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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

White House Warns Against Blaming Religion of Islam After Ohio State Attack

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

I'm taking this seriously? As in tossing out accusations and derailing positive discussion? I thought you weren't talking to me?

Are you going to play the victim next?




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Yes. The Religionofpeace.com is a hate site. The site name is itself supposed to be an ironic jab. Much like you'll see posters say "yeah, sure sounds like the 'religion of peace' to me!" every time there's a terrorist attack.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I by no means believe that by and large that there is a contingent within the Muslim faith to take over the US and execute Sharia Law.

Having said that, IMHO I would like to make it clear to those that do believe that, that they are highly dissuaded from doing so. What measures would that take? I honestly don't know, but I do think that it would be rooted within the already established Muslim faiths here in the US.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Ok, thanks. You I believe.

I never seen it before and to the rest of the thread, I apologize.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

I'm taking this seriously? As in tossing out accusations and derailing positive discussion? I thought you weren't talking to me?

Are you going to play the victim next?



Ok. You're being weird. Is all I did was remind you that you like getting your information from hate sites, but however you want to make yourself feel morally secure is fine with me. Go ahead and call me a name or make up some bizarre hypothetical analysis so you don't have to look in the mirror. Not my problem guy. I was just joking around, but you're obviously unhinged and we certainly are done here. Good luck in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here. If it was to convince others that you deserve to be heard then you failed miserably.


Edit: its cool
edit on 30-11-2016 by BrokedownChevy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Please somebody enlighten me as to what the agenda is here because for the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell blaming a religion of 1.7 billion people is supposed to accomplish?

What do you want? What do you hope to achieve?

"We need to have discussion!" is a common nonsensical response I see. We're having plenty of discussions... about how we can't have discussions.

What is it you expect to happen?


Outlaw bikers are not all bad either right? yet they cop it all the time, pun intended.

It's a cult. god has nothing to do with it.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I can tell you this much, what once used to be a very scrutinized and deemed a terrorist group like the Muslim brotherhood, is now call CAIR, under the Obama administration CAIR has taken root in many areas where refugees has been established all thanks to our tax dollars.

CAIR make sure that refugees will stay isolated from the influences of the American way of life, to me that is a red flag.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
They just don't want us to believe his religion had anything to do with it, even though it seemed to occupy his mind quite a bit, and even though ISIS has claimed some responsibility. This is because they cannot shake their subliminal identification of
the Muslim religion with the poor and wretched of the earth: what they imagine are the black and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the “Third World.” Soft-bigotry.

But Islam is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-national religion, stretching all economic classes. Many jihadists in the west are well-off and well-educated. The members of ISIS come from all walks of life, all colours of skin, all languages. Only one thing connects the members of ISIS, those who retaliate for drawings of Mohammad, and those who would use humans as explosives: Islam.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy




Go ahead and call me a name or make up some bizarre hypothetical analysis so you don't have to look in the mirror.


Said the guy who called me "kkk." If anything it was an anti-Muslim site, in which case your doubly wrong.

You have no rebut and no argument. You have labels, names and this passive aggressive mentality.

Run along scamp. Adults are having a discussion.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

I'm aware and have no delusions. Also the arms to Saudi Arabia doesn't sit well either no matter whom or for how long it has been going on. This is one of the pillars that needs to be broken.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Good and fair point. There is no way to properly identify ISIS..at this point anyway.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Please somebody enlighten me as to what the agenda is here because for the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell blaming a religion of 1.7 billion people is supposed to accomplish?

What do you want? What do you hope to achieve?

"We need to have discussion!" is a common nonsensical response I see. We're having plenty of discussions... about how we can't have discussions.

What is it you expect to happen?


The ageda, McFly (anybody home), is to stop the radical islam. It's a worldwide problem.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

It happens. The Internet is pretty lousy with the stuff. I've never gotten the feeling from you that you were some sort of bigot if it makes you feel any better!

In general, I'd like to believe that most people are actually basically decent folks. As Anne Frank famously wrote, "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."

To me, the problem isn't that we're forbidden from having an open discussion. That's a silly platitude that is repeated over and over. "Radical Islam" and the terrorism of extremists is one of the most discussed topics of our day. The quality of the conversation is unfortunately s#.

In my opinion, the biggest problem is that the voices of those whose only interest is conflict are loudest. Be it Pamela Gellar or the ISIS leadership. They don't want an end to terrorism or war. They want to escalate violence into an all out global holy war. I'm afraid that the new National Security Advisor can be counted among them. I hope I'm wrong.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

A website criticizing a religion is not a hate site.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm far from a bigot. On ATS and especially in my day to day life. I don't need approval but I certainly thank you for noticing. I like to let people be who they are within their constitutional rights as long as they are not stepping on others.

I hear you, we are getting the input from both extremes and the real problem is being obfuscated into oblivion. In reality we are not dealing with a large number of people within ISIS. As you stated what is more dangerous is the ideology and the speed at which it can spread. Moreover within the areas that the US has taken hold. From this position, I don't think the US can properly fight that battle.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Look, it's pretty simple.

Not all Muslims are radical Islamic terrorists. But by failing to openly discuss and distinguish the difference between the two, the left causes far greater harm than they realize.

First, it absolutely hurts Muslims who are not the extremists. This bizarre refusal by the left...to name it...to discuss it...and to understand it...reinforces, rather than avoids, a kind of natural assumption that there is 'guilt by association'. When you name something, you make it separate from other things with a different name. But the left won't permit this to happen. So in the absence of a meaningful way to discuss and distinguish between Muslims and radical Islamists, the left creates an environment where, increasingly in the minds of many, the problem is really just about Muslims. Put another way, if you hate the taste of apples, but are only ever allowed to call them fruit, you'll just eventually find it easier to avoid fruit altogether when going out to eat.

Second, it hurts the non-Muslim center by pushing them to accept this 'guilt by association' mentality, where normally they would not, since you've given them nothing else to discern the difference. Moreover, since the left sees any departure from their insistence to avoid the radical Islamic terminology, anyone who does use it gets immediately and wrongfully painted as a racist. Get called something egregious often enough, and you'll find many lose the incentive to prove otherwise.

I know the left thinks they are protecting people. But the bizarre implementation of their world view is creating the very conditions that make possible for a true fascist tyrant to emerge.

I don't get why the left doesn't see that.
edit on 30-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then I stand conflicted.

Two posters that I respect claim difference. Regardless, the info hasn't been disputed which was the only point.

Certainly didn't stop the labels from flying!



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Kettu
Um, have you heard them call for "Lone Wolf" attacks? Yes, they are still related to Radical Islamic Terror! Saying different is being ignorant.



Yeah, but did the ISIS leadership contact them and give them instructions? No.

And as I said, you are more likely to have your furniture fall and kill you than you are to be harmed by "radical Islamic terrorism!"

I guess most of America doesn't own furniture or something? You'd think Americans would be nailing their Lay-Z-Boys and sofas to the floor and bolting their beds to the wall since it's a greater threat to their lives than Islamic terrorism.

Americans have a messed up sense of priority when it comes to danger.




Yeah and you know what?

All of this crap is going to be dumped on them till it stops, ok?

Slice and dice it all you want, it still heads in one direction.

Deal with it.







posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. It is the religion of peace. Please stop posting racism.

This white supremacist hetero patriarchy is completely out of the control in the USA trying to oppress peaceful suicide bombers.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


They just don't want us to believe his religion had anything to do with it, even though it seemed to occupy his mind quite a bit, and even though ISIS has claimed some responsibility. This is because they cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the poor and wretched of the earth: what they imagine are the black and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the “Third World.” Soft-bigotry.


You're no better than the labelers you profess disdain for. Beneath a camouflage of verbiage, you generalize the "other side" and ascribe to those people thoughts you imagine them to have. I disagree with everything you've writen above. It certainly doesn't describe me nor any of the people that I regularly discuss politics/social issues with.


But Islam is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-national religion, stretching all economic classes. Many jihadists in the west are well-off and well-educated. The members of ISIS come from all walks of life, all colours of skin, all languages. Only one thing connects the members of ISIS, those who retaliate for drawings of Mohammad, and those who would use humans as explosives: Islam.


Yawn. Here we are six pages into yet another thread where people prattle profusely about the conversation they can't have. It's a put-on. A pretext for endless whining, emotional affirmation, finger pointing and political point scoring. It's not that the conversation is disallowed, it's that nobody has any interest in actually having it. Why bother? Just whining about not having it satisfies the need.

I'll ask you as I've asked several others. Maybe you'll do what none of them have since you have a profound interest in having this forbidden coversation. Let's do it.

What can be done to stop acts of terrorism from violent Islamic extremists? (Jihadist, Radical Islamic Terrorist — whatever magical term will pierce this semantical smokescreen)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join