hot enough
-
Posts
4,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by hot enough
-
-
12 hours ago, bcsapper said:
Yeah, I know. They just haven't applied the makeup and the red nose in a while.
Oh, but they have, in much, much more comical fashion. Not saying anything about the terrorist actions of western nations is the new, strictly prohibited blasphemy.
-
Just who are these whiners?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:
high of $462 million in 2002
So, roughly $12.83 per Canadian. What's that these days, 1/8 of a line of coke, 2 beers, ... ?
-
-
1
-
-
On 2/23/2017 at 6:57 PM, bcsapper said:
Denmark joins the list of countries that are also clowns. I hope sanity prevails.
Some US states still have blasphemy laws, and if that doesn't stick, sedition will.
-
12 hours ago, ?Impact said:
Now it appears we have a new member `hot enough`, so maybe things are sortof ok, just not updated concurrently on the home page.
Welcome hot enough.
Thank you. Has anyone figured out my number?
-
6 minutes ago, Argus said:
There is no question that the U.S. had legal justification to attack Afghanistan. We often overlook the fact, but when people use country A as a base of operations to attack country B, or when country A provides any kind of support to a group which attacks country B, those are acts of war, and country B is fully within its right to respond with an attack on country A.
There was no response from the US for all those years before 911 when OBL supposedly lived in Afghanistan. And when various and sundry attacks had taken place against the US. Why not response?
There was no response from the US until the day of 911, when the US government and the US media immediately knew who had done it. How is that possible? What would any rational investigator say about that jumping to conclusions?
-
14 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
These examples are in no way comparable to 9/11.
For example: how did the Korean War start?
I know that they "are in no way comparable to 9/11". Korea was attacked and Korea has not ever attacked the US in "revenge".
Same for Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Libya, Syria, ... .
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
Islam = Submission
Kufars are the Unbeliever and are not subject to peace or safety under Islam...unless offered the Jizya and they pay the Mafia protection money to the Umma.
There's no source.
Are we to believe that you are an expert on the Arabic language?
-
5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
Peace and safety for Islam.
Surrender and submission for the Kufar.
Yours is merely an opinion, based on what, I have no idea. Could you provide a source that supports your notion?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:
.....but to prove your point, can you cite an example from history in which a nation was attacked, of the same scope as 9/11, and didn't react?
There are many examples with a much much bigger scope.
Vietnam, estimates of 3 million killed.
Cambodia, estimates of 3/4 to a million killed.
Korea, estimates of 3 million killed.
Guatemala, ... .
-
1
-
-
On 2/23/2017 at 3:02 PM, DogOnPorch said:
The word translates to the English "submission".
I think that it is important for us all to provide fair and balanced positions on these issues.
In Arabic, the word “Islam” means submission or surrender – however, it was derived from the root word “salam”. From this root word, you can also derive the words peace and safety. Many people feel that Islam implies some sort of enslavement to Allah, but others find it more helpful to define the word “Islam” as surrender.
-
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:
Not sure where you are going with this, are you saying that Afghanistan was stable, or lets broaden it up a little, and add the entire middle east was it stable at the time.
Stability has zero to do with it. Countries cannot under international law invade sovereign nations. That would be Iraq and Afghanistan.
Stability HAD zero to do with it. It was an invasion based on lies, of the most transparent variety
QuoteI have to ask what is the right response to a group that kills up to 3000 people with a single terrorist attack.
.
There's the lie right there. Volumes of them.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Argus said:
This is nonsense. The US did not overthrow the leaders of Ukraine. It's involvement with the Libyan upraising came after UN pleas to help put an end to the fighting, and its involvement in Syria, as minor as that is, came about for roughly the same reason. Afghanistan committed an act of war against the US by sheltering thousands of members of Al Quaeda, who attacked the United States.
If you would like to start a thread, I would discuss it.
-
You could say things like that, which are not true. Ot you could look at where US involvement has caused civil wars, look at places where the US has overthrown the leaders, Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan; look at places where the US has been trying for years to overthrow the government, Syria.
I think just with this cursory examination, we can see the connection between the refugee problem and the US.
As Betsy has astutely pointed out; "Although what you're saying supports Trump's position that indeed, the USA has to be very wary of all people coming from such places. In other words, you're saying his action is justified."
Justified, most assuredly, in the sense that if I were to murder one family, I'm not likely to have all the other relatives over for dinner.
-
3 minutes ago, betsy said:
Why is it a problem caused by the USA?
We may be used by now to deferring obediently to orders issued by UN........but it's really none of our business how a country decides to conduct their immigration/refugee program.
If you look at where the vast majority of refugees are coming from and compare that to the countries the US has invaded, committed terrorist acts against, it's rather easy to see the connection.
-
15 minutes ago, betsy said:
What if we've met our limit, and we couldn't possibly take any more?
Then it has reached the point where politicians have to speak up, in an honest, fair but forthright fashion and ask why all the countries of the world have to solve all the refugee problems caused by the US.
-
I think it does. That is the definition of refugee. Perhaps it was a jab at Trump, the US. But he only reiterated what has long been a Canadian tradition. And, we must remember how long it has figured in the American narrative.
-
3 hours ago, betsy said:Quote
It's open to all fleeing persecution, war and terror!
He didn't say they all have to go through some screening and vetting! He didn't say criminals need not come.
Don't you think that your first sentence would be an accepted definition of 'refugee'.
I personally don't think that there is any person who would ever think that there would be no screening and vetting.
-
The Clintons have been accused of many things. They are guilty of doing many, to be generous, less than good things. To think/suggest, if they have the power to pull off even this small number of incredibly evil deeds, that doesn't doesn't speak well about the entire system.
Conspiracies being that they are always more than one person, always have a way of unraveling.
POLL: Should Justin Trudeau Keep His Word?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I'm sure that the refugees in the camps were all watching on their big screen ,plasma TVs.
Of course, Trump has valid reasons, but they are all political; there is nothing reasonable about them. They play to his base, they perpetuate the already voluminous lies that have been the sole reason for this whole worldwide schmozzle - the "radical Islam" theme.