When Chauvin and colleague arrived Floyd, who weighed weighed 250lbs, was lying cuffed on the ground, where he had gone of his own volition to prevent them putting him in the police vehicle. He foiled their attempts to get him back up and in the car, by going limp, which may be part of why Chauvin was so slow to pick up on Floyd later becoming unresponsive. After repeated failures to get Floyd in the car, which he defeated with a passive-aggressive wet dish towel routine, Chauvin decided to put weight on Floyd as if he was resisting and had to be held down.

As Floyd's arms were already handcuffed behind his back and he was just lying there, the technique was not being used for the intended purpose of subduing an actively resisting suspect for handcuffing. And that is why Chauvin was on top of Floyd so long. The duration was punitive. Chauvin is charged with 2nd degree but as felony murder, meaning the prosecutors do not have to prove his intent to kill Floyd, merely that Chauvin was engaged in an illegal act of some kind when he used his knee(s). I expect he will get twenty (half the max) and do ten years of actual time.

Although now rarely seen in pro wrestling, there used to be bear hug knockouts, the ref would pull the wrestler having his chest constricted hand off the ground and if it fell back limp--because he was 'unconscious'--that was a KO. It can work for real, and when kept on past the point of unconsciousness might easily be lethal.

George Floyd said he could not breath. He had no bruising to his neck, and that knee on the neck would be cutting off blood flow to the brain, not choking him. The autopsy said the restriction of breathing Floyd died from was due to back compression. So it was Chauvin's other knee, the one on Floyd's back not the one lightly on his neck that killed him. He was cuffed already and face down with pressure on his back, and his large torso size pulling his arms so tight in the manacles that they bruised his wrists must have been exerting leverage on the sides of his chest. Even given Floyd's age and poor state of health one would not predict that it would kill him but it ought not to surprise that it did.

And there is nothing particularly wrong in believing that cops should be good guys who solve serious crimes, which is in fact what many police officers actually do.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFkq4wJ9yn8

The Israeli army NCO shooter went to jail, because he was filmed. So if the Israelis were giving US cops training then the Israelis ought to have been teaching how it was an essential prerequisite for taking punitive measures to make sure no one could be pointing a camera. Chauvin knew he was being filmed, yet persisted with an immobilisation of Floyd--and his ribcage--despite all the warnings he was getting from other cops and onlookers. Chauvin lacked common sense, and now he has not got a leg to stand on.

Replies: @kerdasi amaq, @KA, @anon, @TGD

In fact, American police only became interested in Israeli techniques after 9/11, and the techniques they are learning are counter-terrorism techniques, not civilian policing techniques.

Israel has nothing to teach anyone in ordinary civilian policing, as crime is low there and the police have no special experience.

As for the knee on neck, it is widely used across the world in all police forces. France is also having a discussion over its use of the knee on neck. Ironically, the Israeli police is one of the few police forces where this technique is not widely in use.

It is interesting, though, that certain people are trying to exploit this situation to end American police getting training in counter-terrorism techniques....

Replies: @Sean, @UncommonGround, @anon

Violent criminals need a lesson in violent methods of arrest. I say, go for the Blue, and teach them to remember it.

I say NO to the Talmud, Jewish Supremacy, and Noahide! I am a believer in Jesus Christ--come behead me if you dare. Watch out for mountain lions.

The more Muslims, the more degraded the civilization
 

because we stupidly imported so many of Jihadi Phil’s religion of peace migrants.
 

How often do you see police having to restrain and detain Muslims in America using force? Usually the arrest of Muslim "jihadis" is left up to the FBI- who use entrapment on their simpleton targets practically 100% of the time. "Hey friend want to buy a rocket launcher and aim it at an El Al flight out of JFK? Here's your weapon and the flight schedule!" BAM! Another "Jihadi" behind bars!

Honestly dude you should take your simplistic opinions back to the Breitbart comment section where they belong.

Replies: @Lot

Just say no to Lot!

There is no reason for the US to send police officers of any kind to a foreign country for any training. We can train our own. This fucking outsourcing of every damn thing in the world has become ridiculous and it hamstrings us in every way.

Replies: @Lot

Well, it seems the ICC had the full support of the US while the Serbs and Croats were being stitched up.
I take Giraldi's point as being what I have maintained for decades: even when the US and/or Israel is a signatory to a treaty, they ignore any judgements against them. Treaties are for other countries to follow.

Replies: @A123

Is it Torah or is it ICC? Does the law apply only when the Torah scholars say so?

"It must have been a terrible embarrassment to Hillel rabbi Matt Rosenberg at Texas A&M University, when he tried to challenge the alt-right Spencer with ‘radical inclusion and love’. Spencer was invited to the University, and Rosenberg was there to challenge his bigotry:
“My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion and love,” Rosenberg said, in a video picked up by the Forward, and posted by the campus newspaper The Eagle. “Will you sit down and learn Torah with me, and learn love?”

Spencer gracefully declined the offer to pray, but in return offered an appraisal of Judaism and Zionism that literally left the rabbi speechless. Spencer actually blew Rosenberg’s pink balloon, and Rosenberg didn’t know what to do. Here is what Spencer said:
“Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?” Spencer said. “And by that I mean radical inclusion. Maybe all of the Middle East could go move in to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?”
Rosenberg was silent.
“You’re not answering,” Spencer said.
“I’m not answering,” Rosenberg said.

“Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate,” Spencer went on. “That is why Jews are a coherent people with a history and a culture and a future. It’s because you had a sense of yourselves. I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.”

Spencer said the same thing to our website last summer: “I respect Israel as a homogenous ethno-state.” 

He {Rabbi} continues to by saying “I am a simple teacher of Torah”.

https://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/losing-debate-israel/

You've out done yourself here A123.
This rises to the heights of an Elmer Gantry, or a Girolamo Savonarola....

You're raving. What has Allah got to do with anyone of this? On the other hand, the bloodthirsty Yahweh apparently gave a real estate deed to the Jews to occupy Palestine. Israel is a dictatorship when it comes to Occupied Palestine.

Typical A123 zio-freakszoid lies and nonsense!! You’re so predictable!!

Don't lowlifes like you understand that the more insane and demented you sound, the bigger the laughingstock you become? Do you actually think intelligent people will take seriously the rantings of retarded freaks like you?

You are an evil loser, who is getting shriller by the day, as you fall deeper into the devil's abyss. As someone implied, you’ve simply outdone your usual insanity. But, I am sure you can do even worse. Don't you disappoint next time.

Allah/Satan
 

Allah SWT is the One God of all existence, and the Lord of Jesus Christ PBUH... just to place it in context of the Christian faith, even if redundant in saying so.

Didn't the blessed Christ say...

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
 

[Jesus said], "And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path." : 19.36
 

So, if Muslims worship the Lord of Jesus, and Christians also worship the Lord of Jesus, evangelical morons are essentially calling their Lord... Satan!!

But yes, I do understand that Christians do not actually believe that Muslims worship the Lord of Jesus, because they witness their "Lord" as a father-figure mangod, which we true monotheists utterly reject. I suppose it is the Unseen God of the true monotheists, some Christians refer to as "Satan." They utter an evil which they will regret much.

--

Anyway, I see the likes of A123 to be utterly irredeemable. His diseased soul is lost to the devil. But, perhaps others still have hope. May the Almighty One guide them.

When Lotspecifically states that he's an American citizen, it reinforces my belief that he's an Israeli or a zionist dual citizen with loyalty to zion.

Lot, A123, fran tubbyman, aaron all the zios never fail with their shite. Everybody here knows who/what they are, yet they persist. Talmudist trash!

Replies: @Art

The crazy thing to me is that how all scholarship that talks about subjects that have a STRONG Jewish influence have a complete blindness to Jews. Books about the immigration invasion will rant about Islam. One of the recent books I read was "Making Hate Pay" about the corruption of the SPLC. It talked about how the SPLC was "white supremacist" because of the "white" Cohens and Horowitzes in upper management soaking up money so that they can chase around Nazis. I thought "how can people not notice Jewish influence?"

It's like Jewish crypsis is part of political correctness. You're not supposed to notice that a Jew is a Jew and is acting in his own ethnic interests and you're not allowed to state what those ethnic interests are. So, you have books about how a bunch of "white" Jews in groups like the ADL and SPLC soak up money to chase around Nazis without actually identifying that those are ethnic organizations committed to pushing a Jewish agenda.

Replies: @Achilles Wannabe, @Achilles Wannabe, @Exile, @Usura, @Pop Warner

Wow, sounds like the Zionists are really organized, powerful, rich, and popular. Antisemites and BDS jihadis don’t stand a chance!

Replies: @Frankie P, @Exile, @neutral, @Truth3, @Art, @DickyDickbag

keeping media open access and freely accessible by all is a duty of all who operate the government.

Media should be first order government concern, congress itself has an undeniable duty with regard to the media to make sure the government imposes first amendment obligation to protect the rights of all speakers to gain access to all media, public or private, because media is the means by which all speech is expressed; without media there can be no expression of speech.

The first Amendment was among ten such amendments all ten amendments were given to the founders, as preconditions, if you don't amend your proposed constitution to include these rights, there will be no ratification, and without ratification your constitution will not be allowed.

The constitution would not have been ratified unless the ten amendments were made a part of the constitution. because of the would not have been ratified status of the ten amendments, these amendments and their enforcement are essential elements in maintaining, for those who operate the government, authority to operate it. (these amendments impose operating boundaries and must do or perform duties).

Ratification for this constitution was obtained by a founder self-serving clause placed in Article VII of the Constitution of the USA. Article VII says, the Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States ratifying the Same. Please note the People were not consulted when the constitution was ratified. Did the States, that sent drafters to the Philadelphia convention, deny its citizens to be a part of the process called ratification?

The constitution gained ratification status, only if, the Founders constitution obligated those who were to operate the government, the Constitution authorized, to enforce without exception, the bill of rights: as enumerated in the 1st ten amendments.

The first ten amendments precondition the existence of the Constitution. Without the 1st Ten Amendments, the constitution was just one more piece of paper. Does that mean if the operators of government fail to comply with, infringe on, abridge, or deny their duty to impose the Bill of Rights on the society it governs, that the constitution itself becomes null and void?

Why should the persons on the inside (government operators) make any decisions whatsoever about their duties required, and the authority to act while in service to the government. Making those decisions should all be reserved to those who are to be the governed?

Why should not failure of the government, or on the part of those who operate it, to keep the constitutional promises made in response to the terms and conditions expressed in the ten amendments, negate the entire constitution? These ten amendments protect humanity from Tyranny by those who are the Governors.

Why should failure to uphold the conditions granted to overcome objection to ratification of the constitution, not be sufficient cause to declare the Constitution itself null and void for lack of the performance on the conditions upon which ratification of the constitution was based?

When the persons who operate the government, ignore the preconditions upon which the constitution that put them in power was based, is that not sufficient to deny their claim to legitimacy?

Seems to me claims of the operators of government that they have the right to lead, are based on the authority and duties prescribed in, and individually spelled out in the words of the amended constitution.

I cannot see how failure of all those in privity with the government to meet the conditions of the constitutional contract can continue to claim to authority when the government (the Congress, the executive, the judicial and the various state and local subdivisions thereof) fail to eliminate all barriers that would deny speech of any kind access to the public or private media.

As I see it, the first amendment makes it clear no person, public or private, has the authority to control, gate or condition access to, or to deny or erect any barrier that would, indirectly or directly, deny, delay or alter the use of any media to any person for any reason. The 1st ten amendments [BoRs] are conditions precedent to the existence of the constitution itself. Government has no choice but to impose these BoRs contract conditions on all persons, at all times, in all places, in both public and private sectors of the governed space.

As I see it, because the Bill of Rights are preconditions, government, and or its operators, may not find, develop or invent excuses, such as greater or lesser or impelling needs to justify curtailing speech or to interfere with the right of every USA governed living human being. The rights expressed in the Bill of Rights are unlimited unless expressly made finite or conditional by the writings that constitute the words in the amendment.

Historically, these rights, expressed as the Bill of Rights (1st Ten (Bill of Rights) Amendments to the Constitution of the USA, were derivatives of the necessary justification found in the first clause of the Declaration of Independence. and the second clause in the same Declaration of Independence document use the behavioral History of the present [government] of repeated injuries and usurpations as justification adequate to deny the current government its authority to continue.

No risk that might deny freedom seems greater to me, than when operators of government violate obligations expressed in the founding documents of a nation state,

What should the governed do, when it is discovered that preconditions designed and embedded in the founding documents which were designed to prevent the operators of government from using the government to engage in Tyranny have been ignored, infringed on, or violated?

It seems to me denying, or allowing others to deny, any person, or any class of persons, equal speech access to express speech in or on public or private media is a flagrant violation of the first amendment.

It seems to me denying those who work for, or who contract with government to voice their experience in media is a violation of the First Amendment.

It seems to me denying standing to be heard in a court of law or at hearing conducted by government or one or more of its operative extensions, is a violation of the first Amendment.

It seems to me sealing from view documents of any kind, constitutes a violation of the first Amendment.

It seems to me the first Amendment makes it clear, no authority exist for government to deny anyone, public or private access to media. and clearly imposes the duty on all in government to deny anyone, public or private, any way to deny free speech.

It seems to me, no subject matter is sold bold, or so challenging, or so damaging, that revealing its content would cause a harm greater than not revealing it. The right of persons to speak and to be heard is absolute.

It seems to me, in the case of determining the meaning of a constitution: is it rational, reasonable or even sufficient that a court formed under the authority of the constitution should have jurisdiction to settle disputes between the governors and the governed? Can a constitutional court decide a constitutional issue. I think not?

If the Bill of Rights clauses are changed does that negate existing Article V ratification?

When it comes to the bill of rights, the issue of infringement or refusal reach to continuation of the constitution itself. Those who operate the USA government derive their authority to operate and impose their will on those who are the governed, only because of the constitution.. So if the duties the Bill of Rights impose on those who operate the government are ignored or infringed, does that act quash the permission upon which the constitution was installed (basically ratification).

When government officials fail, by law or force, to protect the rights granted as conditions precedent to the Constitution, does that mean ratification of the constitution disappears? If not, there is little justification for a constitution at all?

Have officials in charge already truncated and ended the constitution itself? Seems to me unless government (congress, executive and judiciary) by law or force denies infringement on the Bill of Rights, in public and private there is no constitution; its clauses were abdicated by governments own actions. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bFonW7NgJM

Replies: @SolontoCroesus, @Marshall U Bernhardt

You're speaking of the neocons. Who are neither conservatives, new or patriots. They are, aside from an occasional token goy, dual citizen Israeli.

“My persoal opinion is that the USA and NATO want to have confrontations with China and Russia sooner rather than later while the USA can still win them.”

It was exactly this kind of thinking that led to World War I. Germany wanted a war with Russia , and Britain wanted a war with Germany sooner rather than later, before the other got too powerful.

Replies: @David

"Math - ew."

Replies: @Mathew

This essay, although well written as usual, peers at China through the badly smudged spectacles of Western “exceptionalism”.

 

Replies: @showmethereal

U.S. industrial capability had already been wiped out thanks to decades of Wall Street capitalism
 

Not to say that it wouldn't be even more if trade deficits were eliminated. But the plain fact remains that it is US manufacturing employment, not output, that has gone down. Our manufacturing base makes more than ever, and will make even more next year.

Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave, @WHAT, @Tor597, @Erebus

They can't even make a Television.

You’ve never been unemployed have you?

Agree, J. Debyshire is a well-known bigot.

Replies: @Richard B

I, for one, welcome the rise of China because the Chinese are a civilized people who believe in harmony. Never in their long history have they set out to conquer anyone, but only to trade with other countries. With America's downward slide, perhaps there will be less violence in the word. Amen!

Another anti-US military commenter with absolutely no idea of what he writes.
1. US military defeated the NVA in every major engagement, the communists couldn't defeat the South until 2 years after the US withdrew.
2. The reds invaded the South in Korea, almost conquered it, but were driven back over the 38th parallel where they remain.
3. The Iraqi military was destroyed and an American puppet subject to American decrees still sits in Baghdad.
4. The Taliban was driven from power in Afghanistan and now live in the bush, controlling no major population centers while a US puppet sits in Kabul.
5. The US never invaded Syria and only supported trying the nation down in chaos which has resulted in tying Russia down in a guerilla war for the foreseeable future.
Whether you like the US or not, its military is doing fine.

The first external war of the USA was against the 'Barbary States' (1801-1805) Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis, Morocco which were seizing American merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom, demanding the U.S. pay tribute to the Barbary rulers, although they were not at war with the USA. Although beaten, the pirates continued to arraign the American ships the very next year, which led to the Second Barbary War of 1815.

short period of time
 

You can - it's been done before, but it takes a pretty ruthless level of meting out over-the-top violence.

Also, if you give people no choice but to face annihilation, then they will fight to the last and it will certainly cost a lot more of your side and resources. The French were pretty ruthless in their campaigns to bring the rebellion to heel in Algeria, but they were a bit like the Mongols in a certain regard. They could be indiscriminate and over-the-top in the violence if you resisted to make an example out of you to everyone else (which is why Amir Abdul Qadir [ra] started losing support among the various tribes, since the cost to support him was complete eradication), but if you capitulated they were willing to come to a level of terms.

The thing with Europeans seems to be that every time they get the jump on everyone else they remember how much more they like to go postal on each other...so they have another one of those periodic continental wars that blast each other to kingdom come. And then have to deal with the fallout of becoming weakened from their original position and lose what they gained. In WW2 this translated, for instance, into inviting Algerians (as well as others) to take part in invasions on the Southern Mediterranean front.

Much earlier, Napoleon's successful Egypt and Levant campaign was brought to a quick halt - not by the natives, the French blew out their competition in the majority of their engagements - but by Britain intervening and completely handing the French their backsides in the Battle of the Nile.

The biggest advantage the rest of the world has generally had in this regard is European disunity and in-fighting. For instance, think about where exactly the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenals are pointed at and by whom.

Seems to be a Divinely measured set of checks and balances so that no one people hold the king-of-the-hill position for too long and things remain interesting.

Peace.

The wheat growing must have been in Berber areas behind the coast. This is a short version of the history of the Barbary States. The pirates states were Turkish run.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1503&HistoryID=ab26

With the decline of the local Berber dynasties in the 15th and 16th centuries, the valuable coastal strip of north Africa (known because of the Berbers as the Barbary coast) attracts the attention of the two most powerful Mediterranean states of the time - Spain in the west, Turkey in the east.

The Spanish-Turkish rivalry lasts for much of the 16th century, but it is gradually won - in a somewhat unorthodox manner - by the Turks. Their successful device is to allow Turkish pirates, or corsairs, to establish themselves along the coast. The territories seized by the corsairs are then given a formal status as protectorates of the Ottoman empire.

The first such pirate establishes himself on the coast of Algeria in 1512. Two others are firmly based in Libya by 1551. Tunisia is briefly taken in 1534 by the most famous corsair of them all, Khair ed-Din (known to the Europeans as Barbarossa). Recovered for Spain in 1535, Tunisia is finally brought under Ottoman control in 1574.

Piracy remains the chief purpose and main source of income of all these Turkish settlements along the Barbary coast. And the depredations of piracy, after three centuries, at last prompt French intervention in Algeria. This, at any rate, is stated by the French at the time to be the cause of their intervention. The reality is somewhat less glorious.

Algiers is occupied by the French in 1830, but it is not until 1847 that the French conquest of Algeria is complete - after prolonged resistance from the Berber hinterland, which has never been effectively controlled by the Turks on the coast
 

Replies: @Iris

Likely, because they weren't colonized by the Spanish.

Peace.

Replies: @buzzwar

Divide and conquer and "war by deception" strikes again. Arab Muslims and White Christian Gentiles fighting each other, so why not next have the (((commie))) Chinese go to war with the (((capitalist))) goyim. It is like the little scrawny kid instigating two of his bullies to fight each other. Both bullies are weakened and one might even be destroyed. Now the little kid only has to deal with one big bully.

This shit smells so bad I can smell it from Sarah Palin's house. haha.

IT IS REFRESHING TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE ON TO THIS SHIT. RESTORES MY FAITH TO KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THIS.

Do you have any sources for this? Israel was in its infancy at the time, seems unlikely they'd be involved in a conflict that didn't directly impact them

Replies: @buzzwar

The huge majority of Muslims who fought in WW2 did so for the Allies; many may have sympathized with the Axis, but those didn't have much impact on the war. The British Indian army was very disproportionately Moslem

Sure. And there are auburn-haired, hazel-eyed Syrians. And Russia just expanded its borders to incorporate Crimea and Hong Kong is in the process of disappearing as an autonomous territory. If you don't hold someone else will take.

Replies: @buzzwar

The modern Israeli nation-state has a common creed, common people, and a geographic redoubt. It's no more "artificial" than anywhere else; it's actually more organic than a lot of places.

Replies: @SaneClownPosse, @buzzwar

Most if not all the countries are artificial constructs. The US is an artificial construct.
 

Replies: @buzzwar

And moorish architecture was copied from Whites. The moors who invaded Spain were nomads and did not even settle down for 40 years after the conquest untill a ruler made them. The cities they built were built with recycled visigoth materials and plans. The moorish arch is just a copied Roman arch.

Every seen saudi arabia's wonderful architecture?

Thought not.

Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude, @anon

Absolutely they are... Have you forgot the Arab invasions in the 7th century?

Replies: @Jacques Sheete

And the Leningrad holocaust ? , and the 27 million soviets dead ? were they less humans than the germans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad

The whole WWII was a devil holocaust ,

Replies: @Hans

That was the real holocaust of WW2.
 

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, IS THE SOLUTION!
 

Replies: @A123

Oh I dunno, that Sheik oil money was pretty awesome, no oil in Israel. Look at Dubai, they build ski slopes in the dessert, and fake Islands.
Yeah they put all that oil money to good use, they cannot even change a light bulb over there, no wrenches under those robes.
What a joke about the money, the Arabs had piles and piles of cash to give to maybe five families, while there people starve. And Abbas and the PA, worth billions. They get a ton fo money as well.
Meanwhile Jews have built desalinization plants that have kept parts of Africa from drought.

Replies: @anonymous, @anon

don't waste time on him . Please don't .

Syria had a better GDP than the neighboring country Jordan
 

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/field/field_document/20150623SyriaEconomyButter.pdf

It is important to note that
economic grievances, including popular resentment at market-oriented reforms, played a part in
the 2011 uprising against the regime in Damascus. Although they were not a determining factor,
increased poverty and inequality alongside the rise of a new wealthy business elite made for a combustible mix.
 

Replies: @anon

True, and Muslims, you could say have a reason to 'hate' the west with the the non-stop wars against them for the past 60+ years. The West pretty much created a state for these jew-parasites and they still hate the west despite all the favors and money given to these filthy people.

#winning !!!

Replies: @Wally

They stole their architecture and never gave it back.

Replies: @Bombercommand

{ Moorish architecture dates back to the 8th century until late 15th century.}

How exactly did nomads, which Moors assuredly were, create so-called "Moorish" architecture.
The Moorish nomads stole it from civilizations they invaded and conquered and called it "Moorish".
The original nomad "architecture" is a tent.

Replies: @Seraphim, @Tom Welsh, @Heros, @TheJester

Except that the word quite literally means "Praise Yahweh."

Replies: @Buzzwar

It could mean "praise the lord" but certainly not "praise yahweh". Why would the Babylonians praise a god who is not theirs. The lord could be the king himself or some local Mesopotamian deity like Inky, Isimud, etc..

Why, if the French were so all-fired beastly to those noble Algerians, why are so many of them trying to get into France today?

How long did the Barbary coast slave trade which traded in Europeans and which Algeria participated in last? Also, why do so many of these people want into Europe and European territories so bad if we're all so terrible?

Replies: @Alden

The Algerians fought against the French so they could move to France rape and harass French women and do to France’s great cities what blacks did and are still doing to America’s great cities.

BTW, the Algerian pirates and slave raiders didn’t stop attacking Europe until the 1830s after the French took over the slave raiding pirate country.

I saw Battle of Algiers. I snickered all through it.

Laugh out loud at this sanctimonious BS.

Bet he thinks OJ is innocent as well.

"We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons”