- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Is there nothing in between?
And be the opposite? No.
Is there nothing in between?
It's refreshing to hear the truth from government.
...and after they became a country we fought this little war with them and won territory, so his comment that some of the US was won in a war with Mexico is EXACTLY right.
Your dodge is weird though, because there is not need for it.
Most to all of the terrorists are wild card lunatics who were deluded into acts of violence... don't white wash terrorism please.
So what? Tejas was a state in the United States of Mexico until 1836. Mexico lost a big chunk of it's territory in the Mexican-American War in 1845 (or thereabouts).
You like irrelevant trivia? Germany didn't exist until about 1875.
This is the man here, and he looks like someone you don't want to mess with, old or not. I'd just as soon have an older guy in these situations anyway.MPs credit sergeant-at-arms for saving lives in Parliament Hill shootings | CityNewsYes, it is. They just straight up and said it.
Did you hear about the old guy, their version of the Attorney General,. I think, that shot dead one of the terrorists in their Capital Building?
Or the guy in Oklahoma or the one in Fort Hood, or the ones in London. The idea of terrorism is to create terror. It is not necessarily a numbers game.No whitewash. I'm just guessing that an organized attack would look better, uh, organized. I'm guessing that both these guys got their Islam and radicalism from the internet.
Terrorism is terrorism, but some terrorists are a bigger threat than others. Compare, for example, what two guys in Boston did to what these two in Canada did.
No whitewash. I'm just guessing that an organized attack would look better, uh, organized. I'm guessing that both these guys got their Islam and radicalism from the internet.
Terrorism is terrorism, but some terrorists are a bigger threat than others. Compare, for example, what two guys in Boston did to what these two in Canada did.
Or the guy in Oklahoma or the one in Fort Hood, or the ones in London. The idea of terrorism is to create terror. It is not necessarily a numbers game.
I didn't say it wasn't. You obviously missed his point, which was to use The Mexican War, fought in 1847, as proof that Mexico existed before The United States. The United States declared independence in 1776. Mexico declared independence in 1810.
You claimed that Mexico existed before The United States...that's what. Now, admit your ignorance and let's move forward.
They launched a revolt in 1810.
The declared independence in 1813.
That said, his point that Mexicans were in the area first is debatable on many levels.
1. The people that would eventually become known as Mexicans had been living in the area for thousands of years already
2. The area of Mexico was a recognized nation prior to the United States taking land from it in 1845 annexation of Texas which was Mexican territory.
Or the guy in Oklahoma or the one in Fort Hood, or the ones in London. The idea of terrorism is to create terror. It is not necessarily a numbers game.
We were comparing Mexicans in the US to the French in Canada.
Smarten up.
No, it isn't. But to over-react is to reward terrorism, give the terrorist a victory.
Nobody is over reacting that I know of. Do you know who is over reacting?No, it isn't. But to over-react is to reward terrorism, give the terrorist a victory.
Mexico dodn't exist before 1810. You knew THIS, right?
That's why we need to carpet bomb their strongholds.
Isn't there a Mexican thread somewhere?You need to read up on your own history apdst. Mexico did indeed exist in 1846, when the US invaded the fledgling nation in order to achieve the goal of more valuable land, and an expansion of the nation at the expensive of a lessor regarded neighbor. They were successful and took what was then about half the nation of Mexico. That's one of the reasons those south of the border don't seem as friendly as you might imagine when you visit.
It is quite an irony today that the issue of Mexican migrants has been such in the news, when in fact, they are infiltrating what was once their own country.
Nobody is over reacting that I know of. Do you know who is over reacting?
Not telling the truth is reacting very badly, which is what happened in the Oklahoma case when the government, with the compliance of the media, tried to hide his Islamist identity. What the Canadian government did is far better than lying or sidestepping into the "workplace violence" nonsense.
Then charge him with murder. You can still call him a terrorist.Actually one of the biggest reasons they had to stick with the workplace violence thing is because there is no charge for terrorism under the UCMJ therefore it would make prosecuting him close to impossible.
MaybeHasan was charged for murder and will be executed.
They haven't yet.I know you guys want to have your little paddy because you think it's about appeasing radical Islam, when really it was about practicality so they could prosecute him to the fullest extent of military justice which they did.
Maybe
They haven't yet.
Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people in 2009 in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, was sentenced to death Wednesday by a military jury after just two hours of deliberation.
Isn't there a Mexican thread somewhere?
Nobody is over reacting that I know of. Do you know who is over reacting?
Not telling the truth is reacting very badly, which is what happened in the Oklahoma case when the government, with the compliance of the media, tried to hide his Islamist identity. What the Canadian government did is far better than lying or sidestepping into the "workplace violence" nonsense.
When you kill a terrorist, it will only create more hate.