It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Radical Islam

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by poet1b

It's just the way the world operates. Dark Age Europe was just as violent, with local "feudal" war lords exercising their authority over the peasant populations. The point isn't that a natural process has to be seamless, or even democratic, it's just that such a process irons out all the rough patches, and issues are corrected over time. The rise of industrialization in Europe imposed a powerful force on the land lords, which culminated in the development of liberal democracy through the extension of voting power to the fresh middle classes, who were supplying capital to the kingdom. The middle class took precedence over large-estate land lords, whose ancient system became quickly incompatible with the needs of an expanding state bureaucracy. The kingdom needed resources, especially with such a rapidly growing population. Something like this could have happened in Arabia as well.

The only problem was that the process of nation building in the Middle East was subverted by foreign interests that imposed artificial barriers to the region's natural development. The whole process could have been bloody well violent, but at least it would be uniquely their own struggle. In Europe, the Roman Catholic church played the same role as Islam is today. But what happened? Martin Luther signed a petition in protest to the violence of that institution and then Europe fell into religious, civil warfare for well over two hundred years until peace was finally reestablished. The result was the creation of modern, democratic states and the introduction of the doctrine of the separation of church from state. What's to suggest that Middle Eastern nations could not accomplish the same thing?

Maybe it's just the age we live in today, especially characterized rapid communication of information. In some respects, we might feel obligated to nurture the humane development of nations all across the world. But that's never been the truth. No one in power actually cares. Whatever "civilizing" missions we've undertaken have solely been in our own interest. The United Nations mandate system at the end of World War I, no matter how noble they at first appeared, and no matter how idealistic President Woodrow Wilson seemed; the system was doomed to failure as its interests were primarily aligned with the energy and market demands of the care-taker countries. France exploited Syria and Lebanon for many decades to come before their own revolutions took place. Britain had trouble letting go of some of it's own mandates as well, namely Egypt. Nasser came to power through a military coup, and designed to create a powerful Islamic religious state in retaliation. It was all a sham.

Originally posted by poet1b
i]reply to post by cognoscente
Yeah, after Russia went communist, there was considerable effort to contain the USSR, and for good reason. Do you think Stalin was a good guy? Do you think living under a totalitarian government is the way to live? Yeah, western nations like the U.S. and Britain opposed socialists, who historically, every single time after winning in democratic elections, wound up setting up dictatorships. Watch Chavez, he is going in that direction already, and it won't be too long.

That doesn't mean they're capable of fixing other nations' problems. History can attest to their repeated failures. Ultimately, it is my opinion that political moderation should overcome the Middle East and Islamic fundamentalism in the state arena be completely and utterly abolished. And I think a great deal of Middle Easterners today would understand my claim. Are they going to do anything about it? No, not as long as they are being oppressed by foreign powers. The only things that matter to the West are "allies, oil, influence and stability" and in that order specifically. No one is capable of restoring order but the people of the Middle East itself.

Wouldn't you agree that the legitimacy of fundamentalists is only granted by the perception that they are the only force capable of rectifying the violence that is happening in the region? Obviously the common people are going to look to a long established religious institution, whose sole concern is ostensibly delivering peace on earth, before approaching any other strategy. Fundamentalism is not fundamental to the religion of Islam, nor is it a viable strategy for long-term political stability. Unfortunately, the people can't see that if they're being blinded by a desire for vengeance from oppression. When a wider range of the population gets to experience a greater proportion of the wealth found in the region, as well as to undertake in the political process, then and only then will a process of stabilization process begin. The elimination of the Saudi regime would be a start. A neutral, democratic, Arab state could take its place and the influence of radicalism would diminish rapidly. Unfortunately, the oil, as well as the entire illusion of prosperity in the West would disappear along with it.

Lastly, I'm not supporting terrorism. I'm saying it's the Middle East's best strategic response to not only the oppression, but the lack of political representation due to the West's need to fill the power vacuum in the Middle East created by the expansion and increasing pressure of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The West took advantage of its position as care-takers for "mandate states", authorized by the United Nations after World War I. The West barely gave up those regions, and they all in one way or another sought independence, because it was becoming apparent the West wasn't going to give it up. They continually used the excuses of economic underdevelopment, lack of education, lack of authority, etc. as excuses to delay self-determination. It wasn't until 1960 that the crisis was recognized for what it was.

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

And the signatories. It's rather interesting to see no significant Western powers signing this. Well, for one, that would illegitimate the Vietnamese war of oppression that the West, including the U.S. and France, were currently engaged in.

Corporations and nation-states are inextricably linked in their pursuit of wealth and power. There is no clear distinction. The gains in capital wealth acquired by the corporations are equal to the gains in political influence and material wealth on behalf of the nation-state. The exact same reasons were employed in the U.S.'s neo-colonial activities across all of Latin America, especially that of the Dominic Republic, Cuba, Nicaragua and El Salavdor in the 1960's, and in the cases of Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada and Chile throughout the rest of the 20th century. The corporations are definitely a culprit, but that doesn't extricate the nation-states behind them (U.S. corporations pay U.S. taxes no matter where they are) from the series of exploitations they are committing on the local populations.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:39 AM
Maybe if we could get the numbers reversed where 85% were radical, and 15% moderate, then we could get interested more in discussing and complementing those who are moderate.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by SoulOrb

But what we have to realize is criticism and denigration is not and never will be a viable pathway to the reversal of radicalism in a society that attributes all their failures to marginalization at the hands of foreign powers. Whether that is true is or not is irrelevant. You just can't realistically convince that many people to believe the opposite, considering the present circumstances. You can't enforce liberal Republicanism on a society that has collectively rationalized an orientation toward religious conservatism.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by magicmushroom

These radical Muslim terrorists groups are killing more Muslims than the soldiers of Western Nations. This isn't a war between the Muslim world and the rest of the world, this is a war between radical Muslim terrorist groups and the rest of the world, and that includes a huge number of moderate Muslims. Just about everyone on the planet is threatened by these Islamic fanatic terrorists.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:46 AM
Oh please stop it, the only people on the Planet that are a threat to us are radical Muslims. So the illegal, wars perpetrated by the US/UK and the rest of the gang and the millions that have died don't count do they or all the other conflicts that are taking palce all over the World at any time.

No its all down to radical Muslims is it, what absolute crap. The white man has been waging war on his fellow man for at least the last 2k years like its going out of fashion and all you can come up with its down to the brown skinned man.

Sorry I don't fall for the propaganda that is used by the West against anyone it does not like. People here are starting to sound like Nazis in Hitlers Germany, its the Jews, there to blame for everything, lets round them all up and kill them. Now its lets round up all the Muslims and lets kill them. its seems that we have learnt nothing, man is trully a dumb animal.

How long before were torching Muslim owned businesses and banning Muslims from everything they do now. Mind you I'm sure there will be plenty of mind controlled bots out there to carry out the orders.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by cognoscente

Thanks for your intelligent reply. It is good to see someone take a look of the situation from a perspective outside of the usual distorted version.

Yes, at one time Europe existed in a state of feudalism, and was as violent and oppressive as all the other feudal states around the globe. I think however, that the rest of your first paragraph is very inaccurate in its description of the rise of European democracy. In the second paragraph, you are much more closer to the historical reality.

It was the Catholic Church and Christianity that created the dark ages and the feudal system of Europe, establishing the nobility with the concept of the divine rights of kings. Once the church was successfully challenged on its corruption, and abuse of its duties, and its gross mis-interpretations of the teachings of Christ, then people began to challenge the rights of the nobility. Europe first succeeded in throwing off the yoke of the Catholic church, and then it succeeded in developing democratic institutions, market economies, and a renaissance in technological innovation.

Europeans were the first to succeed in this manner, bringing us to our current state of technological development. The development of all other cultures will be considerably different. The interference of the Western nations in Middle Eastern affairs is in fact natural and normal throughout the development of human civilization. Neighboring nations have always meddled in each others affairs. The difference in this era is technology. The Earth has become a very small place, and civilizations no longer evolve nearly as independently as they did five hundred years ago. We are all now very much connected.

Wouldn't you agree that the legitimacy of fundamentalists is only granted by the perception that they are the only force capable of rectifying the violence that is happening in the region?

If you mean by fundamentalists, the terrorist organizations like Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, the Wahibists, and so on, then I would say that there are many who want to make this claim that they are the ones capable of rectify supposed wrongs, BUT the reality is just the opposite.

These terrorist organizations are the ones creating the violence, oppressing the people, and preventing progress in the Middle East. The only way the Middle East is ever going to advance is by first throwing off religious oppression and persecution.

As far as how much our corporations are tied to our state, I think that is highly debatable. These corporate entities certainly do wield a great deal of influence over our nation, but they are separate from us. While the U.S. public would like to see progress in the nations of the third world, like to see human rights become global, a very, very good argument could be made that IC's would rather keep the third world oppressed, and even overthrow the rights of people in the first world nations. The IC's, in my opinion have very little loyalty to the people of the first world, and are in fact possible partners of the terrorist groups and third world dictators. The people stoking the fires of discontent on both sides might be working together.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by magicmushroom

The white man has been waging war on his fellow man for at least the last 2k years like its going out of fashion and all you can come up with its down to the brown skinned man.

This is nothing but a racist diatribe. I would report you to the mod, but you make such an excellent example of bad behavior, I would rather see this post stand.

Waging war on ones fellow man is a constant throughout all of human history, and all races. No race is more or less guilty than others.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:01 PM
As long as the Western cultures allow fifth-column, death/slave-intending agendas to masquerade as and hide within 'religion', and as long as those cultures are so busy falling over their own multicultural feet not to say anything about that, we are going to be at serious risk.

As long as human mutilation, slavery and death-chant xenophobia from a specific culture is allowed and even patronized by a powerful media and entrenched fifth-columns of their own in our society (primarily in edu), we are going to be at serious risk.

Human nature breeds this kind of thing. Normally it is recognized at some point and put down. We have managed to acquire a trojan horse 'envelope' for it in the form of 'freedom of religion' and 'multiculturalism' that is preventing the necessary, normal human response and actions that would keep it from getting out of hand.

It's already out of hand. Anybody who doesn't think so just hasn't seen even a fraction of the worldwide facts on the subject.

As long as 'peaceful' Muslims allow radical muslims to set the policies, to enforce their lack of integration in the cultures they end up infesting rather than contributing to, as long as they allow violent people to be sheltered within their communities; then yes they are going to face bias, blending of them-with-IT from outsider perspectives, and be subject to harm just by proximity. That is their own people putting them there, that is them allowing it and even passively encouraging it.

Until the western world wakes up and says "enough of religion being the shelter for this crap" and puts a stop to that, the problem is going to continue to worsen, war is going to continue to worsen, and any citizenry at least half-awake is going to continue to be hacked off when rightfully recognizing an open, let-us-repeat-ourselves-we-want-to-kill-you threat, is instead perceived as "discrimination against a race/religion".


posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by Ownification

I suspect you're just engaging in the tired old trick of
'feigning righteous indignation' so you don't actualy have to address any of the points raised...but please feel free to correct any mistakes if I am wrong.

The 'out of context/mistranslation' excuse seems to be wearing a little thin so if you can specificaly go through each of the 500+ quotes concerning 'inferior kuffars' then it would be appreciated.

Heres a handy Arabic translation website for you to use:

Heres some others for you to check:

Whilst you're at it,you may also find this film interesting which shows how many imans have purposefully misconstrued and mistranslated the qu'ran:

A good example would be when the qu'ran teaches muslims to
'beat their wifes lightly' -the word 'lightly' is a complete
fabrication and does not exist in the text.

Its probably also worth you watching this BBC Newsnight clip in which three separate Arabic translators all reach the same conclusions about wahhabi teaching methods:

I'd also be interested to hear your opinions about the Times article (a few posts back) reporting on how over 'fifty' percent of British mosques are now under hardline deobandi control or hear what you've got to say about the hatred,intolerance,bigotry and prejudice being preached by imans in the documentary 'Undercover mosque'.

What do you think moderates 'can actualy do' against this rising tide of religious fanaticism?

One things for sure-the people who made these signs are dangerous, delusional,bigoted sociopaths and should have been arrested on the spot:

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:04 PM
Agent Karl, if your going to push the point about radicals how about a level playing field and show them all not just the ones you have an agenda with.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:16 PM
The difference between the past and this modern world is population size.
White man black man Chinese Arabs Jews Tribes and the whole of history has never totally populated the world to the Billions we have now. Even the prophets saw the future and said the Seed of Abraham would number like the sand before man had even got to that sight in estimated numbers. Jesus Christ spoke of a future where all nations will one day know who he is and right now they don't because the Chinese and communist nations does not know Jesus fom the Bible or that history, Muslim nations see another version of Jesus also and ban the Bible and other religions in some cases as communism does.

So the difference now is that we today have populated the earth as God
intended from the start of his Adam's creation and in no time in history has man done just that. America had no real populaces as to compare to now, Australia did not have its millions of people in population either even if there were red Indians and aborigines but if man did spread around the globe before they never reached the numbers we have now. Be it Biblically intended, predicted or for the greater good of man being in high numbers giving more people a chance to be born on this planet and regardless of the sorrows that comes from life there is that backbone of belief of an afterlife and that makes each person born more special and spiritual for God to save for Heaven. With many religions agreeing in the precious nature of man which most have in common has spread with purpose as a gift from God?

So the difference today is population growth and many nations and empires are all here at once and never before has it been good for man as the spreading of knowledge and invention and safety in numbers. But there is this tussle of ideals and one group wants the ideal world their way and another their way along with the mass destructive weapons that can wipe a lot of people out at once.

This knowledge of man being able to destroy populations and even millions is a blessing and a curse, we either all try and live in peace together or all die together and sorry to say there are some fanatics willing to try and push the buttons on us.

This is why fanatical ideologies in places like Pakistan and Iran is a great threat to the world if they get hold of these weapons. If we say nothing is related to anything and nothing is going to happen and radical ideas don't stem from the same sources then we are deluding our selves. Like with Iran it’s a major issue and it’s not for no reason either. Remember the Nazi's or the Romans did not have nukes, imagine if they did today.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by The time lord]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Agent Karl, if your going to push the point about radicals how about a level playing field and show them all not just the ones you have an agenda with.

Do you actualy beleive that anyone who does not unquestioningly agree with the abrahamic mythologies is in some sort of 'secret agency' or are you just trying to court victimhood?

As for you mentioning the word 'agenda' -well, its just hilarious.

Its also telling that you wilfully ignored the content in the last post- but
I suppose thats to be expected.


posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:49 PM
Agent Karl, unlike you I don't ignore anything, but as you have a one sided agenda here one can only question your motives. You and others are trying to make out that the only crimes that are committed or the only radicals are done by and are Muslims which is simply not true.

Its a case of are there radical Muslims yes are all Muslims radicals no.

Apply that to any group religeous or otherwise and you get the same answers.

You and the others are just pandering to the present hysteria and fear that surrounds this subject matter. But the real question is why, what is the objective of those who push fear hate and racism into the heads of the weak and the subservient.

Well its simple its war, war for religion war for profit war for power. What the perps are trying to achieve is for enough hate and fear that will be built up so we can wage all out war on people of the Muslim faith. It has nothing to do with radicals Muslim or otherwsie thats is just a smoke screen. The smart people can see it the sheep cannot or will not.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:53 PM

Originally posted by magicmushroom....

Just as I thought - hot air.

Yes there are delusional extremist christians (see thread link) ,yes there are delusional extremist hindus and yes there are delusional extremist
muslims - the reason I posted the links here is because the thread is entitled 'Radical islam'.

A good way to actualy have a mature discussion about this (quite serious) subject would be for you to 'actualy address' some of the points raised instead of just posting vague and insubstantial opinion.

BTW if I'm an agent does that make you a cultist?

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:24 PM

Originally posted by karl 12
A good way to actualy have a mature discussion about this (quite serious) subject would be for you to 'actualy address' some of the points raised instead of just posting vague and insubstantial opinion.

I agree.

Good luck with finding some of that.

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:24 AM
reply to post by Battleline
I can't help but wonder if the people who stared my post were also penalized and removed.

Musliims will always be a problem.

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:11 PM
Agent Karl I have addressed some of the points but I asked you why are you looking a Muslims in isolation. I'm sure your have heard the phrase cause and effect, perhaps you would like to discuss it. Rather than just posting other peoples work how about you start that discussiion that you want.

What is the cause of some Muslims becoming radicalised.

Continuing global Imperial expansion and the exploitation of resource rich lands.
Coupled with agressive military action against mainly Muslim populations in which men women and children are murdered, their homes destroyed etc. torture of individuals and the destablising of Governments.

What is the effect of these actions.

Large groups of young Muslim men feel marginalised and see their countries and familes and their religion the victims of growing Western aggression. The view that they are under attack and therfore provide the ideal recruiting ground for the real radicals.
Men are brainwashed into fighting for the cause but no more so than those who fight in Western militaries but the results are the same, death and destruction.

If one wants to find out the real reasons of what is taking place then one has to look at the cause that creates the effect.

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:51 PM
It really doesn't matter. Their culture is stuck in the past and overcontrolled by maniacs and it sucks and it makes them miserable and violent and makes them hate us more--so what. We cannot solve the cultural problems of everybody on earth, especially when we're not even allowed to COMMENT on them in our own country without being politically incorrect, let alone anywhere else. If something is a threat you take action on it. If I burn in hell because I think there is a time and place for the Marines, so be it. I am too busy being concerned about the safety and positive growth of my country and its people to be particularly concerned about why young muslim men feel marginalized. I feel marginalized too but I am not blowing myself up in walmart.


posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:13 PM
Red, what do you mean "their culture" tens of millions of Muslims have adopted a western way of life so what is "their culture".

If you want this to stop its quite simple, stop kiling them. And we are talking about a minority not the majority. But more to the point it is those with power and profit in mind who fuel these conflicts. Do you think the US would be in the ME if there was no oil, gas or opium, no it would not. Those incontrol would not give a toss about Muslims radical or otherwise.

As an example if Mexico suddenly attacked the US would you not expect the people and the Government to fight back or would you just give in. It is the failure of the average American who has never had war on his doorstep or occupation of his country to so completely not understand why Muslims feel the way they do.

And how does one compare a suicide bomber to a pilot who drops tons of bombs on people from a distance.

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by magicmushroom

I am sorry to say but Islam has remained one entity in its history, the killings have almost been the same with the ritualistic beheadings and decapitations and also, they usualy have a weapon called a sword as a reminder on their flags. Islam can be seen as an invading political system, its does not spread usually because people accept its because people are forced to or depopulated in that country.

People wonder why if Invasion and forced conversion via Islamic rule had anything to do with religion again people just can not help deny any connection.

History of Muslim invasions.

Conquest of Persia: 633-651 - Iran
Umayyad conquest of North Africa -647-709
Conquest of Transoxiana: 662-709 - Afghanistan
Conquest of Sindh: 664-712 - Indian subconinent
Conquest of Hispania: 711-718 - Spain
Conquest of the Caucasus: 711-750 -
Conquest of Nubia: 700-1606 - Sudan
Incursions into Southern Italy: 831-902
Conquest of Anatolia: 1060-1360
[edit] Byzantine-Ottoman Wars: 1299-1453

I could mention the Ottoman's and the Barbtry wars to modern day
Sudan .

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [


I could mention modern day conquests but I will reseach it later, the spread of Islam has been through fear and persecution through history and yet people are still denying it like some form diplomatic conditioning.

The Crusades is layed on the British like it was some lost of pride and we should remember how bad it was and we should say we are sorry when in fact the Muslims invaded everybody till no witnesses were left who could just about say the same to its Emipre 20 times over what the Crusades did. Islam spread through conquests and the backbone of that is through the inspiration of their leader who wrote how to do it.

History shows that the same ideologies continue through today and you either see it or you don't. I know the world has not been perfect but the ISLAMIC machine has not changed much since it started, and yet people think its the fault the world and not them selves for the mess they get them selves in as nations.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by The time lord]

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in