It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Fibonazi
a reply to: KissMyWookiee
ISIS and many other terror groups, are/have been funded by the US and/or allies of. So, to answer your question.
It's simple. Here's some money, go scream allahu akbar, while cutting that guys head off. The cartels are doing just as bad, if not worse, and no religion is involved, other than the religion...of survival. The other common denominator in those countries...the US.
edit-The us "accidentally" let a large weapons cache fall into ISIS hands, just like we accidentally sold arms to cartels, via fast and furious...along with leaving those regions destabilized and ripe for extremism.
originally posted by: KissMyWookiee
So, though the CIA/US got them started, they were not terrorists at the time we funded them. They were fighting against a foreign invasion and quite rightly, we helped them.
originally posted by: OldSchoolContemporary
a reply to: theNLBS
You'd think being so fixated upon BS the people behind this video would pick up an Islamic book some time, maybe leave their own BS at the door. Instead they'd sooner mislead people who're already stupefied by an ocean of bogus commentators and their incessant rantings. Here's what Muslim writings have to say on the matter.
Sahih Bukhari volume 4 book 52 number 220
Narrated by Abu Huraira
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)"
And people still wonder where terrorist groups got the idea to terrorize from?! As the old saying goes "Christianity makes demands of Christians, Judaism makes demands of Jews, Islam makes demands of everyone."
Surah 9:29 of the Qur'an: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."
Enjoy paying your unbeliever tax, my "humbled" friends.
To begin with, let us expose the Christian double standard, why do they firstly assume that fight has to completely mean physical only? Fighting those who do not believe in Islam can done in many other forms other than a physical fight or conflict, fighting someone can be done with the tongue, you refute and crush the persons lies, and you preach the truth to them until they repent of their ways and come to the truth. There is not a single objection any Christian or other can bring against this point, because they have deceptively interpreted this verse to mean physical altercation only, in fact what will Christians say to this verse from their Bible:
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword
Christians will interpret this verse saying that sword doesn't actually mean a physical sword, rather it is metaphorical language referring to the tongue, that by the tongue Christians shall spread the truth and crush the lies that have been propagated by satan. Therefore I must ask why don't Christians leave this interpretation open to the Quran as well? Why do they immediately assume that Surah 9:29 must ONLY refer to physical altercation? If a Christian objects to my claim that Surah 9:29 can also mean fighting unbelievers by the tongue, then it also throws out their own interpretation of Matthew 10:34 which means they no longer have any argument! So it is up to the Christian, if they want to argue honestly, or if they want to argue deceptively using double standards in interpretation.
The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.
This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world). Source
"...we hit Islamaphobia head-on and show you how pundits on all sides; left, right, atheists, and christians are purposefully blaming radical Islam for suicide terrorism in an effort to hide or forget the truth."
originally posted by: dr1234
It needs to be said... Islam is the motivating force behind their "political" aspirations. Sharia law is based on Islam, so therefore the political/religious bs is indeed an illusion. They are not just like us, they are ugly (in terms of humanity, not looks, well not just looks), savage, and a danger to my way of life. I wasn't born a racist. I refer of course to the radical, militarized Muslims like Isis or al queda, not the peaceful majority.
originally posted by: diggindirt
You've hit some good points about our current system of education in this presentation. Right off the bat, I'd have to say that you appear to be a product of that system if you actually believe that people who believe as the founders of the country did, that we are sovereign, are "crazy." You also have a lot to learn about Muslims.
I'm a woman. I fear Muslim rule over just about any other threat I can think of because I've had friends who married into that religion. I've dealt with Muslim men. They believe that crap about men being superior and that women are simply property.
If they want to have a country full of backward savages, I say let them have their country. Our country is different and the beliefs set forth in founding documents of this country are in direct opposition to the beliefs found in their religion. So why, why, why, would they wish to come and live in such a country?
Being afraid of savages is not a phobia, it's actually a sensible point of view because they make no distinction between their religion and their politics. In fact, their politics spring from their religion. They have been slaughtering each other for centuries over the words of the their prophet. If their neighbors are now concerned about the slaughter, then let them band together and stop it. It's NOT our business. If we have "economic interests" let those benefiting from those "interests" protect said "interests" and leave the US government and military out of it. For generations now we've poked our noses in where they never belonged. So I'm of the same mind as Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura, that we should pull our military out of all foreign countries and pass legislation that allows them to travel no more than 500 miles from our borders in actual defense of our country.
Were we not spending a gallizillion dollars a week on destabilizing governments all over the world, we would have ample means to meet the needs of this country. Who do you know who spends 19% of their budget on defense---and borrows money to do so?