• https://pacific.epeak.in/2019/08/15/hong-kong-faces-new-threat-as-chinese-companies-reconsider-ipos/
    https://pacific.epeak.in/2019/08/15/hong-kong-faces-new-threat-as-chinese-companies-reconsider-ipos/
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • https://pacific.epeak.in/2019/08/15/hong-kong-faces-new-threat-as-chinese-companies-reconsider-ipos/
    https://pacific.epeak.in/2019/08/15/hong-kong-faces-new-threat-as-chinese-companies-reconsider-ipos/
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • https://pacific.epeak.in/2019/08/15/hong-kong-faces-new-threat-as-chinese-companies-reconsider-ipos/
    https://pacific.epeak.in/2019/08/15/hong-kong-faces-new-threat-as-chinese-companies-reconsider-ipos/
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • March 26, 2019
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    By Raymond Ibrahim
    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:


    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).

    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).



    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    March 26, 2019 America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad By Raymond Ibrahim Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    The United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims after the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims. 
    WWW.AMERICANTHINKER.COM
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • XCD Nutrition Vapor XS - Cotton Candy
    CANADA
    EXTREME THERMOGENIC FAT BURNER!
    The ever popular Vapor Lipo Vaporizer is one potent little tub of Gold(literally).

    This little gold tub contains an all star roll call of potent fat burning ingredients designed to tackle three key points of weight loss.

    Uncoupling of stored fat for use as energy.

    Increased metabolic rate & energy expenditure.

    Control cravings & elevate mood.

    VaporXS is the new exciting fat burning formula . Extreme thermogenic qualities combined with an ECA like effect makes it one of the
    most potent fat burning tools you can get. Coming in the incredible flavours Cotton Candy, Black Blue Sorbet and Coconut Mango,
    VaporXS is the most fun and effective product to burn fat.

    VaporXS is a potent thermogenic fat burning agent designed to increase mental alertness, control appetite and incinerate unwanted
    stored fat. Combining 6 core ingredients, VaporXS leaves no stone unturned, utilising key amino acids and extracts to stimulate the
    breakdown, transportation and burning of body fat.

    All too often a fat burner focuses on the stimulant but forgets about ensuring body fat can be broken down effectively.

    VaporXS relies on key ingredients to break down stored fat, while also combining industry renowned fatty acid transportation amino
    acids, which ensures both fat breakdown and transportation, are optimised.

    Shut down hunger, enhance mood and vaporise fat like never before.

    Key Points:

    -Increases thermogenesis and supports metabolism
    -Helps to burn fat faster
    -Supports mental focus
    -Increases energy levels
    -Improves alertness
    -POTENT THERMO


    It’s dosed with an all-star roll call of potent fat burning ingredients.
    Are you ready?

    Higenamine
    Higenamine is a molecule derived from a variety of fruits and plants that appears to have anti-asthmatic properties via dilating the
    bronchial tubes (a mechanism known as Beta(2)adrenergic agonism). This mechanism is also the same one underlying the fat
    burning potential of Ephedrine, and as such Higenamine is currently being used as a fat burner.

    Biperine
    Has been shown in clinical trials to increase absoprtion of several nutrients including co-enzyme Q10, selenium, curcumin,
    vitamin B6 and Vitamin C1. Piperine has also been shown to help with thermogenesis, which is the metabolic process that
    generates energy in the human body, a key factor in maintaining weight loss. Piperine has been shown to help with fat
    metabolism and be able to accelerate energy metabolism2 in the body.

    Acetyl L-Carnitine
    The most critical role that L-carnitine plays in the body is in helping to transport fat, particularly long-chain fatty acids,
    into the mitochondria of cells. Once there, they can be oxidized—used as fuel—to generate adenosine triphosphate, or
    ATP. L-carnitine does this cellular work this both when you exercise and rest, but research confirms that it is especially
    effective during intense exercise.

    African Mango
    According to the study, subjects who took 150mg of this African mango seed extract twice a day showed "significant
    improvements" in their body weight, body fat, and waist circumference, as well as a slew of numbers that indicate
    better heart health, including plasma total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, blood glucose, C-reactive protein, adiponectin,
    and leptin levels—all without changing their diet or exercise routine. Additional studies have shown similar results, with
    subjects losing weight (about 8-10 pounds) without making other lifestyle changes.

    Garcinia Cambogia
    It wasn’t until the late 60s that scientistsdiscovered that the fruit has hydroxycitric acid (HCA)— a substance which
    is hailed to contain some potent qualities. HCA is said to stop the conversion of sugar into fat The chemical compound
    can increase endurance It increases serotonin levels It curbs the appetite

    AMPiberry®
    Is a trademarked ingredient known to decrease water weight, assist in fat loss and provide a smooth energy curve when
    paired with caffeine. AMPiberry™ is taken from a form of Juniperus communis (common juniper), a species in the genus
    Juniperus, in the family Cupressaceae.

    Caffeine
    Is a substance found naturally in more than 60 plants, with the most common varieties being tea leaves, kola nuts, coffee
    and cocoa beans. When caffeine is ingested, it quickly passes into the brain, where it has a stimulatory effect on the central
    nervous system. This effect increases focus and counteracts fatigue. Caffeine can also increase energy output, which means
    calories are burned at a higher rate. This is done through thermogenesis, or the production of heat in the body.

    https://www.keebosportssupplements.com/xcd-nutrition-vapor-xs-cotton-candy/
    EXTREME THERMOGENIC FAT BURNER! The ever popular Vapor Lipo Vaporizer is one potent little tub of Gold(literally). This little gold tub contains an all star roll call of potent fat burning ingredients designed to tackle three key points of weight loss. Uncoupling of stored fat for use as energy. Increased metabolic rate & energy expenditure. Control cravings & elevate mood. VaporXS is the new exciting fat burning formula . Extreme thermogenic qualities combined with an ECA like effect makes it one of the most potent fat burning tools you can get. Coming in the incredible flavours Cotton Candy, Black Blue Sorbet and Coconut Mango, VaporXS is the most fun and effective product to burn fat. VaporXS is a potent thermogenic fat burning agent designed to increase mental alertness, control appetite and incinerate unwanted stored fat. Combining 6 core ingredients, VaporXS leaves no stone unturned, utilising key amino acids and extracts to stimulate the breakdown, transportation and burning of body fat. All too often a fat burner focuses on the stimulant but forgets about ensuring body fat can be broken down effectively. VaporXS relies on key ingredients to break down stored fat, while also combining industry renowned fatty acid transportation amino acids, which ensures both fat breakdown and transportation, are optimised. Shut down hunger, enhance mood and vaporise fat like never before. Key Points: -Increases thermogenesis and supports metabolism -Helps to burn fat faster -Supports mental focus -Increases energy levels -Improves alertness -POTENT THERMO It’s dosed with an all-star roll call of potent fat burning ingredients. Are you ready? Higenamine Higenamine is a molecule derived from a variety of fruits and plants that appears to have anti-asthmatic properties via dilating the bronchial tubes (a mechanism known as Beta(2)adrenergic agonism). This mechanism is also the same one underlying the fat burning potential of Ephedrine, and as such Higenamine is currently being used as a fat burner. Biperine Has been shown in clinical trials to increase absoprtion of several nutrients including co-enzyme Q10, selenium, curcumin, vitamin B6 and Vitamin C1. Piperine has also been shown to help with thermogenesis, which is the metabolic process that generates energy in the human body, a key factor in maintaining weight loss. Piperine has been shown to help with fat metabolism and be able to accelerate energy metabolism2 in the body. Acetyl L-Carnitine The most critical role that L-carnitine plays in the body is in helping to transport fat, particularly long-chain fatty acids, into the mitochondria of cells. Once there, they can be oxidized—used as fuel—to generate adenosine triphosphate, or ATP. L-carnitine does this cellular work this both when you exercise and rest, but research confirms that it is especially effective during intense exercise. African Mango According to the study, subjects who took 150mg of this African mango seed extract twice a day showed "significant improvements" in their body weight, body fat, and waist circumference, as well as a slew of numbers that indicate better heart health, including plasma total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, blood glucose, C-reactive protein, adiponectin, and leptin levels—all without changing their diet or exercise routine. Additional studies have shown similar results, with subjects losing weight (about 8-10 pounds) without making other lifestyle changes. Garcinia Cambogia It wasn’t until the late 60s that scientistsdiscovered that the fruit has hydroxycitric acid (HCA)— a substance which is hailed to contain some potent qualities. HCA is said to stop the conversion of sugar into fat The chemical compound can increase endurance It increases serotonin levels It curbs the appetite AMPiberry® Is a trademarked ingredient known to decrease water weight, assist in fat loss and provide a smooth energy curve when paired with caffeine. AMPiberry™ is taken from a form of Juniperus communis (common juniper), a species in the genus Juniperus, in the family Cupressaceae. Caffeine Is a substance found naturally in more than 60 plants, with the most common varieties being tea leaves, kola nuts, coffee and cocoa beans. When caffeine is ingested, it quickly passes into the brain, where it has a stimulatory effect on the central nervous system. This effect increases focus and counteracts fatigue. Caffeine can also increase energy output, which means calories are burned at a higher rate. This is done through thermogenesis, or the production of heat in the body. https://www.keebosportssupplements.com/xcd-nutrition-vapor-xs-cotton-candy/
    Type
    New
    Price
    $41.99 (USD)
    Status
    In stock
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • quotation
    There would have been no long-lasting civil war in Syria without the billions of cash and weapons supplied to the so-called rebels and the outright jihadis by Washington and its Persian Gulf vassals; nor would Yemen by sinking into famine and cholera plagues without the American bombs, missiles and drone dispatched by the Saudi pilots essentially functioning as hired Pentagon mercenaries.
    Indeed, the smoldering ruins of Mosul, Aleppo, Fallujah, Benghazi and lesser places in their thousands hardly speak to a beneficent hegemony.

    Yet had Washington never brought its fleets and occupying forces to the Middle East after 1970 and had the region not come under the heavy boot of the Central Command and Washington’s assorted proconsuls and plenipotentiaries, the plague of radical Sunni jidhadism would never have arisen. Nor is it likely that the ancient rift between the Sunni and Shiite confessions of Islam would have erupted into today’s lethal armed conflicts.

    author/source
    America First, Helsinki, And Trump's Existential Threat To The Empire
    by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog
    zerohedge.com, 7/7/2018
    quotation There would have been no long-lasting civil war in Syria without the billions of cash and weapons supplied to the so-called rebels and the outright jihadis by Washington and its Persian Gulf vassals; nor would Yemen by sinking into famine and cholera plagues without the American bombs, missiles and drone dispatched by the Saudi pilots essentially functioning as hired Pentagon mercenaries. Indeed, the smoldering ruins of Mosul, Aleppo, Fallujah, Benghazi and lesser places in their thousands hardly speak to a beneficent hegemony. Yet had Washington never brought its fleets and occupying forces to the Middle East after 1970 and had the region not come under the heavy boot of the Central Command and Washington’s assorted proconsuls and plenipotentiaries, the plague of radical Sunni jidhadism would never have arisen. Nor is it likely that the ancient rift between the Sunni and Shiite confessions of Islam would have erupted into today’s lethal armed conflicts. author/source America First, Helsinki, And Trump's Existential Threat To The Empire by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog zerohedge.com, 7/7/2018
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Q&A: 'Machine Gun Preacher' star Gerard Butler doesn't want to kick your ass

    By BY MATT PAIS
    REDEYE MOVIE CRITIC |
    SEP 26, 2011 | 12:00 AM

    Q&A: 'Machine Gun Preacher' star Gerard Butler doesn't want to kick your ass

    "I'm actually not as intimidating as I look." (Lenny Gilmore / RedEye)
    "Machine Gun Preacher" star Gerard Butler won't name specific movies, but he recognizes that he's made some stinkers.

    "There without a doubt have been movies that I've watched and went, 'What a waste of time that was,'" says the Scottish actor, 41, who may or may not have been referring to "The Ugly Truth," "The Bounty Hunter," "Law Abiding Citizen," "P.S. I Love You" and others. "I can say that now and maybe kind of smile about it, but I gotta tell you, when that happens it's really depressing because it's months out of your life."

    Clearly Butler (who doesn't mind being called Gerry) had no qualms about diving into "Machine Gun Preacher," opening Sept. 30. In the film Butler plays Sam Childers, a real-life Pennsylvania activist who transformed from a violent, dangerous drug dealer into a religious, self-described freedom fighter. He built an orphanage in Sudan and took down murderous Sudanese rebels by any means necessary. Yes, that means through violence.

    Butler worked with a dialect coach, bikers, contractors and plumbers to nail all facets of Sam's life. He frequently referred to a book featuring photos of mutilated African children in order to bring himself to the necessary emotional place for the role. Of course, Butler already owns a Harley, so it's not as if becoming a leather-clad bad boy was that much of a stretch.

    At the Four Seasons Hotel, the primarily L.A.-based actor—who swore off alcohol a long time ago, by the way, but indulged me in a chocolate milk chugging contest you can watch above—talked about fake mustaches, public urination and a fan who wanted a swift kick to the chest.

    Can you sense a movie you're making is going to be bad at the time or only after you see it?

    Both. Normally you can tell. There was a movie that I did that I didn't like and I knew from the first take. And I was relatively inexperienced at that point and I was just so excited that I got the role and I only assumed that the movie was going to be great. I was very naïve. And literally from the first "Action!," a few people in the scene we all started talking and I went, "Oh God, this is going to be crap."

    Can you give me one title that made you feel that way?

    No.

    First letter?

    No.

    Rhymes with?

    [Laughs.] Rhymes with "no."

    For "Machine Gun Preacher," was there any point at which you tried to grow a mustache like Sam's?

    [Laughs.] No, we talked about it. We talked about it quite a lot, and actually I did grow out a beard and mustache but you know what, it's a little too much of a gamble. For instance, in "300" it worked great. We all said, "We're going to stick with this ridiculously long beard," and that worked because it was more stylized. It seemed after the conversation it's a little too much to ask people to take. A lot of people would find it fine; we're already going on a heavy enough-journey without this big mustache. It also looks great on Sam, but it didn't look so good on me.

    You don't think so?

    No, I know so.

    It would take me six years to grow it like him.

    There's the other thing. It would have had to have been a false mustache; I could never get to that length. "Really, I'm going to spend a whole movie with this big false mustache?" When it's not in truth important enough to the story, and it's just taking a kind of gamble that wasn't really necessary.

    What was the hardest part of this role, and what went through your head the first time you touched down in Africa?

    The hardest part of the role without a doubt was dealing with the tragedy of Sam's life. Other people in most movies, perhaps in your more dramatic moments life got a little depressing, you struggled with love or something. His journey is so intense that his downs were downs that most people will never experience—the intensities of drug addiction and acting out on that addiction almost to the point of death and extreme violence. Then basically a mental breakdown, witnessing the horrors that he witnessed. That extreme, extreme emotion and physical destruction, having to go to those places was intense. But touching down in Africa was surely exciting for me 'cause I knew this whole movie was a great adventure. Much as it took a lot out of me, it also gave me so much.

    Did you ever doubt that you could do it?

    I always doubt myself. I swing between thinking, "I'm going to knock this out of the ballpark" to, "This is gonna suck so bad." Even "300," there'd be times that I was going, "OK, this is amazing" to other times when I was thinking, "This is so ridiculous, I can't believe we're standing here looking at nothing, talking nonsense." And I definitely had that with this. "Am I pulling it off? Am I pulling off the accent? Am I pulling off the character? Is it too melodramatic? Am I representing this man well?" So definitely you get that a lot.

    How do you think Sam's badassness compares to your badassness?

    I think he is truly a badass. I think I'm a little puppy Labrador compared to him.

    You've played a lot of masculine characters. What do you think people expect out of you when they meet you?

    It's interesting you say that because I've tried to get past thinking about that because it never really leads you anywhere good when you think people have expectations of you. I try to be decent with people. My feeling is generally most people appreciate that, that you can stay grounded and warm and friendly towards 'em. But I have no doubt that sometimes people go, almost, "He's real, he's normal. What a disappointment."

    Do you recall something someone said on the street, when they were trying to bring a character out of you?

    Oh, all the time. I constantly have people asking me to quote lines from movies, especially "300" of course. Or give 'em one of those kicks. Literally somebody asked me recently to kick him in the chest as hard as I could. They were like, "Go!" I'm like, "Are you kidding me?" "Kick me! Kick me!"

    "I won't be angry, it's OK."

    I'm thinking this is funny and I went, "[Laughs] No," and [he said], "Go! Kick me!" And I'm like, "This is so stupid. No, I'm not going to do it." So I hit him in the head with a baseball bat, and then we were fine.

    What's something you think reflects a softer side of you that might surprise people? Sam talked about how much he loves cologne.
    Maybe I'm a bit of a crybaby. I'm the kind of person that I can I have a little tear in my eye when I watch movies. Sometimes even just somebody tells me a story and if it's powerful I'll tear up.

    What's a movie that made you cry? Disney stuff?

    What would be a movie that made me cry? Oh my God, a lot of my movies made me cry. "Life is Beautiful." That made me cry. It also made me laugh. You can't beat a movie that makes you laugh and cry at the same time.

    How upset were you when you heard about Gerard Depardieu's public urination incident and the careless way he's dishonoring the name Gerard?

    [Laughs.] It didn't cross my mind. I'm all for public urination. You should be able to relieve yourself whenever you feel like it.

    This is from personal experience?

    Absolutely. I just did it earlier on today. Out on the street. Just close to the hotel.

    Plus:

    On Chicago: "I think this city's great. It has all this great architecture and it's a big city but it doesn't feel like a big city. It feels very small town. Really good people. I love walking about this city. It's got a good energy about it … I made a bit of a movie here. I had a girlfriend from here; I came visiting with her. I've been in and out a few times."

    On picking roles: "I have always had this feeling to keep it open and see where it leads me and never get stuck into one genre. I remember when I took on 'Phantom' Andrew Lloyd Webber said to me, 'This is going to change your life, and it's going to change the path of your career.' And inside I was thinking, 'No, it's not. I'm still going to keep doing what I'm doing which is everything I can.'

    Perhaps ['Machine Gun Preacher'] will lead to slightly more dramatic roles, but that was where I was going anyway. But I don't ever want to stop doing comedies or whatever. I want to keep changing it up."
    A role he wouldn't want: "I wouldn't want to jump in on a number 5 or a number 6 of any movie. I think it's more fun to create roles than jumping in on the sequel of something."

    On his iPod: "Oh my God. Sigur Ros is one of my favorites. Mogwai. Windy and Carl. I love kind of weird music. I love a bit of Radiohead. Massive Attack. LCD Soundsystem."

    Watch Matt on "You & Me This Morning," Fridays at 7 a.m. on WCIU, the U

    mpais@tribune.com

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/redeye/redeye-qa-gerard-butler-of-machine-gun-preacher-20110922-story.html
    Q&A: 'Machine Gun Preacher' star Gerard Butler doesn't want to kick your ass By BY MATT PAIS REDEYE MOVIE CRITIC | SEP 26, 2011 | 12:00 AM Q&A: 'Machine Gun Preacher' star Gerard Butler doesn't want to kick your ass "I'm actually not as intimidating as I look." (Lenny Gilmore / RedEye) "Machine Gun Preacher" star Gerard Butler won't name specific movies, but he recognizes that he's made some stinkers. "There without a doubt have been movies that I've watched and went, 'What a waste of time that was,'" says the Scottish actor, 41, who may or may not have been referring to "The Ugly Truth," "The Bounty Hunter," "Law Abiding Citizen," "P.S. I Love You" and others. "I can say that now and maybe kind of smile about it, but I gotta tell you, when that happens it's really depressing because it's months out of your life." Clearly Butler (who doesn't mind being called Gerry) had no qualms about diving into "Machine Gun Preacher," opening Sept. 30. In the film Butler plays Sam Childers, a real-life Pennsylvania activist who transformed from a violent, dangerous drug dealer into a religious, self-described freedom fighter. He built an orphanage in Sudan and took down murderous Sudanese rebels by any means necessary. Yes, that means through violence. Butler worked with a dialect coach, bikers, contractors and plumbers to nail all facets of Sam's life. He frequently referred to a book featuring photos of mutilated African children in order to bring himself to the necessary emotional place for the role. Of course, Butler already owns a Harley, so it's not as if becoming a leather-clad bad boy was that much of a stretch. At the Four Seasons Hotel, the primarily L.A.-based actor—who swore off alcohol a long time ago, by the way, but indulged me in a chocolate milk chugging contest you can watch above—talked about fake mustaches, public urination and a fan who wanted a swift kick to the chest. Can you sense a movie you're making is going to be bad at the time or only after you see it? Both. Normally you can tell. There was a movie that I did that I didn't like and I knew from the first take. And I was relatively inexperienced at that point and I was just so excited that I got the role and I only assumed that the movie was going to be great. I was very naïve. And literally from the first "Action!," a few people in the scene we all started talking and I went, "Oh God, this is going to be crap." Can you give me one title that made you feel that way? No. First letter? No. Rhymes with? [Laughs.] Rhymes with "no." For "Machine Gun Preacher," was there any point at which you tried to grow a mustache like Sam's? [Laughs.] No, we talked about it. We talked about it quite a lot, and actually I did grow out a beard and mustache but you know what, it's a little too much of a gamble. For instance, in "300" it worked great. We all said, "We're going to stick with this ridiculously long beard," and that worked because it was more stylized. It seemed after the conversation it's a little too much to ask people to take. A lot of people would find it fine; we're already going on a heavy enough-journey without this big mustache. It also looks great on Sam, but it didn't look so good on me. You don't think so? No, I know so. It would take me six years to grow it like him. There's the other thing. It would have had to have been a false mustache; I could never get to that length. "Really, I'm going to spend a whole movie with this big false mustache?" When it's not in truth important enough to the story, and it's just taking a kind of gamble that wasn't really necessary. What was the hardest part of this role, and what went through your head the first time you touched down in Africa? The hardest part of the role without a doubt was dealing with the tragedy of Sam's life. Other people in most movies, perhaps in your more dramatic moments life got a little depressing, you struggled with love or something. His journey is so intense that his downs were downs that most people will never experience—the intensities of drug addiction and acting out on that addiction almost to the point of death and extreme violence. Then basically a mental breakdown, witnessing the horrors that he witnessed. That extreme, extreme emotion and physical destruction, having to go to those places was intense. But touching down in Africa was surely exciting for me 'cause I knew this whole movie was a great adventure. Much as it took a lot out of me, it also gave me so much. Did you ever doubt that you could do it? I always doubt myself. I swing between thinking, "I'm going to knock this out of the ballpark" to, "This is gonna suck so bad." Even "300," there'd be times that I was going, "OK, this is amazing" to other times when I was thinking, "This is so ridiculous, I can't believe we're standing here looking at nothing, talking nonsense." And I definitely had that with this. "Am I pulling it off? Am I pulling off the accent? Am I pulling off the character? Is it too melodramatic? Am I representing this man well?" So definitely you get that a lot. How do you think Sam's badassness compares to your badassness? I think he is truly a badass. I think I'm a little puppy Labrador compared to him. You've played a lot of masculine characters. What do you think people expect out of you when they meet you? It's interesting you say that because I've tried to get past thinking about that because it never really leads you anywhere good when you think people have expectations of you. I try to be decent with people. My feeling is generally most people appreciate that, that you can stay grounded and warm and friendly towards 'em. But I have no doubt that sometimes people go, almost, "He's real, he's normal. What a disappointment." Do you recall something someone said on the street, when they were trying to bring a character out of you? Oh, all the time. I constantly have people asking me to quote lines from movies, especially "300" of course. Or give 'em one of those kicks. Literally somebody asked me recently to kick him in the chest as hard as I could. They were like, "Go!" I'm like, "Are you kidding me?" "Kick me! Kick me!" "I won't be angry, it's OK." I'm thinking this is funny and I went, "[Laughs] No," and [he said], "Go! Kick me!" And I'm like, "This is so stupid. No, I'm not going to do it." So I hit him in the head with a baseball bat, and then we were fine. What's something you think reflects a softer side of you that might surprise people? Sam talked about how much he loves cologne. Maybe I'm a bit of a crybaby. I'm the kind of person that I can I have a little tear in my eye when I watch movies. Sometimes even just somebody tells me a story and if it's powerful I'll tear up. What's a movie that made you cry? Disney stuff? What would be a movie that made me cry? Oh my God, a lot of my movies made me cry. "Life is Beautiful." That made me cry. It also made me laugh. You can't beat a movie that makes you laugh and cry at the same time. How upset were you when you heard about Gerard Depardieu's public urination incident and the careless way he's dishonoring the name Gerard? [Laughs.] It didn't cross my mind. I'm all for public urination. You should be able to relieve yourself whenever you feel like it. This is from personal experience? Absolutely. I just did it earlier on today. Out on the street. Just close to the hotel. Plus: On Chicago: "I think this city's great. It has all this great architecture and it's a big city but it doesn't feel like a big city. It feels very small town. Really good people. I love walking about this city. It's got a good energy about it … I made a bit of a movie here. I had a girlfriend from here; I came visiting with her. I've been in and out a few times." On picking roles: "I have always had this feeling to keep it open and see where it leads me and never get stuck into one genre. I remember when I took on 'Phantom' Andrew Lloyd Webber said to me, 'This is going to change your life, and it's going to change the path of your career.' And inside I was thinking, 'No, it's not. I'm still going to keep doing what I'm doing which is everything I can.' Perhaps ['Machine Gun Preacher'] will lead to slightly more dramatic roles, but that was where I was going anyway. But I don't ever want to stop doing comedies or whatever. I want to keep changing it up." A role he wouldn't want: "I wouldn't want to jump in on a number 5 or a number 6 of any movie. I think it's more fun to create roles than jumping in on the sequel of something." On his iPod: "Oh my God. Sigur Ros is one of my favorites. Mogwai. Windy and Carl. I love kind of weird music. I love a bit of Radiohead. Massive Attack. LCD Soundsystem." Watch Matt on "You & Me This Morning," Fridays at 7 a.m. on WCIU, the U mpais@tribune.com https://www.chicagotribune.com/redeye/redeye-qa-gerard-butler-of-machine-gun-preacher-20110922-story.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Actions
    GERMANY
    TILL MORNING SO GOD WANTS FROM THE ISLAM KLOAKE NRW
    NRW HAS THE GREATEST SHARE OF MUSLIM AND IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST BUNDESLAND IN GERMANY WHAT TO FIND
    THE ISLAM CAN ONLY CRIMINALIZE IT NEGATES EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ISLAM IS SATAN
    EAT NRW the 02.08.2019
    TIME
    19 o'clock 22 min.

    LIVING POST: OK! CONFIRMED LIVING!
    TERROR ATTACKS BEFORE TERRORISTS IN BERLIN FRANKFURT AM MOLEN BECK BRUSSELS DUISBURG MUNICH TERROR STRIKES SHOULD TRY THE WAR MESSAGE COMES FROM A MUSLIM SERVICE NO KNOWS THE OTHER TO CHECK HEARD BUT IN THE VOICES ANALYSIS NO SUSPICIOUS FREQUENCY PRESSING AND THEREFORE NOTES TO LIES DELIVER
    CODEC OF CONTACTS (, MASDLÖKFGNQOEÖWIOIẞ0I34899:; m =) (jljkh) / (ziuhjökjhoji () /) (/ U90780) = oioi () ==) = 09ẞ8ẞkjJPIOpojkpo0909908klj = () /) = (HOIOIPOIWE9FU0ẞ234U9JIp) () =) = () (= & / z & / NJSQIOUREO1ÖÄLKWDio23oiroiĥ)

    Aktionen
    DEUTSCHLAND
    BIS MORGEN SO GOTT WILL AUS DER ISLAM KLOAKE NRW
    NRW HAT DEN GRÖẞTEN ANTEIL AN MUSLIME UND IST DAS ÄRMSTE BUNDESLAND IN DEUTSCHLAND FÄLLT EUCH WAS AUF
    DER ISLAM KANN NUR KRIMINALISIEREN ZERSTÖREN ER NEGIERT ALLES UND JEDEN DER ISLAM IST SATAN
    ESSEN NRW den 02.08.2019
    UHRZEIT
    19 uhr 22 min.

    LEBENDER POST : OK ! BESTÄTIGT LEBEND !
    TERROR ANSCHLÄGE STEHEN BEVOR TERRORISTEN IN BERLIN FRANKFURT AM MOLEN BECK BRÜSSEL DUISBURG MÜNCHEN TERROR SCHLÄGE SOLLEN DEN KRIEG AUSLÖSEN MELDUNG KOMMT VON EINEM MUSLIME DIENSTE KEINER KENNT DEN ANDEREN DARUM SCHWER ZU PRÜFEN ABER IN DER STIMMEN ANALYSE KEINE KEINE VERDÄCHTIGEN FREQUENZ PRESSUNGEN UND SOMIT HINWEISE AUF LÜGEN FEST ZU STELLEN
    CODEC DER KONTAKTE (,MASDLÖKFGNQOEÖWIOIẞ0I34899:;m=)(jljkh)/(ziuhjökjhoji()/)(/U90780)=oioi()==)=09ẞ8ẞkjJPIOpojkpo0909908klj=()/)=(HOIOIPOIWE9FU0ẞ234U9JIp)()=)=()(=&/z&/NJSQIOUREO1ÖÄLKWDio23oiroiĥ )

    Actions GERMANY TILL MORNING SO GOD WANTS FROM THE ISLAM KLOAKE NRW NRW HAS THE GREATEST SHARE OF MUSLIM AND IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST BUNDESLAND IN GERMANY WHAT TO FIND THE ISLAM CAN ONLY CRIMINALIZE IT NEGATES EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ISLAM IS SATAN EAT NRW the 02.08.2019 TIME 19 o'clock 22 min. LIVING POST: OK! CONFIRMED LIVING! TERROR ATTACKS BEFORE TERRORISTS IN BERLIN FRANKFURT AM MOLEN BECK BRUSSELS DUISBURG MUNICH TERROR STRIKES SHOULD TRY THE WAR MESSAGE COMES FROM A MUSLIM SERVICE NO KNOWS THE OTHER TO CHECK HEARD BUT IN THE VOICES ANALYSIS NO SUSPICIOUS FREQUENCY PRESSING AND THEREFORE NOTES TO LIES DELIVER CODEC OF CONTACTS (, MASDLÖKFGNQOEÖWIOIẞ0I34899:; m =) (jljkh) / (ziuhjökjhoji () /) (/ U90780) = oioi () ==) = 09ẞ8ẞkjJPIOpojkpo0909908klj = () /) = (HOIOIPOIWE9FU0ẞ234U9JIp) () =) = () (= & / z & / NJSQIOUREO1ÖÄLKWDio23oiroiĥ) Aktionen DEUTSCHLAND BIS MORGEN SO GOTT WILL AUS DER ISLAM KLOAKE NRW NRW HAT DEN GRÖẞTEN ANTEIL AN MUSLIME UND IST DAS ÄRMSTE BUNDESLAND IN DEUTSCHLAND FÄLLT EUCH WAS AUF DER ISLAM KANN NUR KRIMINALISIEREN ZERSTÖREN ER NEGIERT ALLES UND JEDEN DER ISLAM IST SATAN ESSEN NRW den 02.08.2019 UHRZEIT 19 uhr 22 min. LEBENDER POST : OK ! BESTÄTIGT LEBEND ! TERROR ANSCHLÄGE STEHEN BEVOR TERRORISTEN IN BERLIN FRANKFURT AM MOLEN BECK BRÜSSEL DUISBURG MÜNCHEN TERROR SCHLÄGE SOLLEN DEN KRIEG AUSLÖSEN MELDUNG KOMMT VON EINEM MUSLIME DIENSTE KEINER KENNT DEN ANDEREN DARUM SCHWER ZU PRÜFEN ABER IN DER STIMMEN ANALYSE KEINE KEINE VERDÄCHTIGEN FREQUENZ PRESSUNGEN UND SOMIT HINWEISE AUF LÜGEN FEST ZU STELLEN CODEC DER KONTAKTE (,MASDLÖKFGNQOEÖWIOIẞ0I34899:;m=)(jljkh)/(ziuhjökjhoji()/)(/U90780)=oioi()==)=09ẞ8ẞkjJPIOpojkpo0909908klj=()/)=(HOIOIPOIWE9FU0ẞ234U9JIp)()=)=()(=&/z&/NJSQIOUREO1ÖÄLKWDio23oiroiĥ )
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • GoPro: Get Lost and Ride On | Indo (00:31)
    GoPro 2.02K
    Pick a path. Then leave it. #TripOn with #GoProHERO7 Black.

    https://watch.permission.io/s/hysYgWCD?referralCode=X3AE54
    GoPro: Get Lost and Ride On | Indo (00:31) GoPro 2.02K Pick a path. Then leave it. #TripOn with #GoProHERO7 Black. https://watch.permission.io/s/hysYgWCD?referralCode=X3AE54
    GoPro: Get Lost and Ride On | Indo
    Pick a path. Then leave it. #TripOn with #GoProHERO7 Black.
    WATCH.PERMISSION.IO
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • #HowToRecoverFromAbuse #HowToRecoverFromAbuseByANarcissist #HowToRecoverFromNarcissisticAbuseSyndrome #HowToRecoverFromNarcissisticAbuse #HowToRecoverFromNarcissism #HowToRecoverFromSexualAssault #HowToRecoverFromLosingYourKids #HowToRecoverFromKidnapping #HowToRecoverFromLosingAChild #HowToCureMethAddiction #AlcoholismRecovery #HowToPutThePastBehindYouAndMoveForward #HowToCureBipolarDisorderNaturally #Luke4:18-19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-K3ksMLh58
    #HowToRecoverFromAbuse #HowToRecoverFromAbuseByANarcissist #HowToRecoverFromNarcissisticAbuseSyndrome #HowToRecoverFromNarcissisticAbuse #HowToRecoverFromNarcissism #HowToRecoverFromSexualAssault #HowToRecoverFromLosingYourKids #HowToRecoverFromKidnapping #HowToRecoverFromLosingAChild #HowToCureMethAddiction #AlcoholismRecovery #HowToPutThePastBehindYouAndMoveForward #HowToCureBipolarDisorderNaturally #Luke4:18-19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-K3ksMLh58
    A Real Message Of Hope, Faith, and Life For Real People Today 2019 Sermon
    1 Check out http://ChristianCourts.com ! Luke 4:18-19, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Jesus Lifts People Up Christian Sermon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5maE_C2JS4...
    YouTube
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

Sponsored

Canadian Community Project INC.

Please visit our site and share!