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.

 

Muslims do NOT care if we burn the Koran! They care about THIS!

page: 12
130
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





This is totally ignoring the fact it's THIER HOMELAND that WE invaded! We shot first! They only attacked you because we are killing their families in THEIR nation!


except that once again you are ignoring the fact that we didnt invade them until AFTER they flew planes into one of the largest cities on the planet, which happen to be on US soil......



How easily you seem to forget the first Gulf War.


They attacked us because they dont like our westernized culture, anyone who has been over seas or has done any amount of OBJECTIVE research into the ideology of Islam knows this.....


Objective. LOL. You cannot be serious right? They couldn't give a rats rectum about our Westernised Culture. They just want people to stop invading them and blowing them up. People like you.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 



Sure Christians were guilty of similar atrocities hundreds of years ago but why are you so quick to sympathyze with a group of people that won't hesitate in stoning you to death or cutting your head off, just because?


Because I am a Christian.
I do not say I am better but, I have a better way.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
An interesting thread. I'll send its translation to Russian websites, specializing on foreign web-publication observations.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ItstheShizzle

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We didn't have bases in Saudi Arabia nor in Kuwait prior to 9-11??


Perhaps not, I don't remember now

Yep! American's were there long before most of us here were even born! 1950 to be precise at Dhahran, which then was a truly remote assignment area with Flight “D”, 7th Air Rescue Squadron. It is now a large modern military complex.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi

Originally posted by rakkasansct
Before you can call an airstrike you have to be getting attacked from that house/building/position. So lets see: they attack us, we attack back, call for bigger guns. Are we both murders then? Or is the evil empire soldiers of America still in the wrong?


Yep I'm trying to debunk your PROPAGANDA. You are doing the same thing the mainstream media is doing with the Quran story. You are trying to rile up hate and anger with a couple videos, and well composed posts.
Not all muslims hate us over there.

So since we are making some muslims hate us with our missile strikes. What made some muslims hate us before 9/11, the 90s, the 70s, the 50s?


First paragraph: yes, that is how it SHOULD work, but that is not how it DOES. Already from Day 1 of the Iraq war - guess WHO ATTACKED FIRST? A major city with bombs.

Get a grip, man.


Get a grip on what? Actually having been in country and fighting? Actually having called for mortar fire and apache air strikes? Being able to recite the rules of engagement fowards, backwards at a seconds notice? So please in all your experience lecture me on how airstrikes and the ROE works? I lived in a building that was bombed during shock and awe. It was a MILITARY TARGET filled with IRAQI MILITARY. So again sir in all your experience fighting and willing to die, explain to me the ROE? I dunno i guess you know better than me...




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



I know you directed this to Blaine, however your comment here tells me you really don't get it.



I was merely pointing out that they burn our flag more so because of War, rather than some stupid book burning. If you read what I said carefully, you will realize that I said "They simply have bigger issues at the front of their minds"


Some stupid book burning?? Are you kidding with this comment? That "stupid book" you keep referring to defines the core of what makes a Muslim a Muslim!! Here is the definition of a Muslim



1. of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam. –noun 2. an adherent of Islam.


link: dictionary.reference.com...

"An adherent of Islam" do you understand now? There would be NO fighting if Muslims did not believe in the Qu'ran and take every word literally. The religion teaches that anyone who is NOT Muslim is commiting blasphemy against the great Mohamed! Punishable by death as we have seen over and over!

My point is if you desecrate their own identity they are going to retaliate just as they have "Death to the West"

The Qu'ran is not "part" of a Muslims life, it is the foundation of their own existence. Without the Qu'ran, being Muslim is irrelevant. They do not exist! Without the grasp of this concept, your debate, this thread, your input is meaningless. This is the center of everything they do. Good or evil, it is justified by the Qu'ran.

Thanks for your time,
Ali




edit on 15-9-2010 by paxnatus because: spelling error



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rakkasansct
 

I have been to the US Army - I would not say when and where though, because I signed a paper for secrecy.

The point is - this was an aggressive war, not one waged for self-defense.
How do you apply the ROE to the initial bombing of Baghdad?

Who fired a single shot from Baghdad to America?

Why did American troops cross the border of a foreign country that did little more than negative lip-service to America?

Who started this war?

That is why I said to that other poster "get a grip."
I sympathize with my fellow Americans (though under Bush, I chose to live elsewhere), but this was an unjust war from the start, based on false arguments, and many honest servicemen and women were drawn into it by political lies.
I will not judge anyone just because they have served in Iraq. However, those people who cannot see NOW, seven years later, that the Iraq war was unjust, and that it was the US that started it - along with Britain - and NOT the Iraqis, are still suffering from the effects of political brainwashing.

As I said, I know a little bit from the inside of how the Army works, and admire many facets of it. It is far better and more humane than a lot of other armies of this globe.

Your argument - in which you suppose I have no personal experience - is otherwise flawed, because in a democratic society people can - and do - have opinions and judgments about activities they have not personally participated in...

Such as aggressive wars.

Or would you say no judge is qualified to judge a murderer in court unless he/she participated in murders himself or herself?

Most of the anti-war writers on ATS have sympathy for the US troops that served there in general. Some atrocities are very condemnable by our own very standards.
Since the US is the invading army, and not the Iraqis, naturally, people are more sensitive to their crimes than those committed by the resistance.

This thread is not about the troops though, it is about the poisonous politics that gave rise to the whole war...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi
reply to post by rakkasansct
 

Why did American troops cross the border of a foreign country that did little more than negative lip-service to America?


I guess the question becomes at what point is a country allowed to defend itself? The UN charter allows for nations to defend themselves. America is the Great Satan and the source of all problems world wide according to people and countries, who have stated what they would like to see happen to american and its citizens. Iraq, Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc hate us so much that they are willing to aid oganizations that are bent on destroying us, our Country, our Culture, our People. I dont know about you, but I would prefer my Government take proactive steps so this does not happen. Diplomacy, discussion and dialogue, change in mindset all are fine.

Eventually though the dialogue has to end. When one side is bent on their goal I think we, as well as any other country who is targeted,have an absolute right to defend our country and its citizens. In todays day and age what people can build in their countries backyard that can be snuck into our backyard very much makes it our business.

These countries know than in a military fight on an open field they are done (and before anyone invokes vietnam I would like to point out that when the NVA did come out in the open, Tet-offensive, they got their asses handed to them, which promted them to go back to insurgency, hit and run) so they dont bother. They build their military to protect themselves while intimidatin their neighbors. Instead we get clandestine programs that aid in insurgencies. Eventually one of these extremists groups are going to be given BIO/CHEM/NUK items, at which point it will end up here.

The approach most countries have to the extremist issue is dialogue and appeasement, which we found out how that works when Chamberlin was PM.

There is absolutely nothing stopping any country on this planet to kick us out. We lost our base in kerplakistan (I forget which one.. one of the stans though) and we had no choice but to comply. If Saudia Arabia told us to take a hike, we would exit.

What people are failing to understand is once we leave, it goes to the next step. So we leave there, and it goes to the next step. Simply withdrawing US forces from the Middle East will not solve their problems, nor will it protect us from being the target of terrorist / extremist attacks. They will continue until one of 2 things happens:

They achieve their goal, or we achieve ours.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
S&F - those videos are cool man, thanks for sharing. I love the one where the taliban gets nailed by the airstrike.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   



Your sentiments are like those of the French 15-20 years ago, and the Brits just slightly less.
Wake up before it's too late.


Explain please?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

What you call "proactive" is called "pre-emptive war" by historians. And the first to champion it in modern history was Hitler.

This was no Pearl Harbor. No one attacked America or Britain. Not from Iraq. The President used every rhetorical opportunity he had to wash these issues together. For him, the terrorism of 911 led to Iraq.
Then Bush said at least we would find WMD-s capable of harming - well, not America, but some of its allies thousands of miles away. Notably Israel. I support Israel, but Bush did not even once say throughout his war rhetoric that we were going to defend Israel from its enemies. And, judging THAT preemptive case, it could be proven that Hussein would not have attacked Israel either.

Intelligence agencies were telling us that Bush was misguided.
We erred gravely.
That is the danger of doing a preemptive war.

Imagine if a policeman was authorized to arrest anybody who LOOKS LIKE a criminal, even when there is no evidence.

That is what a preemptive war is like.

Our entire legal and political philosophy was based on putting checks and brakes upon the possible abuse of power.

The Bushists turned that upside down. They started imperial policies.
I hope the country is strong enough to recover from that nightmare. But we still have to pay for his mistakes - and we have to put up with the Moslem's anger for all the stuff he did for a long time to come...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Another term is "preventive war".
I quote this from the signature of a very patriotic ATS member:

"Preventive war was an invention of [Adolf] Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." Dwight D. Eisenhower



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Muslims do NOT actually care if we burn their holy book. They simply have bigger issues at the front of their minds.

Muslims are pissed because we are bombing their cities to bits and killing civilians, including women and children who are INNOCENT.

Who cares if we burn Korans all day long?? The Muslims don't!!!

They just want us to stop bombing their neighbors to smithereens!

This fact proves the whole Koran burning issue is straight PROPAGANDA PSY-OPS.
Psychological Operations to DISTRACT everyone from the REAL ISSUE HERE.

The fact we are BOMBING cities full of innocent people!
That is the REAL issue. That is why Muslims are pissed! Duh!

What more can I say?


Hell Yeah!! i'd be p!ssed if my country (britain btw) got bombed every day and the only people got killed are inncocent people instead of say, criminals and peadoes (which doesn't require bombing, just community action plus co-operation).

I couldn't give a damn if some holy books was being burned if someone was actually killing people in the name of flushing out terroists, who never really exist in the first place. the only fighters in those places are those who are fighting for the freedom of their people from these constant attacks.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


This is a good realistic topic OP. Congrats.

When 9/11 happened, it made me get that patriotic fervor and "kill-em-all" attitude. I was pulled in by a very effective media shock-and-awe campaign. It took about 3 years before my previously impressionable mind started taking in some of the inconsistencies about the 9/11 story that we had been spoonfed by the perps. One day soon thereafter I woke up, cold sweat on my brow with a killer feeling in the gut. Not a world view that I wanted to have, but what has been seen cannot be unseen.

Now I see these hatred campaigns (burn the Koran, WTC mosque etc) that receive vastly overblown coverage by the lame-stream-media, as a mere continuation of the mind control for perpetual war that culminated on 9/11/2001.

But what really makes me shudder.....is when the REAL terrorists that have undoubtedly been sneaking across our completely porous southern border (with backpacks etc.) for 15+ years....get PO'd enough to "do the do".

And we still bicker about sealing the borders. One day that will be someone's history lesson.


edit on 15-9-2010 by 1SawSomeThings because: spelling



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Bollocks. Muslims do care about burning the Q'uran. Burn the Q'uran in Afganistan and you'd be stoned on the spot. Mind you being any foreigner in Afganistan is worthy of death isn't it? Or so the media portray it. Actually without the media, more people would be alive today... now there's a worthy post!



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Yeah lets get all our troops out of other countries. that's the first step.

The next big step is cleaning up all the corruption in Washington. It's gonna happen whether it happens through legal means or some sort of project mayhem like in the movie Fight Club. The criminals will pay for their crimes.

We need to shrink the federal government
Reinforce states rights
Restore power to the people
We need a gold standard
We need to dissolve the FED
we need to expose the eugenicists and put them on trial for their crimes
we need to enforce the clean water act as it was meant to be
we need to destroy monsanto's monopoly on our food supply
we need to grow our own food so we know its not toxic
We need to lock down our borders
we need to end the drug war
we need to end the war on terror
we need to make war on the criminal elite who think they can destroy the USA and create a NWO



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Muslims conquered and controlled Europe for 700 years



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


Terms change and have different meaning as time goes on.. Preemptive war - Self Defense, however you want to say it is irrelevant. Comparing actions of the USA to that of Nazi Germany is laughable as neither have anything in common in this context.

I still believe we were within our rights for actions in afghanistan, as well as Iraq. Hussein had no intentions of giving up his WMD program, and stated as much. They were waiting for the UN to stop caring, for the heat to be removed, and they were going to coniue the program. Were WMDs found in Iraw? Good question, and you will get varying answers.

Did we find anthrax? we did, from old shells left over from the first gulf war - Must of been an oversite from the Iraqis. Did we find nukes? Nope, no H bomb to be found. Uranium enrichment plants? Nope, none found. Did we find chemical precursors all over the country that can be used both in civllian AND military capacity? We sure did.

Did we know, FOR A FACT, that Iraq had, in the past, maintained a Bio/Chem weapon program - Yup, because we gave it to them during their 10 year war with Iran. The question was asked, what would happen if Iraq fell to Iran, and at the time, Iraq was loosing. You nearly double the oil reserves of a larger iran, add more manpower that would give a decisive tactical advantage militarily over other gulf countries. I seriously doubt it would of stopped there. People always find Iran as the wild card, and its because people always lump Iran as a Middle Eastern country. They are not, they are Persian, and their mindset is different in a lot of ways from the rest of the Middle East. But hey who needs a WMD program when all you have to do is have a very large group of school children hold hands as they are forced to walk through a mind field to clear it for the Iranian army. I can see how we are called Monsters....

Is that a smoking Gun? I dont think it is. I do beleive though it was a gun that was slowly coming out of the gun belt with the intentions of aiming and then firing, creating the smoking gun.

Afghanistan - Bin Ladens base of operations for the terror network for sometime. The "government of Afghanistan" were given an ultimatum - Turn over Bin laden, or we will find him ourselves. We got our answer, and they got our response. Our fight was not with the people or government of afghanistan until they decided to side with Binladen and work with the terror group.

They made their bed...

UN Charter -
U.N. Charter
U.N. Cahrter - CH 7, Article 39 on - Breach of Peace

Steps taken for Breach of Peace
Article 39 is requested - The UN looks at the issues involving concerned parties, with an attempt for resolution.
Article 40 - The UN looks at the issues involving concerned parties, with an attempt for resolution
Article 41 - UN considers what measure to use to fix the issue using non military options - IE Sanctions
Article 42 - If sanctions fail the UN can convene and recomend resolution using military means.
.... and so on until Article 51
UN Charter - CH 7 Article 51


Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Does anyone else see an inherint flaw in this setup in todays world?

#1 - For starters we can use Iraq as an example where the UN failed with regards to enforcing their own sanction programs. There was enough justification simply by Iraqs failure to comply with established sanctions over 10 years that, under these articles, allowed for the use of force against them.

#2 - This entire setup is geared solely towards Nation States. Exactly how does one file a protest against a group that is not covered under the charter, let alone qualified under the Geneva conventions Rules for armed conflict?

#3 - In my opinion this is the simplest answer to some of these questions. The United States, just Like Afghanistan, Russia, Venezuela are all soviergn nations, accountible to no one but the citizens in those countries. The role of the United Nations is to have a forum of open dialogue in hopes that talking will lead away from armed conflict. It does not hwoever take the place of the Government of any nation, nor can it direct any nation on how to maintain their own national defense.

#4 The UN is not a Democratic entity, with each country siding with other that represent their own national policies. For the longest time Frances forieng policy towards the United States was essentially to do the opposite of what we were doing (extreme example, but close).

Hypothetical - The United States takes information to the UN detailing that North Korea is developing a WMD program. Evidence submitted is backed up by other intelligence agencies. The info is credible enough, coupled with N. Koreas refusal to have a declared, transparent civilian nuclear industy (that they are entitled to), to raise concerns.

Question #1 - What is the intent of N. Koreas WMD program? Self defense.
Question #2 - Self defense against whom? UN forces still inside S. Korea.

The enitre world can come to the same conclusion, so it goes to the UN council. Sanctions etc come up, yet one country, we will use China, blocks the vote.

Do we go it alone? The UN, an entity established to resolve these issues, just had their hands tied and rendered completely useless by this one no vote. China has no intrest in our National Security, yet they have a huge intrest in their own, which includes supporting N. Korea.

Long story longer - While I have no issues with diplomacy, and using the UN to help, in the end the UN is not the world governing body it thinks it is, and has absolutely no vested intrest in any nations national security, which means there will be times when unilateral action must be taken.

Coloring the United States as the evil of the world is a very ignorant viewpoint. Some people on here who are not from the United States have some very strong opinions, and that is fine. I do ask you though that you place yourself into our shoes at times and ask yourself the following:

If it were your country that was suppose to act as a Super Power and play the World Police, thereby making your country a very high target for extremists, terrorist, dictators etc that would have absolutely no qualms about selling items to these groups to hurt you and your citizens, exactly what steps would you take to defend yourself?

Anything proactive you did could jeopradize citizen safety if trying to use the UN, as it would not resolve the uissue, since these groups could care less about the UN or what it passes.
Anything your country does that is clandestine is going to be argued by other countries as acting in a unilateral fashion in a wreckless manner that will cause problems.

Im sorry but filing an amicus brief or lodging a complaint with the UN when it comes to your countries self defense, your citizens welfare does not work.

Islamic extremists is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.

All religions have their wingnut elements that beleive what they want, and nothing will change their mind. The Islamic faith does not prohibit other religions at all. What it does is prevents them from prosteltizing, or gaining new members by convert, and the extremist elemnts will grab on to whatever they can to justify their actions.

We can play the blame game all day in terms of who did what to what country or religion at what time, but it doesnt fix the underlying problems. Do American Forces make mistakes - Yup. Do they cross the line - Yup. Our legal system will take care of that. Small comfort to those affected I know. I just find it weird that most members on here are quick to villify American Military actions, yet absolutely refuse to acknowledge the atrocities commited by the other side.

Can a country that is predominately muslim be able to act in a controlled manner and gaurantee rights? I think so. Jordan and Turkey are 2 countries that come to mind. Syria is yet another where female rights are preotected. Saudia Arabia just passed religious reform that no longer allows their imans to issue their own fatwas. They can only be issued by their senior clerics. The Saudi Government has also gone after a cleric who issued a fatwa against a grocery store chain because they employed females ans checkout clerks. The Saudi Government stopped the iman from issuing his fatwa and defended the Grocery stores actions and for being progressive.

Do most muslims care if we burn the Quran?
Do most Christians care when they burn the Bible?

The answer is yes and no. Both sides would find it distasteful and disresectful, and would say as much. Its these people that are the bulk of both groups, where dialogue leds to understanding.

The ones seen on tv are extremists, incited by their radical views and their sect leaders, ignoring their own religious doctrines when it comes to the killing of innocent civilians and toleration of other faiths. This is not a war with Islam, this is a war with extreme elements that are twisting religious doctrine to advance an agenda.


One other thought because I see it pop up now and again. You guys can blame Bush for all you want, but please have your facts correct when you do it. He did not start the war on terror, as that began a long time ago. One could argue that it was Clintons inability to kill bin laden (he had multiple chances) that caused sept 11th. No bin laden, no terror plot?

If you do some research you will actually find that after Sept 11th, our view of Islam actually went up. A majority of Americans did not hold the religion responsbile, but the radical extremists.

And finally I saw some posts about the Quran and its punishments doled out. Careful throwing stones in a glass house. If you read the bible you will see a lot of the same issues that crop up.

www.youtube.com...

The only way out of this mess is for people to have dialogue and understanding, and to ban together across all religious lines and denounce the radical fringe elements and hold the moral high ground.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Sadly the day is coming when all muslim lands will be destroyed. If they do not repent of their jihad, God will pronounce judgment upon all those who fight against his people. All the nations that rise up to conquer rape and pillage Israel in the last days will be destroyed. The Bible has a detailed prophecy of the nuclear destruction of Damascus as an example. Iran, Syria, Libya, Algeria and possibly Turkey and all their allies will be destroyed on that day. You can read about it in Zechariah 12 and Ezekiel 38-39.

It is rather tragic, but as prophesied in Genesis, Ishmael continues to behave like a wild ass, agitating all his neighbors. Here is another startling prophecy fulfilled by the children of Ishmael, the Arabs,

He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."


If the Muslim would just come to his senses, burn his satanic Koran and turn to Jesus, he might find that abundant life and peace that currently eludes him. This is one context wherein burning a Koran, even publicly would be a good thing.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
The problem I see is that we do NOT know all that is occuring in the "Sandbox". We give credence to Black OPS and secret missions, etc. but we cannot say for certainty for whose agenda it is meeting? Until we get affirmative proof illegal actions are taking place from individual directly involved, who is to say honest work is being done. The CIA, NSA, DIA, has too much involvement in these matters............who is to say they are doing what is best for this country?! There are too many variables in play to make a judgement on this matter. I am to the point where we need to pull out completely and reasses. Do I think the POTUS is in control?, heck no. He is more worried of what photo ops he can get involved in......propaganda at its finest. Who can actually reel in the string pullers? Our Judical, Legislative, and Executive branches need to be shut down and re-built. The Constitution condones this!!



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join