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.

 

Florida church's 'Burn a Koran Day' brings Islamist threats

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by muftanan
 


well one problem with that theory is, it's likely to get attacked by someone claiming to be some other group that islam sees as a threat, such as christians or jews, when it might be neither. but you see how ripe that is for abuse? some atheists are tired of people who believe in any god, and they have a few radicals too. ya see where that's going? like nero blaming early christians for setting rome on fire, when he had it done himself and blamed the christians. that place, if they build it, will be nothing but trouble with a capital T

[edit on 4-8-2010 by undo]




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I see what you're saying. I think this is where we agree to disagree though. Hey thanks for being civil and open-minded. I don't see too much of that here.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
lemme see, there are agnostics, pagans, christians, jews, atheists and othere beliefs of people from other positions on the subject, such as spouse or husband or surviving child of the people who died there on 911 who believe the official story. egads.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I agree with you there. Official story is way too flawed and obscure, to say the least.
...i've been waiting to use that one lol

[edit on 4-8-2010 by muftanan]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by muftanan
 


dude, they are already trying to set christians up for any future potentiality on this by making a big bruhaha about this book burning thing being a "christian church event"
can you smell it? cause i can!



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Well freedoms come with responsibility. If it hurts someone else, is it such a good idea? Say this church pissed this radical Islamic group off so badly they blow up the whole town? Killing all the innocent people there, people who weren't even involved in this decision. (That won't happen, but let's just think about that.)


Then that group should be hunted down, tried and if found guilty....well you get the idea.

People do things that p!ss people off all the time...is it a reasonable response to threaten to kill over that?

The reality is that although the church is not respecting others, they have the right to burn those books. We have that freedom here in the United States of America and NOBODY should be able to override those freedoms and install their own laws.

We need to understand what they are really saying here. They're not saying that this one issue bothers them....They're saying that unless we submit to their will, we will die.
Is this really acceptable in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?????

Remember, if we bend to their will on this issue, they will know they can control us with these threats.

Look what happened with South Park...They were so afraid that something bad would happen, they allowed themselves to be censored by a group of terrorists. This can't stand.

This is why someone started a draw muhamahd page on facebook. Not to insult moderate muslims but to show the extremists that they cannot control us through fear. Oh and yes I submitted my picture for review
my good buddy momo in various states of undress partying at a college frat house


[edit on 4-8-2010 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Sunsetspawn
 


what bugs me about it is, it seems orchestrated to illicit bad responses on all sides. furthermore, anybody could then do violence to the building and blame it on their favorite scapegoat. it's so bad, if it were any worse, it'd be a full scale disaster.


Of course this was done to illicite a negative response !
That is completely irrelevant !
We also protect the rights of neo nazis, the new black panthers, etc... here in the US. You can't pick and choose who has CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and when they have them when it comes to something like this.

Either we back the church, as wrong as it seems, or we give in to their extremists beliefs and allow them to rule us. I vote NO ! How about you?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 

Thanks Thunders,
Wow awesome link, i knew i was on to something. Over years of
reading the bible and also the learning of islamic doctrine, i was
constantly reminded that they are in fact opposites. Ihave posted
in most muslim threads recently my beleif that
Allah is satan
Mohammed the false prophet
Mahdi the final anti-christ
allah is god the mark of the beast
These are my own conclusions and to see them verified
in such a way is encoraging to say the least.
My take on the mosque is its a bit of a kick in the teeth!
The book burning just a publicity stunt as you all know.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
lemme see, there are agnostics, pagans, christians, jews, atheists and othere beliefs of people from other positions on the subject, such as spouse or husband or surviving child of the people who died there on 911 who believe the official story. egads.


Being honest i don't think too many people believe the official story, besides the Americans.

If i was to put money on it, i'd say more and more people are doubting the official story and calling it out on the BS that was force fed to people.

Only fools would believe the official story.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 

Nice straw man. And attempt at deflection. Got anything on topic or to add to the discussion of said topic? The question was not to YOU to begin with, but once again, I'm not the one posting translastions from a website called 666soon and claiming them as factual and accurate. My question to the poster was and remains valid to the discussion and goes to his credibility if I am to learn something.



[edit on 8/4/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


i support free rights of everyone, including the muslims to build on their property. but i still think both examples are really bad choices.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


well ya know, there are over 300,000,000 americans.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by AshleyD
This is possibly the 4th thread on this so I'll chime in.

What many are failing to notice is that this is a reaction to the mosque being built near Ground Zero that many feel is not an innocent and benign act that it is being made out to be.
Yeah, it's actually part of a greater Islamic conspiracy to take over America
Christ almighty, I'm keen to know how you manage to tie you own shoe laces in the morning.


Are you speaking of this conspiracy ?



The one mentioned by the leader of Libya while speaking to his ppl.

I have seen the debunking claims of it, but for those living in
the burned out cities in france after the riots it felt pretty real
for them.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


well ya know, there are over 300,000,000 americans.


No , that is a misnomer.

There are 300 Mil ppl living in America.

A VERY large segment prefers to live as they did where they came from.

Sharia law is in the works in some areas in the US.

Just the 30+ million migrants from Mexico make up 10%.

No idea what percentage all the Visa workers and their kids make up.

A lot of them hate the US but want to make money as they are
slaves to the debt prison just like we are here.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


OH DANG! You figured the Muslims out. They're just crazed Devil-worshippers, aren't they?



Quick, rally the Arab Christians, tell them to stop using the word Allah in their bibles for God! They're getting fooled into worshipping Satan!




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
never mind.

i'm sort of over this thread...it's not news anymore.


[edit on 8/4/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 



Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

A VERY large segment prefers to live as they did where they came from.



OH NO! They value the culture in which they were raised! And, they value the freedoms of America that allows them to live how they choose! How wrong! I better go to Chinatown and Greektown and tell them to assimilate or leave!


A lot of them hate the US


Yes, they live in the US and hate it so much because they hate the freedom they came here to enjoy.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by muftanan]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muftanan
 


yes al'lah means "the god". i did an etymology on this, and found that al'lah is etymologically connected to en.lil, who was one third of the biblical jehovah, the other thirds being en.ki and anu.

EN.LIL
LIL
IL
ILU
ILAH
AL'ILAH
AL'LAH

around the time of the tower of babel (babilu) event, the word LIL became the one size fits all word for any god in mesopotamia. just as the word "god" is a generic word used both specificially and generically when describing other entities referred to as immortal beings or beings in possession of super- or hyper-natural power.

at the same time, the word LIL was making the rounds in mesopotamia, the word ANU was doing the same in egypt. it eventually evolves, etymologically, into amun, also known as amen. although the egyptians worshipped him as an individual god, the word itself had many etymological evolutions, which made it a sort of one size fits all god word (historically speaking, of course).

anyway, EN.LIL had a son named SIN, who was the moon god, this is where the historical confusion is most obvious. since LIL was a generic word by the time of babel, al'lah could be connected to sin, the moon god, but only in a generic sense, not a specific sense. the real issue for me, anyway, is that they chose to keep the crescent moon as their symbol. they really should've just dispensed with any pretense that al'lah was in any way a moon god, if the al'lah in question is jehovah (which is who islam claims to worship -- jehovah ... so why keep SIN's imagery? weird, doncha think?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


The crescent moon and star is not originally a muslim symbol. It was used on coins in Constantinople when it was under Byzantine rule, and when the Ottomans conquered the city, they adopted it. It did not have any relation to Islam before then.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by muftanan
 


yeah they should get rid of it, as it is just muddying the waters and making it appear that islam is not worshipping jehovah, which is a travesty in and of itself. if you are worshipping jehovah, you don't want people thinking you aren't, simply by looking at the history of that symbol. it's very ancient. going back to even akkad.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join