One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
What Was Racist About It?
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
Jul 17, 2019 18:03:03   #
Elmer Werth
 
No practicing Muslim will ever be a citizen of a non Muslim country. It makes no difference how long they have been here, what oath they take or promises they make. Their only allegiance is to Islam. It is to their honor to lie to promote a successful Trojan horse invasion. A proclaimed Muslim that renounces Islamic practices must be very careful.
Elmer Werth

Reply
Jul 17, 2019 18:03:03   #
Elmer Werth
 
No practicing Muslim will ever be a citizen of a non Muslim country. It makes no difference how long they have been here, what oath they take or promises they make. Their only allegiance is to Islam. It is to their honor to lie to promote a successful Trojan horse invasion. A proclaimed Muslim that renounces Islamic practices must be very careful.
Elmer Werth

Reply
Jul 17, 2019 18:03:03   #
Elmer Werth
 
No practicing Muslim will ever be a citizen of a non Muslim country. It makes no difference how long they have been here, what oath they take or promises they make. Their only allegiance is to Islam. It is to their honor to lie to promote a successful Trojan horse invasion. A proclaimed Muslim that renounces Islamic practices must be very careful.
Elmer Werth

Reply
 
 
Jul 17, 2019 23:50:28   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
For two and a half years, democrat progressives have been verbally and graphically attacking Trump, his wife, his family, his friends, his associates, and every member of his administration, you've called them every obscene name in the book. You have compared Trump to Hitler, Stalin and Satan, You have demanded Trump be impeached, imprisoned, exiled, banished from the face of the earth, even assassinated. You have called him a racist, a xenophobe, homophobe, pedophile, rapist, a moron, a pumpkinfuhrer, orange orangutan, and a c**k suker. You have called our First Lady a whore, a b*tch, a porn star, eye candy, mail order bride, and every other obscenity you could think of.

Need I even mention the very real and massive covert campaign to destroy Donald Trump, his wife, his family, and his administration?

One of those females was born here, the other immigrated, and it is patently obvious they are loyal to an ideology diametrically opposed to our American way of life, our constitution, and our system of government and justice.

And, you are going to sit there a call president Trump a racist because he told two bigoted, anti-Semitic, pro-Sharia Muslims to go back to where they came from? They came from Islam and they brought it with them.
For two and a half years, democrat progressives ha... (show quote)


Three out of the four were born here one became a citizen. What good for the goose is good for the gander how many names were the Obama's called. Do you belive in do as I say not as I do? The main reason most degrading names are used is because of the dislike of a person and their beliefs. In a way it is used to make the speaker feel better about their hate by dehumanizing the target of their hate.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 03:19:17   #
Seth
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
What I do understand is that this is not the first era to want the Muslims pushed back.
Why was the United States Marine Corps created? And let’s see, when was that? Anyone, anyone?




WHERE Muslims were concerned, the early Marines (called I think naval troops then) saw action on🎵...the shores of Tripoli...🎵when Jefferson sent the Navy to "counsel" the Barbary pirates (Muslims) on the danger they incurred by continuing to prey on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 08:36:29   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
Seth wrote:
WHERE Muslims were concerned, the early Marines (called I think naval troops then) saw action on🎵...the shores of Tripoli...🎵when Jefferson sent the Navy to "counsel" the Barbary pirates (Muslims) on the danger they incurred by continuing to prey on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean.


The Marines were not created for use against the Muslims the reason was that Jefferson didn't want to continue to pay the tribute requested. By the pirates which were actually considered corsairs. The meaning at the time was that pirates were individual groups. Historians describe these actions as a well-developed protection racket. Countries paid hefty monetary "tributes" to the north African powers in order to get free passage for their ships. Countries that refused would risk being boarded, with crew members held hostage and cargo confiscated. (Technically, this was not "piracy," which is committed by non-state actors; the proper term for such government-backed privateering is "corsairing.")

As early as 1797, the United States made clear in a treaty with Tripoli that "as the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Mohammedan or Muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

That is what history recorded.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 09:44:14   #
Seth
 
zombinis3 wrote:
The Marines were not created for use against the Muslims the reason was that Jefferson didn't want to continue to pay the tribute requested. By the pirates which were actually considered corsairs. The meaning at the time was that pirates were individual groups. Historians describe these actions as a well-developed protection racket. Countries paid hefty monetary "tributes" to the north African powers in order to get free passage for their ships. Countries that refused would risk being boarded, with crew members held hostage and cargo confiscated. (Technically, this was not "piracy," which is committed by non-state actors; the proper term for such government-backed privateering is "corsairing.")

As early as 1797, the United States made clear in a treaty with Tripoli that "as the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Mohammedan or Muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

That is what history recorded.
The Marines were not created for use against the M... (show quote)


No, they were not created for use against the Muslims, but they were sure able to dish out the only thing the Muslims seem to truly understand -- Islam spread not through the faith of those converted, but by the conquering of countries whose inhabitants were then given the choices of a) converting to Islam, b) paying jizya or c) being murdered.

Jefferson spoke with leaders of Tripoli before sending our naval fleet over there and was told, essentially, that nothing would be done by that government because the pirates (corsairs, old word!) were of the faithful and their victims were not.

Reply
 
 
Jul 18, 2019 22:47:37   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
Seth wrote:
No, they were not created for use against the Muslims, but they were sure able to dish out the only thing the Muslims seem to truly understand -- Islam spread not through the faith of those converted, but by the conquering of countries whose inhabitants were then given the choices of a) converting to Islam, b) paying jizya or c) being murdered.

Jefferson spoke with leaders of Tripoli before sending our naval fleet over there and was told, essentially, that nothing would be done by that government because the pirates (corsairs, old word!) were of the faithful and their victims were not.
No, they were not created for use against the Musl... (show quote)


In actual use there are four distinct words used interchangeably Pirates , Privateers , Corsairs and Buccaneers. The four have their own meaning being old or not. Pirates are just bandits on the water, Privateers are pirates with papers instructing them to attack any and all vessels that their country is fighting with, Corsairs are only in the Mediterranean and have a religious connection they are the ones who fought Christian countries for control of the sea and were backed by the state. Buccaneers were associated with the Caribbean and they basically fought with Spain.

About the statement made about Jefferson talking to the pasha he never did according to everything I have found, but he did talk to the ambassador of tripoli who did say that it was the Koran that was being followed.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 00:00:17   #
Seth
 
zombinis3 wrote:
In actual use there are four distinct words used interchangeably Pirates , Privateers , Corsairs and Buccaneers. The four have their own meaning being old or not. Pirates are just bandits on the water, Privateers are pirates with papers instructing them to attack any and all vessels that their country is fighting with, Corsairs are only in the Mediterranean and have a religious connection they are the ones who fought Christian countries for control of the sea and were backed by the state. Buccaneers were associated with the Caribbean and they basically fought with Spain.

About the statement made about Jefferson talking to the pasha he never did according to everything I have found, but he did talk to the ambassador of tripoli who did say that it was the Koran that was being followed.
In actual use there are four distinct words used i... (show quote)


Gotcha, had my details wrong. Thanks.

Jean Lafitte comes to mind as a latter day privateer, during the War of 1812.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 00:07:38   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
zombinis3 wrote:
Three out of the four were born here one became a citizen. What good for the goose is good for the gander how many names were the Obama's called. Do you belive in do as I say not as I do? The main reason most degrading names are used is because of the dislike of a person and their beliefs. In a way it is used to make the speaker feel better about their hate by dehumanizing the target of their hate.
Regarding the attacks on president Trump, you failed to mention one monumental departure from simply calling the president names. It went way beyond merely expressing dislike.

Reply
Jul 19, 2019 00:37:37   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Regarding the attacks on president Trump, you failed to mention one monumental departure from simply calling the president names. It went way beyond merely expressing dislike.


The same condition for both Obama and Trump both presidant were treated to
possible physical harm Trump's cut off head and Obama's burned and hung figure. So both sides have gone well beyond the hatred of just name calling. It hard not to say the worst of someone when whatever actions can be brought up and spun because of the appearance of a no edit button. Trump does plain speak about things that people want to hear it then makes those same people think that he is one of them.

Reply
 
 
Jul 21, 2019 10:51:56   #
zombinis3 Loc: Southwest
 
Seth wrote:
Gotcha, had my details wrong. Thanks.

Jean Lafitte comes to mind as a latter day privateer, during the War of 1812.


Welcome

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.