Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Michelle Bachman on the Islamist threat

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
This is an important video. Whatever your prejudices against Michelle Bachman, she knows what shes talking about with regard to the threat of Islamism. She makes important points about the OIC and American capitulation (such as the ridiculous claim of General Dempsey that the 'fault' for the death of the US ambassador is some nebulous pastor from Florida, and not the extremist mentality of Muslims who let a slur against their prophet turn into mass chaos, rioting, and murder) to their demands.

Fact is, we believe - as ANY reasonable person should believe - that words have no relationship to actions. Insulting someone else in some way should never lead to a violent assault against your person; Our religious sensibilities - derived from Christianity and Judaism - teaches one to exercise patience and self control in such situations. Islam, however, DOES NOT. And this extremist mentality, fueled by Al Ghazali, Al Ash'ari, Ibn Hanbal and the major theologians studied by Sunni Islam, demands from Muslims to enforce their will upon anyone who utters an insult towards the prophet Mohammad, Allah or the Umma.

This is a major intellectual and cultural dilemma were facing. Were seeing it first hand with these obnoxious demands from the Muslim Brotherhood - who now rules in Egypt - to persuade the US to enact laws against offending Muslims - thereby giving them the power to curtail what non-Muslims say - veritably placing us under the power of Islam.

Anyone can see that what was said about Islam was crude. However, this video was online for a year. It wouldn't have amounted to anything if a salafist Egyptian news channel didn't decide to screen it on public television with the intent to incite the masses against America; this is what actually happened. It was engineered by the Islamists to happen this way; and now the Islamists - amazingly with Obamas tacit acquiescence (Hillary Clinton began her speech FIRST with a criticism of the creators of the video, and only then defending their right to do so; a complete reversal of priority) are making demands of non-Muslims to feel a sort of trepidation before the figure of Mohammad, even though our constitution defends our right to say anything we want about Jesus, Moses, Buddha etc.





posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Ah, yes! Michelle bloody Bachman's thought process on video! Should I watch it, or should I drink Drano? Hmmm....



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Fact is, we believe - as ANY reasonable person should believe - that words have no relationship to actions. Insulting someone else in some way should never lead to a violent assault against your person


I disagree. Stand in front of ANY grown man, call his wife a slut and tell me that you didn't expect to get your teeth knocked in.



Our religious sensibilities - derived from Christianity and Judaism - teaches one to exercise patience and self control in such situations. Islam, however, DOES NOT.


Islam does not teach anything more "radical" than what can be read in the Old Testament. Self-control related to violence is more of a social/cultural issue more than religion



However, this video was online for a year.
.

But it was re-edited and translated only recently. That's what I understand anyway.



It was engineered by the Islamists to happen this way; and now the Islamists - amazingly with Obamas tacit acquiescence


Who didn't see that coming? Of course......let's blame Obama.




(Hillary Clinton began her speech FIRST with a criticism of the creators of the video, and only then defending their right to do so; a complete reversal of priority)


That's my position as well. He has the right to do it, but don't get mad when I criticize him for doing it. Even you had to provide us this caveat: "Anyone can see that what was said about Islam was crude.".

Anyway, this is a bad situation and it goes much deeper than this video, Obama and our right to free speech. This is about years of US manipulation in the region and we are reaping what we sow after all this time.

By the way, don't listen to Michelle Bachman. She is an outright bigot and no better than the religious extremists she complains about. The only difference is that she was lucky enough to be born in a country where she doesn't have to leave the house with her AK.
edit on 15-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by trysts
 


If that's gonna be your attitude, drink drayno


I don't agree with everything she says - but this video in particular, minus the melodrama and theatrics, makes an undeniably important point. Islamism is a implacable issue that needs to be seriously addressed.

In any case, the mature person doesn't assume beforehand; he watches and then assesses what's said.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by trysts
 


If that's gonna be your attitude, drink drayno


I don't agree with everything she says - but this video in particular, minus the melodrama and theatrics, makes an undeniably important point. Islamism is a implacable issue that needs to be seriously addressed.

In any case, the mature person doesn't assume beforehand; s/he watches and then assesses what's said.


A mature person would not insult the unknowing by posting Michelle Bachman's speech about anything. It is well known that both the democratic party, and the republican party have a way of finding the most embarrassing examples of women that the world has ever seen.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 





I disagree. Stand in front of ANY grown man, call his wife a slut and tell me that you didn't expect to get your teeth knocked in.


Does that change the fact that you would be the one penalized by law for punching someone in the face???

Regardless of the anger it may cause, a physical assault of the person who said something insulting isn't justified.



Islam does not teach anything more "radical" than what can be read in the Old Testament. Self-control related to violence is more of a social/cultural issue more than religion


As I've written before, what matters is not whats said, but how it's interpreted.

Western tradition - Judaism and Christianity, both worship a God who is intimately related with his creation: God manifests himself in the form of creation: in physical reality. Therefore, God is at one with the logos within, and the logos - His reason - functions in mans mind as a means to connect with God. This is the crux of western spirituality. In Islam, reason is deprecated; God is not bound by creation, he is the totally OTHER - pure will - with no relationship to this world; the desert best serves as a metaphor for what this world is relative to God; a desolate nothingness. Hence the Islamic Hajj, where a Muslim 'journeys' through the desert or world of nothingness in search of the divine essence - symbolized by the black Kaaba of Mecca. This world is subsumed by the essence - and the essence cannot be transmitted through reason, but through the divinely will: and the divine will is the revealed word of Allah in the Quran, hence, the Quran is also professed to be co-eternal with Allah.

Conscience is an activity of reason within him guiding him in the right way to act; it is Gods "walking through the garden" of mans consciousness, calling out and gnawing at his heart to live rightly.

This is how "normal" people function. Christianity and Judaism chose a God of reason who is reasonable and desires His creatures to live reasonably; God is also said to love his creatures; Islam says the opposite. Only an incomplete creature feels the need to love, and God is perfect completion, therefore, God cannot love man. However, Al Ghazali teaches, insomuch as man is incomplete, it's a commandment that man strive in his love for God. Problem is - God - is seen impersonally. He does not return the love in the eyes of the orthodox Sunni establishment. He is just an essence, a GREAT AND POWERFUL GOD, who a Muslim is too obviated by to even care for his love; it's an intense spiritual relationship, but it deprives man of any mobility of freedom of thought and action. It is suffocating to the extreme. It is the sole reason why the Arab world is so barren of ideas. Even in Pakistan, it's scientists were directed to replace language like "hydrogen and oxygen make water" with "When Allah brings Hyrdogen with oxygen he creates water" - ridiculousness - stripping physical reality of any factual existence, that it is the hydrogen and oxygen in ITSELF - an in possessing intrinsic properties - for it to create water.

Thus, the behavior we see of Muslims in their exaggerated response to a video is the result of the Islamic way of thinking. There is a metaphysical viewpoint that posits God as Will - and not reason. Al Ghazali assumes this kind of dialectic: Just as sight is contradicted by reason, reason is contradicted by the transcendence of intuition. Intuition in Al Ghazalis thought is concomitant with the insight bequeathed by investigation of Gods revealed Will in the Quran, and to a lesser extent, the Hadith. It's from an understanding of this transcendent 'truth' that one learns how to think and act.




"Anyone can see that what was said about Islam was crude.".


My "caveat" followed 2 paragraphs of defending our right to say what we want. In other words, it was something that deserved mentioning, but only after stressing what it is our civilization stands for.




Anyway, this is a bad situation and it goes much deeper than this video, Obama and our right to free speech. This is about years of US manipulation in the region and we are reaping what we sow after all this time.


That's putting the cart before the horses. The Arab world was a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. As I wrote elsewhere:

If America has taken advantage of the middle east, its probably because it couldn't have been any other way. They couldn't convert them to their way of thinking - to acceptance of liberal democracy and constitutional government, not at least against their will; So what else? Insulate ourselves from them? From a religion that deifies power above reason? You think they will 'respect' your non-interference in their societies? Even though 'respect' is a value judgement based on reason - recognition of a good done to you and thus the good deserved in return? That's a stipulation of reason. Islamic morality is predicated on the Quran and the Hadith. Not conscience. It's not like Judaism or Christianity - but far more radical.
edit on 15-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by trysts
 


HUH?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Islam does not teach anything more "radical" than what can be read in the Old Testament.

- What is in the Old Testament is definately 'radical'.
- Christianity doesn't make Old Testament the rule of the land.
- Christianity has secular laws that keep it in check.
- Most Christians don't even follow the 10 commandments let alone anything else 'biblical'.
- Most muslims follow the Qu'ran rules as best they understand them.
- Islam wants Islamic religious rule of law .. which is totally different.
- Therefore ... Islam is much more of a radical threat than Christianity.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by trysts
 


HUH?


Are you quoting Michelle Bachman? lol



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by trysts
 

oops! double post
edit on 15-9-2012 by trysts because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-9-2012 by trysts because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


It is insufferable morons like Bachman that stoke the flames of this so-called "Islamic threat" with their misguided ignorance.

It shouldn't really matter as I believe this is all orchestrated.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

- Christianity doesn't make Old Testament the rule of the land.


Because liberals don't allow the church and state to morph



- Christianity has secular laws that keep it in check.



We are called progressives, not laws


If it were up to conservatives we would be governed by Christianity
edit on 15-9-2012 by thepresident because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Islam does not teach anything more "radical" than what can be read in the Old Testament.

- What is in the Old Testament is definately 'radical'.
- Christianity doesn't make Old Testament the rule of the land.
- Christianity has secular laws that keep it in check.
- Most Christians don't even follow the 10 commandments let alone anything else 'biblical'.
- Most muslims follow the Qu'ran rules as best they understand them.
- Islam wants Islamic religious rule of law .. which is totally different.
- Therefore ... Islam is much more of a radical threat than Christianity.



From this one could gather, most "Christians" are in fact not Christians, it's just a box they check.
Oh Mrs Bachman, at least your not Sarah Palin... Right?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


S&F

Bachman has more sense in the right pocket of her pantsuit than Obama has in his empty melon. The blame America first crowd is flipping pathetic. I’d like to parade Obama and his ilk down the streets of Cairo and see how well their pandering has worked!


Radical Islamists are the second biggest threat to the security of the world; Obama's foreign policy is first.

edit on 15-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic


From this one could gather, most "Christians" are in fact not Christians, it's just a box they check.
Oh Mrs Bachman, at least your not Sarah Palin... Right?



Actually, this is truer than you think. People drink and try to pick up someone for sex on Friday and Saturday night, then suddenly becoming good little Christians on Sunday morning. So, their family and neighbors will know what good church going people they are. Living in a conservative college town, it's almost ridiculous how often you see this.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I'm curious ... why does she call the attack on the embassy a "terrorist attack"?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


My point exactly for 90% its all for show.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanssuperman
 



I'm curious ... why does she call the attack on the embassy a "terrorist attack"?


Because it is….

What do you call it…..a peaceful protest?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The right has Michelle Bachmann and the left has Debbie Wasserman. ....and the coin turns 'round and 'round.

The point being made here is valid enough though. Who can forget things like foot washing stations and separate prayer room accommodations among other stories over recent years for major things being done by, for and at the demands of the Muslim community......while at the same time, even mere public visibility of monuments with Christian theme at all which may have stood for 100 years...are attacked legally and politically and often now, forced to come down.

If I'm reading this correctly in that being a major part of the point....Then it's a solid one and even Ms Debbie gets it right once in a great while...both sides do. Michelle may have just hit pretty close on this one, source aside in every other way.



A valid and good point isn't always destroyed just by the source saying it at the time.......that is partisanship at the most destructive and self defeating, in my humble opinion



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I'm curious ... why does she call the attack on the embassy a "terrorist attack"?


Because after that step is taken, then they can link it to Al Qaeda. Once they do that, US can officially go to war.





new topics




 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join