SallyRand

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious post, there Asian!

SallyRand

Little or no understanding of history I see.

Never mind.

papill0n

Sally is a guy posting as a woman.

Proof already provided.

theking

Where is the provided proof?

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

papill0n

find it yourself cunt

SallyRand

You couldn't prove you way out of a whorehouse.

SallyRand

If I had a dick, I would tell you to suck it.

papill0n

SallyRand

Good Lord, you really are as stupid as I thought!

moeloubani

lol the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq are rooted in anti-Semitism

The United Nations created Israel, how can you be against something you created? You think that the only governing body in the world disagreeing with someone where hundreds of countries are disagreeing with Israel's actions results from... anti-Semitism? So you're saying everyone in the world is an anti-Semite except the US and Britain, the only two countries that routinely vote with Israel?

Mighty ignorant of you throwing around racial slurs like that, Sally.

papill0n

Looks like you've been a naughty boy too.

Just sayin.

moeloubani

minicivan

They were planning an invasion force of up to 5,000,000 troops. Some estimations put allied casualties at 1,000,000.

I think theking is a bizarre weirdo, but these numbers are actually correct.

theking

Not as ignorant as you are. There are not hundreds of countries in the world...sport...educate yourself.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

moeloubani

Sorry I'm about 5 shy of 200 countries.


So it was ok to kill 100,000 people that had nothing to do with the conflict? So if right now Japan declared war on the US then used a nuclear weapon to kill 100 million people saying it prevented the death of the other 200 million does it make it ok that Japan used that bomb or are they still monsters for doing it?

The death of 1,000,000 soldiers is easily worth the life of 1 innocent. Those are soldiers, they signed up to die.

SallyRand

Against just whom have I made a "racial slur"?

Where is a "RACIAL SLUR"?

Do you even know the definition of "RACIAL SLUR"?

Since when did religions become "races"?

If Jews are a "race", are Methodists a "race"?

Are Catholics a "race"?

How about Moonies?

Are Moonies a "race"?

Is such a determination not "racist" in itself?

Why are Jews a "RACE"?

I would remind your ignorant ass that Israel was created by the UN in 1948, which was my point.

moeloubani

I'm sorry but you do realize that the word semite refers to a race of people, don't you?

theking

Killing "civilians" during war is as old as the history of war. Without "civilians" an Army cannot exist. It is civilians that provide an Army with everything from shit paper to the most sophisticated weapons of the times. Live with it...sport.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

moeloubani

And you guys are pussies for killing 100,000 of those 'civilians'. Live with it...sport.

The exact same type of people flew those planes into the Twin Towers. Do you really support that kind of stuff, theking?

theking

If I was not bored I would have never responded to you...as I try to make it a practice not to have intercourse with ignorant people....and this will be my last response. More "civilians" were targeted and killed than the two Atomic bombs killed...and "civilians"...as I previously stated have been targeted through out the history of war.

You are now permanently dismissed...kid.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

moeloubani

Lol what? More civilians were killed when? During the Twin Tower attacks vs the atomic bombs? Yeah maybe it's better that you left, you're beginning to make no sense.

jezebelz

Thanks, it was my pleasure. He was a great guy and I'm proud of what he did.

papill0n

fuck you theking

The Porn Nerd

WAR.

Huh.

What are we fighting for?

ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN'!!

Say it again.

WAR.

Huh.

Good God Y'all.

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Now on Teams: peabodymedia

xholly

god bless the children of Dresden

Machete_

SallyRand

No it does not.

"Semitic" refers to an ethnic group............................

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Semitic

"Semitic is an adjective which in common parlance mistakenly refers specifically to Jewish things, while the term actually refers to things originating among speakers of Semitic languages or people descended from them, and in a linguistic context to the northeastern subfamily of Afro-Asiatic.

In a religious context, it refers to the religions associated with the speakers of these languages: thus Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often described as "Semitic religions". This term can equally include the polytheistic religions (such as the religions of Tammuz or Adad) that flourished in the Middle East before the Abrahamic religions.

Outside linguistics, the term's primary use nowadays is to refer to the ethnic groups who have historically spoken Semitic languages.

Anti-Semitism is a term whose most common usage typically is to describe anti-Jewish statements or beliefs. However, it is increasingly used by people who apply the word in reference to any Semitic people, especially as a reference to anti-Arabism."



There is no such thing as a "race" anyway............................................ ..

AAA Statement on Race

May 17, 1998

The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.

http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-...nt-on-Race.cfm

"In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.

As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.

Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.

"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.

At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.

How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances."