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.

 

ATS: 300 Muslim Clerics Call For Jihad Against The US in Three Days.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
What all this is going to do is to bring more muslin to support the anti American cause.

Our soldiers will be more vulnerable in the foreign Middle East lands, and they will be the ones to face the "Jihad" with a renew purpose.

Its time that people understand that US "is in a land that does not belong to them"

America to the Americans and the Middle East to the Middle Eastern people.

Is time for our troops to come home.




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Some people still seem to be unclear about what jihad means.

It has several definitions and its importance in a certain context must be examined with respect to who is calling for it and why they are calling for it. This determines the scope of the jihad, which can range from one man's inner struggle to out and out warfare. The length of a jihad also varies from extremely temporary to everlasting. EDIT: Most importantly, though, is who the jihad is against.

We had a new poster at ATS who was from Syria, and he provided some extremely useful insight into the jihad idea. He explained what it means to Muslims with regard to the Qur'an and their daily lives, activities, and focus.

If I find a link to his posts, I will edit this and add it, but I can't find any right now. Here, though, is a WikiPedia link to jihad, which might provide some background for you, and the next time you see the word 'Jihad" written, you will read the clues and understand what exactly is going on.

The many faces of Jihad.

Zip

EDIT: Here's that topic I was talkin about


Do you have any question about *Jihad* ???


[edit on 17-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
BHR, question?
What is this topic on?
May this help guide your distracting conversation?
300 Muslim Clerics Call For Jihad Against The US in Three Days.





seekerof


It seems to be pretty much on topic, after all it might have affected our ranking on the Muslim's things to Jihad list.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I know I saw this earlier in the thread, but I don't think it's been answered yet. Haven't they already declared "jihad" against us?

....must be on their 'to-do' list....



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   


A group of 300 Muslim clerics are calling for the US government to give up the military personnel who supposedly desecrated the Quran, so that the people responsible can be punished as per Islamic law. The clerics also declared that if in 3 days those responsible for the supposed desecration are not turned in, they will call for a jihad against the United States.


Do you have any idea what they do to Christian objects they find?

Somehow I don't see the US handing over US citizens to a foreign power, especially when said actions were erroneously reported.

Amazing that these clerics put more value on the treatment of a book, then on their own people. Kind of shows you the mindset right there. Of course, this "call" is being erroneously reported to, and orchestrated to keep the pot simmering no doubt, so don't fall for that crap either....



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Ok it's time for another episode of "This is a Fact"

Fact 1) The US isn't handing anyone over, stop entertaining that option as realistic when it's the most laughable thing I've read in months.

Fact 2) It might be best to stop complaining about members calling the story unfounded considering the 'News' outlet itself retracted the story and clearly stated it was not authenticated properly.

Fact 3) You can not simultaneously claim "There was no WMD's" and "There was WMDs America gave them." The statement "They aren't there now" is a fair compromise of your two(!?!) theses.

Fact 4) A big commotion should not be made about this incident's reaction from the "Clerics" since this is approximately the 50th time holy war has been declared on the US by radical "Clerics".

Fact 5) I bet you're wondering about the quotations around the word Clerics. They're there to represent the fact that these Clerics should not be considered religious leaders of the Muslim community. There is a sizable Muslim community in NYC with which I have a fantastic relationship. I discussed this issue with two Muslim community leaders from the Brooklyn area who told me in no uncertain terms that a true religious leader finds a wise and peaceful way to demonstrate his dissatisfaction with something. And to quote one of them, "A religious leader should emulate the ways of God, and that does not include inciting your followers to commit violence. There are better ways to voice displeasure then threatening war war war." See that's a real leader.

Thanks.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Djarms - good points

Jihad. I am so sick of the agitated, fanatical militant Muslims constantly using this word. So let me see if I got this straight

Muslims now hate the USA becasue one of our "governmentally controlled, filtered and censored media" publications published a story about the desecration of a book in Cuba.

Give me a break.

I can't take these people at all serious as they blow themselves up along with 50 Iraqi police recruits. And are so pissed about a story in Newsweek.

I am a peace loving individual ,and do not consider myself racist in any way , but these people are making it very, very difficult for me.

Jihad this



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
If you're interested, please check out my post above, which has in-depth links to the nature of jihad. Jihad does NOT mean "holy war".

The struggle for a man to overcome his temptations, that can be a jihad, for instance.

Anyway, it's there if you wanna check it out.

Zip

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I just got a novel idea...

why don't we just kill the 300 clerics, since they are egocentric fanatics that will cause us trouble at some point. They are a little too easy to offend.
and they take thier religion WAY too seriously... no compromise, means no acceptability by mainstream humanity.

billhicks rules... and so do you man



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
only 300 of them haha, got to be kidding, if it were in the thousands then it would be more impressive lol



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempethis is scary. I totally agree with you.

Crap, I thought I saw rivers running red with blood and heard a loud trumpet blasting in the sky. Must be the apocalypse!


seekerof
All the US needs to do is to hand over the entire Newsweek liberal staff that edited and put to press the offending non-truth article to those Muslim clerics.

Not for nothing, but newsweek was told about this from an apparently normally trustworthy government official. I mean, obviously they can't verify these kinds of things, they have to go with their source. Its not like with Rathergate where they could, but wouldn't, easily verify a 'memo' that was in someone's personal posession for years. I mean, those editors really screwed up, they were completely negligent in their journalistic duties, but Newsweek? They were told, by a government official, that he saw a report that noted that this occured. And thats what they reported, and how they reported it. Even now, they've issued an apology, but their source still insists that he read the report.

wish I knew who THEY were....I'd tell them to kiss my grits...

Take it easy flojo, er, mojom.

marg6043
Is time for our troops to come home.

Marg, you know whats going to happen over there is the US leaves, right?

alias jones
I am a peace loving individual ,and do not consider myself racist in any way , but these people are making it very, very difficult for me.

SO because of some religious fanatics in afghanistan, you are starting to hate innocent arabs in the west, or anywhere else?


zipdot
Jihad does NOT mean "holy war".
The struggle for a man to overcome his temptations, that can be a jihad, for instance.

These clerics are not called for a 'fight against personal temptations' over this, clearly. They, actual muslim clerics, are using the word to meang "a religious sanctified military struggle". The history meanings and usages of the word 'jihad' are, somewhat, irrelevant. If the newspapers substiuted "Holy War" for Jihad, in this context, they'd be entirely correct. Indeed, almost anytime anyone anywhere recently has said 'We will start a jihad', they have meant holy war.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Nygdan

The sad reality is.............that we know already what is going on with our troops in Iraq; we know that they are targeted they will always be targets and that the anti-American sentiment is growing everyday.

300 Muslim may not look like a lot to many, but they are highly successful at what they do best.............killing others including our troops.

Iraq will be the same after US troops leave as it is now, with a new twist it will not be a "Sad am" to control them anymore.

And our troops are not having any success so far either, so the fact is that Iraq has become a battle ground and it will remain like it for a long time, with American troops in there or not.

So better face the truth now than keep hoping for a better time while our troops are being targeted in that country.

Time to leave the oil of the Iraqi people alone and move on.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
These clerics are not called for a 'fight against personal temptations' over this, clearly. They, actual muslim clerics, are using the word to meang "a religious sanctified military struggle". The history meanings and usages of the word 'jihad' are, somewhat, irrelevant. If the newspapers substiuted "Holy War" for Jihad, in this context, they'd be entirely correct. Indeed, almost anytime anyone anywhere recently has said 'We will start a jihad', they have meant holy war.


I was primarily responding to the several posts in this thread that directly concerned the word "jihad." Obviously the topic is calling for violent action, but I still wouldn't call it a Holy War. Translated more literally, I think it would be described as an "ongoing struggle." EDIT: Yeah, "a religious sanctified military struggle." Forgot you said that when I was writing.

The thing is, as a Muslim, only your own leader can call for you to become involved in a Jihad. Some leader across the globe calling for one doesn't affect local Bobby Joe Muslim. So, what's really going on is that 300 Muslim leaders are calling for their, uh, constituents, to become involved in an ongoing violent struggle against the U.S.

It is far from an all-out Holy War, Muslims versus U.S.A. If this were the case, local Muslim leaders would also be screaming bloody Jihad, but they're not, because most Muslims are sensible people that respect their own religion and aren't crazy fanatics bent on causing trouble.

Zip

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   


I don't think that the whole Muslim world is in favor of this, but i find it strange that these clerics think the US would even consider doing this.


The Clerics know that the US won't do it. Just the same as when they kidnap an American truck driver and demand the withdrawl of all US troops from Iraq in the next 72 hours, or the driver will be beheaded. They know that won't happen. It's all part of their publicity. It's them showing their followers that they are fighting for the Muslim cause.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I would like to just make one statement.
I really think people need to stop using this "Liberial Media" Crap as a way to defend thier political beliefs when it suits them.
The bottom line here is They are out to Get EVERYONE. They want a story of Misery, and death and someone to blame for it. And WE have made it bad by giving the ratings to the news (If you can call it that) Organizations who get it first. Bush and Company are in Charge and they know half the country would love to see him F up. They will run the same stories no matter who is in office. How easy we forget every waking moment of the Clinton BJ, I suppose the media was Right wing then.

If NewsWeek has gotten people killed becasue of this story(If it was false). They should be arrested and Charged with the very least Man slaughter.

I mean both sides should have one thing to agree on. The Media is neither right nor left. They are only out for them selves and DO NOT CARE who gets hurt.

Except for FOX (They are pretty right you gotta admit lol)

My 2 Cents



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Burn a flag, burn a Catholic church, desecrate a bible, nothing happens. Fart in the general direction of the Koran, and the Arab world goes into a violent frenzy.
Hell, even our own government has no trouble covering, removing and desecrating Christian symbols when it feels appropriate (Ten Commandments, anyone?)

Something is wrong here. If the Muslim world was a single individual, he'd be locked up for his and other's safety. This whole "I'm gonna kill anyone who offends my particular religions symbol" mentality cannot be accepted in modern society. Especially when it kills.

Especially when this violently reactionary belief system is also a form of government, commanding the resources of an entire nation.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Yeah when will they move from basing their unbridled aggression in religion and move to corporate greed and secular Wars like us?

God get with the times, murder civilians for money instead of religion!



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Using Wikis to define terms is a slightly frightening process. You *do* understand how they work, don't you?

A system that allows anyone and almost everyone to modify a definition, allows for revisionism the likes of which Orwell feared. Terms are not best redefined by puiblic belief, nor by those with the time to sit home and update Wiki entries all day long.

Interesting how "jihad" meant "holy war". even to the two Egyptian exchange students I befriended in High School. Now, it doesn't mean that...because if we can change the definition, (at least in America), then hostile forces can use the term to incite violence and death, while the Media and others can claim ignorance.

Islam needs to police it's own. I don't buy this "just a few" argument anymore. If a single Catholic priest abuses a kid, and a single archdiocese shuffles him around, the entire Catholic Church is reviled. A soldier in the West Bank fires on a single Palestinian and Jews worldwide are suddenly a "Zionist Conspiracy" and need to be removed. Congress and the Administration go to war and every single American is a target for death and beheading if caught in the Middle East. A thousand clerics scream hateful rhetoric, and we're supposed to turn a blind eye?

If there is truly this great number if Muslims who actually despise this, then they should go to great lengths to remove this cancer from within. They cannot remain silent and then complain when outside forces are threatened and defend themselves. Islam can heal itself, like white blood cells in the body against an infection, or messy surgery will be performed. They cannot expect every other religion in the world to sit on their hands and be attacked, molested, and slaughtered by those claiming to follow Allah.

Otherwise, there is no way to tell the difference between a moderate Muslim and a violent one, until the bomb detonates. Only a fool would continue to allow this.




Originally posted by Zipdot
If you're interested, please check out my post above, which has in-depth links to the nature of jihad. Jihad does NOT mean "holy war".

The struggle for a man to overcome his temptations, that can be a jihad, for instance.

Anyway, it's there if you wanna check it out.

Zip

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I assume you did not read the Wiki or the ATS post. Please do.

I just don't want people to get all caught up on the phrase "holy war" so that it loses its meaning, kind of like we got all caught up on the word "terrorist" or the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."

We are overusing these words and phrases to a point where their original intent, seriousness, or meaning is completely lost.

As for the phrase "holy war," well, that's just... Not the best definition of jihad, and I'm sorry if you disagree. "Holy War" is too simplistic. Too much of a shortcut.

Zip



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Dear all,

As usual the right-wing echo chamber continue to spout the lies which led us to war.

There were no WMDs in Iraq. This is fact.

SH had complied with the UN inspectors but the US thought they knew better. They were wrong. This is also fact.

I will tell you, I hate being lied to.

So Muaddib, Seeker et al you can continue to stick your heads in the sand as to the legality of the war in Iraq. It makes no difference to those of us who know the truth.

All I would say is that by doing so you make everything else you say suspect.

Cheers

BHR


I hate it when liberals lie through their teeth like there is no tomorrow....

To take the idea from another member...The idea that Saddam was not working on acquiring wmd would be like the claim of OJ did not kill Nicole even though all the evidence was clearly showing that he did kill her.....

It seems that since that day when OJ was declared innocent the left, for the life of them, cannot accept evidence of a wmd program in Iraq unless they saw Saddam throwing a nuke at them...and even then they might proclaim that it was the US government who did it...

We might have not found missiles already equiped with wmd in Iraq, but there is ample evidence that Saddam was breaking the agreement set forth by the UN as he was acquiring banned missile technology, among some of the other banned military technology that was in the hands of Saddam until the war started.

Let's refresh the momeries of the left a bit and see if they can add all the evidence together, and finally see the picture as to what Saddam was doing...

The following are excerpts from the UNMOVIC report of May 28 2004.



In particular, following a visit of IAEA to a scrapyard in Rotterdam to
investigate increased radiation readings, it was discovered, through photographs taken at the time, that engines of SA-2 surface-to-air missiles were among the scrap (see figure below). They are the type of engines used in the Al Samoud 2 proscribed missile programme.
In addition, a number of items and equipment that may also be relevant to the UNMOVIC mandate were seen among the scrap. The existence of missile engines originating in Iraq among scrap in Europe may affect the accounting of proscribed engines known to have been in Iraq’s possession in March 2003.


Let's go down a bit more to find some more interesting reading material...


However, in several instances Iraq provided misleading declarations regarding the suppliers and sources of the items and materials as well as procurement channels, claiming that they had been purchased on the local market. It appeared that they had been procured outside Iraq through private trading companies operating both in and outside of the country. There is much evidence that from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured materials, equipment and components for use in its missile programmes. In several instances, the items procured were used by Iraq for programmes, such as the production of Al Samoud 2 missiles, that were determined by UNMOVIC in February 2003 to be proscribed. This can be illustrated by the acquisition of at least 380 SA-2 missile engines for Iraq’s prime missile establishment by an Iraqi Government-owned trading company controlled by the Military Industrialization Commission through a local Iraqi trading company and a foreign trading company. UNMOVIC is currently analysing documents available to it in order to establish the source of the engines procured through the local trading company and of any additional SA-2 engines (or other missile-related items) that might have been procured by Iraq since 1999.

16. The same Iraqi governmental trading company was involved, through a
contract with two foreign private companies, in procuring components and
equipment for the manufacture and testing of missile guidance and control systems, including inertial navigation systems with fibre-optic and laser ring gyroscopes and Global Positioning System equipment, accelerometers, ancillary items and a variety of production and testing equipment. The list of items sought includes several that were not declared or shown to UNMOVIC during the course of its inspections.


Excerpted from.
www.un.org...

The missiles in question were banned from Iraq...but why in the world would Saddam be acquiring banned rockets and missile parts?.... i mean, he was a changed man according to what the left keeps saying, he was not trying to break the sanctions and acquire wmd.......right?....


About 1.8 metric tons of "yellow cake" and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing as the Iraqis left Tuwaitha unattended during the war.


Excerpted from.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Why in the heck was Iraq still with at least 500 tons of unrefined uranium and 1.8 metric tons of yellow cake?....

i fail to see why is it that they still had this in their inventory, as well as other material, when they were supposed not to have any of these.

But wait, you need a centrifuge to be able to refine uranium.... Did Saddam have centrifuges?




Image: CNN
Former Iraqi nuclear scientst Mahdi Shukur Obeidi kept key parts of Saddam Hussein's weapons program buried in his garden.


A former Iraqi nuclear scientist has provided American authorities with parts and documents from Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program from over 12 years ago, a US intelligence official said today.

The scientist, Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, said he had kept the parts buried in his garden at his Baghdad home on the orders of Saddam's government, according to the intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Once sanctions against Iraq ended, the material was to be dug up and used to reconstitute a program to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon, Obeidi claimed to US officials.


Excerpted from.
www.theage.com.au...

But wait a second...that doesn't prove anything at all?....right?...


The left continues trying to claim Saddam was not breaking the sanctions and he was not trying to acquire any wmd...but the evidence shows the contrary...

And we haven't even talked about the scud missiles, which were also banned from Iraq, and the Iraqis fired upon the coalition at the beginning of the war... but of course, the left is going to start again claiming that Saddam was set up by the US....


And we have not even touched the other evidence which shows that wmd were moved from Iraq to other countries.

---edited for errors---



[edit on 17-5-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics




 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join