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.

 

The Anti-Muslim Threads Are Giving ATS a Bad Name

page: 12
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Your rhetoric is well noted. However the facts do not support it.


Care to clarify which facts those are, as your one line off topic post didn't actually provide anything but a blanket denial and sourceless supposition.

By the way, the source of your Map has already been debunked in this thread as coming from a right wing militia leader who promotes membership and book and merchandise sales by sensationalizing these things.

Give me a crayon and a blank map, and I can fill it in with color too, and pretend I know something that is going on in each state, that I can't actually provide the details or sources of information to support beyond a broad accusation aimed at self promotion.

Be sure to get back to me with some on topic facts if you can find any, thanks!




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

The US has done its best to appease the Islamics, which includes allowing them to migrate into the US as students or tourists and simply become a part of the population. In any jihad, it is clear that the Islamic beliefs will dominate any alternative course of action on the part of the Muslim population, like neutrality, which would be treason to the cause of Allah.

For the life of me I cannot understand the US policy that I've viewed since the last days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt through the Truman administration and on into the present day, consisting of no-win partial war and grand appeasement of our enemies. To me, the United States is a sovereign nation and can alter its immigration laws as it pleases. Apparently it pleases the leadership of the US to ignore the world ambitions of Islam, since Arab nations sit on the world's major source of oil. If another nation did that, our media would accuse them of selling out their country for profit. A few American writers have expressed that opinion, but fairly quietly.

Islam as a threat to the world around it is over 1400 years old, dating back to the seventh century A.D. By the year 1,000 A.D. the advanced Persian civilization, with medicine, astronomy, advanced mathematics, literature and other marks of civilization was plunged back into the darkest of dark ages by the advance of Islam. Even Omar Khayyam had to flee to Samarkand to avoid the Assassins, which name has been transliterated into the English language. Its origin is in Islam, the name being assigned to hit squads of Muslim "radicals" who carried out a religious contract against any opposition leader or popular figure.
Source


It is a violent & intolerent following that presents a danger to those who do not follow it. Dance around that fact all you folks wish to. Thats exactly what they want you to do.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


According to a 2004 editorial from a blog article entitled Islam the World's most dangerous religion.

Funny how Christians have racked up a higher body count though????

The Price of Liberty dot org is the source, where they are clearly advocating doing away with Liberties for the sake of one person's opinions.

You really want ATS Members to form an opinion off of someone elses rant from 6 years ago?

Really?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The first sentence at wikipedia says: "The Barbary Corsairs, sometimes called Ottoman Corsairs or Barbary Pirates, were Muslim pirates and privateers who operated from North Africa."

Nothing sketchy there.. you stated that the Barbary pirates were not muslim.. here is a contradiction to what you stated. My point was that I have read history books that show that the roots of islam are not peaceful starting with its founder, look for the information.

As for the U.S. having a Navy.. they had to revamp the Navy just to be able to go international.. before then they had some ships.. remember there was not much of a federal government and there was no real money being attained from the states to make a real National Navy.. Thats why we needed the french because we could never take on the British ships without the French. It was after we won our independence that we really became much stronger as a nation.. before then we were just state militias united against a common foe with a dream of forming something bigger.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Muslims are actually worse than Christians back in the days of the inquisition. Muslims have technology and WMD. Something Christians would of loved to have.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Staben
 





Nothing sketchy there.. you stated that the Barbary pirates were not muslim.. here is a contradiction to what you stated. My point was that I have read history books that show that the roots of islam are not peaceful starting with its founder, look for the information.


Do yourself a favor reread my post and then quote what you believe I actually said with what I actually said using the ATS quotation function.

When you do, you will see that I said, that the Barbary Coast Pirates would kidnap anyone including Muslilim women and sell them into slavery.

Reading comprehension and using the quote function are critical to having quality and productive debates on ATS.

Not only did I not say they weren't Muslim Pirates I went on to provide information that the Barbary Coast Pirates had formed and been operating for over 800 years at that point in time.

Further I displayed that different Pirates based on nationality and religion would target others based on their nationality and religion and that sometimes targeted Muslims as well.

The Pirating was not part of a Jihad as many Websites with a political bent trying to make them out to be so claim, they were Pirates plain and simple, and Pirating has been around since ships first started sailing.

Even nations like England and France and Spain used privateers, who are commissioned pirates, to attack their enemies shippping.

Finally the Continental Army as was the Navy was disbanded after the Revolutionary War because originally the Founders did not want a standing federal army, but the states simply to maintain independent militias so the Federal government could not abuse it's power.

They did though give Congress the ability to commission a Navy to protect shipping, and they did eventually to respond to the Barbary Coast Pirates, but a serious Navy was not built until the War of 1812, when the U.S.S. Constitution and other ships of the line began being commissioned, built and launched.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
One has to agree with freedom of speech, even though it may be against another one's views and even against intellectual honesty, which is the case of muslim/christian/atheist/whomsoever bashers. I find it funny: th U.S. of A. promote freedom of speech and justice for all in mouthfulls, but yet it fails to practice what it preaches when it's unconvenient. I remember the french were for a short period of time america's new enemies for not entering a stupid all-american cowboy show... or war, if you preffer it. Freedom fries?!? How demented and absurd can one be? Americans usually talk S*** about anything at all, be it muslims, tree-huggers, animal rights supporters, you name it. Which is, again, funny: I don't see americans bashing on arms-dealers and arms-lovers, I don't see americans bashing the death penalty, nor even bashing obese 4 years olders. I mean, it's their way of living: live fast, die young and take as many with you as possible. THEN, YOU FEEL MISTREATED WHEN THE WORLD TELLS YOU TO F*** OFF AND JUMP OFF A BRIDGE? I mean, of course we don't tell it to every single american, of course there are millions of good american souls, I'm sure. As there are muslim ones. And atheist ones. And christian ones. I said this before and I'll say it again: your main problem is YOURSELVES! You emulate what you hate and you don't even know why you feel that way, maybe dad or mom was like that. Stop looking at your own bellies and give other people a chance, shove fundamentalism and hatred and redneck biases wherever you feel more comfortable with it and thicken your skin, we're not kids no more, but some try to prove us wrong. I do not ask for world peace, quarrel is competitive when used wisely, but when you use it senselessly, just because you need to make pissing contests and yet think you're greater than anyone else, you only deserve whatever it is whomever has put you through. Isn't freedom of speech a two-edged sword? =)



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
In my short time on ATS I have found some of it's members to be left leaning and a few such as myself right leaning. It gives ballance.

We talk about 2 thing here that upsets most Religon and Politics.

If you are concerned about the anti-Muslim treads you should voice your opinion in an itelengent way an make your point clear.

There are extreemist in all religons Just Radical Muslims like to Blow themseves up to terrorize nations across the globe.

When someone has nothing loose they are the most dangerous.

Radacalized Islam is a threat to all nations and People. You cannot deny that.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Here is what you wrote in response to what I wrote:

ProtoplasmicTraveler:
The Barbary Coast Pirates were just that Pirates. They would kidnap you and sell you into slavery if you were a Muslim too.

Staben says: Your wrong, they were not just pirates. They were radical muslims who were pirates and felt justified in killing and enslaving anyone who was not a muslim. (see my original links to understand my point)

ProtoplasmicTraveler:
By the way it was the Marines who put that in their song, and not the Navy.

Staben says: The marines and the Navy are considered as one, the marines officially came under the Department of the Navy in 1834, but were always considered a naval force and part of the Navy. Yes the marines put in their song the "shores of Tripoli" which was talking about the naval battle of Derne.

ProtoplasmicTraveler:
We at first tried making a treaty with the head of the Pirates, (John Adams) but the head of the Pirates couldn't actually control the Pirates because they were Pirates.

Staben says: We had treaties with the pirates, about 20% of the United States budget was going to paying off the barbary pirates. When our ambassador John Adams went to speak with the pirates as you put it, they stated that because they are muslim the koran allows them to attack us, kill us, enslave us since we are not muslim. Same teachings going on now. ( please see the link i previously posted for the john adams quote. )

ProtoplasmicTraveler:
Further the U.S. Navy was created in the Revolutionary War to fight the British Navy not the Ivory Coast Pirates 30 years later.

Staben says: You are wrong. The United States Navy was created in 1794 because of the Barbary threat. The Navy that the colonies had during the revolutionary war was done away with once the treaty was signed in France ending the revolutionary war against the British. With the end of the Navy also came the end of the marines since they were navy.

ProtoplasmicTraveler:
You might want to read some less biased, more credible versions of history so you could share something accurate with ATS!

Staben says: You should try being less sarcastic when someone is trying to share their ideas. I was not even writing in reply to something you wrote so I do not know why you came out so abrasive to me. I hope that even though I did not use the ATS quotation system that you can follow what I am saying here. Now because you have been so abrasive in your conversation with me, I choose to discount anything you have to say.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Staben
 





Staben says: We had treaties with the pirates, about 20% of the United States budget was going to paying off the barbary pirates. When our ambassador John Adams went to speak with the pirates as you put it, they stated that because they are muslim the koran allows them to attack us, kill us, enslave us since we are not muslim. Same teachings going on now. ( please see the link i previously posted for the john adams quote. )


Note how the above appears in a seperate box, this is the ATS quotation feature.

Please do not paraphrase what I have said in a post, quote it directly from the text I originally posted.

Further I will need a source for that from the United States Government and John Adam's report.

John Adams was the president at the time, and this was an official negotiation of the U.S. Government, so if Adams was rebuked on those grounds (which I have never ever heard) there are official documents from Adams and the U.S. Government that would state that.

Someone on a blog claiming that this happened is not proof of it happening.

So find an official document, link it, or understand that all you are doing is relying on here say and innuendo as fact.

Yes the Barbary Coast Pirates were Pirates period. The fact that they were Muslims did not make them not pirates.

The Pirates operating out of Somalia right now are Muslim too, but they are not pirating to cary out a Muslim Agenda, they are pirating like all pirates do, and that's to make money.

So if you can prove that the United States Government in the late 1700's through official papers from that time period stated that the treaty did not hold because of an Islamic Agenda prove it with the real source papers, which would be the United States Government's papers from that time period when it was actually happening.

Sources please. Since the treaty does identify them as Pirates, and the History Books identify them as Pirates, and it's just recently since 9-1-1 they have been portrayed as being political/religious motivated Pirates, for the purpose of anti-Muslim propaganda, back up your claims with a real source, or respect why your claims are being rejected.

However if you can find a real U.S. Government Document from that time period that states clearly, that the Treaty was rejected for the reasons you are contending, then I will accept that.

Thanks.

Blogs are not a credible source of information in the Conspiracy world, and ATS is a conspiracy Site.

Please stop paraphrasing members and learn to copy and paste into the Quotations box, that is what it is there for.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

What bothered me when I read through that opinion was the definition of "the enemy." Things are becoming a bit clearer now though.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

What bothered me when I read through that opinion was the definition of "the enemy." Things are becoming a bit clearer now though.


You know it's funny, I have gone through life trying to make sure I don't create enemies because they aren't profitible to have.

It cost money and time, and causes chaos having enemies.

When I find I have a real foe (in the real world not on ATS) once again it's about finding that common productive ground.

I don't have to like someone to have a productive relationship with them, the relationship just has to be mutually beneficial and productive.

If you actually considered what some of these people's opinions are, then by all accounts, we would be fighting for our lives everyday across the world, against this Muslim onslaught.

Yet we have productive and peaceful relationships, cooperative relations with many Islamic nations.

So I find it all counter productive this culture that is basically creating an enemy for the sake of having an enemy.

When in reality its not that hard to find common ground with anyone and build a productive and positive relationship off of that.

There are always going to be zealots on both sides that are the exception to that rule, but turning into zealots our selves is no way to overcome that.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Staben
 





Staben says: You are wrong. The United States Navy was created in 1794 because of the Barbary threat. The Navy that the colonies had during the revolutionary war was done away with once the treaty was signed in France ending the revolutionary war against the British. With the end of the Navy also came the end of the marines since they were navy.


So the 38 naval engagements of the Revolutionary War are figments of the imaginations of the people who didn't fight in them and historians?

Wikipedia


The naval Battle of Valcour Island, also known as the Battle of Valcour Bay, took place on October 11, 1776, on Lake Champlain. The main action took place in Valcour Bay, a narrow strait between the New York mainland and Valcour Island. The battle is generally regarded as one of the first naval battles of the American Revolutionary war, and one of the first fought by the United States Navy. Most of the ships in the American fleet under the command of Benedict Arnold were captured or destroyed by a British force under the overall direction of General Guy Carleton. The American defense of Lake Champlain stalled British plans to reach the upper Hudson River valley.


Wikipedia



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


John Adams was president from March 4, 1797 to March 4, 1801. He went to talk to the radical islamic pirates with Thomas Jefferson in March 1785. He was not the president yet.

If you would have read the link I gave you would have noticed that Wikipedia tends to do very well in sourcing most of the time.

2.^ "American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress. LoC: March 28, 1786.

3.^ The Atlantic Monthly (Volume 30, Issue 180, October 1872). "Jefferson, American Minister in France".

You argure about dumb things like me not quoting you.. even though in my previous message I did quote you, just not using the ATS quote.. Keep your head in the sand and have a good day.. I am truly done with you.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Staben]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


That navy died with the signing of the treaty. As I said before. A new Navy of the United States was later formed because of the Barbary threat.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
When someone has nothing loose they are the most dangerous.

Radacalized Islam is a threat to all nations and People. You cannot deny that.



Surely bashing All Muslims in the media and denying them rights afforded atheists, satanists, and christians alike because of something a few people have done in their name can only help stop that radicalization and hatred of our country, right?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shamus78
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


That's what I'm getting at ~Lucidity - where are these feeling coming from?

Is it from the MSM, who we are usually so critical about, knowing they are pushing an agenda?

I love religious discussion, but I like to have some respect for the subject - be it Islam, Christianity or any other religion.

Cheers
Shane


I don't watch MSM or any other. I get my news from vaious internet message boards, Like ATS.


I have noted that over the years we Americans have given up our rights to display our traditional Holiday decorations etc. so that we do not offend people of other cultures. Now that makes me furious...


Give them an inch and they will press for a mile. We give and give and give, until we have given all that we are to them. And now we have a Supreme Court Justice that thinks Sharia law is OK.


The PC appeasers make me sick.

They are doing a pretty little dance around the subject here on this thread.

Why are unpleasnt Truths translated as Hate?
I have never undersood that one.
Are unpleasnat Truths lack of respect?
Do we censor unpleasant truths, and if so why?

If your kid's school inadvertently hires a pedophile and you know about it.
Are you going to object or just keep quiet so don't hur his feelings?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Because of fear and minority appeasement.

On a short term basis, there would be riots against the state interference in the practice of religions.

On a long term basis, any measures for uniform civil code would be spun as an attempt against freedom of religious belief.
Also if the political parties can pander to the beliefs of the muslims, they would be voted by muslims enmasse. The majority hindus are split into numerous subdivisions and support from many subgroups or dominant subgroup is needed to get elected. The imams usually recommend voting to a particular party candidate and the muslim people follow that.

I understand the liberal stand that people take. But you must remember that liberals who remain indifferent if not supportive during the rise of Hitler would have paid a heavy price.
Again the question is not about moderate muslims or extremist muslims. It is about who is in the driver's seat and what can any innocent passengers do ?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staben
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


John Adams was president from March 4, 1797 to March 4, 1801. He went to talk to the radical islamic pirates with Thomas Jefferson in March 1785. He was not the president yet.

If you would have read the link I gave you would have noticed that Wikipedia tends to do very well in sourcing most of the time.

2.^ "American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress. LoC: March 28, 1786.

3.^ The Atlantic Monthly (Volume 30, Issue 180, October 1872). "Jefferson, American Minister in France".

You argure about dumb things like me not quoting you.. even though in my previous message I did quote you, just not using the ATS quote.. Keep your head in the sand and have a good day.. I am truly done with you.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Staben]


No you didn't quote me, and no you aren't providing the sources I requested.

The Library of Congress has a search function, find the source material, and display it.

Wiki is a user generated site, that often involves some political manipulation, and the people who write the articles are not always scholars, or doing so for scholarly purposes.

So if you can provide the source like I said I will be happy to change my previously well considered opinion if the source is documents of Adams, and the documents themselves are being displayed on an official government or university site.

Now just so you know if you consider this unreasonable you have now multiple times insisted that Wikipedia is not an accurate source on when the U.S. Navy came into existence, even though you are using another Wiki source, in another article to cite when you feel the U.S. Navy came into existence.

So obviously Wiki does provide innacurate and sometimes conflicting information based on who wrote and contributed to the article.

Further one's own interpretation of what Wiki is saying, your citing wiki saying the U.S. Congress finally got serious about creating a strong navy, does not mean a weak navy did not previously exist, especially considering other wiki articles do claim it.

So if you want people to adopt your opinions do take the time to find the real sources of the information or understand that they really are just opinions.

Doesn't matter how many people share them, urban myths and legends being what they are.

Please provide a source through a link, or a picture of the actual documents.

Please use the quotation function, when quoting other members it's very easy to copy and paste what they actually wrote into it, and display it in an honest and uncluttered way that way.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staben
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


That navy died with the signing of the treaty. As I said before. A new Navy of the United States was later formed because of the Barbary threat.


What treaty is that you are referring to? The Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War, or the Treaty with the Barbary Coast Pirates. I would sure have to see where in the Treaty with the Barbary Coast Pirates it stipulates the United States shall have no navy.

It is not in the Treaty of Paris by the way.

So once again display a source.

The source would actually be the Treaty.

Your source from wiki simply states that was the time the United States became serious about having a strong navy.

The founders didn't want a strong federal military after the Revolution, and they didn't have a federal income tax to pay for it.

The nation still was struggling with war debts to both Americans and Europeans, with the only revenue for the Federal Government coming from voluntary donations from the individual states and some import tarrifs.

A strong navy does cost money, lots of money.

Keep in mind you are trying to establish that the Barbary Coast Pirates were part of a Jihad against the U.S. for a political point regarding Islam, so it's absolutely vital that you can display that the reason the treaty wasn't honored was because of a Jihad that the U.S. Government actually documented at the time, not Jihad Watch dot Com 200 years later.

This is ATS people typically require quality sources here to consider changing their opinions on a subject.

Thanks.




top topics



 
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join