Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Islam - Jihad - GWOT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Over a thousand "views" within the past week, what goes on here ,,, ...

    Comment


    • I recommend reading the full article, especially to put the following excerpt into context. The author makes a case that this is more than semantics involved. The following excerpt relates to some of the topics and posts of this thread
      How Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Created ISIS

      EXCERPT:
      ...
      How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

      >>> Sounds like a few of the persons whom post here on this topic <<<

      Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

      Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
      • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
      • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
      • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
      • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

      It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

      And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
      ...
      http://humanevents.com/2015/05/07/ho...tm_campaign=nl

      Comment


      • ISLAM - the nutshell, bottom line ...

        39 "pages", 572 "posts", for those whom may have read all, or at least most, we've tried to apply "Sun Tzu" to a nearly 1400 year old 'Primary Source of Global Conflict' and put such in context to late 20th ~ transit ~ 21st Centuary Conditions.

        Distilled, the reader should realize ...

        Islam - Ideology/Theology/Dogma/Scripture = Application:

        1) ONLY (The Correct Version) Muslim Males have Value before Allah - The Creator (of ALL)!

        2) Non-Muslim Males are 'Second-Class' (or lower), - if allowed to live.

        3) Female Humans are PROPERTY of Muslim Males.

        4) The Whole World/Planet must become Islamic/Muslim*, ideally before the "Final Judgement Day" occurs (or best effort at least)
        * = Any and all means, moral and ethics aside, allowed.

        That's it folks. Everything else is trivial window dressing. As 'someone' said; "Satanic Verses" ... Designed to provide for an "Everlasting War" on the "Dosadi Experiment" known as Earth.

        Comment


        • Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa ...

          Started out coming here to post/archive this for now;
          Review of Eugene Rogan's 'The Fall of the Ottomans'

          The Times Literary Supplement
          May 13, 2015


          A century after the catastrophic blunder that led to the destruction of the then longest-surviving empire on earth, culpability is still ascribed to the European powers. Rather than view the Ottoman entry into the First World War on the losing side for what it was – a failed imperialist bid for territorial aggrandizement and reassertion of lost glory – the Muslim empire has been portrayed as the hapless victim of European machinations, driven into the world conflict by overbearing powers eager to expedite its demise and gobble up its lands.

          Emblematic of the wider tendency to view Middle Easterners as mere objects, whose history is but a function of their unhappy interaction with the West, this conventional wisdom has proved remarkably resistant to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans (2015)is no exception to this rule.
          ...
          The die is set ...
          ....
          All this means that by the outbreak of the Great War, the Ottoman Empire was scarcely a spurned and isolated power in danger of imminent destruction. Rather, it was in the enviable position of being courted by the two warring camps: the German-Austro-Hungarian Central Alliance wished its participation in the war, while the Anglo-French-Russian Triple Entente desired its neutrality. So much so that on August 18, 1914, less than a month after the outbreak of hostilities, the Entente's ambassadors to Istanbul assured the Grand Vizier of the empire's continued survival were it to stay out of the war, while the British Foreign Secretary vowed the preservation of Ottoman territorial integrity "in any conditions of peace which affected the Near East, provided she preserved a real neutrality during the war". Five days later, at Ottoman request, the three powers put down this pledge in writing.

          At the outbreak of the war, the Ottomans were in the enviable position of being courted by both warring camps.


          Had the Ottomans accepted this guarantee and kept out of the war, their empire would have readily weathered the storm. But then, by the time the Entente made its far-reaching proposal, Istanbul had already concluded a secret alliance with Germany that had effectively transformed it into a belligerent. This, nevertheless, didn't prevent it from maintaining the false pretence of neutrality vis-à-vis the Entente, or even feigning interest in joining its ranks, while at the same time laying the groundwork for war and exploiting Berlin's eagerness for the immediate initiation of hostilities to extract substantial military and economic benefits.
          ....

          The truth of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire was neither forced into the First World War in a last-ditch attempt to ensure its survival, nor manoeuvred into it by an overbearing German ally and a hostile Entente, but rather plunged head on into the whirlpool. War, for the Ottoman leaders, was not seen as a mortal danger to be averted, but a unique opportunity to be seized. They did not seek "an ally to protect the empire's vulnerable territory from the consequences of such war" but a powerful underwriter of their imperialist ambitions; and apart from their admiration for Germany and their conviction that it would ultimately be victorious, the Entente had less to offer by way of satisfying these ambitions, first and foremost "the destruction of our Muscovite enemy to obtain a natural frontier to our empire, which should include and unite all branches of our race" (in the words of the Ottoman declaration of war).

          Just as the fall of the Ottoman Empire was not the result of external machinations but a self-inflicted catastrophe, so the creation of the modern Middle East on its ruins was not an imperialist imposition but the aggregate outcome of intense pushing and shoving by a multitude of regional and international bidders for the Ottoman war spoils in which the local actors, despite their marked inferiority to the great powers, often had the upper hand.
          ....
          http://www.meforum.org/5240/fall-of-ottomans

          Comment


          • More reference material;
            'The Great War of Our Time'

            Michael Morell spent 33 years in the CIA, rising to be its acting director for a time, and finishing a distinguished career as the Agency's Deputy Director.

            There are few truly "must read" books out there, but along with Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, Morell's new The Great War of Our Time is one of them. Combine Wright's and Morell's books and you have a history of the rise of Islamist fanaticism vis-a-vis the United States from the end of World War II to the present. Everyone running for president should read both books, but it is doubtful that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will, because the former book indicts her husband and the latter herself.
            Morell isn't grinding any axes here — he is an equal opportunity assessor of Republicans and Democrats, the Agency and its critics, and especially — unsparingly — of himself.

            Morell was wrapped up in the "talking points" fiasco over Benghazi. But whatever one thinks of that particular controversy, this book is about the whole war. Morell was President Bush's briefer for the year 2001 and was thus with him on 9/11. He was also in London on the day of the 7/7 attacks there. Morell has spent nearly 15 years on the front lines of the war against Islamic fanaticism, and his book must be read and taken seriously by everyone in this war.

            This is not a book for partisans (Presidents Bush and Obama both come in for praise and criticism) but one for future decision makers. It is also one for political writers.
            ....
            http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2564646

            AND ...

            ISIS leader: Islam 'never a religion of peace,' it's a 'religion of fighting'

            A recording of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which the Pentagon has not confirmed is genuine, calls for all Muslims to join the fight agains the "infidels," saying, "Islam was never a religion of peace. Islam is the religion of fighting."

            Al-Baghdadi had not been heard from until this voice recording since a March coalition airstrike where he was reportedly injured. As the former leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, al-Baghdadi was known for defying the larger al Qaeda organization and forming the Islamic State, against al-Qaeda's wishes, and was one of many former al Qaeda members that the U.S. released a few years ago from its prison Camp Bucca, in Umm Qasr, Iraq.
            ...
            http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is...rticle/2564625

            Comment


            • It's all in the attitude ...

              The Supremacist Roots of Muslim ‘Grievances’

              Raymond Ibrahim | Monday May 18, 2015 9:56 AM
              EXCERPTS:
              ...
              ...the West needs finally to come to terms with the root source of these ubiquitous, easily sparked “Muslim grievances.”

              Enter Muslim supremacism.

              Islamic doctrine—which teaches that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, who are further compared to dogs and cattle—imbues Muslims with this sense of supremacism over the rest of mankind. And a good portion of Islamic history—when Muslims were for centuries on the warpath, subjugating large swathes of the Old Word—further enforces it.
              This sense of Islamic supremacism was dramatically humbled after European powers defeated and colonized much of the Muslim world. Bred on the notion that “might makes right,” Muslims, for a time, even began emulating the unapologetic and triumphant West. Turkey, for example, went from being the epitome of Islamic supremacy and jihad against Christian Europe for five centuries to emulating Europe in all ways, becoming perhaps the most Westernized/secularized “Muslim” nation by the mid-1900s.

              Today, however, as Western peoples willingly capitulate to Islamic mores—in the name of tolerance, multiculturalism, political correctness, or just plain cowardice—Muslims are becoming more emboldened, making more demands and threats, as they realize they need not militarily defeat the West in order to resuscitate their supremacist birthright. (More appeasement from the bullied always brings about more demands from the bully.)

              To understand all this, one need only look to Muslim behavior where it is dominant and not in need of pretense, that is, in the Muslim world. There, non-Muslim minorities are habitually treated as inferiors. But unlike the many Western appeasers who willingly accept a subservient role to Islam, these religious minorities have no choice in the matter.
              ...
              Such is what I call the “How Dare You?!” phenomenon. Remember it next time “progressive” media, politicians, and other talking heads tell you that Muslim mayhem and outbursts are products of grievances. Missing from their rationale is the supremacist base of these grievances.

              The Conditions of Omar, a foundational medieval Muslim text dealing with how subjugated “infidels” must behave, spells out their inferiority vis-à-vis Muslims. Among other stipulations, it commands conquered Christians not to raise their “voices during prayer or readings in churches anywhere near Muslims” (hence the axe-attack in Pakistan). It also commands them not to display any signs of Christianity—specifically Bibles and crosses—not to build churches, and not to criticize the prophet. (See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for my translation of “The Conditions of Omar.”)

              If the supremacist nature of Islamic law is still not clear enough, the Conditions literally commands Christians to give up their seats to Muslims as a show of respect.
              ...
              In short, anytime non-Muslims dare to overstep their Sharia-designated “inferior” status—which far exceeds drawing cartoons—supremacist Muslims become violently aggrieved.

              From here, one can begin to understand the ultimate Muslim grievance: Israel.

              For if “infidel” Christian minorities are deemed inferior and attacked by aggrieved Muslims for exercising their basic human rights, like freedom of worship, how must Muslims feel about Jews—the descendants of pigs and apes, according to the Koran—exercising power and authority over fellow Muslims in what is perceived to be Muslim land?

              How dare they?!


              Of course, if grievances against Israel were really about justice and displaced Palestinians, Muslims—and their Western appeasers—would be aggrieved by the fact that millions of Christians are currently being displaced by Muslim invaders.

              Needless to say, they are not.
              ...
              http://humanevents.com/2015/05/18/th...tm_campaign=nl

              Comment


              • DGB - According to Muhammad and Islamic tradition, Jews are the monkeys and Christians are the pigs.

                Yes, as you infer, there is much ignorance of the agendas and tactics of fundamentalist Islam regarding the 'West' and the rest of the dar al_harb/land of war and conflict.

                Comment


                • Jihadist group calls on Muslims to save Burmese migrants from 'savage Buddhists'

                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Buddhists.html



                  Comment


                  • I'm currently reading Qutb's Milestones/guideposts whatever translation you choose to use with a copy of the Quran as a reference, though in the first 2 sections of the pamphlet/essay/book I've only needed to reference it twice. Has anyone else read this influential work?
                    Кто там?
                    Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
                    Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stryker 19K30 View Post
                      I'm currently reading Qutb's Milestones/guideposts whatever translation you choose to use with a copy of the Quran as a reference, though in the first 2 sections of the pamphlet/essay/book I've only needed to reference it twice. Has anyone else read this influential work?
                      Any thoughts on it? I have not read it, given its importance I probably should have. There's a thought - a thread on the key figures and texts central to the development of Islamism.
                      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                      G.B Shaw

                      "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                      Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                        Any thoughts on it? I have not read it, given its importance I probably should have. There's a thought - a thread on the key figures and texts central to the development of Islamism.
                        Well, I have read a lot on Islamism both texts by other Islamists and academic studies and given this is referenced often I already have a general idea of what I am going to be reading. First and foremost my impressions are not going to be the same as the target audience for this work since I don't have the proper frame of reference, and I find it difficult to read at times - the repetitive text after every mention of Mohammad always annoys me every time I read an original text. Like I said - frame of reference.

                        Right now I am only about to start the 4th chapter "Jihad in the Cause of God" and so far really it follows the basic outline of any well written manifesto type work. The first chapter explains why the original generation of Islam was 'pure' and how it has been perverted. Then how the the Holy Book should be studied. The 3rd chapter discusses how a truly Isalmic society should be formed, and I assume the next chapter will discuss the method of creating that society.

                        Like I said - this is a very significant work and most (extremist) Islamist writings and actions after it have drawn from it, so I do feel as if I have read it before 100 times over, but it is good to read the original words and to see how as time elapses even Qutub's (in my view) perverted interpretation of the religion is perverted more.

                        In a nutshell though, so far it is a concise well written (at least translated to English) work that I can see being effective in influencing anyone that might have a predisposition to follow it. I can see how it would make sense to say, Massoud while he was at Kabul University in a time of turmoil.


                        As for the thread - it is a good idea perhaps you or I could make one, though I fear it might not be very productive. Too many "religion of peace - OH YEAH?" posts with pasted links to ISIS atrocities might get in the way of series discussion about the texts that form the basis of what created them.
                        Кто там?
                        Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
                        Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stryker 19K30 View Post
                          Well, I have read a lot on Islamism both texts by other Islamists and academic studies and given this is referenced often I already have a general idea of what I am going to be reading. First and foremost my impressions are not going to be the same as the target audience for this work since I don't have the proper frame of reference, and I find it difficult to read at times - the repetitive text after every mention of Mohammad always annoys me every time I read an original text. Like I said - frame of reference.

                          Right now I am only about to start the 4th chapter "Jihad in the Cause of God" and so far really it follows the basic outline of any well written manifesto type work. The first chapter explains why the original generation of Islam was 'pure' and how it has been perverted. Then how the the Holy Book should be studied. The 3rd chapter discusses how a truly Isalmic society should be formed, and I assume the next chapter will discuss the method of creating that society.

                          Like I said - this is a very significant work and most (extremist) Islamist writings and actions after it have drawn from it, so I do feel as if I have read it before 100 times over, but it is good to read the original words and to see how as time elapses even Qutub's (in my view) perverted interpretation of the religion is perverted more.

                          In a nutshell though, so far it is a concise well written (at least translated to English) work that I can see being effective in influencing anyone that might have a predisposition to follow it. I can see how it would make sense to say, Massoud while he was at Kabul University in a time of turmoil.


                          As for the thread - it is a good idea perhaps you or I could make one, though I fear it might not be very productive. Too many "religion of peace - OH YEAH?" posts with pasted links to ISIS atrocities might get in the way of series discussion about the texts that form the basis of what created them.
                          Thanks for your thoughts on it. I find that it can get even more irritating when said or when the phrases are said after saying the word Allah. It often feels like the flow of the sentence is constantly being interrupted. Then again as you pointed out it is about the cultural context/frame of reference of those saying or hearing it.

                          You are right it probably would get the religion of peace stuff but could be worth a try. Its just which figures and texts to start off. Can start it in this sub-forum and if you feel it would be better elsewhere can ask to have it moved.
                          Last edited by Sergio; 23 May 15, 05:20.
                          "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                          G.B Shaw

                          "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                          Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                          Comment


                          • Some interesting contemporary context here;
                            ‘Lord of the Rings’ star shares surprising story about Islam and slavery
                            EXCERPTS:
                            John Rhys-Davies, star of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy and ‘Indiana Jones’ films, joined Glenn on radio to discuss his new movie that Glenn really enjoyed – ‘Beyond the Mask’. The conversation took an interesting turn when Davies spoke of his fear of the end of western European Christian civilization and need for people to unite against true evil in the world. To illustrate his point, Rhys-Davies shared a story from his childhood when he saw a real-life slave ship bringing children to Saudi Arabia.
                            ...
                            JOHN: So, but the — here in Europe, you know, the demographics have just been ignored by the politicians. And, you know, I’m not a statistician or anything like that. But, you know, when you have contraception in a country for 40 or 50 years and your birthrate goes below that magical 2.1 per woman figure on average, you get a declining population. And what we are doing, we’re not merely replacing our indigenous European population with refugees from Africa and the third world, we’re actually replacing our culture as well. And that is catastrophic. You know, we are — I grew up in Africa. I was taught to respect Islam in all those customs that Muslims must endure. I was aware of. You know, and would try and observe. I have some — some — let’s put it this way. I have many friends of mine who are Muslim, but I would not wish to live in an Islamic world or an Islamic country.

                            There is — there is — it isn’t a question of finding similarities. You know, there is in Islam a direct confrontational attitude towards, you know, the unbelievers. And it’s — and it’s really set in stone because the prophet was the last — the last person that God talked to as a prophet. Therefore, everything he says is set in stone. You cannot contradict the prophet. And some of the things that the prophet said, though you will always people saying, well, he didn’t actually mean this. What it really means is, you know. But it is really there. And I’ve got — I’m one of those people who have a particular bee in my bonnet about slavery.

                            The reason is simple. I grew up in Africa. My father was a policeman. He came home one day. We went at lunchtime. He said, get in the car. And he drove me down to the dockside. And there was an Arab dhow in the harbor. And he said, you see that dhow? Twice a year it comes down from Saudi Arabia. It stops in Aden. It comes down the Somali coast. It stops here. It’s bringing trading goods down. Then it goes on to Beira in Mozambique. But on the way back up, it always have two or three little black boys ,and they’re being taken back to Saudi Arabia as slaves.
                            ...

                            Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/06/05/lord-of-the-rings-star-shares-surprising-story-about-islam-and-slavery/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

                            Comment


                            • More directly related ...
                              Obama under pressure to release secret pages of 9/11 report 'showing Saudi Arabia financed attacks'

                              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-by-Bush.html

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                                The reason is simple. I grew up in Africa. My father was a policeman. He came home one day. We went at lunchtime. He said, get in the car. And he drove me down to the dockside. And there was an Arab dhow in the harbor. And he said, you see that dhow? Twice a year it comes down from Saudi Arabia. It stops in Aden. It comes down the Somali coast. It stops here. It’s bringing trading goods down. Then it goes on to Beira in Mozambique. But on the way back up, it always have two or three little black boys ,and they’re being taken back to Saudi Arabia as slaves.
                                ...

                                Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/06/05/lord-of-the-rings-star-shares-surprising-story-about-islam-and-slavery/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_t...United_Kingdom


                                So inefficient, they should be using old freighters and shipping containers like we do

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X