The Obvious Strategy of The Islamic State Is Working, You’re All Being Stupid

Anyone who hasn't seen this BBC documentary series (The Power of Nightmares) maybe should.

a reply to: MoreInterior
Care to elaborate on this, instead of turning it around in playing the victim as an American here?
In my observation the U.S. has been involved in most conflicts since world war II, unlike most other nations, unless they were dragged in by the U.S. to begin with.
In recent years the U.S. managed to destabilise the Middle East even further, either by war or the unquestioned support and arming of Israel.
If you want to look at some reasons that started the exodus of refugees from that part of the world, carefully examine your own country's politics in this, instead of upholding your false sense of superiority as an American, relative to the rest of the world.
FYI, most refugees are going to Europe and not the U.S.A.

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: SPECULUM
Its not idiotic, its the only way to stop its evil spell on ignorant and Naive peoples

So tell me, how's the spell affecting you at the moment?

I'm not Muslim...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

The unfortunate part is that this will pit my viewpoints against themselves and create some inner conflict.

I am not really for "banning" refugees from entry. But even more, I am absolutely, squarely in the corner of states rights. It isn't up to Uncle Sam to force individual states to take refugees from a non-allied (treatied) country. In fact, that falls decidedly outside my view of Washington's scope.

Deciding on who can become a citizen or who's allowed in the country is not a state right at all. The federal government makes that decision could you imagine if all 50 States had different laws. And say California admitted refugees that Nevada refused is Nevada going to stop allowing people with a California id from entering. This all falls under the commerce clause.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Thanks, I just downloaded the entire series for later viewing.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Yeah weird. Betcha all those governors and others think they're good Christians too, when the reality is quite the opposite and they are acting out of pure greed or political interest, either or both of which Jesus would weep over. That or they're just scaredy cats.

• Luke 10:25-37. The Good Samaritan story.

• Luke 3:11. John the Baptist: “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

• Hebrews 13:2. “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”

• Matthew 25:35-40. “35: For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. 36: I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. 37: Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38: When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? […] 40: The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

• James 2:14-17. “14: What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16: If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17: In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

• 1 John 3:17. “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?”

• Philippians 2:3-4. “3: Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4: not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”

[Source].

.

But we've been here before. And we'll be here again.

Where you aware that more immigrants are brought in by churches then any other source? The Vatican itself accounts for a quarter of the refugees admitted into the US. So trying to blast someone for being a good Christian is just a straw man argument. Even the Bible recognizes international borders. As for your Bible quotes Jesus warned Christians about something like this.
John 16All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. 3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4 I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them.
Matthew 10:16
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as
Matthew 24:9
"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

So my point is Scripture can be used in multiple ways to back up a point calling someone non Christian because of what you believe is well wrong. I grew up in a Protestant home I would later reject this but none the less an individual person decides if they are Christian is not you. And you can't judge them with Scripture they are judged by their love of god. Wow who thought id remember that stuff.

Being more on point with the thread I can find quotes in any religion to back up any belief I may have. This is the problem with religions in general of you allow others to tell you what something means you run the risk of being decieved. I've argued this is the problem with the Koran. It is how it is written in the Bible the passages give you context. Upon reading the quran is written in verses meaning you don't get the context it is assumed you are familiar with it.

This is how say an imam can give you his interpretation by changing the context when it's explained. Then throw in the fact that some verses abrogate others and its very confusing what to believe. This is how people can become radical and think they are following the quran when they are not.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yes. I am aware of that. Very much aware. Even to the point of considering doing a thread on the disconnect. I'm not judging or deciding anything FOR them, merely asking how they reconcile their behavior in their own minds as they quite openly spout how Christian they are out of one side of their mouth and hate and intolerance out of the other. But we all know it's all for votes and popularity and greed.

So, in the end, what those who are helping are doing is human and compassionate and good in my mind, which makes what is happening with others owho even claim to belong to the same churches taking such a hard opposite stance all the more puzzling.

But, at the the same time, it's exactly what you said. There are both good and bad who lay claim to a reliigion and do things in a religions name everywhere. In every religion. And we don't condemn or praise them all collectively as a result.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

The unfortunate part is that this will pit my viewpoints against themselves and create some inner conflict.

I am not really for "banning" refugees from entry. But even more, I am absolutely, squarely in the corner of states rights. It isn't up to Uncle Sam to force individual states to take refugees from a non-allied (treatied) country. In fact, that falls decidedly outside my view of Washington's scope.

You're being funny - states are not countries and refugee decisions are out of scope from states and whole process is done on federal level. I would be worried about states with too much power.

But back to issue of governors telling they would do something they clearly have no say in - apparently one of first to ask for stop of process - governor of Michigan - Rick Snyder - now clarifies his move as not to stop, but just pause new refugees. But after being asked to show documents where he asked this from federal gov - there is no documents - making whole ordeal just cheap political punch against president. He really did not do anything, except make stupid statement without all evidence or while still being run by emotions rather then clear mind.

As for republican presidential candidates - it looks like Zoo ... actually residents of Zoo might have more intelligence and honor then someone telling he would not accept 3 year old orphan. If this bit more then dozen is best from GOP - makes you wonder how rest of party looks as well who supports them.

Also, let's not forget that total number of refugees in USA is marginal number... very small
fraction of 1% of total number of displaced and it will actually make no difference for most of immigrants. Just for comparison, Germany got more refugees per week then USA 'planed' for a year, and for past few years we got 1/5 of that number?!

But, while we at state powers - let me ask you this - who should have say on citizenship? States or federal government??

a reply to: 222mockingbirdlane

In America, it seems like maybe, 1 in 25 people have that view.

Sounds so scientific

So, why are there so many on ATS, I have to wonder who these people really are and where they are from.

I can tell you who I really am. I am someone that is for people. Not complicated

I'm someone that has watched my country dissolve into one of the most obtuse, reactionary, selfish, cold-hearted and violent countries on the planet

Right now actual governors of actual states in our beloved union are saying that we cannot allow refugees fleeing from the mess we helped to create into our country. These intellectual giants wouldn't be saying it if they didn't have support. Maybe you're right - maybe those who think differently are in the minority? An interesting question

What you seem to be implying is that anyone that supports the idea of aiding refugees is in the minority, that it's not a rational choice - and that we must have an ulterior motive

SO started this thread to make a point - and that point is that people can't use ATS to work the uglier parts of society into a frenzy

Are you saying that SO is on the wrong side of history - and that he's using ATS for some nefarious purpose that runs counter to your very right way of thinking?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Well...i am of the opinion that US citizenship stems from being a state citizen. That is why the drivers license, a state document, is the gold standard in identification.

I am aware that the federal government, and people of a federalist bent, would disagree with me.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

Well...i am of the opinion that US citizenship stems from being a state citizen. That is why the drivers license, a state document, is the gold standard in identification.

I am aware that the federal government, and people of a federalist bent, would disagree with me.

But in order to get driver license, you do need SSN, which is federal document.

This is kind of getting off topic here, but in your opinion, would weak federal government be positive or negative thing?? Who would/should finance NSA, army and in this example, migration services if there is no federal government??

We hear 'shrink government' from all GOP candidates, but what that really means and has it been ever done? Who would benefit of week federal government??

IMHO terrorist - who would easier deal with weak small states vs. one strong united government.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

That and Curtis' more recent piece 'Bitter Lake' explain the entire history far better than any other journalist ever has.

www.dailymotion.com...

The roots of ISIS go back to 1976 when the US signed the agreement with Saud that they would give them money and technology and not touch their religion (Wahhabi) which is the militant 7th century interpretation of Islam.

If the US hadn't committed the biggest starvation in history in Afghanistan in the 1950s during their proxy war with Russia then none of this would have happened.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Are you saying that SO is on the wrong side of history - and that he's using ATS for some nefarious purpose that runs counter to your very right way of thinking?

No single person is responsible but as a group effort there is an imbalance that exist.

a reply to: bastion

(Wahhabi) which is the militant 7th century interpretation of Islam.

Please provide a source for this, as all I can find in my research into Wahhabi is that it was formed in the 18th Century with no mention of the 7th Century as per your post?

Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth-century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[16] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd,[17] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular "cult of saints", and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry, impurities and innovations in Islam.[5][18] Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad bin Saud offering political obedience and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement would mean "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men."[19] The movement is centered on the principle of tawhid,[20] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[18]

Source

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: bastion

(Wahhabi) which is the militant 7th century interpretation of Islam.

Please provide a source for this, as all I can find in my research into Wahhabi is that it was formed in the 18th Century with no mention of the 7th Century as per your post?

Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth-century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[16] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd,[17] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular "cult of saints", and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry, impurities and innovations in Islam.[5][18] Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad bin Saud offering political obedience and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement would mean "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men."[19] The movement is centered on the principle of tawhid,[20] or the "uniqueness" and "unity" of God.[18]

Source

Feel the need to point out, none of this is a dig at the poster or anything - I'm tied and a bit tipsy, the aim of the spot is to spread info not a dick waving course - this isn't addressed to flam or posters in general - but let's not allow such a tragedy to decent into internet wannabe macho things, lets give the victims and families they respect and deserive - not that I have the slightest inkling

Good question and a well justified one as most point to the 1776 movements when when it was launched then ISIS gradually sank to pre stone age interpretations. All the answers are in the video I posted (which was done by the most respected documentary maker in the UK and get away with doing a lot of conpiracy style docs - but with solid proof. I strongly recomment watching both - they're well over 6 hours in total but every paragraph is mindblowing and gives a goof timeline into how we got into this mess.

While Wahhabi was establish in Saud then. As you own source states Wahabissm is based on an imaginary vision of what Islam waa like in the 7th century - i.e banning tapes, a lot of tech, music, almost stone age values - they're utter nutters and psychopaths whi have completely destroyed thier own religion in their actions - your own link covers the subject in the 'Role and State in Society' links.



---------------------------
Sharia, or Islamic law, is the basis of the legal system in Saudi Arabia. It is unique not only compared to Western systems, but also compared to other Muslim countries, as (according to its supporters) the Saudi model is closest to the form of law originally developed when Islam became established in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century.[64] The Saudi courts impose a number of severe physical punishments.[65] The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[66] including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[67] adultery,[41] witchcraft and sorcery[68] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[67] stoning or firing squad,[41] followed by crucifixion.[68]
------------
en.wikipedia.org...

Brief overview of what the docs cover here: but doesn't do it justice as Curtis is professor/expert level with several dacades of experience, not just a wet be hind the ears copy writer doing top and tail and cut and paste jobs for various AP and Reuters news stories, with no fact checking at all, which make up 70 - 80& of our media.

Be warned you'll probably end up watching the 48 hours or so of documentaries he's put out there - he verges on conspiracy, had the evidence, separates his personal belief with facts and has a production and story telling style that is unparalleled.

Here's a wee snippet of of his min docs to give a taste of how genius he is.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yeah but how would this be implementable? Can states that don't accept refugees refuse to allow them across state lines? If so how would they know they were refugees unless they were labeled? And that is a whole different kettle of fish.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

In the context of this “wake the Eff Up” thread, the “you’re all” and “we” are rhetorical. Not everyone is taking the ideological bait, however, far too many are.

Ok, the "all Muslims are extremists" is just rethorical, they aren't all, however far too many are.

Why can't you just deliver your message without calling all members stupid?

I don't get it. Especially since I have seen only a few members making extreme posts.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Our staff has held back in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. There’s been a great deal of intolerant stupidity in many threads. While we don’t want to be thought police; on occasion we’re going to need to filter stupid if the trend we’re seeing is not abated.

So why did your staff hold back? Were the T&C not applied for a period, on purpose? Why do you need this thread when you have a set of established rules that cover, or should have covered any of such unwanted behaviors.

It's as if you are saying, "we are going to enforce the rules now, after not enforcing them".

Here's a smackdown...no wonder people are scared.

Indeed, many top experts – including government officials – say that America is the largest sponsor of terror in the world … largely through the work of the CIA. And see this.www.washingtonsblog.com...[e ditby]edit on 19-11-2015 by madenusa because: (no reason given)