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.

 

French government has listed its terms for surrender to Jihad

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Does anybody have a link to some video of these people burning homes/cars and such?




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shire19

Initiating hostility is not permitted for Muslims. The Quran says: "They were the first to attack you." (9:13)

Pretty pathetic how some people in this thread actually believe Islam is trying to "take over" the world, no one taught me to try and take over the world.


Well they sure have a long history of initiating violence and trying to take over the world. Islamic armies conqured lands all over the Middle East, Africa and Europe. They tried to conquer France but were repelled by Charles Martel.

The new European government aren't putting up the resistance they need to so they will be conqured.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Because the Bush team is being hit with one mudpie after another, and it looks like their days are numbered.

As we speak, Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and Rove (hurry, before the next round of indictments is handed down!) are plotting the next terror attack on US soil.


I'm sure all good liberals pray for indictments when they go to bed at night, but so far, at the conclusion of a 2 year, mulit-million dollar investigation, none of the above mentioned individuals have been charged with anything. I have no doubt that liberals wish deep down for Bush to be responsible for the riots in France, because if there's no conspiracy, if there's no link back to any other key but Islam, then Pres. Bush and company may have been perfectly right after all. That would be a fate worse than death for most liberals.

Back to the subject....Look! they are sending in the French troops now. They will no doubt crush the rebellion.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by dbates]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shire19Jihad even in war is used for defence purposes,

"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not be aggressive."(2:190)
The believers are allowed to fight in self defence. Initiating hostility is not permitted for Muslims. The Quran says: "They were the first to attack you." (9:13)


so the quran says it is ok to attack in defense, but not to initiate an attack.

and the WTC bombing in 93? retaliation for.......
Bali attack? retaliation for........
9/11? retaliation for..............


sadly, there are a few out there who interpret the quran radically different from what you have quoted.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Skippy, if you read the articles you linked to, they make it clear that this is NOT jihad. And I think it patently obvious that the French actions here are NOT surrender, as you like to call it. It really would help ATS in this instance, I think, if people learned more about France's anti-terror policy and immigrant demographic/experience before making such misleading claims. And it does, frankly, seem as though some people are itching to paint this situation in France-bashing, jihad-scaremongering colors.

You are citing to sources that do not say what you are using them to support. In fact some say the opposite. From your first link to MSNBC, for example:



Night after night last week, rage spread through the ghettos that ring Paris, then beyond to every corner of France. When a tear-gas canister exploded near a mosque in Clichy-sous-Bois on the fourth violent evening, a new cry went up. "Now this is war," said one of the vandals. Others cried "jihad." It was neither, in fact, and Paris—the capital known to tourists—was not burning.




[edit on 8-11-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

3)
What should the gov. do to stop this wave of violence? Minister: "The government has to GO IN DEPTH and analyze and get from SPEECHES TO ACTS, for a long, long time the government DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THAT UNEMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE, EDUCATION, HOUSING, SOCIAL ISSUES were connected all together.....we NEED TO GO BACK TO POLICY FROM POLITICS"


Mr. Minister is taking it to the truth round - peoples abandoned might just get a tad "uppity" at some point.
Folks keep focusing on the sensational, and here an official is doing the mia culpa about the root cause......



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
The new European government aren't putting up the resistance they need to so they will be conqured.


Wow, just wow.

Sorry but your comments regarding Islam make me puke, I'll save myself from any future outbursts through reading your comments and simply send you to Iggy Island.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Bout Time, what would you expect them to say? "Yes, this is a Jihad. We allowed the Islamic relgion to swarm over our nation by irresponsible immigration policies. Now, we are going to attempt to appease them sothat maybe they will stop burning France. Maybe we should have been more concerned with this arising situation, rather than the fear of English words sneaking into our vocabulary, but today, what's done is done."
No, I wouldn't expect them to do that, either. If for no other reason, but it might anger some of their Muslim trading countries.

It seems that so much is supposed to be ignored in order to make some happy. Political correctness really runs amuk. Although many around here will claim that it is "Christianity" that is causing so many woes in the world because of American interference (while, in other discussions, the same people will deny that the U.S. was supposed to be a Christian nation), the obvious deduction made by noticing the huge percentage of rioters being Muslim, and noticing the pro-Jihad chants, is to be ridiculed, rather than contemplated. Facts are to be ignored, such as the number of times one has read that Islamic leaders have made statements that would indicate a new strategy in taking Europe, and that strategy is by slowly infiltrating the continent and simply outpopulating the Europeans; this being a more effctive means of conquoring, instead of methods used in the last couple of attempts that were unsuccessful. One is also supposed to ignore the fact that, for a Muslim, lying to the infidel is not really lying, but strategy, this being in their own religious book. Regardless of this, we are supposed to believe Islamic leaders (or Islamic board members) when they discount this as any organized action against France.

You see,there are reasons for some to see this as more than disgruntled kids destroying other peoples' property for attention. Demeaning a member who makes logical conclusions based on information presented to him by the media doesn't win the day for you. Present counter information and counter interpretation. That will do much better.

I can't believe I'm defending Skippy; one of the leaders in inuendo attack. I'd better go and take some aspirin.

Anyway, behave.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
so the quran says it is ok to attack in defense, but not to initiate an attack.

and the WTC bombing in 93? retaliation for.......
Bali attack? retaliation for........
9/11? retaliation for..............

sadly, there are a few out there who interpret the quran radically different from what you have quoted.


Last time I checked, terrorists aren't Muslims.. Simply extremists manipulating the Q'uran to further their cause.

Islam forbids the actions these terrorists take.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again, how come the words of a terrorist are more believable regarding Islam than the words of a PEACEFULL Muslim, does it make sense to believe whatever comes out of the mouth off the person that has hurt you?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Why have the French not drawn arms against these rioters\Jihadist??...
I'm at a loss to it. Personally I would shoot a few rioters and leave them to fester in the streets as an example. Who do these people think they are holding a country to ransom. The French people should take matters into thier own hand seeing as thier Government has no backbone. If this was to happen in the UK at this present moment in time I'm sure it would be done and dusted within 48 hours.
Come on France dont give any ground imprison\deport\ or shoot the ungrateful ******s regardless of generation.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Well they sure have a long history of initiating violence and trying to take over the world. Islamic armies conqured lands all over the Middle East, Africa and Europe. They tried to conquer France but were repelled by Charles Martel.


- Ace if you're going to go back the umteen centuries to try to justify your arguement over this I think you are being partial in the extreme.

If you want to talk about who has marched all over the globe, conquering lands and actually ended up imposing their dictat and rules almost globally (and recently) you really want to be looking elsewhere.


The new European government aren't putting up the resistance they need to so they will be conqured.


- What "new European government"?

The various individual countries will deal with this in accordance with their own national law and via their own national agencies whether that be Police or Army etc etc.

.....and I really am taken aback that you are propagating this "they will be conquered" line.

This civil unrest in some parts of a country (even if copied on a small scale elsewhere) is not a 'war' nor is it invasion nor is it 'regime change' from within.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Bout Time, what would you expect them to say? "Yes, this is a Jihad. We allowed the Islamic relgion to swarm over our nation by irresponsible immigration policies. Now, we are going to attempt to appease them sothat maybe they will stop burning France. Maybe we should have been more concerned with this arising situation, rather than the fear of English words sneaking into our vocabulary, but today, what's done is done."


Wow, I wish I could give you a WATS vote for that!

I was thinking along the same lines about the English thing. If these were English-speakers moving into France setting up enclaves where everyone spoke English, the French would have been absolutely outraged. But a bunch of Muslims speaking Arabic and refusing to speak French or integrate into society just proved, in their minds, how nice, socialist, and multicultural they are.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Have you seen the terriffic coverage by Fox News on this? Puts all other outlets to shame.

That's only because Greta struck out down there in Aruba..



I bet you missed the Dem Senators selling us out ( zero liability to manfacturers!?!) while mouthing "loyal opposition" about the scam over avian flu & vaccines, too? Yeah great, push for generic yet let it be like the last outbreak.....where the medicine killed more people than the actual flu.

Au contraire, mon ami. I have been following that topic quite closely. And I thought it was the GOP that was calling for zero liability?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

The new European government aren't putting up the resistance they need to so they will be conqured.


Yup. They should have taken some lessons in Jihadi-suppression from Saddam Hussein. Now there was a secular strongman who put the fear of Allah into the fundies.

I don't get it. I'm not referring to you, AceOfBase, I generally respect your posts. But I don't understand why the same people who argued for invading Iraq are now so worried about Islamic Jihad taking over Europe? If Islamic Jihad was the fear, why did we remove their biggest enemy in the region?

And if these people in Frane really are Jihadis, would that mean our policy of fighting them in Iraq so we dont have to fight them at home is showing signs of failure? If they can attack France, the harshest country in Europe in terms of fighting Islamic terror, then why are we so safe in the US?

-koji K.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
.....and I really am taken aback that you are propagating this "they will be conquered" line.

This civil unrest in some parts of a country (even if copied on a small scale elsewhere) is not a 'war' nor is it invasion nor is it 'regime change' from within.


It is an invasion.
There are over 50 million muslims in Europe now.
Many of them live in muslim majority communities that number in the tens of thousands.

Their population is growing at a rate much higher than that of the native Europeans. They will eventually become a majority and will dictate to the native Europeans how they think things should be done.

They are already the majority of the population in some areas and they are running the streets. It's not even safe for the police to go into some of those areas.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Great now it has spread to Australia. If they think we will have a soft response to this like the French they better think twice. Hopefully this is just a singular copy cat attack and not the start of large scale riots.

theaustralian.news.com.au...



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
It is an invasion.
There are over 50 million muslims in Europe now.
Many of them live in muslim majority communities that number in the tens of thousands.

Their population is growing at a rate much higher than that of the native Europeans. They will eventually become a majority and will dictate to the native Europeans how they think things should be done.

They are already the majority of the population in some areas and they are running the streets. It's not even safe for the police to go into some of those areas.

Thats generalising.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Well they sure have a long history of initiating violence and trying to take over the world. Islamic armies conqured lands all over the Middle East, Africa and Europe. They tried to conquer France but were repelled by Charles Martel.

The new European government aren't putting up the resistance they need to so they will be conqured.

A COME ON!

WHAT ABOUT THE VIOLENT AND RACIST HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN WHITE MAN?

CONQUEST OF AMERICAS?

THE EXTREMINATION OF NATIVE INDIAN POPULATION?

THE FORCED SLAVERY OF AFRICAN CONTIENT?

THE COLONIZATION OF AFRICA, ASIA and the MIDDLE EAST?

Is there a Continent on this PLANET that the White CATHOLIC Race did not Conquer and Colonize?

PLEASE!

NOW you REALLY Pissed me OFF, Ace!

Talking like skippytjc here - ISLAM is the ROOT of ALL Evil, but The West is the most Peaceful Race on this Planet.

YEAH RIGHT!





[edit on 8/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Well they sure have a long history of initiating violence and trying to take over the world. Islamic armies conqured lands all over the Middle East, Africa and Europe. They tried to conquer France but were repelled by Charles Martel.

The new European government aren't putting up the resistance they need to so they will be conqured.

A COME ON!

WHAT ABOUT THE VIOLENT AND RACIST HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN WHITE MAN?

CONQUEST OF AMERICAS?

THE EXTREMINATION OF NATIVE INDIAN POPULATION?

THE FORCED SLAVERY OF AFRICAN CONTIENT?

THE COLONIZATION OF AFRICA, ASIA and the MIDDLE EAST?

Is there a Continent on this PLANET that the White CATHOLIC Race did not Conquer and Colonize?

PLEASE!

NOW you REALLY Pissed me OFF, Ace!

Talking like skippytjc here - ISLAM is the ROOT of ALL Evil, but The West is the most Peaceful Race on this Planet.

YEAH RIGHT!





[edit on 8/11/05 by Souljah]


Be thankful at least 3/4 of the world can now threaten each other in one language .



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
first, let me preface this by stating that if you reread my post, you will see that I made a clear distinction of interpretations so as to not paint a picture of all muslims being bad folks. On the contrary, I have never met a muslim that expressed anything other than remorse for the results that arise from the violent interpretations.

that said:

Originally posted by shire19how come the words of a terrorist are more believable regarding Islam than the words of a PEACEFULL Muslim, does it make sense to believe whatever comes out of the mouth off the person that has hurt you?



because they say they are acting out of belief in their religion.
because they commit acts of terror that reach a global audience
because there isn't enough non-violent muslim outcry against their violent offshoot.

simply put, there's too much negative, not enough positive. when the president of a muslim nation calls for the destruction of another nation, and the rest of the muslim world doesn't IMMEDIATELY condemn his words, the image the religion gets is not a positive one.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join