It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your not a caliphate, your a cult. Welcome to western culture

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: tonycodes

Here`s the main group...

World Bank Whistleblower Karen Hudes Reveals How The Global Elite Rule The World



Karen Hudes is a graduate of Yale Law School and she worked in the legal department of the World Bank for more than 20 years. In fact, when she was fired for blowing the whistle on corruption inside the World Bank, she held the position of Senior Counsel. She was in a unique position to see exactly how the global elite rule the world, and the information that she is now revealing to the public is absolutely stunning. According to Hudes, the elite use a very tight core of financial institutions and mega-corporations to dominate the planet. The goal is control. They want all of us enslaved to debt,..


Full Story




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The first link suggests funding may be coming from within the US.
That is entirely different to saying funding is coming from the US government, Secret Services or corporations.

If any funding for IS is currently coming from the US it will be from wealthy IS sympathizers.

And anyone who believes Turkey aren't playing both sides is either an idiot, incredibly misinformed or remarkably naïve.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



But WE made the choice to showcase their atrocities and play up their terror to the point of hysteria.


News Agencies have a responsibility to report what's going on in the world.

I don't want my world view restricted by what someone thinks I should or shouldn't know.

Are you advocating censorship of the news?

The point is THEY committed the atrocities.....and WE have a right to know about those atrocities.



I'm not making excuses for them. They made their bed and are prepared to lie in it. I have no sympathy for any of those terrorists.


With all due respect, it sounds as if you are making excuses for them.



But what I'm saying is that they aren't entirely to blame for what is going on.


Yes, they are.
THEY are the one's who freely choose to commit these acts - no one is coercing them.

Did 'we' contribute to whole #storm that is the Middle East?
Of course we did with our arrogance, mis-management and outright incompetence.

But that doesn't excuse the wholescale slaughter that IS have been performing.
It doesn't excuse the enslaving of thousands of women and children by IS.
It doesn't excuse the brutal beheadings of scores of people simply because they don't interpret a book the same way.

We as human beings are responsible for our own actions - the crap I've done in my life wasn't because God abandoned me, or because the devil made me or anything like that - it's down to me and me alone - no-one made me do them.

Exactly the same as them.

Stop making excuses for the bad and evil decisions other people make - its their choice, pure and simple.



There are evils within BOTH systems.


On that I agree with you whole heartedly.



Our greatest danger may not lie in the Muslim worlds' evils, but in ignoring our own.


Ultimately that may prove to be true....but at present the bigger danger lies with IS - their growth needs to be stopped now.



Well bad people exist in the world. I'm not denying this....


Far too many if the truth is told.



I just don't see them as more than a regional threat.


Possibly, at present - but they have the potential, and the momentum, to be much more.



Well in Afghanistan, the Taliban is resisting them.....


But losing ground to them.



Though even if they did take Afghanistan, how is that a problem to the west?


Because that will give them real access to Pakistan.....and that would be a threat.

At present its fair to say that we don't know what immediate direct threat to us here in 'the west'.
But it would be foolish, and irresponsible, to ignore the potential they have to inspire others to commit acts of terrorism, especially considering recent events in France and the murder of Lee Rigby etc.

IS origins lie with extremist Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia.

At present there is an understanding in Saudi - the ruling Saud family have the wealth and opulence etc whilst the Wahhabi's operate their strict interpretation of Sharia with an iron fist.
The newly crowned King is 79 years old and there are rumours surrounding both his physical and mental health.
The Crown Prince is 69 years old.
The line of succession after these two is very unclear and there are rumours of internal squabbling within the Saud family.

There is growing disillusionment among the Saudi people with the Royal Family and the ruling elite and many dislike Saudi's involvement, limited though it is, in the war against IS.

It is thought that elements within the Wahhabi may be considering a move towards gaining total control of Saudi Arabia - a move that may prove popular with 'the man in the street'.



Iran being a country in the Middle East.


But with undoubted influence throughout the region and beyond.

IS have a particular dislike for all things Shia.



Oh I'm sure that both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will come crying to us as soon as ISIS poses a legitimate threat to either of those countries.


But can we afford to wait till its that late?
I'm sure by then IS will be much harder to eradicate.

My comparison with Hitler was intended to show the similarities the danger of ignoring the threat some extremists pose once given even a slight bit of power, influence and legitimacy.
People underestimated the threat Hitler and the Nazi's posed and sought to appease, just as many advocate appeasement with IS.

Of course there are also massive differences - but their growth and appeal to 'ordinary' people in their respective regions are similar.


edit on 2/2/15 by Freeborn because: grammar



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ihsaan




Israel created Hamas.. C.I.A. created & armed terrorists groups like Taliban & Al-Qaeda to radicalize Islam.


That is a G'damn LIE.

I suggest looking up the Peshwar Seven, and the Tehran Eight.

US and Israel eh?

Bull snip.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Isis have done a great job in promoting themselves to the muslim youth as a 'righteous' cause through social media, something other terrorist groups prior have not been able to do.

This in effect, has targeted uneducated foreign Muslims into thinking Isis has a legitimate cause.
The problem is, most of these foreign fighters do not have sound knowledge & understanding of the Quran and Hadith, I would go as far as to say alot weren't even devout muslims in any shape or form prior to joining. In some cases it is a sense of belonging, and for some of those lost souls who felt rejected by society, it gave them a purpose in life.

Many of the fighters who went over to Syria from Australia have been known to be involved in criminal activity's here involving extortion, drugs, protection money etc. Some have escaped a there evil way of life here and think by going over and fighting for the cause of Islam, it will bring them some kind of redemption.

The Wahhabi ideology which is funded by countless of millions of petro dollars by the Saudi government has spread this Ideology far & wide since the British influence in installing the Saudi family into power about 150 years ago.

Reports I have read online & also through word of mouth suggest that Isis fighters get paid $100 a week. That may be pocket change for some living in 1st world country's, but when your'e living in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, where jobs are scarce and you have a family to feed, that $100 is sustainable living and may be the only option you feel can keep your family alive.

There was a recent report where Isis killed 100 of their own fighters because they attempted to flee back to their own country after realizing that Isis was not fighting the Assad regime, but rather against other Muslim rebels.

It goes to show the ignorance of some of these fighters heading over into that war zone thinking they know the situation based on idle talk from their local salafi aka wahabbi sheiks.

You need to cut the head off the snake, the only way the war will be won against Isis is if the muslim leaders & government around the world keep opposing the Wahhabi Ideology and educate the muslims. Many muslims don't even know the differences in belief. Once the true teachings of Islam are set in stone, Isis will dismantle itself as there will be less and less cult followers willing to join their cause.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

They are the words of house representatives. Why they would they lie about playing a part in funding or creating such groups?Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton & George Galloway are just 3 members of parliament expressing the same view. Taliban had several meetings with US officials prior to becoming the boogey men, 1 of those were at the white house if I recall. There is a photo of it someone online.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Ihsaan

Neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda existed during that time.

The Peshwar Seven, Terhan Eight.

Exhibit A:



The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted over nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Part of the Cold War, it was fought between Soviet-led Afghan forces against multi-national insurgent groups called the Mujahideen, mostly composed of two alliances – the Peshawar Seven and the Tehran Eight. The Peshawar Seven insurgents received military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[8] as well as weapons and billions of dollars from the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.[2][3][4][8][26] The Shia groups of the Tehran Eight alliance received support from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Early in the rule of the PDPA government, the Maoist Afghanistan Liberation Organization also played a significant role in opposition, but its major force was defeated by late 1979, prior to the Soviet intervention. The decade-long war resulted in the death of 850,000–1.5 million civilians[23][24] as well as causing millions of Afghans to flee the country, mostly to Pakistan and Iran.


en.wikipedia.org...

Exhibit B:



From 1995 to 2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence[28] and military[29] are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban




The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan


en.wikipedia.org...

The Taliban comes from Pakistan, and it's ISI.

Exhibit C:



Al-Qaeda (/ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KY-də or /ˌælkɑːˈiːdə/ AL-kah-EE-də; Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʿidah, Arabic: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ], translation: "The Base" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam,[44] and several other militants,[45] at some point between August 1988[46] and late 1989,[45] w


en.wikipedia.org...

Radical Islamic sunni terrorism, as known as wahabbism comes from the House of Saud, and it's GIP.

Exhibit D:



The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)


en.wikipedia.org...



It gained territory after an offensive which was initiated in early 2014, which the senior U.S. military commanders and members of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs saw as a reemergence of Sunni insurgents and Al Quaeda militants, which implied that there was a failure of U.S. foreign policy and a near collapse of the Iraqi Government that required renewal of U.S. action in Iraq.[44][45][46]


en.wikipedia.org...

Now the reason behind the 'resurgence' is because of the Iraqi governments ties to Iran.

Those same ties that Iran has with the Assad regime.

All roads here lead to the House of Saud. As it is Saudi Arabia, and Iran vying for a regional hegemony.
edit on 2-2-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Saddam was da man. He kept these idiots in check, dead or prison. To bad we killed the guy guarding the gates keeping these wacko's down. Truth is there is enough of a subset of Arabs over there that these idiots over there that will prevent several Arab countries from evolving into fully human civilized societies.

Yeah lets remove Assad so more of them can run wild... stupid. Gadhafi where are you? They are AHOLE dictators cause that's what you gota have to cage the devolved imbeciles there. Does the Arab world realize these scum and radical Islam are making the rest of the world see Arabas as a whole, as lesser evolved humans than the rest of the world?

edit on 2-2-2015 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The Wahhabi's provided the spiritual inspiration for IS whilst their funding initially came from the ruling Saud family and their associates. (Its probable that the US / UK etc may have provided some start up funding believing IS were going to be one of many groups opposing Assad).

Once IS started gaining significant support and territorial gains it frightened the Saudi royal family.

But with the slow but steady increase in discontent within Saudi with its rulers the Wahhabi's may seize upon the chance the assume full control in Saudi and their influence over IS.

Iran would not stand idly by and allow the Sunni Wahhabi's and IS to gain such a level of control without unleashing everything within its power upon them.

Surely its not coincidental that the mosques at which many of the British Muslims who have gone to fight for IS worshipped and studied at have long been suspected of being funded and supplied by Wahhabi extremists.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tonycodes

One only has to inspect history to fully realize truth, the truth is caliphates of the Arab conquests in antiquity, used as their goal and methodology to expand their empires, by the exact same methods being practiced by ISIS today, so for me I see no reason to try and split hairs in seeking to define what they are, when clearly their actions are to establish a Caliphate.... I remember Hillary Clinton making reference to this some time ago long before ISIS was in the headlines.

Going back to the crusades you have to remember, that beheading was the method used to not only punish enemies but to strike fear in them as well, do you see any real difference between, what is being done now and what was being done during the period of time before and after the crusades ?

I only ask that because, to me, trying to use a technicality and dictionary description of what they are doing, then to try and negate the fact of what their end goal is, and that is to establish a Caliphate really seeks to minimize the seriousness of the threat they actually do present to the world.

One only has to do some research on the early Cult of ISIS, from antiquity in Egypt, I think the problem is that people have no concept that this thinking that is embedded in extremists, was birthed a very long time ago, the Assasins, the Roshinaya of today are part of a secret society, and the real secret is there are people in high levels of society who are also very secretly aligned with their goals on all 4 corners of the square.... at the basis of their beliefs if you go back far enough, you will see that IAO is a common bond between them all...there are others as well that are very cloaked and deceiving all...3 letters used by another organization will shed light for you and you will quickly realize that what I write is pure truth..
edit on 2-2-2015 by phinubian because: addding info



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: tonycodes

Pretty sure that the Caliphate is lead by a man with a Masters in Islamic studies, which makes him more knowledgeable about Islam, than the Pope is about Catholicism. I think he would have something to say about whether or not they are an actual caliphate. Considering that the other caliphate started practically the same way (through forced conversion and murder), I would say that they have history on their side. Most people that claim that ISIS is not Islamic, are the ones with no clue as to the historicity of the subject.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
News Agencies have a responsibility to report what's going on in the world.

I don't want my world view restricted by what someone thinks I should or shouldn't know.

Are you advocating censorship of the news?

The point is THEY committed the atrocities.....and WE have a right to know about those atrocities.


No I'm advocating responsibility in the news. What we get from the MSM isn't news. It's news plus rhetoric. Mostly rhetoric.


With all due respect, it sounds as if you are making excuses for them.


With all due respect, if I tell you I'm not making excuses for them then I'm not. Are you calling me a liar?


Yes, they are.
THEY are the one's who freely choose to commit these acts - no one is coercing them.

Did 'we' contribute to whole #storm that is the Middle East?
Of course we did with our arrogance, mis-management and outright incompetence.

But that doesn't excuse the wholescale slaughter that IS have been performing.
It doesn't excuse the enslaving of thousands of women and children by IS.
It doesn't excuse the brutal beheadings of scores of people simply because they don't interpret a book the same way.


I'm not forgiving ISIS for their crimes. AGAIN I'm not making excuses. I'm just trying to get you to admit that there is more going on here than JUST ISIS.


We as human beings are responsible for our own actions - the crap I've done in my life wasn't because God abandoned me, or because the devil made me or anything like that - it's down to me and me alone - no-one made me do them.

Exactly the same as them.

Stop making excuses for the bad and evil decisions other people make - its their choice, pure and simple.


Stop making excuses for the behavior of the west towards the Middle East and Muslims as a whole. See I can do this crap too.


On that I agree with you whole heartedly.


I don't believe you.


Ultimately that may prove to be true....but at present the bigger danger lies with IS - their growth needs to be stopped now.


No, the bigger danger lies with the cartels. But you obviously only care about people halfway around the world and not at your doorstep.


Possibly, at present - but they have the potential, and the momentum, to be much more.


Prove it.


Because that will give them real access to Pakistan.....and that would be a threat.

At present its fair to say that we don't know what immediate direct threat to us here in 'the west'.
But it would be foolish, and irresponsible, to ignore the potential they have to inspire others to commit acts of terrorism, especially considering recent events in France and the murder of Lee Rigby etc.


Then wouldn't it be more prudent just to keep an eye on them instead of going all John Wayne on them?


IS origins lie with extremist Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia.

At present there is an understanding in Saudi - the ruling Saud family have the wealth and opulence etc whilst the Wahhabi's operate their strict interpretation of Sharia with an iron fist.
The newly crowned King is 79 years old and there are rumours surrounding both his physical and mental health.
The Crown Prince is 69 years old.
The line of succession after these two is very unclear and there are rumours of internal squabbling within the Saud family.

There is growing disillusionment among the Saudi people with the Royal Family and the ruling elite and many dislike Saudi's involvement, limited though it is, in the war against IS.

It is thought that elements within the Wahhabi may be considering a move towards gaining total control of Saudi Arabia - a move that may prove popular with 'the man in the street'.


Sounds like something to keep an eye on then. Still not seeing a reason for military intervention there though.


But with undoubted influence throughout the region and beyond.

IS have a particular dislike for all things Shia.


Yes, I'm aware of the shia/sunni feud. But Iran seems to be holding their own for now. Remember they've got experience dealing with a hostile neighbor (with a MUCH better government backing them). I'm sure a bunch of terrorists blowing themselves up is a BIT easier than dealing with Israel's constant BS.


But can we afford to wait till its that late?
I'm sure by then IS will be much harder to eradicate.


Well, everyday that we spend squabbling about ISIS is another day that we are waiting to deal with the cartels. Every day ISIS grows stronger, the cartels grow even stronger. So until I start seeing some honesty in American threat assessments then my answer to this question is, "yes we can afford to wait until it is that late."


My comparison with Hitler was intended to show the similarities the danger of ignoring the threat some extremists pose once given even a slight bit of power, influence and legitimacy.
People underestimated the threat Hitler and the Nazi's posed and sought to appease, just as many advocate appeasement with IS.


Oh I know what your point was and why you did it. You aren't the first person to pull that card on me. Like I said, these are WAY different situations. Not to mention, just because it happened once doesn't mean that it will happen every time.


Of course there are also massive differences - but their growth and appeal to 'ordinary' people in their respective regions are similar.


Yea in the same way that apples are similar to oranges. They are both fruits, but that still doesn't make it a valid comparison.
edit on 3-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



No I'm advocating responsibility in the news.


Perhaps you can give us examples of how news agencies have been irresponsible in their reporting.
And its not just MSM, lots of well respected independent news agencies are reporting far more of the brutal realities of life under IS and their barbarism.

So how would you recommend the news is reported from that region?
Maybe not report the brutal slayings of thousands of people?
Perhaps they shouldn't report the enslavement of thousands of women and children?

And of course there's an element of rhetoric, only an idiot would expect there not to be.



With all due respect, if I tell you I'm not making excuses for them then I'm not. Are you calling me a liar?


Maybe not intentionally, but it sounds like excuses to many.



I'm not forgiving ISIS for their crimes. AGAIN I'm not making excuses. I'm just trying to get you to admit that there is more going on here than JUST ISIS.


Of course 'there's more going on than just IS' - I don't think anyone has ever suggested anything other than that.
But its IS who are killing thousands of people NOW just because they interpret a book in a different way.
Its IS who are fully intent on spreading their barbaric belief system across the whole of the Middle East, North Africa and right on to the European doorstep.

Now you as an American may not see the threat in that - I frigging well do.



Stop making excuses for the behavior of the west towards the Middle East and Muslims as a whole. See I can do this crap too.


Please show me exactly where I've done that?



I don't believe you.


Are you calling me a liar?



No, the bigger danger lies with the cartels.


In your opinion, not mine.



But you obviously only care about people halfway around the world and not at your doorstep.


I'm British, exactly what threat are 'the cartels' to me?....and aren't they halfway around the world from me as well?



Prove it.


How is it possible to prove 'potential'?
Potential is a judgement call, an opinion.

However, IS have inspired many from UK / Europe / US / Australia etc to go and fight for their 'cause'.

Some of these have attempted to sneak back into their foster country's, some may have succeeded, with the specific intent of setting up terrorist cells.

That's 'potential'.



Then wouldn't it be more prudent just to keep an eye on them instead of going all John Wayne on them?


No, I'd eliminate them as a threat as soon as possible.



Yes, I'm aware of the shia/sunni feud.


Oh, its significantly more than just a 'feud'.
Its inbred sectarian hatred that goes backs hundreds of years.
The extremists on both sides, and those extremists are more than just a small percentage in that particular region, would willingly commit outright genocide on each other - total annihilation is not an exaggeration.



Well, everyday that we spend squabbling about ISIS is another day that we are waiting to deal with the cartels.


I'm sure the US Military has more than enough capability to deal with both if their government saw fit to do so.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why your government doesn't see fit to eliminate the threat you believe 'the cartels' pose?

But that isn't really the topic under discussion in this particular thread.



Oh I know what your point was and why you did it. You aren't the first person to pull that card on me. Like I said, these are WAY different situations. Not to mention, just because it happened once doesn't mean that it will happen every time.


But history teaches us that it CAN happen.....and I personally believe that in such circumstances its best to err on the side of caution and nip things in the bud before they can escalate.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
Perhaps you can give us examples of how news agencies have been irresponsible in their reporting.
And its not just MSM, lots of well respected independent news agencies are reporting far more of the brutal realities of life under IS and their barbarism.


Nigel Farage tells Fox News there are no-go zones for non-Muslims in France

CNN apologizes for 'no-go zones' segments


So how would you recommend the news is reported from that region?
Maybe not report the brutal slayings of thousands of people?
Perhaps they shouldn't report the enslavement of thousands of women and children?

And of course there's an element of rhetoric, only an idiot would expect there not to be.


It's sad that you allow rhetoric in your media like it is a requirement instead of striving to minimize it...


Maybe not intentionally, but it sounds like excuses to many.


It sounds like excuses to you because you are putting words in my mouth. In fact, after I told you that you were wrong, we should have stopped talking about this yet you continue to call me a liar.


Of course 'there's more going on than just IS' - I don't think anyone has ever suggested anything other than that.
But its IS who are killing thousands of people NOW just because they interpret a book in a different way.
Its IS who are fully intent on spreading their barbaric belief system across the whole of the Middle East, North Africa and right on to the European doorstep.


Killing thousands of people? What about the cartels killing thousands of people?

11 Numbers To Help You Understand The Violence Rocking Mexico


85,000 - The total number of people estimated to have been killed since the the administration of former President Felipe Calderón launched its war on the drug cartels.

The International Crisis Group explains that drug cartel violence in Mexico began to escalate in 2004, under former President Vincente Fox. After assuming office in 2006, Calderón launched a massive crackdown against the criminal organizations, relying in large part on the army. While security forces seized record amounts of drugs and were able to capture or kill dozens of cartel bosses, the offensive came at a price.

Violence between rival cartels and the security forces lead to years of intense bloodshed. The security forces' brutal tactics compromised their legitimacy. And while the aggressive action made it harder for cartels to make money from the drug trade, it also fostered the growth of smaller criminal groups that relied on criminal activities other than smuggling drugs, such as kidnappings and extortion.

Calderón's successor, current President Enrique Peña Nieto, vowed at the start of his presidency to reverse Calderón's approach and reduce the role of the military in the fight against the cartels.



Now you as an American may not see the threat in that - I frigging well do.


Mexican drug cartels are worse than ISIL


Some may argue that despite the asymmetries, the cartels are less of a threat than ISIL because ISIL is unified around an ideology, which is antithetical to the prevailing international order, while the cartels are concerned primarily with money. This is not true.

A good deal of the cartels’ violence is perpetrated ritualistically as part of their religion, which is centered, quite literally, on the worship of death. The narcos build and support churches all across Mexico to perpetuate their eschatology. One of the cartels, the Knights Templar (whose name evokes religious warfare), even boasts about its leader’s death and resurrection. When cartel members are killed, they are buried in lavish mausoleums, regarded as martyrs and commemorated in popular songs glorifying their exploits in all their brutality. Many of their members view the “martyrs” as heroes who died resisting an international order that exploits Latin America and fighting the feckless governments that enable it. The cartels see their role as compensating for state failures in governance. The narco gospel, which derives from Catholicism, is swiftly making inroads in the United States and Central America. In short, the cartels’ ideological disposition is no less pronounced than ISIL’s, if not worse.



Please show me exactly where I've done that?


You show me the excuses I've made for ISIS first.


Are you calling me a liar?


Until you admit that I'm not making excuses for ISIS, yes.


In your opinion, not mine.


That's because you aren't looking at all the facts and listening to the media's rhetoric. Read the links I provided, educate yourself on reality, then come back to me on what is and isn't a real threat.


I'm British, exactly what threat are 'the cartels' to me?....and aren't they halfway around the world from me as well?


Do the cartels not import drugs into your country? Because I'd bet that they do.


How is it possible to prove 'potential'?
Potential is a judgement call, an opinion.

However, IS have inspired many from UK / Europe / US / Australia etc to go and fight for their 'cause'.

Some of these have attempted to sneak back into their foster country's, some may have succeeded, with the specific intent of setting up terrorist cells.

That's 'potential'.


So? It's not like their attacks will destablize any governments. Just another crime.


No, I'd eliminate them as a threat as soon as possible.


How are you going to do this without creating new terrorists in the process?


Oh, its significantly more than just a 'feud'.
Its inbred sectarian hatred that goes backs hundreds of years.
The extremists on both sides, and those extremists are more than just a small percentage in that particular region, would willingly commit outright genocide on each other - total annihilation is not an exaggeration.


No, it's a feud. It may be deeply ingrained, but a feud it is.


I'm sure the US Military has more than enough capability to deal with both if their government saw fit to do so.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why your government doesn't see fit to eliminate the threat you believe 'the cartels' pose?

But that isn't really the topic under discussion in this particular thread.


Sure the topic is proving that ISIS more than a regional threat. You've failed to do that.


But history teaches us that it CAN happen.....and I personally believe that in such circumstances its best to err on the side of caution and nip things in the bud before they can escalate.


Preemptive war... The strategy of chicken hawks. Hit them before they hit us. Just fuels the endless cycle of violence in our world. It would be nice to try peace for once...



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tonycodes

Good job. Don't acquiesce to their demands to call them a caliphate. Call them what they are. A cult. That allows people to see the ISIS threat for what it is. A small minority of muslims giving the rest a bad name.



Personally speaking, I'm not one for condemning based off of definition. I work from the premise that action sparks actions. Take a person at their word, until their actions speak otherwise.


Once actions have trumped words, unfortunately you must take a person for their actions until they have proven themselves as being both repentant and of a different mindset than they were before.



But, hey....that's just me.






edit on 3-2-2015 by nullafides because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Well ISIS' actions clearly paint them as a regional threat and a only a minority of Muslims. So a cult they shall be called regardless of their personal rhetoric.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nullafides

Well ISIS' actions clearly paint them as a regional threat and a only a minority of Muslims. So a cult they shall be called regardless of their personal rhetoric.



Calm down, Geronimo


All I said was, I am more concerned with actions and responses than I am in being concerned with finding or creating a label. Let that be the aftermath. Something handled later.

The immediate concern is a response to the actions.


IMHO, wordsmithing invites far too much implied meaning. Far too much in the way of mixed signals. I'm also of the mind that wordsmithing tends to involve utilizing emotions from other aspects of things to fuel an otherwise inappropriate response to what occurred.

Unless I am mistaken, you mentioned Jim Jones, am I wrong? I may be. My memory is crap. However, when applying the term cult, you are immediately bringing that imagery and emotional recall to life along with other things.


Someone beheads someone? Sorry. Not something that is condoned by the society as a whole, let alone by myself.

Deal with that. With the beheading. With appropriate and sufficient response to punish as well as proactively prevent the act from occurring again. To send a message. To show what the common and predictable response from the world will be in response to such an action.


Then, rationally deal with the need for "labelling".


That's simply what I am trying to say.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
Calm down, Geronimo


All I said was, I am more concerned with actions and responses than I am in being concerned with finding or creating a label. Let that be the aftermath. Something handled later.


I wasn't trying to jump down your throat with that response, it was actually supposed to be read with a neutral tone.


The immediate concern is a response to the actions.

IMHO, wordsmithing invites far too much implied meaning. Far too much in the way of mixed signals. I'm also of the mind that wordsmithing tends to involve utilizing emotions from other aspects of things to fuel an otherwise inappropriate response to what occurred.


That is why I wanted to use the word cult instead of caliphate. I am WELL aware of the implied meanings behind words, or how people let themselves use words with vague definitions to describe something. That is why I try my hardest to use exact definitions to describe things.


Unless I am mistaken, you mentioned Jim Jones, am I wrong? I may be. My memory is crap. However, when applying the term cult, you are immediately bringing that imagery and emotional recall to life along with other things.


You are mistaken, I never mentioned Jim Jones in this thread. Must have been someone else. Well, The People's Temple of the Disciples of Christ is just one cult of many. For one, you are letting isolated incidents warp your imagery of what is and isn't a cult. TECHNICALLY, all religions are cults, just bigger versions of them. But the imagery that I am going for in this thread is that a cult is just a smaller version of a larger religion that practices a strict fundamentalism.


Someone beheads someone? Sorry. Not something that is condoned by the society as a whole, let alone by myself.

Deal with that. With the beheading. With appropriate and sufficient response to punish as well as proactively prevent the act from occurring again. To send a message. To show what the common and predictable response from the world will be in response to such an action.


How do we do that? All the responses that the west does just creates more and worse terrorists.


Then, rationally deal with the need for "labelling".

That's simply what I am trying to say.


Eh... You need a label even when you are dealing with the actions. How else are you going to distinguish between the people that need punishing versus the innocents?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I wasn't trying to jump down your throat with that response, it was actually supposed to be read with a neutral tone.


Cool, thank you for saying that


It is funny how we place emotions even onto typed words on a screen, isn't it ?



That is why I wanted to use the word cult instead of caliphate. I am WELL aware of the implied meanings behind words, or how people let themselves use words with vague definitions to describe something. That is why I try my hardest to use exact definitions to describe things.


I'm glad you stated this. Clarification is always an evil necessity. Sometimes it's nowhere near the easiest thing to actually state your thoughts, and far easier to throw up words as a defense instead.

I believe this is the crux of what I was wanting to get to. Words are powerful. As powerful, IMHO, as a loaded gun. And they lay as dormant as one, too. Ready for the right ignition point to set them off.

This is why am of the camp (one wherein I am probably alone
that with the behavior of those such as ISIS, I *personally* would work (if it were my appropriateness to do so) to simply reply to the action and not bring in more emotion. Please don't get me wrong, I am not looking to insinuate that you are doing this intentionally. Nor am I looking to insult, not even in the slightest.

Let's say this were to happen to a loved one of mine. Beheaded. Well, I would personally look to not exact revenge, but to (pardon the pun) make a statement with my response. One that would be appropriate in tone, but also enough to drive the point home. The point I would be looking to drive home is, Do Not Look To Do This AGAIN. Period. It will not be tolerated on my part.

Does that make sense ? Please don't read anything pedantic into that, I am actually thinking out loud via the forum with that question. It's almost more of a question to myself than to anyone else, really.



You are mistaken, I never mentioned Jim Jones in this thread. Must have been someone else. Well, The People's Temple of the Disciples of Christ is just one cult of many. For one, you are letting isolated incidents warp your imagery of what is and isn't a cult. TECHNICALLY, all religions are cults, just bigger versions of them. But the imagery that I am going for in this thread is that a cult is just a smaller version of a larger religion that practices a strict fundamentalism.


Yeay!
I was correct in being careful with assuming anything


Actually, I made a poor choice in words. Where I said "when you" do X, I certainly should have clarified and stated that you is not YOU (Krazysh0t) but actually anyone.

For that, my apologies. I should have either known better than to make that mistake or had been better with my self-editing of things after the fact.


Someone beheads someone? Sorry. Not something that is condoned by the society as a whole, let alone by myself.

Deal with that. With the beheading. With appropriate and sufficient response to punish as well as proactively prevent the act from occurring again. To send a message. To show what the common and predictable response from the world will be in response to such an action.


How do we do that? All the responses that the west does just creates more and worse terrorists.


I hope this reads as I intend it to come across, but I respectfully disagree. If we are creating more terrorists, as I *feel* is the modern day trend in oppositional thought (and that is the best way I can come up with phrasing it, at the moment), I wonder what else could possibly be done?

I for one am actively working towards a full acceptance of Buddhist beliefs and philosophy. Whereas I have been a (devout) agnostic all my life and raised to focus my thoughts on respect of others beliefs, I find more and more of my beliefs being a mirror of those that Buddha taught. A huge issue I have with the teachings though, is that of pacifism. I firmly believe that there should BE peace. But, it is an ideal. It is not the norm. In my opinion, that is. We are a violent race. We've proven it time and time again. And here I go again using the term "we", I hope you can infer my reason in using that word. I believe, have been taught, and have learned, that there are times when others will behave violently towards you and the ones you love. I feel that the appropriate response to this is one of defense.

If we turn the other cheek, so much so that we and our beliefs die, how are our beliefs to exist, let alone ourselves?

I think that is the main difference between vengeance and deterrence. Vengeance does nothing on it's own, in my own opinion. I firmly believe in deterrence. Not only in response, but also as a proactive measure.



Then, rationally deal with the need for "labelling".

That's simply what I am trying to say.


Eh... You need a label even when you are dealing with the actions. How else are you going to distinguish between the people that need punishing versus the innocents?

Fair enough, I see your point.


KS, thank you for this discussion, I appreciate the opportunity



Unfortunately, given emotional injection, I do not feel discussions such as this are at all common. Here on ATS, or otherwise.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Wow. You are writing about the very thing I was pondering this morning as I contemplated the differences between Christianity and Islam and the extremism that seems prevalent these days.

I agree that not only ISIS but other fundamentalist sects really are cults; their practices are so far outside of societal norms they don't belong anywhere else. When seen in that light it makes the argument quite different.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join