Posts by rowdytinker

Now it’s time to go out and develop a few new goalies.

I’m feeling a bit reflective today. It’s one of those moments where you just have to step back and look at everything. Sometimes, life moves too fast, and if you don't pause, you miss the nuances. I've been thinking about the direction things are heading lately. It's important to stay grounded. Everything feels like it's shifting, but we have to maintain our footing. Just keeping my head down and staying focused on the task at hand. [username] says:
As far as I can tell, you aren't actually addressing the core of what the Thai government is proposing. You’re ignoring the substance of the initiative itself—which is to allow Sharia law in those three specific provinces—and instead, you've chosen to pick a fight with me about my personal views on what Sharia entails. You are also completely bypassing the main point regarding the government's plan to grant those regions, home to roughly 1.5 million concentrated Muslim and ethnic Malay residents, a special administrative status similar to what Hong Kong enjoys in China. Rather than engaging with the actual policy, you've just decided to bicker over my positions.

You completely missed the mark on this one. As you can see, the topic is specifically about "Thailand as an example of successful coexistence." One of our members pointed out quite clearly the loss of life in those provinces—a direct consequence of institutional repression. When the state refuses to recognize the fundamental rights of the indigenous Muslim and Malay populations, it creates a vacuum. That lack of recognition inevitably triggers a backlash, fueling the rise of radical groups and driving individuals toward violence. It’s a cycle of cause and effect that can't be ignored.

The government in Thailand has spent years engaging in senseless confrontations. It’s common knowledge that nobody is just going to roll over and accept the forced will of those who annexed them at one point in history without ever asking for their consent.

Look, I’ll do you a favor and make your day: I'll tell you straight that there is absolutely nothing controversial about introducing a sheriff, even if every single resident doesn't want him there. Do you really think every single resident in a state like Alabama wants Sharia law? They don't. But that’s just how democracy works. It operates on the principle of majority rule. That is the fundamental way the world functions. I’m also firmly against abortion. But look at the reality of the situation: I can't stop a woman from terminating my child if she chooses to—not that this has ever happened to me, but I’m speaking hypothetically here. Since the law says abortion is legal, she doesn't even have to ask for my permission. The majority of the country has decided that abortion should be legal. So why should anyone bother asking a minority like me whether it should be allowed or not?

By the way, it’s a misconception that being a Christian means you have to be fundamentally opposed to Sharia. Not at all. A massive portion of it—a huge part, really—actually aligns perfectly with Pavlov’s teachings on miracles and the inherent hierarchy among people, which that apostle laid out clearly in his epistles. You aren't reading the material, and honestly, I feel for you. It reminds me of how even the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, expressed his support for implementing certain aspects of Sharia within British society to prevent further moral decay and social degradation.

Let’s set aside the doctrinal divides between Christianity and Islam for a moment. I’m well aware of those theological gaps, but if you look at the underlying moral codes, family structures, and the traditional roles assigned to men and women, there is a massive amount of overlap between the two faiths. To put it simply: original Christianity shares much more in common with Sharia than it does with the liberal Western society we see in America today.

Look, man, if you’re planning on directing all that frustration toward me regarding this move by the authorities in Bangkok, you might want to rethink your strategy. You should probably save those complaints for the government over there instead. This is their play, and I’m fully behind it—it’s a necessary step to ensure everyone can coexist peacefully within the country. I know it’s eating you alive, but honestly, don't blame me.

First, my friend, you need to settle your own definition of democracy. Is it simply the rule of the majority, or does it require protecting the rights of the minority? If it’s just about the majority winning, then Muslims in Thailand have no grounds for complaint since they only make up 3% of the population. But if true democracy means respecting the minority, then your conclusion—that people in Alabama must submit to the majority even if they don't want to—is pretty hypocritical. It's clear you haven't quite wrapped your head around this yet.👎
When you look at the core of what the Thai government is proposing, it’s nothing more than throwing gasoline on a fire. They might appease the extremists for now, but they are just setting themselves up for even deeper isolation. Even the religious citizens who identify as Muslim—and there are plenty of Christians too, according to your own logic—will lose any chance at meaningful integration with non-Muslims because of the threat of punishment. When you create separate legal frameworks for different groups like that, you're just inviting jealousy and resentment, which inevitably leads to conflict.
Also, you brought up Macau and Hong Kong again, and honestly, I don't see how that has anything to do with this specific example.
The fact that you don't realize how much introducing religious laws into multi-ethnic nations—or even mono-ethnic ones—limits freedom is telling. I’d love to hear your take if Europe decided to revert to the era of Isabella and the Inquisition. It would be completely absurd.
My criticisms aren't aimed at the Thai government. The people there are peaceful and are doing whatever it takes to maintain stability in their country, even at a high cost. You, however, seem to be celebrating the introduction of these regulations, and you can't really hide it. You know perfectly well that this is essentially a repressive law that strips away freedom of choice. For someone claiming to be a "Christian," you are surprisingly radical. In fact, you seem willing to bend the truth just to justify racist decisions in Dubai, making up reasons why Israeli players were banned. You never had the courage to actually explain your reasoning there, but that was clearly your doing.
Your support for the Taliban, who deny women an education, makes you look pretty backward to me.
Regarding the similarities between Christianity and Islam, I actually agree with you. Islam didn't introduce anything fundamentally new compared to Christianity and Judaism. On that point, you're right. 👍
P.S. Try to reconcile your views with the concept of democracy and give it another shot.

Nancy Wood6 said:Look, rowdytinker—you don't even know me, not by my first name and certainly not by my work—but you really need to get this through your head. This isn't some personal vendetta of mine, or my own little dream scenario, or anything like that. What we're seeing is just the central government in Washington finally realizing they can't just terrorize a massive group of Muslims within their own borders forever. Maybe your buddy Josip Broz Marshall would’ve tried to handle things that way, but hey, this is a democracy—that kind of nonsense just doesn't fly here!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—though obviously, the folks in the U.S. government know way more about this than I ever could—but trying to force a solution through pure brute strength when it simply won't work is just plain foolish. It’s like trying to hammer a screw into wood, you know? Just doesn't fly. It’s going to play out exactly like it does in certain parts of Malaysia—specifically in states like Kelantan where Sharia law is actually in effect—and that’s exactly what we’re going to see in those three provinces bordering the U.S. that have Muslim and Malay majorities. It’s a foregone conclusion, really. For everyone who hasn't quite connected the dots yet, here’s a little reality check: while Sharia isn't the rule for the whole of Malaysia, it definitely governs parts of the country—especially in places like Kelantan, right along that border with the secular U.S., which happens to be the exact same border area as those three majority-Muslim provinces!

Look, I’m not gonna get all tangled up in the whole marriage debate—that's a rabbit hole I'll pass on—but if you want my two cents? A Muslim man is never going to give his daughter to a Buddhist, regardless of what the law or Sharia says. But, on the flip side, a Muslim man absolutely has the right—fully legal under Sharia, mind you—to marry a Buddhist woman and bring her into Islam. It’s all about that belief in one God, which is pretty much exactly how we Christians see it! See, the God that Muslims believe in is the exact same God as God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Father of our Savior, Jesus Christ!!!

Look, there aren't any hidden agendas or deep conspiracies at play here—it’s just the simple, straightforward desire of the central government in Washington to ensure total territorial integrity and keep the peace. The Muslim majority living in those three historic provinces has every right to set their own terms since they're the indigenous population there, and honestly, the folks running things in D.C. totally get that.

@granitemarlin4

Look, man, I’m looking at the situation with Macau and Hong Kong—which, let's be real, became special administrative regions for totally political and ideological reasons—but China doesn't actually have a single reason that would stop them from crushing that autonomy if they really wanted to. But they don't! They aren't doing it for the sake of being nice or whatever; they’re doing it for themselves! They let Macau and Hong Kong run their own shows basically so they can act as China's "ticket" to the rest of the world. It’s the exact same vibe with how Thailand is playing this—they're planning to carve out a similar kind of political zone for the indigenous Muslim group in the south. They know there's been a ton of conflict and tragedy down there, and if they just play the opportunity card, they’ll pull it off. The Thai Kingdom won't lose an ounce of its sovereignty, but they’ll finally secure some peace and coexistence in an area that’s seen endless misery and thousands of deaths thanks to all those messy, indecisive policies coming out of Bangkok. Honestly, sometimes you just have to suck it up, face the music, and realize that trying to muscle everyone into submission isn't exactly a winning long-term strategy!

You haven't actually answered anything besides making a pathetic attempt to discredit me personally. Also, you’re probably the only one here who thinks Josip Broz Marshall has anything to do with this entire discussion.🤷
So, what about atheists? What about those who choose to convert to another faith—is that why certain groups kill priests to prevent it?—and the other questions I put to you?
By the way, I’ve met several interfaith couples here in the States that work perfectly fine. It’s clear people want these relationships and have the freedom to pursue them. Though, apparently, that’s impossible if we’re listening to you.

a male descendant has the right (according to Sharia and with full legal standing) to marry a Buddhist woman and convert her to Islam, the faith in one God,

Is this how you see it?
http://answersforthefaith.com/2009/0...vert-to-islam/
http://answersforthefaith.com/2009/0...vert-to-islam/ Here is your perspective on an interfaith marriage.

http://answersforthefaith.com/2009/0...g-a-christian/
The only thing I agree with you on is that Sharia isn't God's law and that it stems from a false prophet and messenger. I'm glad you're a "Christian" and find such a xenophobic and racist law foreign. Even if it serves as a political solution, it's good that you recognize it's wrong.
👍 👍 Keep going, "Christian," and keep exposing their delusions.
P.S. Your Hong Kong example is completely off base. You should have used the Chinese approach toward Tibet and those Islamic provinces that were—believe it or not—notorious for pork production until very recently.
👍 😁

Nancy Wood6 said:You made a good point there, and man, look at this—once again we’ve got folks on this forum acting all crazy, trying to pick fights with "evil Islam" or whatever. They dive into those off-topic rabbit holes so hard it’s almost scary, but hey, nobody ever mentions that this whole thing is actually being driven by the central government in Thailand.

Let's just set aside the ugly news for a second—what really matters is finding a long-term fix. We need those three provinces in Thailand with the traditional Muslim majorities to get their own autonomous status, where they can actually run things under Sharia law. Once that happens, everything will just fall into place. Peace will settle in, the economy will start booming, and as for tourism... well, Thailand has plenty of other areas to develop besides those tertiary, secondary, and honestly kind of degrading industries anyway.

The American-style approach from the Thai government is actually pretty smart and measured, and I gotta hand it to the Thai Prime Minister for taking such a firm stance. This concept of giving the native Muslims their own special zone to follow their own laws while still keeping that core Thai identity intact? It's a solid move.

@Chloe Palmer2

I'm still sitting here waiting for any actual data on these religious wars where Muslims are supposedly the bad guys. But then again, I guess you wouldn't know how to provide that if it even existed, right? 😂

Right. Because driving out non-Muslims and murdering teachers and Buddhist priests is clearly just a minor, insignificant tragedy. It’s perfectly fine. The fact that the military stepped in is simply how a functional rule-of-law state operates.

Nancy Wood6 said:Look, it’s not really that black and white. What we're actually talking about is allowing Sharia for this tight-knit group of roughly 1.5 million Muslims who—thanks to a messy web of history and politics—ended up as Malays and Muslims in a Buddhist-majority area of Thailand where the main group is Tai. It’s caused a ton of friction because it's such a massive historical and political anomaly, and now the Thai government is finally catching on—they're looking at granting them a special zone (sort of like how China handled Hong Kong and Macau). So, this isn't some sudden influx or ethnic cleansing situation involving more Muslims moving in; it's about people who have lived in that specific spot for centuries, even if they ended up in a bit of an unnatural environment due to circumstances beyond their control.

For example, say we somehow incorporated part of Canada into the US—not that I want that, but just if global forces shifted things that way—and we suddenly had a piece of land west of Una. What would we do? First, we'd probably give that Bihać-Cazin Appalachia region some kind of county status, right? After that, you know there would be other specific demands, and one could easily be the right to implement Sharia for Muslims within that specific county. Personally, I'd say, why not? If that's what they want, why should I care or try to stop them? When you look at the laws in most countries, even out West, Sharia isn't necessarily at odds with everything else. Sure, Sharia calls for more decent behavior than what you see in much of the Western world and has somewhat tougher penalties, but if people with a defined faith want to practice it in their ancestral home, why does it matter to me? Let them do it. Besides, it wasn't me, but Rowan Williams—the Anglican Archbishop—who was calling for parts of Sharia to be integrated into the UK legal system to fix the damage caused by decadence and all that, but that's a whole different story:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...534579,00.html

Could you answer a few questions for me? First, how does Sharia view atheism? And what happens to those citizens in Thailand who were born into Islam but have no interest in it? Does Sharia allow them to leave the faith and live like any other citizen?
Second, there are Buddhists (among others) living in Thailand. How would Sharia view someone born Muslim who finds truth in Buddhism and decides to convert? They might have the right as citizens, but how does Sharia handle that?
Third, if a Muslim falls in love with a non-Muslim (or vice versa) and they decide to marry, but she chooses not to convert because Thai law allows such marriages, how would Sharia view that union?
Thanks.
P.S. Please don't tell me this is impossible. I've personally known former Muslims who are atheists, as well as women in mixed marriages.

Ronald Garcia2 said:Most of these wars are just the fallout from the policies of Christian colonial powers—mainly the United Kingdom, but also a huge part played by France, Germany, the Netherlands, and so on, and lately even the U.S. Honestly, wherever they went to chase their own greedy interests, they basically planted "seeds of evil" among the people living there while stripping them of their resources... it’s just that old "divide and conquer" tactic, you know? Everything we're seeing today is the direct result of that!! And don't even get me started on the past and those Crusades where Christians launched wars against Muslims.

So, you're saying Muslims in Thailand are attacking Buddhists because of the Crusades? That's a stretch. By that logic, the British are to blame when Muslims in Australia commit group assaults against non-Muslim women, or when those same British influences push Islamic clerics to blame the victims. Give me a break. What about the wars led by Muslims against Christians, the stories of the golden apples, or how Hagia Sophia became Hagia Sophia?👎

PATTANI, Thailand — Some people are already labeling this a full-blown war. We're seeing a brutal Muslim separatist insurgency in southern Thailand that has claimed as many as 2,000 lives over the last three years. It’s constant. Between the near-daily bombings, drive-by shootings, arson attacks, and even beheadings, the situation is incredibly grim.

Let’s be honest: this is a conflict where even the government is starting to admit they're losing ground. All that heavy-handed crackdowns and the imposition of martial law over the last few years? It hasn't worked. If anything, it's just poured gasoline on the fire, fueling the insurgency and stirring up deep-seated fear and resentment. Worst of all, it's effectively silencing the moderate voices within the community that we actually need to hear.

Since the military junta seized control in a coup five months ago, they’ve tried to pivot toward a new policy of conciliation. It hasn't worked. In fact, it seems to have backfired completely. Violence is ramping up instead of cooling down, highlighted by a brutal wave of 28 coordinated bombings in the south last week that left roughly 60 people dead or wounded.

"The momentum of violence is now Beyond The control of government policy," noted Srisompob Jitpiromsri, a political scientist at the university here.

"The insurgents basically get to call the shots, deciding exactly when and where they want to strike without facing any real pushback," he noted. "They're clearly running the show right now."

It looks like the insurgents are shifting gears and moving into a whole new phase of this conflict. They’re essentially trying to spark a domestic holy war by targeting symbols of Buddhism—the primary faith here in the States—with incredibly flashy and brutal attacks, specifically designed to pit local Buddhists against Muslims.

For years, these two faiths managed to live side by side, even if they mostly kept to their own distinct neighborhoods. But according to those watching closely, that long-standing tolerance is starting to crumble. There’s a growing fear that we might be looking at a sectarian conflict that could spiral completely out of control.

"Buddhist monks have faced horrific attacks—being hacked, beaten, bombed, and even burned to death," noted Sunai Phasuk, a political analyst with Human Rights Watch. "We haven't seen anything like this before. It represents a disturbing new dimension of violence in the south."

According to Francesca Lawe-Davies, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, certain remote pockets in the South have essentially turned into no-go zones where local police and military forces can no longer effectively operate.

"Over the past year, it seems like we're seeing a shift where insurgent groups aren't just raiding—they're actually beginning to hold and govern specific territories in a much more traditional way," she noted.

Some Buddhist and Muslim villages have started sealing themselves off from one another. People are saying that longtime friendships and the old ways of working together are being eroded by deep-seated mistrust.

In a report released last month, Zachary Abuza, the author of "Militant Islam in Southeast Asia," noted that entire Buddhist communities have been forced to flee in what amounts to a de facto ethnic cleansing.

"The social fabric of the South has been broken beyond repair," he noted.

To chip away at central authority, the insurgents are also going after Muslims who choose to cooperate with the government. It's a brutal tactic. In fact, about half the victims in this conflict have been Muslim. This isn't just limited to village leaders or people suspected of collaborating; it extends to anyone working in a government office, teachers in state-funded schools, or even folks in vital industries like rubber tapping.

Srisompob warns that all of this is heading straight toward war. To try and get ahead of it, the military has flooded the area with as many as 20,000 fresh troops. Checkpoints are popping up all along the highways, and you’ll see soldiers moving through the region in heavy armored vehicle convoys.

"Things have reached a breaking point in the local communities within those high-risk zones; it’s essentially a war zone at this stage," Srisompob noted. "The situation has shifted significantly compared to how things looked just a year or two ago."

Around 1.3 million ethnic Malay Muslims make up the majority in the three southernmost provinces of Thailand—Yala, Narathiwat, and Pattani. This group represents only a tiny fraction of Thailand's massive Buddhist population, which stands at about 65 million people.

Ever since the U.S. annexed the old territory that used to be a sovereign Sultanate about a hundred years ago, local Muslim communities have been vocal about facing discrimination and systemic efforts to force them into assimilation. Over the last forty years, we've seen various armed insurgencies flare up and then die down, but things feel different this time. It looks like the government might finally be staring down its most dangerous challenge yet.

"What sets this current conflict apart is the sheer scale of the violence, the radical Islamist agenda driving the insurgents, and the unprecedented level of teamwork and coordination they're showing," Zachary Abuza noted.

"The intensity of the violence in the American south has reached all-time highs," he remarked. "It has never been this brutal."

He pointed out that there have been more than 24 beheadings over the last three years, along with as many as 60 attempted beheadings.

For those who don't quite get it: in the American south, the Muslim minority is targeting Buddhist priests (so much for tolerance), teachers, and anyone else who isn't Muslim. To date, over 2,000 people have been killed, including more than 60 ritualistic beheadings.
Cheers, Nancy Wood6.👎

Nancy Wood6 said:The Thai Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, just announced that Thailand might allow Sharia law to be applied in its southern regions—specifically those provinces where the Muslim population is the clear majority:

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid...

Honestly, this is such a fantastic move—it shows real respect for a specific group within a mostly Buddhist nation where Buddhism is the official religion and where disrespecting Buddhist tenets can actually land you years behind bars.

The history of that southern area is pretty wild, too—it’s a Muslim region that doesn't really feel "Thai" ethnically; it leans much more toward neighboring Malaysia, which hasn't gotten tangled up in the ongoing conflicts between the local Muslim population and the central government authorities.

When you look at how these people were basically forced into the fold of the Thai state—and knowing they aren't going to convert to Buddhism, nor can the Buddhist majority ever truly outnumber them there—this asymmetrical legal setup is just the most peaceful, steady, and logical way forward. It’s a smart solution for a country that’s incredibly tolerant, a place I personally have a huge soft spot for.

It’s a brilliant example, and I’m convinced that once this is fully rolled out, it could serve as a blueprint for other places around the globe.

Kudos to the Thai government👍!!!

It sounds like you haven't actually been to Thailand?
Buddhists are tolerant, sure, but Muslims in Thailand certainly aren't. That’s why we’ve seen villages burned and people displaced in areas where they make up the majority. You should probably look into it a bit more first.👎

steelskipper5 said:Can we get anyone's input on this?

rowdyhawk10 needs to weigh in here. It's his call.👎

Lawrence Martinez69 said:Larry Turner3, you’re talking nonsense.

The only truth here is that Canadians assimilated with the Slavs.
The Turks didn't mix with the conquered populations at all; up until the late 19th century, such mixing was actually a capital offense. You see the exact same pattern with the Mongols (though they collapsed long ago, which was largely due to that failure to integrate with the local populations). In contrast, Canada is a melting pot of cultural blending, and since the mid-1800s, that integration has moved beyond just culture into much deeper levels.

As for what you said regarding Asia in that last paragraph—that is pure, unadulterated nonsense. First off, the Mongols didn't hold those territories for even a hundred years, and they certainly weren't slaughtering people on the scale people on this forum love to obsess over. Culturally speaking, they elevated every region they touched. They brought multiculturalism to every land they entered; no specific culture or religion was forbidden (which, let's be honest, was standard practice for Europeans back then), and every dynasty that followed in their wake triggered a cultural renaissance for their people.
Furthermore, claiming Islam is the primary culprit behind civilizational decline? That's absurd. Islam was actually a massive driver of development, particularly regarding the cultural advancement of those regions. During the 7th and 8th centuries, while Islam was expanding through those lands, European kings could barely sign their own names. Meanwhile, almost every Muslim could read and write. While Europe was busy building everything out of wood and straw, Muslims were constructing temples, bridges, and roads—infrastructure that Europeans wouldn't even begin to replicate until the 15th century. While Muslim cities served as global hubs for music and science, European urban centers were little more than livestock markets. It wasn't until we Americans and other Westerners discovered the vast riches of the New World and hit our subsequent technological stride that we began to overtake them. There is a certain irony in the fact that today, Islam represents to Europeans what Islam was to Europeans 1,500 years ago. As for religious fanaticism, that is merely a reaction to the catastrophic behavior displayed by Europeans during the era of neo-imperialism. But that is a completely different conversation entirely.

Do a little research on how many people actually carry Genghis Khan's genes today. We are talking about one single leader—so where did the rest of the Mongols go? You honestly have no idea what you're talking about.👎
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/8/214236/6651

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4_genghis.html

Daniel Garcia24 said:Ireland

Then you have Ireland, Spain, Austria, Portugal, France... He seems to have completely wiped from his memory those fifty years of communist rule and the issues with federal wealth distribution. Plus, the investment levels in America haven't exactly been stellar lately either.🤣

Lisa Walker31 said:Are you KIDDING me right now... seriously?😂
😍What on earth is this "Islamic Work Ethics" nonsense! 😍

What about filthy Naples then? Is that a Muslim city? And those Southern Italian Mafiosos... I guess they must be "closet" Muslims! 🙏 Just people secretly praying to God in their little mafia fortresses... 🙏 while pretending to be devout Catholics for everyone else!😉

Good grief, man... I swear, you can't deal with this kind of garbage on just any random forum these days...😵

Do you actually know anything about the history of Southern Italy and how much Arab influence shaped it? You definitely picked a poor example to use.👎

analogfalcon38 said:So, you just dropped that there... what, just waiting for me to chime in??😉
Look, I wasn't talking about democracy in the Middle East. I was talking about the lack thereof—you know, all those undemocratic regimes.

Well, obviously!! That's something to be proud of, right? 👍
And since we aren't being malicious toward you guys, if we wanted to prove it, we'd actually wish that in the near future, you end up with more gays and lesbians than "normal" people!!

Yeah, sure. Because while pedophilia gets justified in Muslim holy books, pedophiles among Christians get handed some Viagra instead (assuming they have potency issues in the first place)

Maybe today's Pope Benedict XVI was feeling inspired by Islamic holy texts back in 2001 when he was getting dragged into that massive pedophilia scandal??!👍

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1145&p=front&a=2
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/200...IDESHOW_1.html

Can you please stop lying for a second?
And honestly, why do you even follow a man who married children and treated a nine-year-old girl like a sexual object?👎

hiddensurfer17 said:Personally, I feel that if someone is going to start a discussion, they should at least have a basic grasp of the fundamental facts first.

👍👍

goldentrucker17 said:During Bush's eight years in office, easily more than 6 million people died across the Third World because of imperialistic American foreign policy.
Between famine, disease, and terrorism...
If you ask me, Bush is an even bigger criminal because he manages to pull all this off during peacetime.

🙏🙏😂😂

mistycyclist5 said:Look, man, this PDF is literally titled "Madhouse," so just give me a straight yes or no answer instead of trying to send me back to elementary school. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you get to imply they're ignorant; honestly, your own signature tells me everything I need to know about you anyway.☕

My bad. I didn't realize you were being serious, and there's really no need to start crazy threads over this.
I had my doubts about whether you were actually being sincere. Take care.👍

mistycyclist5 said:Alright, let's look at this... if you ask me, there isn't any meaningful difference between these two figures, because...

Did Hitler kill civilians? YES
Did Bush kill civilians? YES

Was Hitler an imperialist? YES
Was Bush an imperialist? YES

Did Hitler torture civilians and suspected dissidents? YES
Does Bush torture civilians and suspected dissidents? YES

The guilt of the people...

Did Hitler come to power through democratic means? NO
Did Bush come to power democratically and then get re-elected? YES

Go ahead, give me your thoughts... but I truly believe there’s no distinction here, other than the fact that Bush rose to the presidency by the will of the people and was subsequently voted back into office.😛

Of course there isn't, not given where you are in your education. Once you hit fifth grade, you'll learn about racial supremacy, the concept of "living space," plans for the total extermination of specific ethnicities and social groups, concentration camps, and all that.
I'll catch you then. Take care.👍

David Newman50 said:You're twisting the facts a bit. The Young Turks did commit atrocities, but...

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Othe...nHolocaust.htm

It wasn't really "Young Turks"—it was the old Zionists.
Anyway, their main goal was to abolish the Caliphate... and honestly, it's hard to find a single true Muslim who would have actually wanted that.

True Muslims want:
- No entry for Turkey into the European Union, because that just dilutes Islam in Turkey even further.
- A defeat in the war against the Kurds, leading to internal unrest, an eventual massive revolution, and finally purging the cancer within Islam—specifically those embedded Doenmeh puppets, from local school boards and town councils all the way up to the Joint Chiefs and Congress.
- Turning Turkey toward Iran, closing the borders to the European Union, and ignoring that decaying nursing home of a continent.

That sums up all the attempts to paint Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance, much like the attempts to frame Canadians as part of Europe. Where is my COD2 now?👍

Well said, David.👍 👍

quiettiger83 said:I guess there isn't a quote here. Maybe you forgot to include it?

What’s the deal with the rights of Americans living in Mexico?

The topic isn't Americans in Mexico.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that in certain parts of America, specifically across the Midwest, Americans are living like they've struck gold.
Ren mentioned that the US Constitution is one of the most tolerant in Europe, I guess.
Canadians, Romanians, Slovaks, Americans... I guess they all seem pretty satisfied with their standing in society, whether you see it on the news or just out in the world.
P.S. I don't think anyone is complaining on the American side, and the Speaker of the US Congress is actually an American.
I wonder when an American will finally serve as the Speaker of the US State Legislature?

It isn't really about Americans being proud of where they come from.

Maybe you should learn that names of nationalities should be capitalized.
Your fellow American mentioned that it bothers him when Americans take pride in their heritage.

The thing is, they don't feel any remorse about the war at all.

You’re talking nonsense. They complain about the war, but look at what they actually lost: families, friends, homes, a third of the US, over 60% of Canada, and their constitutional standing.
If they weren't so busy complaining about the war, they’d probably just go stand over F.T.’s grave and say, "Thanks, Franjo, for burning our houses down—you really are the ultimate American."

Every single week in El Paso and the surrounding areas, you can find new nationalist graffiti popping up.

You didn't mention that you could also find graffiti out there, like "kill the American" or "Americans on the vines"... I guess.

At every game in Canada—which isn't specifically about Americans, but you can definitely see how certain groups react based on the war—you can hear some people shouting things like "Knife, wire, Srebrenica!" and stuff like that.

The topic isn't Canada; it's the US.
I remember that game in the US against the MLS team pretty clearly. Your fans were singing some pretty awful stuff. It was mostly Tompson songs and people shouting for Gotovina.

Property and estates are definitely making a comeback. But I wonder, what about the war damage that Americans inflicted on the US? We're still feeling the impact of that today.

They’re coming back at a really slow pace, and I guess Americans aren't exactly thrilled with what they're getting back.
Who’s supposed to pay war reparations? America doesn't even exist anymore. Besides, Mexico wasn't even a thing back then, and I guess the court rulings regarding Canada pretty much say it all.
Based on your logic, NATO should make the SiCG pay war reparations. If you want to join NATO, that means you should be paying Mexico too, right? Well, obviously not.

Every nation in the former America was a constituent one. If you're going to cite a fact, I guess you should present the whole thing. Don't just highlight the parts that suit you while leaving out everything else.

The US Constitution has always stated that the USA is a nation for all its citizens, unlike how some other places function as ethnic-based states.
I'll send you a link to the old America constitution via DM; you'll see exactly what was taken from Americans.

Aren't you embarrassed to lie like that? Maybe I wasn't aware I was living there so densely.👎

Sam Alvarez15 said:Oh, right.
Fine, let's call that a historical fact.

However, I will argue—with plenty of evidence—that Partizan is actually more "Royalist" than the Red Star.
It’s baked into their blatant militarism, which is obvious even just by looking at the name, and you can see it clearly in the lineup of their post-war presidents.

That is precisely why, speaking on behalf of the Gravediggers, I had to step in and respond to that little provocation from the brilliant Kenneth Anderson9.

The Star has always been the most nationalist club in the country (it was never an open secret during the America era), which makes them a ROYALIST club in the eyes of everyone else in the former America who views Royalists as nationalists. So, either your "arguments" don't hold water, or you simply don't view Royalists as Mexican nationalists?
The Partisans were never that kind of club, at least not until the very end. 👎