Originally posted by Laiina

Some of the posters here keep trying to make this into a right vs left thing. Perhaps both sides should question the integrity of any "science" when the data is skewed to fit the outcome that the person wants to see.

you are so right if they can take the blinders off and seek the truth.

If this works and it has before. Why not use it. It will stop the killing on both sides.
Now if you come up with an idea that will work as good lets hear it.
And until you do. We need to start shipping some pork blood to our troops.

Originally posted by frodus

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration secured China's cooperation in dealing with Iran by holding out the specter of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to the Post, two senior officials on the National Security Council - Jeffrey Bader and the ubiquitous Dennis Ross - told China that if it did not help the U.S. on the issue of Iranian nukes, Israel might well bomb Iran. This, in turn, would lead to a crisis in the Persian Gulf that would diminish China's access to oil, Bader and Ross warned.

Following this warning, China said it would support what the Post describes as "a toughly worded U.S.-backed statement criticizing the Islamic republic for flouting U.N. resolutions by constructing a secret uranium-enrichment plant."

What should we make of this? First, the perception that Israel is willing to strike Iran constitutes the best weapon the Obama administration has when it comes to rallying key elements of the international community to take steps aimed at dealing with the Iranian threat. So this option needs to be on the table. Second, even so, the best the Obama administration seems able to produce is a "toughly worded statement" criticizing something Iran has already done. What's the next step, an angry letter to the New York Times?

Third, China's overriding interest in the Middle East is access to oil, and the same is true for all, or nearly all, key players. While this fact may, thanks to Israel, be useful when it comes to generating "tough" statements, it suggests that ultimately Iran may hold the trump card when it comes to more meaningful action.

I like it..and willing will give credit where credit is do...
 

yep it looks like the Credit you need to give is to the people with the Balls, and that would Be Israel.

seeing we all know Obama is not G. W. Bush seeing if it was Bush he would be the one they where scaired of Bombing Iran.

and anyone else standing in his way. ( looks like Israel is going to take the the bull by the horns now.)

Originally posted by kobie173

For any of you fuckwits attempting to justify this practice, get it through your heads that the U.S. has made it abundantly clear that the current Global War on Terror™ is NOT a war against Islam. The U.S. is not in the business of fighting holy wars.

To start doing this pigs-blood crap would blow that right out of the water, and it would place our troops in even more jeopardy should they be captured.

why do you hate the idea of this, IF this will end the war?
and if it is only used on the ones we know are terrorists that have murdered and are going to be put to death anyways.

the only reason I can see you hating this Idea is that you  are a Extreme Muslims terrorist Sympathizer, or you are a Extreme Muslims terrorist, That just has not strapped on the bomb yet.

Its not like we are attacking Islam or peace loving Muslims in this way. Only the ones that are dead set on killing innocents and are Convicted of there Crimes.

In fact lets kill all terrorist in this way even if they are not Muslims.

(do not worry we will not make peace loving Muslims or anyone of our troops touch Pigs blood or a pig if they do not want to.)

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Teala

I think all US soldiers should carry ammo soaked in pigs blood from now on myself.

 

yeah really, i have no sympathy for any terrorist.

 

Pigs blood? Does it not mean shit to you that 3,000+ of our active soldiers are muslim? That we've been burying muslims at Arlington since the beginning of these two wars?

Please leave the reasonable and non-prejudice to the debate. It's an absolute must that you be able to understand the difference between two warring entities, and two warring tactics. What we had before was a coalition of nations trying to defeat a tactic. What some of you suggest is going a step above the War on Terrorism and pit extremism against extremism.

How is it that we can separate faith at home as practiced by the majority and faith practiced at home through domestic terrorism perfectly fine, such as abortion clinic bombings, but afar so many people believe ALL muslims must be terrorist or have that inclination?

Stop saying stupid shit, and agreeing with it.  

I say put whatever fear you can into them if it will get them to stop killing people for their so called GOD!  

 

Yeah that's called terrorism. You believe our soldiers should engage in terrorism. And you have no sympathy for the muslim soldiers that we have, since the kind of terrorism you advocate is an attack on Islam.

That's an accurate assessment of what you believe, right?

sepher you sound more like a  Extreme Muslims terrorist Sympathizer.

and not a Muslim Sympathizer.

tell us where do you live and do you have a bomb straped to you? or do you just help the Extreme Muslims terrorist?

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Teala

I think all US soldiers should carry ammo soaked in pigs blood from now on myself.

 

yeah really, i have no sympathy for any terrorist.

 

Pigs blood? Does it not mean shit to you that 3,000+ of our active soldiers are muslim? That we've been burying muslims at Arlington since the beginning of these two wars?

Please leave the reasonable and non-prejudice to the debate. It's an absolute must that you be able to understand the difference between two warring entities, and two warring tactics. What we had before was a coalition of nations trying to defeat a tactic. What some of you suggest is going a step above the War on Terrorism and pit extremism against extremism.

How is it that we can separate faith at home as practiced by the majority and faith practiced at home through domestic terrorism perfectly fine, such as abortion clinic bombings, but afar so many people believe ALL muslims must be terrorist or have that inclination?

Stop saying stupid shit, and agreeing with it.  

really it looks like you are saying there is no difference between the 2 types of Muslims.
Really hear what you are saying sepher.
You are saying there is no difference between Extreme Muslim terrorists and peace loving Muslims.

our active soldiers that are muslim really do not want someone like you trying to say they are the same as Extreme Muslim terrorists.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Well General Pershing is known to be a brilliant military strategist who learns about the people he is fighting against.  I think there is a fundamental difference between this and Terrorism.  This is more like a public execution.  Terrorism is the purposeful use of fear to subjugate others.  I think the difference lies in subjugation and the fact that those executed wanted to use their beliefs to take others rights away.  The US at this time had no intentions of ruling the Philipinnes so the concept of subjugation is lost.

you are right.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Originally posted by kobie173

Well, I can't say the source surprises me.

What you are apparently advocating here is to become as barbaric as those we profess to be "better than."

 

No what he did was Save alot of lives.

and this was only done to people that where going to be killed for their crimes.

and in doing it this way you stop them from what? molesting young boys and girls in heaven?

 

Yet, he was a terrorist himself.

Someone can't claim the "we saved lives" moral ground when their corrupted methods are the same as the ones they were fighting against.

He was a terrorist... nothing more.  And, with just such acts as his, we now have the Geneva Convention.

Terrorist, you mean people that blow themselves up to kill innocent people and anyone else around them. The same as taking this type of Terrorist and killing them in a way that will stop anymore of them from committing this same type of action terrorism.

Originally posted by kobie173

Well, I can't say the source surprises me.

What you are apparently advocating here is to become as barbaric as those we profess to be "better than."

No what he did was Save alot of lives.

and this was only done to people that where going to be killed for their crimes.

and in doing it this way you stop them from what? molesting young boys and girls in heaven?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/925040/posts

a defense against Islamic terror can be found in the pre World War I actions of General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing.

 In the early years of the 20th century, there were a number of Islamic terrorist attacks against American forces in the Philippines. General Pershing, acting in his capacity as the Military Governor of Moro Province, responded to the terrorism by capturing 50 terrorists and having them tied to posts for execution.

As the terrorists awaited their fate, General Pershing had his soldiers slaughter two pigs in their presence.

The terrorists believed that upon their deaths, their souls would be immediately whisked up to an Islamic paradise where they would be rewarded for their murderous deeds with eternal debauchery.

 Traditional Islamic texts describe this paradise as one in which alcohol always flows and the soul is eternally indulged with the best of every kind of food and luxury. The Islamic martyr is taught, as an example of one variation of the theme, that he will be eternally rewarded in Paradise with the benefits of a permanent erection and that he will enjoy the endless sexual pleasures of young virginal girls and beautiful boys dressed in silk shirts.

 
The same traditional texts also indicate that by eating the flesh of a pig, or even touching a pig, the Muslim is condemned to eternal damnation

 which is why Pershing's captured terrorists were horrified at the sight of the slaughtered pigs.

Pershing's soldiers proceeded to dip their bullets into the blood of the pigs, in full view of the terrorists, and then to execute 49 out of 50 who found themselves in front of a firing squad.

 These men had already been involved in horrible crimes of murder against Americans.

The soldiers then dug a large pit, threw the corpses into the pit, and then threw the pig's carcasses on top of the corpses making sure that their bodies were covered with pig's blood and entrails. The surviving 50th man was then let go as an eyewitness.
For the next several decades there was not a single recorded Islamic terrorist attack against an American anywhere in the world.

During those same years, however, the centuries old Islamic Holocaust against indigenous Christians reached a crescendo of bloodshed in Turkey with the annihilation of millions of Christian Armenians, and the world did nothing. In 1920, a young Muslim terrorist named Hajj Amin el-Husseini initiated a slaughter of Jews praying at the western wall in Jerusalem on Passover and the Jews did nothing. Rather than punishing this man, the British Governor of Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, appointed him as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem thus beginning a trend of Islamic genocide against the Jews that continues unabated.

Since World War I, in fact, the western policy toward Islamic terror has been a long and shameful string of appeasements, capitulations and defeat.

(now we have Obama doing more of the same, not that anyone else has done much more.)

 a British field marshal, did the same thing as Pershing. if anyone can find out more info on this please post it here. or PM me i will add it here.

 Here is alot more info on this.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

Originally posted by decoy26517

This thread is retarded. Everyone knows Obama is Canadian...

ROFL

Originally posted by Pyrich

Obama has only attend schools in the US and Indonesia

Obama's mother was an anthropoligist who enrolled him in an Indonesian school for 4, 5 years.  Which isn't uncommon in that field of work.

 

Of course the school was attended and run by the clones of Adolf Hitler.  Preston Bush and the rest of the secret Nazi Bush Klan are their too,  even George.  Though Obama and George didn't get along back then eigther.

Indonesian school yes you are right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVX2tpc5YRc&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grwgLuhNnic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-7urifem4Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFUYx_fF320

look i am not sure about this but i think people will find it intresting.

is this really schools around the school he attended i not sure but i bet someone here will know.

yep your are right it was a school in Indonesian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z00OKUf_bU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g1KN3BRt6E

not one in kenya.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ancienthebreworg#p/c/BFC1F1F62354A720/0/Sb6WkebVdMQ

this video if only for all the King james version only.

 KJV only

I do not know what anyone of you would do.
But I will not idly stand by.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by DeadDOG

Intelligent Design Does not = Christianity.

what it does is say that science does not prove or disprove God.

but it shows that there is more then just random chance that life came in to being.

how can i prove that Intelligent Design does not = Christianity vary easy.

Christianity says only one God. and I.D. does not prove this or disprove it.

 

 

Theres'a  bazillion examples. Google it. Apparently the Courts didn't buy your argument.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site. (Opinion, pdf)

 

"Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

OK the "Intelligent Design" as you know it, and i as know it. seem to not be the same.
 

the I.D. i know does not use the bible or any bible. but Shows that there is a Design to everything.

so if i need to call it something else because someone is already calling something other I.D.

Yet you are saying that I.D. is just Creationism renamed. but i am not talking about that type of I.D..

i am talking about true "Intelligent Design".

Old hebrew is not the oldest.

Ancient Language found

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

Intelligent Design Does not = Christianity.

what it does is say that science does not prove or disprove God.

but it shows that there is more then just random chance that life came in to being.

how can i prove that Intelligent Design does not = Christianity vary easy.

Christianity says only one God. and I.D. does not prove this or disprove it.

I know if you believe that evolution is how we became what we are and that there is no God let me use evolution to show you that there Could be a God. From there I hope you seek to find out if there is a God.
And when you start seeking him, he will make him self known to you.

Way back in time some where.
The 1st creature with an eye tries hard to tell all the other creatures about what he can see.

Creature With eyes: Dude’s I Can See. And I see the Light its all around us.

Creature With no eyes: what are you talking about what is this thing you are calling light. I can’t see it.

Creature With eyes: dude its every where can’t you feel it’s warmth on your skin.

Creature With no eyes: So the water is warmer here maybe you peed in it or something. But there is no proof of this light, You’re just talking crazy there. I can’t taste anything in the water.

Creature With eyes: no, no dude I have evolved I have been given a gift and can SEE now. I was looking for how I came to existence and I herd this Voice and it said let me show you. And now I can SEE really man I not making this up.

Creature With no eyes: : man you are now telling me you hearing things too? You are Crazy.
Why am I even talking to you, like warm water is going to prove anything to me.
You have to be playing a trick on me.

Creature With eyes: no way dude, I would not try to trick you. I really mean it all you have to do is start seeking Light and it will come to you and then you can SEE also like me.

Creature With no eyes: you’re just Dumb and will believe anything you hear.

Creature With eyes: what is this Taste thing your where talking about?

Creature With no eyes: dude you can‘t taste!…?

Creature With eyes: now you are talking crazy dude. No one has ever heard of this Taste before.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Since gay people wish to ruin it for everybody, I just agree with Imhotep that we introduce a Fair Tax so that nobody gets tax breaks or deductions for marrying. Then emphasis is still placed on the nuclear familiy and gays won't have a need to marry unless if they continue to wish to destroy the American family.

 

WARNING!!!  THIS QUOTED POST IS BIGOTRY!

Do not read the quoted post unless you enjoy reading asinine statements of hate towards any group other than the "norm."  The above post expresses ideals of bigotry, which constitutes railing on one group and claiming that giving that group the same freedoms as another group will destroy America.  This ideal is completely false and is just unfounded hatred.

By allowing gays to marry, it shows that marriage isn't a sacred bond between two people who have the intention of starting a family and producing the next generation of Americans, but that it's just a pointless waste of time anybody can do.

It won't destroy America, but the tradition of marriage, and the American family.

Do you have any proof to back up your absolute statement, that same-sex couples do not want to raise children?  There are other ways to go about attaining and raising children.  Surrogates & adoption being the main ones.  And, that's not even considering heterosexual marriages where one or both of the partners are sterile.  Under your statement, they too are "destroying the tradition of marriage, and the American family."

I'm still labeling you as a bigot as your hatred towards homosexuals is very clear.

see so many people are against Homosexual marriages. and have all kinds of ideas why they are. yet have not taken time to really set down and check the facts out.
 

you are right raising children might have been part of why they have gave Tax money to people that get married.

but the main reason was because it was the Man that provided for the woman. we are no longer under such idea's women also work now and almost all married people work now.   (It is now time to End the Government support for married people.)