It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why aren't all three Abrahamic Faiths held to the same standard?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Hey sk0rpi0n!
If you ask me, it is a matter of some vague notion of "culture". Globalisation and McDonalds have basically same-ified all the major western countries (almost so that people use a term like "Western Culture"), and with every new immigrant group, certain people feel it is another blow to their origins.

reply to post by autowrench

Thank you for reading through, autowrench. I'd think it has less to do with religion and more to do with creepy high-up people in dark rooms looking to make a quick buck.

Anyhow, hopefully one day the hatred will be gone, and everyone would be free to practice whatever unhealthy sexual obsessions they have

reply to post by smallpeeps

Smallpeeps, I'm afraid I might be a bit confused as well...I mean, I think I got what you were saying about Hitler, and I think I got what you were saying about the two branches and Mohammad and Jesus, but....what is the connection between those two topics? It sounds like you have a much more far-reaching and over-arching conspiracy, going all the way back to ancient Egypt and bloodlines and stuff than I'd be able to understand
. A little simpler?

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:21 PM
Dear sk0rpi0n,

Very sorry, I must have mis-read the post.

My point (with reference to my previous post in this thread) was that its only the "modern", "advanced" nations of Europe that seems to have a problem with Islamic culture having a visible presence on their lands.
They are the only ones paranoid about muslim culture "taking over" their lands. They are the ones churning out material that demonize the muslim people.

Now that I understand your point, what is to be done with Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, and Somalia?

NAIROBI, Jun 18, 2003 (IPS) - Muslim leaders in Kenya are demanding shariah, or Islamic laws, which Christians fear could plunge the East African nation into a religious war like in Sudan and Nigeria.

In neighbouring Sudan, Christians and Muslims have been fighting, on and off, since 1955. Sudan's conflict, between its majority Arab Muslim northerners and black Christian southerners, is rooted in religion.

More than two million people, mostly non-combatants in the south, have been killed since the latest war erupted in 1983. It was ignited by former President Gaafar Nimeiri when he imposed the shariah in Africa's largest country.

Christians fear that shariah would split Kenya, which for a long time has been regarded as an oasis of tranquillity in the troubled region, along religious lines.

Efforts to end the conflict have bogged down over the status of the capital, Khartoum, with Muslims seeking to retain the laws, and Christians demanding a shariah-free capital.

Shariah is also threatening to tear Nigeria - Africa's most populous nation - apart. The law has been adopted by 12 of the 36 states of Nigeria over the last two years. Nigeria is split 50/50 between Christians and Muslims.

Sharia in Africa

The Sudanese war ended in 2005 with people delighted to be free of Sharia which the Northern Muslims were imposing on the Southern Christians.
BBC - Free to dance and sing
Somalia, beset with more problems than it can handle, also gets to deal with beheadings by hard-line Muslims.
CNN - Somalia

And there's more.

I mean, its not like these muslims have a military presence in their lands. Its not like these nations are getting bombed by muslim nations... like the way muslim nations are getting bombed by these "advanced" nations.

Yeah, sk0rpi0n, its just like that. Killing millions of civilians in Africa with a Muslim presence frightening, if not killing, the population.
So why is it that the advanced nations are involved? Is it because they're seeing what's happening elsewhere?

With respect,

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:31 PM
Not really much of a doubt in my mind what a bunch of jewish people would do if they were prevented from practicing their relgion. Im sure straping bombs to mothers and children would come just as swiftly as with thier sibling religions.

The abrahamic religions have a long history of committing acts of terrorism to get their way... o i mean "gods" way.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by charles1952

Now that I understand your point, what is to be done with Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, and Somalia?

How about someone invades them, bombs them and get them into the 21st century?
I don't know, really... I'm no expert on dealing with countries I have no understanding about.

So why is it that the advanced nations are involved? Is it because they're seeing what's happening elsewhere?

Its the same reason why the rich in your town/city decide they know best how to solve the poor persons problems....because its been proven time and time again that people in expensive suits know whats best for the ones in rags.
Now, apply the same concept on a global scale.

edit on 7-10-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by smallpeeps

Smallpeeps, [...] It sounds like you have a much more far-reaching and over-arching conspiracy, going all the way back to ancient Egypt and bloodlines and stuff than I'd be able to understand
. A little simpler?

Yes you are right, and so therefore, you can understand. Try harder.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. As for "can you make it simpler" the answer would be, not really. See this is how it works: You follow a branch until you reach the trunk. Then you follow the trunk till you reach the actual tree, the root-body. That is the real tree: The root body.

Then, and only then, can you determine the individual roots themselves. Then, you can compare the roots versus the branches, because then you will have travelled the whole tree. In the end, the simple answer is that this world is one whole tree.

Anyway, just figured I'd post some truth. Like most of my posts, it's there, and I doubt anyone will respond to the contents. But yes, you grasped the point, the conspiracy goes back to Egypt and therefore back to Moses and therefore back to Sarah and the two men who desired her.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by smallpeeps
it essentially boils down to the elite core around Hitler, and who they were, and to what end they were managing him. Himmler, I am saying, appears to be a manager. Around him, are the men he is managing via their own psychosis. These would be Hitler, Heydrich, Mengele, Goebbles etc.

The image below would be an example. I mean look at their posture, and how Himmler regards the camera. In 24fps its even clearer who is in charge here. It is this man, raised by Jesuits, H. Himmler. Look at his smug face while his workers report to him. It screams "Manager":

This has to do with the Mohammedans because they took the ottoman empire almost all the way to vienna. The ottomans had the whole Black Sea and Greece and all that under their control, so this is as OP says, an inter-tribal Abrahamic battle. But there are branches, and then there is fruit, but if the fruit be worthless, then the whole tree goes into the fire. But notice that Jesus doesn't say the roots will be dug up, so perhaps the "tree" will be given a chance to produce good fruit? Well, these men in this picture, are very certain that their idea is a good idea, though all of us who come after them, can see that they are mistaken.

But did these men know, that they would produce the eventual fruit called the State of Israel? Did they have any idea they'd produce a diaspora of Jews from Europe into this new nation? Well, it is a proven fact, that they did know that, yes. One could say that this was their true goal, because only a fool would think that Germany could take over the whole world in WW2. It simply could not have happened. So then what was the purpose of the suiciding of the entire German national people in 1939-1945? Why did Rome lead them down that path, and what has been the result? Is the world better or worse, for the meek, poor and widowed/orphaned, the people whom Jesus valued? No, we must say the world is not better due to WW2 and Israel coming about. So then in answering the angst and wonder of this question, you must look back to the events of WW2.

But watch out because if you even come close to this subject there are hordes of slander and lawyer just waiting to pounce! Chomsky for example has a family who are Judaists and yet he catches hell for even defending the anti-holocaust dude. The shills for the ADL would rather toss Chomsky, one of their own, to the wolves of the anti-semite machine, rather than allow anyone free speech to discuss WW2 events. It is as if they do not want the origins of the State of Israel to be discussed. When I say origins, I mean the 20th century origins, not the imagined origins of 2000 years.
edit on 7-10-2011 by smallpeeps because: splng

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:05 PM
Dear babloyi and sk0rpi0n,

I am grateful for your patience with me, and your efforts to explain.

It seems there are two issues in the air now and I would like to try to get caught up with both of them. One issue concerns the belief that

its only the "modern", "advanced" nations of Europe that seems to have a problem with Islamic culture having a visible presence on their lands.

I think I have presented enough examples to show that countries of Africa are having more than a "problem" with Islam, they are having shooting wars with it. I would contend that countries throughout the scale of modernism and advancement are concerned about Islam, certainly not just Europe.

The second issue is more complicated. If I understand it correctly, it seems to contain the following propositions:
1.) Sharia should not be our national law.
2.) Sharia law is prevented from becoming the law in the US by our Constitution.
3.) The protection is so sound that there is no reasonable way it could ever be imposed.

So anyone who drums up fears . . . about "Sharia taking over the courts", probably has ulterior motives.

I think its clear that I agree with proposition 1. My only thought about proposition 4 is, that outside of selling books, what ulterior motive? As far as I can tell, by strict examination, I don't have any such motive, but I may be naive.

And while I moderately agree with proposition 2, if we consider "law" to be what is written down, proposition 3 strikes me as demonstrably false. Let me suggest two short term approaches.

"The Islamic Community" Currently there are several countries including France, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Sweden with Islamic "no-go" zones. France has an estimated 750. These are areas where the nation's government has learned not to intrude with police or courts, areas under Sharia law. Oh, the nation's laws are still intact technically, they're just not enforced. So Sharia law is in place in (parts of) each of those countries. And those areas are expected to grow.

These countries are being conquered, slowly, by Islam.
Islamic "no-go" zones

In the US, Dearborn, Michigan may become the first American Islamic "no-go" zone. They're not there yet, but its drawing closer.

"Treaty" Certainly, ATSers know of international treaties they don't like. Say, for example, the President and the Senate are controlled by one party and they decide to sign a UN treaty calling for the religious rights of communities to decide on the laws they live under without restraint. Presto! Instant Sharia law in communities with a large Muslim turn out in the vote. (Or the ability to discourage non-Muslims from voting.)

Other possibilities for further in the future include a Constitutional Convention where Islamic delegates just create a new Constitution, or insert loopholes for Sharia as an alternative. Or the stacking of the Supreme Court which can declare that Sharia is constitutional.

These are not all equally likely, but they are not all impossible fantasy either. "No-go" zones look like the most practical approach for Sharia in the US. The idea of Muslims being separate is growing. You probably know that there is an outcry if a Mosque is infiltrated, but not at all if a church is. There are Islamic communities which refuse to cooperate with the police in criminal matters without extraordinary efforts or incentives. Islamic prayer in school districts and work sites which had not made special arrangements before.

There are many ways in which the demand to society is "We are different, treat us differently." Accepting that demand is in itself a defeat for the Declaration and Constitution. "All men are created equal."

Have I understood you?

With respect,

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:49 AM
reply to post by charles1952

Charles, you hit it right on the head! You call it "selling books", but it really is a very big industry- Funded by "donations", even funded by the government using YOUR tax dollars (assuming you are from the US): books, lectures, talks, seminars INVOLVING FBI AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

If you check around, you'll see that it is a pretty large clique, with each member supporting the other, and ominous organisations supporting them in the background with a steady supply of cash. Organisations like Stop Islamization of America, Center for Security Policy (which is where the report you linked originated), the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the Society of Americans for National Existence (a subsidiary of the AFDI), ACT! for America, David Horowitz Freedom Center and the American Council for Truth.

Now being an organisation (or a closely knit group of organisations with several overlapping connections) that occasionally tackle a problem they see involving muslims may not be so weird, but these group is wholey and vehemently been bashing on muslims and Islam every chance they get- they are the origin of the Shariah nonsense (David Yerushalmi is the President of SANE), the origin of the "Ground Zero" mosque controversy, among many other examples.
Now AGAIN, directing ire at something they may possibly see as "wrong" isn't bad in and of itself. But these groups have proven again and again that that is not their intention. There "flame" for these movements come from a much darker place, as evidenced by their outbursts calling arabs "soulless" calling them "barbarians", condemning all muslims as a whole unless they disavow their faith, calling muslims "savages", saying there are no innocent muslims, every muslim (including children) are executioners, wishing a war on all muslims, etc.

Now since this is a conspiracy site, I'll put forward my opinion that the organisations behind this media block have set them up as a response and as a means to infiltrate and cement Zionism into America, specifically through "denigrating the enemy", i.e. the muslims and the Palestinians. You can see this through how, without a doubt, every single major player in those groups, be they Jewish, Roman Catholic, Maronite Christian, etc, are supporters of Israeli Zionism.

For more information, you might want to check out this report:
Fear, Inc. - The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America

edit on 9-10-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 07:05 AM

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by babloyi

Its strange how I dont hear about non-western countries worrying about Sharia law taking over their way of life.
Its also funny, how I dont hear about non-western countries banning Islamic symbols such as hijabs and minarets etc. These countries dont seem as paranoid.

Anti-islamic legislature seem to be confined to western, more "developed" European nations... I mean, these guys are ok with bombing/shooting at muslims in muslim countries but yet, are not cool with the idea of having muslims walk around in Islamic garb in their towns and cities.

That's because the majority in those countries support Islamic law. They have no qualms with punishing apostasy with death, They have no qualms with stoning women.

Of course more developed countries are concerned because they don't want to go back to medievil immaturity.
edit on 9/10/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by babloyi
Well, just to tell you, they DO!
This link shows a sample of the hundreds and hundreds of muslim organisations, community leaders and scholars who condemn terrorism.
I guess you and I have different ideas of what a condemnation consists of. Look at this second statement from your source:

“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason.
I can imagine those words coming out of the mouth of the pilot of the plane flying into the world Trade Center.

"Of course we won't kill innocents without a justifiable reason (but we certainly do have a justifiable reason, which is why we are doing it)"

Some condemnation

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by babloyi

The reason is rather simple, we're more tolerant of Jews and Christians because there are more of them here in the USA and have been more of them traditionally. While Muslims have also been in the USA for a long time thanks to the war on terror began they've been treated very poorly. The whole "Ground Zero" mosque thing is a great example, it wasn't even at ground zero, if that had been any other religious building, a Synagogue or a Christian church, no one would have said a damn thing.

All three faiths have a history of war, conflict, violence, hell name a single religion, culture, or nation that doesn't have that kind of history. Sure when it comes to terrorism Islamic terrorism is worse in modern times but there are still Christian terrorist groups out there.

Also our country is allies with Israel and politicians often try to be all buddy buddy with the Christian right. So those two religions often get a free pass while Islam gets all but blacklisted. People will say the Koran is filled with horrible violence or terrible laws but they need to check their Bibles, all those old books are filled with horrible stuff.

So yeah, it's a total double-standard to be sure and some super right-wing Christians, the sort who try to get Creationism taught as science, will sit there and try to weasel their religion in schools all while decrying Muslims and the so-called threat of Shariah law. The hypocrisy is amazing really.

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:34 AM
Because few people know that..

the king of france was the king of israel and the 12th imam
as hugue capet was the 12th imam descendant of the prophet mohammed

so the prophet mohammed was king of israel

just that could save a lot of lifes

and this will save the others...
Sane habitants do not conflict, respecting exact laws. In each
conflict almost one combatant is mentally insane.

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by smallpeeps
it essentially boils down to the elite core around Hitler, and who they were, and to what end they were managing him. Himmler, I am saying, appears to be a manager. Around him, are the men he is managing via their own psychosis. These would be Hitler, Heydrich, Mengele, Goebbles etc.

You'll need to be stepping on some toes if you want truth OP. And the biggest toes are the Judaist ones, and the toes we are "told" to crush (just Indiana Jones if you will) are the "National Socialist Germanic" toes.

I am glad to mention Indy, and filmmaking in my comparisons. I like to think like a movie director thinks. Really now, with the lights that have been cast on the players in the world-drama, it is up to us to examine the lights, and the rigging, and the roadies who hang the lights. "Who lit this scene?" is what a filmmaker asks, when viewing a movie. For in the lighting of any scene, does one reveal the subject, truthfully or falsely. And even in your thread here, people try to act as reflectors as they "refine" truth.

But all reflections will disappear, and soon there will be just the single candle of truth.

So anyway, keeping the idea I am describing, here is the Wiki article, and a nice quote which goes right along with this idea the Goebbles was a self-hating Judaist who uses this other Judaist as his foil. Goebbles needed someone like this dude, in order to destroy Germany. Well, really he and Shicklegruber were causing a diaspora to Palestine.

Notice this man Kaufmann, served his purpose well, and then was allowed to Paperclip himself in a nice witness=protection quiet sort of life.

Ahhh, just like Mengele, some of the people who participated in this huge psychopathic orgy, lived nice long protected lives. Yet he seems to become very very moderate in the spring of 1942. From "sterilization" of Germans to, "gentle re-education". Goebbles of course was the supreme "Media Pharaoh" of his nation.

Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels read the book in early August and immediately grasped its value, writing in his diary: "This Jew did a real service for the enemy [German] side. Had he written this book for us, he could not have made it any better."[15] Under Goebbels' direction, Germany Must Perish! continued to receive significant media attention in Germany. Portions of the book were read on national radio, and [Goebbels ordered the printing of five million copies of a pamphlet that summarized Kaufman's ideas.

Nazi propaganda often used Kaufman's pamphlet as a justification for the persecution of Jews. When the Nazis required German Jews to wear a yellow badge on their clothing on September 1, 1941, they published a flyer explaining to the German people that those individuals wearing the star were conspiring to implement Kaufman's plan for the destruction of Germany.[15] When the Jews of Hanover were forced from their homes on September 8, 1941, German authorities cited Kaufman's book as one of the reasons.[6][17] Kaufman responded by saying:

"This is just a flimsy pretext for another of the innate cruelties of the German people ... I don't think it was my book that prompted this barbarity. They employed every possible German cruelty against the Jews long before my book was published."[17]

The Nazi propaganda ministry continued to publish pamphlets, posters and flyers on Kaufman's ideas through the end of the war, and also urged newspapers and public speakers to remind Germans of Kaufman's book. Kaufman's last major appearance in Nazi propaganda occurred in late 1944, when a five-page section on him was included in the widely-published booklet Never!, which described a number of alleged plots to destroy Germany.[15] Randall Bytwerk, an historian of communications at Calvin College, concluded that "[a] German at the time could not have missed encountering" propaganda about Kaufman.[15]

His final publication through Argyle Press was the March 1942 brochure titled "No More German Wars! Being an outline for their permanent cessation". It contained no more writing on the sterilization of Germans or discussion of German land distribution, but made very moderate proposals for democratic re-education of the German population.

He enlisted in the US Army in New Mexico on April 24, 1942.[18] His three brothers also served.

Few Americans have ever heard of a prominent fellow-citizen named Kaufmann ... In Germany every child has known of him for a long time. Germans are so well informed about Mr. Kaufmann that the mere mention of his name recalls what he stands for. In one of his recent artlcles Dr. Goebbels wrote, "Thanks to the Jew Kaufmann, we Germans know only too well what to expect in case of defeat."[19] — The Nation, November 14, 1942

After World War II, Kaufman disappeared entirely from public life.

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by smallpeeps
it essentially boils down to the elite core around Hitler, and who they were, and to what end they were managing him. Himmler, I am saying, appears to be a manager. Around him, are the men he is managing via their own psychosis. These would be Hitler, Heydrich, Mengele, Goebbles etc.

Further, I will quote Rabbi Antelman from his fine book "To Eliminate the Opiate". You may note if you read what I am describing, that the key is the psychosis of the masses, which Goebbles and men like him, stoked up. Hatred itself, as a fuel for the destruction of the world. Well, of God. Did Hitler, submit to God? One would have to say no, he did not. If Hitler had been submissive to God he would have not destroyed his whole nation in some schismatic neurotic desire to capture Stalingrad, nor would he have listened to that buffoon Goering, who told Hitler he could supply the army at Stalingrad. It was one big bonfire, but who gathered the wood? Who lit the match? And how did that match match the match that lit Napoleon's armies and power? And of these two tyrants who utterly destroyed their own grand armies, which had the spiritual supremacy? Which had the superior Wyrd?

Well anyway good luck finding this book in the libraries of your local public school, hehe. I don't even think this rabbi is on Wiki, at least I couldn't find him. But his book is world famous.

"It was Karl Marx (1818-1883) who was born Jewish and whose family converted to Christianity when he was six, who wrote a book, A World Without Jews. Karl Marx helped promote anti-Semitism in the United States. In his reports from Europe for Horace Greeley's New York Tribune, Marx wrote, "Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew."

In 1856 Karl Marx wrote, "Thus do these loans which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the government become a blessing to the house of Judah. This Jewish organization of loan mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners."

Congressman Gordon Scherer on the House Committee of Un-American Activities was convinced from the testimony of many people, including prominent Jews, that the Communist Party was anti-Semitic, and is as anti-Semitic as Hitler ever was. Communism was, of course, committed to atheism and Judaism is inexorably committed to monotheism, the root of religious beliefs of the Western world today. It is also interesting to note that Hitler was in fact a National Socialist, in contradistinction to a Communist, who is an International Socialist. Ideologically the two philosophies are identical except that the Nazi fascist type of dictatorship could care less about International Socialists. Its own Germany-"Deutschland Uber Alles" (Germany above all)—prevailing its thought and action. It was Hitler's political platform that appealed to the German working classes that spoke of socializing industry and retail business, but nevertheless was backed by big wealthy
industrialists such as Krupp.

edit on 13-10-2011 by smallpeeps because: structure and code

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:11 AM


In 1856 Karl Marx wrote, "Thus do these loans which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the government become a blessing to the house of Judah. This Jewish organization of loan mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners."

Please note: in 1857, the US Supreme Court decided that yes, all the black humans, were actually just chattel.

So if you could afford the 50k dollars (in 1857 dollars) it might take to purchase a very fine black woman, let's say (I'd be tempted as a white slaveowner to buy myself a Jeffersonian comfort object ya know), well then you wouldn't have to worry about her old connections to her kids or her husband or loved ones --no, for the slaveowner has crushed those connections out of her. You see, the man who goes to the dock and arranges for that fine black chick to get sold, well, he smirks at the slave-captains who make life easier for the slaves. "What fools be they!" he says, preferring a slave who was nice and conditioned. "Better to stow them below decks like cord-woode, as that doth sap their will to fight!" ...So anyway, by the time, in 1857 that is, that you saved up your 50k (in 1857 dollars) to buy one of those fine smacked-teeted ba-donk havin Serena Williams type ladies, well, you knew that the process which had caused her to stand up there and be sold to you, naked and crushed ---but hot, was a good one. One that you would be very afraid, to lose. And you'd buy her, and you'd enjoy her. And so who would ever want to try and change that system?

Just kidding of course, I'd not own a slave no matter how delightful she may look. I'd be for the anti-slavers all the way. Seriously. Because there's also the dudes who cannot afford the 50k for a sweet slave like her. It's like sports cars, you know, one dude has the cheddah for a 50k dollar Ford GT or new Corvette or whatever, and the other guy has not the cheddah. See you either belong to the favored class, or you don't. I think Marx had some things to say about class, but most people who knew him agree that he had no class. Haha, get it? Anyway, in 1856 I'd be anti-Marxist, and I'd be anti-slavery, is the point I wanted to make. And so 160 years is not very much, so I figure we can discuss the really simple truths first then move to the hard ones.

Anyway OP, let's be fair and bring the Mohammedans into it (though they are latecomers around 600AD).

What is their position on the human rights issue of slavery and
did they have lovely females as their slaves in 1857
and how have they done since then, in freeing the females from slavery?

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:19 PM
They are all secretly the same worded in different ways basically.
thats how i view this.

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

You know, I find it sad how sometimes NO MATTER what a group does, they will STILL be attacked, because for many people, it has been made up in their mind beforehand that the group is wrong. They're the kind of people who even evidence is provided to the contrary, they dig in and over-analyse words and understandings with an implicit assumption that the group is a bunch of liars and deceivers.

I mean...seriously? Your issue is that the condemnation of terrorism wasn't worded to your liking?
You think the muslims in those links were actually trying to be clever and leave out situations because they actually secretly justify terrorism?
I am not saying (as I don't know) that you are doing this, but people bring out the false claim of "Taqiyya, Taqqiyah!" very often in relation to Islam. It reminds me of this very antisemitic quote about the jews, which I include relating to the over-arching point of this topic -why can't we learn from our previous religious intolerance?

“We may lie and cheat Gentiles. In the Talmud it says: It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles.”

The Toadstool, children's book published by Julius Streicher, famed Nazi propagandist

I suppose you don't believe it is "justifiable" to execute serial rapists and the like, but many muslims do believe that capital punishment is justifiable.

To end on an interesting note, let me quote the whole list I got that Streicher quote from. It is a comparison of bigotry towards Jews by Streicher that exemplified the opinions of many in Nazi Germany, vs the bigotry towards muslims by Robert Spencer that exemplifies the opinions of the many Islamophobes trying to spread hate around the world today:

Culled from Islamophobia and Antisemitism: Same message, different minority.

  • “Islam understands its earthly mission to extend the law of Allah over the world by force.” - Robert Spencer.
    “Do you not know that the God of the Old Testament orders the Jews to consume and enslave the peoples of the earth?” - Julius Streicher.

  • “The principal organs of the Left...has consistently been warm and welcoming toward Islamic supremacism.”- Robert Spencer.
    “The communists pave the way for him (the Jew).” - Julius Streicher.

  • “When one is under pressure, one may lie in order to protect the religion, this is taught in the Qur'an.” - Robert Spencer.
    “We may lie and cheat Gentiles. In the Talmud it says: It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles.” - Julius Streicher.

  • “There is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims.” - Robert Spencer.
    "Just as it is often hard to tell a toadstool from an edible mushroom, so too it is often very hard to recognize the Jew as a swindler and criminal." - Julius Streicher.

  • "(Islam) is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers." - Robert Spencer.
    "No other people in the world has such prophecies. No other people would dare to say that it was chosen to murder and destroy the other peoples and steal their possessions." - Julius Streicher.

  • “There is nothing in anything that I have ever written that could be reasonably construed as an incitement to violence against anyone.” - Robert Spencer.
    “Allow me to add that it is my conviction that the contents of Der Stuermer as such were not (incitement). During the whole 20 years, I never wrote in this connection, 'Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death.' Never once did such an incitement appear in Der Stuermer.” - Julius Streicher.

That last quote is particularly chilling in how it compares the "inspiration" Streicher gave so many Nazis in what they did vs the inspiration many violent islamophobes claim they got from Robert Spencer (for example the Norwegian mass-murderer Breveik),
Not to get political, but the parallels between Nazism and the Radical Right in the US (and now Europe) is scary.
edit on 2-2-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:29 AM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Something interesting came up in the news recently that made me remember this thread again, and fits perfectly with your post, Titen. I wanted to share this with people:

Romney Slapped for opposing kosher meal funding as Mass. governer

WASHINGTON — Let them eat pork!

Mitt Romney is getting heat for a 2003 veto he cast as governor of Massachusetts to reject $600,000 in additional funds for poor Jewish nursing-home residents to get kosher meals.

At the time, Romney said he nixed the funding of about $5 per day because it "unnecessarily" would lead to an "increased rate for nursing facilities" — even as kosher nursing homes were complaining that state-funding-formula changes could force them to close their kitchens.
The Massachusetts Legislature approved an amendment to restore the $600,000 to finance the kosher meals allowing a "most vulnerable segment of our population" to "enjoy a special dignity," according to the Jewish Community Council.
"Well, 'let them eat pork or let them eat something else' — if you’re kosher, you’re not eating anything else. It’s just that simple. Why Romney didn’t get it at that particular time is disappointing and quite shocking to me."

His opponent, Newt Gingrich, has said:

Gingrich Robo-Call: Romney Took Kosher Food From Holocaust Survivors
"Romney as governor imposed on Catholic hospitals provisions against their religious strictures and Romney as Governor eliminated kosher food for retired Jewish senior citizens,” Gingrich told a crowd in Pensacola, Fla., on Monday. “He has no understanding of the importance of religious liberty in this country."

I'd like you all to engage in a thought experiment for a second. Imagine that instead of this situation occuring with Jews, it was occurring with Muslims. There would not be a single peep out of anyone.

In fact, imagine if Mitt Romney had approved the $600k funds for halal meals for muslim elderly? The exact same people screaming now, would be screaming about "Creeping Shariah" "Cultural Jihad" and "Muslims asking for special treatment", etc. In fact, Newt Gingrich (who in the quote I posted, in a hilariously unironic turn accused someone ELSE of not understanding the concept of religious liberty) has based much of his campaign on such absurd rhetoric.
edit on 2-2-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:58 AM
Here is what the Muslims want when they say they want to be able to use sharia law for their communities. They wish to have the option of resolving a CIVIL court case under sharia law instead of American law. Both parties must consent to this. Jews already have the right to resolve civil cases using their own halacha law instead of American law. Again, to emphasize, this only covers CIVIL cases.

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:51 PM
I ended with this post to eventually expose the connection between the three Peoples of the Book, and exploit this connection as a unifying agent. I apologize for taking so long to do so, and will not finish tonight.

I also believe that there is a connection between the Koran and the Puranas, as mentioned by the poet Kabir.

The Vishnu Purana mentions two thousands of twelve when it discusses the incarnation of Kalki. It also states, “…Magha, and the Kali Age then commenced…,” connecting Kalki’s prophecied defeat of Maya (a name of Kali) directly to the ending of the Mayan Calendar. Chapter 24, Book 4, the Vishnu Purana ( or

Revelations, 20: 1 & 2 (on the two) mentions the defeat of Satan. The 2012 symbolism is most emphatic within the New International Translation, where two thousands occur within the same paragraph as 20: 1&2.

Aleister Crowley’s Book of the Law (, Chapter III, 11 & 12. Throw the second 1 into the first (nothing is a secret key). 2012 can be extracted from any text in this manner, but

Verse 12 reveals the significance when the word “cattle” is combined with the word after it, then with the last word of the text. Ca, li; Cal, chi.

Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child.

The Egyptian Pharaoh Moses instructed his people to sacrifice the golden calf when they left Egypt, Kali is the image of blood sacrifice sacrificed by Kalki. Little and big idols. It is also noteworthy that killing cattle is forbidden within Hinduism, and that Kali is the highest Hindu deity of blood sacrifice.

The 2012 correspondence within the Book of the Law is important to connect to the cryptic Blah (ink blot / puzzle) of Chapter II, Verse 76, where it is written the prophet’s (possessed by Aiwass) prophecy will be explained by one to come after Aleister Crowley.
Chapter II, Verse 76:

4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X 24 89 R P S T O V A L. What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it. But remember, o chose none, to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word.

KAB: Glamor. Role Plays To Val

Conquer: the Victorious City Valhalla.

Counting back from the first four and last two numbers of Chapter II, Verse 76 of Liber Al vel Legis: 836-82 & there is one four at the very beginning. 1+4=5, most online editions are fifteen pages, my cell phone # is 836-8215. As a sign this is intentional, prophecy is a form of time travel and if the four transitions into a five the first three numbers backwards are the # of days in a year.

3yx = 365, a poetic reference to the year Glamor dies.

2&4 = the 8th circuit of consciousness, which reveals the method of prophecying, reading the tao or the akashic record, and connects the function to another unit of time, the number of hours in a day. The ability mentally to travel through causation without abstracting, without identifying slightest chance of failure, equates to the ability to time travel, and access the universal memory of the eighth circuit of consciousness.

Chapter I of the Book of the Law, Verse 46 & 47: 4+4= 8, so that 6 & 8 surround the 7. These verses are a further key to Chapter II, Verse 76 & 78.
I, 46: 61 , 8,80,418 = 506

I, 46: nothing is a secret key, 6d1, 6-1= 5 (the one that was added to the four must be subtracted from the 6), thrown into nothing because of the secret key, & 6d1inverted = 559, plugged into II, 78, the number of the house 418 connected to the only # of line 76 not fully exploited, 559-4189 = my home phone #.

My name is KB, references of which : Kiblah (is the stele of revealing), ABK (Kabir is the second most famous poet in India, turn the last r in his name into a poetic reference to reverse to get KAB), Kaaba, Khabs, … occur throughout the Book of the Law. Chapter I, Verse 47 invites the unification by art of Verse 46, then Verse 48 contains my Chinese Zodiacal sign the Ox.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in