US burns Afghan Qu'rans.

The screen name: Old, (that means at least 24 years ago), Mercs, (Mercury outboards, tall purdy Black Ladies..... inline6s), Rule, (speaks fer itsef). Does yer brain werk: Einstein?

 

The preponderance of the evidence indicates America is Christ-ordained. I believe we ACTUALLY ARE the Israel that Jesus/God said He'd so heartily bless. America was discovered and claimed by Catholics. (Not "jews", mind you.") It was then settled by Puritans and Pilgrims. All Christian denominations.

The satan-worshipping freemasons - an appendage of "judaism" (http://posse-comitatus-usa.blogspot.com/2010/01/bollyn-on-jewish-freemasons-known-as.html) - came later. But freemasons still comprised only 11% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

 

coming from a someone who cites extreme right-wing fascist hate websites I take any insult from you as a compliment and verification that I'm correct in my assessment.

 

yes the Spanish had a name for them

The Marranos

 

An Israeli rabbi has been charged with repeated sexual assault on students in a girls’ school in a city north of Tel Aviv where he used to work as principal.


Rabbi Yigal Krispel, 47, was arrested last week after two former students at a school for Haredi (Orthodox Jewish) girls filed complaints against him saying he had sexually assaulted them.

The Kfar Saba Magistrate's Court has extended the remand of the Netanya rabbi, who has also been accused of raping a young teacher.

The family of the 20-year-old teacher complained that Krispel had abused his power to have sexual relations with her.

Israeli authorities said the prominent Netanya figure was now suspected of indecent acts, sodomy, sexual misconduct, nonconsensual sex and rape, involving both minor and adult victims.

 

When the FBI begins its search for your manifesto, I'll be sure to direct them to this thread.

 

"The satan-worshipping freemasons"

Nope.

 

What ever floats that boat of yers is fine by me.... burp....

 

The first crusade was actually a defensive war in reaction to hundreds of years of Islamic Imperialist expansionism into the lands of Christendom.

No actually it was not engineered by Jews it was engineered by the Islamic Imperialists who seek to bring the entire world into the fold of dar al-Islam through offensive Jihad which is proven conclusively by all of the available evidence, the so called evidence that it was anyone else but AQ who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks has been thoroughly debunked.

 

How exactly did signing an agreement protecting the Catholic Church in Germany give Hitler carte-blanch for anything other than not persecuting Catholics in Germany?

 

Just demonstrating Hitler's duplicity in view of his later actions against those of whom he had made pacts with.
That, however isn't really relevant. What absolutely is crucial is the documented support and legitimacy the Vatican gave to the Nazi regime.

 

It was not. It was an offensive Holy war to regain the Holy Land.

 

Absolutely; the word 'expeditionary' here describes them perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

Which country didn't recognize the National Socialist regime of Germany as the legitimate sovereign government at the time? How did attempting to secure protection for Catholicism in Germany grant them anymore legitimacy than they already had let alone grant them "carte blanche" to conduct a genocide against the Jews?

 

lol you state it was an offensive war while simultaneously admitting it was in order to regain territory lost to the Islamic Imperialists during their wars of conquests against the lands of Christendom.

The Islamic Imperialist expansionism through unprovoked wars of conquest against the Byzantine Empire and Western Christendom began appx. 500 years before the first crusades.

But let's start with the unprovoked war of aggression of the Rashidun Caliphate against the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire of Persia where the Islamic Imperialists conquered Persia and Mesopotamia between 633 and 656, they then moved on to conquer Syria in 637, then they conquered Armenia in 639, then they conquered Egypt in 639, then they conquered North Africa in 652.

Under the Umayyads they finished their conquest of North Africa in 665, then between 662 and 709 they conquered Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and southwest Kazakhstan, then between 664 and 712 they conquered the Indian sub-continent entirely, then between 711 and 718 they conquered the Iberian Peninsula of Hispania, they then laid siege to Constantinople between 717 and 718, then between 711 and 750 they conquered the Caucasus, they then conquered Tbilisi in 736, and they then conquered southern Italy in 827.

And yet the First Crusade didn't even start until 1096 which was a clear war of self defense in response to Islamic Imperialist conquest of an expansion into the lands of Christendom.

 

No the word "defensive" describes them perfectly considering the nearly 5 centuries of Islamic Imperialist expansionism into Christendom before the 1st crusade ever took place.

 

I see you cannot tell the difference between a defensive and offensive war.When you go thousands of miles from your homeland to conquer any other place that is what we call an offensive war. No need to thank me.

 

Then by your own criteria, the muzzi did conduct an offensive war when they traveled thousands (sic) of miles to conquer spain, southern italy, and all of those other place Doc mentionned...

Since they did, by your standard wage and offensive war, you have to agree then that the european were perfectly in their right to respond in kind to hundred of years of agression and provocation...

Thanks for your wonderful contribution...

 

You seem to have missed on purpose I feel what me and another poster were talking about. Maybe next time you will read what has been written and then you will be able to contribute more effectively. Thanks.

 

Oh no buddy... I've read it all... You're just trying to deflect so you won't lose face... A bit to late.

Again, thanks for confirming that your muzzi friend were indeed the aggressor and that the christian nation were right in trying to defend themself and retake the land that were stolen.

 

You obviously did not read it all otherwise you would not have commented on Spain when we were talking about the Crusades to the Holy land which in my atlas is nowhere near Spain. Thanks.

 

lol it was the lands of Christendom before it was invaded, conquered and subjugated by the Islamic Imperialist hordes, it was CHRISTIAN land not Muslim land, it was a defensive war in response to nearly 5 centuries of Islamic Imperialist expansion into CHRISTIAN lands! This would be like asserting that the Battle of Normandy was part of a defensive war on the part of Nazi Germany. Being engaged in a defensive war means that you are not the aggressor, and it was the Islamic Imperialists who were the aggressors during the Crusades in fact they had been waging an offensive war against the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus, and the Buddhists for 5 centuries before the First Crusade even began.

 

Spain who was invaded by your muzzi friends, hence they were the aggressor...

 

Pity that all good historians on the subject disagree with you. It was a call to arms by the Pope for white Europeans to conquer the Holy land. From my history books I do not believe that white Europeans come from the Holy Land,therefore an offensive war to steal someone else's land.

 

What history books? You seem to be lacking quite a bit of knowledge in that field to be making the claim that you have even studied it.

The muzzi invaded and conquered countries that didn't belong to them. The Christian decided to take some back.

But then again, you're probably a british muslim yourself so I guess that explain the lack of credible knowledge in history.