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.

 

All Muslims Must Be Assumed To Be Dangerous

page: 14
41
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

ATS supports this kind of behavior. I had a post deleted for saying that I liked the opinions of another poster while directly above my deleted comment a guy repeatedly called another poster a moron. It's a very negative place by design, but it keeps me interested so I'm ok with it.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

I disagree with you.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
i wish i could high five the OP. ... in the face.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Seems like OP has abandoned this thread. Wonder why?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Good for you



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




but the fact is the percentage of 'radical' Muslims is much higher than in the general population and it is easier to assume they are dangerous than to try to figure out their intent


I'm not an apologist, I would go so far as saying, its not the radicals you have to worry about but the insidious nature of its infiltration and acceptance into western thought. Its become the topic you don't bring up in fear of being accused of racism.

Having said that and after studying a bit of US history and its meddling in other countries affairs, am I correct in assuming that all 1,300,000 of the US active duty personnel should be viewed as hostile. To appease the world should the forces return to their own homeland and put our minds at rest.

It does seem that the main reason for the US forces meddling is nothing but furthering US Empire, stealing resources in the name of National Interest and Security. Instilling an Orwellian, Hegelian Dialectic is hardly reassuring.



easier to assume they are dangerous than to try to figure out their intent


We've figured out your intent and you are dangerous. Without the meddling of the US and Israel there would be no radical Islam.

Need I go into how Al Qaeda had its beginnings in Afghanistan (the Proxy war between the US and USSR between 1979-1989)

Oh what a tangled we we weave, we have the internet now we don't have to rely on the 7 US media conglomerates to matrix our reality.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I agree, but here's the worst part: having dozens or hundreds of inputs doesn't necessarily force the truth to rise. Yes, breaking the godspell and shattering their "matrix" is awesome, but in a lot of cases -- it has fragmented truth and obfuscated understanding.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl




It's common sense in the animal kingdom. Previous threat dictates future threat until proven otherwise. Lions are ferocious creatures, known to kill. If you walked across an area with lions, you best have your bearings about you due to that threat. And I'm sure someone would say "well not all lions will eat a human", and that would be true.


I'm sure I've never seen a real lion kill in real life. Oh hang on I read about it in books and on TV Lions eat people. Must be true. I also saw on TV how the US used remote control to take out the Iraqi infrastructure. Such a dispassionate virtual reality world.

I've must have lost the logic of 911- al qaeda - enrichment centrifuges - Nigerian Yellowcake - Iraq - Libya. They didn't sell it very well to me.

I did however see horrific Napalm burning children and the scorched earth of Agent Orange in Vietnam - perhaps the Vietnamese were going to invade the Continental US with Vietnamese wooden boats?

I also saw the many dictators sponsored by the USA in South America.

www.theguardian.com...
The Pinochet files A series of declassified US documents have revealed the extent of America's role in the Chilean coup, reports Jonathan Franklin

en.wikipedia.org...(1973–90)


The regime was characterized by the systematic suppression of political parties and the persecution of dissidents to an extent that was unprecedented in the history of Chile. Over-all, the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing, tortured thousands of prisoners,[1] and forced 200,000 Chileans into exile.[2]


Oh...hand wringing, "the Vietnamese hate our way of life"

Clever people these yanks like Kissinger and LBJ and J Edgar Hoover.

The world using your logic should be very afraid of the US



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven




We need to make it illegal to teach hate and murder and opposition to US constitution and laws.

How does your Constitution protect you from the LEOS who are running rampant with shoot first ask questions later attitude?

But then you'd also have to shut down the churchs that support the racist Israelis, see how that works.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl




Which other segment of the world's population is going around beheading people and blowing themselves up because of capitalism and NATO?


Well the US has no moral qualms in using Depleted Uranium in the Middle East? Your government even shuts its eyes in the poisoning of its people in Flint Michigan.

But that doesnt get as much TV traction as a beheading?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




I say: I am going to avoid all Muslims.

You: Why don't you put them all in a concentration camp or hate all brown people or whatever.

It's BS and you know it.


So what ya gonna live like the Bubble boy in seinfeld?

these are your words


How am I supposed to tell the difference? Sociopaths are inherently difficult to identify and I don't have the tools or the inclination to determine which of these people is 'good' and which are 'bad'. The main problem I have is I don't NEED to have Muslim people in my life so why should I risk having them around me?




I don't NEED to have Muslim people in my life so why should I risk having them around me?

"RISK"
Sounds ominous, are you sure you're not looking for trouble?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I'm more afraid of those in London or Washington or the G7 or Bilderberg Group that would dictate geopolitical maneuverings



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
If the majority of americans dont want certain groups, faiths or races in their country, its the will of the people. If that is truly what they want then they should be able to do it, it is their country.

Doesnt mean its right, or moral, or that it even remotely reflects every view from within.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: HAZE3

I agree..the Native American's should tell everyone to GTFO.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: MysticPearl




Which other segment of the world's population is going around beheading people and blowing themselves up because of capitalism and NATO?


Well the US has no moral qualms in using Depleted Uranium in the Middle East? Your government even shuts its eyes in the poisoning of its people in Flint Michigan.

But that doesnt get as much TV traction as a beheading?


Is it the word uranium that scares you, do you think it's the same uranium that is found in nuclear bombs? And finally. Did you know that every 747 has lots of depleted uranium in it as counterweight since its do dense. The monsters!



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Power_Semi
But currently all terrorists are muslims.


Factually and blatantly untrue, to the point of being ridiculous.

There are terrorists of all races, religions and creeds. The notion that "all terrorists are Muslim" really displays how ignorant the average Muslim-hater has become.

You claim this is "currently", so how far back are you willing to go?

How about the right-wing extremists burning down migrant shelters in Germany?
How about the southern boy who murdered people in church - based on his political beliefs?
How about the "Christian" Conservative white man who murdered people in a Family Planning clinic - based on his political beliefs?
How about the teenagers who shoot up their school?
How about the white, right-wing Americans taking over Malheur threatening to murder people - based on their political beliefs?
How about the Oregon terrorist who armed himself and threatened Muslim Americans?

You seem to be deliberately picking and choosing who the terrorists are based on their religion. My suggestion is that you stop watching Faux News and start paying attention to reality.


After reading this thread I have come to the conclusion that people have been trained to view any act of violence as an act of terror. Terror has been clearly defined for decades, until very recently. Now, thanks to fairly recent legislation, just about anyone who commits an act of violence can be called a terrorist. The kid who shoots up his school is not a terrorist. He is a troubled kid who committed murder. The extremists burning down migrant shelters are not terrorists. They are fighting against the terror that has been visited upon them against their wishes. And so on.

The true definition of terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Terrorism is a very serious threat that needs to be treated as such. Calling every act of violence an act of terrorism only serves to make terrorism more palatable by including acts of lesser severity than would normally be considered as terrorist activities.

Imagine how people would view terrorism if only the most heinous acts were labeled as such. No one in their right mind would tolerate or excuse any act of terrorism in any way, shape or form. But when you start including some guy who gets beat up one too many times and gets revenge on his tormentors, the word terrorism starts to become a bland, white washed version of itself that people can more easily ignore.

The same can be said of hate crimes. If every crime committed by a person against someone of a different race, gender, religion, skin color, sexual orientation, etc, is considered a hate crime, then by far the greater majority of crimes qualify as hate crimes. That doesn't mean they are hate crimes. It means that real hate crimes are going to be overlooked more often as part of the hype and rhetoric of the day.

We do ourselves a great disservice by softening these words and making them easier to swallow.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Power_Semi
But currently all terrorists are muslims.


Factually and blatantly untrue, to the point of being ridiculous.

There are terrorists of all races, religions and creeds. The notion that "all terrorists are Muslim" really displays how ignorant the average Muslim-hater has become.

You claim this is "currently", so how far back are you willing to go?

How about the right-wing extremists burning down migrant shelters in Germany?
How about the southern boy who murdered people in church - based on his political beliefs?
How about the "Christian" Conservative white man who murdered people in a Family Planning clinic - based on his political beliefs?
How about the teenagers who shoot up their school?
How about the white, right-wing Americans taking over Malheur threatening to murder people - based on their political beliefs?
How about the Oregon terrorist who armed himself and threatened Muslim Americans?

You seem to be deliberately picking and choosing who the terrorists are based on their religion. My suggestion is that you stop watching Faux News and start paying attention to reality.


After reading this thread I have come to the conclusion that people have been trained to view any act of violence as an act of terror. Terror has been clearly defined for decades, until very recently. Now, thanks to fairly recent legislation, just about anyone who commits an act of violence can be called a terrorist. The kid who shoots up his school is not a terrorist. He is a troubled kid who committed murder. The extremists burning down migrant shelters are not terrorists. They are fighting against the terror that has been visited upon them against their wishes. And so on.

The true definition of terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Terrorism is a very serious threat that needs to be treated as such. Calling every act of violence an act of terrorism only serves to make terrorism more palatable by including acts of lesser severity than would normally be considered as terrorist activities.

Imagine how people would view terrorism if only the most heinous acts were labeled as such. No one in their right mind would tolerate or excuse any act of terrorism in any way, shape or form. But when you start including some guy who gets beat up one too many times and gets revenge on his tormentors, the word terrorism starts to become a bland, white washed version of itself that people can more easily ignore.

The same can be said of hate crimes. If every crime committed by a person against someone of a different race, gender, religion, skin color, sexual orientation, etc, is considered a hate crime, then by far the greater majority of crimes qualify as hate crimes. That doesn't mean they are hate crimes. It means that real hate crimes are going to be overlooked more often as part of the hype and rhetoric of the day.

We do ourselves a great disservice by softening these words and making them easier to swallow.



Good point and we'll made...except, i can't think of a single incident that was labelled terrorism which shouldn't have been. Care to list them?



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: HAZE3
If the majority of americans dont want certain groups, faiths or races in their country, its the will of the people. If that is truly what they want then they should be able to do it, it is their country.

Doesnt mean its right, or moral, or that it even remotely reflects every view from within.


While I'm sure we appreciate your wanting to defer to our internal national affairs (I do) ... we have constitutional protections to prevent that sort of pure majority rule. That's why we're a Republic, rather than a pure democracy. It's why even if the majority of Americans tomorrow wished to bring back slavery, it (at least in theory, and one dearly hopes) couldn't happen because it would today be deemed unconstitutional, and any attempt to do so would be deemed so by our courts. (Again, in theory, and one dearly hopes.)

Then again, I'm sure Japanese Americans in WW2 never thought their rights could be so easily trodden upon either, yet it happened. Let's hope that mistake is not repeated.

Peace.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Wow!!

American media and politics sure does breed some weird and creepy people.

America, you are heading down a path the world wont follow. Look what you have done to the OP for instance. I think he really believes this crap and sounds like he is getting closer to some sort of action.

OP, SEEK HELP. I am very worried for you.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join