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.

 

Muslim Council of Britain: Perpetrator Was 'Motivated By Islamophobia'

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: 23432
... it should read " zionists worst nightmare is to see jew , christian and muslim together ".


Why? That mantra can be applied to any group. The depopulation of difference across the Muslim-dominated world highlights the intolerance for non-Muslims and Muslims (where they have different denomination), in most Muslim countries.

Anyway, the fear of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was more significant than any fear of Muslims.

Islamophobia is such a stupid word, invented by the do-gooder luvvie types. Instead what we have is a concern that Islam will erode some of the liberties and rights hard fought in the liberal and secular West, such as women's rights.


Zionists are against all Abrahamic religions.

Islam ruled over Europe over 400 years under muslim Ottomans and in that period all native languages , religions , customs and traditidions have been untouched.

Your fear is Europe going to turn into Saudi Arabia is not really based on a real evidence . It is based on an emotional response which was NOT designed by Muslims but the Zionists themselves .

Most people in Europe now feels like how Jews felt all these years ; my mother-in-law would say serves them right for turning a deaf ear and blind eye to injustices .

The truth is that neo - feudalism is making a come back and under the auspieces of neo serfdoom , owners of Westerners are taking ALL those freedoms you think Muslims are going to come and take away from you.




posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: infolurker

This is what the globalists wanted. Flood the country with Terrorists so they can attack. Then the crazies will retaliate in return. Thus, clash of civilization.


I'm not too sure you could call people who retaliate 'crazy'. I'd say they were concerned that nothing had been done to prevent attacks on citizens and so wanted some revenge in that respect.
edit on CDTMon, 19 Jun 2017 10:30:21 -05000000003010x121x1 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: andy06shake

And again I'll repeat as I and others do on each and every Islam thread, the Muslims were conquering half of Europe & Asia. They were killing pilgrims on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. THAT is when the Crusades started AFTER Mohammed and his armies too half of Europe and were undermining the Roman Catholic Church.


If the Crusaders hadn't driven the 'muslims' back into their own lands back then, we'd all be here praying to this 'Allah' thing.




The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march. Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris. The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories. And this record will remain unblemished. Outnumbered by perhaps as much as 2 to 1 on a battlefield between the cities of Tours and Poitier, Charles routs the Moorish forces, stopping the Muslim advance into Europe cold. It becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and many historians consider it one of the great turning points in world history. By their lights, Charles is a man who saved Western Civilization, a hero who well deserves the moniker the battle earned him: Martellus. We thus now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.



You would get the most ignorant award if there was one .






Just thought I'd reply to your very silly reply. Enjoy the read.
. this was the first push back by the europeans...



While the Hammer saved Gaul, the Muslims would not stop hammering Christendom — and it would be the better part of four centuries before Europe would again hammer back. This brings us to the late 11th century and perhaps the best-known events of medieval history: the Crusades.


maybe i should have put all this in the post togeher before posting my reply as you've probably read that and posted ahead... I'll see i aminute. but here is more:



Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War.... In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western [sic] Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.



Crusaders killed everyone , Jews , Muslims Christians alike on their way . They have raped , looted , pillaged the land all the way to Jerusalem .

It is well known that the Crusaders actually cook little children and eat them in front of the helpless villagers , including the parents .

You probably still believe that Columbus also " discovered " America too .



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: 23432
Islam ruled over Europe over 400 years under muslim Ottomans and in that period all native languages , religions , customs and traditidions have been untouched.


No Muslims did not rule of Europe. They did invade parts. The Ottomans got as far a Vienna. Islam did and has interfered and destroyed the societies and cultures of the countries they put under the jack boot. That is why we have prominently Muslim countries today and not a whiff of the past, with the exception of the odd ruin here and there. The Islamic invasion of India was a lesson of cultural destruction, such was the extent.

Most people in Europe enjoy their liberties and don't give a toss about Islam. They don't fear Islam, nor do they care for Islam's lack of connection with the modern world.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: 23432

Just a little more to add to my previous post:



The reality is that in our modern conception — or, really, misconception — of the word, it is the Muslims who had launched “crusades” against Christendom. (In the true sense of the word, the Moors couldn’t be Crusaders, as the term means “those who are marked with a cross,” and the Muslims just wanted to erase the cross.) And like Martel before them, who ejected the Moors from most of southern Gaul, and the Spaniards, who — through what was also a Crusade — would much later wrest back control over Iberia, the Crusades were an attempt to retake conquered Christian lands. So how can we describe the view taken by most academics, entertainers, and politicians? Well, it is the Jihadist view. It is Osama bin Laden’s view. It is a bit like ignoring all history of WWII until December 8, 1941 — and then damning the United States for launching unprovoked attacks on Japan.


anyway ... can these 'muslims' stop their inavasions now? We live in the 21st Century and should have moved on a long time ago. Well... we civilised people did anyhow.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Muslim Council of Britain: Perpetrator Was 'Motivated By Islamophobia'


This misnomer used to amuse me. People don't understand their own language. They parrot the bullsh*t in apparent ignorance.

pho·bi·a
[ˈfōbēə]
NOUN

an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something:
"he had a phobia about being under water"


hate
[hāt]
VERB

feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone):
"the boys hate each other"


Are we afraid of gays? No, we hate them.

Are we afraid of Moslems? No, we hate them.

Now, I said apparent ignorance. They don't label everybody phobic because they don't know any better. They do it to get a rise out of people which, in itself, is a function of hate.

I dislike clichés, but the shoe fits. Wear it, haters.
edit on 6/19/2017 by Restricted because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Big respect to the Muslims on the ground at that attack, they could have beaten 50 shades of # into the attacker, and who would have blamed them. Their Imam called for calm, probably saved the guys life so he will face justice and prison.
I'm not sure if I would have been so peaceful had it been the other way around, I feel somewhat humbled, and again, big respect.
edit on 19-6-2017 by InceyWincey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Lots of accusations flying around considering I have yet to see this guys name even.


No online activity, twitter, FB, etc...?

No leaks even?

I thought leaks were SOP as far as getting info to us peons.

MANY conclusions being reached considering we have NO real info.

edit on 6 19 2017 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: 23432
Islam ruled over Europe over 400 years under muslim Ottomans and in that period all native languages , religions , customs and traditidions have been untouched.


No Muslims did not rule of Europe. They did invade parts. The Ottomans got as far a Vienna. Islam did and has interfered and destroyed the societies and cultures of the countries they put under the jack boot. That is why we have prominently Muslim countries today and not a whiff of the past, with the exception of the odd ruin here and there. The Islamic invasion of India was a lesson of cultural destruction, such was the extent.

Most people in Europe enjoy their liberties and don't give a toss about Islam. They don't fear Islam, nor do they care for Islam's lack of connection with the modern world.



Ottomans ruled over Greece , Bulgaria , Romania , Serbia , Hungary and some others I can't remember at the moment.

You don't " invade " for over 400 years ; that is a revisionist talk if I ever saw one . Going by the same logic , Natives in Africa , America , Australia are still under an invasion ; not a rule .

Comical to say at least .

The truth is Muslims didn't force Europeans to change their religion , language or traditions during the 400 years of Muslim rule.

Compare this situation to Native Indians or Aborigines or even Africans .



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: 23432

Just a little more to add to my previous post:



The reality is that in our modern conception — or, really, misconception — of the word, it is the Muslims who had launched “crusades” against Christendom. (In the true sense of the word, the Moors couldn’t be Crusaders, as the term means “those who are marked with a cross,” and the Muslims just wanted to erase the cross.) And like Martel before them, who ejected the Moors from most of southern Gaul, and the Spaniards, who — through what was also a Crusade — would much later wrest back control over Iberia, the Crusades were an attempt to retake conquered Christian lands. So how can we describe the view taken by most academics, entertainers, and politicians? Well, it is the Jihadist view. It is Osama bin Laden’s view. It is a bit like ignoring all history of WWII until December 8, 1941 — and then damning the United States for launching unprovoked attacks on Japan.


anyway ... can these 'muslims' stop their inavasions now? We live in the 21st Century and should have moved on a long time ago. Well... we civilised people did anyhow.







How do you get sooooo ignorant ?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I agree with other posters, the commentators and the authorities were super quick to label this as a terrorist attack. Yet where is the terror angle? The first Muslim killing and they scream terrorists yet all it seems to me is maybe some-ones relative that has been killed by Muslim terrorists and this is just a revenge attack.
And NO that does not constitute terrorist attack.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
At least we have a name now.



Darren Osborne has been named locally as the suspect arrested after the attack, which took place near a mosque in Finsbury Park, north London, early today.

Mirror

Now maybe we can find out something about him.

Looking for online profiles now.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Restricted

Etymology is not the same as meaning.

As for the rest of your post I won't even lower myself to comment.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
I agree with other posters, the commentators and the authorities were super quick to label this as a terrorist attack. Yet where is the terror angle? The first Muslim killing and they scream terrorists yet all it seems to me is maybe some-ones relative that has been killed by Muslim terrorists and this is just a revenge attack.
And NO that does not constitute terrorist attack.


What is the difference between someone attacking random inocent people because he blames Muslims for terrorism. And someone who attacks random innocent people because he blames the west for bombing the middle East?

Why is one terrorism and one not?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 23432

Do you have more of those ignorant awards? And do they come with a complementary haircut and dunner kebab?


@Paraphi thanks for your reply. Quick question regarding the crusades: any book to recommend on that subject? Not askinf for a list, just one or two please.
Also did your account glitched out or what? 3 million stars holy F

Ending my post with a copypasta from EidolonTLP:

I certainly approve of the general condemnation for religious extremists, which I frequently detect in mainstream media. I note this is not a position sustained by principle, but by pragmatic necessity. Not meritorious. The true challenge exists in becoming aware that extremists exist only as the direct result of moderates providing them a cultural shelter. After watching many videos, I've discovered a pattern of cognitive dissonance in many religious moderates: on one hand they distance themselves from the often violent means employed by extremists, but on the other hand, they actively maintain a taboo against challenging faith-based dogma, when faith-based dogma is the single causal root for the very same extremists' actions they dissaprove of. Example: it is expected of moderates to condemn the murder of homosexuals at the hands of extremist christians, but at the same time, moderates hold sacred and defend the holy book that unambiguously states homosexuals must die, from any kind of condemnation. It is important to clear a common misconception: extremists do not typically practice a deviant or factually incorrect version of their religion, but all the opposite: they are often the most well versed. It is the moderates who follow religious teachings half-heartedly. The teachings themselves are often extremist. Example: if christians truly believed an eternal lake of fire awaited the millions of non-christians in the world, wouldn't tolerance constitute a form of cruelty? Wouldn't coercion and pain in this life, be preferable to eternal torture in the after life? Extremists agree of course, and will go to any lengths to save peoples' eternal souls. But its the moderates who protect the root beliefs of heaven and hell that give rise to this zealotry. This must be no more. Religious moderates must not go unchallenged in the public discourse. Intellectual challenge stirs awake humanity's natural love of knowledge, which is religion's worst enemy.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed


The first Muslim killing and they scream terrorists yet all it seems to me is maybe some-ones relative that has been killed by Muslim terrorists and this is just a revenge attack.
And NO that does not constitute terrorist attack.

How pathetic. You actually think just because a person had someone killed in a terrorist attack it's not terrorism when they murder innocent people who had nothing to do with the first terror attack? Just more only Muslims can be terrorist BS.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Nice, also in the headlines; all muslim terror attacks are motivated by "Westernophobia".

two can play this game, time for a Muslim reformation from within, no amount of turning the cheek, OR deportations will fix that for them.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 23432
Ottomans ruled over Greece , Bulgaria , Romania , Serbia , Hungary and some others I can't remember at the moment.

You don't " invade " for over 400 years ; that is a revisionist talk if I ever saw one . Going by the same logic , Natives in Africa , America , Australia are still under an invasion ; not a rule .


The invasion and occupation, and subsequent loss of parts of of Europe by the Ottoman Empire does not constitute "all" of Europe. Besides, the occupation of some countries was fleeting and the process of conflict and war-making covered a period longer than 400 years. Not sure I understand you "revisionist" comment, nor understand the relevance of your observation. You invade, occupy and then rule. Is here a different sequence?

The Ottoman Empire was not motivated by religious expansionism, although the Armenian Genocide and other religious bigotry was a feature of Ottoman low points.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Restricted

Etymology is not the same as meaning.

As for the rest of your post I won't even lower myself to comment.


Absurd. Libs like to label everyone a chickensh*t if they don't agree.

I haven't posted the origin of these words, I've posted their meaning. There is a subtle difference.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Nice, also in the headlines; all muslim terror attacks are motivated by "Westernophobia".

two can play this game, time for a Muslim reformation from within, no amount of turning the cheek, OR deportations will fix that for them.


Absolutely.




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join