# Muslims demand independent Islamic state in Britian



## GHook93

Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"

So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain. 

The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. 

Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!

Britain (Europe and America) be warned!


----------



## Coyote

Reality check:   You can toss in the perjorative label "apologist" but that doesn't change the reality.  

For one, it's a fringe group with few members, kind of like the Westboro Baptists.  For another - the projected muslim population is way off and ignores real life trends of immigrant populations.


----------



## Fenton Lum

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!


 

Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.


----------



## irosie91

how about half a mile just south of the white cliffs of dover-----where the blue birds fly


----------



## TNHarley

they are a radical group..


----------



## irosie91

TNHarley said:


> they are a radical group..



so?     so were the PATRIOTS  of the 14 colonies in 1760


----------



## Swagger

GHook's right. You give these people an inch and they'll take a yard. Great swarthes of London, once the capital of the greatest empire known to man, now resemble Afghan villages.


----------



## tinydancer

Fenton Lum said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
Click to expand...


Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.


----------



## tinydancer

Swagger said:


> GHook's right. You give these people an inch and they'll take a yard. Great swarthes of London, once the capital of the greatest empire known to man, now resemble Afghan villages.



I've read that between Qatar and Saudi Arabia they own more property in London than the Royals. It was a rather shocking list.


----------



## GHook93

Coyote said:


> Reality check:   You can toss in the perjorative label "apologist" but that doesn't change the reality.
> 
> For one, it's a fringe group with few members, kind of like the Westboro Baptists.  For another - the projected muslim population is way off and ignores real life trends of immigrant populations.



Not true. The most popular name in England and Wales is Muhammad.

Muhammad really is the single most popular boys' name in England and Wales | Coffee House

Both legal and illegal muzzles are flooding Europe.


----------



## GHook93

TNHarley said:


> they are a radical group..


To which their end game is supported by the vast majority of Muzzies.


----------



## GHook93

tinydancer said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
Click to expand...

Don't feed the trolls!


----------



## irosie91

the non muslims of the world have lots to
learn from muslims.    A good example of
the appropriate behavior for all the world--
the Islamic way---SHARIAH-----and the manner in which muslims CELEBRATE----like the pre Ramadan party on Dizengoff street this past
Friday,    Keep in mind  FRIDAY IS A HOLY day for muslims.   Ramadan the most important month of holiness------walking down the street with a machine gun and offing as many   "not us"  as possible is HOLY


----------



## irosie91

tinydancer said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
Click to expand...


they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them


----------



## tinydancer

irosie91 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
Click to expand...


Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.


----------



## irosie91

tinydancer said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
Click to expand...


really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?


----------



## irosie91

GHook93 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are a radical group..
> 
> 
> 
> To which their end game is supported by the vast majority of Muzzies.
Click to expand...


Hook----that is the part that THEY will ALL DENY----including them that say---"OH --THAT's JUST THE VERY FEW RADICALS"


----------



## skye

The Islamists  in the UK of course present a real danger and unofficially  large areas are already functioning under Sharia Law, however if they persist in such demands as we are discussing,  a strong backlash is inevitable.

This backlash must happen sooner rather than later otherwise the UK as we know it is doomed.

Will some in the UK have the cojones to safe what is theirs? their great  English tradition?

I doubt it.


----------



## tinydancer

irosie91 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
Click to expand...


Great article here for you to understand the truth of what really happened in the beginning and not the propaganda bullshit we get today. And btw I am very pro First Nations but with reality at my side. 

"In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and driving them out of their land. We thus need to look at the first conflicts that existed between the Indians and the colonial settlers. A summary of these first conflicts shows they were always initiated by Indians:6



Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 1607, the settlers were attacked by the Indians, who wounded seventeen men and killed one boy.





After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the wise policy of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, head chief of the Indian Confederacy. When Powhatan died in 1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, began to plot war. In March 1622, the Indian tribes went on the warpath, and swept through a line of settlements marked by a trail of blood. In the white settlements, nearly 400 men, women, and children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the Indians could be checked.



For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace. But Opechancanouch, at last head chief, only waited for another opportunity. In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he thought the expected moment was at hand. The massacre he waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days. Again the whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general uprising in Virginia.



In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver. As time went on, the friendly old chief died. When his son, King Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to brew for the colonists. Urged on by his braves, King Philip began sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a mighty war on the "pale faces." The war that followed was a terrible one. The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and burning villages. Many a fair and quite settlement was made desolate. Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and burned in the houses. But by the end of 1675 the force of the Indians was broken.



In the New Haven colony the situation with the Indians (the Pequets) was similar. At first there were peaceful relationships between them and the white settlers. During 1637, the Pequots attempted to organize a confederacy, but unable to secure the help of the Narragansetts due to the influence of Roger Williams, they took to the warpath alone. T


hey did not come out in open battle, but waylaid a party of whites and killed thirty of them. In response to this, a small party of English, along with some seventy friendly Indians, attacked the Pequet stronghold, killing over 450 of that tribe. 



The great Pequet tribe was crushed, and nearly forty years of Peace ensued.
History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between the American Indians and the white settlers, *were instigated or started by the Indians without just cause.*


 *Even though the white settlers had legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations with attacks, massacres, and wars. The retaliation by the white settlers were merely acts of self defense and self preservation in accordance with the law of nature. *


*Thus it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man. *The Indian's treachery, barbaric and warlike manner, and sneak attacks on the colonists was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man. This exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian, and became the "code of conduct" which the Indian continued to live by and uphold in the future.


Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of nature, and by a combination thereof."


Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?


----------



## flacaltenn

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!



While THIS is pretty disturbing ---- (from your OP)



> A leading figure behind Muslims Against the Crusades is Anjem Choudary, a notorious Sharia court judge based in London who believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and who has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.
> 
> Choudary is a former spokesman for Islam4UK, which was "established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law," and to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam [...] thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power [...] to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia in Britain."



My bet is the entire membership could meet in one of these.








Besides -- article admits that Britain had sanctioned their predecessor org.
The DO need to further license or monitor "religious courts" to head this stuff off at the pass.

Because this is brain child of an existing Shariah Court judge. You think he RESPECTS the limits of the type of cases and verdicts that he hands down?   No way. He already runs a "parallel justice system"..


----------



## montelatici

tinydancer said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
Click to expand...


Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

montelatici said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
Click to expand...

_Why are we talking about Legal and Illegal when there likely weren't any laws to operate by when the English first settled here?_


----------



## tinydancer

montelatici said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
Click to expand...


There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America. 


At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?


Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:


FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.


SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.


THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.

The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race. 

However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries. 

The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery _(circa _1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.

*Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."*


In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since *97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.* 

When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.

It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T

he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:

1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.


2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.

3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.


This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."

Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Reality check:   You can toss in the perjorative label "apologist" but that doesn't change the reality.




Is there a better word to describe you folks who support this Islamization of Europe like you do?

Somehow,, the notion of celebrating diversity does not extend to that of all the diverse European cultures now being colonized by the many millions of those who want their own knuckle-dragging culture to replace European .


----------



## tinydancer

irosie91 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
Click to expand...


That story is complete bullshit. Here's what really happened with the Dutch. And don't forget there's no such entity as a real estate agent. Very little cash ever changed hands. Most deals were made on a barter system of trading. 

"Of course, the biggest problem with the Manhattan purchase isn’t the price: It’s the identity of the sellers.

The Dutch conducted their business with the Canarsee tribe who were actually based out of what is now Brooklyn. However, we should be fair to perpetrators of the glass beads myth: The Canarsee probably would have taken anything in exchange for the use of Manhattan, as the island actually belonged to the Wappinger Confederacy, another group of Native Americans.

As a result, the Dutch claim to Manhattan was later contested, and the Dutch compensated the rightful owners. Thus, the Dutch settlers actually paid for Manhattan twice."

Native Americans Didn’t Sell Manhattan For $24 Of Beads


----------



## GHook93

flacaltenn said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While THIS is pretty disturbing ---- (from your OP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A leading figure behind Muslims Against the Crusades is Anjem Choudary, a notorious Sharia court judge based in London who believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and who has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.
> 
> Choudary is a former spokesman for Islam4UK, which was "established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law," and to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam [...] thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power [...] to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia in Britain."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bet is the entire membership could meet in one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides -- article admits that Britain had sanctioned their predecessor org.
> The DO need to further license or monitor "religious courts" to head this stuff off at the pass.
> 
> Because this is brain child of an existing Shariah Court judge. You think he RESPECTS the limits of the type of cases and verdicts that he hands down?   No way. He already runs a "parallel justice system"..
Click to expand...

Sums you up.


----------



## flacaltenn

GHook93 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While THIS is pretty disturbing ---- (from your OP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A leading figure behind Muslims Against the Crusades is Anjem Choudary, a notorious Sharia court judge based in London who believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and who has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.
> 
> Choudary is a former spokesman for Islam4UK, which was "established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law," and to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam [...] thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power [...] to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia in Britain."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bet is the entire membership could meet in one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides -- article admits that Britain had sanctioned their predecessor org.
> The DO need to further license or monitor "religious courts" to head this stuff off at the pass.
> 
> Because this is brain child of an existing Shariah Court judge. You think he RESPECTS the limits of the type of cases and verdicts that he hands down?   No way. He already runs a "parallel justice system"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sums you up.
> 
> View attachment 77656
Click to expand...


Not at all GHook. Unless you're a Euro.. It's really simple. It ain't Islam -- it's the cultures they came out of. 

So --- Highly scrutinize ANY immigration from theocratic tryannical places that are still in the 17th century. And don't ACCOMMODATE those practices and govt support that they had in the Old Country,.. 

Voila --- you don't have to soil your American pants over this.. They'll be PLENTY of soiled knickers in Euro -- but they are unreachable leftists and can't help trying to make everyone comfortable and protected.


----------



## flacaltenn

tinydancer said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That story is complete bullshit. Here's what really happened with the Dutch. And don't forget there's no such entity as a real estate agent. Very little cash ever changed hands. Most deals were made on a barter system of trading.
> 
> "Of course, the biggest problem with the Manhattan purchase isn’t the price: It’s the identity of the sellers.
> 
> The Dutch conducted their business with the Canarsee tribe who were actually based out of what is now Brooklyn. However, we should be fair to perpetrators of the glass beads myth: The Canarsee probably would have taken anything in exchange for the use of Manhattan, as the island actually belonged to the Wappinger Confederacy, another group of Native Americans.
> 
> As a result, the Dutch claim to Manhattan was later contested, and the Dutch compensated the rightful owners. Thus, the Dutch settlers actually paid for Manhattan twice."
> 
> Native Americans Didn’t Sell Manhattan For $24 Of Beads
Click to expand...


OK so it $48 and a bunch of blankets ??


----------



## tinydancer

Pumpkin Row said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Why are we talking about Legal and Illegal when there likely weren't any laws to operate by when the English first settled here?_
Click to expand...


And it's the Dutch, French and Spanish as well that took over what they considered the New World. Yet everyone always wants to take a whack at the English.


----------



## tinydancer

flacaltenn said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That story is complete bullshit. Here's what really happened with the Dutch. And don't forget there's no such entity as a real estate agent. Very little cash ever changed hands. Most deals were made on a barter system of trading.
> 
> "Of course, the biggest problem with the Manhattan purchase isn’t the price: It’s the identity of the sellers.
> 
> The Dutch conducted their business with the Canarsee tribe who were actually based out of what is now Brooklyn. However, we should be fair to perpetrators of the glass beads myth: The Canarsee probably would have taken anything in exchange for the use of Manhattan, as the island actually belonged to the Wappinger Confederacy, another group of Native Americans.
> 
> As a result, the Dutch claim to Manhattan was later contested, and the Dutch compensated the rightful owners. Thus, the Dutch settlers actually paid for Manhattan twice."
> 
> Native Americans Didn’t Sell Manhattan For $24 Of Beads
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so it $48 and a bunch of blankets ??
Click to expand...


What did you want them to pay? It was just forest. Current day prices? Crap we're talking the 1500 and 1600's for crying out loud.

ETA: I'm very pro First Nations btw.  It was a wild land back then. And for the most part when one understands true history and no political slants on it in many cases the settlers and the First Nations worked quite well together.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

tinydancer said:


> And it's the Dutch, French and Spanish as well that took over what they considered the New World. Yet everyone always wants to take a whack at the English.


_The left more easily achieve supremacy when Americans are turned against each other, so they have a sort of sick fascination with trying to make make 'minorities' out to be victims. _


----------



## Pumpkin Row

flacaltenn said:


> OK so it $48 and a bunch of blankets ??


_Is it somehow your job to look into the past and tell us what the value of the land was to people you never met? For some reason, I feel like, if we were to look at the land through their eyes, we'd also see what was paid was the value of the land to them._


----------



## tinydancer

flacaltenn said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While THIS is pretty disturbing ---- (from your OP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A leading figure behind Muslims Against the Crusades is Anjem Choudary, a notorious Sharia court judge based in London who believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and who has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.
> 
> Choudary is a former spokesman for Islam4UK, which was "established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law," and to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam [...] thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power [...] to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia in Britain."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bet is the entire membership could meet in one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides -- article admits that Britain had sanctioned their predecessor org.
> The DO need to further license or monitor "religious courts" to head this stuff off at the pass.
> 
> Because this is brain child of an existing Shariah Court judge. You think he RESPECTS the limits of the type of cases and verdicts that he hands down?   No way. He already runs a "parallel justice system"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sums you up.
> 
> View attachment 77656
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all GHook. Unless you're a Euro.. It's really simple. It ain't Islam -- it's the cultures they came out of.
> 
> So --- Highly scrutinize ANY immigration from theocratic tryannical places that are still in the 17th century. And don't ACCOMMODATE those practices and govt support that they had in the Old Country,..
> 
> Voila --- you don't have to soil your American pants over this.. They'll be PLENTY of soiled knickers in Euro -- but they are unreachable leftists and can't help trying to make everyone comfortable and protected.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you made this post because it made me fill out my migrant camp burned out in Dusseldorf thread. The bloody idiots have just thrown "Muslims" together not realizing that many of the countries have been at each others throats for centuries. Oh and with Iranian guards.

Special. Didn't work out.


----------



## flacaltenn

tinydancer said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That story is complete bullshit. Here's what really happened with the Dutch. And don't forget there's no such entity as a real estate agent. Very little cash ever changed hands. Most deals were made on a barter system of trading.
> 
> "Of course, the biggest problem with the Manhattan purchase isn’t the price: It’s the identity of the sellers.
> 
> The Dutch conducted their business with the Canarsee tribe who were actually based out of what is now Brooklyn. However, we should be fair to perpetrators of the glass beads myth: The Canarsee probably would have taken anything in exchange for the use of Manhattan, as the island actually belonged to the Wappinger Confederacy, another group of Native Americans.
> 
> As a result, the Dutch claim to Manhattan was later contested, and the Dutch compensated the rightful owners. Thus, the Dutch settlers actually paid for Manhattan twice."
> 
> Native Americans Didn’t Sell Manhattan For $24 Of Beads
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so it $48 and a bunch of blankets ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you want them to pay? It was just forest. Current day prices? Crap we're talking the 1500 and 1600's for crying out loud.
> 
> ETA: I'm very pro First Nations btw.  It was a wild land back then. And for the most part when one understands true history and no political slants on it in many cases the settlers and the First Nations worked quite well together.
Click to expand...


Location, Location, Location.. That's why so many tribes were there..    Fishing, protected by water, and subways...


----------



## flacaltenn

tinydancer said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While THIS is pretty disturbing ---- (from your OP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A leading figure behind Muslims Against the Crusades is Anjem Choudary, a notorious Sharia court judge based in London who believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and who has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.
> 
> Choudary is a former spokesman for Islam4UK, which was "established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law," and to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam [...] thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power [...] to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia in Britain."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bet is the entire membership could meet in one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides -- article admits that Britain had sanctioned their predecessor org.
> The DO need to further license or monitor "religious courts" to head this stuff off at the pass.
> 
> Because this is brain child of an existing Shariah Court judge. You think he RESPECTS the limits of the type of cases and verdicts that he hands down?   No way. He already runs a "parallel justice system"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sums you up.
> 
> View attachment 77656
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all GHook. Unless you're a Euro.. It's really simple. It ain't Islam -- it's the cultures they came out of.
> 
> So --- Highly scrutinize ANY immigration from theocratic tryannical places that are still in the 17th century. And don't ACCOMMODATE those practices and govt support that they had in the Old Country,..
> 
> Voila --- you don't have to soil your American pants over this.. They'll be PLENTY of soiled knickers in Euro -- but they are unreachable leftists and can't help trying to make everyone comfortable and protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you made this post because it made me fill out my migrant camp burned out in Dusseldorf thread. The bloody idiots have just thrown "Muslims" together not realizing that many of the countries have been at each others throats for centuries. Oh and with Iranian guards.
> 
> Special. Didn't work out.
Click to expand...


You have a Muslims burn down Dusseldorf camp too ??     Copycat...


----------



## flacaltenn

tinydancer said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While THIS is pretty disturbing ---- (from your OP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A leading figure behind Muslims Against the Crusades is Anjem Choudary, a notorious Sharia court judge based in London who believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and who has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.
> 
> Choudary is a former spokesman for Islam4UK, which was "established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law," and to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam [...] thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power [...] to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia in Britain."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bet is the entire membership could meet in one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides -- article admits that Britain had sanctioned their predecessor org.
> The DO need to further license or monitor "religious courts" to head this stuff off at the pass.
> 
> Because this is brain child of an existing Shariah Court judge. You think he RESPECTS the limits of the type of cases and verdicts that he hands down?   No way. He already runs a "parallel justice system"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sums you up.
> 
> View attachment 77656
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all GHook. Unless you're a Euro.. It's really simple. It ain't Islam -- it's the cultures they came out of.
> 
> So --- Highly scrutinize ANY immigration from theocratic tryannical places that are still in the 17th century. And don't ACCOMMODATE those practices and govt support that they had in the Old Country,..
> 
> Voila --- you don't have to soil your American pants over this.. They'll be PLENTY of soiled knickers in Euro -- but they are unreachable leftists and can't help trying to make everyone comfortable and protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you made this post because it made me fill out my migrant camp burned out in Dusseldorf thread. The bloody idiots have just thrown "Muslims" together not realizing that many of the countries have been at each others throats for centuries. Oh and with Iranian guards.
> 
> Special. Didn't work out.
Click to expand...


Governments should NEVER be in the business of warehousing people. Not in a Western society. But look around. We are warehousing about 25,000 of those Cen. Amer. kids who rode the death trains up here after Some Nidget (in his last year of office) suggested that we would fast track young illegals into Americans. 

There's your result of "ACCOMMODATION" in the USA....


----------



## irosie91

tinydancer said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great article here for you to understand the truth of what really happened in the beginning and not the propaganda bullshit we get today. And btw I am very pro First Nations but with reality at my side.
> 
> "In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and driving them out of their land. We thus need to look at the first conflicts that existed between the Indians and the colonial settlers. A summary of these first conflicts shows they were always initiated by Indians:6
> 
> 
> 
> Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 1607, the settlers were attacked by the Indians, who wounded seventeen men and killed one boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the wise policy of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, head chief of the Indian Confederacy. When Powhatan died in 1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, began to plot war. In March 1622, the Indian tribes went on the warpath, and swept through a line of settlements marked by a trail of blood. In the white settlements, nearly 400 men, women, and children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the Indians could be checked.
> 
> 
> 
> For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace. But Opechancanouch, at last head chief, only waited for another opportunity. In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he thought the expected moment was at hand. The massacre he waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days. Again the whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general uprising in Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver. As time went on, the friendly old chief died. When his son, King Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to brew for the colonists. Urged on by his braves, King Philip began sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a mighty war on the "pale faces." The war that followed was a terrible one. The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and burning villages. Many a fair and quite settlement was made desolate. Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and burned in the houses. But by the end of 1675 the force of the Indians was broken.
> 
> 
> 
> In the New Haven colony the situation with the Indians (the Pequets) was similar. At first there were peaceful relationships between them and the white settlers. During 1637, the Pequots attempted to organize a confederacy, but unable to secure the help of the Narragansetts due to the influence of Roger Williams, they took to the warpath alone. T
> 
> 
> hey did not come out in open battle, but waylaid a party of whites and killed thirty of them. In response to this, a small party of English, along with some seventy friendly Indians, attacked the Pequet stronghold, killing over 450 of that tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> The great Pequet tribe was crushed, and nearly forty years of Peace ensued.
> History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between the American Indians and the white settlers, *were instigated or started by the Indians without just cause.*
> 
> 
> *Even though the white settlers had legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations with attacks, massacres, and wars. The retaliation by the white settlers were merely acts of self defense and self preservation in accordance with the law of nature. *
> 
> 
> *Thus it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man. *The Indian's treachery, barbaric and warlike manner, and sneak attacks on the colonists was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man. This exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian, and became the "code of conduct" which the Indian continued to live by and uphold in the future.
> 
> 
> Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of nature, and by a combination thereof."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
Click to expand...


not all that impressed-----that you resort to the term   RIGHTS OF THE WHITE MAN----is kinda disgusting.    I am not entirely in agreement with the "EUROPEANS STOLE THE LAND FROM THE INDIANS"  crowd---but unlike you----I do not dance on the dead bodies of the primitives who lived on the continent before  the  "UBER ALLES WHITE MAN"  that you worship got here.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!



Half of those 5% don't ever go to mosques. 

If Britain stays away from another Iraq, the number of Muslims who sympathize with extremists will go down.


----------



## irosie91

montelatici said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
Click to expand...


why do you insist upon displaying your extreme ignorance.    North America---at the time of the arrival of Europeans harbored people who were thinly scattered in the land---and had no concept of  "LAND OWNERSHIP".     One cannot "DISPOSSESS"  people who do not own land and have no borders----they were---essentially, nomads on a very vast land mass.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Swagger said:


> GHook's right. You give these people an inch and they'll take a yard. Great swarthes of London, once the capital of the greatest empire known to man, now resemble Afghan villages.




Which was the government's fault (both Tory and Labour) for letting them in.


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of those 5% don't ever go to mosques.
> 
> If Britain stays away from another Iraq, the number of Muslims who sympathize with extremists will go down.
Click to expand...


BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations


----------



## irosie91

Pumpkin Row said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the Dutch, French and Spanish as well that took over what they considered the New World. Yet everyone always wants to take a whack at the English.
> 
> 
> 
> _The left more easily achieve supremacy when Americans are turned against each other, so they have a sort of sick fascination with trying to make make 'minorities' out to be victims. _
Click to expand...


yeah----ok   BLAME THE DEMOCRATS


----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of those 5% don't ever go to mosques.
> 
> If Britain stays away from another Iraq, the number of Muslims who sympathize with extremists will go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
Click to expand...


Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Pumpkin Row said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the Dutch, French and Spanish as well that took over what they considered the New World. Yet everyone always wants to take a whack at the English.
> 
> 
> 
> _The left more easily achieve supremacy when Americans are turned against each other, so they have a sort of sick fascination with trying to make make 'minorities' out to be victims. _
Click to expand...


Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.


----------



## irosie91

flacaltenn said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That story is complete bullshit. Here's what really happened with the Dutch. And don't forget there's no such entity as a real estate agent. Very little cash ever changed hands. Most deals were made on a barter system of trading.
> 
> "Of course, the biggest problem with the Manhattan purchase isn’t the price: It’s the identity of the sellers.
> 
> The Dutch conducted their business with the Canarsee tribe who were actually based out of what is now Brooklyn. However, we should be fair to perpetrators of the glass beads myth: The Canarsee probably would have taken anything in exchange for the use of Manhattan, as the island actually belonged to the Wappinger Confederacy, another group of Native Americans.
> 
> As a result, the Dutch claim to Manhattan was later contested, and the Dutch compensated the rightful owners. Thus, the Dutch settlers actually paid for Manhattan twice."
> 
> Native Americans Didn’t Sell Manhattan For $24 Of Beads
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so it $48 and a bunch of blankets ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you want them to pay? It was just forest. Current day prices? Crap we're talking the 1500 and 1600's for crying out loud.
> 
> ETA: I'm very pro First Nations btw.  It was a wild land back then. And for the most part when one understands true history and no political slants on it in many cases the settlers and the First Nations worked quite well together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Location, Location, Location.. That's why so many tribes were there..    Fishing, protected by water, and subways...
Click to expand...


right---it was PRIME realestate when the damned supremacist filthy dutch  (?) "bought' it ----they took advantage of the native americans


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of those 5% don't ever go to mosques.
> 
> If Britain stays away from another Iraq, the number of Muslims who sympathize with extremists will go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
Click to expand...


so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
in the USA  decided to take advantage of
unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

irosie91 said:


> yeah----ok   BLAME THE DEMOCRATS


_Well, they were the ones perpetuating the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" myth, and making out enforcing border laws to be oppression. Wouldn't make sense if I blamed the wrong party, would it?_


----------



## Pumpkin Row

frigidweirdo said:


> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.


_Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._


----------



## Yarddog

irosie91 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
Click to expand...



The Indians probably thought they had the best of the deal. They were probably able to take those "rare" beads and trade them for other things more valuable from other tribes.  At that time there was plenty of land around so it didnt matter much


----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of those 5% don't ever go to mosques.
> 
> If Britain stays away from another Iraq, the number of Muslims who sympathize with extremists will go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
Click to expand...


My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Pumpkin Row said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
Click to expand...


Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?

Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.


----------



## irosie91

Yarddog said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Indians probably thought they had the best of the deal. They were probably able to take those "rare" beads and trade them for other things more valuable from other tribes.  At that time there was plenty of land around so it didnt matter much
Click to expand...


it is likely that at that time  LAND in the minds of the natives was endless stuff-----not worth a handful of beads.   But the fact is that they were very naive


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
Click to expand...


Minorities are often victims----not always.  Slavery happened world wide----the slavery of the USA was brutal.   No  Trump has not attacked both Hispanics and muslims mercilessly--------He has cited a big problem related to illegal immigration ----mostly from Mexico and a big problem with the ideology
of muslim immigrants.   So far I know of no pograms against Hispanics or muslims----I live in a largely Hispanic area------and very near two large muslim enclaves   No pogroms


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of those 5% don't ever go to mosques.
> 
> If Britain stays away from another Iraq, the number of Muslims who sympathize with extremists will go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
Click to expand...


read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS


----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minorities are often victims----not always.  Slavery happened world wide----the slavery of the USA was brutal.   No  Trump has not attacked both Hispanics and muslims mercilessly--------He has cited a big problem related to illegal immigration ----mostly from Mexico and a big problem with the ideology
> of muslim immigrants.   So far I know of no pograms against Hispanics or muslims----I live in a largely Hispanic area------and very near two large muslim enclaves   No pogroms
Click to expand...


One thing is citing a problem, the other is attacking people for their race or origin. Trump has done the latter, especially with his attacks on judges. 

No, there are no pogroms, you don't need to be in a pogrom to be a victim.


----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half of those 5% don't ever go to mosques.
> 
> If Britain stays away from another Iraq, the number of Muslims who sympathize with extremists will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
Click to expand...


Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.
Click to expand...


correlation is not causation.   There were lots and lots of  EVENTS in the period of time to which you allude-----there was the  "ARAB SPRING"  which had nothing to do with the
"invasion by the usa of Iraq"      There was the
rise of AL QAEDA which had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq by the USA.    There was the ISIS thing which had nothing to do with  the  "invasion of Iraq"---(believe it or not---it was inevitable based on Islamic fantasy of 1400 years ---in fact you could blame it on the crusades with equal credibility)


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minorities are often victims----not always.  Slavery happened world wide----the slavery of the USA was brutal.   No  Trump has not attacked both Hispanics and muslims mercilessly--------He has cited a big problem related to illegal immigration ----mostly from Mexico and a big problem with the ideology
> of muslim immigrants.   So far I know of no pograms against Hispanics or muslims----I live in a largely Hispanic area------and very near two large muslim enclaves   No pogroms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing is citing a problem, the other is attacking people for their race or origin. Trump has done the latter, especially with his attacks on judges.
> 
> No, there are no pogroms, you don't need to be in a pogrom to be a victim.
Click to expand...


oh----who are the "victims"  in your mind?    in what way are the victims being victimized?


----------



## IsaacNewton

How about everyone keep their religion in their own house or in church. Stop trying to cram that crap down someone else's throat. If people don't come to it on their own then obviously they don't see anything of value to it.

Go eat some wafers and watch some fake televangelist scam the weak-minded out of their money on tv.


----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> correlation is not causation.   There were lots and lots of  EVENTS in the period of time to which you allude-----there was the  "ARAB SPRING"  which had nothing to do with the
> "invasion by the usa of Iraq"      There was the
> rise of AL QAEDA which had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq by the USA.    There was the ISIS thing which had nothing to do with  the  "invasion of Iraq"---(believe it or not---it was inevitable based on Islamic fantasy of 1400 years ---in fact you could blame it on the crusades with equal credibility)
Click to expand...



The Arab Spring may not have been started (in countries like Tunisia) by the invasion of Iraq, but the Arab Spring spreading to Syria and becoming a civil war had a LOT to do with the invasion of Iraq and subsequent fuck up of "rebuilding" the country by Bush and Bremer.

Certainly had Saddam been in charge in Iraq, there'd have not been the militancy in the area to move quickly and efficiently into Syria.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minorities are often victims----not always.  Slavery happened world wide----the slavery of the USA was brutal.   No  Trump has not attacked both Hispanics and muslims mercilessly--------He has cited a big problem related to illegal immigration ----mostly from Mexico and a big problem with the ideology
> of muslim immigrants.   So far I know of no pograms against Hispanics or muslims----I live in a largely Hispanic area------and very near two large muslim enclaves   No pogroms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing is citing a problem, the other is attacking people for their race or origin. Trump has done the latter, especially with his attacks on judges.
> 
> No, there are no pogroms, you don't need to be in a pogrom to be a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh----who are the "victims"  in your mind?    in what way are the victims being victimized?
Click to expand...


In many ways. Like being vilified for the crimes of others, in the case of Muslims, like by being told that they're all rapists in the case of Hispanics, and so on.


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minorities are often victims----not always.  Slavery happened world wide----the slavery of the USA was brutal.   No  Trump has not attacked both Hispanics and muslims mercilessly--------He has cited a big problem related to illegal immigration ----mostly from Mexico and a big problem with the ideology
> of muslim immigrants.   So far I know of no pograms against Hispanics or muslims----I live in a largely Hispanic area------and very near two large muslim enclaves   No pogroms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing is citing a problem, the other is attacking people for their race or origin. Trump has done the latter, especially with his attacks on judges.
> 
> No, there are no pogroms, you don't need to be in a pogrom to be a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh----who are the "victims"  in your mind?    in what way are the victims being victimized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many ways. Like being vilified for the crimes of others, in the case of Muslims, like by being told that they're all rapists in the case of Hispanics, and so on.
Click to expand...


your comment is typical of the shit that you are-----I have challenged jerks like you ---just on this board to CITE just who and when and how ANYONE ever claimed that  "ALL MUSLIMS... do this ...or do that...,"   and so far none of you clumps of shit have manage to come up with a single example to justify YOUR LIBEL


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> correlation is not causation.   There were lots and lots of  EVENTS in the period of time to which you allude-----there was the  "ARAB SPRING"  which had nothing to do with the
> "invasion by the usa of Iraq"      There was the
> rise of AL QAEDA which had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq by the USA.    There was the ISIS thing which had nothing to do with  the  "invasion of Iraq"---(believe it or not---it was inevitable based on Islamic fantasy of 1400 years ---in fact you could blame it on the crusades with equal credibility)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Spring may not have been started (in countries like Tunisia) by the invasion of Iraq, but the Arab Spring spreading to Syria and becoming a civil war had a LOT to do with the invasion of Iraq and subsequent fuck up of "rebuilding" the country by Bush and Bremer.
> 
> Certainly had Saddam been in charge in Iraq, there'd have not been the militancy in the area to move quickly and efficiently into Syria.
Click to expand...


More BS-----a civil war has been cooking in Syria ever since the BRUTAL HAFEZ  took power and began murdering Syrians in the name of BAATHIST SHIT and his own personal sick love of Iran----remember 1982----we wasn't in Iraq in 1982


----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minorities are often victims----not always.  Slavery happened world wide----the slavery of the USA was brutal.   No  Trump has not attacked both Hispanics and muslims mercilessly--------He has cited a big problem related to illegal immigration ----mostly from Mexico and a big problem with the ideology
> of muslim immigrants.   So far I know of no pograms against Hispanics or muslims----I live in a largely Hispanic area------and very near two large muslim enclaves   No pogroms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing is citing a problem, the other is attacking people for their race or origin. Trump has done the latter, especially with his attacks on judges.
> 
> No, there are no pogroms, you don't need to be in a pogrom to be a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh----who are the "victims"  in your mind?    in what way are the victims being victimized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many ways. Like being vilified for the crimes of others, in the case of Muslims, like by being told that they're all rapists in the case of Hispanics, and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your comment is typical of the shit that you are-----I have challenged jerks like you ---just on this board to CITE just who and when and how ANYONE ever claimed that  "ALL MUSLIMS... do this ...or do that...,"   and so far none of you clumps of shit have manage to come up with a single example to justify YOUR LIBEL
Click to expand...


Ah, insults....


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.
Click to expand...


because islam is doing its SIN WAVE thing----which always ascends to RIVERS OF BLOOD as  "piety"  increases.     Check out history----
on the dead bodies of hundreds of millions


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minorities are often victims----not always.  Slavery happened world wide----the slavery of the USA was brutal.   No  Trump has not attacked both Hispanics and muslims mercilessly--------He has cited a big problem related to illegal immigration ----mostly from Mexico and a big problem with the ideology
> of muslim immigrants.   So far I know of no pograms against Hispanics or muslims----I live in a largely Hispanic area------and very near two large muslim enclaves   No pogroms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is citing a problem, the other is attacking people for their race or origin. Trump has done the latter, especially with his attacks on judges.
> 
> No, there are no pogroms, you don't need to be in a pogrom to be a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh----who are the "victims"  in your mind?    in what way are the victims being victimized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many ways. Like being vilified for the crimes of others, in the case of Muslims, like by being told that they're all rapists in the case of Hispanics, and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your comment is typical of the shit that you are-----I have challenged jerks like you ---just on this board to CITE just who and when and how ANYONE ever claimed that  "ALL MUSLIMS... do this ...or do that...,"   and so far none of you clumps of shit have manage to come up with a single example to justify YOUR LIBEL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, insults....
Click to expand...


yes----you falsely accused people of INSULTING MUSLIMS   (poor things)  to the point of creating LIBELS against innocent people------go right ahead and let cite the actual BASIS FOR YOUR SHIT LIBELS----
       ---to be specific---"MUSLIMS ARE BEING ACCUSED OF CRIMES WHICH THEY DID NOT COMMIT"  you got stats on the number of muslims in jail falsely accused of murder,  theft,  rape...????


----------



## irosie91

Pumpkin Row said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
Click to expand...


you are creating a CONSPIRACY LIBEL


----------



## irosie91

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS  muslims who do not go to mosques are incapable of being terrorist or supporting the
> CALIPHATE FANTASY?      I came into contact with LOTS OF MUSLIMS---over the past in excess of 50 years------even beer swilling muslims can harbor and often DO --harbor the  CALIPHATE FANTASY and---absolutely have incorporated the filth that has led to the current situations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.
Click to expand...


you have back up stats?.    Suicide attacks by muslims are not limited to attacks on US people or JOOOS----Shiites and sunnis use them against each other in various parts of the world----and muslims use them against Christians in various parts of the world


----------



## Pumpkin Row

frigidweirdo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
Click to expand...

_It did happen, but ragging on it and greatly embellishing it today is what Liberals are doing to separate the people, in order to maintain control. Though, no Trump hasn't attacked either one._


----------



## Fenton Lum

Pumpkin Row said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Why are we talking about Legal and Illegal when there likely weren't any laws to operate by when the English first settled here?_
Click to expand...

 

Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Fenton Lum said:


> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent



They did no such thing


----------



## Fenton Lum

Pumpkin Row said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _It did happen, but ragging on it and greatly embellishing it today is what Liberals are doing to separate the people, in order to maintain control. Though, no Trump hasn't attacked either one._
Click to expand...

 


tinydancer said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Why are we talking about Legal and Illegal when there likely weren't any laws to operate by when the English first settled here?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the Dutch, French and Spanish as well that took over what they considered the New World. Yet everyone always wants to take a whack at the English.
Click to expand...

 
No, it's all the western colonial empires.  It's only the English here because they prevailed against the others.

But really it's all the same virus, and it is that virus that continues to sodomize american society today.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did no such thing
Click to expand...

 
Horse shit.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Fenton Lum said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did no such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit.
Click to expand...


Cite the law they broke


----------



## Fenton Lum

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did no such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite the law they broke
Click to expand...

 

Look, you may think that's cute, but even you know what you're doing.  Did they break any white Euro western laws?  Treaty after treaty, their own.  If you can't deal with the reality of the history I'm fine with leaving you to your denial.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Why are we talking about Legal and Illegal when there likely weren't any laws to operate by when the English first settled here?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
Click to expand...


there is no question that the native americans were abused ---fenton----as to rewriting history-------who is "we"   The history I learned as a teen included the fact that the European invaders DID  abuse the American natives


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Fenton Lum said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did no such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite the law they broke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you may think that's cute, but even you know what you're doing.  Did they break any white Euro western laws?  Treaty after treaty, their own.  If you can't deal with the reality of the history I'm fine with leaving you to your denial.
Click to expand...


I do know the real history.  You are the one who said what they did was illegal, but of course, it wasn't because there was no established nation state on this continent with laws, accords, treaties, etc.  There were just multiple indigenous tribes, who I would remind you were just as vicious towards each other, killing and slaughtering other tribes, as bad as Europeans did to them when they arrived.

I would also point out to you that almost every civilization in existence today at some point in history supplanted the people who were there before them so your argument is the kind produced by one with a miniscule intellect.

You can shut up now.


----------



## Fenton Lum

tinydancer said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans were immigrants as well. No one had a deed to all of North America. Many territories by the way were purchased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really----other than the island of manhattan which went for a WHOPPING  handful of glass beads-------who paid the Indians for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That story is complete bullshit. Here's what really happened with the Dutch. And don't forget there's no such entity as a real estate agent. Very little cash ever changed hands. Most deals were made on a barter system of trading.
> 
> "Of course, the biggest problem with the Manhattan purchase isn’t the price: It’s the identity of the sellers.
> 
> The Dutch conducted their business with the Canarsee tribe who were actually based out of what is now Brooklyn. However, we should be fair to perpetrators of the glass beads myth: The Canarsee probably would have taken anything in exchange for the use of Manhattan, as the island actually belonged to the Wappinger Confederacy, another group of Native Americans.
> 
> As a result, the Dutch claim to Manhattan was later contested, and the Dutch compensated the rightful owners. Thus, the Dutch settlers actually paid for Manhattan twice."
> 
> Native Americans Didn’t Sell Manhattan For $24 Of Beads
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so it $48 and a bunch of blankets ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you want them to pay? It was just forest. Current day prices? Crap we're talking the 1500 and 1600's for crying out loud.
> 
> ETA: I'm very pro First Nations btw.  It was a wild land back then. And for the most part when one understands true history and no political slants on it in many cases the settlers and the First Nations worked quite well together.
Click to expand...

 
We know what the power structure "taught" us. That's not the point, your ability to regurgitate your imprinting is not at issue here.

_*A groundbreaking study that radically alters our understanding of the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans in 1492.
Traditionally, Americans learned in school that the ancestors of the people who inhabited the Western Hemisphere at the time of Columbus’s landing had crossed the Bering Strait twelve thousand years ago; existed mainly in small, nomadic bands; and lived so lightly on the land that the Americas was, for all practical purposes, still a vast wilderness. But as Charles C. Mann now makes clear, archaeologists and anthropologists have spent the last thirty years proving these and many other long-held assumptions wrong.*_
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus: Charles C. Mann: 9781400040063: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Fenton Lum said:


> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.


_How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._


----------



## irosie91

Pumpkin Row said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
Click to expand...


MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?   
Are you sane?


----------



## Fenton Lum

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did no such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite the law they broke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you may think that's cute, but even you know what you're doing.  Did they break any white Euro western laws?  Treaty after treaty, their own.  If you can't deal with the reality of the history I'm fine with leaving you to your denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know the real history.  You are the one who said what they did was illegal, but of course, it wasn't because there was no established nation state on this continent with laws, accords, treaties, etc.  There were just multiple indigenous tribes, who I would remind you were just as vicious towards each other, killing and slaughtering other tribes, as bad as Europeans did to them when they arrived.
> 
> I would also point out to you that almost every civilization in existence today at some point in history supplanted the people who were there before them so your argument is the kind produced by one with a miniscule intellect.
Click to expand...

 
See the post above, Euros did not encounter a wilderness wasteland that was scarcely populated, unmanaged, or undeveloped. What I object to is the collective miniscule intellect that on the one hand professes america to be an "exceptional" nation and people, a beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice, but then when confronted with its own mediocrity regarding its brutal past must fall back on the “well everyone else was doing it too” argument.  So yeah, for a society that started out as it did, and now whines about people returning to land they were forcefully deposed from as “illegal”?  I find that hilariously hypocritical.  And I will continue to say so, your consternation notwithstanding.  America is just another place, with a power structure, a propaganda machine, a history of oppression and brutality, and a continual disregard for the unsubstantial people.  Just like every place else as you suggest.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Pumpkin Row said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
Click to expand...

 

They did over a few century campaign of genocide.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
Click to expand...

 
No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did no such thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite the law they broke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you may think that's cute, but even you know what you're doing.  Did they break any white Euro western laws?  Treaty after treaty, their own.  If you can't deal with the reality of the history I'm fine with leaving you to your denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know the real history.  You are the one who said what they did was illegal, but of course, it wasn't because there was no established nation state on this continent with laws, accords, treaties, etc.  There were just multiple indigenous tribes, who I would remind you were just as vicious towards each other, killing and slaughtering other tribes, as bad as Europeans did to them when they arrived.
> 
> I would also point out to you that almost every civilization in existence today at some point in history supplanted the people who were there before them so your argument is the kind produced by one with a miniscule intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the post above, Euros did not encounter a wilderness wasteland that was scarcely populated, unmanaged, or undeveloped. What I object to is the collective miniscule intellect that on the one hand professes america to be an "exceptional" nation and people, a beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice, but then when confronted with its own mediocrity regarding its brutal past must fall back on the “well everyone else was doing it too” argument.  So yeah, for a society that started out as it did, and now whines about people returning to land they were forcefully deposed from as “illegal”?  I find that hilariously hypocritical.  And I will continue to say so, your consternation notwithstanding.  America is just another place, with a power structure, a propaganda machine, a history of oppression and brutality, and a continual disregard for the unsubstantial people.  Just like every place else as you suggest.
Click to expand...


In fact---the land now America  WAS sparsely populated.     The population REQUIRED lots of land per capita because they were largely just hunter gatherers---it takes agriculture to make towns and cities


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
Click to expand...


not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
Click to expand...


big difference------all societies inculcate its own more's ------you made no point


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
Click to expand...

 

Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> big difference------all societies inculcate its own more's ------you made no point
Click to expand...

 

All societies invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others, yes.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
Click to expand...


nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
population


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> big difference------all societies inculcate its own more's ------you made no point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All societies invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others, yes.
Click to expand...


more or less----some less than more and some more than less


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
Click to expand...

_Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that._

_... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care._


----------



## irosie91

PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
"invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,"


----------



## irosie91

Pumpkin Row said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that._
> 
> _... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care._
Click to expand...


you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
> population
Click to expand...

 

I grew up in america, I've already heard the power structure's propaganda.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,"


 
They have yet to project a campaign of genocide against your people though, heh?


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
> population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in america, I've already heard the power structure's propaganda.
Click to expand...


you consider my comment  "power structure propaganda"  ???


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's exactly the same thing, "we" just didn't have any respect for what was already here.  Fuck them, we murdered our way into it.  But now?  Oh yes, "we" have "laws" so others shouldn't do the same to "us".  Then "we" rewrote the entire history of what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that._
> 
> _... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
Click to expand...

 
Really?

"PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
"invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""

What's that?


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
> population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in america, I've already heard the power structure's propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you consider my comment  "power structure propaganda"  ???
Click to expand...

 
You know where you got that version?


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have yet to project a campaign of genocide against your people though, heh?
Click to expand...


who is "they" and who is  "my people"?


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
> population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in america, I've already heard the power structure's propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you consider my comment  "power structure propaganda"  ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know where you got that version?
Click to expand...


reality


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
> population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in america, I've already heard the power structure's propaganda.
Click to expand...

_I know, that's why you're regurgitating it._


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _How convenient that you're ignoring that most of it was bought, when they really could have just killed them all and taken it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that._
> 
> _... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> "PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
> 
> What's that?
Click to expand...


the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders"  and on each other


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> MOST OF IT WAS BOUGHT????    you gotta be kiddin'       Are you referring to the USA?
> Are you sane?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that._
> 
> _... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> "PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
> 
> What's that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders"  and on each other
Click to expand...

 
Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
 
Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:

Google Preview
WorldCat
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:


----------



## Fenton Lum

Pumpkin Row said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did over a few century campaign of genocide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not really------there was no systematic MASSIVE genocide-----but the Native americans were---FUNCTIONALLY deprived of their natural habitat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
> population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in america, I've already heard the power structure's propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know, that's why you're regurgitating it._
Click to expand...

 
You may need to read through this thread again.


----------



## irosie91

you are making no point------the decimation of the native American population by European
invasion is ESTABLISHED FACT


----------



## mudwhistle

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!


Shades of India.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a systemic mass genocide over time, look into it, I know it's difficult for some to face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope-----there was no systematic genocide---it the alteration in the landscape and introduction of novel sicknesses and ---ALSO violence----just resulted in  DECIMATION of the native
> population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in america, I've already heard the power structure's propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you consider my comment  "power structure propaganda"  ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know where you got that version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> reality
Click to expand...

 
No, the system wants you to believe its version of "reality", and you don't have the stomach to challenge what you've been fed.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> you are making no point------the decimation of the native American population by European
> invasion is ESTABLISHED FACT


 
I understand you're not open to the point, yeah.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are making no point------the decimation of the native American population by European
> invasion is ESTABLISHED FACT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're not open to the point, yeah.
Click to expand...


what point?    feel free to express THE POINT


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are making no point------the decimation of the native American population by European
> invasion is ESTABLISHED FACT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're not open to the point, yeah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what point?    feel free to express THE POINT
Click to expand...

 
You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally.  Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are making no point------the decimation of the native American population by European
> invasion is ESTABLISHED FACT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're not open to the point, yeah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what point?    feel free to express THE POINT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally.  Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?
Click to expand...


I "lashed out"  emotionally?    You are unable to answer very simple questions asked to
clarify that which you are STRUGGLING to
imply ----as if your  "POINT"  is something mysterious


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are making no point------the decimation of the native American population by European
> invasion is ESTABLISHED FACT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're not open to the point, yeah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what point?    feel free to express THE POINT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally.  Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I "lashed out"  emotionally?    You are unable to answer very simple questions asked to
> clarify that which you are STRUGGLING to
> imply ----as if your  "POINT"  is something mysterious
Click to expand...

 
Genocide darling.  Look, you're not up to this, clearly you can't deal with it and MUST remain in denial.  Have a nice weekend.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are making no point------the decimation of the native American population by European
> invasion is ESTABLISHED FACT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're not open to the point, yeah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what point?    feel free to express THE POINT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally.  Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I "lashed out"  emotionally?    You are unable to answer very simple questions asked to
> clarify that which you are STRUGGLING to
> imply ----as if your  "POINT"  is something mysterious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide darling.  Look, you're not up to this, clearly you can't deal with it and MUST remain in denial.  Have a nice weekend.
Click to expand...


Your comments are scattered and without sense---DYSPHASIC    I am an elderly woman----punk----do not call me "darling"   Keep it for your whore, ---pimp.  I can deal and have dealt with circumstances and events and situations that you could NEVER IMAGINE


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're not open to the point, yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what point?    feel free to express THE POINT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally.  Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I "lashed out"  emotionally?    You are unable to answer very simple questions asked to
> clarify that which you are STRUGGLING to
> imply ----as if your  "POINT"  is something mysterious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide darling.  Look, you're not up to this, clearly you can't deal with it and MUST remain in denial.  Have a nice weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments are scattered and without sense---DYSPHASIC    I am an elderly woman----punk----do not call me "darling"   Keep it for your whore, ---pimp.  I can deal and have dealt with circumstances and events and situations that you could NEVER IMAGINE
Click to expand...

 

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................

_The Doctrine of Discovery is based on a principle of Roman law called terra nullius (“nobody’s land”) and grew out of the church’s conviction that “discovered” lands were devoid of human beings if the original people who lived there (defined as “heathens, pagans, and infidels”) were not ruled by a Christian ruler. “The Doctrine mandated Christian European countries to attack, enslave, and kill the Indigenous Peoples they encountered and to acquire all of their assets,” wrote the World Council of Churches in a 2012 statement._
Time to End the Papal Bull






 "_The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world._" David E. Stannard. *4*





 "_This violent corruption needn't define us.... We can say, yes, this happened, and we are ashamed. We repudiate the greed. We recognize and condemn the evil. And we see how the harm has been perpetuated. But, five hundred years later, we intend to mean something else in the world._" Barry Lopez.* 3*





 "_By then [1891] the native population had been reduced to 2.5% of its original numbers and 97.5% of the aboriginal land base had been expropriated....Hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures had simply been erased from the face of the earth, most often without even the pretense of justice or law._" Peter Montague *1*
Genocide of Natives in the Western Hemisphere, starting 1492 CE

James Riding In, who is Pawnee and an associate professor of American Indian studies at Arizona State University, responded to D'Souza's thesis in an interview with Truthout, saying: "It seems to me that D'Souza does not understand what genocide is. [The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as] 'the killing of members of a group.' Or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. The third part is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. And imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children to another group."
One of the things that happened in the United States, Riding In points out, "was to take Indian children away from their parents, away from their tribes, away from their religious people, away from their nurturing environment of their communities and place them in these distant boarding schools where the Indian would be beat out of them if necessary. That policy falls within the definition of genocide, the plan to bring about the physical destruction of a ... people. This was aimed at the children."
The forced removal of children - which continues today as American Indian children are removed from their homes by state social service agencies at a far higher rate than non-Indian children are - was justified by the concepts of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny.
American exceptionalism is the precept that the United States is unique and qualitatively superior to other nations because it was founded based on democratic principles, Christian values and personal liberty. The concept in popular culture translates to Americans being somehow superior - more fair, more just, more moral, more acceptable in God's eyes than other groups.
The Native American Genocide and the Teaching of US History

The indigenous people of America, commonly known as the Native Americans, first came to America at least 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the European settlers. They made America their home, with a population of 10 million and hundreds of tribes. The Native Americans thrived off of the land, using it for survival. But when the Europeans settled in America, they were enslaved, dispossessed, and annihilated. The Native Americans experienced a genocide that took tons of lives. History has seen some very gruesome genocide or methods of mass destruction, but none of them can be compared to the ongoing holocaust that the Native Americans have endured.
The Native American Genocide — Science Leadership Academy


*Benjamin Franklin*, from his autobiography, 1750s
“If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means.”

*Orders of George Washington* to General John Sullivan, May 31, 1779
“The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.”
*Governor William Henry Harrison*, of the Indiana Territory (1800-1812) while defending displacement of the Indians
“Is one of the fairest portions of the globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it seems destined by the Creator to give support to a large population and to be the seat of civilization?”

*John Quincy Adams*, 1802, when rationalizing territorial imperatives as God’s will
“What is the right of the huntsman to the forest of a thousand miles over which he has accidentally ranged in quest of prey? Shall the fields and vallies, which a beneficent God has formed to teem with the life of innumerable multitudes, be condemned to everlasting barrenness?”

*President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
“This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”

*James Monroe*, in a letter to Andrew Jackson, October 5, 1817
“The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress and just claims of civilized life, and must yield to it. Nothing is more certain, than, if the Indian tribes do not abandon that state, and become civilized, that they will decline, and become extinct. The hunter state, tho maintain’d by warlike spirits, presents but a feeble resistance to the more dense, compact, and powerful population of civilized man.”


----------



## Uncensored2008

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!



Where did the British Government agree to make the state?

London?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fenton Lum said:


> [
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.



Serious question; were you born this way? Or did you ride a motorcycle at 90 MPH without a helmet and run into a brick wall?


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what point?    feel free to express THE POINT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally.  Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I "lashed out"  emotionally?    You are unable to answer very simple questions asked to
> clarify that which you are STRUGGLING to
> imply ----as if your  "POINT"  is something mysterious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide darling.  Look, you're not up to this, clearly you can't deal with it and MUST remain in denial.  Have a nice weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments are scattered and without sense---DYSPHASIC    I am an elderly woman----punk----do not call me "darling"   Keep it for your whore, ---pimp.  I can deal and have dealt with circumstances and events and situations that you could NEVER IMAGINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................
> 
> _The Doctrine of Discovery is based on a principle of Roman law called terra nullius (“nobody’s land”) and grew out of the church’s conviction that “discovered” lands were devoid of human beings if the original people who lived there (defined as “heathens, pagans, and infidels”) were not ruled by a Christian ruler. “The Doctrine mandated Christian European countries to attack, enslave, and kill the Indigenous Peoples they encountered and to acquire all of their assets,” wrote the World Council of Churches in a 2012 statement._
> Time to End the Papal Bull
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world._" David E. Stannard. *4*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_This violent corruption needn't define us.... We can say, yes, this happened, and we are ashamed. We repudiate the greed. We recognize and condemn the evil. And we see how the harm has been perpetuated. But, five hundred years later, we intend to mean something else in the world._" Barry Lopez.* 3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_By then [1891] the native population had been reduced to 2.5% of its original numbers and 97.5% of the aboriginal land base had been expropriated....Hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures had simply been erased from the face of the earth, most often without even the pretense of justice or law._" Peter Montague *1*
> Genocide of Natives in the Western Hemisphere, starting 1492 CE
> 
> James Riding In, who is Pawnee and an associate professor of American Indian studies at Arizona State University, responded to D'Souza's thesis in an interview with Truthout, saying: "It seems to me that D'Souza does not understand what genocide is. [The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as] 'the killing of members of a group.' Or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. The third part is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. And imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children to another group."
> One of the things that happened in the United States, Riding In points out, "was to take Indian children away from their parents, away from their tribes, away from their religious people, away from their nurturing environment of their communities and place them in these distant boarding schools where the Indian would be beat out of them if necessary. That policy falls within the definition of genocide, the plan to bring about the physical destruction of a ... people. This was aimed at the children."
> The forced removal of children - which continues today as American Indian children are removed from their homes by state social service agencies at a far higher rate than non-Indian children are - was justified by the concepts of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny.
> American exceptionalism is the precept that the United States is unique and qualitatively superior to other nations because it was founded based on democratic principles, Christian values and personal liberty. The concept in popular culture translates to Americans being somehow superior - more fair, more just, more moral, more acceptable in God's eyes than other groups.
> The Native American Genocide and the Teaching of US History
> 
> The indigenous people of America, commonly known as the Native Americans, first came to America at least 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the European settlers. They made America their home, with a population of 10 million and hundreds of tribes. The Native Americans thrived off of the land, using it for survival. But when the Europeans settled in America, they were enslaved, dispossessed, and annihilated. The Native Americans experienced a genocide that took tons of lives. History has seen some very gruesome genocide or methods of mass destruction, but none of them can be compared to the ongoing holocaust that the Native Americans have endured.
> The Native American Genocide — Science Leadership Academy
> 
> 
> *Benjamin Franklin*, from his autobiography, 1750s
> “If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means.”
> 
> *Orders of George Washington* to General John Sullivan, May 31, 1779
> “The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.”
> *Governor William Henry Harrison*, of the Indiana Territory (1800-1812) while defending displacement of the Indians
> “Is one of the fairest portions of the globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it seems destined by the Creator to give support to a large population and to be the seat of civilization?”
> 
> *John Quincy Adams*, 1802, when rationalizing territorial imperatives as God’s will
> “What is the right of the huntsman to the forest of a thousand miles over which he has accidentally ranged in quest of prey? Shall the fields and vallies, which a beneficent God has formed to teem with the life of innumerable multitudes, be condemned to everlasting barrenness?”
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> *James Monroe*, in a letter to Andrew Jackson, October 5, 1817
> “The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress and just claims of civilized life, and must yield to it. Nothing is more certain, than, if the Indian tribes do not abandon that state, and become civilized, that they will decline, and become extinct. The hunter state, tho maintain’d by warlike spirits, presents but a feeble resistance to the more dense, compact, and powerful population of civilized man.”
Click to expand...


thanks    FENTON     you repeated precisely what I said----the Europeans brought the INQUSITION MINDSET --with them to the "New World"---------you made no point at all
 other than the fact that you are admitting that
I AM RIGHT
I agree that some people would LIKE to deny
that fact-----but it was never me.


----------



## Uncensored2008

irosie91 said:


> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them



That what the Negroid Aborigines said when the Indians crossed the ice bridge from Asia.

That is until the Indians completed their near total genocide of the original people.


----------



## irosie91

Uncensored2008 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what the Negroid Aborigines said when the Indians crossed the ice bridge from Asia.
> 
> That is until the Indians completed their near total genocide of the original people.
Click to expand...


yeah----ok      sure-----and then there were the MAYANS------chopping the hearts out of living people-------so many  stories


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she's swallowed the societal power structure indoctrination, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> _Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that._
> 
> _... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> "PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
> 
> What's that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders"  and on each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> 
> Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
Click to expand...


Ward Churchill? 

Michael Mann? 

Not that you had any credibility to start with.


----------



## Uncensored2008

irosie91 said:


> [
> 
> yeah----ok      sure-----and then there were the MAYANS------chopping the hearts out of living people-------so many  stories



The Mayans were offspring of the invading Asians.

When the Indians came to America, it was a peopled land. The Indians over several thousand years migrated South and slaughtered the original inhabitants. The slaughter was a near total genocide, once thought total. But enclaves of the Aborigines have been found in the Amazon. America was once a land of the black man. The red man came, murdered the black men, and stole their land.


----------



## Desperado

Give them an inch and they want a mile!  If we continue to let them in their same demand will be made here!  Immigration without assimilation is defined as an invasion!  Trump is correct, Close the borders now!


----------



## tinydancer

irosie91 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great article here for you to understand the truth of what really happened in the beginning and not the propaganda bullshit we get today. And btw I am very pro First Nations but with reality at my side.
> 
> "In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and driving them out of their land. We thus need to look at the first conflicts that existed between the Indians and the colonial settlers. A summary of these first conflicts shows they were always initiated by Indians:6
> 
> 
> 
> Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 1607, the settlers were attacked by the Indians, who wounded seventeen men and killed one boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the wise policy of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, head chief of the Indian Confederacy. When Powhatan died in 1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, began to plot war. In March 1622, the Indian tribes went on the warpath, and swept through a line of settlements marked by a trail of blood. In the white settlements, nearly 400 men, women, and children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the Indians could be checked.
> 
> 
> 
> For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace. But Opechancanouch, at last head chief, only waited for another opportunity. In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he thought the expected moment was at hand. The massacre he waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days. Again the whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general uprising in Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver. As time went on, the friendly old chief died. When his son, King Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to brew for the colonists. Urged on by his braves, King Philip began sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a mighty war on the "pale faces." The war that followed was a terrible one. The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and burning villages. Many a fair and quite settlement was made desolate. Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and burned in the houses. But by the end of 1675 the force of the Indians was broken.
> 
> 
> 
> In the New Haven colony the situation with the Indians (the Pequets) was similar. At first there were peaceful relationships between them and the white settlers. During 1637, the Pequots attempted to organize a confederacy, but unable to secure the help of the Narragansetts due to the influence of Roger Williams, they took to the warpath alone. T
> 
> 
> hey did not come out in open battle, but waylaid a party of whites and killed thirty of them. In response to this, a small party of English, along with some seventy friendly Indians, attacked the Pequet stronghold, killing over 450 of that tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> The great Pequet tribe was crushed, and nearly forty years of Peace ensued.
> History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between the American Indians and the white settlers, *were instigated or started by the Indians without just cause.*
> 
> 
> *Even though the white settlers had legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations with attacks, massacres, and wars. The retaliation by the white settlers were merely acts of self defense and self preservation in accordance with the law of nature. *
> 
> 
> *Thus it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man. *The Indian's treachery, barbaric and warlike manner, and sneak attacks on the colonists was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man. This exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian, and became the "code of conduct" which the Indian continued to live by and uphold in the future.
> 
> 
> Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of nature, and by a combination thereof."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not all that impressed-----that you resort to the term   RIGHTS OF THE WHITE MAN----is kinda disgusting.    I am not entirely in agreement with the "EUROPEANS STOLE THE LAND FROM THE INDIANS"  crowd---but unlike you----I do not dance on the dead bodies of the primitives who lived on the continent before  the  "UBER ALLES WHITE MAN"  that you worship got here.
Click to expand...


I worship no one but my Lord. I did not resort to the term. That is used in the article that shows the first smack downs were the natives beating the shit out of the settlers. Oh and that's what they did to each other.

Tribe against tribe. Very vicious. Very brutal. Stealing women and children to be used as slaves. These dudes weren't sitting around campfires smoking a peace pipe for crying out loud.

Learn First Nations history and then get back to me. And what the hell is this shit that I "dance on the dead bodies of the primitives". Get a grip irosie. I've worked with more First Nations peoples than you will ever meet in your lifetime. 

Started out a long time ago fighting for clean water rights beginning with Grassy Narrows and White Dog First Nations with a battle against mercury poisoning now known as Minimata disease. Happened to be working at a trading post called the Beaverhead at that time. 

I know how to make a porcupine quill basket with sweet grass. I can clean bear claws. I've learned a lot with my time over the years and this has been decades.

I've never danced nor ever would dance on anyone persons grave. What an insult!

I'm now blessed to live in the midst of the heart and soul of Metis country. After years of having Six Nations as my neighbors back east. I've always considered First Nations my brothers and sisters.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Fenton Lum said:


> What I object to is the collective miniscule intellect that on the one hand professes america to be an "exceptional" nation and people, a beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice, but then when confronted with its own mediocrity regarding its brutal past must fall back on the “well everyone else was doing it too” argument.



I don't say those things about America.  Compared to most other nations on the planet, it's a freer place to live and I'd rather be here than most, but in reality, no, It's not a beacon of freedom, liberty, or justice.  That's just propaganda.  It really isn't practiced. 



> America is just another place, with a power structure, a propaganda machine, a history of oppression and brutality, and a continual disregard for the unsubstantial people.  Just like every place else as you suggest.



No argument here.


----------



## frigidweirdo

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims, like anyone else, can become suicide bombers, it doesn't take someone to go to Mosque or a Church to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so true-----it is a matter of cultural more's.   What is your point.     If some religious leader
> in the USA  decided to take advantage of
> unhappiness in youth and claims a  "ETERNAL ORGASM" in the sky reward----there would also be ENDLESS VOLUNTEERS---YOUR POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that what you said didn't really make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it again---you alluded to  SUICIDE---as a manifestation of ideology------I described the FACT -----that if offered ----there are LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are. And there are FAR MORE since the invasion of Iraq. I wonder why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have back up stats?.    Suicide attacks by muslims are not limited to attacks on US people or JOOOS----Shiites and sunnis use them against each other in various parts of the world----and muslims use them against Christians in various parts of the world
Click to expand...


Do I have back up stats? 

Terrorist attacks and deaths hit record high, report shows

"
As terrorism increasingly becomes a tactic of warfare, the number of attacks and fatalities soared to a record high in 2012, according to a new report obtained exclusively by CNN.

More than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed nearly 15,500 people last year as violence tore through Africa, Asia and the Middle East, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

That’s a 69% rise in attacks and an 89% jump in fatalities from 2011, said START, one of the world’s leading terrorism-trackers."











I'm sure I could find lots. But then you know this is the case anyway. 

Afghanistan, and then Iraq, became training grounds for terrorist activity. A petri dish.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Pumpkin Row said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the right don't give a damn and make minorities victims.
> 
> 
> 
> _Thanks for proving my point. Pretending minorities are victims to turn Americans against each other._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, minorities aren't victims? Slavery didn't happen? Segregation didn't happen? The Japanese Americans didn't get locked up in WW2? Trump hasn't attack both Hispanics and Muslims mercilessly?
> 
> Oh, let's pretend none of this ever happened, and then you'll be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _It did happen, but ragging on it and greatly embellishing it today is what Liberals are doing to separate the people, in order to maintain control. Though, no Trump hasn't attacked either one._
Click to expand...


The right are the ones who often try and separate. In post segregation USA many on the right have tried to keep segregation.

Often this is done in a clandestine way.

The way education is funded is one such way. In other countries where state education is funded fairly and equally, there are less problems with ghettos and the like. In the US, if you're born poor, chances are you're going to stay there because they'll give you inferior education to the richer areas. 

I'm not sure what you think liberals are doing to separate the people. You might have a point at times, many liberals will do things that don't necessarily make sense, just as the right do, and this can cause separation. Conflict is inevitable within such a large society. The Partisan nature of the US is getting worse and the separate battlegrounds are not helping to join people together and to be tolerant of the other. 

However, when the right lose their control over a group, like for example gay people, the right will then complain that they are being victimized, that their right to religion should come above another person's rights, which is ridiculous if you understand the theory of rights.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

frigidweirdo said:


> The way education is funded is one such way. In other countries where state education is funded fairly and equally, there are less problems with ghettos and the like. In the US, if you're born poor, chances are you're going to stay there because they'll give you inferior education to the richer areas.


_Actually, everyone gets 'inferior education' so long as they go to any 'public schools'. It's just how government-run things work. Now, if those were phased out and education was privatized entirely, that would be a beautiful thing._



frigidweirdo said:


> I'm not sure what you think liberals are doing to separate the people.


_Constantly mentioning slavery, despite it being dead for many years in America. 'fighting for equal rights' while all humans have them. They've been single-handedly keeping 'race war' alive by accusing everyone of racism on a constant basis. Perpetuating the "hands up, don't shoot" myth and legislating affirmative action, pretending enforcing border laws is somehow racist, pretending America was stolen from Indians and that they should be compensated. Not to mention pretending that black people are somehow STILL being wronged, even though slavery was abolished in the United States MANY years ago, and nobody alive was even part of it, nor do most of them even know someone who was part of it. At this point, the left are offering them all supremacy and immunity rather than equal rights, just to get easy votes._



frigidweirdo said:


> You might have a point at times, many liberals will do things that don't necessarily make sense, just as the right do, and this can cause separation. Conflict is inevitable within such a large society. The Partisan nature of the US is getting worse and the separate battlegrounds are not helping to join people together and to be tolerant of the other.


 _Well, you had to eventually say something I agreed with._



frigidweirdo said:


> However, when the right lose their control over a group, like for example gay people, the right will then complain that they are being victimized, that their right to religion should come above another person's rights, which is ridiculous if you understand the theory of rights.


_It's the higher concentration of religious people within the right. A higher concentration causes a higher chance of encountering people who take things out of context. You're not wrong that people like that are within the Republican party, but people like to characterize the entire party that way, which would make them wrong. You're more likely to meet a Republican who doesn't care, but also wouldn't want the rights they already have taken away, than one who thinks they shouldn't have equal rights._


----------



## Likkmee

Majority rules !
I spend my life trying to get wimminz out of their clothes. These assholes spend theirs trying to put them in a bag with eye holes. Fucking brilliant.


----------



## irosie91

tinydancer said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
> 
> 
> At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
> 
> 
> Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
> 
> 
> FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
> 
> 
> SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
> 
> 
> THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
> 
> The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
> 
> However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
> 
> The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery _(circa _1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
> 
> *Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."*
> 
> 
> In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since *97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.*
> 
> When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
> 
> It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
> 
> he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
> 
> 1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
> 
> 
> 2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
> 
> 3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
> 
> 
> This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
Click to expand...


you make important points,  DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws.    As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was  THEIR LAW


----------



## irosie91

irosie91 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
Click to expand...


don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as  
DA BRAHMINS .---------
      LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS


----------



## Fenton Lum

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question; were you born this way? Or did you ride a motorcycle at 90 MPH without a helmet and run into a brick wall?
Click to expand...


The fact that this is all you have in the way of a response leaves it intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers that you know this is a little too close to home for your comfort level.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> You saw it, now you're just lashing out emotionally.  Pick a couple books off the list, read 'em, come back and let's discuss your reations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I "lashed out"  emotionally?    You are unable to answer very simple questions asked to
> clarify that which you are STRUGGLING to
> imply ----as if your  "POINT"  is something mysterious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genocide darling.  Look, you're not up to this, clearly you can't deal with it and MUST remain in denial.  Have a nice weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments are scattered and without sense---DYSPHASIC    I am an elderly woman----punk----do not call me "darling"   Keep it for your whore, ---pimp.  I can deal and have dealt with circumstances and events and situations that you could NEVER IMAGINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................
> 
> _The Doctrine of Discovery is based on a principle of Roman law called terra nullius (“nobody’s land”) and grew out of the church’s conviction that “discovered” lands were devoid of human beings if the original people who lived there (defined as “heathens, pagans, and infidels”) were not ruled by a Christian ruler. “The Doctrine mandated Christian European countries to attack, enslave, and kill the Indigenous Peoples they encountered and to acquire all of their assets,” wrote the World Council of Churches in a 2012 statement._
> Time to End the Papal Bull
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world._" David E. Stannard. *4*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_This violent corruption needn't define us.... We can say, yes, this happened, and we are ashamed. We repudiate the greed. We recognize and condemn the evil. And we see how the harm has been perpetuated. But, five hundred years later, we intend to mean something else in the world._" Barry Lopez.* 3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_By then [1891] the native population had been reduced to 2.5% of its original numbers and 97.5% of the aboriginal land base had been expropriated....Hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures had simply been erased from the face of the earth, most often without even the pretense of justice or law._" Peter Montague *1*
> Genocide of Natives in the Western Hemisphere, starting 1492 CE
> 
> James Riding In, who is Pawnee and an associate professor of American Indian studies at Arizona State University, responded to D'Souza's thesis in an interview with Truthout, saying: "It seems to me that D'Souza does not understand what genocide is. [The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as] 'the killing of members of a group.' Or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. The third part is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. And imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children to another group."
> One of the things that happened in the United States, Riding In points out, "was to take Indian children away from their parents, away from their tribes, away from their religious people, away from their nurturing environment of their communities and place them in these distant boarding schools where the Indian would be beat out of them if necessary. That policy falls within the definition of genocide, the plan to bring about the physical destruction of a ... people. This was aimed at the children."
> The forced removal of children - which continues today as American Indian children are removed from their homes by state social service agencies at a far higher rate than non-Indian children are - was justified by the concepts of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny.
> American exceptionalism is the precept that the United States is unique and qualitatively superior to other nations because it was founded based on democratic principles, Christian values and personal liberty. The concept in popular culture translates to Americans being somehow superior - more fair, more just, more moral, more acceptable in God's eyes than other groups.
> The Native American Genocide and the Teaching of US History
> 
> The indigenous people of America, commonly known as the Native Americans, first came to America at least 30,000 years ago, thousands of years before the European settlers. They made America their home, with a population of 10 million and hundreds of tribes. The Native Americans thrived off of the land, using it for survival. But when the Europeans settled in America, they were enslaved, dispossessed, and annihilated. The Native Americans experienced a genocide that took tons of lives. History has seen some very gruesome genocide or methods of mass destruction, but none of them can be compared to the ongoing holocaust that the Native Americans have endured.
> The Native American Genocide — Science Leadership Academy
> 
> 
> *Benjamin Franklin*, from his autobiography, 1750s
> “If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means.”
> 
> *Orders of George Washington* to General John Sullivan, May 31, 1779
> “The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.”
> *Governor William Henry Harrison*, of the Indiana Territory (1800-1812) while defending displacement of the Indians
> “Is one of the fairest portions of the globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it seems destined by the Creator to give support to a large population and to be the seat of civilization?”
> 
> *John Quincy Adams*, 1802, when rationalizing territorial imperatives as God’s will
> “What is the right of the huntsman to the forest of a thousand miles over which he has accidentally ranged in quest of prey? Shall the fields and vallies, which a beneficent God has formed to teem with the life of innumerable multitudes, be condemned to everlasting barrenness?”
> 
> *President Thomas Jefferson*, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, December 29, 1813
> “This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
> 
> *James Monroe*, in a letter to Andrew Jackson, October 5, 1817
> “The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress and just claims of civilized life, and must yield to it. Nothing is more certain, than, if the Indian tribes do not abandon that state, and become civilized, that they will decline, and become extinct. The hunter state, tho maintain’d by warlike spirits, presents but a feeble resistance to the more dense, compact, and powerful population of civilized man.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks    FENTON     you repeated precisely what I said----the Europeans brought the INQUSITION MINDSET --with them to the "New World"---------you made no point at all
> other than the fact that you are admitting that
> I AM RIGHT
> I agree that some people would LIKE to deny
> that fact-----but it was never me.
Click to expand...


Like I said, genocide.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Actually, the people that are convinced that the English murdered everyone and took the land are the ones being indoctrinated. The left tends to ignore that._
> 
> _... Besides, even if the English showed up and committed genocide, pretty much every other country did that on a regular basis. I wouldn't care._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> "PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
> 
> What's that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders"  and on each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> 
> Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ward Churchill?
> 
> Michael Mann?
> 
> Not that you had any credibility to start with.
Click to expand...


Plenty of others.  You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical.  I'm fine with your denial.  Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting.  We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.


----------



## dani67

london 20 years later


----------



## irosie91

dani67 said:


> london 20 years later



Mostly SUNNIS


----------



## dani67




----------



## dani67

irosie91 said:


> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> london 20 years later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly SUNNIS
Click to expand...

mostly terrorist


----------



## Fenton Lum

tinydancer said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great article here for you to understand the truth of what really happened in the beginning and not the propaganda bullshit we get today. And btw I am very pro First Nations but with reality at my side.
> 
> "In spite of the legal right the white race has to America, we often are confronted with the anti-American propaganda that the white race wronged the Indian by attacking and killing them and driving them out of their land. We thus need to look at the first conflicts that existed between the Indians and the colonial settlers. A summary of these first conflicts shows they were always initiated by Indians:6
> 
> 
> 
> Shortly after the first colony was established at Jamestown in 1607, the settlers were attacked by the Indians, who wounded seventeen men and killed one boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the above conflict, peaceful relations prevailed, due to the wise policy of Captain John Smith and the good will of Powhatan, head chief of the Indian Confederacy. When Powhatan died in 1618, his brother Opechancanough, who disliked the English, began to plot war. In March 1622, the Indian tribes went on the warpath, and swept through a line of settlements marked by a trail of blood. In the white settlements, nearly 400 men, women, and children, were cruelly put to death before the ravages of the Indians could be checked.
> 
> 
> 
> For 22 years after the massacre of 1622 there was peace. But Opechancanouch, at last head chief, only waited for another opportunity. In 1644, there was a civil war in England, and he thought the expected moment was at hand. The massacre he waged left over 300 white settlers slain in two days. Again the whites took up arms in defense, and in 1646 the aged chief himself was taken and killed - there was never again a general uprising in Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> In the Plymouth colony, a peace compact was established between the Indian chief Massasoit and Governor Carver. As time went on, the friendly old chief died. When his son, King Philip, came to be ruler of the Wampanoag tribe, trouble began to brew for the colonists. Urged on by his braves, King Philip began sending messages to friendly tribes, inviting them to join in a mighty war on the "pale faces." The war that followed was a terrible one. The Indians, avoiding the white troops, dodging them, and never meeting them face to face in the open field, carried on the contest in their savage way of massacring the helpless, and burning villages. Many a fair and quite settlement was made desolate. Women and children were ruthlessly murdered, and burned in the houses. But by the end of 1675 the force of the Indians was broken.
> 
> 
> 
> In the New Haven colony the situation with the Indians (the Pequets) was similar. At first there were peaceful relationships between them and the white settlers. During 1637, the Pequots attempted to organize a confederacy, but unable to secure the help of the Narragansetts due to the influence of Roger Williams, they took to the warpath alone. T
> 
> 
> hey did not come out in open battle, but waylaid a party of whites and killed thirty of them. In response to this, a small party of English, along with some seventy friendly Indians, attacked the Pequet stronghold, killing over 450 of that tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> The great Pequet tribe was crushed, and nearly forty years of Peace ensued.
> History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between the American Indians and the white settlers, *were instigated or started by the Indians without just cause.*
> 
> 
> *Even though the white settlers had legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations with attacks, massacres, and wars. The retaliation by the white settlers were merely acts of self defense and self preservation in accordance with the law of nature. *
> 
> 
> *Thus it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man. *The Indian's treachery, barbaric and warlike manner, and sneak attacks on the colonists was positive proof of the anti-social nature of the red man. This exhibit of the Indian's character caused much distrust of the Indian, and became the "code of conduct" which the Indian continued to live by and uphold in the future.
> 
> 
> Thus, the white race has a rightful and legal claim and title to America pursuant to international law, the Indian's law, the law of nature, and by a combination thereof."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not all that impressed-----that you resort to the term   RIGHTS OF THE WHITE MAN----is kinda disgusting.    I am not entirely in agreement with the "EUROPEANS STOLE THE LAND FROM THE INDIANS"  crowd---but unlike you----I do not dance on the dead bodies of the primitives who lived on the continent before  the  "UBER ALLES WHITE MAN"  that you worship got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I worship no one but my Lord. I did not resort to the term. That is used in the article that shows the first smack downs were the natives beating the shit out of the settlers. Oh and that's what they did to each other.
> 
> Tribe against tribe. Very vicious. Very brutal. Stealing women and children to be used as slaves. These dudes weren't sitting around campfires smoking a peace pipe for crying out loud.
> 
> Learn First Nations history and then get back to me. And what the hell is this shit that I "dance on the dead bodies of the primitives". Get a grip irosie. I've worked with more First Nations peoples than you will ever meet in your lifetime.
> 
> Started out a long time ago fighting for clean water rights beginning with Grassy Narrows and White Dog First Nations with a battle against mercury poisoning now known as Minimata disease. Happened to be working at a trading post called the Beaverhead at that time.
> 
> I know how to make a porcupine quill basket with sweet grass. I can clean bear claws. I've learned a lot with my time over the years and this has been decades.
> 
> I've never danced nor ever would dance on anyone persons grave. What an insult!
> 
> I'm now blessed to live in the midst of the heart and soul of Metis country. After years of having Six Nations as my neighbors back east. I've always considered First Nations my brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...



So basically some a your best friends are "indians".  Who said native peoples were devoid of violence amongst themselves before euros arrived and what does that have to do with anything at all?


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you would be better off not to go the way---EVERYONE DOES IT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> "PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
> 
> What's that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders"  and on each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> 
> Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ward Churchill?
> 
> Michael Mann?
> 
> Not that you had any credibility to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of others.  You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical.  I'm fine with your denial.  Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting.  We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
Click to expand...


you are over-estimating yourself,    FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time.   The Mayans went around raiding"other nations"   just to have
lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----

in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
Indians were  proper targets


----------



## irosie91

dani67 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> london 20 years later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly SUNNIS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mostly terrorist
Click to expand...


Like the OTHER TERRORIST TEAM---Shiite shit


----------



## Fenton Lum

Likkmee said:


> Majority rules !




Until concentrated wealth and power no longer have the numbers, then oppression rules.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> "PS---fenton----native americans ALSO
> "invest in rationalizing the same behaviors they rail against in others,""
> 
> What's that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders"  and on each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> 
> Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ward Churchill?
> 
> Michael Mann?
> 
> Not that you had any credibility to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of others.  You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical.  I'm fine with your denial.  Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting.  We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are over-estimating yourself,    FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time.   The Mayans went around raiding"other nations"   just to have
> lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
> 
> in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
> Indians were  proper targets
Click to expand...


Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe?  Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.

Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first.  A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today.  We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.

Genocide and slavery.  If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine.  then we're not so "exceptional" after all.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I object to is the collective miniscule intellect that on the one hand professes america to be an "exceptional" nation and people, a beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice, but then when confronted with its own mediocrity regarding its brutal past must fall back on the “well everyone else was doing it too” argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't say those things about America.  Compared to most other nations on the planet, it's a freer place to live and I'd rather be here than most, but in reality, no, It's not a beacon of freedom, liberty, or justice.  That's just propaganda.  It really isn't practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is just another place, with a power structure, a propaganda machine, a history of oppression and brutality, and a continual disregard for the unsubstantial people.  Just like every place else as you suggest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No argument here.
Click to expand...



Then we're not really all that far apart.  With the exception of perhaps "Compared to most other nations on the planet, it's a freer place to live ...".  that would have to be approached on a case by case basis.  I have lived abroad.  Eh sometimes yes, sometimes not so much.  But if we never leave, all we really know is what we're fed.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the violence that they inflicted on ---"the invaders"  and on each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> 
> Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ward Churchill?
> 
> Michael Mann?
> 
> Not that you had any credibility to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of others.  You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical.  I'm fine with your denial.  Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting.  We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are over-estimating yourself,    FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time.   The Mayans went around raiding"other nations"   just to have
> lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
> 
> in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
> Indians were  proper targets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe?  Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.
> 
> Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first.  A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today.  We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.
> 
> Genocide and slavery.  If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine.  then we're not so "exceptional" after all.
Click to expand...


by the time of the AGE OF EXPLORATION---there were no native villages to RAID------The age of European Exploration was-----something like a VIKING VOYATE---to make further TERRITORIAL CLAIMS-----in regard to the "NEW WORLD"   the existing nations were "doing it to each other" -----YES----the natives of the USA and the Invading Europeans----played the same game-------they killed each other.    The Europeans won.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
> 
> 
> At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
> 
> 
> Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
> 
> 
> FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
> 
> 
> SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
> 
> 
> THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
> 
> The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
> 
> However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
> 
> The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery _(circa _1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
> 
> *Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."*
> 
> 
> In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since *97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.*
> 
> When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
> 
> It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
> 
> he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
> 
> 1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
> 
> 
> 2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
> 
> 3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
> 
> 
> This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you make important points,  DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws.    As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was  THEIR LAW
Click to expand...



Agreed.  When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count.  Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
> DA BRAHMINS .---------
> LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
Click to expand...


That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe. 

In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc. 

Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will see Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.


----------



## dani67

irosie91 said:


> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> london 20 years later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly SUNNIS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mostly terrorist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the OTHER TERRORIST TEAM---Shiite shit
Click to expand...


give me one  terrorist ........ or radical ........by shia in europe and usa


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
> 
> 
> At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
> 
> 
> Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
> 
> 
> FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
> 
> 
> SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
> 
> 
> THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
> 
> The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
> 
> However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
> 
> The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery _(circa _1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
> 
> *Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."*
> 
> 
> In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since *97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.*
> 
> When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
> 
> It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
> 
> he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
> 
> 1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
> 
> 
> 2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
> 
> 3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
> 
> 
> This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you make important points,  DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws.    As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was  THEIR LAW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count.  Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
Click to expand...


yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH.   Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing if Britain. They now demand an independent state for Muslims only be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologist will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this. Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%, I 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger a percent they become the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
> DA BRAHMINS .---------
> LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
> 
> In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
> 
> Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
Click to expand...


BJP  revisionism ------


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> 
> Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ward Churchill?
> 
> Michael Mann?
> 
> Not that you had any credibility to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of others.  You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical.  I'm fine with your denial.  Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting.  We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are over-estimating yourself,    FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time.   The Mayans went around raiding"other nations"   just to have
> lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
> 
> in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
> Indians were  proper targets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe?  Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.
> 
> Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first.  A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today.  We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.
> 
> Genocide and slavery.  If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine.  then we're not so "exceptional" after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of the AGE OF EXPLORATION---there were no native villages to RAID------The age of European Exploration was-----something like a VIKING VOYATE---to make further TERRITORIAL CLAIMS-----in regard to the "NEW WORLD"   the existing nations were "doing it to each other" -----YES----the natives of the USA and the Invading Europeans----played the same game-------they killed each other.    The Europeans won.
Click to expand...




irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churchill, Ward. _A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas_. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Deloria, Philip J., and Neal Salisbury, eds. _A Companion to American Indian History_. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Jacoby, Karl. “‘The Broad Platform of Extermination’: Nature and Violence in the Nineteenth Century North American Borderlands.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 10 (June 2008): 249–267.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Kiernan, Ben. _Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur_. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Mann, Michael. _The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> 
> Power, Samantha. _“A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide_. New York: Basic Books, 2002.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Stannard, David. _American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World_. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Thornton, Russell. _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Totten, Samuel, and Robert K Hitchcock, eds. _Genocide of Indigenous Peoples_. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2011.Find this resource:
> 
> Google Preview
> WorldCat
> Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” _Journal of Genocide Research_ 8 (December 2006): 387–409.Find this resource:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ward Churchill?
> 
> Michael Mann?
> 
> Not that you had any credibility to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of others.  You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical.  I'm fine with your denial.  Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting.  We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are over-estimating yourself,    FENT-----in fact ----dancer introduced facts that may be difficult for YOU to handle-----GENOCIDE---of the "other nations"-----was legal in the Americas at that time.   The Mayans went around raiding"other nations"   just to have
> lots of persons for religious observances that included CUTTING OUT THEIR HEARTS----
> 
> in north America----RAIDING AND PILLAGING was the way of life------and---the Europeans---well-----they had the INQUISITION mindset---
> Indians were  proper targets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Raiding and pillaging were not a way of life in Europe?  Go back to the Papal Bulls, called for the extetmination of indigenous peoples.
> 
> Look, I do agree that a virus rolled out of europe, but only after it rolled over the tribes of europe first.  A perceptual reality that still yet stalks this society today.  We've bee so brainwashed in this society over our "exceptionalism" we can't handle the thought of admitting what we are and how we got here.
> 
> Genocide and slavery.  If your argument is "well everyone else was doing it too", fine.  then we're not so "exceptional" after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of the AGE OF EXPLORATION---there were no native villages to RAID------The age of European Exploration was-----something like a VIKING VOYATE---to make further TERRITORIAL CLAIMS-----in regard to the "NEW WORLD"   the existing nations were "doing it to each other" -----YES----the natives of the USA and the Invading Europeans----played the same game-------they killed each other.    The Europeans won.
Click to expand...



Now you’re just making excuses for it, genocide, which is an improvement of sorts.  So the argument now is might makes right.  I would point out the indigenous peoples were home, your winners were colonizing and whole sale murdering and engaging in genocide.  If “winning” is your final determinate, then there’s really no discussion around this.  Fuck it, they lost.  Praise Jesus someone intervened on the Jews behalf with regard to WWII.  Otherwise, fuck it, they lost, everyone was at war.


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was certainly the case with caucasions once they illegally came into the North American continent, then they just took and murdered their way into the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
> DA BRAHMINS .---------
> LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
> 
> In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
> 
> Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BJP  revisionism ------
Click to expand...


You are an illiterate.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
> 
> 
> At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
> 
> 
> Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
> 
> 
> FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
> 
> 
> SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
> 
> 
> THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
> 
> The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
> 
> However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
> 
> The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery _(circa _1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
> 
> *Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."*
> 
> 
> In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since *97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.*
> 
> When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
> 
> It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
> 
> he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
> 
> 1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
> 
> 
> 2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
> 
> 3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
> 
> 
> This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you make important points,  DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws.    As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was  THEIR LAW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count.  Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
> INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH.   Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
Click to expand...


Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it.  I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.


----------



## Vikrant

I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Vikrant said:


> I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.



Or they could do like euros did when they fanned out across the globe and coveted something.  Take it.


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they illegally came to the NA continent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
> DA BRAHMINS .---------
> LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
> 
> In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
> 
> Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BJP  revisionism ------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an illiterate.
Click to expand...


try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.



it is a matter of the USUAL culture interface----
each side will make its own rights.   Be careful
as to what you wish for-------any land can end up CUT UP


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
> DA BRAHMINS .---------
> LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
> 
> In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
> 
> Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BJP  revisionism ------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
Click to expand...


And what was happening in the americas during this time frame regarding advances in "civilization"?


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the native inhabitants authorize their settlement, or was it an invasion that dispossessed the native inhabitants?  If the latter it was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
> 
> 
> At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
> 
> 
> Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
> 
> 
> FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
> 
> 
> SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
> 
> 
> THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
> 
> The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
> 
> However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
> 
> The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery _(circa _1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
> 
> *Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."*
> 
> 
> In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since *97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.*
> 
> When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
> 
> It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
> 
> he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
> 
> 1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
> 
> 
> 2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
> 
> 3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
> 
> 
> This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you make important points,  DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws.    As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was  THEIR LAW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count.  Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
> INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH.   Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it.  I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
Click to expand...


different with some commonalities


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is a matter of the USUAL culture interface----
> each side will make its own rights.   Be careful
> as to what you wish for-------any land can end up CUT UP
Click to expand...


Not without the involvement of the "capitalists".


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no law at that time. But the website I linked to uses current International law to explain how the settlers were in their rights to claim their property in America.
> 
> 
> At this point the following questions might be asked: What about the Indians? Weren't they here first? Didn't we (the white race) take this land away from the Indian? Doesn't the Indian have the rightful title to America?
> 
> 
> Since we are dealing with a conflict between two nations or races, the white race and the Indian race, we need to turn to the Law of Nations or International Law for the solution. The following are some basic maxims of the International Law:
> 
> 
> FIRST: That every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction in its own territory.
> 
> 
> SECOND: That no state or nation can by its law directly affect or bind property that lies outside of its own territory, or persons not resident therein.
> 
> 
> THIRD: That whatever force the laws of one country have in another depends solely on the municipal laws of the latter.
> 
> The first principle listed here would seem to suggest that all of America was the possession of the Indians prior to the age of discovery by the white race.
> 
> However, the Indians never laid claim to all of the "territory" of America because they had no understanding of its size and boundaries.
> 
> The Indian only claimed the land he was inhabiting and that which he used for hunting, burial, etc. At the time of discovery _(circa _1500 A.D.), the American Indian numbered about 700,000 inhabitants, sparsely scattered over what is now America.
> 
> *Thus the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their "own territory."*
> 
> 
> In light of this, it cannot be said that the white race violated the second principle of International Law either, since *97% of America was not legally the "property" of anyone.*
> 
> When America was claimed by the English, French, and Spanish, they claimed the entire breadth and width of the land, from sea to sea, from one boundary to the next. However, the lands that the Indians occupied within these European claims were still Indian land.
> 
> It must also be addressed as to whether the white man encroached upon and took possession of lands that were legally claimed by the Indian. T
> 
> he third maxim of International Law says we have to look at the Indian's law, and that whatever measures or acts the white man took in regards to Indian land must be pursuant to Indian law. The following are some of the laws that were generally held by the Indians:
> 
> 1. It was a law common among Indians that the stronger of two tribes or people (nations) has the right to conquer and subdue the weaker.
> 
> 
> 2. Under Indian common law it was understood that land claims existed by inhabiting the land and by any use of the land.
> 
> 3. When any land was unoccupied or not used for one year, the land was free for anyone to claim and settle.
> 
> 
> This first law of the Indian could actually render all other arguments of land rights academic. This law was almost a way of life with the Indian, which is why they were always warring among themselves. The wars and conflicts between the white race and the Indian race throughout history were numerous, and the fact that the white race was the stronger cannot be doubted."
> 
> Did the White Man Steal North America from the Indians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make important points,  DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws.    As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was  THEIR LAW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count.  Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
> INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH.   Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it.  I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> different with some commonalities
Click to expand...


I don't think the commonalities destroyed anyone and the euros certainly saw no commonalities, otherwise extermination might have been a bit more difficult to swallow, them being good christians and all.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is a matter of the USUAL culture interface----
> each side will make its own rights.   Be careful
> as to what you wish for-------any land can end up CUT UP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not without the involvement of the "capitalists".
Click to expand...


oy-----da capitalists


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you make important points,  DANCER----in reference to INDIAN objection to WHITE MAN INCURSION----you cite WHITE MANS' Laws.    As to being ATTACKED-----which-you obviously cite as justification for---just about ANYTHING------The native American AT THAT TIME were tribal of the RAIDING TYPE OF PEOPLE-----they raided other "nations" ---kinda like the VIKINGS----it was  THEIR LAW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count.  Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
> INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH.   Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it.  I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> different with some commonalities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the commonalities destroyed anyone and the euros certainly saw no commonalities, otherwise extermination might have been a bit more difficult to swallow, them being good christians and all.
Click to expand...


silly------the exterminations exerted on the 
native americans were painted up as   WAR---not  "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"--------just to get rid of EVIL"


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is a matter of the USUAL culture interface----
> each side will make its own rights.   Be careful
> as to what you wish for-------any land can end up CUT UP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not without the involvement of the "capitalists".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oy-----da capitalists
Click to expand...


Fine rosie, too much is too much for ya.  There are all kinds of approaches to capitalism, same for the other economic theories.  The empirical powers also trid to divide up africa and the middle east according to their own world view ignoring the folks already there.  How's that grand experiment worked out ya reckon?


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When these arguments are made, we mean "our" law, because the savages don't count.  Of course now, everyone who comes later must "assimilate".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
> INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH.   Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it.  I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> different with some commonalities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the commonalities destroyed anyone and the euros certainly saw no commonalities, otherwise extermination might have been a bit more difficult to swallow, them being good christians and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> silly------the exterminations exerted on the
> native americans were painted up as   WAR---not ----- "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL"
Click to expand...


Actually they were - "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL", but you refuse to open up the that material, the writings, and the history because of your institutionalized imprinting.  And no one can help you with that but you.  You're just not up to even consider or confront it.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslims have every right to form a new homeland carved out of UK territory. Instead of whipping up hate against Muslims, I think UK should enact reasonable measures to assure that Muslims are safe in UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is a matter of the USUAL culture interface----
> each side will make its own rights.   Be careful
> as to what you wish for-------any land can end up CUT UP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not without the involvement of the "capitalists".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oy-----da capitalists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine rosie, too much is too much for ya.  There are all kinds of approaches to capitalism, same for the other economic theories.  The empirical powers also trid to divide up africa and the middle east according to their own world view ignoring the folks already there.  How's that grand experiment worked out ya reckon?
Click to expand...


none of the human experiments worked out-----from the empires of Japan and china----all the way to the adobe huts of mexico and MONTEZUMA


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes----our law----here in the USA which is run by the children of the Inquistion and "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"  ----The laws and customs of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE---and the INQUISITION----were---interestingly enough---
> INCORPORATED INTO SHARIAH.   Thus now we are interfacing with something like the interface of the Natïve americans and the EXPLORERS----two imperialistic "cultures"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it.  I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> different with some commonalities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the commonalities destroyed anyone and the euros certainly saw no commonalities, otherwise extermination might have been a bit more difficult to swallow, them being good christians and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> silly------the exterminations exerted on the
> native americans were painted up as   WAR---not ----- "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they were - "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL", but you refuse to open up the that material, the writings, and the history because of your institutionalized imprinting.  And no one can help you with that but you.  You're just not up to even consider or confront it.
Click to expand...


they were not rounded up and exterminated----they were EXPELLED en-masse---marched out to-----some other place.


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, don't buy it, euros and natives had completely different perceptual realities of the universe and their places in it.  I will agree that the Catholic Church was the first global corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> different with some commonalities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the commonalities destroyed anyone and the euros certainly saw no commonalities, otherwise extermination might have been a bit more difficult to swallow, them being good christians and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> silly------the exterminations exerted on the
> native americans were painted up as   WAR---not ----- "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they were - "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL", but you refuse to open up the that material, the writings, and the history because of your institutionalized imprinting.  And no one can help you with that but you.  You're just not up to even consider or confront it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were not rounded up and exterminated----they were EXPELLED en-masse---marched out to-----some other place.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  The US didn't take children out of homes and send them off, bust up families or any of that.  Now your argument becomes since we didn't have Adolph's technology it wasn't really genocide.  Brilliant.  Only after your "well they resisted so it wasn't genocide" attempt.  We've still got concentration camps and life expectancy for an adult male on Pine Ridge is 48; second only to Haiti in the western hemisphere.  On Pine Ridge at any given time 60% of the occupants are either without running water or electricity or both.  You are free to white wash the whole thing if you like, you'll have quite a bit of company in this society and the backing of the power structure who needs this overlooked.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> different with some commonalities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the commonalities destroyed anyone and the euros certainly saw no commonalities, otherwise extermination might have been a bit more difficult to swallow, them being good christians and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> silly------the exterminations exerted on the
> native americans were painted up as   WAR---not ----- "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they were - "lets round 'em up and burn them ALL UP"---just to get rid of EVIL", but you refuse to open up the that material, the writings, and the history because of your institutionalized imprinting.  And no one can help you with that but you.  You're just not up to even consider or confront it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were not rounded up and exterminated----they were EXPELLED en-masse---marched out to-----some other place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  The US didn't take children out of homes and send them off, bust up families or any of that.  Now your argument becomes since we didn't have Adolph's technology it wasn't really genocide.  Brilliant.  Only after your "well they resisted so it wasn't genocide" attempt.  We've still got concentration camps and life expectancy for an adult male on Pine Ridge is 48; second only to Haiti in the western hemisphere.  On Pine Ridge at any given time 60% of the occupants are either without running water or electricity or both.  You are free to white wash the whole thing if you like, you'll have quite a bit of company in this society and the backing of the power structure who needs this overlooked.
Click to expand...


yes----the Christian thing at that time was  SAVE THE INFIDEL KIDS-----your point?
When did I white wash the INQUISITION AND 
THE ACTS OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE_-----1 2  and  3?


----------



## irosie91

fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening' 
you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening'
> you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot




I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening'
> you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.
Click to expand...


what is "still going on"?    genocides?   did I deny that fact? ---------by virtue of  WESTERN CAPITALISM---<<<<idiotic idea


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening'
> you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is "still going on"?    genocides?   did I deny that fact? ---------by virtue of  WESTERN CAPITALISM---<<<<idiotic idea
Click to expand...



Like I said, have a nice weekend.


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they stole a peopled continent----no one invited them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
> DA BRAHMINS .---------
> LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
> 
> In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
> 
> Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BJP  revisionism ------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
Click to expand...


I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family.  So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit. 

Try to understand what is being said before replying to it. 

Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India. 

This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.


----------



## Vikrant

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening'
> you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is "still going on"?    genocides?   did I deny that fact? ---------by virtue of  WESTERN CAPITALISM---<<<<idiotic idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, have a nice weekend.
Click to expand...


It looks like you got introduced to iRosie. She is a character to deal with.


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening'
> you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is "still going on"?    genocides?   did I deny that fact? ---------by virtue of  WESTERN CAPITALISM---<<<<idiotic idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, have a nice weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks like you got introduced to iRosie. She is a character to deal with.
Click to expand...


WITH WHICH TO DEAL


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening'
> you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is "still going on"?    genocides?   did I deny that fact? ---------by virtue of  WESTERN CAPITALISM---<<<<idiotic idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, have a nice weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks like you got introduced to iRosie. She is a character to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WITH WHICH TO DEAL
Click to expand...


Coke?


----------



## Vikrant

It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't agree so fast,  VIK----so did the ARYANS who took India and invented themselves as
> DA BRAHMINS .---------
> LONG LIVE THE DRAVIDIANS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
> 
> In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
> 
> Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BJP  revisionism ------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family.  So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.
> 
> Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.
> 
> Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.
> 
> This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.
Click to expand...


you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES  have their origin
in India--------ain't necessarily so.     Your assumption that my education was in some
parochial school is even more way off.   I had NO  schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times     I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
in all human groups-------and HUMANS move. 
and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations)  and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE.   ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON.     Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE .   Eventually----just about all become literate---
even if they never pick up writing from "the first"  literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is "still going on"?    genocides?   did I deny that fact? ---------by virtue of  WESTERN CAPITALISM---<<<<idiotic idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, have a nice weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks like you got introduced to iRosie. She is a character to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WITH WHICH TO DEAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coke?
Click to expand...


English grammar


----------



## IsaacNewton

Vikrant said:


> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.



Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country. 

That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bullshit designed for people like you. Aryans did not invade India; Aryans originated in India. It is evident from all the historical footprints that they left in the form of knowledge (Sanskrit). This knowledge spread from India towards West. First it went to Iran. From there it spread to Eastern Europe and eventually it reached Western Europe.
> 
> In ancient India, there was a battle between two Aryan groups.  The group that was defeated was forced out of India. The latter is responsible for spreading Aryan culture westward. The group that stayed in India is credited with remarkable human knowledge such as invention of Sanskrit, etc.
> 
> Hitler was an idiot. He thought Germans were Aryans just because German language along with other European languages originated from Sanskrit. Germans are not Aryans. They along with other Europeans were influenced by Aryans but they are not Aryans. Similarly, Swastika has nothing to do with Germany. If you go to India, you will Swastika everywhere. However, thanks to mother f***** Germans and Hitler, the real Aryans are deprived of their own culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJP  revisionism ------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family.  So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.
> 
> Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.
> 
> Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.
> 
> This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES  have their origin
> in India--------ain't necessarily so.     Your assumption that my education was in some
> parochial school is even more way off.   I had NO  schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times     I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
> in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
> and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations)  and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE.   ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON.     Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE .   Eventually----just about all become literate---
> even if they never pick up writing from "the first"  literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP
Click to expand...


I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination. 

Let me try again:

Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category. 

Let me summarize it for you:

Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. 

Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?


----------



## irosie91

IsaacNewton said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
Click to expand...


leave Vik alone-----it happened to India in 1948 ---and may happen again-----the BENGALI people  WANT OUT


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> leave Vik alone-----it happened to India in 1948 ---and may happen again-----the BENGALI people  WANT OUT
Click to expand...


What strain are you smoking?  I really want to know


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BJP  revisionism ------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family.  So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.
> 
> Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.
> 
> Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.
> 
> This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES  have their origin
> in India--------ain't necessarily so.     Your assumption that my education was in some
> parochial school is even more way off.   I had NO  schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times     I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
> in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
> and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations)  and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE.   ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON.     Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE .   Eventually----just about all become literate---
> even if they never pick up writing from "the first"  literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.
> 
> Let me try again:
> 
> Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.
> 
> Let me summarize it for you:
> 
> Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.
> 
> Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?
Click to expand...


it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
  You are wrong.    LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains.    All  groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE.    THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
periods of time.   Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true.   The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand


----------



## Vikrant

IsaacNewton said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
Click to expand...


Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.
Click to expand...


of course -----just like it was for hindus and muslims in 1948.


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an illiterate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family.  So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.
> 
> Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.
> 
> Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.
> 
> This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES  have their origin
> in India--------ain't necessarily so.     Your assumption that my education was in some
> parochial school is even more way off.   I had NO  schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times     I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
> in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
> and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations)  and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE.   ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON.     Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE .   Eventually----just about all become literate---
> even if they never pick up writing from "the first"  literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.
> 
> Let me try again:
> 
> Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.
> 
> Let me summarize it for you:
> 
> Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.
> 
> Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
> You are wrong.    LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains.    All  groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
> the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE.    THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
> periods of time.   Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
> learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true.   The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand
Click to expand...


I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area  Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge  I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> try again-----LANGUAGE --developed in several parts of the world  INDEPENDENTLY-----(PARALLEL SOCIAL DEVELOPEMENT IN HUMANS)    The brain is hardwired in such a way that LANGUAGE WILL DEVELOPE independently wherever there are humans just as does UPRIGHT walking.    Similarly---writing developes in several different parts of the world  "independently"     India did not INVENT IT.     Very early on----ABSOLUTELY BEFORE 3000 years ago---there was lots of INTERPLAY--south and east-----LANGUAGE LIKE DNA ---mixes.   Thus---the DRAVIDIANS certainly did have language before the ARYANS got there   (are you worried about semantics?)    -------but Dravidians or  "INDIAN ARYANS"---did not GIVE IT to MESOPOTAMIA-----and the Persians DID ---toss some of their stuff at the dravidians----or whoever was staggering around in the INDUS VALLEY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family.  So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.
> 
> Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.
> 
> Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.
> 
> This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES  have their origin
> in India--------ain't necessarily so.     Your assumption that my education was in some
> parochial school is even more way off.   I had NO  schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times     I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
> in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
> and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations)  and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE.   ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON.     Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE .   Eventually----just about all become literate---
> even if they never pick up writing from "the first"  literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.
> 
> Let me try again:
> 
> Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.
> 
> Let me summarize it for you:
> 
> Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.
> 
> Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
> You are wrong.    LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains.    All  groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
> the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE.    THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
> periods of time.   Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
> learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true.   The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area  Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge  I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other
Click to expand...


While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters  "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit  came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing)  people.
Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
HAPPENS.    The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
scholars in or from India.    Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic.   The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent.   Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
there are some words in Hebrew that have
Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root.  For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
or Aramaic---it developed separately.   Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN.  Some day you will understand


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.
Click to expand...


Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
Great Britain?     just how AKIN are they?   
How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not mean to be malicious but you sound like one of those people from religious ghettos that get educated in religious schools. No body is saying that all languages were invented in India. Sanskrit which is the origin of all Indo - European languages was invented in India. This is not coming from me. This is accepted all over the world including the U.S. Hebrew and Arabic are not part of Indo - European family. Another example would be Chinese which too is not part of Indo - European family.  So, you can see that not all languages have ties with Sanskrit.
> 
> Try to understand what is being said before replying to it.
> 
> Also, for your information, Aryan history dates back to 10K years in ancient India. They started writing books like Vedas, Puranas more than 6K years ago in ancient India.
> 
> This tells you very clearly that Germans are not Aryans. They got their language from Aryans but they are not Aryans. They assumed a wrong identity by ignorance which was partly contributed by writings of Max Muller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES  have their origin
> in India--------ain't necessarily so.     Your assumption that my education was in some
> parochial school is even more way off.   I had NO  schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times     I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
> in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
> and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations)  and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE.   ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON.     Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE .   Eventually----just about all become literate---
> even if they never pick up writing from "the first"  literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.
> 
> Let me try again:
> 
> Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.
> 
> Let me summarize it for you:
> 
> Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.
> 
> Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
> You are wrong.    LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains.    All  groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
> the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE.    THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
> periods of time.   Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
> learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true.   The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area  Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge  I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters  "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit  came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing)  people.
> Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
> that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
> HAPPENS.    The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
> scholars in or from India.    Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic.   The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent.   Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
> Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
> there are some words in Hebrew that have
> Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root.  For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
> or Aramaic---it developed separately.   Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN.  Some day you will understand
Click to expand...


I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
> Great Britain?     just how AKIN are they?
> How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?
Click to expand...


You tell us


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are still way off----VIK---your assumption that ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES  have their origin
> in India--------ain't necessarily so.     Your assumption that my education was in some
> parochial school is even more way off.   I had NO  schooling in religion as a kid ----other than being invited to protestant sunday school several times     I will repeat that which you clearly do not know-------languages develop ---
> in all human groups-------and HUMANS move.
> and interact -----which is why ALL HUMAN BRAINS are constructed the same way (on average in all populations)  and all have the hardwiring that leads to LANGUAGE.   ALL people who interact SHARE----they share language and DNA -----and---even viruses---quite VIGOROUSLY----thus all interacting groups have aspects of language IN COMMON.     Same is true of the semitic language people-----they were interacting long before any of them became LITERATE .   Eventually----just about all become literate---
> even if they never pick up writing from "the first"  literate group. ---after that they also MIX IT UP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.
> 
> Let me try again:
> 
> Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.
> 
> Let me summarize it for you:
> 
> Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.
> 
> Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
> You are wrong.    LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains.    All  groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
> the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE.    THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
> periods of time.   Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
> learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true.   The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area  Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge  I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters  "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit  came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing)  people.
> Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
> that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
> HAPPENS.    The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
> scholars in or from India.    Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic.   The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent.   Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
> Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
> there are some words in Hebrew that have
> Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root.  For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
> or Aramaic---it developed separately.   Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN.  Some day you will understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.
Click to expand...


you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously.    At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig.    In FACT--its prototype is  AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA  you ignorant Nazi DOG.


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
> Great Britain?     just how AKIN are they?
> How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tell us
Click to expand...


how many of you are there?


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was being kind when I used the word education. The more appropriate word would have been indoctrination.
> 
> Let me try again:
> 
> Even in the Europe, not all European languages fall in the category of Indo - European family. Notable exceptions are Hungarian and Finnish. Apart from that, pretty much all European languages originated from Sanskrit. Thus they are grouped into Indo - European family. BTW, Indo - European is a classification. Hebrew and Arabic languages fall into Afro - Asiatic group of languages. Even in India, not all the languages that are spoken fall into Indo - European family. There is another major group of language called Sino - Tibetan; Chinese and other far eastern languages fall into this category.
> 
> Let me summarize it for you:
> 
> Languages that originated from Sanskrit are grouped as Indo - European languages. All major languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category. However, not all languages spoken in India and Europe fall into this category.
> 
> Did you get it? Or do I have to try it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
> You are wrong.    LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains.    All  groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
> the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE.    THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
> periods of time.   Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
> learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true.   The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area  Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge  I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters  "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit  came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing)  people.
> Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
> that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
> HAPPENS.    The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
> scholars in or from India.    Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic.   The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent.   Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
> Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
> there are some words in Hebrew that have
> Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root.  For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
> or Aramaic---it developed separately.   Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN.  Some day you will understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously.    At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig.    In FACT--its prototype is  AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA  you ignorant Nazi DOG.
Click to expand...


First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not right to force Muslims to live under majority Brits if they do not want to. There is nothing wrong with Muslims forming a separate homeland for themselves within Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
> Great Britain?     just how AKIN are they?
> How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tell us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how many of you are there?
Click to expand...


Hopefully more than you


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is your error not mine-----you have the faulty impression that language is like a SPECIFIC INVENTION------starts in one place and moves along LINEARLY from its point of origin-----but kinda BRANCHES out into different forms.----thus a FAMILY OF LANGUAGES!!!
> You are wrong.    LANGUAGE----even writing---is a function for which the hardware EXISTS in all human brains.    All  groups of humans developed some sort of language---people who COME INTO CONTACT with each other mix up their language usages----the further apart they are----the more DIFFERENT
> the language becomes----BY DEVELOPEMENT-----but as they interact---even to a small degree--- the languages COMBINE.    THUS A FAMILY OF LANGUAGES developed over very long
> periods of time.   Your notion that hindu scholars elaborated a language ----with writing and even books---while other people thousands of miles away would ONE DAY
> learn about language and writing from them---is -----simplistic and not true.   The similarities between German and Sanskrit exist because the populations DEVELOPED their languages in parallel with lots of interaction---even if second hand--third hand or fourth,........ hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area  Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge  I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters  "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit  came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing)  people.
> Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
> that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
> HAPPENS.    The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
> scholars in or from India.    Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic.   The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent.   Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
> Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
> there are some words in Hebrew that have
> Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root.  For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
> or Aramaic---it developed separately.   Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN.  Some day you will understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously.    At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig.    In FACT--its prototype is  AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA  you ignorant Nazi DOG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.
Click to expand...


more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"?      you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism.   There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering  the current world situation.    If you want to claim that  
INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE. 
fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
fascinated.


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. It is Britain. You don't go to another country and then proclaim a new country within that country.
> 
> That is called invasion. You either need to assimilate into the new country you have CHOSEN to move to or you need to stay home and have a revolution to make the country you are born in into what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims have been living there for quite some time now. They are akin to native people now. I am not saying that opting out for a new homeland is the first thing Muslims should go for. They should certainly try the option of living within Britain first. However, if it does not work out, there is nothing wrong with Muslims carving out a land for themselves in Britain. Of course, the transition should be peaceful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims are AKIN TO NATIVE PEOPLE in
> Great Britain?     just how AKIN are they?
> How long does it take to BECOME NATIVE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tell us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how many of you are there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully more than you
Click to expand...


more than ONE?


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should consider becoming a professor of linguistics at a local university in your area  Your people can benefit from your profound knowledge  I mean, who other than you could have thought that languages change as people move from one place to other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters  "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit  came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing)  people.
> Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
> that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
> HAPPENS.    The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
> scholars in or from India.    Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic.   The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent.   Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
> Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
> there are some words in Hebrew that have
> Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root.  For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
> or Aramaic---it developed separately.   Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN.  Some day you will understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously.    At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig.    In FACT--its prototype is  AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA  you ignorant Nazi DOG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"?      you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism.   There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering  the current world situation.    If you want to claim that
> INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
> fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
> fascinated.
Click to expand...


Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that a given language does change as the population of people who use a given language DOES change as that population moves about----and encounters  "other" people----my discussion was about your mistaken belief that Sanskrit  came about---writing and all and then OTHER PEOPLE LEARNED TO TALK and WRITE from Sanskrit speaking (and writing)  people.
> Not an easy concept for you---but the fact is
> that all human brains are so constructed and so function that LANGUAGE in all societies---
> HAPPENS.    The people of the Rhine valley--did not learn to use language from literate
> scholars in or from India.    Hebrew is a semitic language like Aramaic and Arabic.   The ancient Egyptian language is not a particularly semitic language---but related to some extent.   Because of PROXIMITY and INTERACTION between Egyptians and
> Hebrew speaking people in ancient times---
> there are some words in Hebrew that have
> Egyptian origin but Hebrew did not EMERGE from some sort of Egyptian root.  For that matter neither did it EMERGE out of Arabic
> or Aramaic---it developed separately.   Same is true of SANSKRIT AND GERMAN.  Some day you will understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously.    At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig.    In FACT--its prototype is  AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA  you ignorant Nazi DOG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"?      you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism.   There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering  the current world situation.    If you want to claim that
> INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
> fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
> fascinated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read
Click to expand...


your problem will never go away----sociopathy IS FOREVER


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice some sensitivity on this subject on your part. Being a racist person that you are, you perhaps think Africans are inferior to Hebrews. That is why according to you, Hebrew could not have similar origin as African language. You are a mental case lady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously.    At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig.    In FACT--its prototype is  AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA  you ignorant Nazi DOG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"?      you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism.   There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering  the current world situation.    If you want to claim that
> INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
> fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
> fascinated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your problem will never go away----sociopathy IS FOREVER
Click to expand...


Wishing people ill is a sign of weakness


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are truly a disgusting lump of excrement-----you lie continuously.    At no time did I suggest that HEBREW does not come from an African origin you shit mouth racist pig.    In FACT--its prototype is  AMHARIC ---the origin of which is ----the area today called ETHIOPIA. -----btw---Ethiopia is in the CONTINENT---AFRICA  you ignorant Nazi DOG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"?      you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism.   There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering  the current world situation.    If you want to claim that
> INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
> fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
> fascinated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your problem will never go away----sociopathy IS FOREVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishing people ill is a sign of weakness
Click to expand...


that is true-----and LYING is a sin and a sign----of 'personality disorder'.     My comment was not a wish-----it is the accepted
prognosis of the malady.


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you disagree then you agree and then you call names. Take your medication and go to bed. You are not capable of holding a discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"?      you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism.   There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering  the current world situation.    If you want to claim that
> INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
> fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
> fascinated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your problem will never go away----sociopathy IS FOREVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishing people ill is a sign of weakness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is true-----and LYING is a sin and a sign----of 'personality disorder'.     My comment was not a wish-----it is the accepted
> prognosis of the malady.
Click to expand...


We are making some progress here  Very good


----------



## irosie91

Vikrant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more lies from the nazi dog----where was the "FIRST DISAGREE THEN AGREE"?      you are SO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OUTCLASSED-----that you have resorted to PROJECTING that which makes you feel a bit guilty-----that BJP nationalism.   There is nothing wrong with a bit of BJP---especially considering  the current world situation.    If you want to claim that
> INDIAN HINDUS INVENTED LANGUAGE.
> fine with me------Pierre Paul Broca would be
> fascinated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your problem will never go away----sociopathy IS FOREVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishing people ill is a sign of weakness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is true-----and LYING is a sin and a sign----of 'personality disorder'.     My comment was not a wish-----it is the accepted
> prognosis of the malady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are making some progress here  Very good
Click to expand...


not we-----your prognosis is almost always
hopeless


----------



## Vikrant

irosie91 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a bit of your problems will go away, if you just learn to read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your problem will never go away----sociopathy IS FOREVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wishing people ill is a sign of weakness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is true-----and LYING is a sin and a sign----of 'personality disorder'.     My comment was not a wish-----it is the accepted
> prognosis of the malady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are making some progress here  Very good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not we-----your prognosis is almost always
> hopeless
Click to expand...


You are recognizing flaws that diminish human spirit. It is good. Now, all you need to do is to realize that it is you who should be the primary beneficiary of this realization not me. After all, it is you who suffers from racist and bigoted outbursts on this forum. 

Have a nice weekend! I will leave you alone with your demon.


----------



## Igrok_

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!


Remember Kosovo.


----------



## bodecea

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!


About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

bodecea said:


> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.




The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.

 In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
Click to expand...


What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.


----------



## irosie91

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
Click to expand...


you are very naïve---coyote


----------



## Tommy Tainant

irosie91 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are very naïve---coyote
Click to expand...


I think you have mis -spelt normal. The staggering lack of knowledge around British politics never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
Click to expand...



The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.

 With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.

 I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Vikrant said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fentie----I should add that I have relatives whose families  have not set foot in a Spanish speaking land for 500 years----and STILL SPEAK SPANISH.   It is what the  HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID at that time------and raid and pillage and murder was----what the native americans did----AT THAT TIME.      While all that was  'happening'------the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUEST was also 'happening'
> you want to blame it all on   WESTERN CAPITALISM _-----go right ahead and be an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you yet again miss the point, it's still going on.  Have a nice weekend.  And yes, you are way to emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is "still going on"?    genocides?   did I deny that fact? ---------by virtue of  WESTERN CAPITALISM---<<<<idiotic idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, have a nice weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks like you got introduced to iRosie. She is a character to deal with.
Click to expand...


Thank god I don't have to.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
Click to expand...


What say we let the Brits rule Britain since we're all about freedom for others.


----------



## irosie91

Tommy Tainant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are very naïve---coyote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have mis -spelt normal. The staggering lack of knowledge around British politics never ceases to amaze me.
Click to expand...


why would people,  in general---know all that much about BRITISH POLITICS-----I is a yankee-doodle.   For that matter----who mentioned British politics?    The last time I saw brit politics an ISSUE in the USA ----it involved some jerk named   PROFUMO-----the only reason I know that name was because he was FRONT PAGE---on my way to the comics page.    Little Orphan Annie was more interesting


----------



## GHook93

Fenton Lum said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority rules !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until concentrated wealth and power no longer have the numbers, then oppression rules.
Click to expand...

 
Spoken like a true loser!


----------



## irosie91

GHook93 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority rules !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until concentrated wealth and power no longer have the numbers, then oppression rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true loser!
> 
> View attachment 77868
Click to expand...


he actually makes a point that some very brilliant people have believed---(disclaimer---I am not suggesting that fentie is brilliant---but....)


----------



## Fenton Lum

GHook93 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority rules !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until concentrated wealth and power no longer have the numbers, then oppression rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true loser!
> 
> View attachment 77868
Click to expand...



Kindergartenish at best.


----------



## irosie91

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
Click to expand...


the only way a person can possibly believe that muslims do not have a VERY HIGH opinion of shariah------is----that person never met a muslim,   that person is extremely influenced by flower child thinking and is naive,   that person is a liar to HIMSELF


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only way a person can possibly believe that muslims do not have a VERY HIGH opinion of shariah------is----that person never met a muslim,   that person is extremely influenced by flower child thinking and is naive,   that person is a liar to HIMSELF
Click to expand...



It's the same way with "christians".


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only way a person can possibly believe that muslims do not have a VERY HIGH opinion of shariah------is----that person never met a muslim,   that person is extremely influenced by flower child thinking and is naive,   that person is a liar to HIMSELF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same way with "christians".
Click to expand...


what is the "same way"  fentie dear?.     In fact unless you consider catholic CANON law----the beginning of which was JUSTINIAN LAW---to be a code for which Christians YEARN----there really is nothing like "SHARIAH"  for christians


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only way a person can possibly believe that muslims do not have a VERY HIGH opinion of shariah------is----that person never met a muslim,   that person is extremely influenced by flower child thinking and is naive,   that person is a liar to HIMSELF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same way with "christians".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is the "same way"  fentie dear?.     In fact unless you consider catholic CANON law----the beginning of which was JUSTINIAN LAW---to be a code for which Christians YEARN----there really is nothing like "SHARIAH"  for christians
Click to expand...


You all murder each other over your interpretations of "the one true god".


----------



## irosie91

Fenton Lum said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only way a person can possibly believe that muslims do not have a VERY HIGH opinion of shariah------is----that person never met a muslim,   that person is extremely influenced by flower child thinking and is naive,   that person is a liar to HIMSELF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same way with "christians".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is the "same way"  fentie dear?.     In fact unless you consider catholic CANON law----the beginning of which was JUSTINIAN LAW---to be a code for which Christians YEARN----there really is nothing like "SHARIAH"  for christians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You all murder each other over your interpretations of "the one true god".
Click to expand...


not in the USA    fentie----we do not have a history of religious wars.  ----that was back in
europe


----------



## Fenton Lum

irosie91 said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only way a person can possibly believe that muslims do not have a VERY HIGH opinion of shariah------is----that person never met a muslim,   that person is extremely influenced by flower child thinking and is naive,   that person is a liar to HIMSELF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same way with "christians".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is the "same way"  fentie dear?.     In fact unless you consider catholic CANON law----the beginning of which was JUSTINIAN LAW---to be a code for which Christians YEARN----there really is nothing like "SHARIAH"  for christians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You all murder each other over your interpretations of "the one true god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not in the USA    fentie----we do not have a history of religious wars.  ----that was back in
> europe
Click to expand...


We cleansed the north american continent with christianity love.  Manifest destiny and all that.  It also has much to do with why we are unable to resist medding in the middle east.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as much luck as Christers here demanding a bible based government or Texans wanting to secede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that when tiny numbers of Christians do it, leftists make fun of them and when a much larger group of Muslims do it, leftists indulge in nothing but apologia.
> 
> In this brave new world of identity politics, the idea does not matter -- only the group involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "much larger group of Muslims" is attempting to do this?  The group in the OP is equivalent to the Westboro Baptists in numbers and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Muslims who want to live by Sharia law runs into the many hundreds of millions worldwide and 40% of British Muslims want to live according to it.
> 
> With over 3 million Muslims now living in Britain, would it be a mistake on my part to assume you can do the math?
Click to expand...


I was talking about the US, which is what Bodecea was referring to when you answered.  Thus the question - what much larger group?  Even in this OP - the poster is attempting to make a tiny fringe element larger than it is.

Personally living by Sharia vs Sharia as the law of the land are two different things and there are divides, even in the Muslim world.  I suspect you will only look through the lens of "glass half empty", but here:


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.



What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.

No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
Click to expand...



Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.

As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!


----------



## Phoenall

GHook93 said:


> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!









 They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
Click to expand...


No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
Click to expand...


50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.

 Talk about serving your ideological ends!


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
Click to expand...


I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
Click to expand...

i like how you chose today, of all days , to double down on the taunting. 

You see - another successful mission on the ground is just part of the equation. Equally important it to keep up the internet pressure like you are doing.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.
Click to expand...


This "they" is a tiny fringe group akin to our Westboro Baptists.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like how you chose today, of all days , to double down on the taunting.
> 
> You see - another successful mission on the ground is just part of the equation. Equally important it to keep up the internet pressure like you are doing.
Click to expand...


Today happens to be the day you decided to go back to your predictable agenda of personal attacks vs discussion.  If you don't like taunting, then don't engage in it yourself.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like how you chose today, of all days , to double down on the taunting.
> 
> You see - another successful mission on the ground is just part of the equation. Equally important it to keep up the internet pressure like you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today happens to be the day you decided to go back to your predictable agenda of personal attacks vs discussion.  If you don't like taunting, then don't engage in it yourself.
Click to expand...


Jihad is like a full-time job for you, isn't it?

I'm sure Islamists everywhere appreciate your dedication.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like how you chose today, of all days , to double down on the taunting.
> 
> You see - another successful mission on the ground is just part of the equation. Equally important it to keep up the internet pressure like you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today happens to be the day you decided to go back to your predictable agenda of personal attacks vs discussion.  If you don't like taunting, then don't engage in it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jihad is like a full-time job for you, isn't it?
> 
> I'm sure Islamists everywhere appreciate your dedication.
Click to expand...


Can't come up with anything better than that you lying fraud


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 people are dead and you have quite the undeniable record of taunting those who oppose the reason why they are now dead.
> 
> Talk about serving your ideological ends!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I taunt *you* because you can't take what you like to dish out.  The reason they are dead is ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i like how you chose today, of all days , to double down on the taunting.
> 
> You see - another successful mission on the ground is just part of the equation. Equally important it to keep up the internet pressure like you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today happens to be the day you decided to go back to your predictable agenda of personal attacks vs discussion.  If you don't like taunting, then don't engage in it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jihad is like a full-time job for you, isn't it?
> 
> I'm sure Islamists everywhere appreciate your dedication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't come up with anything better than that you lying fraud
Click to expand...



They are waiting for you in Orlando, Coyote.

Time to get a move on.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a plane ticket for Orlando that's up for grabs.
> 
> I'm sure some of you would be able to find many people interested in hearing your apologia right about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking stupid and tactless thing to say - using a tragedy to score political points.
> 
> No one here supports or condones extremists or terrorists - we just don't jump on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Coyote, I know how much you love following people around and taunting them by saying it is funny that they oppose Islamic terrorism.  Now, obviously you do not engage in this taunting simply because you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, as you are a person of your convictions.
> 
> *As such, I think you would be able to find many people in Orlando right now to follow around and taunt as well.*  Just imagine how much more meaningful it would be for you if you could actually see their faces while taunting them like you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Because unlike you I don't use their tragedy to attack others.  50 people are dead, at least and all you can do is use it to serve your own ideological ends.
Click to expand...







Have you heard the latest UK scandal over there yet, how the police and BBC covered up the sexual assault of two very young girls. Only just been announced that at gang of Syrians, one an asylum seeker, sexually assaulted two teenage girls in Newcastle.  Time to clean house and send the trash back home.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This "they" is a tiny fringe group akin to our Westboro Baptists.
Click to expand...





So you are now saying that the Westboro Baptists have 2 billion members, because that is the number of Islamic fringe group members we have in the world today. Read your koran and hadiths, and then ask why so many don't leave islam because of what it teaches.   Expect a rise in worldwide Islamic violence over the next month as they starve themselves during the day and then stuff their faces all night. Even after being told that this practise if harmful and endangers life every muslim still does it, so why should they be any different with the other violent teachings of islam.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fenton Lum said:


> [
> Plenty of others.  You can't handle the material/concept so you must lash out at one or two of the authors, typical.



Credibility matters, not to you leftists, but to normal people.

Biased sources are one thing, but some sources, David Duke, Ward Churchill, et al. are so absurdly discredited that the use of them exposes the one presenting as a whackjob.



> I'm fine with your denial.  Many so called "free" americans find it deeply disturbing to confront their institutionalized imprinting.  We're told all our lives that other govts engage in propagandizing their masses, but we're blind to our own.



You present claims from discredited morons who are notorious for offering false and fabricated data to promote a radical agenda.

You can't be taken seriously. You are no different than a person who cites L. Ron Hubbard to prove their are space aliens.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This "they" is a tiny fringe group akin to our Westboro Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you are now saying that the Westboro Baptists have 2 billion members, because that is the number of Islamic fringe group members we have in the world today. *Read your koran and hadiths, and then ask why so many don't leave islam because of what it teaches.   Expect a rise in worldwide Islamic violence over the next month as they starve themselves during the day and then stuff their faces all night. Even after being told that this practise if harmful and endangers life every muslim still does it, so why should they be any different with the other violent teachings of islam.
Click to expand...



No.  I'm saying that the Muslims Against the Crusades group, which is calling for this caliphate, does NOT have 2 billion members.  Read the OP.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This "they" is a tiny fringe group akin to our Westboro Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you are now saying that the Westboro Baptists have 2 billion members, because that is the number of Islamic fringe group members we have in the world today. *Read your koran and hadiths, and then ask why so many don't leave islam because of what it teaches.   Expect a rise in worldwide Islamic violence over the next month as they starve themselves during the day and then stuff their faces all night. Even after being told that this practise if harmful and endangers life every muslim still does it, so why should they be any different with the other violent teachings of islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that the Muslims Against the Crusades group, which is calling for this caliphate, does NOT have 2 billion members.  Read the OP.
Click to expand...






 And I am saying that muslims as a whole are demanding the world be given to them because their koran says so. Read the koran and the many millions of reports detailing this very fact


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain's "Islamic Emirates Project"
> 
> So it begins. Muslims now make up 5% and growing of Britain. They now demand an independent state, for Muslims only, to be craved out of Britain.
> 
> The Muzzie apologists will say it's a fringe group, but the vast majority of Muslims in Britain desire this.
> 
> Only a decade ago they made up less than 1%. In only 10 years they became 5%, by 2030 they are projected to make up 20%! The larger the percentage they achieve the more demands they will make!
> 
> Britain (Europe and America) be warned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This "they" is a tiny fringe group akin to our Westboro Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you are now saying that the Westboro Baptists have 2 billion members, because that is the number of Islamic fringe group members we have in the world today. *Read your koran and hadiths, and then ask why so many don't leave islam because of what it teaches.   Expect a rise in worldwide Islamic violence over the next month as they starve themselves during the day and then stuff their faces all night. Even after being told that this practise if harmful and endangers life every muslim still does it, so why should they be any different with the other violent teachings of islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that the Muslims Against the Crusades group, which is calling for this caliphate, does NOT have 2 billion members.  Read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am saying that muslims as a whole are demanding the world be given to them because their koran says so. Read the koran and the many millions of reports detailing this very fact
Click to expand...

No they arent you dickhead. They want good jobs,nice houses and a peaceful future for their children.


----------



## numan

Tommy Tainant said:


> I think you have mis -spelt normal. The staggering lack of knowledge around British politics never ceases to amaze me.


You would be less surprised if you had spent some time living in these United States of Hysteria.

The complete lack of education and knowledge here has to be witnessed to be believed. Most Americans can't even name the states which neighbor the state in which they live.

But don't take my word for it. For your delectation, a tongue-tip taste of life in "the land of debris and home of the crazed."

Rick Mercer -- Talking to Americans
.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This "they" is a tiny fringe group akin to our Westboro Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you are now saying that the Westboro Baptists have 2 billion members, because that is the number of Islamic fringe group members we have in the world today. *Read your koran and hadiths, and then ask why so many don't leave islam because of what it teaches.   Expect a rise in worldwide Islamic violence over the next month as they starve themselves during the day and then stuff their faces all night. Even after being told that this practise if harmful and endangers life every muslim still does it, so why should they be any different with the other violent teachings of islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that the Muslims Against the Crusades group, which is calling for this caliphate, does NOT have 2 billion members.  Read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am saying that muslims as a whole are demanding the world be given to them because their koran says so. Read the koran and the many millions of reports detailing this very fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they arent you dickhead. They want good jobs,nice houses and a peaceful future for their children.
Click to expand...







 Then why don't they stay at home and get all these things, or would they rather come here and collect welfare for doing nothing. They come here go on welfare and then demand we change our laws in their favour and make the UK just like the country they left. Watch the tally of murders increase between now and the middle of July, and tell the board hat muslims are peaceful


----------



## ThirdTerm

*Muslims Against Crusades* (abbreviated *MAC*) is a banned radical Islamist group in the United Kingdom. The group was founded in 2010 by Abu Assadullah.[1] Professional boxer Anthony Small and Islam4UKspokesman Anjem Choudary are associated with the group.[2][3][4]

On 10 November 2011 British Home Secretary Theresa May banned the group after it planned to repeat thepoppy-burning demonstration; membership of Muslims Against Crusades became illegal at midnight.[25]

On 2 December 2011 twenty people were arrested on suspicion of being members of a banned group, and two for obstruction and violent disorder at a demonstration outside the US embassy in London; the police did not confirm a report that the protesters were members of MAC.[26]

Muslims Against Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The OP's article was published in 2011 and the Muslim extremist group which called for an independent Islamist state in the UK was banned by the British government in 2011. 






Anjem Choudary, who has been associated with Muslims Against Crusades, is accused of inviting support for so-called Islamic State and he is set for the trial later this month. If he's convicted, he will be jailed for many years to come. Preferably, Choudary should be detained indefinitely at Guntanamo.


----------



## GHook93

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They demanded Scotland as a sharia state not that long ago, so it is not a new thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This "they" is a tiny fringe group akin to our Westboro Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you are now saying that the Westboro Baptists have 2 billion members, because that is the number of Islamic fringe group members we have in the world today. *Read your koran and hadiths, and then ask why so many don't leave islam because of what it teaches.   Expect a rise in worldwide Islamic violence over the next month as they starve themselves during the day and then stuff their faces all night. Even after being told that this practise if harmful and endangers life every muslim still does it, so why should they be any different with the other violent teachings of islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that the Muslims Against the Crusades group, which is calling for this caliphate, does NOT have 2 billion members.  Read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am saying that muslims as a whole are demanding the world be given to them because their koran says so. Read the koran and the many millions of reports detailing this very fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they arent you dickhead. They want good jobs,nice houses and a peaceful future for their children.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kristian

Profit Muhammed are great mouslem from early age after Christ died.


----------

