The cancer of Islam was at war with US as early as American Revolution

So war was declared because Muslim animals believed Allah gave them a right to terrorize the early Americans until they got what the Algerians got? You keep saying Islam had nothing to do with t, but its the Pirates themselves who kept telling Americans that they did it because islam allowed them to do it. So let's not believe Muslims who say they do things in the name of Islam?

At the same time the Barbary pirates were taking a few ships that were in their waters, Europeans were sending millions of Africans into slavery in the Americas, were half of them died in route.

But Christianity had nothing to do with that.

Nor with the slaughter of Native Americans and Australians who happened to be holding what the Christians wanted.

So to review. If you are a Christian or a Jew and you do something bad, in Roudy-World, it's not a reflection on your religion.

If you are a Muslim and you do something bad, it's becuase you are part of the Great Muslim-Borg Hive Mind being controlled by Mohammed's evil teachings.
Another leftist revisionist historian.

Christians in America owned few slaves. That was the case with the evangelicals, at least. Christians, in fact, would spearhead the abolitionist movement.

And half the slaves did not die en route. Only 10 to 20 percent of them did. Just think once. A shipper's livelihood is his cargo. Why would he waste so much of it?

Moonbats will not understand the Muslim threat until they stop revising history.
 
the transport of slaves to the USA was not in the MILLIONS---
far far far less------the big death rate for slaves was whilst they were in the hands of the arab slavers
 
So war was declared because Muslim animals believed Allah gave them a right to terrorize the early Americans until they got what the Algerians got? You keep saying Islam had nothing to do with t, but its the Pirates themselves who kept telling Americans that they did it because islam allowed them to do it. So let's not believe Muslims who say they do things in the name of Islam?

At the same time the Barbary pirates were taking a few ships that were in their waters, Europeans were sending millions of Africans into slavery in the Americas, were half of them died in route.

But Christianity had nothing to do with that.

Nor with the slaughter of Native Americans and Australians who happened to be holding what the Christians wanted.

So to review. If you are a Christian or a Jew and you do something bad, in Roudy-World, it's not a reflection on your religion.

If you are a Muslim and you do something bad, it's becuase you are part of the Great Muslim-Borg Hive Mind being controlled by Mohammed's evil teachings.
Another leftist revisionist historian.

Christians in America owned few slaves. That was the case with the evangelicals, at least. Christians, in fact, would spearhead the abolitionist movement.

And half the slaves did not die en route. Only 10 to 20 percent of them did. Just think once. A shipper's livelihood is his cargo. Why would he waste so much of it?

Moonbats will not understand the Muslim threat until they stop revising history.

Christians in America owned FEW slaves? By all means then, tell us the religion of the Americans who owned most slaves.

I can't wait to hear this one...
 
hahaha… you are fucking delusional. Your eyes are bloodshot with anger when facts do not match your fantasies and agenda, therefore, you cannot see in the quote why the Weimar Republic disarmed citizenry. What a fucking nutcase… Take a cold shower and one of these :chillpill: those may help with your vision.
Your hero is Eisenhower and you hate Patton. Interesting.

Patton was a reckless asshole who put the lives of his men at risk to glorify himself.

The Generals I admire from WWII are Ike and Bradley, who understood they had an obligation to their men as much as to winning the war.
 
I prefer the Gangrene of Islam...


More of a virus in my book.
Or a bacteria...

Certainly behaves like a disease. The story with Islamic behavior keeps repeating itself, regardless of how far back in time you go. It's always the same shit with them: "our religion sanctions it". Jefferson at least wasn't afraid to call the enemy what it was, unlike the idiot we have in office now, who's afraid to even call ISIS Islamic.

And a few years later we were fighting the British again. What's your point?

I think you missed it with all the diversions by leftists and other America haters. Muslims were attacking Americans, without provocation or any justification whatsoever, several times in history. The Barbary wars is one example, there are several others.

Wasn't that about the same time Americans were attacking the Indians, without provocation or any justification whatsoever?

Who are the villains from that time period again?
 
Our two biggest wars were fought against the Germans.

The German 'cancer'.

Incidentally, German is the single biggest ancestry group among Americans.

...go figure...

...maybe we need to be bigoted against ourselves. lol
 
Another leftist revisionist historian.

Christians in America owned few slaves. That was the case with the evangelicals, at least. Christians, in fact, would spearhead the abolitionist movement.

And half the slaves did not die en route. Only 10 to 20 percent of them did. Just think once. A shipper's livelihood is his cargo. Why would he waste so much of it?

Moonbats will not understand the Muslim threat until they stop revising history.

Your argument is that 1) Well, "real" christians didn't own slaves. Um, yeah. right. forget all thoe passages in the bible that were cool with slavery.

2) Well, only 10% of them died in route, so that made it okay.
 
So let me get this straight.

Were Muslims attacking ships off the coast of South Carolina, or were they attacking them off the cost of Tripoli.

Yes, our policy of sticking our dicks into a hornet's nest and complaining about getting stung does go back a long time.

The North Africans were slave trading. We were slave trading.
 
hahaha… you are fucking delusional. Your eyes are bloodshot with anger when facts do not match your fantasies and agenda, therefore, you cannot see in the quote why the Weimar Republic disarmed citizenry. What a fucking nutcase… Take a cold shower and one of these :chillpill: those may help with your vision.
Your hero is Eisenhower and you hate Patton. Interesting.

Patton was a reckless asshole who put the lives of his men at risk to glorify himself.

The Generals I admire from WWII are Ike and Bradley, who understood they had an obligation to their men as much as to winning the war.
It is quite immature (I did not want to say fucking stupid) stating that a general puts the lives of his men at risk. ALL GENERALS and commanders at war put their men's lives at risk. That's the nature of soldiering. Apparently Ike needed Patton to put an end to the war ASAP but slowed him down allocating fuel and supplies to Montgomery for political reasons. Patton did not put up with political bullshit and he loved his men.
 
Another leftist revisionist historian.

Christians in America owned few slaves. That was the case with the evangelicals, at least. Christians, in fact, would spearhead the abolitionist movement.

And half the slaves did not die en route. Only 10 to 20 percent of them did. Just think once. A shipper's livelihood is his cargo. Why would he waste so much of it?

Moonbats will not understand the Muslim threat until they stop revising history.

Your argument is that 1) Well, "real" christians didn't own slaves. Um, yeah. right. forget all thoe passages in the bible that were cool with slavery.

2) Well, only 10% of them died in route, so that made it okay.
Typical liberal to say that ten percent is okay. I certainly never would say that.

I do say, though, that you're a liberal; you do not know history.
 
Your argument is that 1) Well, "real" christians didn't own slaves. Um, yeah. right. forget all thoe passages in the bible that were cool with slavery.

2) Well, only 10% of them died in route, so that made it okay.

In retrospect, here's what made it okay...

Let's compare young Cassius Clay, who no doubt was/is a relative of slaves...otherwise how would he be here?

clay%20as%20baby_zps8wwkmang.jpeg
 
It is quite immature (I did not want to say fucking stupid) stating that a general puts the lives of his men at risk. ALL GENERALS and commanders at war put their men's lives at risk. That's the nature of soldiering. Apparently Ike needed Patton to put an end to the war ASAP but slowed him down allocating fuel and supplies to Montgomery for political reasons. Patton did not put up with political bullshit and he loved his men.

I think you are mistaking the George C. Scott movie for actual history.
 
I think you are mistaking the George C. Scott movie for actual history.
There was a military exercise in the USA before the US entered WW II. Patton was commanding his tank units and beside Patton the "enemy" also calculated the supply lines the needs for all the logistics for the tank units. They calculated that Patton would arrive after 3 days of "march" ("marching" here is not in the literary sense of the word you imagining the tank crews were marching on foot carrying their tanks on their shoulders. Just to make sure you understand spinmeister) Anyhow, Patton hauled ass in his vehicle (the iconic Jeep was not characteristic of the US Army at that time yet) ahead of his column, bought all the gas at every gas station on his route and instructed the owners that tanks would come through and the gas is for them. His tank detachment arrived a day ahead of the calculated time and "occupied the "enemy CP." The "enemy" was whining that it wasn't fair what Patton did. Patton replied: "Gentlemen, war is not fair"
I do not recall this story in there George C. Scott movie. Maybe I just read about Patton way before the movie was made. Maybe...
 
Which had nothing to do with Patton outrunning his supply lines in Operation Cobra, where there were no gas stations in route.
"Operation Cobra commenced on 25 July. […]
At noon on 1 August, the U.S. Third Army was activated under the command of Lieutenant General George S. Patton. […]
The U.S. advance following Cobra was extraordinarily rapid. Between 1 August and 4 August, seven divisions of Patton's Third Army had swept through Avranches…"
Pay attention the dates. I had to research it. Is it safe to assume that Patton did not participate in Cobra?
..and outrunning his supply lines later…. that's where Eisenhower cut his supplies in favor of Montgomery for political reasons.
 
"Operation Cobra commenced on 25 July. […]
At noon on 1 August, the U.S. Third Army was activated under the command of Lieutenant General George S. Patton. […]
The U.S. advance following Cobra was extraordinarily rapid. Between 1 August and 4 August, seven divisions of Patton's Third Army had swept through Avranches…"
Pay attention the dates. I had to research it. Is it safe to assume that Patton did not participate in Cobra?
..and outrunning his supply lines later…. that's where Eisenhower cut his supplies in favor of Montgomery for political reasons.

You mean that it was slightly more important to get those V-2 bases in Holland than it was to get those hedgerows in France?

Yeah, I guess that was "political".
 
You mean that it was slightly more important to get those V-2 bases in Holland than it was to get those hedgerows in France?

Hahaha… I like the "importance" of the hedge groves….at least you interject some humor every once in a while. :eusa_angel:
 

Forum List

Back
Top