to try to combat terrorism. :clap:
He always gets in inside 24 hours. In the world of appeasers, Jenkins is a true giant.
to try to combat terrorism. :clap:
He always gets in inside 24 hours. In the world of appeasers, Jenkins is a true giant.
However relevant or not-relevant the approx one-to-two million deaths in Muslim countries resulting from recent conflicts initiated by US-UK-France and some other NATO outlets may be in this discussion, the above could equally be making the point that the 'revenge on crusaders' argument sometimes made by IS/AQ and their ilk is utterly specious.
But they don't make that argument. In Dabiq they made it clear that they would still kill us regardless of our foreign policy. They don't kill us because of what we do, they kill us because we exist.
The only people who actually think ISIS attack us because of our foreign policies are western-based lefties keen to excuse muslim extremism and condemn western nations.
I have no idea who the bloke is but the article veers between stupid and pointless, frequently embracing both.
Who gives a **** if we have to put up a few barriers?
This statue stuff in America is annoying the **** out of me as well, not least because I have ended up agreeing with Donald ****ing Trump......
Well this is sort of the thing with the polarisation of US politics. After a while, almost any sane human being is forced into a situation where they have to either agree with Donald Trump or tacitly endorse the lunacy that is rife among his opponents. It's how he won the election.
I'm not sure. Practically everyone's had lunatic Left sympathies at some stage in their life, haven't they. Perhaps that's the trouble; had everyone always been as staunch as they now claim, we wouldn't be where we are now? After all, the Left has always struggled politically, electorally, over a longer period of time so, to alleviate this, it's always really been about the culture (education, the media etc.), for them. That's long been their battlefield of choice, so to speak.
One of the points argued is that these statues were not put up just after the civil war but either in the 20s or 60s - the latter in opposition to the civil rights movement. Also, that no-one complains when statues of Lenin and co are removed in the former USSR.
I'm not really on any side here, btw. Though by a coincidence I got a book on London statues and monuments for my birthday this week. I might go and pull a few down if I disagreed with something they did.
Oh, and I also read some remarkably racist quotes from Abraham Lincoln which somewhat deflates the virtue balloon of the Unionist side.
Well yes I do, but I accept that birds can't be as good at some things as men because they don't have the same physical strength or ability to throw. Also, in some circumstances they can become all emotional about shít. So having chicks on the front line, for example, would be a step too far for me.
I'm all over the bumders, as you know, but I'm not really happy about gay marriage. Adam and Eve, innit. Not Adam and Steve.
As for God, I remain agnostic. Or I think so, anyway.
None of these opinions is leftist or rightist, is it? Surely they're just... common sense?
Sure. But the context here is "rightists" believing these things go without saying and "leftists" thinking that these are terrible anomalies and injustices that need to be wiped from history regardless of any common sense aspects.
Essentially, it's the singer that's important here, rather than the song.