Proof of Radical Islam's True Agenda

reply to post by amyfriend


you've seen a great rise in radical islamists? really? you know a lot of muslims? what do you base your experienc

oh really? on the media? wow don't you think it's really stupid to listen to hatred and bigotry? And do you honestly feel that switzerland is a moral country? please! switzerland is one of the most corrupt countries ever! and how is more mosques bad? would you say it's just as bad as building more churches? no? really? So you're just against muslims, but not jews or christians? Do Jedis bother you? What about scientologists?

fools!

Originally posted by JJay55

Ummm. no. Islam was there well before the West existed. Sorry. Your conclusion is invalid.

No, that is inaccurate. The Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century to the invading hordes of peoples that brought along all modern european nations - france, germany etc.
Christianity - which is the foremost religion of western colonialism - has been well established by that time. Mohammed started his operations in the seventh century AD. Medieval Western Europe had been well established with all its main kingdoms - franks, germans (the German-Roman Empire) and Britain - way before Islam took hold in the Arabian peninsula.
Islam expanded via the Arabian Empire from the nionth to the thirteenth century, bringing the phenomenon along known as the "pre-renaissance" which meant that Arabic scholars preserved Aristotle, Plato and the Kabbalah while Western Europe was busy with stamping out anything but christianity.
Just to correct history.

reply to post by Sacrosanct

This isn't about muslims. It's about Islam. Please understand the difference, pulling the race card is immature.

reply to post by Kokatsi

Congratulations on picking up a history book. Still if you aren't understanding the agenda of Islam then you risk the safety of America. They are quite clear on their plans.
Good luck to you.

reply to post by JJay55

Another thing: Islam has been here for 14 hundred years. They tried to conquer parts of the West in historical times and they did hold part of Spain in the middle ages and they got as far as Vienna, Austria (the Ottoman Empire) in the fifteen hundreds. There has certainly been strife. Part of Hungary was ruled by Ottoman Turks for about 150 years.
If you look at cultures, it is wise to look at their times of flurishing, agression and expansion and their receding and death. With Islam, there has been two conquering waves. The first was the Arab empire in the Middle Ages which virtually ruled the Mediterranean sea, and forced Christian Europe to look for new ways to get to India since the Suez straits were under Arab control.
The second one was the Turkish Ottoman Empire which conquered part of Eastern Europe but failed - historiands say partly due to the Turkish rulers' frequent use of opium.
One aftereffect is that while lands under Islamic rule in Europe tended to be peaceful as compared to the Austrian Empire, they notably lacked technological progress. Countries which suffered 500 years of Turkish occupation such as Serbia are notably underdeveloped in some respects.

The third resurgence came with oil and the modern Western powers' dependence on it.

Look here, I am not promoting Islam, especially not the radical kind. You do not have to understand, just live with the fact that some people are looking at it from a more mature viewpoint of understanding.

I am against any radical anti-Islamic prejudice as the OP and the movie from Holland promote.

The radicalism of certain posters here, who espouse a prominent Western cultural nationalism, is just like that of radical Islam. Only, we have far more arms and money and control of the mass media than Islamists do.

Do you want to be a radical Western patriot, or can you accept people other than you?

It may be a matter of life and death...

Let's face it: they look upon people who die fighting the Western system that has exploited some of their countries for hundreds of years as freedom fighters who are heroes dying for a noble cause. They are not madmen, all our own history is full with glorifying people dying for their cause - be it anti-fascism or anything else.

A few hundred years ago, the cause was usually the spreading of Christianity among barbarians and savages.

Islamic countries have been historically far less violent than Christian countries.
This is not to denigrate a belief in the Christ today, which many honest mystical friends of mine espouse.

Islam is not a form of government, neither is it a single folk, it is a culture, just like Judaism.

The infamous Dutch movie quoted implies that polling anonymous Islam followers in an unspecified country would give us insight into the nature of a 1600-year-old religion. That is sheer lunacy. Go to the streets of America, ask people if they are Christian and see how they react to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, a great many percent would say they support the troops etc.

Does that mean every Christian is suddenly wrong? That it is any worse than Islam? Not a bit. There have been honest people who believed all along that the message of the Christ was love and foriving.

How about radical christians in America, who believe Armageddon is near, the environment can be neglected because Jesus will return for another 1,000-year stint, and that the West should support Israel to rule the entire Middle East, while they hope that after that is accomplished, every Jew either goes to hell or converts to Christianity? Does that sound radical or crazy to you? Tell you the truth, when I got to the US in '84, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell scared me more than all these turbaned guys do today.

What about the media strategy of asking that little girl about Jews?

It is a little underhanded. What else should a little girl say in a poor country than what parents and authorities (teachers etc.) expect her to say?

If you went to a Soviet dictatorship in the sixties and asked an 8-year old child whether the Russians were good people and the Americans were evil, most likely her answer would have been in agreement. Yet whe such people grow up, they tend to institute capitalism and Western values. The same is true in islamic countries. People have to attend anti-Israel rallies in Iran, yet they crave TV and Western consumerism. They actually do not give a hoot about Israel.

You can see the little girl in the movie is a little hesitant in giving her answer about Jews. She obviously thinks about how she SHOULD answer, instead of how she would think on her own.

I hope some of the radical, fanatical anti-Islamic posters here are actually hesitant in writing these tirades of Western superiority. Which is almost nonexistent, because the only difference historically - with us being far more violent thatn the Islamic countries added together - is that we tend to criticise our own culture.

Is that still true of you, or are you a blind, fanatic anti-Muslim serving the agenda of the Western corporate elite?

Judging at the number of dead and malformed in Muslim countries today, with no apparent cause, Western radicalism is still a bit more dangerous than all their bombings combined...

reply to post by Kokatsi

Sorry I didn't read your post because it's the same bs that I've heard over and over. If you knew and understood Islam then you wouldn't write such lengthy bs from an armchair.
Have a nice day.

Islam has been here for over a thousand years - after the West was established - without America existing at all.

So how can you say Islam is anti-American? The majority of the years Islam fulfilled was without the existence of America. It does not make historical sense. Or logical sense. It sounds like - being radical.

I am against any radicalism, because it is usually schizophrenic thinking, which simplifies reality (including history) to justify a far more primitive present goal. I am against radical Islam as well as radical Western anti-Islamic prejudice.

Islam is not anti-American. There are millions of islam followers inside the US as well.

However, the majority of the world of any traditions whatsoever - be they Christian, Islamic, tribal or Shinto - are against stupid consumerism and aggressive empire-building. We Westerners have to face that. So I have slightly more understanding towards those that hate this regime although I espouse more peaceful methods.

If I weren't a mystic, this thread would make me want to convert to Islam - I guess if I lived in the thirties of Germany, due to the boring and violent state rhetoric, I would have liked to become a Jew and perhaps even a Communist...

Aren't you guys smarter and more heartfelt than to simply swallow the government's propaganda?

BTW, who is destroying the rainforests - Islamic civilizations or the modern West?

Wake up. There is not much time...

reply to post by Sacrosanct


well,,,how about this,,,,


lets do a swap deal,,,,

for every mosque you build in my country,, I get to build a christian church in a muslim country,,,,,

You think that would work out????

give me a break,,,,

More and more I see,,,the less I like what i see coming from their vtwisted religon/cult beleifs...

One can go to youtube/google and listen to all their clerics talk sickness.....

and the mobs threathning rape and to kill...

their dark age /stoneage retoric is pathetic...,,,..

sure christianity has had done much horrors,,,,but their religeon/clerics are still in the dark ages,,,,
their sick ways of treating women...

they should make the guys wear the veils cause there all so ugly,,,not the women...

reply to post by amyfriend


INDEED.

What is this . . . denial . . . chronic denial about Islam? What is the root of it? Amazing.

Their founding documents encourage violent overthrow of everything NonMuslim.

Their leaders espouse it vigorously and loudly.

They even have a publicized plan to conquer America within 100 years and turn it into Sharia law ruled . . . and they are making rapid progress toward fulfillment of that plan.

They even have founding document sanctioned, instructed exhortations to lie; to dissemble; to live peacably and use every means of the culturally invaded country's rules and laws and customs against itself in behalf of Islam . . . until they have enough power to force Sharia on everyone.

This has been their history throughout the centuries.

That is the historical evidence. That is what they insist they must do in order to please Allah and be Good Muslims.

And they are doing it with greater and greater success.

And still . . . folks awash in willful blindness and denial simply will not see the facts in front of their faces.

Amazing.

Originally posted by Kokatsi

The Wahhabi movement - the most radical Sunni movement which Al Qaida is a proud member of - arose in Arabia as a covert operation of the British Empire around the 1920's in order to divide Islam further. Officially, a jihad can only be conducted if a high-ranking religious leader endorses it in a fatwa, for a concrete cause and objective. Such has not been the case with the Wahhabi.

In fact, both Saudi and Egyptian religious leaders refused to endorse a jihad against America or Britain or other Western countries.

Eveything said here is completely wrong.

Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab initiated his back to basics aggressive Fundamentalist Wahhabism nearly 300 years ago. His partners the Saud family are the primary funders of al Qaida and ant-Western terrorism worldwide.

Egypt is the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood, PLO, and Zawahiri's own brand of terrorisms which has now merged with the shell of bin Laden's al Qaida network. Bin Laden was fully financed by the Saud's on the condition they represent no threat to the royal family. Some princes act autonomously like with special projects like 9/11,

The Saudi and Egyptian governments emphatically have endorsed anti-Western terrorism.

That is true. We aren't real people. We are just where souls go until they can be born into real people - Jews. I loved that one.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
You think that radical?

I read that according to the Jewish Kabal ( misspelled?) it says that a Jew is allowed to rape gentile babies.

I don't believe the entire religion teaches extreme views. I think the Islamic people do have some extreme factions but you can't judge all Islam by that.

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by Aeons
www.religlaw.org...

Always an excellent read.

Wow, that is an excellent read. Thank you!

Every Muslim nation is a signatory to it. Makes me all warm an fuzzy.

Just this last year, they all reaffirmed that at a big ol' Muslim nations meeting.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Kokatsi

The Wahhabi movement - the most radical Sunni movement which Al Qaida is a proud member of - arose in Arabia as a covert operation of the British Empire around the 1920's in order to divide Islam further. Officially, a jihad can only be conducted if a high-ranking religious leader endorses it in a fatwa, for a concrete cause and objective. Such has not been the case with the Wahhabi.

In fact, both Saudi and Egyptian religious leaders refused to endorse a jihad against America or Britain or other Western countries.

Eveything said here is completely wrong.

Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab initiated his back to basics aggressive Fundamentalist Wahhabism nearly 300 years ago. His partners the Saud family are the primary funders of al Qaida and ant-Western terrorism worldwide.

Egypt is the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood, PLO, and Zawahiri's own brand of terrorisms which has now merged with the shell of bin Laden's al Qaida network. Bin Laden was fully financed by the Saud's on the condition they represent no threat to the royal family. Some princes act autonomously like with special projects like 9/11,

The Saudi and Egyptian governments emphatically have endorsed anti-Western terrorism.

Can you substantiate your claims with sources?
It is conceivable that Wahhabis as a sect already existed before the British covert operations took control of it. However, their militancy is dated to that time. I will try to find my source.

For the time being I ask the same of you as regards the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Not that governments will have a great effect upon the followers of their faith - this is like quoting the governments of Italy and France upon a subject of Catholicism, leaving the pope behind. I would be quite surprised if Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia would officially and openly endorse anti-Western terrorism. Both are staunch allies of the US. The US would reply with diplomatic protests and possibly sanctions.

By anti-Western here I take you do not include Israel.

So, sources, please?

reply to post by Kokatsi

Wahhabi isn't the issue. No sources needed, you can easily google many. Or see Aeons link above.

The most important thing to understand is the Islam has an agenda and it will include non-muslims. If you are a non-muslim this is the time to become aware of what is going on. If you would like to remain in denial that is your choice. Good luck.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by JJay55]

Xian,

You also have a partisan view of Islam. Let me remind you that the thread is about radical Islam. About that, everything you say is true - except for the stretch of centuries, since the type of radicalism we see today has not yet existed hundreds of years ago. True, Europe has fought with Turkish invaders for hundreds of years. On top of being a militant empire, the Turkish one was pretty nationalistic. During that time, however, Arabs were busy with trade and spreading their faith in Africa, not blowing up Western churches. However, the Turkish Empire has not much to do with radical Islam presently. We are talking about two different types of historical evil. One of the Turkish Empire's egregiously horrendous actions was the massacre of millions of Armenians around WWI - one few Turks will recognize today. That was state terrorism - and the Empire was promptly dissolved during WWI (not due to these crimes against humanity though.)

What some posters here refuse to see is the bigger picture. Islam itself is not radical Islam, despite MSM rhetoric. However, if bigotry and hysteria goes on as it does today, more and more of Islam will be radicalised. It is simply human nature to strike back when your kind is covered with a blanket of hatred.

On top of it, America and Britain have consistently endorsed the most repressive regimes all over the Islamic world as opposed to the will of the people - merely to negotiate for oil. The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Indonesian dictators massacring hundreds of thousands, and the current Saudi leadership with their medieval laws are good examples. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan etc.

A person from an Islamic country who prefers democracy and freedom could easily conclude that all the West wants is oil from their lands, and not even a modicum of development and freedom. And that we want to keep Islam in medieval conditions, due to our racism or exploitation or both.

I do not think Islam will bring an answer to the West's giant problem of colonialism and neo-colonialism. However, I see the artificial hatred of radical anti-Islamism as a danger of part of the West going fascist and adopting the unreal agenda of targeting one fifth of the globe's population. I also see it as a historical blaming the victim case and psychologically as the darkest projection - similar to that of the Nazis upon the Jewry of the early 20th century.

It is far simpler to wallow in fear and hatred than to open a dialogue and place yourself in the shoes of others.

Originally posted by Kokatsi
Let me remind you that the thread is about radical Islam.

Islam is radical. There are no sections of Islam that are not radical. If you are looking at Islam from a Western point of view then you might be confused.

All of Islam is radical?
No, it is not. That is a factual and historical error. Even the OP did not go as far as saying this openly.
Islam is different, but it is not as different as we suppose. Most of its problematic parts are like our own past and present.

Question: How much do you really know about the past and the culture of various Islamic countries? Not the politics touted in the media. The everyday culture of people.

The Arabian Nights - is that radical?

Is Sufi dancing and flute playing in Turkey and Iran radical?

(My experience is that most people involved in Islamic mysticism and music are non-radicals. In Iran, for example, the theocratic state banned all music except for religious services. The entire country became ablaze with recording underground tapes in defiance of that. Women singers were not allowed to perform on the state radio. As a response, many Iranian musicians chose to record more and more with female singers...)

If you make statements about Islam in general, please note that readers will infer you mean all the stuff Islam has produced all through its more than 1,300 years. It is possible to make statements about that, but judging it from the point of view of present-day political partisanship is not an intelligent or well-informed choice.

If the topic is RADICAL ISLAM only, please make statements referring to that - and no one will mistake it for the entire history of hundreds of Islamic peoples.

Do you speak any language tied to islam, such as Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Bahasa?

I do not understand your call for me to stop trying to understand Islam from a Western point of view. I simply do not know what you mean. Can you elaborate what you mean by a "Western way of looking at it," and what other method you propose? (I suppose this other method is an intelligent and a well-informed method of analysis.)

reply to post by Kokatsi

No, it's not my job to educate you. Yes, I speak all those languages and have specific education in Sufism and other parts of Islam.
When speaking of Islam it is not directed at any muslims, common mistake by Westerners. No mystics are no less radical than any other muslim.
Just because your best friend is a black guy it doesn't mean you understand what it is to be black.
Have a nice day.

Originally posted by amyfriend
lets do a swap deal,,,,

for every mosque you build in my country,, I get to build a christian church in a muslim country,,,,,

You think that would work out????

Actually, it's illegal for Christians to build churches in Muslim countries. Existing churches are not allowed to repair or expand churches without paying the government a fee, which mosques do not have to pay.
Often churches are burned down and not allowed to be rebuilt.
In Africa it is common for Christians to be locked in a church and not let out unless they convert to Islam. If they do not convert they are beheaded or locked inside and burned alive.

What happened in this period is that the people formerly known for centuries as the Khazars became known simply as 'Jews' and their true origin was lost. In its place their leaders sold to them - and the rest of the world - a false history. This was the belief that they were the Biblical Jews and the fallacy continues to this day with devastating consequences for peace in the Middle East. The Khazar 'Jews' were confined to ghettos as a result of Papal dictat in the mid-16th century and this, together with the 17th century Cossack (ironically) massacres in the Ukraine, led to another mass exodus into Hungary, Bohemia, Rumania and Germany. There were hardly any Jews in Germany until this time. "Thus the great trek to the West was resumed," says Koestler, "It was to continue through nearly three centuries until the Second World War, and became the principle source of the existing Jewish communities in Europe, the United States, and Israel." So what does all this mean for the official history of the Jewish people? Koestler, who was himself born in Budapest, writes:

[It] would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan, but from the Volga, not from Canaan but from the Caucasus, once believed to be the cradle of the Aryan race; and that genetically they are more closely connected to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Should this turn out to be the case, then the term 'anti-Semitism' would be void of meaning, based on a misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.

Benjamin H. Freedman was a one-time Jewish businessman in New York and a long-time 'insider' before speaking out vociferously against Zionism after World War Two. He was personally acquainted with leading American political figures like Bernard Baruch, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. Freedman went much further in his assessment of the Khazar revelation:

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) ... There wasn't one of them [the Khazars] who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, 'You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Saviour ... It is as ridiculous to call them 'people of the Holy Land,' as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems 'Arabs' ..."

The former Khazar people are known as the Ashkenazi Jews (plural Ashkenazim) and some writers estimate that perhaps 90% to 95% of those calling themselves 'Jewish' worldwide are ancestors of the Khazars. Others are known as Sephardic Jews and they do have an historical connection to the Middle East, although even then the idea of a 'chosen race' going back to Biblical Israel still doesn't stand up, as we shall see. The Ashkenazim ('Khazars') are actually the minority in Israel itself, but they hold the reins of power and have always done so since the country was created in 1948. The name Ashkenazi is said by some to originate from Ashkenaz, the Hebrew word for Germany. In fact, the Bible refers to the ashkenaz as a people living in the region of Mount Ararat (now Turkey) and Armenia. That would certainly fit the basic location of the Khazars... The Ashkenazi as a people did not speak the Semitic language of Hebrew, which is no surprise at all because they are not Hebrews. They developed their own tongue called Yiddish...[which] did not come from Israel.