It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
, in countries like France, where the Muslim population is reaching fifty percent in some cities.
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.
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.
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.
It is in their ideology to create a globalized, multicultural utopia.
If Pakistani radicals gain control of the government and nuclear stockpile they will present a much greater threat than Iran.
Egypt is also experiencing a tidal wave of Islamism
I am certain we will see several hostile Sunni theocracies pop up in the next couple decades.
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?
.
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.
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.
Well I would think, since Islamists now rule the country.
They are the ones who will have to suffer for Obama's idiotic chumming up to the Muslim Brotherhood.
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.
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.
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.
Who will, of course, eventually be replaced by a more representative group of extremists.
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
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.
Islamic extremism (true Islam) existed long before Western intervention in the region
What is your take on Avi Lipkin's assessment?
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.
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.
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'.
From a purely social scientific view, the Islamists are the antithesis, the native population the thesis, and the government intervention, the synthesis.
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.
Imagine they actually went through with it and destroyed the pyramids? I can almost see it happening.
Morsi has no problem pandering to the radicals. Because he himself is a radical.
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.
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.
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.