Quote:

---

This blueprint was implemented with astonishing accuracy in the ensuing months. The plan would always begin with the same detail: The group recruited followers under the pretense of opening a Dawah office, an Islamic missionary center. Of those who came to listen to lectures and attend courses on Islamic life, one or two men were selected and instructed to spy on their village and obtain a wide range of information. To that end, Haji Bakr compiled lists such as the following:

List the powerful families.
Name the powerful individuals in these families.
Find out their sources of income.
Name names and the sizes of (rebel) brigades in the village.
Find out the names of their leaders, who controls the brigades and their political orientation.
Find out their illegal activities (according to Sharia law), which could be used to blackmail them if necessary.

The spies were told to note such details as whether someone was a criminal or a homosexual, or was involved in a secret affair, so as to have ammunition for blackmailing later. "We will appoint the smartest ones as Sharia sheiks," Bakr had noted. "We will train them for a while and then dispatch them." As a postscript, he had added that several "brothers" would be selected in each town to marry the daughters of the most influential families, in order to "ensure penetration of these families without their knowledge."

The spies were to find out as much as possible about the target towns: Who lived there, who was in charge, which families were religious, which Islamic school of religious jurisprudence they belonged to, how many mosques there were, who the imam was, how many wives and children he had and how old they were. Other details included what the imam's sermons were like, whether he was more open to the Sufi, or mystical variant of Islam, whether he sided with the opposition or the regime, and what his position was on jihad. Bakr also wanted answers to questions like: Does the imam earn a salary? If so, who pays it? Who appoints him? Finally: How many people in the village are champions of democracy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Not sure if I beleive this hag, I know some of what she says can be true but wonder if these people can ever intergrate with the West or any nation. IMO She's damaged goods, still brainwashed by the extreme muslim islamo nonsense.
A team of criminal psychologists from across the world should asses and examine and get interviews from each and every one to see if they are 'escapes', 'refugees' they should be made drop a Koran, asked what they think of someone joking at Islam, made look at Mohammed cartoons....I think they are damaged personally but a team of criminal psychologists should look at them and examine if they will ever contribute to socity and see if they can be allowed live outside Syria


Obama's regressive Liberalism is a failure, Germany Merkel's Christain Democrats, Christian Social Union, Julia Klöckner, Sweden’s Kent Ekeroth, Canada's forced multi-culturalism....its going down hill fast
...Patriots, Nationalists, the Right are on the rise...not because the rightwing is good and great but only because of Liberal idiocy
In sumary Merkel and Obama are fools

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
ill-informed

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
bigot

---

Quote:

---

And Instead that I am defending my countries constitution and bill of rights. People like you are always trying to destroy the concept of tolerance and inclusion.

---

Quote:

---

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight... The Bill of rights unmistakably state here that the congress does not have the right to stop immigration by its own authority. Clearly what many like you and JAYNZTOWN are calling for.

---

Quote:

---

We grew through inclusion SIG not exclusion.

---

Quote:

---

and yet the essential unity of the nation has grown stronger.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight... The Bill of rights unmistakably state here that the congress does not have the right to stop immigration by its own authority. Clearly what many like you and JAYNZTOWN are calling for.

---

That was in deference to the slave trade*, you nitwit, not immigration. And it'll be a cold day in hell when you get me to agree that it was the slave trade that made this nation great.

*You should have picked that up from the wording, because you don't "import" refugees.

Quote:

---

We grew through inclusion SIG not exclusion.

---

Tell that to the natives who we exterminated and whose land we stole.


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I can't help it if you cant' read. It says IMPORT or MIGRATE. IMPORT - to purchase and take delivery of. MIGRATE- BETWEEN states.

The line was carefully carved out, it has been discussed and adjudicated a million times over by now, and somehow you're the only one who hasn't heard the conclusion yet.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Right stupid, it says to migrate or import. Apparently you lack the reasoning power to recognize there is a difference between importing persons and migrating persons. We have since had changes in our society from impetrating [sic] persons against their will but people sponsor importing people (family) all the time.

---

Quote:

---

Although the first debate over slavery at the Constitutional Convention concerned representation (see Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), the second debate arose when Southern delegates objected that an unrestricted congressional power to regulate commerce could be used against Southern commercial interests to restrict or outlaw the slave trade. That the resulting provision was an important compromise is underscored by the fact that the clause stands as the first independent restraint on congressional powers, prior even to the restriction on the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Taking Southern concerns into consideration, the draft proposed by the Committee of Detail (chaired by John Rutledge of South Carolina) dealt with trade issues as well as those relating to slavery. The draft permanently forbade Congress to tax exports, to outlaw or tax the slave trade, or to pass navigation laws without two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress. Several delegates strongly objected to the proposal, including Gouverneur Morris, who delivered one of the Convention's most spirited denunciations of slavery, calling it a "nefarious institution" and "the curse of heaven."

When the issue came up for a vote, the Southern delegates themselves were sharply divided. George Mason of Virginia condemned the "infernal traffic," and Luther Martin of Maryland saw the restriction of Congress's power over the slave trade as "inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character." But delegates from Georgia and South Carolina announced that they would not support the Constitution without the restriction [on Congress] with Charles Pinckney arguing that failing to include the clause would trigger "an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union."

Unresolved, the issue was referred to the Committee of Eleven (chaired by William Livingston of New Jersey), which took the opposite position and recognized a congressional power over the slave trade, but recommended that it be restricted for twelve years, and allowed a tax on slave importation. Although that was a significant change from the Committee of Detail's original proposal, Southern delegates accepted the new arrangement with the extension of the time period to twenty years, from 1800 to 1808.

Agitation against the slave trade was the leading cause espoused by the antislavery movement at the time of the Constitutional Convention, so it is not surprising that this clause was the most immediately controversial of the so-called slave clauses of the proposed Constitution (see Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article V). Although some denounced the Slave Trade Clause as a major concession to slavery interests, most begrudged it to be a necessary and prudent compromise. James Madison, for example, argued at the Convention that the twenty-year exemption was "dishonorable," but in The Federalist No. 42, he declared that it was "a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within these States" what he called an "unnatural traffic" that was "the barbarism of modern policy."

Some claimed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate both the interstate and the foreign slave trade once the twenty-year period had lapsed. James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued, "yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders." Though the question was not clearly resolved at the time, Madison denied this interpretation during the First Congress. Not even Abraham Lincoln claimed that congressional power to regulate commerce could be used to restrict interstate commerce in slaves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.


I think the time is up on this one.

---

Quote:

---

This blueprint was implemented with astonishing accuracy in the ensuing months. The plan would always begin with the same detail: The group recruited followers under the pretense of opening a Dawah office, an Islamic missionary center. Of those who came to listen to lectures and attend courses on Islamic life, one or two men were selected and instructed to spy on their village and obtain a wide range of information. To that end, Haji Bakr compiled lists such as the following:

List the powerful families.
Name the powerful individuals in these families.
Find out their sources of income.
Name names and the sizes of (rebel) brigades in the village.
Find out the names of their leaders, who controls the brigades and their political orientation.
Find out their illegal activities (according to Sharia law), which could be used to blackmail them if necessary.

The spies were told to note such details as whether someone was a criminal or a homosexual, or was involved in a secret affair, so as to have ammunition for blackmailing later. "We will appoint the smartest ones as Sharia sheiks," Bakr had noted. "We will train them for a while and then dispatch them." As a postscript, he had added that several "brothers" would be selected in each town to marry the daughters of the most influential families, in order to "ensure penetration of these families without their knowledge."

The spies were to find out as much as possible about the target towns: Who lived there, who was in charge, which families were religious, which Islamic school of religious jurisprudence they belonged to, how many mosques there were, who the imam was, how many wives and children he had and how old they were. Other details included what the imam's sermons were like, whether he was more open to the Sufi, or mystical variant of Islam, whether he sided with the opposition or the regime, and what his position was on jihad. Bakr also wanted answers to questions like: Does the imam earn a salary? If so, who pays it? Who appoints him? Finally: How many people in the village are champions of democracy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The fact that this clause ... no matter WHAT it means ... had its time limit expire some 200+ years ago should have given you pause.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

(And the next time you see Hillary sidling somewhere near McCain, just note that she's just doing what she's always done best: Triangulating.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.

---

Shall not be prohibited by Congress PRIOR TO THE YEAR 1808.

AFTER THAT, IT CAN BE prohibited by Congress. Since we're well past 1808, I suppose the migration or importation of persons into the USA has come under the jurisdiction of Congress by now!

The issue was about slavery, and whether Congress could control the importation or transportation of slaves across state lines. The deal was a temporary one and expired in 1808. Just.... just... read it to yourself a few times. Give it a day or two to settle in.

---------------

It seems to me that you're doing your very best to distract from the goings-on in Raqqa. Maybe you think that it's a poor reflection of Muslims. Your topic is dead, as far as I'm concerned.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Very little of the USA-official narrative of "Assad created ISIL" fits into this story. I mean, Where are Assad's barrel bombs? Where is this Syrian-based ISIL, and its burning desire for revenge against Assad?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Good story. As time goes by there are more and more of complaints from ISIS members coming out. There was a story I read concerning the displeasure of some ISIS recruits about conditions where they are. Things like a lack of a good shampoo, and bad coffee. Sounds simple but complaints are complaints and they resonate with readers.

The backgrounds of many ISIS recruits are showing the other Muslims of the world that they are not followers of the Koran but instead street thugs who have dabbled in drugs. All this contributes to ISIS's downfall.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If slavery was not abolished until 1865 then I would suggest to you the law was up and running until amended."

I'm sorry, but your failure to grasp - or admit that you were wrong - that the vision was null and void after 1808 is just plain stupid. And it wasn't 'amended' by the 13th amendment, because the 13th amendment 1) doesn't say anything about amending that clause, and 2) neither addresses importation or migration as toics that need its attention.

SHEESH!

And let me point out that when you dig yourself in to your erroneous position, you look willfully ignorant on top of being in error.

---

Quote:

---

Your quotes are from the NYTimes of course, the same outlet of Judith Miller and centrifuges under rosebushes fame.

Thanks for NOT providing a link so we all could check out the article easily and look at the statements in context. Here it is, as a courtesy you failed to provide. You're welcome. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/world/middleeast/isis-wives-and-enfo
rcers-in-syria-recount-collaboration-anguish-and-escape.html

---

Quote:

---

You wish!! International slave trade thrived until nearly 1900. (British/ Chinese)

---

Quote:

---

Your view of slavery is limited.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
International slave trade thrived until nearly 1900.

---

Quote:

---

Very little of the USA-official narrative of "Assad created ISIL" fits into this story. I mean, Where are Assad's barrel bombs? Where is this Syrian-based ISIL, and its burning desire for revenge against Assad?- SIGNY

"When the uprising against the government of President Bashar al-Assad began rippling across Syria in 2011, it seemed distant from Raqqa. As news of fighting and massacres started filtering in..."

"Abu Soheil had killed himself in an operation not against the hated Syrian Army, but against a competing rebel group that the Islamic State was trying to wipe out. “I cried for days,” she said. “He died fighting other Muslims.”"

"Mr. Assad’s forces were targeting civilians, sweeping into homes in the middle of the night and brutalizing men in front of their wives; the fighters had no choice but to respond with equal brutality, they said."

---

Quote:

---

"When the uprising against the government of President Bashar al-Assad began rippling across Syria in 2011, it seemed distant from Raqqa."

---

Quote:

---

As news of fighting and massacres started filtering in..."

---

Quote:

---

"Abu Soheil had killed himself in an operation not against the hated Syrian Army,

---

Quote:

---

"Mr. Assad’s forces were targeting civilians, sweeping into homes in the middle of the night and brutalizing men in front of their wives; the fighters had no choice but to respond with equal brutality, they said."

---

Quote:

---

THANK YOU for falling into my trap!

---

Quote:

---

I hope you realize by now that I ALWAYS research my posts.

---

Quote:

---

So, let me make some more claims

---

Quote:

---

kpo wanted a link. He got a link. NOW he's decided he wants something different before he addresses the topic. So, speaking of shifting the goals posts -

---

Quote:

---

on to the OTHER claims he's trying to barricade himself against

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Very little of the USA-official narrative of "Assad created ISIL" fits into this story. I mean, Where are Assad's barrel bombs? Where is this Syrian-based ISIL, and its burning desire for revenge against Assad?- SIGNY

"When the uprising against the government of President Bashar al-Assad began rippling across Syria in 2011, it seemed distant from Raqqa. As news of fighting and massacres started filtering in..."

"Abu Soheil had killed himself in an operation not against the hated Syrian Army, but against a competing rebel group that the Islamic State was trying to wipe out. “I cried for days,” she said. “He died fighting other Muslims.”"

"Mr. Assad’s forces were targeting civilians, sweeping into homes in the middle of the night and brutalizing men in front of their wives; the fighters had no choice but to respond with equal brutality, they said."

---

Yes, I saw that. But the terrible forces of President Assad always seem to be what someone talks about, not what anyone has actually experienced. I think this deserves a detailed discussion:

Quote:

---

"When the uprising against the government of President Bashar al-Assad began rippling across Syria in 2011, it seemed distant from Raqqa."

---

Apparently, it WAS distant from Raqqa because none of it happened in Raqqa or to anyone from Raqqa. None of the girls' family members nor any of their friends seemed to be involved in the slightest .... at least, not mentioned here, altho ONE boyfriend evidently began turning towards a more conservative Sunni fundamentalism . Did the article happen to mention that one of the complaints in Sunni-Syria was that they felt that Shia were "taking over" in terms of mosque-building and contracts?

Quote:

---

As news of fighting and massacres started filtering in..."

---

Again, apparently distant and third-hand. It might not have been "news", it might have been more like rumors. Or stories. Or propaganda, since none of it was traceable to anyone with first-hand knowledge and given the general prejudice against Shia. And by then, who knows who was in control of "the news"?

Quote:

---

"Abu Soheil had killed himself in an operation not against the hated Syrian Army,

---

You can build up hatred of a particular group ... hatred enough to go to war ... for no reason whatsoever. Heck, we hated Saddam enough to spend over a trillion dollars and kill a million people, and what did Saddam ever do to US? Just because someone is "hated" doesn't mean there's a real reason for it. ISIL for sure hated the Syrian Army, and they could have whipped up a pretty good froth against Assad in Raqqa, since Sunnis in general were prejudiced against him (Alawite).

Quote:

---

"Mr. Assad’s forces were targeting civilians, sweeping into homes in the middle of the night and brutalizing men in front of their wives; the fighters had no choice but to respond with equal brutality, they said."

---

And this is quoting ISIL. You think they're a reliable source? They have every reason to paint Assad in the worst possible colors in order to- as the article itself says- justify their own brutality.

All of this is pretty weak tea. We also should take a closer look at these so-called "moderate rebels" because what I've read is that their REAL goal is pretty much in line with ISIL- to create a Sunni theocracy in Syria. On the anti-Assad side, the dispute seems to be between homegrown Syrian theocrats and the imported kind.

Almost everything that the west says about Assad and Russia seems to be fabricated or distorted.

Assad killed 200,000 of his people! Well, no ... 200,000 people were killed, but over half of those were fighting forces, and half of THOSE were the Syrian Army.

Assad gassed his own people with Sarin! Well, no ... it was eventually shown to be a false flag operation by the jihadists themselves.

The Russians are targeting hospitals! But these hospital locations can't be shared by western intelligence, for some strange reason.

The fighting is brutal. Civilians are surely getting killed. ISIL is surely doing some of that killing, and the Syrian Sunni theocrats-in-waiting are doing some, and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is doing some. But if you really want a democratic Syrian future you'll look closely at the so-called "moderate rebels" because if you can find a dozen "freedom-loving" moderates among the theocrats-in-waiting I'd be surprised!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

kpo wanted a link. HE GOT A LINK. NOW he's decided he wants something different before he addresses the topic. So, speaking of shifting the goals posts -

- and not being derailed from my original post - let's get back to the OTHER claims he's trying to barricade himself against addressing (by making different demands):

The US was NOT the biggest global slave trader, Britain was by far. And it started earlier, and went longer than anyone else in modern times. In fact, in a mere 10 years in the 1600's, Britain sold 300,000 Irish slaves to the new world. (At the same time the British outright killed 500,000 Irish, and along with general imposed economic distress, dropped the Irish population from about 1,500,000 to 600,000, or about 90,000 per year.) Britain didn't practice (much) slavery on home soil. Nope. It exported it everywhere else it went. Please! dispute any of this. Demand links! Question my information about slavery! Snark some more!!! Be topic free and 100% personal. Do what you do best.

---

Quote:

---

ALSO, on the topic of the original story, I see that KPO really doesn't have any evidence of Assad's terrible brutality to point to in this sad story of terrorist-collaboration gone sour.

---

Quote:

---

But KPO is so vehemently anti-Russian, and therefore vehemently against Assad

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
ALSO, on the topic of the original story, I see that KPO really doesn't have any evidence of Assad's terrible brutality to point to in this sad story of terrorist-collaboration gone sour. Everything that he points to is rumor, untraceable to first-hand witness (Yanno, kind of like our "news!) fostered by ISIL (since ISIL was in control of "the news") and Sunni's general prejudice against anything non-Sunni.

But KPO is so vehemently anti-Russian, and therefore vehemently against Assad, that he willingly repeats ISIL's statements as evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Very little of the USA-official narrative of "Assad created ISIL" fits into this story. I mean, Where are Assad's barrel bombs? Where is this Syrian-based ISIL, and its burning desire for revenge against Assad?

---

Quote:

---

I never said that "Assad is a swell guy".

---