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.

 

Pro-Jihad Group Holding Convention This Weekend In Chicago

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
I believe we can perhaps compromise in our little discussion by saying that christians and muslims have a different perception as to who or what God is. I do not think Christianity and Islam are the same, just that they share some similarities..

Sure. But the similarities that they share are window dressing.
The vital 'meat and potatos' part is very, very, different.
Okay .. here goes ....


Originally posted by Kram09
Islam/Christianity similarities



"I testify that there is none worthy of worship (god) but God, and that Muhammad is the Prophet of God".

- None worthy of worship but god ... great ... but they have a different god.
- Muhammad is the Prophet of God ... aint' gunna' cut it with Christians.


None of the teachings of prophets who preceded Muhammad are denied

- But they aren't understood. If they were, then they'd see that the Jewish religion (and early Muslim 'prophets') was one of prophecy and that it was fulfilled in Christ. The Jewish faith is fulfilled and therefore obsolete. If the Muslims accept the teachings of the biblical prophets, then they'd accept Christ as the saviour of the world, not Muhammed as their war leader.


Muslims maintain and believe that Muhammad is also the last prophet

- Muhammad wasn't a prophet according to Christians AND Christ was more than a prophet .. he was divinity incarnate.


both the Torah and the Gospels are regarded as corrupted

- Probably true. But the Muslim holy book is as well.


the Qur'an retells many stories found in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament

... but not in the same way and without certain 'necessary' (according to Christians) parts.


Muslims have managed to meticulously preserve every word of their Qur'an in its original purity

- Not true at all. There are MANY versions all around the world.
Some are more violent then others. Some are 'cleaned up'.


God is transcendent and beyond all the physical perceptions of man and also above all the limitations and bounds of language. The Scriptures have been revealed to the Prophets in different languages and at different times according to the needs and circumstances of those times

Absolutely.


Hadith

- Just because followers of the originator of a religion write down what happens in a persons life, doesn't make those religions any where near each other in belief. Islam. Christianity. Buddhism, etc etc ...


Muslims assert that only the Qur'an contains the Words of God -- the truth in toto (i.e., the whole truth and nothing but the truth). Whereas the earlier Scriptures/Books such as The New Testament, The Old Testament, etc. contain only partial truths

- Absolutely the exact opposite of what the Catholic Church says and completely against what the Protestant faiths say.


The Lord's Prayer compared to Surah Fateha

I didn't see the similarity at all .. and again - different 'god'.


Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 28, Number 3883

Alright .. someone in Islam ripped that off from the Protestants.



Creation ... and all OT stuff ...

OF COURSE it's going to be similar, that's because the Muslims took the OT and, after changing it around a bit, adopted it to their own religion. You'll also find these myths in the Summerian and Egyptian religions as well. In fact, Moses stole the 10 commandments from The Egyptian Book fo the Dead (something he would have been well schooled in at the time). And the creation myth is straight from the summerians.


God has a unique relationship with humans. (master and servant).

Actually, in Christianity it's supposed to be Father/Child not slave relationship.

You'll notice that the differences listed FAR outweigh the similarities.
The differences are in VITAL areas of faith.
The Old Testament rules are, for the most part, unimportant to Christians.

I restate what I said previously. The poster who said that Muslims have more incommon with Christianity then Catholics (WHO ARE CHRISTIANS) doesn't know what he's talking about.




[edit on 7/19/2009 by FlyersFan]




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


People believe they have a lot in common because of the old testament.I'm not even what you would consider catholic but at least i took the time to look into religions. People think that the Koran and the bible are similar because they see the same violence and backward thinking in both.However most don't realize what the new testament is it was a new covenant with god it threw out the old testament.

The problem with the Koran is Mohammad the person that could have took the best of the old testament instead took its worst parts.This is why sharia law is still based on an eye for an eye for example while Jesus preached forgiveness.Also when Mohammad was setting up the Koran it was obviously in two different stages of his life at first he tried to show the peaceful loving side of Allah,However since this was not the only god the Muslims worshiped he later decided to convert people by force.Unfortunately this is why jihad is an acceptable practice in the Koran.

This all leads to a problem for even moderate Muslims.They cannot denounce jihad for example because its in the Koran so instead they remain silent.In Christianity if some preacher pops up advocating violence they can easily say Jesus told you love they neighbor and this is unacceptable.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Why do you say muslims worship a different God? It seems to me just the perceptions of who God is are different. Does it say somewhere "The Christian God isn't the same God as ours!"

You mention Muhammad as "war leader" , as if that is somehow incredibly terrible.

Also i find it rather presumptuous of you, especially when your country has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq which are muslim countries. President Bush claiming that he was on a mission from God and using words such as "crusade."

However i have to say i do not agree with the other posters comments saying muslims have more in common with christianity than catholics.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
How is this any different from christian missionaries? Dont they also have right for free speech and the right to assemble?



Not in Muslim countries in fact the bible is banned in Saudi Arabia.And missionaries as a general rule don't advocate violence Ive never met one yet. peace will never be achieved until we can get people to stop hanging on to back wards religions and instead realize what applied back then is no longer relevant to today this applies to all major religions.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
Why do you say muslims worship a different God?

As I said ... they have a single god-head. Christians have a trinity god-head. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Christians worship Christ and the Holy Spirt AS GOD. To Muslims this is blashemy. You can't separate Christ from the Christian Godhead. It's absolutely impossible.


especially when your country has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq which are muslim countries.

- The 9/11 hijackers were trained and backed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. 9/11 was an act of war against us and that fact alone warrented going into Afghanistan to clean out the bad guys in order to save us from future attacks.

- The history of why we went into Iraq is very simple .... Saddam went to war against Kuwait in Gulf War I and lost. When he surrendered he agreed to UN ceasefire resolutions. The agreement said that if he broke the resolutions then force could be used to make him comply. Saddam then went on to continually break those resolutions. Therefore, force was applied. SADDAM and his breaking of the ceasefire resolutions that he previously agreed to are why we went in.


President Bush claiming that he was on a mission from God and using words such as "crusade."

Yeah ... no kidding ... pretty damn ignorant of him to do so.


i do not agree with the other posters comments saying muslims have more in common with christianity than catholics.

Good. Catholics ARE Christians. Muslims are not.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


As far as Iraq goes, although some people might want to forget, i specifically remember the reason for going to Iraq was because it was claimed he had WMDs. I recall your Colin Powell in the United Nations giving his little speech about Saddam's dangerous arsenal. This was nonsense. Iraq did not have WMDs and posed no military threat to the United States. At first your country tried to link Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, in attempt to make it seem as if Saddam had links to 9/11. This also was nonsense.

The first Gulf War, Saddam invaded Kuwait and was forced out by the coalition forces. The fact that the Saudi King allowed U.S forces onto holy soil to protect Saudia Arabia was unprecedented and this angered Osama Bin Laden.

Instead of "finishing the job" so to speak by carrying on into Iraq, your country decided to leave him in power. The United States urged the Shia to rise up in Iraq and remove Saddam. They rose up, in the belief the United States would help them. You did nothing. Instead you sat by and let Saddam go on a killing spree and slaughter them. Just as your country sat by during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s as he used chemical weapons against Iran and even his own people. Your government along with some western European nations even supplied him with the technology, so as to make this possible.

After the first Gulf War the United States imposed crippling sanctions against Iraq. You crippled an entire nation, whilst launching periodic air attacks and killing innocents.

So please don't tell me that the 9/11 attacks justify your countries actions in Afghanistan or even Iraq. Don't tell me that the attacks on 9/11 somehow outway all your countries past disgraces and some how erases your country's hypocrisy.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


So please don't tell me that the 9/11 attacks justify your countries actions in Afghanistan or even Iraq. Don't tell me that the attacks on 9/11 somehow outway all your countries past disgraces and some how erases your country's hypocrisy.


AND there's no real proof that muslims actually carried out the 9/11 attacks, it could easily have been the Americans themselves or even the Israeli's.

I mean just look at 7/7 and how the muslims became the patsies there. Huge coincidences abound and no real proof.

Besides, the thing i worry about are 'copycat' bombers who actually believe that the muslims were the terrorists in the first place.

I know it seems like i'm jumping sides in the arguement, but i'm not... I can see both sides of it.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Agreed.

Also i believe the Taliban said if the United States government could produce evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to the attacks on 9/11 then they would willingly hand him over. The United States never produced any evidence.

Bin Laden's page on the FBI website doesn't mention that he is wanted in connection with the attacks on 9/11. Hmmmm i wonder why that could be?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
i specifically remember the reason for going to Iraq was because it was claimed he had WMDs.

That was one of the reasons. Not the only one.


Iraq did not have WMDs

Tell that to the Kurds. Oooops .. you can't. Most of them are dead from WMD.


Instead of "finishing the job" so to speak by carrying on into Iraq, your country decided to leave him in power.

Bush41 followed what the UN told him to do. It was the UN that left him in and it was a US President that bowed to the UNs whimpy call on the matter that caused Gulf War II.


After the first Gulf War the United States imposed crippling sanctions against Iraq.

Well earned sanctions.

Of course, there was also the Oil for Food program. But SADDAM stole billions from that. Billions that was to go the people of Iraq. So any 'crippling' of Iraq was done by Saddam. His actions caused the sanctions and his actions again directly stole billions from the Iraqi people.


You crippled an entire nation, whilst launching periodic air attacks and killing innocents.

Not true.

Saddam crippled the nation. Saddam broke UN resolutions for the No Fly Zones which he knew would bring airstrikes in against those flight outposts.

[quote[ So please don't tell me that the 9/11 attacks justify your countries actions in Afghanistan
You betchya I'll keep saying it. 9/11 justified going into Afghanistan. ABSOLUTELY. To do anything else would have been weak and emboldened those who had already hit us - Chamberlain style.


or even Iraq.

I already said that Iraq was Saddams doing and it was a continuation of Gulf War I.


all your countries past disgraces and some how erases your country's hypocrisy.

So, America deserved 9/11 in your mind? :shk:
You are either jealous or ignorant of the facts.
Either way .... you are wrong.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
AND there's no real proof that muslims actually carried out the 9/11 attacks,

Yes there is. Radical Islamic Extremists, mostly Saudis, who were schooled in the Al Qaeda camps of Afghanistan carried it out. That's just the way it is. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a radical islamic fundamentalist murderer is just a radical islamic fundamentalist murderer.


I mean just look at 7/7 and how the muslims became the patsies there.

.... cuz' they did it.

The 'religion of peace' isn't exactly peaceful, ya' know


Originally posted by Kram09
the Taliban said if the United States government could produce evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to the attacks on 9/11 then they would willingly hand him over.

And you believe the Taliban?
UBL already confessed on tape. Many times. And they haven't handed him over. And they won't. Cuz' they just loooooooove their little terrorist buddy and his $$$.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Personally i have to say that your evidence (which isn't evidence at all) sounds like something that your heard off the tv.

Your concept of history and of the facts is incredibly distorted and i suggest you go and read a history book. A book on the Middle East or even the history of your own country would be a good starting point.

Also no where did i say 9/11 was justified so please don't put words in my mouth.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
Your concept of history and of the facts is incredibly distorted

No. It's spot on.


no where did i say 9/11 was justified

Sure sounded like it. But if you are now saying it wasn't ... then that's fine.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Also you said i am either ignorant or jealous. What could i possibly jealous of?

9/11?
The fact your country invaded the Middle East.

Yes its true i am jealous, i wish my country had, had 3000 people blown up by terrorists.


Sarcasm obviously.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Your concept of history is wrong. If you want you can get your history from CNN or Fox News. But there is a saying "those who do not remeber the past, are condemned to to repeat it."

People who ignorant of history are dangerous people and it is people such as that who scare me quite a bit.

I implore you to at least pick up a history book and at least skim through it to try and grasp some basic facts of the situation.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I don't agree with or like what I saw in the 1 minute intro video.
What I do like is the Bill of Rights. They have the right to assemble and discuss what they wish. Innocent until proven guilty.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 








wow revisionist history at its best id suggest pick up a history book! The first gulf war was started as a request for help from the international community to which several countries responded.The Iraqis never entered Saudi Arabia. The Saudis agreed we could use there country as a base because of the threat Saddam imposed on Muslim nations in case you were UN aware he hated Islam.

As for the case of Wmds Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program. I could document there use but it would take to long so ill say look it up. But the weapons were never found but obviously existed. With his lack of cooperation throwing out UN inspectors there was no way to verify what he had or didn't have.
now as for there being no weapons of mass destruction found that started because the 1st year they didn't find any however they did later.




Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."


It is also known that there was weapons taken to Syria right before the invasion this was not widely reported however because no one knows were they went or who controls them.This is how i believe that terrorist group in japan managed to get sarin gas in there subway attacks.(just a theory) The reason i think the press didn't want to follow this story is to not scare the public mostly but there was a trail.I all so suspect the CIA was busy negotiating with Syria to get this back and would have been counter productive to blame them.

Now as for Afghanistan if the tali ban had not been harboring terrorist organizations we wouldn't even have gone there strategically has absolutely no value. But remove the place for terrorists to train and now it has value. Having been one of the first boots to hit the ground there ill tell you there were groups there planning attacks against almost every civilized country. The only terrorists there were not Al Qaeda there was also:
- the Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA); Northern Ireland, Irish Republic
- Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group); Egypt
-Hezbollah (Party of God); Lebanon, worldwide cells
-Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK); Iraq
-Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU); South Asia, Tajikistan, Iran
-Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG); Libya, United Kingdom, other countries
-Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command (PFLP-GC);
-Syria-Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL); Peru

Now theres still several more but i picked some of the major players.In any of theses did you notice a connection? ill let you figure that part out.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Where did i say Iraq invaded Saudia Arabia. I can't see that. If i did say that then it was a mistake. Can you point that out to me.

Yes Saddam used WMDs in the 1980s, but do you know where he got the technology from? Hmmmm any guesses?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I am presuming that as your were some of the "first boots" on the ground that you met representetives of these terrorist organisations? Or did you just get the list from the big book of terrorists?

Do you have a source to say for example, that the IRA were in Afghanistan? What could they possibly gain from being in Afghanistan? Sounds dubious to me.

[edit on 19/7/09 by Kram09]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Where did i say Iraq invaded Saudia Arabia. I can't see that. If i did say that then it was a mistake. Can you point that out to me.

Yes Saddam used WMDs in the 1980s, but do you know where he got the technology from? Hmmmm any guesses?


More to the point do you? There biggest supplier get this was germany but also got help from the United States frace the UK japan and russia and even pakistan. But again im not sure what point your trying to make Do countries make mistakes on who they supply weapons to of course they do. Saddam had the world convinced the irainians were gassing his troops turns out he was a damn good liar!

Decided to add this as well per are earlier discussion so you can take a look at it.

Iraqs WMD





[edit on 7/19/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yes i agree with you, those countries were responsible. My point is that the United States claimed that Iraq had WMDs and that because of this he was a huge threat. While in the 1980s the USA was supporting Saddam and supplying him with the technology responsible for the attacks on the Kurds etc. Don't you see the hypocrisy?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join