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.

 

Muslims Refuse To Bury Priest Killer Kermiche

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Drop him off in Syria...literally push his muslim corpse from the plane onto his ISiS brothers.


With a bomb vest!

How about like bin laden?

He can sleep with the fishes.






posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

We aren't talk about the deatb penalty. They are all ready to be martyred anyhow.

It's about the rewards for martyrdom, which this guy won't get according to his religion. I see less martyrs coming from this than more.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

Fanatical few will always be there, on both sides.

We label theirs religious zealotry, what do you call the powers that send aircraft carriers and attack aircraft to violate foreign countries air space, bombing countries we have no declaration of war against? How fanatical is that?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SisterDelirium


No, but denouncing someone who shoots a priest who's done nothing to his attacker could defuse a lot of hatred.

That 'hatred' is aroused in the west through main stream propaganda. One priest is dead here and we have fits. Whole nations die in the Middle East and we barely notice.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

When Christian's began taking groups like abortion bombers and Westboro to task they shrank also.

It is religious zealotry. It's not the government promising them 70 virgins in parardise. It's the radical Imam twisting the Quran. Much like the church did during the Crusades.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: intrptr

When Christian's began taking groups like abortion bombers and Westboro to task they shrank also.

It is religious zealotry. It's not the government promising them 70 virgins in parardise. It's the radical Imam twisting the Quran. Much like the church did during the Crusades.


Okay except they are fighting back against ongoing western 'new version' of the Crusades. Back then it was about the holy land and where jesus lived and died, but really that was cover for the Empires of Europe to occupy the Eastern Mediterranean to get tariff proceeds off trade from the east like spice and silk roads.

Nowadays its still defend the holy land and the chosenites (special people and special dirt), but more centered on oil and other mineral resources.
edit on 1-8-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No dout, which is my point. Doesn't make it right, but it is still religion being weaponized. Which is wrong. I don't care what conflict or situation we are talking about. Education in the form of non-religious schools is also an issue with this.

For example...

Government official, "We will pay you to fight back against western oppression! Who's with us?"

Religious leader, "Divine has said you get to go to heaven despite your sins if you martyr yourself against western oppression! Your whole family too. You also get x, y and z in paradise! Who's with us?"

Convincig someone to fight, like me and the WMD lie/911, for lies and half truths isn't right. No matter who is doing it. Just because someone can't read arabic script isn't a reason to lie to them about what it says. Latin and the church for example.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: thesungod

Fanatical few will always be there, on both sides.

We label theirs religious zealotry, what do you call the powers that send aircraft carriers and attack aircraft to violate foreign countries air space, bombing countries we have no declaration of war against? How fanatical is that?


Sorry do you really [honestly] believe that these extremist are doing it for a 'noble' cause such as revenge for bombings of their country?
I have to ask because it is the most absurd thing ever.
Isis are not freedom fighters who want us to suffer and then reinstall a decent way of life.

I'll go as far as to say I'd personally prefer straight forward bombings to the kind of oppression and 'ideals' isis stands for.
If we stopped bombing, what do you think is going to happen with isis?
You have two choices:

a) they instantly stop being terrorists because they've got what they wanted, and would like to be on the Nobel Price list?

b) or they up their game [no bombs- yeah!] and get even worse because their overall aim is the islamification of the rest of the world and they don't give a rats ass about their fellow people, muslims, islam or country?


I know YOU wouldn't even guess but I'll tell you that the answer is b).



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666


Sorry do you really [honestly] believe that these extremist are doing it for a 'noble' cause such as revenge for bombings of their country?

I know it. Would you carry guerrilla acton to an occupying power in your homeland or to their homeland if you could? After they bombed your country, invaded and killed your leader, murdered thousands, millions in the case of Iraq.

Don't play the babe in the woods routine with me. You call waging aggressive warfare under false pretenses in foreign lands 'justified'...

amiright?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Most of the insurgents I caught in Iraq, were not from Iraq. Most were from Syria and Iran. The ones from Iraq were ex-military or radicalized by foreign Imams.

Looking back I can see ISIS forming all the way back in 2004. Or at least the ground work.

The whole reason we did operation Steel Curtain was to keep them out.

Steel Curtain
edit on 1-8-2016 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod


Most of the insurgents I caught in Iraq, were not from Iraq. Most were from Syria and Iran. The ones from Iraq were ex-military or radicalized by foreign Imams.

You were the invader there. You were their 'terrorist'.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I didn't invade Iran or Syria. The radical Imam's in Syria and Iran had nothing to fear from us.

This would be like Canadians/Mexicans hopping the border to kill americans purely because their priest told them too.

I just went back to Iraq for a year. Spent most of my time with the Kurds, but visited a few places I had been before that weren't occupied by ISIS. Your average Iraqi is pissed we left so early and allowed ISIS to form. I've heard it from the horses mouth.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SisterDelirium


No, but denouncing someone who shoots a priest who's done nothing to his attacker could defuse a lot of hatred.

That 'hatred' is aroused in the west through main stream propaganda. One priest is dead here and we have fits. Whole nations die in the Middle East and we barely notice.


You're preaching to the choir. I'm generally in the "murder is a bad thing" camp. I protested the Iraq War back when it was little more than a Halliburton job listing at the back of the WSJ.

The priest's life, the innocent people's lives ...there's no excuse for any of it. If you read what I said, I'd applaud neocons and elitists finding their way to the potter's field, too.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod


I didn't invade Iran or Syria.


They're next on the hit list.

Nice deflection.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Source for that? I've seen no war plans or vote from congress on it, just your speculation.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SisterDelirium

I read what you said:


No, but denouncing someone who shoots a priest who's done nothing to his attacker could defuse a lot of hatred.

Thats like asking the bulliies victim to apologize for being bullied.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Do you think he cares? He's dead.


The gesture is not for his benefit.


Its been proven that murder rates are not affected in the slightest by the threat of execution, and thats while killers are still alive.


Jihadists are killing in the hopes of earning a place in heaven. They cannot go to heaven if they are not buried properly, so an attack in an infidel land can cost them the reward they are seeking, get it?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


That 'hatred' is aroused in the west through main stream propaganda. One priest is dead here and we have fits. Whole nations die in the Middle East and we barely notice.


Seriously? The newspapers are filled with daily accounts of Muslim-on-Muslim violence in the Levant, aided and abetted by the Russians, incidentally, and you are whining because people are shocked by an act of barbarity in rural France. You need to stop confusing your agenda with reality.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Thats like asking the bulliies victim to apologize for being bullied.


So you think that an elderly priest deserved to have his throat cut in a place of worship because a Muslim felt victimized?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: thesungod

That goal has never changed. The source is Hilary herself, Kerry and Obama, miming assad must go, just like all the other Coups before. Milosovich, Saddam, Qaddafi, Morresi, etc.

You remember those "Regime Changes" and "Humanitarian Interventions", don't you? Or do you still buy the memes that we are 'helping' these nations, sowing 'democracy'? Yah, we fixed those places real good.

I sort of feel like you're playing naive here, but just for you...




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join