Western Concept of War vs. Islamist Concept of War

The title thread is already wrong.

As usual, I will try to be as simple and brief as possible so that more may comprehend and participate.

Humans prefer to deal with simplicity than in complexity. But unfortunately, not ALL issues can be done in that manner. The title thread uses singularities, of West being a single concept and Islamist (muslims) as another concept, in their undertaking of war. This is wrong.

1. Warfare under central authority is same with ALL humankind. We are laugh, cry and bleed the same. At its basic level, it is the attrition of forces using conventional military means. At the highest level, it is the denial of vital resources through non-military means.


2. The West is made up of many different political doctrines and form of governance - Democratic socialists, Socialists, Communists, Democrat republicans, etc. Religion is a tool of control and in the west, there are many differing theologies -atheist, catholics, roman catholics, orthodox christianity, mormons, scientologists, protestants, agnostics, gnostics, etc.

Each have their own different ideas and ideals on the conduct of warfare, if they had their way.

Similarly too with Muslims, for it is not one singular religion, but made up of sects and branches of sects within. Each too, will play and have provened their own way to conduct warfare.

Currently, truth is, it is not the West at war, but muslims at war with each other, and dragging in the West authorities, such as USA and Europe.

Shia sect had been at war with the Sunni sect for 1600 years, and had never stopped. Although armed conflicts are minimal and kept continued by using proxies, outright wars had happened before in recent times such as Sadam against Iran.

Worse still, within Sunni sect, there are many players, espacially the imams whom sought for control and power, misused the religion for their own aims, to fight against authorities in their own lands, such as the various sunni militant groups in the arab world, each bowing before their own false human gods instead of elected leaders or constitutional monarchs, abiding by the rule of law.

Even worse, as those imams were exposed for the harm they had done to society and eradicated, those members refused to accept authority, and continued the armed struggle against mankind and legal rulers.

They either rob or kidnap others for ransom to fund their struggle, turn brigand, or work with drug cartels for funds, and more often then not, easy prey as tools to be manipulated or used by the various mainstream sects to wage their covert wars upon each other, to lay direct blame on each other, confusing the entire picture so that one's agenda and bigger picture will succeed in time by those distractions.

Thus, when Free World's govts including legitimate muslim leaders who wish to rein in those militants, they HAVE TO identify each and everyone of those militant group INDIVIDUALLY, for the various levels of rehabilitation based upon the amount of harm they had done to humanity.

And every human has responsibility to assist in this manner, by telling authorities of who they are and what they are up to. NO ONE can afford to be apathetic today, because tomorrow, it may be a loved one who may be attacked.

And to get the support of humanity is to win over the hearts and minds of mankind. It is not something difficult, because EVERY human do have the same goals and aspiration in life no matter our differences - peace, love, justice, equality, shared prosperity, progress, responsible freedom, etc.

Militants share no such aims, for a state of undeclared war exists between them and society, and can be isolated, and dealt with.

what a load of crap who ever wrote this is self centred and deluded, and probably spends too much time on the internet.

To sum up, there is no such thing as a jewish state, the real jews were killed 1939-1945

best of luck for Iran and the oppressed palestanians

Originally posted by SteveR

An important point. And this is the difference. The problem with apologetics is they have no understanding of Islam at all. They believe the weight of their liberal morals, protecting oppressed minorities, is where the argument starts and ends. They are ignorant enough to believe Islamic fundamentalism is blowback from 20th century western policies. They try to use peaceful moderate muslims to prove their point, because they have no understanding of history or Islamic doctrine to support their argument.

While I agree with your point that most people trying to mitigate the hate of islam at its core do not care enough to look at its historical background. There are however examples of Islamic culture that negates the popular anti-Islamic sloganism.

When 9/11 happened there was much public outcry from Islamic countries holding gatherings in support of the innocent that died. Saudi Arabia is an example how Islam and the West can co-exist. If Saudi Arabia did more to educate its populace rather than build a Mosque on every corner where hate-filled preachers can change the course of their religion, maybe things would look different. But I don't sign up that Islam is the plague of the Earth that needs to be eradicated for stability to regain form.

Here's what I consider...

If there was a global movement of hatred directed at Christians in the USA it could be very easy to paint the picture that Christianity is a religion of hate. All you would have to do is show the people that still exists that hold KKK meetings in the name of GOD, blowup planned parenthood facilities in the name of god. Moreover, you could point to the crusades as an example of core hatred.

I have Muslim friends. They are not plotting the end of America. Yes there are dangerous Muslims because they are ignorant. Not because they are Muslim. Add to that fact that there is a global movement to paint them all as sinister killers and it is easy to understand why we are where we are.

Yes, I do believe that some of the doctrines that allow women to be beaten or killed are out dated and merely reflect a backwards culture of evolution. But they are behind the times. Hell, 150 years ago Americans thought it was fine to have slaves and do ungodly things to them. This is all about cultural evolution, or lack thereof.

I am not creating a position to state that the way they have been painted is wrong or inaccurate. I am just saying that if the powers of the nations wanted to curb the movements they would. If they are afraid that a terrorist group will reek havoc on their establishment if they do, then they are counter-intuitive in their approach. If an aggressive position has to be taken until every last extremist muslim is either dead or behind bars. THEN START THE POLICY NOW.

And the west in turn will take advantage of these attacks to enforce draconian laws on us; so we'll probably have civil war aswell; the source of the conflict would be Muslims - so many would probably attack Muslims, who in turn will stealthily deny wanting to convert non-Muslims; the US government will interfere to protect the Islamic population. I can already see how this all will proceed.

Not sure who wrote this, but I have to disagree. If the US is hoping to use anti-Muslim policy to further galvanize their grip on the population, they don't need Islam to help.

I agree with SteveR. This conflict will blow up in Europe first. I doubt USA will ever get a chance to see the real chaos that Europe seems to be on course for.

I would not be surprised if European War with Islam will resemble the war with Nazi Germany, and how it polarized the planet. They are both being stamped as evil, ungodly, and relentless. Post war might even be good for the Globe, assuming Islamic countries do not win.

The only questions remains, who will fund the Islamic side.

AAC

reply to post by Bluesma

, in countries like France, where the Muslim population is reaching fifty percent in some cities.

That's just hard to understand. Why would France ever allow so great a concentration of a foreign body in it's cities?

This is not just France either, but the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland etc.

What is Europe up to by planting within themselves the seeds of sedition?

Avicenna and Averroes might rise in influence after this one... there might be an Islamic equivalent to the Protestant movement one day in the future.

Although Avicenna/Averroes subscribe to a philosophy amenable to the development of the sciences and morality, there are a few examples - as documented by the scholar of Islam Ibn Warraq - of how extreme even these two philosophers were. Averroes for example advocated expansionist wars.

It almost seems Islam is to rife with internal issues to ever be fully rehabilitated. Although, undoubtedly, I want it to happen, and I believe there are sincere Muslims out there who want it to happen.

reply to post by SteveR

Could you elaborate? Civil conflicts will occur in Europe first. Check the demographics, north-western Europe is turning into a time bomb. We have a rapidly increasing Islamic population, radicalism spreading like wildfire, and a public that is gradually becoming intolerant of it.

Yeah, and that just doesn't strike me as coincidence. I'm sorry, 'multiculturalism' aside, I think Europes demented social leaders are engineering this future confrontation. They just AREN'T as stupid or naive as people naively assume them to be.

It's very interesting that a Jewish Midrash, when talking about the end of days (and this may be coincidence) describes how Edom (a symbol for Rome, and so the West) will use Ishmael (Islam) as a weapon against Israel.

It's funny because that is exactly what appears to be happening. The cynical and vain-glorious leaders of Europe are supporting Hamas and Fatah terrorists against an actual liberal democracy in Israel. And even in their own backyard, they are inviting North African Sunni Muslims to just take up camp, as if this wouldn't create future problems. As if they didn't already have an encyclopedic knowledge from their own experiences in the middle east and North Africa of how incredibly resistant orthodox Muslims are to western influence.

They invited them in to take a seat. Endangering their own populations. If a crisis were ever to occur, I'm curious as to how the millions of Muslims in Europe would respond. In my own experience, 'westernization' of Muslims in terms of technology, western dress, is misleading. A great deal of them are still zealots beneath the clothing. Which, unfortunately, is the sad thing. You want them to appreciate the freedoms they've been afforded, but instead, they will probably fall in line with the other messianic minded Muslims who believe Islams heyday is just around the corner.

Depends if you buy into the myriad of NWO conspiracy theories. I suspect that the liberal and cultural marxist indoctrination in the academic and political classes (particularly in Europe) is a more likely cause.

Oh, definitely. But I suspect an overlap between the marxists and others might exist. After all, infiltration is a central tenet of marxist political doctrine.

It is in their ideology to create a globalized, multicultural utopia.

And so, you must destabilize your own societies in order to create the 'stuff' to build the new order out of.

Yup, cruel Machiavellian calculation.

If Pakistani radicals gain control of the government and nuclear stockpile they will present a much greater threat than Iran.

I know. But Pakistan is more an issue to India than Israel.

Egypt is also experiencing a tidal wave of Islamism

Well I would think, since Islamists now rule the country. And just think about Israel. Poor people. They are the ones who will have to suffer for Obama's idiotic chumming up to the Muslim Brotherhood.

I am certain we will see several hostile Sunni theocracies pop up in the next couple decades.

I agree. Lets not forget the advances made in Syria by the Sunni Islamists.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Bluesma

 

, in countries like France, where the Muslim population is reaching fifty percent in some cities.

That's just hard to understand. Why would France ever allow so great a concentration of a foreign body in it's cities?

This is not just France either, but the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland etc.

What is Europe up to by planting within themselves the seeds of sedition?


.

France has the highest population of muslim immigrants. They have a wide spread value upon the necessity of offering people asylum from tyrants. Remember- the statue of liberty was made by the french... they aided with the american revolution, and are largely moved to aid countries like Syria with the same values. They like to help the underdog.

Problem is, the whole "rescuer" ideology buys into and feeds that system, and the victims are not so much victims in the big picture.........

reply to post by dontreally

It's very interesting that a Jewish Midrash, when talking about the end of days (and this may be coincidence) describes how Edom (a symbol for Rome, and so the West) will use Ishmael (Islam) as a weapon against Israel.

Interesting, however, it wouldn't be difficult for the West to cut support to Israel. The moment military and financial aid is cut, Israel will be preyed upon. Her continued survival depends upon her alliance with the U.S. The majority of American voters (democrats and those leaning libertarian combined) would support an end to aid to Israel. So this begs the question, if the the intention is to destroy Israel, why not throw Israel to the wolves by the popular mandate of cutting aid. But I am rather clueless as to why the West would supposedly want to destroy Israel.

Oh, definitely. But I suspect an overlap between the marxists and others might exist. After all, infiltration is a central tenet of marxist political doctrine....And so, you must destabilize your own societies in order to create the 'stuff' to build the new order out of.

The overlap must be small. There are so many in political and academic circles parroting ignorant naive nonsense. If this crisis is being planned at the top of the pyramid. I wonder how exactly they plan to use a civil conflict between the natives and the domestic Islamists. How could they turn such a mess into the marxist utopia they so evidently hold close to their hearts? Care to speculate? I thought one of the main themes of marxist doctrine was the abolishment of religions. It doesn't follow that it would be advantageous to invite millions of Islamists to infect your demography if that was your goal.

Well I would think, since Islamists now rule the country.

Muhammad Morsi and his cohorts pale in comparison to the extremism (or should we say, true Islam) running amok in the country. Crucifixions and other gratuitious violence, petitions to demolish the Pyramids, state TV airwaves being turned over to radical preachers who openly instruct men to beat their wives. I think we're seeing a massive change in the demographic of Egypt, the extent of which is masked by the more moderate suited Islamist politicians in Cairo. Who will, of course, eventually be replaced by a more representative group of extremists. Barack Obama, by ensuring the Islamist takeover of Egypt and providing Morsi 1.5 billion dollars in 'aid', is directly responsible for the bloody wars that are coming Israel's way. 10 years ago it would of been unthinkable for such a powerful regional player like Egypt to fall to pro-Caliphate pro-Al Qaeda extremists. Morsi and his Islamist Muslim Brotherhood organization are merely a temporary stop gap, a warning of worse to come before they themselves are ousted and their throats slit by more representative clerical hardliners, probably Qutbists. Cue large conventional war with Israel.

The Saudis didn't want the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Israel certainly didn't either. So why did Obama throw his support behind them? They recently demanded the release of the cleric behind the '93 bombing of the WTC, and they still refer to OBL with the honorific Sheikh. Liberal appeasement never works.

Islamic extremism (true Islam) existed long before Western intervention in the region. Blowback is the theory of well meaning ignorants and the liberal elite. However, I do think the policy of the last Bush administration has emboldened the confidence of the Sunni extremists - and done wonders for the recruiting efforts of Jihadi youth. Even if Bush was actually right when he said they hate us for our (un-Islamic) freedoms. The mass Islamist mobilization caused by kicking the nest with our occupation in Afghanistan quite probably led to the Arab Spring being co-opted by vast numbers of hateful Jihadis.

They are the ones who will have to suffer for Obama's idiotic chumming up to the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is your take on Avi Lipkin's assessment?

reply to post by SteveR

Interesting, however, it wouldn't be difficult for the West to cut support to Israel. The moment military and financial aid is cut, Israel will be preyed upon. Her continued survival depends upon her alliance with the U.S.

Who knows?? Consider what Israel is outside the US. Just read "start up nation". Israel is essentially the most productive and creative country per capita on earth. You never know what those Jews can do without America.

Of course, undoubtedly, without American support they are made weaker. But perhaps they could defend themselves in other ways? I do agree though that American is an important ally - and Israel, likewise, for America, is an important ally the Islamist growing middle east, as many commentators claim.

There's a basic alignment of interests in America and Israel. So why exactly do people think Israel is a 'menace' and source of all the trouble? Oh, that's right. Because the media deliberately plays down the significance of the Islamist threat, of the fanaticism of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It amazes me how they do all this beneath the publics gaze.

The majority of American voters (democrats and those leaning libertarian combined) would support an end to aid to Israel. So this begs the question, if the the intention is to destroy Israel, why not throw Israel to the wolves by the popular mandate of cutting aid. But I am rather clueless as to why the West would supposedly want to destroy Israel.

That is an interesting question the commands brooding over.

In the end, you can't really go to the heart of why "they" want to get rid of Israel, without talking about philosophy. But I'll leave that for another day. As you realize, socialist libertarians and other leftists want a 'universalist' world order. Israel is an example of particularism. As Tony Judt described it: Israel is an anachronism. They jumped on the nationalism train 'too late'. The world has now abandoned that formula, and have moved on to 'destroying' the concept of nationalism all together, hence, the european union, multiculturalism, the insistence of european politicians to get the masses to embrace the 'universal european identity', but of course, the majority of the masses want to stay "portuguese" , or "british", or "polish", or "german", or "italian" , and so they've encountered difficulty. Humans will not give up on their heritage, their background. Human diversity is beautiful; conversely, universalism is evil in it's homogenistic outlook.

As for why America continues to give Israel military aid? That is an interesting question. I wonder if they want to embroil Americans - and the world - in a larger world conflict? Conflict is used to shape the world, just as WWI led to the creation of the league of nations, and WWII led to the creation of the UN. Each time, there's further consolidation. The years of war do a very good job at 'burning away' old prejudices, and also giving governments the means to 'clean up' on internal domestic situations. Not to mention the issue of over-population.

There's countless reasons why a future war would be deemed necessary to engineer the future utopian society that they have in mind: that what we currently are, with Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc - all this stubborn differentiation - has to be 'melted away'.

How could they turn such a mess into the marxist utopia they so evidently hold close to their hearts? Care to speculate? I thought one of the main themes of marxist doctrine was the abolishment of religions. It doesn't follow that it would be advantageous to invite millions of Islamists to infect your demography if that was your goal.

From a purely social scientific view, the Islamists are the antithesis, the native population the thesis, and the government intervention, the synthesis. If the government wants to transform itself into a dictatorship, you need an internal enemy. Just so happens for them that the Islamists ARE a very real enemy they can take advantage of.

You watch, this scenario is already brewing in that direction. Once Israel attacks Iran, Iran's many 'sleeper cells' in America and other countries will start committing suicide attacks in their respective countries. This will undoubtedly force a government response in the form of passing draconian legislation.

Muhammad Morsi and his cohorts pale in comparison to the extremism (or should we say, true Islam) running amok in the country.

And yet, they've released thousands of these criminals from their jails. They MUST obviously approve of it, if they both enabled it, and do nothing to deal with it.

Crucifixions and other gratuitious violence, petitions to demolish the Pyramids, state TV airwaves being turned over to radical preachers who openly instruct men to beat their wives.

It's effing insane. It's hard to believe how crazy these people are. Imagine they actually went through with it and destroyed the pyramids? I can almost see it happening.

Who will, of course, eventually be replaced by a more representative group of extremists.

You seem to be underestimating how extreme Mohomad Morsi is. You have to understand, he still has to come off as 'moderate' to the outer world. People still think that his election was a victory for democracy.

To quote a recent article By Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post

Morsi himself has a rich record of pronouncements attesting to this fact. For instance, in November 2004 he said, "The Koran has established that the Jews are the ones in the highest degree of enmity towards Muslims."

He continued, "There is no peace with the descendants of apes and pigs."

In January 2009, Morsi called Israelis "Draculas who are always hungry for more killing and bloodshed using all kinds of modern war weapons supplied to them by the American administration." He accused Israelis of "sowing the seeds of hatred between humans."

Link

Morsi has no problem pandering to the radicals. Because he himself is a radical.

Barack Obama, by ensuring the Islamist takeover of Egypt and providing Morsi 1.5 billion dollars in 'aid', is directly responsible for the bloody wars that are coming Israel's way.

It still amazes me that Egypt is still getting that money. Military aid, most of it, of all things. Sophisticated US weaponry, tanks etc.

It bothers me to think where this world will be in a years time.

Islamic extremism (true Islam) existed long before Western intervention in the region

I'm aware. Ibn Warraq - the liberal writer - even quote the beloved Averroes to the effect that he advocated expansionist wars against the infidels.

Islam is just a very bellicose religion; a religion that unites religion with politics; the sheer idea of a separation goes against the very grain of the religion.

Which is why there is so much difficulty in moderates convincing 'traditionalists' otherwise. They are in fact 'departing' from the spirit of Islam. They have to modernize it, make it a "diet" Islam, one amenable to modern culture.

People who think Islam is simply on their way to their own 'protestant reformation" I think are a bit clueless as to the nature of Islam.

reply to post by SteveR

What is your take on Avi Lipkin's assessment?

Yeah, I don't quite agree with his couching his rhetoric in religious conspiratorial terms.

So no, I do not think the Muslim God is "Satan". And frankly, people need to move away from this religious framework of thinking and try to understand it in terms of philosophy and metaphysics.

God? I'm not Jewish, by the way, although I'm often confused for a Jew. I'm simply a well read young man whose life path brought him to the study of Judaism. I have no intention on converting, and I myself am not a "Ultra Orthodox" sympathizer, nor am I a "liberal sympathizer". My rapport with Judaism is entirely philosophical: metaphysical, theological and ethical. I don't take the Bible literally, nor do I care to take it literally. The meaning is in the ideas behind it. And that's all that matters.

Therefore, I find this guy to be a bit of a fanatic.

What is the "Jewish" God? Indeed, most orthodox Christians are "Jewish" in spirit. But that doesn't mean there aren't a great many Christians who aren't. The difference is perspective. The ideas, or constructs, associated with the "Jewish" God, are a) personal relation, which contrasts the pagan proclivity towards depersonalization (hence, Christians who follow a 'gnostic' path, could be said to be 'pagans' in the traditional sense) b) moralistic belief in an objective moral standard, which contrasts the pagan moral relativism, belief in 'multiple paths', ranging from gross satanism (such as the Hindu Tantrism), to the quietism and benevolence of Stoicism, or Vishnuvaya c) emphasis on the relational, I-Thou dialectic, as opposed to the pagan emphasis on the 'universal' or Godhead

There are basic fundamental differences here. It's ALL philosophical. The pagan metaphysics is couched in a mystic identification of self with God, and so erasing all sense of 'subject-object' differentiation. You can see how social libertarianism suits this belief system. Conversely, the Jewish, or Christian experience of a personal God, of the individualistic pursuit of meaning in ones life vis a vis of a 'divine person' (as God, or in the orthodox non-gnostic path, as Jesus), is entirely infused with spiritual and ethical meaning. Living a righteous life, responding to the challenges of life in a responsible manner, and using such challenges as the means towards self individuation, this is Judaism - that is what it's about.

The pagan sacrifices man to his principles - as we all know quite well. The Jew, or Christian (if he follows in the Jewish path) sees the man. This is the symbolic, or esoteric meaning of the binding of Isaac. The name which commands Abraham to sacrifice his son is "elohim" - which is the general canaanite and Hebrew/Aramaic term for "power", or "god", since a god is a power. Machiavelli says that it takes a man of virtu (a principle, or god) to make use of Neccesita (a principle, or power) and challenge fortuna (a principle, a goddess). This is all sacrificing people - the people who will be killed in such political machinations, to a 'power', or idealized concept. So Abraham is following the command of Elohim - the concept of 'nature' or 'power' or 'determinism', all the concepts Machiavelli mentions are present in the name Elohim - to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son. Only when he has the knife up, does the angel of YHWH - the God of Israel - command Abraham to stop.

This is an example of the 'second thought' - hence, his name is called out 'twice', which is the objective I-Thou understanding between yourself and another. It's a surging sense of responsibility, to respond to the nature of the act that he is doing. To LOOK AT ISAAC, and away from your stupid worship of divinized principles. And see the human being before you.

That is the gift Judaism has given to the world. It has civilized us. In Hitlers terms (an exaggeration) the Jews gave humanity "conscience".

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
Israel is essentially the most productive and creative country per capita on earth. You never know what those Jews can do without America.

True, but on the other hand, one might've said the same about Nazi Germany until it was ultimately over run by sheer numbers. Israel is facing a similar situation. If a radical Caliphate that stretches from western Africa to Pakistan one day rises Israel will not be able to defend itself. As discussed, we are seeing the early foundations of this Caliphate. Like in Europe, the threat is also within. The latest figures for the population growth rate of Muslim Arabs in Israel is 2.8%. Jewish growth rate is 1.7% and falling.

In the end, you can't really go to the heart of why "they" want to get rid of Israel, without talking about philosophy. But I'll leave that for another day. As you realize, socialist libertarians and other leftists want a 'universalist' world order. Israel is an example of particularism. As Tony Judt described it: Israel is an anachronism. They jumped on the nationalism train 'too late'. The world has now abandoned that formula, and have moved on to 'destroying' the concept of nationalism all together

That's an important point. It would explain all the ignorant comparisons people like to make of Israel and the Third Reich. Nationalism has for the most part become a totally alien mindset in the Western world. Israel is relatively insular and protects its strong cultural base. I wonder how the leftist international Jews feel about it.

hence, the european union, multiculturalism, the insistence of european politicians to get the masses to embrace the 'universal european identity', but of course, the majority of the masses want to stay "portuguese" , or "british", or "polish", or "german", or "italian" , and so they've encountered difficulty. Humans will not give up on their heritage, their background. Human diversity is beautiful; conversely, universalism is evil in it's homogenistic outlook.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. The question remains whether this is connected to the Islamic colonization in any nefarious way - or simply that the leftists genuinely see multicultural universalism as a virtue in society.

Conflict is used to shape the world, just as WWI led to the creation of the league of nations, and WWII led to the creation of the UN. Each time, there's further consolidation. The years of war do a very good job at 'burning away' old prejudices, and also giving governments the means to 'clean up' on internal domestic situations. Not to mention the issue of over-population. There's countless reasons why a future war would be deemed necessary to engineer the future utopian society that they have in mind: that what we currently are, with Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc - all this stubborn differentiation - has to be 'melted away'.

You could be right, of course. I would hope for our sakes that they aren't as bloodthirsty as you suggest. Progressive multicultural policies have always endured some measure of resistance but have been successful in reshaping society. They are getting there, gradually, without having to fire a shot. Infact, one may argue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have only stunted the cause. These policies succeed best in peace time when the economy is good and tensions are low. Look how far western society has moved away from its traditional roots. Marriage, religion, cultural identity have all eroded greatly in the past 60 years. Minority rights, gay rights, women's rights and the welfare state have all become more firmly entrenched. The past is fading out and the new society is becoming more dominant by the year. The future utopia is gradually coming into view - at this rate no war will be necessary. All they need to do (and will do) is sponsor liberal Islamic movements and encourage Islamic reformation. Then simply the same process that destroyed traditional Christian culture in the mainstream can be applied to the Muslim demographic.

But I wonder if our culturally marxist progressive friends are essentially well meaning in nature. Global consolidation after the world wars was driven by a desire for peace, the need for a diplomatic framework (UN) that would be preventative of war. Modern liberal policies of political correctness, tolerance and equality trace their roots to the Black civil rights movement in the 60's and women's liberation in the same period. The mere fact that the last time Europe had nationalist monocultural leaders there was a cataclysmic face off with millions of deaths understandably leads our society to reject everything they stood for, nationalism and monoculturalism becomes viewed as a progenitor of evil. cont

reply to post by dontreally


cont. The modern structure of the world and its leftist policies may simply be well meaning reactions to our history, rather than the transformations of a surreptitious agenda. In this case, the remodelling of society is a consequence of (short sighted) compassionate liberalism. They don't necessarily need to come from a starting point which sees nation states, tradition, white homogenous culture and Christianity as evils to be destroyed. They are simply working with the evidence of hindsight. They may yet be so suckered into their well meaning, do gooding, egalitarian philosophy that they do not *see* the threat of several million domestic muslims. To even acknowledge a minority as a threat goes against the foundations of their philosophy of standing up for the oppressed. They are foolish enough to believe 99% of muslims are their friends and that the few terrorist attacks are a result of right-wing interventions. How many times have you heard the argument that radicalism, even 9/11 is America and Israel's fault? Let us not forget that DIVERSITY is a virtuous value in their ideology - the Muslims can do no wrong. I wonder what excuse the leftists have for the violence ordinary Swedes are facing everyday in Muslim ghettoes like Malmo.

From a purely social scientific view, the Islamists are the antithesis, the native population the thesis, and the government intervention, the synthesis.

Well stated & possibly so.

Once Israel attacks Iran, Iran's many 'sleeper cells' in America and other countries will start committing suicide attacks in their respective countries. This will undoubtedly force a government response in the form of passing draconian legislation.

Wouldn't this merely be a chain of consequences? What other option do they have. Draconian legislation may be cited as proof of the conspiracy, but it is also the only option on the table when a sizable portion of your population take to terrorism. If we were in power, we'd be forced to adopt it too.

Muhammad Morsi and his cohorts pale in comparison to the extremism (or should we say, true Islam) running amok in the country.

And yet, they've released thousands of these criminals from their jails. They MUST obviously approve of it, if they both enabled it, and do nothing to deal with it.

Perhaps. When Morsi loses the suit and creates a suicide bomber recruitment department, I'll believe it. Until then he seems to be treading a line. He knows that if he cuts ties with the U.S. administration he'll lose an important source of funding. He also knows that if he deals with the radicals and hardliners in his country he'll become their target. He wouldn't want mass riots and his limo sprayed with AK47 fire. I think knowing how to deal with these people doesn't necessarily make him approve of them. He is an Islamist but not an extremist. I imagine the U.S. fully vetted him prior to lending their support last year. So far he has not been a good friend of Hamas. One day he'll be replaced and we'll see a qutbist or cleric in power. Then no suit, lip service or American funding will be required. They'll declare war on us as Iran did in 1979.

Imagine they actually went through with it and destroyed the pyramids? I can almost see it happening.

We need to destroy the Kaaba in my opinion. Some type of radical action on our part is necessary to break the backbone of their 'faith'.

Morsi has no problem pandering to the radicals. Because he himself is a radical.

Perhaps. So what is he waiting for? What's his game plan.

Which is why there is so much difficulty in moderates convincing 'traditionalists' otherwise. They are in fact 'departing' from the spirit of Islam. They have to modernize it, make it a "diet" Islam, one amenable to modern culture.

Very true. Any moderation of Islam is a departure from it. It is its own political system, spelt out clearly in the Quran.

People who think Islam is simply on their way to their own 'protestant reformation" I think are a bit clueless as to the nature of Islam.

People like to argue that Islam can follow the same evolution of thought that Christianity did. I think they are misunderstanding the nature of Islam. The Quran and the Bible have major fundamental differences. They are not as alike as people, usually liberals, seem to think.

cont

reply to post by dontreally


cont

So no, I do not think the Muslim God is "Satan". And frankly, people need to move away from this religious framework of thinking and try to understand it in terms of philosophy and metaphysics.

I found it rather interesting that under a Judeo-Christian theological analysis Allah fits the description of Satan. That in religious terms, a polar difference can be drawn. Even in a metaphysical sense it works. The Quran is the most successful book for the propagation of violence, misery and enslavement. It is like it was written by a vindictive misanthrope who wished to suppress humanity. I don't think in religious terms, but it was interesting to hear him make the connection nevertheless.

There are basic fundamental differences here. It's ALL philosophical. The pagan metaphysics is couched in a mystic identification of self with God, and so erasing all sense of 'subject-object' differentiation.

There are different ways of philosophizing. I wouldn't write off a particular brand of metaphysics through a distanced cerebral analysis. Philosophy is in the mind. The real world is not confined to the limits of our thought. If man is a spiritual creature and not simply a thinker who knows what spiritual truths and experiences may be overlooked in a purely cerebral analysis.

Schools of training Islamist invaders in UK!
Morn/eve everyone
I’ve already found several posts about this theme on this forum: www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread661016/.pg1 for instance. More than two years passed since this publication. But nothing changed. Moreover the situation becomes much worse. Last year I transferred my daughter from Meersbrook Bank Primary School to the independent one. It happened right after I’ve become knowing that they were to call off Easter bonnet parade because of several Muslim parents yelling about non-tolerance and racism. Now she attends a private school. And here you are this stupid tolerance caught us here too! My daughter is six. And I don’t consider that even ‘once-over’ with principles of Islam is good for her mind. And when a teacher within ‘lesson of friendship’ shows them a textbook for the school from the previous post...
I was so indignant that forgot to scan this outrage before going to the Head Teacher with it. One of the first exercises for reading runs: ‘Are you an infidel? Do you not honor The Prophet Muhammad? Burn in Hell!’
What is that trash? I swear that this was the real textbook printed by order in care of the Muslim community of Sheffield. Even in England they brainwash their children and turn them against people of other religions. They even try to influent on our children tossing around those horrible heretic books with bright pictures and evil texts. And what do they slip in Senior School? I’ve heard that their elder pupils learn how to cut hands and legs of thieves according to shariah and all of that kind.
And it happens in England! Can’t fully believe that it is true. Mass media and authorities try hard to convince us that Muslim migrants are so suppressed and long suffering. And those very bearded freaks laugh at us and teach their children how to kill ‘infidels’.
Well, now I more like EDL than Cameron.