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.

 

ISIS meant to create US lead religious war

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
This is going to be brief comment about motives, indicated by actions:

Everyone already knows and has accepted the fact that ISIS, like Al Qaeda, was organized, funded and trained by American interests.
Even if you only accept the reasoning that, for instance, AQ (the foundation) was originally "set up" to fight off pesky Russians in Afghanistan in the 80s, which seems almost reasonable, (the US has a long history of helping "this group of people" fight "that group of people") the real reasons things are done usually have to do with answering the question, "What's in it for us?"

Sometimes, there's something the US wants from your country, like resources, sometimes the US wants to put something in your country, like military bases or installments.

But always, there's more than "altruistic motives" for the actions taken.

Now, once the Russians wisely left Afghanistan, experiencing their own Vietnam, (lost war) the US left AQ and Afghanistan to their own devices. (I'm excluding CIA drug running from "operations.") All those young AQ men experienced a life shortfall. Life became (or remained) crappy and they blamed the US.

This, of course, is a major generalization, but not entirely inaccurate and more to the point, the results, it is generally agreed upon are more angry Muslims, specifically angry at the US.

Now if you throw in religious leaders on both sides of the fence working ideologies into governments, whether wearing robes or ties, our seeds of religious hatred begin to sprout.

So, and here we come to the point, if everyone has accepted that these above stated facts are historically accurate and we're doing the exact same thing again, with ISIS, only with way more radicalism, equipment and money, why would we think it could be anything less than ten times worse?

Answer, because we want it to be.

It's hard to fund wars without really good enemies to fight. They more extreme and dangerous they are, the better. So the US arms ISIS with its own gear, Saudi Arabia (wealthy mercenaries, call it the US) Isreal (quiet murderers, call it the US) Syria (the wild west) and because we're bloody stupid Canada, (pawns) and the UK (also pawns) jump in and start bombing ISIS operated US equipment, because hey, they'll just make more.

War is business and the biggest business on the planet, then comes drugs.

However, ISIS is a strange lot. They'll steal from their own people, they'll kill their own people, they'll cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Why? Because these people have been whipped into a hateful frenzy.
Why? Because hateful frenzies are good for business.
Why? Because it makes them take actions that make them hated and the circle of hate continues.

ISIS is not even a case of Muslim extremism, it is just sold to us as this. No true Muslim wants to steal priceless historical artifacts and then destroy the museum it stole it from, just to fund the buying of weapons to murder people for political reasons. A true Muslim, like a true Christian or Jew, wants to live a happy productive life, raise their children, die and go to heaven.

They're just plain mad.

These kids that leave the UK, Canada and other countries to go fight with ISIS or die in a suicide bombing, or be concubines or whatever, they are not doing this for valid religious reasons, but rather as a desperate grasp at the gold ring, whatever that might mean for each of them.

Without going into a giant diatribe about the many possible interpretations of nearly every aspect of every religion, which I don't think is necessary due to the fact that we can simply watch the story unfold on TV, I think it's clear to see that extremism, on all sides is getting more pronounced.

Obama isn't a particularly religious man, especially when compared to Bush. He tends to phrase things more diplomatically, more politically. But Obama is leaving soon. Soon we will have someone else at the helm, and while I don't give to much power to the POTUS on these matters, (there is a great machine at work here,) the POTUS still steers a parroted general consensus.

What is it going to be like when Jeb Bush is president? (Here I expect some comments from the Nostradamus fans.)
What is it going to be like then the pendulum swings back and the Christian fundamentalists bring their own extremism up to the levels of ISIS? What then when we add Isreal to the mix?

ISIS was created to keep the war machine going, but their madness will leak back into the chicken that laid the egg.
ISIS makes Islam look bad and at least part of that front, the war for opinion, will collapse into a true religious war.
Then we will have sane people looking on in horror as we return to the dark days of "I kill you because you don't believe the same nonsense as I."

World War III will be fought for your mind.
This is just my opinion...




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: briantaylor




This is going to be brief comment about motives, indicated by actions:

Liar



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
A Religious War, as opposed to a Holy War, has been part of the Communist extremist Anti-Theist agenda ever since they realised they couldn't kill us themselves in Death Camps...


So if they turn the public against us, & us against each other by infiltrating religions with the likes of ISIS or Anti-Balaka...
They get their Religious War...


I'll kill an extremist anti-theist before I kill a Christian, Jew, Hindu or Pagan...

I don't know how that goes across the board though...

They may have done enough to turn this against the believers!



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

World War III will be fought for your mind.


I've been calling it World War Free Your Mind for a few years now...


Hasn't really caught on



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: briantaylor

Religion is the worlds most effective control structure. But it's not God that is pulling the strings is it?

Here's where you lost me.



Without going into a giant diatribe about the many possible interpretations of nearly every aspect of every religion, which I don't think is necessary due to the fact that we can simply watch the story unfold on TV


No. You can't watch "life unfold" on a TV.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Borisbanger

lol



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
A Religious War, as opposed to a Holy War, has been part of the Communist extremist Anti-Theist agenda ever since they realised they couldn't kill us themselves in Death Camps...


So if they turn the public against us, & us against each other by infiltrating religions with the likes of ISIS or Anti-Balaka...
They get their Religious War...


I'll kill an extremist anti-theist before I kill a Christian, Jew, Hindu or Pagan...

I don't know how that goes across the board though...

They may have done enough to turn this against the believers!


As I understand it, China still attempts to curb faith, making it difficult for adherents to gather together for celebration and worship but there is no longer an outright ban. After the industrialisation/capitalisation, it was found that about 30% of the population were in fact practicing Christians, regularly attending underground house churches.

Post Perestroika, Russia has seen the resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy and discovered that, as with China, governments cannot stop or prevent faith.

Whoever is fomenting religious war through anti-theist means, it ain't the 'commies'.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: briantaylor

I agree with your title but not the, main, intended result. The clever goal is to have Islam at war with itself. Will it bring itself into the modern world to mesh with decent thinking or will it suffer at its own hands as the balance of the world wants and has nothing to gain from it ideological continuance?

The glaze of PC is very thin on this topic. Populations of Muslims in the developed countries can be handled. Elsewhere, they can be allowed to batter themselves to pieces thereby reducing their threat to the world at large (if not themselves).



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: teapot

The old saying "wolves in sheep's clothing" comes to mind...

Anything anti-religious is inherently communistic...



That those countries have allowed worship in their borders, in now way guarantees that it isn't just a "make them feel comfortable" agenda.



However, I take what you say on board as a definite possibility.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs



Anything anti-religious is inherently communistic...

V. I. Lenin about religion




Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.[1] Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.

At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be “more left” or “more revolutionary” than the Social-Democrats, to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out. Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social practice, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers’ party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering.[2] And in 1877, too, in his Anti-Dühring, while ruthlessly attacking the slightest concessions made by Dühring the philosopher to idealism and religion, Engels no less resolutely condemns Dühring’s pseudo-revolutionary idea that religion should be prohibited in socialist society. To declare such a war on religion, Engels says, is to “out-Bismarck Bismarck”, i. e., to repeat the folly of Bismarck’s struggle against the clericals (the notorious “Struggle for Culture”, Kulturkampf, i.e., the struggle Bismarck waged in the 1870s against the German Catholic party, the “Centre” party, by means of a police persecution of Catholicism). By this struggle Bismarck only stimulated the militant clericalism of the Catholics, and only injured the work of real culture, because he gave prominence to religious divisions rather than political divisions, and diverted the attention of some sections of the working class and of the other democratic elements away from the urgent tasks of the class and revolutionary struggle to the most superficial and false bourgeois anti-clericalism. Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of wanting to repeat Bismarck’s folly in another form, Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion.[3] This view has become part of the very essence of German Social-Democracy, which, for example, advocated freedom for the Jesuits, their admission into Germany, and the complete abandonment of police methods of combating any particular religion. “Religion is a private matter”: this celebrated point in the Erfurt Programme (1891) summed up these political tactics of Social-Democracy.

These tactics have by now become a matter of routine; they have managed to give rise to a new distortion of Marxism in the opposite direction, in the direction of opportunism. This point in the Erfurt Programme has come to be interpreted as meaning that we Social-Democrats, our Party, consider religion to be a private matter, that religion is a private matter for us as Social-Democrats, for us as a party. Without entering into a direct controversy with this opportunist view, Engels in the nineties deemed it necessary to oppose it resolutely in a positive, and not a polemical form. To wit: Engels did this in the form of a statement, which he deliberately underlined, that Social-Democrats regard religion as a private matter in relation to the state, but not in relation to themselves, not in relation to Marxism, and not in relation to the workers’ party.


With regards, your infidel




new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join