serious Republican contender? I don't think any of them could be considered as serious.
You don't? That's funny
Do you think nobody is a serious candidate? Or is it just the Republican side you think is "lacking"? Or is it your views that are unserious?
You omitted punishing the offender for his or her crime. Surely that can be a consideration?
Does the victim have no interest in justice for the wrong done to them?
If the "quote" actually occurred there should be a source for it, and none is noted. On the other hand it appears to be a popular quote on various fringe web sites that are likely more open to fabrications, especially if they tend to demonstrate some sort of conspiracy involving Germany, Jews, and Churchill.
It seems highly likely that "quote" is spurious given the strange wording, the false contents, and the lack of any specific attribution. If you doubt it yourself it makes no sense to post it.
Why do you think Churchill was there?
That's a load of crap, front to back.
That's funny, you seem to have completely overlooked the possibility that you got the fake "quotes" from dodgy sources, but jump right into some sort of conspiracy involving Jews. Do you have any ideas about why that might be?
Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech is a quite famous speech. Tampering with it wouldn't be hard to find out. I think you're grasping at straws.
You don't really need that extra twist of lemon.
Here is the text of the speach that Winston Churchill gave at Fultun. The phrases you show as being attrributed to Churchill don't appear there, nor do they appear to be Churchill's words, nor do they fit with history. That doesn't seem to be a genuine quote.
The second attribution also seems highly unlikely.
The Taliban never had any intention of handing over Bin Laden. Al Qaida was integrated into the Taliban government. The Taliban had previously shown they wouldn't negotiate in good faith when the US tried to extradite Bin Landen following his indictment in the US after the Africa embassy bombings and Cole attack.
9/11 was an act of war consistent with Bin Laden's declaration of war against America in the 1990s. The Taliban though they would just ride out the storm and ignored the ultimatum. It was a bad choice.
Do you reall think that the Taliban would have handed him over? Just curious.
There are many restrictions on gun ownership in the US, so that is nonsense.
Gangs, thugs, rapists and thieves break into the homes of the old and infirm, not the other way around. There are laws governing carrying firearms off one's property, including in cars.
I will freely admit that I did not examine your links, as I have no way to evaluate their accuracy.
So you just stopped by to chat? That's nice of you. Did you have anything in particular you wanted to chat about?
I have to tell you that your declaration raises so many interesting questions. Are you usually stymied by information on the internet? How is it that you inform yourself?
Possibly the historynewsnetwork site was trustworty, OTOH, I would not be willing to give much weight to the posting of a columnist unless I knew a great deal about him.
I guess you have to keep an eye on George Mason University. No telling what they'll try to pull.
As to Michael Medved, he isn't exactly an obcure figure.
It all depends on how you define "gens". It originally meant
It's a pity you didn't look through the articles at the links. It included this gem which would have saved you a post:
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? by Guenter Lewy
Guenter Lewy, who for many years taught political science at the University of Massachusetts, has been a contributor to Commentary since 1964. His books include"The Catholic Church & Nazi Germany, Religion & Revolution, America in Vietnam," and "The Cause that Failed: Communism in American Political Life."
The Genocide Convention was approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948 and came into force on January 12, 1951; after a long delay, it was ratified by the United States in 1986. Since genocide is now a technical term in international criminal law, the definition established by the convention has assumed prima-facie authority, and it is with this definition that we should begin in assessing the applicability of the concept of genocide to the events we have been considering.
According to Article II of the convention, the crime of genocide consists of a series of acts" committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such" (emphases added)....
That seems to be pretty specific and testable information. But if you have "no way" to do so
As a Jew I find this extremely tragic, as we've been building our future on some sense that we need to escape and defend ourselves rather than make peace with those around us.
The problem that you are overlooking is that some of the people around you don't want peace, they want dead Jews. There are many kinds of peace, including the peace of the graveyard. It is an emormous mistake to settle for peace on those terms.
I very much doubt that Goebbels would be happy with the state of Judiasm today, especially since there are so many Jews. As district leader of Berlin he shipped Jews to where they were being exterminated. I also doubt that he would be happy since the Jewish state has managed to defend itself so many times against Arab/Muslim threats to destroy Israel and slaughter the Jews.
How do you propose to do that? And why are you advocating discounting of scientific evidence?
"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon
