Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

US boots on the ground inn Libya

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
    Voland is 100% right in that you would have zero support in Europe for the type of war OMD wants as we have seen what it can bring and want no part of it now.
    If you think that somehow makes us weak then I'm fine with that I'd just rather not go into a war with the attitude that everyone must die until they surrender.
    You would be surprised how that support would change if someone attacked your homeland.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      You can destroy the ability of people to wage war by targeting the military or people responsible for the aggression while leaving the civilians alone.
      Carpet bombing cities is just not morally acceptable now and doing so in a war against terrorists will just make the problem worse as you're likely to kill many, many innocent people who's family will likely be less than happy about it and may decide to get revenge.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

        You would be surprised how that support would change if someone attacked your homeland.
        Erm, I think you're forgetting the UK has suffered several terrorist attacks recently.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

          Erm, I think you're forgetting the UK has suffered several terrorist attacks recently.
          Not the same thing.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

            Not the same thing.
            Erm, we were in WW2 along with Germany.
            Just as Voland can ask about the horrors of war so can we.
            The UK has also been in a few other wars as well.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

              Erm, we were in WW2 along with Germany.
              Just as Voland can ask about the horrors of war so can we.
              The UK has also been in a few other wars as well.
              When you experience personally, a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 event we can discuss the subject.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                The goal of war is to destroy your enemies ability and will to continue to wage war and impose a post-war situation upon them.

                Well, as far as WW II carpet bombing is concerned : The moment the Allies were starting to carpet-bomb entire cities in Germany, it was clear they were going after the people inhabiting them, and not just the regime. Military and industry installations were usually not inside the cities, but on the outskirts ( space !, medieval or older structures were too narrow), that means usually they could have been hit without bombing the centres. The idea of carpet bombing was to "terrorize Germans into surrender" and make them rise up against the regime. Both has quite obviously not happened, the Allies needed to take Berlin with horrible casualties on all sides for that. And the reason was that the immense civilian death toll much rather led to a propaganda boost for the regime, even from non-nazi party supporters. People that are indiscriminately exposed to bombs dropping from the sky tend to focus on survival rather than political arguments. And they are also not so much in the mood for opening their doors to those trying to kill them. In many views, from time witnesses as well as historians, the bomb war has much rather strengthened Germans resolve and by that prolonged the war. From that perspective it was thus a costly and bloody failure. The war was won on the ground, not in the smouldering ruins of Dresden or Hamburg. But the killed civilians were pawns for all sides involved anyway.
                The son of a former RAF Pilot, who had steered a british bomber in 1945 made the cross and orb on top of the rebuilt Church of our Lady in Dresden which had prior to 1945 been one of the finest baroque cathedrals in Europe. He said his dad was in spite of having done his duty all his life struggling with the suffering ףf those that he bombed and would have been proud. Plenty of british citizens, british businesses, and the Queen herself were donating big sums to the reconstruction and the cross was unveiled in the presence of a delegation from Coventry, a british city that the Germans had bombed. Stories like that demonstrate that some lessons have been learned in this part of the world at least. And that actually settling conflicts requires FAR more than even the most terrific degree of force.....


                telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1465293/Cross-of-RAF-pilots-son-crowns-rebuilt-church-in-Dresden.html
                Last edited by Voland; 08-19-2016, 05:32 AM.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Well said Voland.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                    When you experience personally, a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 event we can discuss the subject.
                    Were you at either event and yes I had a friend who was in one of the underground trains that were bombed in 2005.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July...ondon_bombings

                    The UK has been the target of many, many terrorist attacks over the years the US doesn't hold some kind of monopoly.
                    I've also lived through a large chunk of the troubles in Northern Ireland where bombings were pretty frequent in UK cities.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Convincing the population of a nation they do not want to be at war is a valid tactic of war (and coflict) and one of the most disgusting ways to do that is to disrupt their lives by raining down destruction upon them. There are non-violent alternatives but they are slow to work and really only function when the opposition has something to gain from cooperation.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Or it could be simply that both the UK and Germany have seen the devastation of 2 world wars and that has made them think differently.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                          Convincing the population of a nation they do not want to be at war is a valid tactic of war (and coflict) and one of the most disgusting ways to do that is to disrupt their lives by raining down destruction upon them. There are non-violent alternatives but they are slow to work and really only function when the opposition has something to gain from cooperation.


                          Yes, and in the case of Germany that tactic succeeded in blowing the country, irreparable cultural and historical treasures, and over a million civilians to bits, but it failed to end the war ( that was when the ground armies fought their way into Berlin), or turn people against the regime enough to rise up. For reasons outlined above. Additionally it creates problems till the present day ( unexploded bombs and explosives). To not even mention the uncomfortable moral questions ( especially for people that claim morals for themselves). Indiscriminately attacking the non-combattant civilian population of a country is neither an effective military tactic nor does it save costs. Aside from the humanitarian price. The carpet bombing of Germany has been a warning in more than one way luckily. Which is why at least militaries of democratic countries try ( sometimes more, sometimes less seriously, but basically they do) to avoid civilian losses even when going to war. Not out of kindness of the heart.
                          While for Europeans the devastation of WW II was a powerful "never again" moment that led to the making of modern Europe.
                          Last edited by Voland; 08-19-2016, 08:39 AM.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Voland View Post

                            Well, you aren´t "welcoming" the arab christians either, that the US often rethorically claim to support.
                            It is quite compassionate and honorable what Germany has done for the Yazidis. I endorse it fully. Those opposing the Obama Administration would not object to doing the same.

                            You are absolutely correct that the US is not welcoming the Arab Christians. This is due to the current administration. And "rhetorically claim to support" is the correct phrase when addressing the Republicans in power. But when addressing the Dems. and Obama Administration, the correct phrase would be "erroneously support". Our Congressional and Judicial branch has surrendered ultimate power to our executive branch. This most powerful ruling branch/Obama Administration, does not support Christians of any nation. Especially in America. Obama and the Dems do not want more Christians here. Unwanted because they are Christians. Right now of course allowing this seemingly mass quantity of Muslims in, will not significantly change the demographic of America, but it is a wanted, intended, and acted upon change. A beginning. In fact religious discrimination is what our gov't is guilty of. Discrimination toward Christians. So NO, no help for Christians. All Rhetorical and Erroneous speech. Appearances only.

                            This is why our administration will not say radical "Islam":

                            If they admit the terrorist belong to a shared religion of people they also kill, but at the same time target Christians specifically due to the religion, then that would leave Muslims not classified as a people suffering genocide. Muslims are not killed by the terrorist, because they are Muslims. Christians are killed because they are Christians. Christians would be classified. Under genocide, this would put Christians at the top of the list for help and sanctuary. Help for Muslim refugees would take a back seat to Christians.

                            BUT by putting forth the theory that these terrorists are of no religion and kill All indiscriminately, then no one group can be classified for suffering genocide. People seeking asylum from the terrorists are all on equal ground. Allowing a few Christians refuge among the mass of Muslims, is non discriminatory because it is calculated by percentage of those reporting to seek asylum. On paper it appears to be fair.

                            The legal definition of genocide

                            Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
                            "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
                            (a) Killing members of the group;
                            (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
                            (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
                            (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
                            (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
                            Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
                            (a) Genocide;
                            (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
                            (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
                            (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
                            (e) Complicity in genocide. "
                            As for Obama's preference to Muslim's, it's clear that he has a stronger alliance to the Muslim faith. But there is so much wrong with him, that I can't pin point or calculated what goes on in that crazy mind of his.

                            Though the Democrat reasoning is pretty clear forward. Democrat votes do not fare as well with Christians as they do with Muslims. Dems will take every little advantage to collectively secure more votes.

                            http://www.pewresearch.org/files/201...ion_640px1.png
                            Last edited by msc; 08-21-2016, 10:32 AM.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by msc View Post

                              It is quite compassionate and honorable what Germany has done for the Yazidis. I endorse it fully. Those opposing the Obama Administration would not object to doing the same.

                              You are absolutely correct that the US is not welcoming the Arab Christians. This is due to the current administration. And "rhetorically claim to support" is the correct phrase when addressing the Republicans in power. But when addressing the Dems. and Obama Administration, the correct phrase would be "erroneously support". Our Congressional and Judicial branch has surrendered ultimate power to our executive branch. This most powerful ruling branch/Obama Administration, does not support Christians of any nation. Especially in America. Obama and the Dems do not want more Christians here. Unwanted because they are Christians. Right now of course allowing this seemingly mass quantity of Muslims in, will not significantly change the demographic of America, but it is a wanted, intended, and acted upon change. A beginning. In fact religious discrimination is what our gov't is guilty of. Discrimination toward Christians. So NO, no help for Christians. All Rhetorical and Erroneous speech. Appearances only.

                              This is why our administration will not say radical "Islam":

                              If they admit the terrorist belong to a shared religion of people they also kill, but at the same time target Christians specifically due to the religion, then that would leave Muslims not classified as a people suffering genocide. Muslims are not killed by the terrorist, because they are Muslims. Christians are killed because they are Christians. Christians would be classified. Under genocide, this would put Christians at the top of the list for help and sanctuary. Help for Muslim refugees would take a back seat to Christians.

                              BUT by putting forth the theory that these terrorists are of no religion and kill All indiscriminately, then no one group can be classified for suffering genocide. People seeking asylum from the terrorists are all on equal ground. Allowing a few Christians refuge among the mass of Muslims, is non discriminatory because it is calculated by percentage of those reporting to seek asylum. On paper it appears to be fair.

                              The legal definition of genocide

                              Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
                              "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
                              (a) Killing members of the group;
                              (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
                              (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
                              (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
                              (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
                              Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
                              (a) Genocide;
                              (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
                              (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
                              (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
                              (e) Complicity in genocide. "
                              As for Obama's preference to Muslim's, it's clear that he has a stronger alliance to the Muslim faith. But there is so much wrong with him, that I can't pin point or calculated what goes on in that crazy mind of his.

                              Though the Democrat reasoning is pretty clear forward. Democrat votes do not fare as well with Christians as they do with Muslims. Dems will take every little advantage to collectively secure more votes.

                              http://www.pewresearch.org/files/201...ion_640px1.png
                              Absolutely. And as I said in the other thread:

                              And this is the ultimate goal of libs:

                              Salon: GOP Must Dump Jesus or Risk Irrelevance in ‘Post-Christian America’

                              Salon Magazine has accused the Republican Party of being out of touch with “post-Christian America,” warning the GOP that if it doesn’t renege on its alliance with Christianity, it will soon become irrelevant.
                              ​​​​​​​http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...stian-america/

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                                Absolutely. And as I said in the other thread:

                                And this is the ultimate goal of libs:

                                Salon: GOP Must Dump Jesus or Risk Irrelevance in ‘Post-Christian America’



                                http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...stian-america/
                                So funny that Libs work so hard at convincing the public that Christianity is responsible for all prejudice while they welcome and protect Islam, the religion that actually kill and abuse gays. Christians say have a gov't that is separate from their religion and allow all religions to flourish equally, yet Islam fights to have gov't run by Islam and crush or exclude rights for all other religions. Pay attention and recognize all that's bad about Christianity that is not compatible with what we want today's America to be, but Islam should only be recognized as a religion of peace and beauty. Christianity has no worth if you're not a Christian, but Muslims have done so much for America. History is important, but remove all Historical public structures that represent Christianity, because we don't want people to think Christianity played or plays any good part in the moral or legal structure of this country, and besides it might make someone uncomfortable. The non religious gov't has all that covered. Insanity at it's finest.

                                It kind of reminds me of the scene in the "10 Commandments" when Pharaoh ruled that the name of Moses will never be spoken and all things Moses will be stricken from the land, as Moses was escorted out in chains, with the dramatic beat to his words played in the background. But Moses was allowed to live as not make him a martyr. Same here. Christianity will not be killed, but all things Christian will be stricken from society and never spoke of, little by little. Maybe in the future, a movie will be made about today and what's going on will be condensed and played out with a similar, current day scene. Obama will be speaking in the oval office with the dramatic beat in the background.

                                Maybe I should find some movie person to pitch that idea to so people will understand what's going on. Could be a classic. Though we'll have to wait many years as in current time, we haven't yet gotten beyond that scene and will have to see how the ending plays out and pray that it ends the same way. Which I believe it will, as the love of Jesus is too powerful to wipe out.

                                In the article he pitches for Christians to render to Caesar what is due Caesar, but doesn't know the difference between what is due Caesar and what is not.

                                He is a good little Pharaoh's soldier, condensing and confirming exactly what I'm saying.
                                Last edited by msc; 08-22-2016, 05:19 AM.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X