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.

 

Islam's Colonisation of the World

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
it's funny that the video speaks of offsprings in countries where homosexuality is at it's highest in numbers

could that also play into account?

how many homosexual muslims do you know?

the voice-over in the video at the end says "please listen to my gospel"
hahhahhahaha

it's probably a bible-belt trailer-park cult-like christian follower who is president of the Huckabee fan club




posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
it's funny that the video speaks of offsprings in countries where homosexuality is at it's highest in numbers

...or perhaps these are just the countries where homosexuality isn't punishable by stonings or even death.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
the voice-over in the video at the end says "please listen to my gospel"
hahhahhahaha

it's probably a bible-belt trailer-park cult-like christian follower who is president of the Huckabee fan club

Whilst true that the video might have been made with a Christian motive, I don't think that necessarily negates the information contained therein.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
...or perhaps these are just the countries where homosexuality isn't punishable by stonings or even death.

ummm ya sure, why not
so good argument on the anti-extremism
but that has nothing to do with my point
thx though anyway



Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I don't think that necessarily negates the information contained therein.

How about some sources that he speaks of then



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How about some sources that he speaks of then

Let us find them together. If you recall my OP you'll notice I wrote "If the information contained in this video is to be believed..." so I've not taken it as gospel myself. Until we find some facts to back up the video, all I can impart is my own observations.

My own observations are that not only do Muslim families in Europe have many more children than European families, but the Muslim community is granted increasing special rights and exceptions:

Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees
MUSLIMS CAN CLAIM BENEFITS FOR SEVERAL WIVES, SAY MINISTERS
Sharia courts operating in Britain
Schools to close on Muslim holidays in order to cut absence rates



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
I am sceptic but not pessimistic, but this is one of the reasons we need an European constitution, clearly stating the seperation between Church and state.

But the EU Constitution (if that's what you're talking about) is one of the reasons Britain - and all other member 'states' - are legally obliged to absorb masses of immigrants from Islamic countries in the first place.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How about some sources that he speaks of then

Let us find them together. If you recall my OP you'll notice I wrote "If the information contained in this video is to be believed..." so I've not taken it as gospel myself. Until we find some facts to back up the video, all I can impart is my own observations.

My own observations are that not only do Muslim families in Europe have many more children than European families, but the Muslim community is granted increasing special rights and exceptions:

Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees
MUSLIMS CAN CLAIM BENEFITS FOR SEVERAL WIVES, SAY MINISTERS
Sharia courts operating in Britain
Schools to close on Muslim holidays in order to cut absence rates


This is why i am worried about traditional two party systems such as in the UK, in Belgium and the Netherlands the political landscape is more flexibel and adaptive, the biggest [new] parties are anti-muslim:Vlaams Belang and Party voor de Vrijheid.Sadly in Belgium the other parties maintain a Cordon sanitaire [the other parties prevent the party from ruling] And PVV The party of which frontman Geert Wilders was denied entrance to your country. But here other parties are willing to form a coalition and then immigration rules will be more strict then they already are.Denmark is also an enlighted example..Really i am more worried about Britain then the lower lands..
The Head in the sand, chamberlain policy must be over, and then i am not even mentioning Gordon Brown asking countries such as the UAE for bailout money...




[edit on 27-4-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by Foppezao
I am sceptic but not pessimistic, but this is one of the reasons we need an European constitution, clearly stating the seperation between Church and state.

But the EU Constitution (if that's what you're talking about) is one of the reasons Britain - and all other member 'states' - are legally obliged to absorb masses of immigrants from Islamic countries in the first place.


The Dublin convention [II] which would be integrated in the constitution clearly has sharp rules about applicants submitting applications in more then one country, border control should be sharpened and as the dublin convention clearly states, applicant may only submit in the first country they enter[Italy, France, Greece] to prevent Asylum shopping..It is up to individual states what to do about family reunion etc..
And really the South of EUrope is already a fortification..

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
i think i can answer the op's question. i believe tptb are using abrahamic religions to fight one another. HOWEVER, it's really not the religions themselves fighting, it's the general population of each area which are stereotyped as religion A, B, or C. israel is said to be jewish. america is said to be christian. most of the middle east is said to be islamic. of course, that's not actually true. israel has just as many atheists in it as it does any other religious belief. so does america. many so-called muslim nations, have various beliefs in them, including buddhists and hindus. but for it to work, there must be stereotypes. because we have to blame somebody for the war and devastation, so we'll have an even bigger reason to hate religion, especially abrahamic religion

so my theory is, it's the brainchild of the atheist and neo-nazi leaders of several communist and fascist countries. they wish to rid themselves of abrahamic religion. it's quite interesting, and also quite biblical.

they want to work up the extremist muslims, to fight the christians and jews in their own countries. i theorize that by then, the agnostics, atheists and new agers, will be so fed up with the entire thing, they'll approve of the government wiping out the remaining people of whoever wins the abrahamic inheritance. the victor will just be causalty number three, or at least that would be the predictable flow of things given historical precedent.




[edit on 27-4-2009 by undo]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
i mean, how do you get rid of "jews" without looking like hitler? and how do you get rid of christians, without looking like marx? and how do you get rid of muslims without looking like a crusading pope? easy. bring in hostile sects of each group, work them up into a frenzy, and wallah, they take care of the problem for you. it's brilliant, really (in a very terrible way, but brilliant nonetheless)

would be kinda difficult to explain whiy it would be necessary to kill modern christians, since they pretty much integrate into the rest of society. and it's rough with many who are called jews, because they are some of the most famous scientists, movie stars, singers, writers, poets, philosophers and so on, in modern history. how do you justify killing off einstein? ain't gonna happen. but now here we have islam. it's been characterized as the religion of terrorists, and its sharia law is enough to scare modern women half outta their wits. all you'd have to do is show them a few pages of sharia law, and when the muslims had a 51 percent majority and called for sharia, the women would be begging the government to annihilate the muslims.

think about it.

so it goes like this...
the muslims fight the christians and jews.
the muslims win because they are being secretly protected and defended by the governments.
then, when the muslims start calling for foreign countries to adopt islamic laws, the governments will have all the ammunition they need ...

look, they killed the christians and the jews
and now they want to force us to be under sharia law!

sad thing is, it's pretty much true. sharia law is scary as hell. i wouldn't ask the government to kill them for it, but i certainly wouldn't agree to it. but look how little it took to convince most of the western world that we should go off to war against saddam and iraq...not once, but twice.

"either you're for us, or you're for the terrorists." -- W



[edit on 27-4-2009 by undo]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I have come to spread my racist banter on this page, as well, and I'll quote what I've quoted in another thread

"All religions spread by procreation means, although I would accuse the catholic church of being the worse in this respect, "contraceptives are bad, abortion is bad" leaving a fundamentalist catholic with little choice. Islam doesn't have a stance on contraception as far as I know although the conservative muslims push it as bad. The point of the video is clear and the numbers appear from looking on the web to be valid, a Islamic state within old Europe is inevitable at this point in time following current trends. I myself as stated do not wish to live under an Islamic state and will push for my way of life to be conserved, obviously you lot see it as racist, I see it as preserving my way of life. "



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
^^ i rest my case! (see above post)
spitefulgod just proved my points. now THAT should be an eyeopener, right there. western women DESPISE shar'ia law the moment they read it. that ain't gonna happen. and the only way the muslims will feel justified in calling for it is if they have majority. believe me, the western world would not let any particular sect have majority if they weren't in on it to begin with (as the op points out). nah, this whole christian/jew/zionist vs. islam thing, is just smoke and mirrors. good portion of those men over there, dying in battle, weren't even remotely christian, islamic or jewish . those are just useful propagandized words, to vilify something you intend to get rid of.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by undo]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The video doesn't go into much detail about the UK....any sources with information? Btw, I checked up against UNWPP (as referenced by wikipedia), and while not by a significant amount, every one of the values in the video seem to be less (with some cases where it is not plausible that they could have changed like that). Still, I guess it doesn't REALLY diminish from the point being made.

As I brought up in the other thread, and as the OP hints at in the first post, I really don't see any evidence of a concerted effort on the part of muslims to be 'colonising the world'. Is there any? I'd be curious to see the percentages of other (non-muslim) immigration for comparison.


If we establish that there is no concerted effort on the part of Islam as a whole, I'd be interested in the responses to certain questions:

1) Is anything WRONG happening here?
2) What would be the relative importance of such a thing as 'culture' when compared to freedom and equality? Should we severely restrict immigration just because it appears to diminish the local culture?
3) Should something be done to stop islamic immigration? Should people be denied entry into the UK (for example) on the basis of their religion? Should they be denied on the basis of the STRENGTH of their beliefs?

[edit on 27-4-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Excellent theory. Thank you for that. It's very much along the lines of my own. I believe the NWO will come on the form of a post-modern, materialist Marxist society (think Orwell and the fil Equilibrium). After all, if we're to become efficient producers - every one of us - we must all be materialistic, we must all discard the old values and traditions of the pre-NWO world and we must certainly forget the old religions. Stalin wanted an atheistic society, for example.

Christianity is dead in the eyes of the Establishment, but still, Islam thrives and is helped to thrive. That this is so the different religious factions fight and create chaos, thus leading to the adoption of state atheism, makes a lot of sense.


Originally posted by spitefulgod
"...obviously you lot see it as racist, I see it as preserving my way of life. "

If preserving freedom, sincerity and a positive way of life is 'racist', well, sign me up.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
1) Is anything WRONG happening here?

Yes, but the blame should not necessarily be placed upon Muslims themselves. What's wrong is that the ancient heritage(s) and bloodstained liberties of Europe are endangered.


Originally posted by babloyi
2) What would be the relative importance of such a thing as 'culture' when compared to freedom and equality?

To me, culture is freedom and equality - particularly in this case. The Islamic way of life is not for me. Islamic countries are free to have it as far as I'm concerned, but I don't want it. Islam is the more forceful of the Abrahamic faiths and so I would definitely see it as something that will diminish my freedom.


Originally posted by babloyi
3) Should something be done to stop islamic immigration? Should people be denied entry into the UK (for example) on the basis of their religion? Should they be denied on the basis of the STRENGTH of their beliefs?

For Britain to stay British, it is vital that the majority of the people in Britain are British. Otherwise, it is no longer Britain. Of course, then there's the argument that 'Islam is now British' - something which I find difficult to reconcile considering that were Islam to achieve majority rule, traditional British values and cultures would be so incompatible with the new Islamic state that they'd be discarded.

Britain is overpopulated as it is. Muslim or not, it's wrong that the British government have no meaningful immigration policy.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
Yes, but the blame should not necessarily be placed upon Muslims themselves. What's wrong is that the ancient heritage(s) and bloodstained liberties of Europe are endangered.

Nonwithstanding the dangerously nationalistic images that come up with terms like "ancient heritage" and "bloodstained liberties" (I don't want to validate Godwin's law at just this point
), this sort of ties into my question about culture.



Originally posted by Cythraul
To me, culture is freedom and equality - particularly in this case. The Islamic way of life is not for me. Islamic countries are free to have it as far as I'm concerned, but I don't want it. Islam is the more forceful of the Abrahamic faiths and so I would definitely see it as something that will diminish my freedom.

Does YOUR "I don't want it" have to be forced on to the (however many) muslims who are also sharing your country? Do they have to suffer because of YOUR "I don't want it"? People in this thread are going on very vehemently about how Islam is restricting their freedoms and such in the UK, but I haven't really seen any examples, aside from a few weak points on how schools are giving extra holidays so as to limit absenteeism during muslim holidays (God forbid we'd want to limit absenteeism!
).



Originally posted by Cythraul
For Britain to stay British, it is vital that the majority of the people in Britain are British. Otherwise, it is no longer Britain.

I see nothing wrong with you holding this opinion, but I would shudder if such a thing was advocated on a governmental scale. "Nationalistic purity" is not a nice idea, and just a few steps away from racism. I'd hope it is something that stays stuck in the 19th century.


Originally posted by Cythraul
Britain is overpopulated as it is. Muslim or not, it's wrong that the British government have no meaningful immigration policy.

You might be true on this account, but when we start analysing what 'meaningful' means, we get into dangerous waters. Besides, even if immigration is completely stopped, will this stop the trend that was mentioned in the video? What happens then, to all the procreating muslims who are already IN the UK? What would be the next step "against" them?


[edit on 27-4-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 





we get into dangerous waters.


^^again! i'm on a winning streak.
you see where this is heading, don't you? consider the common textbook description of the crusades, which is published in every history book in america, and pushed in the public school system. this grows exponentially and gets drastically worse, the farther east you go. the point being that, sharia law is gonna cause islam more problems than it has ever solved. so much more that i shudder to think of the end result. i have no reason to not like muslims, although i do not like sharia. but, i'm just one person. and i'm not in charge. this has no outlet except badsville.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Nonwithstanding the dangerously nationalistic images that come up with terms like "ancient heritage" and "bloodstained liberties"

You may have been pre-programmed to automatically associate the word "heritage" with "nationalism", and in turn "nationalism" with "evil". But if you can, forget these word assocations for a moment and explain to me exactly what is wrong with acknowleding one's ancient heritage and the fact that one's ancestors fought and died to defend the freedoms some nations have enjoyed.

Equally, I'd quickly associate the word "multiculturalism" with "globalism", and in turn "globalism" with "enslavement".


Originally posted by babloyi
Does YOUR "I don't want it" have to be forced on to the (however many) muslims who are also sharing your country? Do they have to suffer because of YOUR "I don't want it"?

The way you've set this question up makes it difficult to answer without appearing abhorrent in your eyes. But I believe that a nation belongs primarily to its indigenous population and the destiny of a nation should be primarily determined by its indigenous population. This would be (and is) a perfectly acceptable attitude when pertaining to any other ethnic group. Would the Japanese affirm that the nation of Japan should be governed by ethnic Japanese? Would Pakistanis affirm that their nation should be governed by ethnic Pakistanis? Yes, quite clearly. And furthermore, no right-minded person in the Western World would ever support the idea that these folk should be subjected to the wants and wishes of recent immigrants.


Originally posted by babloyi
People in this thread are going on very vehemently about how Islam is restricting their freedoms and such in the UK, but I haven't really seen any examples

Have we? I think this thread has largely been concerned with the predicted future of the West. I've mentioned some cases of Muslims being granted additional rights and exceptions but didn't claim that those incidents infringed upon my freedom. However, if Islam were to gain dominance in Britain, it's a foregone conclusion that my way of life would be forced to change.


Originally posted by babloyi
I see nothing wrong with you holding this opinion, but I would shudder if such a thing was advocated on a governmental scale. "Nationalistic purity" is not a nice idea, and just a few steps away from racism. I'd hope it is something that stays stuck in the 19th century.

Who said anything about "purity"? Britain will always harbour ethnic minorities. What's factually important is that for Britain to remain British, the demographic, cultural and spiritual majority should remain with the indigenous British people.


Originally posted by babloyi
Besides, even if immigration is completely stopped, will this stop the trend that was mentioned in the video? What happens then, to all the procreating muslims who are already IN the UK? What would be the next step "against" them?


"Against" them? I'd suggest that for the sake of intelligent debate, you try not to presume that all of your opponents are horrible people.

If Muslims were not privvy to exceptions from common law that allow them to claim benefits for multiple wives, and if Muslims were expected to integrate fully into the British way of life, they may no longer have the means nor motive to expand their communities so drastically.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


I guess I'm another 'racist' as I'm another woman who would never ever accept sharia law or want to live under it.
I'm fine with people practicing whatever religion they want but when they start forcing it on others that's where I say stop.

P.s. Spiteful God I'm catholic and the church does condone birth controle. It just has to be the natural kind. And no I'm not talking the rhythm method. The church endorses fertility awareness natural family planning. It is, according to all my catholic friends and relatives and statistics show it to be very very effective.And yes it is very easy to use, and no you don't have to abstain all the time, just a short time, during the few days of the month you're fertile.
I've been married for ten years and dont have any kids



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


Originally posted by Cythraul
You may have been pre-programmed to automatically associate the word "heritage" with "nationalism", and in turn "nationalism" with "evil". But if you can, forget these word assocations for a moment and explain to me exactly what is wrong with acknowleding one's ancient heritage and the fact that one's ancestors fought and died to defend the freedoms some nations have enjoyed.

Nothing wrong at all! I just find the fine line between admiration of cultural heritage, and enforcement of cultural exclusivism an interesting area to explore.



Originally posted by Cythraul
But I believe that a nation belongs primarily to its indigenous population and the destiny of a nation should be primarily determined by its indigenous population. This would be (and is) a perfectly acceptable attitude when pertaining to any other ethnic group. Would the Japanese affirm that the nation of Japan should be governed by ethnic Japanese? Would Pakistanis affirm that their nation should be governed by ethnic Pakistanis? Yes, quite clearly. And furthermore, no right-minded person in the Western World would ever support the idea that these folk should be subjected to the wants and wishes of recent immigrants.

If the video is correct, the Japanese are doomed to fade out of existence in a couple of years. Their fertility rate is currently 1.27. As for "ethnic Pakistanis", I don't think there is such a thing. "Ethnically" they'd either be Pathans, or "Indians" (I'm not sure what the politically correct term is. After all, less than a century ago, it was all 1 country).

Your Pakistan brings up an interesting point. India/Pakistan is historically a "melting pot" of cultures (Dravidian, Aryan, Arab, European, etc). Europe is also. How far does the 'nationalism' go? Are the muslims of India equally a part of Indian "culture"? Another example is the US. Are blacks, whites, Latinos, etc. all an equal part of the culture?
If you say yes, then it is obvious that culture is not hereditary. So then what about the UK? Are 2nd generation muslims part of British culture, if they retain their faith? 3rd generation? 4th generation? What about muslims who intermixed with the local population? Are their children part of British culture if they hold on to their faith?

Or are you saying that Muslims by definition cannot be part of British culture?

My personal take on it is that while it is fun to know about one's culture, and provides for interesting debate, and is a nice check against world-wide conformism, trying to hold every culture in an airtight bag, trying best to keep them all separate is restricting the natural order of things. Historically, I think there is no culture that didn't mix about and morph over time. Comparing now with 2000 years ago, you'd probably find lots of INFLUENCES and lots of TRACES of culture, but very unlikely that you'd find something that endured totally since then. Culture continuously redefines itself. Again taking Pakistan as an example. Less than 100 years ago, there was no such thing as Pakistani culture. Even today, if you ask me, it is a mix of Indian and Arabic, with perhaps a dash of Persian. However, there is no doubt that today, there has come into being such a thing as "Pakistani Culture".



Originally posted by Cythraul
However, if Islam were to gain dominance in Britain, it's a foregone conclusion that my way of life would be forced to change.

Just as a side note, and perhaps an interesting deviation from topic, according to your video, this will not happen in your lifetime. Does it still matter to you? If (allowing that your hypothesis is true) the future UK is a UK of majority muslims, does it matter to you that these majority muslims may change the face of British culture?



Originally posted by Cythraul
Who said anything about "purity"? Britain will always harbour ethnic minorities. What's factually important is that for Britain to remain British, the demographic, cultural and spiritual majority should remain with the indigenous British people.

Do these ethnic minorities make up what is known as "being British"? Considering Britain's colonial past, I'd say it does. But how is it factually important? More importantly, how is it factually enforceable? If what the video says is true, it is already too late.



Originally posted by Cythraul
"Against" them? I'd suggest that for the sake of intelligent debate, you try not to presume that all of your opponents are horrible people.

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah. Thanks for that. Seriously. I will try
. To clarify, I don't think you are a horrible person. Just that you hold opinions that I wouldn't myself hold, and in that sense, I wish to explore the extent of those opinions.



Originally posted by Cythraul
If Muslims were not privvy to exceptions from common law that allow them to claim benefits for multiple wives, and if Muslims were expected to integrate fully into the British way of life, they may no longer have the means nor motive to expand their communities so drastically.

Out of curiosity, while it may not necessarily be a major factor TODAY, would you consider Christian heritage to be part of British culture?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
European population could drop by several million people and they would be fine except for the growth of the Muslim population.

There are solutions, and this could be reversed.

Vastly reducing immigration would be the first step.

Put in place laws against arranged marriages for girls under the age of 18.

Put in place laws that require immigrants to attend schools that teach western principles and beliefs.

Start protecting Muslim women who want to escape the rule of Islam. If Muslim women were given far more control over their lives, their birth rates would probably drop to a level equal that of Europeans.

If these types of solutions are not put into place soon, Europe will be controlled by Islam in a few decades. Why do you think India has such high birth rates. They are in competition with Islam.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join