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.

 

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Not sure if this is the right place to put this thread, but it does fall under political madness. Well, this has got to be the most well put together piece I ever did come across. I really would like to see what everybody's feeling is on this one. And this time lets not allow anyone to come in and start arguments with us, we will just ignore those. So lets discuss how we feel about this, let discuss if anyone anywhere here in North America has had any kind of experience with this kind of thing. Get ready for more lunacy. Let the discussions begin.
Oh, and listen carefully to how Obama says Qu'ran so eloquently.

edit on 19-4-2011 by hawaii50th because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


The guy makes some good points, but I'm still trying to figure out why burning something is "Free Speech". You can't talk a Koran into burning itself. If you can do it to a book and call it free speech then why can't you do it to a building? I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person should be able to say "The Koran should be burned" that is speech, but burning it is an action and involves no speech at all.

We also have so many people claiming that the murderous response to the burning goes to show how "evil" Muslims are, but they are looking at it in the wrong way. When Terry "I'm a dick" Jones originally said he was going to burn the Koran, there were mass protests in every Muslim country. A few months later when he actually does do it, there are mass protests in Afghanistan (the least educated country in the entire Arab world) and a few grumblings in Iraq.

It seems now that the majority of Arabs and Persians, are more concerned with removing their overlords and religious oligarchies, than the actions of a crazy redneck, child abusing preacher from the ass end of America's dangly part (no offense meant to the many great people of Florida, but it does look like America's dangly part).



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Chindogu
 

There's a hugh difference between burning a book and burning a building. And maybe that's not the best analogy to use anyway.


The guy makes some good points, but I'm still trying to figure out why burning something is "Free Speech". You can't talk a Koran into burning itself. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person should be able to say "The Koran should be burned" that is speech, but burning it is an action and involves no speech at all.

You've heard the term, "action speaks louder than words" it is an act of protest, it would be like going to the streets in protest of something. You not only protest in words, but also in a march with signs. So they burnt books. Why is it that they the fundamental Muslims, can burn our flag and no one says anything about that, or burn effigies of different people which is pretty morbid, and no one protest about that?
The whole point of this video is to point out the hippocracy of what the useless idiots with the hidden agenda to create lawlessness in the streets of North America are doing. Clinton and the rest of the lunatic establishment are leading the country to martial law, this is why they are carrying on like this. Either they have lost their minds or they are up to something that is and will be very detrimental for North America. As for Obama, he's just another cog in the wheel to bring America down, and he is not Christian among other things that he is not.
Another point, the U.S. military idiots are calling the bible garbage, and calling the Qu'ran holy, what it is that?
We need to start seeing it as it really is, not what they would have you believe.

Oh and one other thing too is you got to remember is, a lot of times in the middle east there are instigators that start up people in protest for different kinds of reasons.


Obama, Clinton, and the other goof ball and that U.S. military character are not Americans, what I see in those fools is they are traitors.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
No more takers in the discussion I see, or maybe there is no more need to discuss a hopeless situation.
Everyone or mostly everyone is in the big pot waiting for the water to boil.





posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chindogu
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


The guy makes some good points, but I'm still trying to figure out why burning something is "Free Speech". You can't talk a Koran into burning itself. If you can do it to a book and call it free speech then why can't you do it to a building? I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person should be able to say "The Koran should be burned" that is speech, but burning it is an action and involves no speech at all.

We also have so many people claiming that the murderous response to the burning goes to show how "evil" Muslims are, but they are looking at it in the wrong way. When Terry "I'm a dick" Jones originally said he was going to burn the Koran, there were mass protests in every Muslim country. A few months later when he actually does do it, there are mass protests in Afghanistan (the least educated country in the entire Arab world) and a few grumblings in Iraq.

It seems now that the majority of Arabs and Persians, are more concerned with removing their overlords and religious oligarchies, than the actions of a crazy redneck, child abusing preacher from the ass end of America's dangly part (no offense meant to the many great people of Florida, but it does look like America's dangly part).


Burning the tora wouldnt be covered as free speech in places like france either.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


Did you catch that Muslims are allowed to denounce their religion infront of nonbelievers as long as they reveal it to fellow Islamics? And that some Muslim foreign leader announced that Obama told him he was Muslim?

Whatever our Manchurian President is- Liberation Theologist, Muslim, Pastafarian- it seems pretty wacked up.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by seraphnb
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


Did you catch that Muslims are allowed to denounce their religion infront of nonbelievers as long as they reveal it to fellow Islamics? And that some Muslim foreign leader announced that Obama told him he was Muslim?

Whatever our Manchurian President is- Liberation Theologist, Muslim, Pastafarian- it seems pretty wacked up.

I've never heard or read that a Muslim can denounce their religion at all no matter who it's in front of. To be a Muslim is like being in the Mafia, once your in your not coming out unless your toes are facing the sky.
As for some Muslim leader saying Obama is a Muslim, yes that sounds familiar, but I can't place where I heard that. I remember an interview where Obama said, "my Muslim faith" and than he is corrected by the interviewer and than says "my Christian faith." This interview is just classic and says volumes of who this guy really is. It's like the interviewer had to correct Obama and get him to say his lines correctly, talk about a crappy actor in a play.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Hudaibiya is a truce Mohammad made with a certain Jewish tribe of Banu Quraizah, wherein Mohammad ORDERED Muslims to LIE to the Jews and say they renounced Islam so they could infiltrate as spies, and setup and ambush to break the truce.

After the battle of the Trench in 5 A.H. (627 C.E.), the Quraish did not give battle to the murderous band of the first Muslims that surrounded Mohammed at Medina. So Mohammed decided that it was time for him to launch a Jihad against the Quriash. He cleverly disguised this as a Hajj (a pre-Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca) that he wanted to perform in the season in the year 6 A.H. (628 C.E.). When Mohammed and his band of one thousand followers arrived at Hudaibiya near Mecca after taking an out of the way route, so as to evade being spotted by the Quraish, the Quraish got the shock of their lives. Mohammed the accursed wanting to storm the holiest of hly site of the (pre-Muslim) Arabs, on the pretext of Hajj. They sent an emissary (Urwa ibn Masud, who was the son-in law of Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraish) to him, asking him to desist from entering Mecca. This emissary went back and reported to the Quraish that Mohammed and his followers were in a rage and would invade Mecca, if they were not allowed into the town. e reported that they were fanatically committed to him, such that they do not let the water in which he bathes fall on the ground. They collect that water and venerate it. When he cuts his hair they collect his hair and treasure it (in fact strands of Mohammed alleged hair are worshipped - one instance is the Hazratbal Masjid in Indian Administered Kashmir). So the emissary returned to Mecca with these tidings.

Meanwhile Mohammed sent into Mecca for reconnaissance, one of his henchmen named Othman to check the defenses of Mecca. Othman also met the Quraish leaders to negotiate an entry for the Muslims and their gang leader Mohammed into Mecca , but they adopted delaying tactics. When Othman took long to come, a rumor got current in the Muslim camp that Othman had been killed by the Quraish. Thereupon all the Muslims took the pledge that they would fight against the Quraish to seek revenge for the murder of Othman. When the Muslims were poised to take up arms and attack Mecca, Othman returned to the Muslim camp with Suhail ibn Amr, an eminent citizen of Mecca, whom the Quraish sent to negotiate a treaty with the Muslims. This was the Treaty of Hudaibiya.

Here Mohammed 's craftiness comes to the fore. The terms of this treaty included that if any Muslim from the Quraish clan renounced Islam and returned to Mecca, then Mohammed would not hold any grudge against him and not ask for his return, but if any Quraish embraced Islam and went to medina, Mohammed would immediately return him to the Quriash at Mecca. Mohammed told Amr and the Quraish, that he bears no malice towards the Quriash and so he has offered this clause. The Quriash were taken for a ride in this clause, as they also believed that because of this clause no Quriash would embrace Islam, but some of Mohammed 's followers would leave Islam and return to Mecca. Actually this clause was a clever ruse of Mohammed, to infiltrate his spies into Mecca, while not allowing any spies from the Quriash to enter Medina. Over the next two years, many of Mohammed 's followers pretended to leave Islam and came and settled in Mecca, thus preparing for the eventual invasion of Mecca that was to take place in * A.H. (630 C.E.), when on a frivolous pretext, Mohammed abrogated that treaty and invaded Mecca.

The Treaty of Hudaibiya demonstrates in a very telling way, the evil genius that Mohammed was. And this character of his has been filtered down to the last Muslim, who uses it to cheat and trick non-Muslims in every small thing in day-to-day life. Pervez Musharraf the President of Pakistan, referred to this Treaty of Hudaibiya (and to the "justified" double-crossing that exists in it), when he announced after 9/11 that he was making a pact with America to fight the Taliban who then ruled Afghanistan and whose guest was that horror of all horrors Osama Bin Laden.

Mohammed's pretext to abrogate the treaty of Hudaibiya

After signing the treaty, Mohammed started gathering allies for the final assault on Mecca. Alarmed at his moves, the Quraish also started building up their own alliances. In this scenario a tribe named Banu Bakr allied themselves with the Quraish and another named Banu Khuza'ah joined the camp of Mohammed. Incited by Mohammed the Banu Khuza'ah attacked a caravan of the Banu Bakr whereupon the Banu Bakr attacked the Banu Khuza'ah. This pretext was enough for Mohammed to send an ultimatum to the Quriash (whose allies were the Banu Bakr) giving the Quraish three alternatives. The first alternative was that the Banu Bakr and the Quraish should pay blood money for the victims of Banu Khuza'ah. The second alternative was that the Quraish should terminate their alliance with Banu Bakr. The third alternative was that the treaty of Hudaibiya should be considered to have been abrogated. In a fit of desperation, the Quraish replied that they would neither pay blood money, nor terminate their alliance with Banu Bakr. On this pretext, the wily Mohammed abrogated the Treaty of Hadaibiya and made preparations for a attack on Mecca.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Abney
 

So in short, It's just a lie when and if a Muslim says he denounces his faith as long as he reveals it to a fellow Muslim or in this case it would probably be better if he does to a Islamic cleric so that he can achieve his martyrdom or other act of terrorism?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
It's possible for Obama to be any faith he wants, on any given day, and change his faith from day to day. I'll give him that in the spirit of free speech and integration of church with Obama state run religion.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccponzi
It's possible for Obama to be any faith he wants, on any given day, and change his faith from day to day. I'll give him that in the spirit of free speech and integration of church with Obama state run religion.


Yes I guess it could be so, whatever suits the occasion for the day, it's like which tie goes good with which shirt.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 



To be a Muslim is like being in the Mafia, once your in your not coming out unless your toes are facing the sky.


You have issues.


This interview is just classic and says volumes of who this guy really is. It's like the interviewer had to correct Obama and get him to say his lines correctly, talk about a crappy actor in a play.


No it doesn't say anything. The video you posted is not showing what you are claiming it shows, it doesn't set the context as you set it, simply put, you're talking out of your behind.

This thread is ridiculous. Islam bashing, Obama bashing...seriously you racists need to do a better job at hiding your intentions or shift your ideas to try and mask them once again.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


I suppose that if I owned the building out right, didn't want the insurance to pay me for the damage I inflicted on it, and took the measures necessary to make sure I didn't harm anyone's property outside of my own, well, there would be nothing wrong with burning my home to the ground.....

and well, what can I say, the give korans away free of charge, so I imaging that the guy burned something that belonged to him, and haven't heard anything about him burning the entire block down by mistake, so I imagine he made sure he did it safely, and well, doubt if he had an insurance policy on it....
so, well...
it seems to lead back to the idea that it was wrong, because it was something that was sacred in someone's eyes....
there's seems to have been alot of things that were considered sacred by some that were burned throughout history, more often by not, by the ones who cry foul when it's their sacred items being burned!!!



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by hawaii50th
 



To be a Muslim is like being in the Mafia, once your in your not coming out unless your toes are facing the sky.


You have issues.


This interview is just classic and says volumes of who this guy really is. It's like the interviewer had to correct Obama and get him to say his lines correctly, talk about a crappy actor in a play.


No it doesn't say anything. The video you posted is not showing what you are claiming it shows, it doesn't set the context as you set it, simply put, you're talking out of your behind.

This thread is ridiculous. Islam bashing, Obama bashing...seriously you racists need to do a better job at hiding your intentions or shift your ideas to try and mask them once again.


If anybody is talking from out of their behind, it's definitely not me. Whoa, what is that smell, must be these terrible ideas above.
What's really classic, is all the bobble headed lemmings in existence today.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that racism thing is losing power already, it's just another smoke screen for the loonies that can't come up with anything better to argue with.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 

Yes, when bibles get burned you don't hear of Christians taking a fit.

edit on 21-4-2011 by hawaii50th because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Ihr wahres Gesicht Durchscheinen!


So uh...

What's up with the wool gloves?



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


gee, take christ out of christmas, or easter out of the eggs, and listen to them yell!!!
I imagine if bible burning got popular, they'd be throwing a hissy fit!!
and well, we just won't discuss all the sacred stuff they've destroyed through the ages, will we???

heck bible and koran burning ain't nothing really, both books are abundant.....
those statues that were destroyed in afghanistan, well, they can't be replaced, and neither can alot of the stuff the christian church has burned in the past.....

too bad people can't just see the value in those things that contradict their chosen belief system....I mean some stuff has an historical significance also.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join