Cuz Merica

[Soundline]

The Russians just have the answer!  They buried totlally wrapped  bodies in pig skin.  no desicration, just religious difference.!

e

I've had several discussions about this, but here's the base root of this, Gen. John Pershing supposedly did this in about 1911 in the Philippines to the Moros. Now the report of this was in, I wanna say the Chicago Tribune in about 1927, and there is insufficient evidence that this occurred. #FakeNews

 

Instead, Pershing had his men surround the Moros. The official story is Pershing captured them by claiming that Allah had made US Forces the Sword of Allah to punish them for not being proper Muslims. Basically that they needed to get their own lives in order before they could go out and convert the world to Islam.

 

Putin reportedly uses this tactic as well. When the Russian special forces encounter Muslim extremist violence, it has been reported that they claim the victory was decided by Allah because the Muslims weren't true believers. I have not personally witnessed this behavior by Russian forces, but I have seen it used by the US.

[racerx]

/\. The moros were surrounded but the Americans, Filipinos or Japanese, could never truly subjugate them, as seen with current war in the Philippines with the Maute group, which has direct ties with ISIS. They have been fighting for decades.

[datzenmike]

Q...

 

You live in the US and can't see what most of the rest of the world sees. Your states with the worst  gun control laws are seen as an infringement on your god given right to bear arms. It's not the same in other countries. In Canada for example, you are not born with the right to bear arms. You have to earn that right.  

[a.d._510_n_ok]

Q...

 

You live in the US and can't see what most of the rest of the world sees. Your states with the worst  gun control laws are seen as an infringement on your god given right to bear arms. It's not the same in other countries. In Canada for example, you are not born with the right to bear arms. You have to earn that right.

Yep. Canadians are subjects of the crown where Americans are citizens. Some of that still holds a bit in America. Poaching game still gets an American in trouble because ownership of all game in the forest is here is ascribed to the government instead of a monarch but the concept's the same. Hell, the push to regulate silencer ownership in US in the 1930s arose largely from hungry people building silencers to take down game in this the land of the free.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity

A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender identity” or “gender expression”.

 

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

 

The law, which replaces old laws governing child protection, foster care and adoption services, instructs all child services and judges, to take into consideration a child’s “race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.”

 

Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau, who introduced the bill, said “I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently.”

 

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/canadas-new-law-lets-government-take-children-away-if-parents-dont-accept-their-gender-identity/

[heywier427]

Would you still have to pay for that little queer if the state takes shim from you.  Sounds too good to be true.

[Jesse C.]

Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity

A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender identity” or “gender expression”.

 

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

 

The law, which replaces old laws governing child protection, foster care and adoption services, instructs all child services and judges, to take into consideration a child’s “race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.”

 

Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau, who introduced the bill, said “I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently.”

 

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/canadas-new-law-lets-government-take-children-away-if-parents-dont-accept-their-gender-identity/

 

If you are cold, he is going to identify as hot, hot, hot! 

 

[KoHeartsGPA]

:rofl:

[Mattndew76]

Not to offend anyone who is atheist.

 

For some reason today's accelerated weird social issues popping up with regularity remind me of a bible passage.

 

Isaiah 5:20

 

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter..

 

The relevance isnt condemning, but the thing that has me thinking of the passage is that everything that was socially normal, scientifically, biologically real is being flipped on its top. So fucking weird now. 

[Draker]

Nice to see him wearing his "Hate" pin

 

Still? What a fucking asshole.

[angliagt]

Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity

A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender identity” or “gender expression”.

 

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

 

The law, which replaces old laws governing child protection, foster care and adoption services, instructs all child services and judges, to take into consideration a child’s “race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.”

 

Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau, who introduced the bill, said “I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently.”

 

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/canadas-new-law-lets-government-take-children-away-if-parents-dont-accept-their-gender-identity/

 

                     It's sad when laws like this actually pass.

I'd imagine that there would be no law protecting a

minor,who wanted to be a Christian,born to Muslim parents.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[a.d._510_n_ok]

 

I'd plug her leaks.

[q-tip]

Q...

 

You live in the US and can't see what most of the rest of the world sees. Your states with the worst gun control laws are seen as an infringement on your god given right to bear arms. It's not the same in other countries. In Canada for example, you are not born with the right to bear arms. You have to earn that right.

God has nothing to do with it.

 

That's what makes the US the land of the FREE, no we're else in the world can you freely speak about what you want or worship who you want and own as any guns as you want all at the same time.

[datzenmike]

Nonsense. Can do the same here and elsewhere.

[RatVonDude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVPHj927kc

[125 CSL]

CNN caught staging and framing it as news

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWrtuoyV264

[125 CSL]

[q-tip]

Nonsense. Can do the same here and elsewhere.

Bullshit, you tell me where a citizen has a protected right to their free speech and right to bear arms at the same time, cause it ain't fuckin Canada.

[RatVonDude]

Will Anderson please fucking resigned. He is soo full of shit. Reminds me of this wet mop i used to work for.

[RatVonDude]

They intuitise everything with a murky hiroad.

Some stupid bitch at a party tried to school me on racial PC i swear she doesnt want to see white bitches like herself in food industry. Thats what she fears having to get a real job and pay real rent, so tranparent.

[datzenmike]

You can own and carry guns in Canada and we have free speech and worship. Did you mean carry a gun to a free speech rally or protest? Why would you need to? Other than to protect yourself from other gun carriers? 

[a.d._510_n_ok]

Britain must not be part of "elsewhere" which is odd when you consider what was said at Runnymede in '66 (1066, that is).

 

Self-defense in the UK Is Illegal

 

British citizens seeking advice on what’s legal to use for self-defense found some answers at www.askthe.police.uk, a website sponsored and operated by the government’s Police National Legal Database.

 

Question 589: Are there any legal self-defence products that I can buy?

 

Answer: The only fully legal self-defence product … is a rape alarm.

 

There may be other products, according to the website, but they haven’t been fully tested and “if you purchase one you must be aware … there is always the possibility that you will arrested and detained until the product, its contents and legality, can be verified.”

 

In an effort to reduce any anxiety, the website goes on to point out that any product a British citizen purchases, other than a rape alarm, “must not be a product which is made to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.”

 

It offers some suggestions, along with a disclaimer. A British citizen may use a squirt bottle filled with a safe but brightly colored dye that may help police find and apprehend a criminal after the attack has been successfully completed. But, says the website, a citizen “should be aware that even a seemingly safe product … would become an offensive weapon [if] it would be used in a way that is intended to cause injury.”

 

And, the disclaimer: “The above advice is given in good faith. You must make your own decision and this website cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the possession, use or misuse of any self defence product," with the exception, of course, of a rape alarm.

 

This is not someone’s idea of a bad joke, or a parody. Readers may verify the veracity on their own by going here: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20985-self-defense-in-the-uk-is-illegal

[datzenmike]

The police can be seen as advocating harm or violence. I'm pretty sure you are allowed to defend yourself by any means. This is pretty much universal in any civilized country and more. The response should match the threat.

[thisismatt]

The police can be seen as advocating harm or violence. I'm pretty sure you are allowed to defend yourself by any means. This is pretty much universal in any civilized country and more. The response should match the threat.

hahaha