doesn't beleive in GOD -- common sense --ie "natures basic design" is that things supposed to have their offspring not kill them off --we human beings have "free will" to choose to do either good or evil --however we are supposed to do good --rather than commit evil acts if we seek favor in the eyes of GOD.

Says who, you?

Religion and "common sense" aren't at the top of "logical reasons".

If you want to look at nature plenty of other creatures kill their offspring.

If God considered life "sacred" maybe he'd do a little more to protect it, rather than letting id be snuffed out in his name so much over the last 20 centuries.

Talk about grasping at straws, you people that keep bringing up the abortion doctors killed by evil Christians thing.

What have there been, maybe 3 of them killed in the past 20 years ? ,,, Vs untold 1,000's killed by muslims.

So I should just ignore one human life as unimportant because it tarnishes your religion, and concentrate on your enemies murders instead.

Touching, really.

Your odds of getting blown up by a muslim homicidal maniac are far, far higher than getting killed by a nutty Christian anti abortion maniac - Perspective, its a wonderful thing !

Given my outspoken nature and activities against religion I am certain my perspective is very different than yours.

"activities against religion", Ok I'll bite, what activities against religion ?

LOL I was wondering the same thing, and anxious to hear him spin another yarn. Im all Ears!

Maybe lasi is actually a Muslim, since they also perform activities agienst religions, Im thinking thats IT. Muslims belive it to be points in Heaven to Lie to infidels but points agienst them to lie to other muslims.

Maybe lasi is actually a Muslim, since they also perform activities agienst religions, Im thinking thats IT. Muslims belive it to be points in Heaven to Lie to infidels but points agienst them to lie to other muslims.

I doubt lasi is muslim, hes on record as having pro gay tendencies, a big no-no for muslims.

LOL I was wondering the same thing, and anxious to hear him spin another yarn. Im all Ears!

If you look back at all my posts you will find very VERY few things I have directly mentioned about my personal life here.

Why?

Because you consider it like ammunition in a rifle. And why exactly would I want to give you any more ammunition to try and attack my character with?

You're already trying your best to beat me over the head with my slip today in the other post, I have not been at my best lately, consider yourself lucky.

LOL I was wondering the same thing, and anxious to hear him spin another yarn. Im all Ears!

If you look back at all my posts you will find very VERY few things I have directly mentioned about my personal life here.

Why?

Because you consider it like ammunition in a rifle. And why exactly would I want to give you any more ammunition to try and attack my character with?

You're already trying your best to beat me over the head with my slip today in the other post, I have not been at my best lately, consider yourself lucky.

Actually Lasi,you had your web sight on at first (once lived in a Yut), A active and involved socialist, you mentioned you were once a Busniess owner, and gave it up due to the High demand on your personal life, mentioned you were a Open swinging partner swaper. Moved due to your commitment to energy and wanted to do less commuting. Im sure im missing  alot more I cant think of right now.  If It wasent for my computer having to be revammped Id link your BLOG sight, Hillarious

Just click on WEBSITE under the avatar. Or http://lasivian.com






Jay

"If you look back at all my posts you will find very VERY few things I have directly mentioned about my personal life here."

Haa!! there it is, thank you. Funny guy.

PRESENTING........ The ever mysterious and elusive lasivan.
 (all found right here on T-net, and posted by himself for the world to see..)

http://www.lasivian.com/?page_id=2

god does not "control" us , like puppets --he did not design us that way --we have for better or worse --"free will" to do good or evil . -- evil deeds tend to lead to bad results for us , so god wanting good for us wants us to be good to each other and not do evil and harmful things to each other --some do not heed and choose the "dark path" --from those people --all persons have a right to protect themseves and their loved ones and your goods and home.

I bet'cha old Lasivian is making up some voodoo dolls as we speak, getting ready to throw the hex down on us

All ribbing aside, I Like you Lasivan, it takes GREAT courage to stand for what you belive in!, especially when you tread where folks will disagree. And as Iv said b-4 the "yurt" was a grand experiment.  But when you throw it out there you gotta expect some opposition.

It would be nice if the mosques in the US would come out and disown the violence......they just can't bring themselves to do it.

It would be nice if the mosques in the US would come out and disown the violence......they just can't bring themselves to do it.

Did you just assume this as it's false.
This is but one instance:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/11/muslim-groups-condemn-fort-hoo.php

It would be nice if the mosques in the US would come out and disown the violence......they just can't bring themselves to do it.

Did you just assume this as it's false.
This is but one instance:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/11/muslim-groups-condemn-fort-hoo.php

Haha and you really believe them?  They could all come out and "comdemn" violence not because they really are against it but because they need to save face. 

It would be nice if the mosques in the US would come out and disown the violence......they just can't bring themselves to do it.

Did you just assume this as it's false.
This is but one instance:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/11/muslim-groups-condemn-fort-hoo.php

Haha and you really believe them?  They could all come out and "comdemn" violence not because they really are against it but because they need to save face. 

I agree that's probable Jimmy(PA) but my remark stands true re. rjw4law 's post.
Behind the closed doors of a Mosque there are more secrets held than in a Masonic lodge.

[One soldier of muslim faith kills collegues = All Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army !!One woman gets an abortion = All women should be prohibited to get pregnant !!]

Back to the headline: Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army


One soldier of muslim faith kills collegues = All Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army !!

One woman gets an abortion = All women should be prohibited to get pregnant !!


Is that your idea of justice ?? ?? 

[One soldier of muslim faith kills collegues = All Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army !!One woman gets an abortion = All women should be prohibited to get pregnant !!]

Back to the headline: Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army


One soldier of muslim faith kills collegues = All Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army !!

One woman gets an abortion = All women should be prohibited to get pregnant !!


Is that your idea of justice ?? ?? 

It's not the first time a Muslim US soldier has killed fellow GI's.  They make up such a small percentage of the military population but a huge percentage of the suicide attacks against fellow soldiers. But lets ignore all this data and possibly let more soldiers die like this so we do not offend any people or religions.  I believe troops fighting abilities will be affected by Muslims in uniform now.  Not only will non Muslim American troops have to watch their fronts for enemy attacks but also their real for attacks from their own troops.  Some may say this is not the case but I think it will be for most. 

I believe all Muslims are time bombs having a fuse of unknown length.i.e the worm
could turn any time.
They should all be removed from the Military.

Dane is fine for pontificating on issues that don't directly concern him from his perch in Denmark, I would suggest that he concentrate on matters that concern his own country - And from what I understand, there is no shortage of muslim intrigues in Europe that any European can worry about.

Dane is fine for pontificating on issues that don't directly concern him from his perch in Denmark, I would suggest that he concentrate on matters that concern his own country - And from what I understand, there is no shortage of muslim intrigues in Europe that any European can worry about.

Although I disagree with TheDane his voice should be heard as it is his tiny country
that has born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan.
Country troop contribution:
The Top 5 (troops per 1,000 people 20-39 years old):

Denmark -- 0.55
Britain -- 0.47
Norway -- 0.43
Netherlands -- 0.39
United States -- 0.35

and troop fatalities:
The Top 5 (troop fatalities per 1,000 people 20-39 years old):

Denmark -- 0.0099
Canada -- 0.0090
Britain -- 0.0056 (includes Ministry of Defense civilians)
Estonia -- 0.0053
United States -- 0.0051 (includes fatalities in Pakistan and Uzbekistan

I'm not knocking Denmark, when it comes to social issues like this, the opinion of an outsider does not carry much weight with me.
Am I to start making non stop proclamations what Denmark should do on various social issues ?

Those figures are skewed if you ask me.
When you take a % of a small number, of course that % is going to be larger.
For instance, if Lithuania sends over 10 guys and 1 of them gets whacked, they have suffered a 10% casualty rate - And it would be rather comical to claim that they have born the brunt of anything.
You need to take a look at the total amount of troops committed, total casualties suffered, then you can make an accurate determination as to who has "born the brunt".

Xraywolf

..Why are you trying to manipulate what I say ? ... unfair of you ! 

Dane is fine for pontificating on issues that don't directly concern him from his perch in Denmark, I would suggest that he concentrate on matters that concern his own country - And from what I understand, there is no shortage of muslim intrigues in Europe that any European can worry about.

Although I disagree with TheDane his voice should be heard as it is his tiny country
that has born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan.
Country troop contribution:
The Top 5 (troops per 1,000 people 20-39 years old):

Denmark -- 0.55
Britain -- 0.47
Norway -- 0.43
Netherlands -- 0.39
United States -- 0.35

and troop fatalities:
The Top 5 (troop fatalities per 1,000 people 20-39 years old):

Denmark -- 0.0099
Canada -- 0.0090
Britain -- 0.0056 (includes Ministry of Defense civilians)
Estonia -- 0.0053
United States -- 0.0051 (includes fatalities in Pakistan and Uzbekistan

Thank you very much, Piggy.

Actually I my self, strongly support the troops in Afghanistan, but that doesn´t meen that I would allow an intollerant dictatureship to develop in my country.

 

Xraywolf

..Why are you trying to manipulate what I say ? ... unfair of you ! 

I have not manipulated a thing.
I said I don't see why you obsess over the affairs of a country you don't reside in.
Do you see me declaring what should be done in Denmark or China ?
No, I don't. That would be silly for me to do, and its silly for you to continue to spout your views of the USA.

No, I don't. That would be silly for me to do, and its silly for you to continue to spout your views of the USA.

Has not stopped you before.

Actually I my self, strongly support the troops in Afghanistan, but that doesn´t meen that I would allow an intolerant dictatorship to develop in my country.

Don't worry, the way things are going in Europe, you will have an intolerant dictatorship someday.

They just won't be speaking Danish.

Xraywolf

..Why are you trying to manipulate what I say ? ... unfair of you ! 

I have not manipulated a thing.
I said I don't see why you obsess over the affairs of a country you don't reside in.
Do you see me declaring what should be done in Denmark or China ?
No, I don't. That would be silly for me to do, and its silly for you to continue to spout your views of the USA.

Why do I feel that you argue like a user that was once a woman pretending to be a man

Actually I my self, strongly support the troops in Afghanistan, but that doesn´t meen that I would allow an intolerant dictatorship to develop in my country.

Don't worry, the way things are going in Europe, you will have an intolerant dictatorship someday.

They just won't be speaking Danish.

.... and how would you know that ??


Why don´t you guys try to argue against my opinion instead of attacking me by using false arguments.

Here once again for you:

One soldier of muslim faith kills collegues = All Muslim soldiers should be released from the U.S. army !!

One woman gets an abortion = All women should be prohibited to get pregnant !!


... or is this too difficult for you

I'm not knocking Denmark, when it comes to social issues like this, the opinion of an outsider does not carry much weight with me.
Am I to start making non stop proclamations what Denmark should do on various social issues ?

Just to remind you, this is AN INTERNATIONAL FORUM, everybody, not just US-citizens can have an opinion here !!!!!!

Those figures are skewed if you ask me.
When you take a % of a small number, of course that % is going to be larger.
For instance, if Lithuania sends over 10 guys and 1 of them gets whacked, they have suffered a 10% casualty rate - And it would be rather comical to claim that they have born the brunt of anything.
You need to take a look at the total amount of troops committed, total casualties suffered, then you can make an accurate determination as to who has "born the brunt".

The numbers are a percentage of the whole population, so don´t manipulate this information too !!

I suppose mathematics wasn´t your best in school, huh ??

Actually I my self, strongly support the troops in Afghanistan, but that doesn´t meen that I would allow an intolerant dictatorship to develop in my country.

Don't worry, the way things are going in Europe, you will have an intolerant dictatorship someday.

They just won't be speaking Danish.

.... and how would you know that ??

No amazing foresight or anything, just math. Once the population of Muslims in the European countries begins to outnumber the locals in the coming decades, they'll will also form governments.
Voting will cease after this, of course, as Muslims rulers aren't into free elections.

Teddy, this is all so true and some should be oft reminded of these myths.
Behind the closed doors of a Mosque there are more secrets held than in a Masonic lodge.

Just to remind you, this is AN INTERNATIONAL FORUM, everybody, not just US-citizens can have an opinion here !!!!!!

Yep, you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine - My opinion is that you keep yours to yourself in matters that don't concern you in the least.

Those figures are skewed if you ask me.
When you take a % of a small number, of course that % is going to be larger.
For instance, if Lithuania sends over 10 guys and 1 of them gets whacked, they have suffered a 10% casualty rate - And it would be rather comical to claim that they have born the brunt of anything.
You need to take a look at the total amount of troops committed, total casualties suffered, then you can make an accurate determination as to who has "born the brunt".

The numbers are a percentage of the whole population, so don´t manipulate this information too !!

I suppose mathematics wasn´t your best in school, huh ??

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Spin the numbers any way you want maestro, to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" just because you happen to have a small population & small military is clearly ludicrous, I'm surprised that you'd lower yourself to agree with such an asinine statement.

Edit: I take that back, I am not surprised, unbecoming conduct is now expected of you.

Muslim soldiers in the French military refuse to go to Afganistan, say they won’t fight fellow Muslims.
As high as 20% of the French Military are Muslims.
“It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless it be by mistake” — Qur’an 4:92.

piggy, kindly post links to back up your claims, thanks.

I don't doubt it, doesn't do a shred of good without support though.

[more soldiers per capita]

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Thank you for bringing the exact numbers !!  
Now you shouldn´t be a genious to realize that the percentage of the danish contribution is higher than the one of the USA, wether you like it or not.
Make the calculation yourself:

USA: Deaths 848 ~ population about 300.000.000

Denmark: Deaths 28 ~ population about 5.500.000

Fact is that Denmark also contributes with more soldiers per capita than the USA, and therefore logically also has more percentual losses.

Why can´t you just be happy that we fight the islamic fanatics, Taliban and Al Queda, together ??

the us military oath that all armed service members must take -- states they "will fight all enemies foreign and domestic" period . -- so it does not matter what race, color, sex or religion or age the enemies are.

if you can not live up to the "military oath" simple ****  do not join the military as it is currently a "all volunteer "military -- once in the military and on uncle sams payroll you are not allowed to pick and choose  who , when and if you will fight -- you are under "command" to do as your ordered , to go where he wants you to be , doing what he wants you to do , you took uncle sam's money in peace time, so now its time to pay the fiddler in war time.

 in WW2 there was a draft --you had no choice but to war and if ordered to charge / fight and a soldier refused a officer could shoot him on the spot , for cowardness and refusing a direct order.

Y'all, I am going to state my opinion and move on. Yes, soldiers take the oath, "all enemies foreign and domestic(White House/Congress/ Supreme court.)". No, no soldier who follows this should be given a discharge, and any who violate it should be Court Martieled. All, and I mean ALL Muslim soldiers should be investigated. Any who have ties to radicals in the Manner of the scum killer who needs to be in Hades should be given a discharge. Those who do not should stay. My opinion is that we should not throw someone out of the military based solely on religion. I also believe that not finding those who have ties probible to our enemy and allowing them to stay in the military is foolhardy and dangerous to our fellow Americans. Nuff said bye.

[more soldiers per capita]

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Thank you for bringing the exact numbers !! 
Now you shouldn´t be a genious to realize that the percentage of the danish contribution is higher than the one of the USA, wether you like it or not.
Make the calculation yourself:

USA: Deaths 848 ~ population about 300.000.000

Denmark: Deaths 28 ~ population about 5.500.000

Fact is that Denmark also contributes with more soldiers per capita than the USA, and therefore logically also has more percentual losses.

Why can´t you just be happy that we fight the islamic fanatics, Taliban and Al Queda, together ??

In one ear and out the other with nothing to stop it in between, I am left to assume that your act of being dense is really not an act.
28 KIA vs 848 - Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?

[more soldiers per capita]

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Thank you for bringing the exact numbers !! 
Now you shouldn´t be a genious to realize that the percentage of the danish contribution is higher than the one of the USA, wether you like it or not.
Make the calculation yourself:

USA: Deaths 848 ~ population about 300.000.000

Denmark: Deaths 28 ~ population about 5.500.000

Fact is that Denmark also contributes with more soldiers per capita than the USA, and therefore logically also has more percentual losses.

Why can´t you just be happy that we fight the islamic fanatics, Taliban and Al Queda, together ??

In one ear and out the other with nothing to stop it in between, I am left to assume that your act of being dense is really not an act.
28 KIA vs 848 - Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?

YES !
I think that countries like Denmark, Canada, The UK, Estonia and the USA have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan !! In the named order. The numbers show that !
I would very much have liked to see some of the large European countries doing more in Afghanistan !!

[more soldiers per capita]

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Thank you for bringing the exact numbers !! 
Now you shouldn´t be a genious to realize that the percentage of the danish contribution is higher than the one of the USA, wether you like it or not.
Make the calculation yourself:

USA: Deaths 848 ~ population about 300.000.000

Denmark: Deaths 28 ~ population about 5.500.000

Fact is that Denmark also contributes with more soldiers per capita than the USA, and therefore logically also has more percentual losses.

Why can´t you just be happy that we fight the islamic fanatics, Taliban and Al Queda, together ??

In one ear and out the other with nothing to stop it in between, I am left to assume that your act of being dense is really not an act.
28 KIA vs 848 - Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?

I think that countries like USA,  The UK have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan !! In the named order. The numbers show that !
I would very much have liked to see some of the large European countries doing more in Afghanistan !!

Edited for truth, as I see there is no hope of you ever speaking it.

We're all on the same side here

I would like to say though....in the last two wars we won, there were no Germans in the trenches with us

[more soldiers per capita]

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Thank you for bringing the exact numbers !! 
Now you shouldn´t be a genious to realize that the percentage of the danish contribution is higher than the one of the USA, wether you like it or not.
Make the calculation yourself:

USA: Deaths 848 ~ population about 300.000.000

Denmark: Deaths 28 ~ population about 5.500.000

Fact is that Denmark also contributes with more soldiers per capita than the USA, and therefore logically also has more percentual losses.

Why can´t you just be happy that we fight the islamic fanatics, Taliban and Al Queda, together ??

In one ear and out the other with nothing to stop it in between, I am left to assume that your act of being dense is really not an act.
28 KIA vs 848 - Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?

I think that countries like USA,  The UK have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan !! In the named order. The numbers show that !
I would very much have liked to see some of the large European countries doing more in Afghanistan !!

Edited for truth, as I see there is no hope of you ever speaking it.

So, what do you think isn´t the truth ??

We're all on the same side here

Try to tell Xraywolf that, Shaun !!!

In his world the allies of the US don´t seem to exist ! 

[more soldiers per capita]

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Thank you for bringing the exact numbers !! 
Now you shouldn´t be a genious to realize that the percentage of the danish contribution is higher than the one of the USA, wether you like it or not.
Make the calculation yourself:

USA: Deaths 848 ~ population about 300.000.000

Denmark: Deaths 28 ~ population about 5.500.000

Fact is that Denmark also contributes with more soldiers per capita than the USA, and therefore logically also has more percentual losses.

Why can´t you just be happy that we fight the islamic fanatics, Taliban and Al Queda, together ??

In one ear and out the other with nothing to stop it in between, I am left to assume that your act of being dense is really not an act.
28 KIA vs 848 - Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?

I think that countries like USA,  The UK have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan !! In the named order. The numbers show that !
I would very much have liked to see some of the large European countries doing more in Afghanistan !!

Edited for truth, as I see there is no hope of you ever speaking it.

So, what do you think isn´t the truth ??

Running around in circles here, I see.
Will try 1 more time.
You claim that Denmark, with 28 KIA, "have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan".
I claim that is clearly ludicrous, when the USA has 848 KIA.
Not only ludicrous, but insulting.

But you still insist, because you have a tiny army & small population, and thus of course the % per capita is going to be higher, that Denmark "have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan".

God bless the 28 Danes who have died fighting islamic militants, but they have born the brunt of nothing, sorry.
Most European nations within the NATO contingent, with the exception of the UK, are assigned to relatively mild rear areas, and operational losses are higher than combat losses ... Because there is very little combat where they are stationed.

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Exactly, shaun !! 

.......

You just don´t seem to get it Xraywolf !?!?

WE ARE AN ALLIANCE !!

What you are actually saying is that lives of young men from a large country are worth more than those of a small country !

The states of Wisconsin and Maryland are those in the US coming closest to the population of Denmark.

Would you clame that the lives of the young men of those two states are worth less than those from California ?? ?? ??

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Exactly, shaun !! 

.......

You just don´t seem to get it Xraywolf !?!?

WE ARE AN ALLIANCE !!

What you are actually saying is that lives of young men from a large country are worth more than those of a small country !

The states of Wisconsin and Maryland are those in the US coming closest to the population of Denmark.

Would you clame that the lives of the young men of those two states are worth less than those from California ?? ?? ??

It was a genuine question, as I don't know the answer!

Are the US and the UK at the front more because it was their decision to go in?

Getting back on topic....how many Germans were in our trenches during WW1 and WW2?

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Not even sure what you are trying to get at with that question, and how it relates to the debate you have imposed yourself into.

All right, since you want to get into it and seem to see the mindset of this Dane charactor better than me, let me ask you:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?
I say no, of course not.
Dane says yes.
What say you ?

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?

I didn´t clame that !

I said: All allied countries did, some more than others !!!

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Not even sure what you are trying to get at with that question, and how it relates to the debate you have imposed yourself into.

All right, since you want to get into it and seem to see the mindset of this Dane charactor better than me, let me ask you:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?
I say no, of course not.
Dane says yes.
What say you ?

I actually "imposed myself into" this debate before you did! And if you care to read the post above, I said
it was a genuine question! Actually aimed at the pair of you for such a stupid and pointless argument

By the way...my Dads bigger than yours

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?

I didn´t clame that !

I said: All allied countries did, some more than others !!!

You are just a plain lying simpleton.

I asked you in post #159, and I quote: "- Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?"

You said in post #160, and I quote: "Yes!"

Explain that, without editing your posts.

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Not even sure what you are trying to get at with that question, and how it relates to the debate you have imposed yourself into.

All right, since you want to get into it and seem to see the mindset of this Dane charactor better than me, let me ask you:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?
I say no, of course not.
Dane says yes.
What say you ?

I actually "imposed myself into" this debate before you did! And if you care to read the post above, I said
it was a genuine question! Actually aimed at the pair of you for such a stupid and pointless argument

By the way...my Dads bigger than yours

You "imposed" yourself into a specific debate between me & Dane, not the topic in general.
If the question is to hard for you, I can try typing a bit s-l-o-w-e-r ,, And please, lose the smileys, this isn't yahoo teen chat.

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?

I didn´t clame that !

I said: All allied countries did, some more than others !!!

You are just a plain lying simpleton.

I asked you in post #159, and I quote: "- Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?"

You said in post #160, and I quote: "Yes!"

Explain that, without editing your posts.

Mr. Manipulator ...

... please read the next line too:

quote:

YES !
I think that countries like Denmark, Canada, The UK, Estonia and the USA have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan !! In the named order. The numbers show that !

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Not even sure what you are trying to get at with that question, and how it relates to the debate you have imposed yourself into.

All right, since you want to get into it and seem to see the mindset of this Dane charactor better than me, let me ask you:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?
I say no, of course not.
Dane says yes.
What say you ?

I actually "imposed myself into" this debate before you did! And if you care to read the post above, I said
it was a genuine question! Actually aimed at the pair of you for such a stupid and pointless argument

By the way...my Dads bigger than yours

You "imposed" yourself into a specific debate between me & Dane, not the topic in general.
If the question is to hard for you, I can try typing a bit s-l-o-w-e-r ,, And please, lose the smileys, this isn't yahoo teen chat.

Oh, I'm sorry


Maybe you should look a few more posts up! I remember saying something about getting back on topic!

Or perhaps you and The Dane could get a room if it means that much to you

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Not even sure what you are trying to get at with that question, and how it relates to the debate you have imposed yourself into.

All right, since you want to get into it and seem to see the mindset of this Dane charactor better than me, let me ask you:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?
I say no, of course not.
Dane says yes.
What say you ?

I actually "imposed myself into" this debate before you did! And if you care to read the post above, I said
it was a genuine question! Actually aimed at the pair of you for such a stupid and pointless argument

By the way...my Dads bigger than yours

You "imposed" yourself into a specific debate between me & Dane, not the topic in general.
If the question is to hard for you, I can try typing a bit s-l-o-w-e-r ,, And please, lose the smileys, this isn't yahoo teen chat.

Oh, I'm sorry


Maybe you should look a few more posts up! I remember saying something about getting back on topic!

Or perhaps you and The Dane could get a room if it means that much to you

Oh no !!!!!

Please don´t lock me up with him !!!  ...... 

Out of interest, does the population of a country make a difference to where they are deployed

Not even sure what you are trying to get at with that question, and how it relates to the debate you have imposed yourself into.

All right, since you want to get into it and seem to see the mindset of this Dane charactor better than me, let me ask you:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA 848
UK 232
Canada 132
,,,,,,,,,
Denmark 28

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?
I say no, of course not.
Dane says yes.
What say you ?

I actually "imposed myself into" this debate before you did! And if you care to read the post above, I said
it was a genuine question! Actually aimed at the pair of you for such a stupid and pointless argument

By the way...my Dads bigger than yours

You "imposed" yourself into a specific debate between me & Dane, not the topic in general.
If the question is to hard for you, I can try typing a bit s-l-o-w-e-r ,, And please, lose the smileys, this isn't yahoo teen chat.

Oh, I'm sorry


Maybe you should look a few more posts up! I remember saying something about getting back on topic!

Or perhaps you and The Dane could get a room if it means that much to you

Ignored

Has Denmark "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" ?

I didn´t clame that !

I said: All allied countries did, some more than others !!!

You are just a plain lying simpleton.

I asked you in post #159, and I quote: "- Do you really think its accurate to say that Denmark has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan", yes or no ?"

You said in post #160, and I quote: "Yes!"

Explain that, without editing your posts.

Mr. Manipulator ...

... please read the next line too:

quote:

YES !
I think that countries like Denmark, Canada, The UK, Estonia and the USA have born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan !! In the named order. The numbers show that !

Yes, Mr Softhead.
"In the named order" - So Denmark, being 1st, has "born the brunt of Islamists attacks in Afghanistan" in your opinion ,,, Yes ? No ? Do you even know what you opinion is, or you just agree with anything that sounds good for the moment ?

Yes in the named order ! Numbers show that clearly ! So what ?

It´s an emty discussion ! 

Ok then, I win, you lose, move on.

every muslim soldier should be "activated" told their going to the middle east * any of them with " religous issues" should be given given discharges of the "
for the good of the army" type and thus "weeded out" to insure that are not possible sleepers or weapon suppliers ( via access to military supplies on bases)

not a bad idea in concept ivan, in practice though the majority of muslims left after a small percentage were weeded out like this will see themselves as above suspicion, having "proved" themselves loyal, and will therefore be in a position to mole in even further.
The only real solution is to have the obvious conflict of employing muslims in western lands in the military recognized & stated, and have whatever specific functions they are needed for [translation] transfered to a civilian agency to work in conjunction with the military.

Of course, anything close to this would stir up a PC hornets nest, nevermind the fact that the good of the military, and the nation, demands nothing less.
Certainly the current crew now in power are not the ones to implement a policy for the good of the nation, but as these types of attacks are certain to happen again, their hands may be forced into doing something, and a succeeding administration will hopefully take the necessary steps to get these zealots out of the ranks for good.

Worth keeping in mind that serving in the military is not a constitutional right, so the bleeding hearts will have no argument there.

Terrorism and the New American Republic

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships.

History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others.  Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better.  The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:

 “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.  The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force.

"There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the --deleted--," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

I like how Fox News entitled this article.... (but honestly, I am NOT a big fan of Fox News)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573547,00.html

I think we ALL need to wake up - I don't see Buddhists, or Christians, or Taoists, or New Age hippies blowing themselves (and others) up.

DEPORT THEM ALL NOW BEFORE IT GETS WORSE.

At what point did we (Americans) think that some great melting pot, no matter the consequences, was a good idea?

I do NOT understand.  Send them to Mecca or Medina... or some other place where their culture originated and belongs.

At what point did we (Americans) think that some great melting pot, no matter the consequences, was a good idea?

4 July 1776 is the answer mate, written on the Statue of Liberty.

4 July 1776 is the answer mate, written on the Statue of Liberty.

Amen to that.

Mass deportations due to someones religion? This is the W+ET internet forum in 2009, not Mein Kampf in 1933.

my two cents-- hang the s____o____b      then give him a fair trial

my two cents-- hang the s____o____b      then give him a fair trial

Our founding fathers would be so proud of you...

I don't think you multiculturalist extremists are any better than extremists from the other side.
Our Christian founding fathers obviously never envisioned the day when we would become a sponge to soak up 10,000,000's of 3rd world refugees, chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god.

I don't think you multiculturalist extremists are any better than extremists from the other side.
Our Christian founding fathers obviously never envisioned the day when we would become a sponge to soak up 10,000,000's of 3rd world refugees, chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god.

No, they were all "Indians? What Indians? I don't see any Indians".

...chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god", like the first Europeans in America were? Dude, you're great for a chuckle or or two, but think before you type.

You are too far gone to even bother with, as your putrid avatar makes perfectly clear.

  Good idea!

us military oath  states ( --I will defend the united states and uphold the constitution against ALL enemys --FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC *) -- no exceptions are noted for the enemys  religion, race,creed or sex or age. -- please note in todays world  in the USA its a all vollunteer army --- so if you sign up--- you fight who your told to, when your told to  by your commanders -- if you have issues about who you can or can not fight (this group or that group )--you can not in good faith honestly take the oath --therefore you are "unfit" to serve in the us military --peroid

the military should assemble the troops in the morning -- tell all the troops this message and say that anyone who can not honor their commitment and fufill their duty should ask for a discharge, and from that day forward those stay in and later on refuse to fight will be brought up on charges . -- no mucking  about -- either your in or out.

us military oath  states ( --I will defend the united states and uphold the constitution against ALL enemys --FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC *) -- no exceptions are noted for the enemys  religion, race,creed or sex or age. -- please note in todays world  in the USA its a all vollunteer army --- so if you sign up--- you fight who your told to, when your told to  by your commanders -- if you have issues about who you can or can not fight (this group or that group )--you can not in good faith honestly take the oath --therefore you are "unfit" to serve in the us military --peroid

the military should assemble the troops in the morning -- tell all the troops this message and say that anyone who can not honor their commitment and fufill their duty should ask for a dischargem, and from that day forward those stay in and later on refuse to fight will be brought up on charges . -- no --deleted-- footing about --in or out.

Great idea in concept, I'm not so sure I'd like the kind of revised oath Obama and his leftist clique would cook up though.
Impossible to properly sort this out with the current crew in office.

I don't think you multiculturalist extremists are any better than extremists from the other side.
Our Christian founding fathers obviously never envisioned the day when we would become a sponge to soak up 10,000,000's of 3rd world refugees, chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god.

No, they were all "Indians? What Indians? I don't see any Indians".

...chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god", like the first Europeans in America were? Dude, you're great for a chuckle or or two, but think before you type.

Obviously he was referring to this nation and not the American land mass.  Indians were many different nations and just as violent as the "evil white man".  They killed many white woman and children, not just killed in battle but executed.  I refuse to call anyone native American as no human race is native to the America's.  Every man, woman, and child on this land mass had ancestors who came here from other continents whether it 10,000 years ago or 2 days ago.  Do I fell bad that my ancestors won the war?  Nope.  I happen to like an America with running water and cars and electricity and internet....

Yeah true Jimmy, as quaint as the notion of everyone still running around in war paint and living in teepees is, I think I'll go with civilization.

This may be of some [negative] interest to those that claim this land was stolen from indians.


First Americans May Have Been European

he first humans to spread across North America may have been seal hunters from France and Spain.

This runs counter to the long-held belief that the first human entry into the Americas was a crossing of a land-ice bridge that spanned the Bering Strait about 13,500 years ago.

The new thinking was outlined here Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The tools don’t match

Recent studies have suggested that the glaciers that helped form the bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska began receding around 17,000 to 13,000 years ago, leaving very little chance that people walked from one continent to the other.

Also, when archaeologist Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution places American spearheads, called Clovis points, side-by-side with Siberian points, he sees a divergence of many characteristics.

Instead, Stanford said today, Clovis points match up much closer with Solutrean style tools, which researchers date to about 19,000 years ago. This suggests that the American people making Clovis points made Solutrean points before that.

There’s just one problem with this hypothesis—Solutrean toolmakers lived in France and Spain. Scientists know of no land-ice bridge that spanned that entire gap.

The lost hunting party

Stanford has an idea for how humans crossed the Atlantic, though—boats. Art from that era indicates that Solutrean populations in northern Spain were hunting marine animals, such as seals, walrus, and tuna.

They may have even made their way into the floating ice chunks that unite immense harp seal populations in Canada and Europe each year. Four million seals, Stanford said, would look like a pretty good meal to hungry European hunters, who might have ventured into the ice flows much the same way that the Inuit in Alaska and Greenland do today.

Inuit use large, open hunting boats constructed from animal skins for longer trips or big hunts. These boats, called umiaq, can hold a dozen adults, as well as several children, dead seals or walruses, and even dog-sled teams. Inuit have been building these boats for thousands of years, and Stanford believes that Solutrean people may have used a similar design.

It’s possible that some groups of these hunters ventured out as far as Iceland, where they may have gotten caught up in the prevailing currents and were carried to North America.

“You get three boats loaded up like this and you would have a viable population,” Stanford said. “You could actually get a whole bunch of people washing up on Nova Scotia.”

Some scientists believe that the Solutrean peoples were responsible for much of the cave art in Europe. Opponents of Stanford’s work ask why, then, would these people stop producing art once they made it to North America?

“I don’t know,” Stanford said. “But you’re looking at a long distance inland, 100 miles or so, before they would get to caves to do art in.”

http://www.livescience.com/history/060219_first_americans.html

[Do I fell bad that my ancestors won the war?]

I don't think you multiculturalist extremists are any better than extremists from the other side.
Our Christian founding fathers obviously never envisioned the day when we would become a sponge to soak up 10,000,000's of 3rd world refugees, chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god.

No, they were all "Indians? What Indians? I don't see any Indians".

...chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god", like the first Europeans in America were? Dude, you're great for a chuckle or or two, but think before you type.

Obviously he was referring to this nation and not the American land mass.  Indians were many different nations and just as violent as the "evil white man".  They killed many white woman and children, not just killed in battle but executed.  I refuse to call anyone native American as no human race is native to the America's.  Every man, woman, and child on this land mass had ancestors who came here from other continents whether it 10,000 years ago or 2 days ago.  Do I fell bad that my ancestors won the war?  Nope.  I happen to like an America with running water and cars and electricity and internet....

Uh, what war was that Jimmy?

Yeah true Jimmy, as quaint as the notion of everyone still running around in war paint and living in teepees is, I think I'll go with civilization.

This may be of some [negative] interest to those that claim this land was stolen from indians.


First Americans May Have Been European

he first humans to spread across North America may have been seal hunters from France and Spain.

This runs counter to the long-held belief that the first human entry into the Americas was a crossing of a land-ice bridge that spanned the Bering Strait about 13,500 years ago.

The new thinking was outlined here Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The tools don’t match

Recent studies have suggested that the glaciers that helped form the bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska began receding around 17,000 to 13,000 years ago, leaving very little chance that people walked from one continent to the other.

Also, when archaeologist Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution places American spearheads, called Clovis points, side-by-side with Siberian points, he sees a divergence of many characteristics.

Instead, Stanford said today, Clovis points match up much closer with Solutrean style tools, which researchers date to about 19,000 years ago. This suggests that the American people making Clovis points made Solutrean points before that.

There’s just one problem with this hypothesis—Solutrean toolmakers lived in France and Spain. Scientists know of no land-ice bridge that spanned that entire gap.

The lost hunting party

Stanford has an idea for how humans crossed the Atlantic, though—boats. Art from that era indicates that Solutrean populations in northern Spain were hunting marine animals, such as seals, walrus, and tuna.

They may have even made their way into the floating ice chunks that unite immense harp seal populations in Canada and Europe each year. Four million seals, Stanford said, would look like a pretty good meal to hungry European hunters, who might have ventured into the ice flows much the same way that the Inuit in Alaska and Greenland do today.

Inuit use large, open hunting boats constructed from animal skins for longer trips or big hunts. These boats, called umiaq, can hold a dozen adults, as well as several children, dead seals or walruses, and even dog-sled teams. Inuit have been building these boats for thousands of years, and Stanford believes that Solutrean people may have used a similar design.

It’s possible that some groups of these hunters ventured out as far as Iceland, where they may have gotten caught up in the prevailing currents and were carried to North America.

“You get three boats loaded up like this and you would have a viable population,” Stanford said. “You could actually get a whole bunch of people washing up on Nova Scotia.”

Some scientists believe that the Solutrean peoples were responsible for much of the cave art in Europe. Opponents of Stanford’s work ask why, then, would these people stop producing art once they made it to North America?

“I don’t know,” Stanford said. “But you’re looking at a long distance inland, 100 miles or so, before they would get to caves to do art in.”

http://www.livescience.com/history/060219_first_americans.html

That was a fascinating read!

[Do I fell bad that my ancestors won the war?]

I don't think you multiculturalist extremists are any better than extremists from the other side.
Our Christian founding fathers obviously never envisioned the day when we would become a sponge to soak up 10,000,000's of 3rd world refugees, chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god.

No, they were all "Indians? What Indians? I don't see any Indians".

...chattering in a different tongue & praying to a different god", like the first Europeans in America were? Dude, you're great for a chuckle or or two, but think before you type.

Obviously he was referring to this nation and not the American land mass.  Indians were many different nations and just as violent as the "evil white man".  They killed many white woman and children, not just killed in battle but executed.  I refuse to call anyone native American as no human race is native to the America's.  Every man, woman, and child on this land mass had ancestors who came here from other continents whether it 10,000 years ago or 2 days ago.  Do I fell bad that my ancestors won the war?  Nope.  I happen to like an America with running water and cars and electricity and internet....

Uh, what war was that Jimmy?

Seriously?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars 

Grounds on which they CANNOT "blend" .


Theologically - no.  Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia .

Religiously - no.  Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Structurally - no.  Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no.  Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no.  Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.  Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no.  Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually - no.  Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.  Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.  Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic

Spiritually -no.  Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.  They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.  Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

Pass it on Fellow Americans.  The religious war is bigger than we know or understand!

Ok, i'm secular, but I can't stand silly emotional statements that need correction, so let's have at this.

Grounds on which they CANNOT "blend" .

Theologically - no.  Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia .

A 2008 survey directed by Dr. Ariela Keysar for the City University of New York indicated that 34.2 million people in the USA had "no religious identification" representing 15% of the US population. You expect them to all leave too?

Religiously - no.  Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Perhaps you forgot the Ten Commandments in Christianity: "You shall have no other gods before me".

Structurally - no.  Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Again, 15% of the country doesn't believe in any holy book, this is a moot point.

Geographically - no.  Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

And Christians have Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Rome as their centers of "religious significance", Muslims just choose to pray towards one of theirs.

Socially - no.  Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

And instead I see hatred stopping people like you from considering Muslims your friend. Is that somehow better?

Politically - no.  Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America , the great Satan.

Do all Christians listen to the Pope? No, so why do you assume all Muslims listen to the same Mullah?

Domestically - no.  Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Yes, should I pull up a list of all plural marriages in the bible? Or where God tells someone to beat or kill someone else?

Intellectually - no.  Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Show me where it says "God" or "The Bible" in the constitution. Oh that's right, it does not. Don't assume that the only principles in existence are in the bible.

As for the bible being corrupt, if this is supposedly a "Christian" nation why exactly is the USA so corrupt?

Philosophically - no Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.  Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.  Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic

Democracy and a "Christian Government" cannot co-exist either. If you check into history you will find the time that the Christian church ran the world is known as "The dark ages". You want a recent example? try Francisco Franco.

Spiritually -no.  Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

The words "under God" were added to the pledge in 1954. Hardly something the founders approved of.

Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.  They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.  Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

It's the truth that you want to see, because you can't get rid of your hatred, you feel hurt and you want to hurt someone else. Just like Germany did to the Jews in the 1930's.

When will this attitude end? Will we round them all up and place them in internment camps like we did the Japanese in WWII, and then 60 years later grudgingly admit we failed? Or are we going to open our eyes and realize we're wiping our butt with the constitution because we can't deal with our emotions before it's too late?