# Coming to a neighborhood near you



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

With millions of these guys "immigrating" how long until this is new normal in our country?
10 years.. maybe not.. 20 years, perhaps?





While the all but the last show islamic rebels the very last one shows a gov't SWAT team raiding an opposition house.. and this is already reality here right now.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

This nation is already ran by cartels and other radicals. Mostly in the outhouse but many of their worker bees are running major cities. 
In 2 years you won't even recognize this nation. 

This started back in the 60s when the communist put their political hit men inside our military and political offices. Just a message from what they tell me out of their own mouth. Listen and you will hear it too.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)




----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

America stands for self reliance, small gov't and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, the right to own a gun to deny the gov't a monopoly of violence etc.

Basically everything liberals abhor.

Liberals literally hate America IMO, specifically what it really stands for.
But it is unique and other countrys dont share our embrace of liberty.

So how to "transform" america?
Import so many people at the same time that they cannot possibly assimilate and will form thier own ethnic enclaves bringing thier love of big gov't and gun control and hate for capitalism with them.

Eventually they will overwhelm native voters and empower the enemies of our republic to destroy it.

Thats whats happening now and it is very deliberate.


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


>


RIGHT............ Concentrate on what makes us different instead of what we have in common, divide and conquer.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

I disagree. America stands for huge obtrusive government, 10s of millions of aborted Americans in their mother's womb and oppression of other nations to extract wealth. Now that it's getting tougher to extract wealth from poorer nations, government and it's controllers are focusing on us. Now your government has been caught giving a foreign nation all your data on email (including full content of discussions), photos, phone calls (including access to content of call) without oversight or protections from that foreign nation. Can anyone guess which foreign nation has been given more access to your data than the NSA is allowed to view themselves? 

McCain wouldn't be flying in on holidays when America isn't watching to support those rebels brutalizing people if the above wasn't true. And if Americans hadn't given in to the liberals to abort 55 million babies we wouldn't be seeing government allow so many illegal immigrants into the nation.


----------



## Iafrate (Oct 9, 2013)

If one goes either completely right or left one goes in circles


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

And moving farther to the right or left leads the two opposing sides to the same point in that circle. 

What you're seeing in Syria is Sunni/Wahabi against Shia/Alawite. The USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia are backing the rebel Sunni/Wahabi against the Shia/Alawite. And Al Qaeda are Sunni/Wahabi.

Iraq was Sunni headed under Saddam. Now the Shia majority have control. The Sunnis are instigating all the attacks in Iraq against the Shia majority. You'll hear that confirmed if you listen to the reports.


----------



## Iafrate (Oct 9, 2013)

BlueShoe said:


> And moving farther to the right or left leads the two opposing sides to the same point in that circle.
> 
> What you're seeing in Syria is Sunni/Wahabi against Shia/Alawite. The USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia are backing the rebel Sunni/Wahabi against the Shia/Alawite. And Al Qaeda are Sunni/Wahabi.
> 
> Iraq was Sunni headed under Saddam. Now the Shia majority have control. The Sunnis are instigating all the attacks in Iraq against the Shia majority. You'll hear that confirmed if you listen to the reports.


My point was not specifically directed at the situation in Syria.Rather it was an observational statement that has truth. The only way a ship or airplane can go straight forward is the middle course, without left or right course changes. The same is true for societal and governmental actions


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

I agree with your statement and my statement regarding Syria was really not related. Just adding additional information. Thanks for the clarification and disambiguation of my remark.


----------



## GaryS (Nov 15, 2011)

Any doubt in your minds that there will eventually be a world war between Islam and everyone else? When that major battle is decided, the war will filter down to factions and tribes before people tire of killing each other and civilization tries one more time.

Nature has her own way of dealing with too many rats on the planet.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

I don't want to think so, but America is doing it's part even though we have almost no interest in the battle. Our part is coming at the hands of others controlling us. Britain refusing to engage Syria led to America refusing to engage Syria. Thankfully.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

BlueShoe said:


> I don't want to think so, but America is doing it's part even though we have almost no interest in the battle. Our part is coming at the hands of others controlling us.


You can say we (the US) have almost no interest, but I think we are at least as interested as a deer might be interested in deer hunting season...if he is only smart enough and aware enough to realize that such a thing exists.

Given that they call us the "Great Satan," why would they not want to hunt us down and kill us? How do you turn your back and walk away from such people? Who makes peace with the devil? They will surely not accept peace from us.

We have an interest in this whether we want to or not. We can't just ignore the fact that there are people out there who want to martyr themselves while trying to kill our children.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

There's a great game being played where a Godless America sets about to attack another nation's enemies for them. And we're being suckered right into it because people refuse to stand against evil right here in our land. We're not the deer. Our leaders are invading on a new "Crusade" as Bush stated. And the American people are sheep. In our lands is a wolf dressed as a lamb pretending to have a broken leg, and pointing at the middle east as the perpetrators for us to go after. 

You have the names right, but the players wrongly attributed. The devil is in DC and on talk radio and talk TV. You'll find him telling you all of Islam is the problem when it's the USA violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and creating the mechanism that oppresses their region for our allies, even though it's against our own domestic laws and against the NNT that we signed.

I'm positive "they" don't call us the Great Satan. Some Saudis do and we call them our ally.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

BlueShoe said:


> ...the USA violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and creating the mechanism that oppresses their region for our allies, even though it's against our own domestic laws and against the NNT that we signed.


How is the United States violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

It's the very reason some in those parts call us a rogue nation. No signer of the Treaty shall give any aid (military or economic) to a nuclear nation which has not signed the Treaty. We're demanding everyone else in the world abide by the Treaty when we don't do it in the slightest. We completely violate it and have for 30 years by giving a non-signing Israel military/economic aid.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

Only for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct that we brought this [terrorism] on ourselves [or their actions are somehow justified, which I don't grant except to further this discussion]. That is the past, and we cannot change it. The only thing that is important is whether or not the other side will allow disengagement and peace. They will not. So, the only important question is what do we do now, given that they will not.

As far as the NPT is concerned, I don't think it bars non-nuclear military aid to Israel, just nuclear weapons aid. But I confess not to be an expert, so if you could site a section of the treaty for me to review, I will take a look.


----------



## biobacon (Aug 20, 2012)

Face it guys, the goose is just about cooked. Two options are ahead, Much like 1861 this house divided can not stand. It will not endure half free and half slave. It will cease being both things and become one thing.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Tacitus said:


> Let's assume you are correct that we brought this on ourselves. That is the past, and we cannot change it. The only thing that is important is whether or not the other side will allow disengagement and peace. They will not. So, the only important question is what do we do now, given that *they will not*.


Who told you the future?! What we do is stop aiding a non-signing nation and do what we demand of other nations. And then we can expect them to abide by the Treaty and let them concentrate on their regional problems without our involvement.



> As far as the NNT is concerned, I don't think it bars any aid to Israel, just nuclear weapons aid. But I confess not to be an expert, so if you could site a section of the treaty for me to review, I will take a look.


You're not considering reality then. A signature nation is absolutely barred from any military aid to a non-signing nuke nation, period. But there's even more than that to our rogue status. Check out the Symington Amendment which is USA domestically passed law stating it to be illegal and forbidden for the USA to give any aid to a non-signee nuclear nation.



> The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).
> 
> The Glenn Amendment (Section 670) was later adopted in 1977, and provided the same sanctions against countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology or explode or transfer a nuclear device. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).


You mentioned defending ourselves from "them". I don't think people understand who is declaring to be our enemy. Have any Muslim American newspaper owners called to assassi ate Obie?

http://www.jpost.com/International/Atlanta-Jewish-newspaper-calls-for-Obama-assassination



> Atlanta Jewish newspaper calls for Obama assassination
> By GIL SHEFLER
> LAST UPDATED: 01/22/2012 02:00
> 
> ...


And this is how a rabbi feels about the backlash. Total support and defense of him. Watch him totally LIE that the "poor man...did nothing wrong" and "didn't threaten anyone or the President." ~'Western democracy isn't what is important' to them. Only Israel. 




I ask why Andrew Adler isn't in jail?


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

BlueShoe said:


> A signature nation is absolutely barred from any military aid to a non-signing nuke nation, period.


Do you withdraw your contention that the US is violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

It seems that you have changed directions, and you are now saying that the US is in violation of the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. My Nonproliferation Treaty research didn't support your contention, so I'm less motivated to look up the Symington Amendment, but I may. [Edit: I just looked at one summary of that act, and it looks like it has an exception when the failure to provide such aid would have an adverse effect on US interests. You can drive an aircraft carrier through that loophole.]

Regardless, I don't think that is what is driving the current war with radical Islam.

Regarding the rest of your post: Is it your contention that Jews are a greater enemy to the United States than radical Islam? I can't take that proposal seriously, which means we may have reached the end of our discussion.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

When there's no where left to deflect, people seem to like to declare victory and march away. I posted the verbiage of the other two acts so there could be no question of the fact that the US is barred from aiding a non-signer nuke weaponed nation and that's by both the NNPT and the Symington & Glen acts. I did it for those who don't support international regulations. Do you agree that we are in violation under either or both and are thus "rogue"? Would that provoke an Iran who is a signee and within rights to develop nuke programs so long as they're not weaponized?

Radical Islam will remain radicalized. That isn't Islam and most Muslims are Asians anyway. Not Arabs. I'm positive a faction of Islam will always hate us. I'm positive that we are responsible for plenty of it. We killed probably more than a hundred thousand Iraqis, for example. And nations such as Iran aren't Arabs.

I didn't say anyone is our enemy, or which is greater. I let their own words say it in print and video from their own hands/mouths. I said there weren't any Muslim newspaper owners calling to off our President right here in America. I posted a video of his religious leader supporting and defending him...and lying while saying our version of democrat rule is not what they honor. I didn't make a statement other than people should listen to those who define themselves as our enemy.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

BlueShoe said:


> the USA violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and creating the mechanism that oppresses their region for our allies, *even though it's against our own domestic laws* and against the NNT that we signed.


Post #14 of mine, since you stated I have changed directive by bringing Symington and Glen into the discussion. "Domestic laws". That is the Symington and Glen Acts which were my first response to your questions to me.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

BlueShoe said:


> I posted the verbiage of the other two acts so there could be no question of the fact that the US is barred from aiding a non-signer nuke weaponed nation and that's by both the NNPT and the Symington & Glen acts.


You posted text from wikipedia about Symington/Glen. I noted it has a gaping exception making it irrelevant.

You posted nothing from the NNPT, which is why I asked if you were withdrawing your statement about the US violating it. I see nothing in the NNPT that indicates we violate it by providing non-nuclear aid to Israel.

But again, as before, I would invite you to provide a pointer to something I may have missed in the treaty. I'm not an expert; I'm just an ordinary guy on the internet reading materials and making judgement calls. It is possible I missed something, but so far you seem to be wrong.


BlueShoe said:


> Do you agree that we are in violation under either or both and are thus "rogue"?


No. You have not satisfied your burden to support your position. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you need more support for me to give them consideration.

Also, I'm not saying the US never violates international law. I'm absolutely sure it does. But your contentions about these particular supposed violations are so far unsupported and even if true, they have very little to do with the ongoing war.


BlueShoe said:


> Would that provoke an Iran who is a signee and within rights to develop nuke programs so long as they're not weaponized?


You are saying that Iran is developing nuclear weapons now because the US provided ordinary (non-nuclear) aid to Israel? That seems a stretch. There are many more likely reasons Iran is doing that (in clear violation of the treaty, by the way, unlike your factual allegations which even if true are not a clear violation of the treaty).


BlueShoe said:


> I didn't say anyone is our enemy, or which is greater. I let their own words say it in print and video from their own hands/mouths. I said there weren't any Muslim newspaper owners calling to off our President right here in America. I posted a video of his religious leader supporting and defending him...and lying while saying our version of democrat rule is not what they honor. I didn't make a statement other than people should listen to those who define themselves as our enemy.


I listened, and I find your evidence underwhelming. Perhaps everyone else is convinced. No need for me to "declare victory before I march away."


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

I suspect that without nuclear weapons we would have seen many more wars in the middle east initiated by their neighbors.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

And that's a regional issue we should not be so involved in. It's why middle class people move out of areas where people have less to lose than themselves. 
You earlier said Israel is free. How do you feel about the millions of people who have no representation in Israel, or that fact that non-Jews don't have the same rights as Jews? Should America do the same thing?



Tacitus said:


> You posted text from wikipedia about Symington/Glen. I noted it has a gaping exception making it irrelevant.


No you didn't. You only tried a Jedi mind trick. You claimed I introduced it as a means to back away and I proved it was fully part of my original statement and is proof that the USA is in violation for giving even economic aid to Israel. I posted wiki because that's how easy it is to find. Is that what happened or not?



> You posted nothing from the NNPT, which is why I asked if you were withdrawing your statement about the US violating it. I see nothing in the NNPT that indicates we violate it by providing non-nuclear aid to Israel.


You're welcome to have your opinion. And how about the part where you said I'm changing direction? Was that incorrect or not?



> But again, as before, I would invite you to provide a pointer to something I may have missed in the treaty. I'm not an expert; I'm just an ordinary guy on the internet reading materials and making judgement calls. It is possible I missed something, but so far you seem to be wrong.
> No. You have not satisfied your burden to support your position. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you need more support for me to give them consideration.


You also said I'm changing directions and I'm not. Nobody's an expert, but I proved my statement and you didn't like the truth I guess. You've ignored your own criteria. I stated NPT and domestic law prohibits aid to Israel. You asked for NPT proof. I did better than that and posted an even more declarative statement and proof that we are not allowed to even give economic aid to Israel and you chose not to believe it. How many quotes of the Symington Amendment and Glen Act do you need?



> Also, I'm not saying the US never violates international law. I'm absolutely sure it does. But your contentions about these particular supposed violations are so far unsupported and even if true, they have very little to do with the ongoing war.


They violate it with India too. India refuses to sign and we give them nuke aid. 
I stated and proved we're in current violation and have been for DECADES by aiding Israel. Is that correct or not? You're not willing to admit what is evident in front of you in this thread? You haven't admitted your mistake of accusing me of adding new information. I think it's obvious you are refusing to acknowledge your mis-statements.



> You are saying that Iran is developing nuclear weapons now because the US provided ordinary (non-nuclear) aid to Israel? That seems a stretch. There are many more likely reasons Iran is doing that (in clear violation of the treaty, by the way, unlike your factual allegations which even if true are not a clear violation of the treaty).


No, I didn't. You're just inventing more things I've never said so you can deflect. BTW, Panetta (sp) and the US government has admitted that Iran has not pursued any nuclear weapons since 2003. That's even on Youtube. It is not a violation for them to develop non-weaponized nukes. No, what I said is we're demanding nations like Iran as well as others to adhere to a Treaty when we don't adhere to it ourselves.



> I listened, and I find your evidence underwhelming. Perhaps everyone else is convinced. No need for me to "declare victory before I march away."


No, you refused to accept text, probably because it's from wiki. You don't want to admit your past misstatements either. And now there are new ones you're falsely making.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Search Symington Amendment anywhere. Search USA violates it.



> Legislation introduced by Stuart Symington, a Democratic senator from Missouri, is passed by the US Congress to set out the US position on the *non-proliferation of nuclear weapons technology*. The legislation, which becomes known as the "Symington amendment," *bans US assistance to any country found to be trafficking in nuclear enrichment or reprocessing technology that is not governed by international safeguards.* Authors David Armstrong and Joe Trento will later comment that this puts "both Pakistan [which is thought to be involved in such trafficking] and the Ford administration on notice that nonproliferation would now be taken seriously."


The Glen Amendment: http://www.irmep.org/ila/nukes/glenn/default.asp


> SEC. 669. NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT TRANSFERS.-(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), *no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or the Arms Export Control Act may be used for the purpose of providing economic assistance, providing military* or security supporting assistance or grant military education and training, or extending military credits or making guarantees, to any country which, on or after the date of enactment of the International Security Assistance Act of 1977, delivers nuclear enrichment equipment, materials, or technology to any other country, or receives such equipment, materials, or technology from any other country, unless before such delivery-
> 
> "(1) the supplying country and receiving country have reached agreement to place all such equipment, materials, or technology, upon delivery, under multilateral auspices and management when available; and
> 
> ...


Israel, India and Pakistan are all nations who won't sign and have nuke weapons. And that is why some nations call the USA a rogue nation and violate treaties. I don't believe we're supposed to aid the Pakis either. but Israel is in question here because they're demanding we attack Iran for violations when Panetta himself says they aren't developing. And he was one of the most fervent about attacking.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/feb/04/iraq.israel



> A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington.
> 
> "It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday.


They've been claiming Iran is 6 months away from a nuke weapon for over 2 decades now, prompting us to attack just like in Iraq. We don't have friends in that region.


----------



## GaryS (Nov 15, 2011)

Since Israel seems to be the bur under your saddle, what exactly do you suggest the world do about it? I have a radical opinion, but what's yours?


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

It's obvious that Israel is the bur under the saddle of others here. I shouldn't have to remind people that this started from a blanket statement of Islam being the instigator. I said it was the USA and it's violations that is at the heart of the problem.

ETA: Regarding Iran and nuke weapons.





If Syrians are coming here as refugees, are we not responsible if we're funding the rebels in that OP's video? We have pics of McCain meeting with them in Syria. We have video of one of them carving up a man and eating his internal organs. The main place taking refugees in isn't America. I believe it's Sweden and they're demanding other nations take some of them.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

BlueShoe: Further discussion would be pointless.


----------



## GrinnanBarrett (Aug 31, 2012)

Dealing with Muslims is like dealing with any other gang of thugs. The only way they are strong is when they are in a group powering over weaker folk. You do not put up with their crap. 

I love it when they play the same card blacks did in the 70s. "You don't like me because I am Muslim!". The correct response is "Did you figure that out by yourself or did someone have to tell you?" 

Before you see a take over by any group this country will fall apart. It is already on the way. Another great Depression, a large scale nuclear attack, a country wide EMP event, the next great epidemic could cause the collapse of the place. Will the America we knew rise up from the ashes? No. The result will not be pretty. GB


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

That's true of any group, including White Europeans. And we're being taught to hate ourselves and self destruct. But then, that's all the more reason we should stay out of the region and stay within our laws instead of provoking them by funding Al Qaeda rebels in Syria and their ancient enemy to their South and West.

I agree that they will never be able to invade in great enough numbers to conquer the USA. Most Muslims are Asians, not the Arabs people think they are. All Americans (and the West) have to do is stop aborting their babies and stop using so much birth control. Japan is Western and they buy more adult diapers than baby diapers now.

What's more likely to happen here which so many of us feel will be life changing is what Andrew Adler called for Israeli Mossad to do to our "Black" ruler. Black people will revolt in every city, shooting and rioting into a race war that allows the government to take away your God-given rights to own firearms.



Tacitus said:


> BlueShoe: Further discussion would be pointless.


Well that ought to reduce the false assertions toward me.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

BlueShoe said:


> I agree that they will never be able to invade in great enough numbers to conquer the USA. Most Muslims are Asians, not the Arabs people think they are. All Americans (and the West) have to do is stop aborting their babies and stop using so much birth control. Japan is Western and they buy more adult diapers than baby diapers now.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

It sent you packing. :sssh:


----------



## professor (Nov 19, 2012)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Survival Forum mobile app


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Tacitus said:


> How is the United States violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?


He's right.
Every time we give aid to Israel we are in violation of the law for that very reason.

This is the reason no one in gov't will publicly state it even everyone can see the pics of the warheads in Dimona that the defector took.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

BlueZ said:


> He's right.
> Every time we give aid to Israel we are in violation of the law for that very reason.
> 
> This is the reason no one in gov't will publicly state it even everyone can see the pics of the warheads in Dimona that the defector took.


Can you point to a section of the treaty? I read a summary of it, and it said nuclear aid was barred, not non-nuclear aid. The summary could have been wrong, but I was hoping one of you two could point me to the section of the treaty that says what you say it says.


----------

