Next Level BS #1: Islamaphobia, Sovereign Citizens, Rewriting History, and more...

a reply to: theNLBS

I dislike this guy for the simple reason is that he is dismissive of Soverign Citizens as crazy. They aren't any more crazy than supporters of a govt which promote and in fact enshrine the poisoning of air, land, water, education and its own citizenry. This guy may sum things up well, but I can do that for myself.

originally posted by: Fibonazi
a reply to: KissMyWookiee

ISIS and many other terror groups, are/have been funded by the US and/or allies of. So, to answer your question.

It's simple. Here's some money, go scream allahu akbar, while cutting that guys head off. The cartels are doing just as bad, if not worse, and no religion is involved, other than the religion...of survival. The other common denominator in those countries...the US.

The US funded and supplied Afghan "Freedom Fighters" (Mujahideen) - including Osama Bin-Laden - to fight Communist Russia's invasion. At the center of this was Democrat politician Charlie Wilson who via the CIA supplied the Mujahideen with Stinger SA missiles for taking out the greatly feared Russian mi-24 "Hind" gunships. After the war with Russia was over the Mujahideen morphed into Al'Qaeda (I guess they liked the taste of blood) and became a recognized terror group.

So, though the CIA/US got them started, they were not terrorists at the time we funded them. They were fighting against a foreign invasion and quite rightly, we helped them.

edit-The us "accidentally" let a large weapons cache fall into ISIS hands, just like we accidentally sold arms to cartels, via fast and furious...along with leaving those regions destabilized and ripe for extremism.

The US did not let the weapons cache fall into the hands of terrorists. The weapons and vehicles were in the hands of Iraqi police/military who had been trained for years to police their own state. No one was expecting that at the slightest sign of confrontation the Iraq's would dropped their weapons and run from their Humvees and tanks.

So it was in fact the gutless Iraqis that had let the "weapons cache" fall into the hands of ISIS terrorists.

originally posted by: KissMyWookiee
So, though the CIA/US got them started, they were not terrorists at the time we funded them. They were fighting against a foreign invasion and quite rightly, we helped them.

Part of the covert CIA ops (Charlie Wilson was just a puppet BTW) were techniques to "radicalize" Islam, to create a more intense furor of the Afghani Muslims toward the Soviets. What turned that radicalization toward the west was our virtual abandonment of the Mujahideen after the Soviets pulled out. The Mujahideen didn't morph into Al'Qaeda, Al'Qaeda filled the void left by the powerless Mujahideen when the US abandoned it. Bin Laden wasn't immediately associated with Al'Qaeda until some years later.

originally posted by: OldSchoolContemporary
a reply to: theNLBS

You'd think being so fixated upon BS the people behind this video would pick up an Islamic book some time, maybe leave their own BS at the door. Instead they'd sooner mislead people who're already stupefied by an ocean of bogus commentators and their incessant rantings. Here's what Muslim writings have to say on the matter.

Sahih Bukhari volume 4 book 52 number 220

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)"

And people still wonder where terrorist groups got the idea to terrorize from?! As the old saying goes "Christianity makes demands of Christians, Judaism makes demands of Jews, Islam makes demands of everyone."

Surah 9:29 of the Qur'an: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Enjoy paying your unbeliever tax, my "humbled" friends.

First off, thank you for watching the video. I would like to point out the segment on Islamaphobia wasn't an anaylsis of the Islamic religion but rather a look at the facts at what motivates terrorist attacks - politics. However, you want to bring in some out of context quotes from the Surah and I'd like to take a moment to fill in some of the blanks you left out.

Surah 9:29 Discussed

To begin with, let us expose the Christian double standard, why do they firstly assume that fight has to completely mean physical only? Fighting those who do not believe in Islam can done in many other forms other than a physical fight or conflict, fighting someone can be done with the tongue, you refute and crush the persons lies, and you preach the truth to them until they repent of their ways and come to the truth. There is not a single objection any Christian or other can bring against this point, because they have deceptively interpreted this verse to mean physical altercation only, in fact what will Christians say to this verse from their Bible:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword

Christians will interpret this verse saying that sword doesn't actually mean a physical sword, rather it is metaphorical language referring to the tongue, that by the tongue Christians shall spread the truth and crush the lies that have been propagated by satan. Therefore I must ask why don't Christians leave this interpretation open to the Quran as well? Why do they immediately assume that Surah 9:29 must ONLY refer to physical altercation? If a Christian objects to my claim that Surah 9:29 can also mean fighting unbelievers by the tongue, then it also throws out their own interpretation of Matthew 10:34 which means they no longer have any argument! So it is up to the Christian, if they want to argue honestly, or if they want to argue deceptively using double standards in interpretation.

There is also some fantastic historical information within the above link that gives the Surah some context.

The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.

There is another interesting piece of information. In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world). Source

My final point is, anything can be twisted around to support your casue. Here is a fantastic Wiki about terrorism and Islam.

a reply to: KissMyWookiee Are we on a conspiracy site, that realizes that intuition must be used, in the midst of decades of countless lies? Or one that's just tuned into mainstream news, all day?

And I expect you'll tell me that the us funded FSA, were moderates(i can post some videos that beg to differ)? Even though, many defected to ISIS. If you look at history, you see it over and over again. Merc armies are hired to do dirty work. The contras are a great, clear cut example.

The reason i bring them up, is because we've been doing similar things in latin america, as we have been in the middle east. As if nothing else, funded or not, we've been destabilizing these regions, for over 50 years. This breeds these extreme behaviors.

It's all just a series of "accidents", right. That just so happens, to keep going in the favor of arms industrials, defense contractors, and corp heads, over and over again...right.

a reply to: theNLBS

In order to understand matthew 10;34 one needs to read all the context to know he is speaking about death.

I'll leave it to others to nit-pick (wonder how many kids are taught the origin of that one....) the finer points. The only thing I want to do is applaud the concept and presentation!

Kids these days can only have my sympathy... While my grades were always well within expectations, I admit that I was scholastically very similar to my approach to track. Our coach was a great guy and let me run my own race until my junior year. That was when he called me out about running in ______ place 'til the last hundred yards and then passing the guy in front of me. I never failed to come home without a ribbon, but seeing as how I was the only miler that year he had to kick me in the butt...

I LOVE the spirit of the vids. They embody the same kind of spirit that led me to have our yearbook done up in an 8 color binding because we were the class of 1970 (I was editor). It seemed only fitting to close out the sixties with a yearbook that glowed under a black-light...

Here's hoping you never lose that twinkle in your eye!

a reply to: deadeyedick

I like you

a reply to: theNLBS
First off, thank you for your kind reply. Sadly sweet sweet context doesn't help you here, because when we add context to these writings they only appear more violent and disgusting than before. But please don't take my word for it, Muslim writings give us every context you could ever hope for for Surah 9:29, enjoy.

Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.

So, the "context" from one of the greatest Muslim narrators of all time goes something like this. Mohammed didn't want dirty non-Muslims coming near his sacred mosque, so non-Muslims making the pilgrimage to mecca had become a no no in the eyes of Mo Mo, however the Quraish tribe thought that this would reduce their profits from trade, it was like banning tourists from London, Paris or New York. So Allah, the god of Muslims, "compensated" Muslims by ordering them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah! Either way they'd be paying the Muslims. But maybe you'd like more context? I'm sure context on Qur'an 9:30 would help us better understand Qur'an 9:29.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.

It's almost as if the Qur'an is telling Muslims to fight Jews and Christians. Let's move on to whatever pro Islamic propaganda you've posted, no offence intended but the writing is all kinds of hogwash.

"To begin with, let us expose the Christian double standard"

This is always pure gold, you must see it on ATS too, why is it that those who defend Islam want to talk about anything but Islam? "What about the Crusades?!" "What about America?!" "What about racism?" People who say this can't, or won't face up to what Islam is all about. The things I've just posted aren't hidden, they're out there for all to see and judge.

"why do they firstly assume that fight has to completely mean physical only?"

Because when people read fight they think fight, others may be able to read fight and think peace, we tend to call those types insane, honestly mistaken or liars. What's more the earliest Muslim biography of Mohammed gives us a clear indication of how Mohammed conducted himself, he's also the model for how all Muslims are meant to behave. Here it is...

Then [the Banu Qurayza tribe] surrendered, and the apostle [Muhammad] confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.

600 to 900 Men from a Jewish tribe beheaded in trenches, even more than that they had surrendered. Mohammed makes ISIS look like little lambs. Even going as far as to have a woman's legs tied to two camels and ripped in half, please ask for a little context to that.

With regards to the need to bring up Matthew 10:34 (again talking about anything but Islam). I'll have to turn the tables and give you context, starting with the immediate context Matthew 10:35, sorry brother.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

This is clearly referring to non-violent conflict that will occur within Jewish households. You see the first people to come to faith in Jesus weren't white folks, they were Jews, Jesus is speaking about members of Jewish households who will join him and become like Lepers in their own homes, since the ongoing argument in those days was whether or not Jesus was the Messiah.

I'm not sure the rest of what you've quoted really needs replying to. However, there was something I found rather telling in your reply, you wrote..."I would like to point out the segment on Islamaphobia wasn't an analysis of the Islamic religion but rather a look at the facts at what motivates terrorist attacks - politics."

"a look at the facts at what motivates terrorist attacks - politics." Seems to imply that the Qur'an, Mohammed's example, and all the other Islamic writings are in no way a motivating factor to anybody who's ever committed a terrorist act, you can't be meaning that, right?

Apart from my reply to the video, I'd like to write as a non American it's amazing to see the self-hate shown by some of the young Americans on ATS, you defend a political ideology which when practiced to the letter would see your family and friends killed in a ditch like animals, and all this on the anniversary of September 11th.

Well of course the suicide bombings are technically all "political"

That doesn't change the facts that the politics of any "religious" right are obtuse, freedom crushing and despicable... Islam isn't actually scary because of suicide bombers anyway, it's scary because of the right to vote in western society. The influx of Islam is 100x more threatening within the "way of life" argument to the inevitability of it's demographic destruction to your way of life via democracy. The "non radical" Muslim is in the end far more of a threat.

And sorry but... personally I don't "own" mistakes "the West" made in prior history in regards to any current situation in the ME as something I'm responsible for or my civilization. When no one is alive who made the mistake here is only the actions of today to account for. What went on yesterday is irrelevant, the Ottoman empire and world war one is irrelevant. The Jews the Japanese the Germans all got their respective worlds destroyed too it didn't stop them from adapting and moving forward I call BS on blaming civilizations for eras past, anywhere you see continued violence you see that line of thought as liberal and open minded as this pretends to be it really follows the logic of the worst powder kegs on the planet... Like China still being mad at Japan now a pacifist nation... by this notion Israel shouldn't be a major trading partner of Germany nor England part of the EU. Sorry nothing can change how a situation arose but how you go about your life today is a choice.

a reply to: theNLBS

Great Episode!

Still no disco ball though!

Good Job!

a reply to: theNLBS

"...we hit Islamaphobia head-on and show you how pundits on all sides; left, right, atheists, and christians are purposefully blaming radical Islam for suicide terrorism in an effort to hide or forget the truth."

More phobias, huh?
Tack on a tag to identify your preferred enemy and then hammer away.

It's called stereotyping and uses the same basic mindset required for things like racism... where millions of complete strangers are judged as being... well, whatever suits the need of the moment.

Truth:
We are all human beings and each as unique as our fingerprints. Stop.

...

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary You failed to retrieve the context of matthew. If you read the first part of the chapter you will find the clairification that refers to setting families against one an other and that would end in death.

21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.


I have found that the spiritual wants and desires are often left out of all these debates. It is the one thing that could link all our misjudgments and misunderstandings when we try to understand events. I am sure we have all found ourselves wondering what we are doing and how we got where we are at one point or another. Without having access to the spiritual realm like others have then we are trying to understang events from strictly a fleshy standpoint.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I wouldn't be in a rush to correct you, my friend. However when you write "one needs to read all the context to know he is speaking about death." you've left yourself open to an unsympathetic interpretation of both your words and the words of scripture, and that's something many are all too eager to jump upon. Although what you're writing is most assuredly true. And if I'm not misjudging you, you're not meaning death how I'd first assumed, instead you're writing about death through persecution. That's an interpretation that seems entirely honest to scripture. Revisiting Matthew 10 for example...

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Isn't this forewarning of how the early followers of Jesus will both suffer and be persecuted by worldly powers? A distant cry from Jesus bringing about death by the sword with his murderous band of apostles, yet that's exactly what many would have us believe. The type of links that have been given out are of the sort which make Mohammad look like Jesus and Jesus look like Mohammed, I'd laugh if it wasn't so dishonest. Nevertheless, when returning to Matthew 10:38 we read: "Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

Now, taking up your cross is certainly not some call to arms, it's said with regards to death, as you've written. I find this particularly evident in the death of Peter, as spoken of in the Gospel of John.

18 "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." 19 Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!"

The command of Jesus to follow him is found both in John and in Matthew 10:38. An interesting topic regardless. Just so there's no hijacking of the current subject though, I'm of the mind to ask you and others where does the religion of Islam end and it's political dimension begin? Because as things stand they're seemingly indivisible.

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary

great reply and i do post here to gain knowledge so thanks. I would have to say all in all that the pen can be mightier than the sword and when wielded in certain manners can cause reactions of violence that stem from words. If i influence someone to go out and cause violence then i hold the blood in my hands even if i were not present. Dead is dead no matter how it comes. Sort of like the thread asking if Jesus can be GOD and my answer is that today legally it is possible to give someone your authority by power of attorney. If i give someone my proxy then by all accounts they are a representation of me.

As far as the ops comments about islamphobia and it coming from every direction my response was that it is unlikely that everyone came together to discredit a religion but then on the other hand if we believe that our spirits can guide us then it becomes possible for groups to show like views on a subject across the board without the flesh knowing what is happening. Something that seems impossible suddenly sounds plausible if we get a different look at the whole.

The way i view the two religions in question today is the flesh and the spirit. I see islam as doing the needs of the spirit at any cost while christianity has now leaned more toward the flesh.

...

It needs to be said... Islam is the motivating force behind their "political" aspirations. Sharia law is based on Islam, so therefore the political/religious bs is indeed an illusion. They are not just like us, they are ugly (in terms of humanity, not looks, well not just looks), savage, and a danger to my way of life. I wasn't born a racist. I refer of course to the radical, militarized Muslims like Isis or al queda, not the peaceful majority.

originally posted by: dr1234
It needs to be said... Islam is the motivating force behind their "political" aspirations. Sharia law is based on Islam, so therefore the political/religious bs is indeed an illusion. They are not just like us, they are ugly (in terms of humanity, not looks, well not just looks), savage, and a danger to my way of life. I wasn't born a racist. I refer of course to the radical, militarized Muslims like Isis or al queda, not the peaceful majority.

Agreed with, but I have to not be PC and refer to "the peaceful majority" as the far greater threat.

The combination of Democracy and Organized religion (which we pushed into the region btw) is deadly. No terrorist alive will ever capture and cage 20 Million Americans but with the right to vote that is EXACTLY what religious fundamentalists did via voting for a moronic war on drugs in America... An Influx of islam anywhere (being their daily rules makes Christians look like a bunch of hippies....) Scariest thing the rest of us can ever face...

You've hit some good points about our current system of education in this presentation. Right off the bat, I'd have to say that you appear to be a product of that system if you actually believe that people who believe as the founders of the country did, that we are sovereign, are "crazy." You also have a lot to learn about Muslims.
I'm a woman. I fear Muslim rule over just about any other threat I can think of because I've had friends who married into that religion. I've dealt with Muslim men. They believe that crap about men being superior and that women are simply property.
If they want to have a country full of backward savages, I say let them have their country. Our country is different and the beliefs set forth in founding documents of this country are in direct opposition to the beliefs found in their religion. So why, why, why, would they wish to come and live in such a country?
Being afraid of savages is not a phobia, it's actually a sensible point of view because they make no distinction between their religion and their politics. In fact, their politics spring from their religion. They have been slaughtering each other for centuries over the words of the their prophet. If their neighbors are now concerned about the slaughter, then let them band together and stop it. It's NOT our business. If we have "economic interests" let those benefiting from those "interests" protect said "interests" and leave the US government and military out of it. For generations now we've poked our noses in where they never belonged. So I'm of the same mind as Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura, that we should pull our military out of all foreign countries and pass legislation that allows them to travel no more than 500 miles from our borders in actual defense of our country.
Were we not spending a gallizillion dollars a week on destabilizing governments all over the world, we would have ample means to meet the needs of this country. Who do you know who spends 19% of their budget on defense---and borrows money to do so?

originally posted by: diggindirt
You've hit some good points about our current system of education in this presentation. Right off the bat, I'd have to say that you appear to be a product of that system if you actually believe that people who believe as the founders of the country did, that we are sovereign, are "crazy." You also have a lot to learn about Muslims.
I'm a woman. I fear Muslim rule over just about any other threat I can think of because I've had friends who married into that religion. I've dealt with Muslim men. They believe that crap about men being superior and that women are simply property.
If they want to have a country full of backward savages, I say let them have their country. Our country is different and the beliefs set forth in founding documents of this country are in direct opposition to the beliefs found in their religion. So why, why, why, would they wish to come and live in such a country?
Being afraid of savages is not a phobia, it's actually a sensible point of view because they make no distinction between their religion and their politics. In fact, their politics spring from their religion. They have been slaughtering each other for centuries over the words of the their prophet. If their neighbors are now concerned about the slaughter, then let them band together and stop it. It's NOT our business. If we have "economic interests" let those benefiting from those "interests" protect said "interests" and leave the US government and military out of it. For generations now we've poked our noses in where they never belonged. So I'm of the same mind as Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura, that we should pull our military out of all foreign countries and pass legislation that allows them to travel no more than 500 miles from our borders in actual defense of our country.
Were we not spending a gallizillion dollars a week on destabilizing governments all over the world, we would have ample means to meet the needs of this country. Who do you know who spends 19% of their budget on defense---and borrows money to do so?

Preach sister, those words came from an intelligent human being.... not from property.