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.

 

Delta Force founder: Bush may have started World War III

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc

could you provide links to back up this claim. i only ask because Sudan is a northern African country as opposed to South Africa, which is actually a country in itself (which hates being confused with southern Africa) and couldnt be further away from Sudan on the map of the African continent if it tried.

having lived there for 3.5 years, i think i would have heard if millions of people had been killed in South Africa by islamic militants. killed by apartheid yes, but not by islamic militants


I did make a mistake in saying South Africa when I meant in Sudan alone. However, there are Islamic militant groups in south Africa, and such groups has been growing.


PAGAD: A Case Study of Radical Islam in South Africa

By Anneli Botha

The threat of Islamic terrorism to the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is surprisingly real. Aside from the possibility of an al-Qaeda strike against U.S. and other Western interests in the country, there are a number of indigenous Islamic networks that have the potential to either engage in serious acts of terrorism on their own or in conjunction with international terrorists.


Excerpted from.
jamestown.org...

But anyways, yes i made a mistake in that part of what i wrote.

(mod edit: tag fix)

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Riwka]




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Have you ever read the Old Testament in the Bible? Would you dare use that as an excuse to attacks Jews?

If you somehow think that the Jewish and Christian religions are somehow free of bloodshed, then you are sorely mistaken. Yet, we do not use the excuse of these books as evidence of the "evil" nature of their followers.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Jamuhn]


Jamuhn, I have said this before and I say it again....

You and Grover seem to forget a few facts... First the last prophet in Islam is Mohammed, and if Mohammed went around beheading people, taking beautiful slave women as wives/concubines, and if the holy book has one section which deals with "how to split the spoils of war, booty...among some other things that other sections also say about war and what to do with unbelievers, what do you think most of it's followers will do?

I never said other religions have not caused bloodsehd in the past...and i have said this at least ten times already.... the problem is that the writings in the Quran have not changed... There hasn't been another Islamic prophet who has denounced the old ways....which is part of the reason why there are so many conflicts around the world with Islamic militants.

Neither Jesus, nor Siddartha Gautama went around with a sword beheading people, taking slaves and spoils of war and saying cut the heads of the disbelievers....

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Sudan is in the Sahara, a couple thousand miles north of South Africa....dispute that with your facts bub.


So that's your whole argument now?....

at first you claimed all I said were lies and now just because I mentioned South Africa instead of Sudan you think your argument is backed bub?.....


Your tactics are not amusing at all grover...

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
This argument is pretty silly. Islam is a religion. Religions are made up of people. People do all sorts of things. Muslims are humans, therefore, they are capable of the utmost depravities and the highest niceties. Islam, as a religion, does not require that non-muslims be attacked. What is does have is a set of rules for conduct in war, and when war is permissible and what levels of war are permissible. Some muslims use these rules to claim that the pressence of Mcdonalds means you can cut a civilian's head off. Some christians used 'though shalt not suffer a witch to live' to roast civlian women. Whats the difference?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First the last prophet in Islam is Mohammed, and if Mohammed went around beheading people, taking beautiful slave women as wives/concubines, and if the holy book has one section which deals with "how to split the spoils of war, booty...among some other things that other sections also say about war and what to do with unbelievers, what do you think most of it's followers will do?


Like I said, read the Old Testament and you will read about Jews doing everything Muhammad had done. Yet, you choose to be selective in your thinking that only Islam has such depravities in its holy book. Guess what else, Jesus is a prophet to Muslims too. Yes, the same guy who said everyone that didn't believe in him would burn in hell. Tell me of Chrisitianity's prophet after Jesus, or the Jews after Moses. They all have their last prophet Muadibb.

Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever tried comparing Islamic text to Christian or Jewish text? Do you have any knowledge of the history of these religions by their "scholars"? If so, then you will realize that Islam is more the rule than the exception among the major three religions.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
This argument is pretty silly. Islam is a religion. Religions are made up of people. People do all sorts of things. Muslims are humans, therefore, they are capable of the utmost depravities and the highest niceties. Islam, as a religion, does not require that non-muslims be attacked. What is does have is a set of rules for conduct in war, and when war is permissible and what levels of war are permissible. Some muslims use these rules to claim that the pressence of Mcdonalds means you can cut a civilian's head off. Some christians used 'though shalt not suffer a witch to live' to roast civlian women. Whats the difference?


Thank you Nygdan...as the roman writer Terence wrote ...."I am a man, nothing human is alien to me".

Muaddib...I was being scarcastic since you rely so heavily on your "facts".

If you read my posts on subjects dealing with things like religion you will see that I stress tolerance above and beyond anything else....All the religions have been intolerant and many, including sects that call themselves Christian are intolerant today...the Southern Babtists that refused to take part in a national prayer service at ground zero shortly afterwards because "false" religions would be present come to mind. Islam has a long and honorable history, some (and I stress some) of its modern practicitioners notwithstanding... When Europe was in the dark ages, Islamic ruled countries were beacons of light and a refuge for the learned...many of the works of the ancients, especially aristotle especially would have been lost if not for them...their science was state of the art at the time, and unless they were pagans or apostates, those procuscuted for their faith in Christian lands knew they could take refuge there. Up into the 17th century Islam was the most technologically advanced civilization on Earth, even China did not surpass them...

What I object to Muaddib is your painting them with a broad brush without any attempt at context or for that matter humanity. it has nothing to do with Islam...I would object if you did so with Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or any of the other religions. There are saints and sinners, geniuses and idiots in any religion or civilization, that is a given as is a given that people, prophets or not, rarely transend their times and their cultures...its almost always to the benefit to humanity that there is the effort however. Any attempt at understanding the other must being with an attempt, even a flawed one, with understanding. It is that failure to do so that fuels much of the amonisity the rest of the world (Islamic or not) harbors against the United States.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

PAGAD: A Case Study of Radical Islam in South Africa

By Anneli Botha

The threat of Islamic terrorism to the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is surprisingly real. Aside from the possibility of an al-Qaeda strike against U.S. and other Western interests in the country, there are a number of indigenous Islamic networks that have the potential to either engage in serious acts of terrorism on their own or in conjunction with international terrorists.


Excerpted from.
jamestown.org...


whilst PAGAD (people against gangsterism and drugs) did spring off from an islamic organisation originally, and they have commited many murders and bombings over the years, they are all gang-related crimes and have to do with control of their area, no different from many cities in the us.

pagad are an insular organisation only concerned with their own back yard. so yes, whilst anybody who is islamic has the 'potential' to become involved in international terrorism, so do other gangs who commit murderous acts over drugs, crimes and territory.

all im saying is that not 'all' islamic criminals are international terrorists and they never will be either. sometimes they just have smaller fish to fry.

it can also be said that there are certain governments in this world 'that have the potential to either engage in serious acts of terrorism on their own or in conjunction with international terrorists', and in fact, some already have done so!



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Be real people, this is not world war 3, if it is I am guess I am missing the whole big picture, america troops are fighting in there, and the british troops fighting, and we call it a world war? Be serious. This war is just like a odinary war, alot of people are going to be killed or seriously hurt till 2008. this war is a whole big show and a drain of massive resources which could have been used elsewhere. suince 9-11, it has all been a diversion and according to Mossoarui, ``The show must go on``.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Crusader, even WWI and WWII 'only' invovled europeans, americans, and then in the second one the japanese. This terror war fits in as a world war as much as anything else, especially with fronts in africa and central asia.

Granted, it has to be taken as a series of smaller wars to be seen that way though, but undoubtedly future historians will look back on the Afghan War, Iraq War, and Iran War as all part of a "World War".



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
First thing is first: the Delta Force doesn't exist and second: President Bush didn't start anything. He's just following up on what's already been started by the Muslim world.


Where on earth did you read that? Delta Force does most certainly exist, just Google it and you'll see.
As for Bush, no proof has ever been uncovered that it was Moslems or Bin Laden who did 9/11. In fact, Bin Laden denied doing it. Not only that, but we know now that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam Hussein even warned us about it!
But we invaded Iraq without provocation. Even our official foreign policy statement says that we will attack any country that we even THINK is harboring terrorists. That means we don't need to have proof to invade anyone, we can just go in and destroy their country. Which is exactly what happened with Iraq.

-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Like I said, read the Old Testament and you will read about Jews doing everything Muhammad had done. Yet, you choose to be selective in your thinking that only Islam has such depravities in its holy book. Guess what else, Jesus is a prophet to Muslims too.


You and Grover are the ones being selective. Do you not understand that there is no "New Testament" for the Quran where the old ways are dismissed like in the bible and the New testament of the bible?

And BTW, although they consider Jesus a prophet, Mohammed is more important than Jesus, and the Quran is the only book that Muslims must abide to.

There are many contradictions in the Quran about the holy books of Judaism and Christianity because Mohammed got mad that he wasn't accepted as a prophet by Christians and Jewish people and in the latter parts of the Quran you can find that he became a hardliner about those two religions, including calling for the death of unbelievers if they did not want to submit to Islam.


Originally posted by Jamuhn
Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever tried comparing Islamic text to Christian or Jewish text? Do you have any knowledge of the history of these religions by their "scholars"? If so, then you will realize that Islam is more the rule than the exception among the major three religions.


Have I ever read the bible? I was raised in Spain and was in the Opus
Dei as a child of 9 until I was 16 years old, we were taught the bible from begining to end, although i don't know all of it by heart, and we were taught latin.

And btw, if you haven't noticed, yes I have read the Quran, something which some people around here seem to claim they have done but haven't done at all.

Jesus and other holy prophets like Sidarta Gautama never went around with a sword beheading people. If they did, Christianity and Buddhism today would be more like Islamic extremism.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
...................
As for Bush, no proof has ever been uncovered that it was Moslems or Bin Laden who did 9/11. In fact, Bin Laden denied doing it. Not only that, but we know now that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam Hussein even warned us about it!
-Forestlady


Forest, you better do some research yourself because...


Al-Qaida formally claimed responsibility last night for the September 11 attacks on the United States, with a video showing some of the hijackers making preparations in Afghanistan.
A male voice - apparently that of Osama bin Laden - praised the hijackers as "great men who deepened the roots of faith in the hearts of the faithful reaffirmed allegiance to God and torpedoed the schemes of the crusaders and their stooges, the rulers of the region.

www.guardian.co.uk...

and btw, even though there is no clear evidence that SAddam was involved in 9/11, he had ties with Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists who wanted to kill Americans and Israelis.


BTW Osama was also reprimended by a Muslim cleric who said that Osama didn't give the option for the people of New York to become Muslims, and that only an attack could have happened if they didn't want to become Muslims, Osama said he did this. We had the article about this about a year and a half ago in ATSNN.


[edit on 3-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Do you not understand that there is no "New Testament" for the Quran where the old ways are dismissed like in the bible and the New testament of the bible?

What the hell does this have to do with whether or not we are in WWIII? Seriously guys, not just you muaddib, lets get back on topic.




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What the hell does this have to do with whether or not we are in WWIII? Seriously guys, not just you muaddib, lets get back on topic.




Most conflicts and wars around the world at this moment has Islamic extremists fighting in them...

People claim the U.S. started WWIII when we have recently been in two wars, yet Islamic extremists are fighting in dozens of fronts/wars and even exterminating people..... Does any of that remind you of another WW?

The main reason for these conflicts is being discussed, and yet you are saying this has nothing to do with whether or not there is a WWIII on the making?.....



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Muadibb, your assertion that religion is somehow the problem ignores the similarities found in all major world religions. The New Testament of the Christians, despite the word "New" is older than the testament established between Muhammad's people and Allah. As well, there has been no additional prophet in the other two major religions either.

Those are just a few similarities of issues you are bringing up with the Muslim religion. As well, why do you think it is, that, although polygny is allowed in the Qur'an if one is capable, polygny is not legal in Muslim countries anymore? It's because Muslim societies have evolved to a certain extent. If Jews and Christians hadn't progressed from their holy books, then we'd be stuck in the Crusades (although some think we are).

It's not the religion per se, it's that people are using religion as a tool for meeting their ends. Every society, every culture uses some invisible truth to justify an ideology, and it so-happens that many Muslim fundamentalists are using Islam. There are fundamentalist Christian groups and orthodox Jews doing the EXACT same. Even in America and in other secular Western countries, the ideology is based on invisible, inalienable truths of the pursuit of human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The solution simply ends up being an interpretation of Islam for many of these people that conforms to the West's inalienable truths. For example, in Turkey, 98-99% of the people are Muslim, because they have joined the West. Many people in Arab and other Muslim countries have religious leaders that preach a strict interpretation of the Qur'an as a defense mechanism to Western imperialism.

As a side note, in Sudan, it's not an issue over Muslims and the others, it's an issue between farmers and herders.

If you want an example that defeats your assertion that Islam is the problem, I offer you the 75 million examples in Turkey. I could offer you many more as well.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I have read the Quran too, and I understood it as well, its context and its place in time and history. You have a keen mind Muaddib...too bad it isn't open.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
.........................................
Islam has a long and honorable history, some (and I stress some) of its modern practicitioners notwithstanding... When Europe was in the dark ages, Islamic ruled countries were beacons of light and a refuge for the learned...many of the works of the ancients, especially aristotle especially would have been lost if not for them......


That is a common misperception that a lot of people who haven't done in depth research into the subject keep repeating, but what you mentioned is far from the truth.

Arabs were nomadic tribes, some of which are still nomadic in the present day, and more so in ancient times. All the knowledge that has been attributed to Muslims has come from other ethnic groups who lived/live in the regions which the Muslims conquered, such as the Assyrians, most of whom were assimilated and made to convert into Islam due to the high taxes that non-Muslims have to pay in Muslim lands.

Let me give you some excerpts so you will see where all the knowledge attributed to Islam actually came from.


it is in Assyria where locks and keys were first used. One cannot survive in this world without knowing the time; it is in Assyria that the sexagesimal system of keeping time was developed. One cannot imagine driving without paved roads; it is in Assyria where paved roads were first used. And the list goes on, including the first postal system, the first use of iron, the first magnifying glasses, the first libraries, the first plumbing and flush toilets, the first electric batteries, the first guitars, the first aqueducts, the first arch, and on and on.

But it is not only things that originated in Assyria, it is also ideas, ideas that would shape the world to come. It is the idea, for example, of imperial administration, of dividing the land into territories administered by local governors who report to the central authority, the King of Assyria. This fundamental model of administration has survived to this day, as can be seen in America's federal-state system.


Let's read the most important part about the Assyrian people and where all the knowledge which you erroneously attributed to Islam really came from.


When Arabs and Islam swept through the Middle East in 630 A.D., they encountered 600 years of Assyrian Christian civilization, with a rich heritage, a highly developed culture, and advanced learning institutions. It is this civilization which became the foundation of the Arab civilization.



Excerpted from.
www.aina.org...

I have given other excerpts and links in the past about this truth, but anyways, this is not part of this discussion. The Assyrians were not the only people who the ancient Muslims did this to, after many of the Arab people were converted into Islam and were given the goal to spread Islam by the sword.

I apologize for taking the subject off a tangent but i had to respond to Grover.

Back on topic, before the coalition went to fight the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamic extremists were already fighting in several fronts and exterminating people in the millions, starting what could very possible become WWIII.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
As a Christian I condemn torture.

I doubt Bush is a Christian. He doesn't seem to know the meaning of "love your enemies" or "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."


Be careful in how you throw those stones, Amethyst.
As a proclaimed Christian, you are certainly having no problems whatsoever in throwing those stones, which is contrary to what you assert about Bush and him not knowing the meaning of "love your enemies," and you certainly have no problems in referring him to Hitler.

But please, by all means, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."







seekerof

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Yep, how dare this "ex" military man share his opinion on this war when so many ATSers know so much more than him, enough at least to publicly question his integrity.

And as a funding supporter of John Kerry, does not Mr. Haney also have an agenda?

Further, just because he is "ex-military" and an expert in tactical environments, does that also make him an automatic expert on global strategy? Hardly.

Btw, the Special Forces have a motto: "Quiet professionals."
I know this because I was a PJ in the Air Force, an Air Force special forces unit.
Having said that, Mr. Haney's 'diatribe' betrays the martial code of conduct and honor of that significant and special motto.





seekerof

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Quiet Professionals


Originally posted by Seekerof
Btw, the Special Forces have a motto: "Quiet professionals."
I know this because I was a PJ in the Air Force, an Air Force special forces unit.

You know, I learn something new every day.

I didn't know what a "PJ" was until I looked it up just now.

Wikipedia: U.S. Air Force Pararescue Jumper

Unless I am very much mistaken, this would make you a serious badass.


And yes, I agree. Despite the awesomeness of special forces professionals, I'm pretty sure the training does not include political science, international diplomacy or global strategy.

I don't look to politicians to carry out special combat operations, either.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join