It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Multiple aggressive terror attacks on American and European soil that are programmed and inevitable

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:18 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This really isn't getting us anywhere. You said a policy was allowing attacks on the US, I pointed out that it wasn't. Your response to that is to talk about Syria, the UN, and Assad. That's sort of extraneous to whether or not a policy is allegedly allowing attacks of the US, so I don't see the connection.

(BTW, radical Islam has not "existed for thousands of years." Islam itself is only about 1,500 years old.)

The incident of the Tripoli meeting that you refer to took place in the context of the US declaring war upon the Ottoman Empire, so I'm not sure what you intended to illustrate. But the fact that the Ottoman ambassador justified his side's actions by referring to the Koran proves nothing about Islam itself. It just illustrates how easily religion can be called upon to justify pretty much anything you want.

Islamism, in the sense of a political system constrained by and dedicated to the Islamic faith, didn't exist at the time.

As for why Islamists have attacked France, this is just a distraction. The fact that France has been attacked is related to what we are talking about, but it's not what we were talking about.

For the record, France and the Muslim world have a bit of historical baggage, not relevant here, that causes tensions with North Africa and the wider Islamic region. Also, France is a secular state, and thus seen as a great wrongdoer in a religious sense, and is historically the USA's principle 'soulmate' due to their intertwined revolutionary histories.

The fact that US Foreign Policy inspires attacks in the US isn't altered by the fact that other nations are being attacked too. It's just 'whataboutery'.

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 09:00 PM
a reply to: audubon

I see, so in your opinion bringing in thousands of Muslim immigrants without being vetted from areas known to be controlled by ISIS is not a policy allowing Muslim extremists to enter the U.S. and Europe?... That's fresh. Or rather a fresh lie.

Second of all, now you are changing your narrative and claiming that pointing out the fact that France has been attacked by Islamic extremists, even though they officially denounced the war in Iraq, is a distraction is nothing more than another attempt on your part to dismiss anything that proves your point is wrong...

The fact that France has been attacked by Islamic extremists is very relevant to the discussion because you claim that the U.S. is being attacked by Islamic extremists because of our foreign policy... If radical islamists were attacking countries because they have been invading their countries, like you claim, then why was France attacked?... Now you changed your narrative again, and now you are claiming "France and the Muslim world have a history of baggage"... You are changing your argument to fit your narrative...

We could look back at ANY country and find out that "countries have had a history of baggage" but many of those countries don't use that as an excuse to attack anyone they had a beef with decades ago, or hundreds of years ago...

Third of all, your new claim that Muslim extremists attacking people is just an example of religion in general being used as an excuse to start conflicts is really out of context. What about the fact that in the name of atheism genocides, and dictatorial regimes have also committed crimes?

Fourth of all, the United States went on to fight the Barbary Wars in response to the attacks made by North African Muslim nations on American and European passenger, and merchant vessels.

edit on 19-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:21 AM
On point one: Your new assertion about immigration is unrelated to the point you were making about a policy of allowing attacks to happen on the US.

On point two: My 'narrative' hasn't changed: the case of France says nothing about any alleged policy of allowing attacks on the US.

On point three: I'm not sure what you're on about by dragging atheism into it, since it has no bearing on anything we were discussing.

Since nothing new has been raised that has any relevance, there's no point in taking this bit of the discussion any further.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in