Unholy Alliance: Islamists and the Left

Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 12:53 am » by Truthdefender

Upload to Disclose.tv

In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge

Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:38 am

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 1:32 am » by Yaok

Yes and the Christians are so holy bombing the shit out of innocent kids (along with the zionist). The same group that has fooled the world into a peter pan make believe shit hole. Go eat your pork, drink your booze, read your playboy, beat your wife, hate the black man and find something else to do.

User avatar
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:58 pm

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 2:11 am » by Akashicrebel

Yaok wrote:Yes and the Christians are so holy bombing the shit out of innocent kids (along with the zionist). The same group that has fooled the world into a peter pan make believe shit hole. Go eat your pork, drink your booze, read your playboy, beat your wife, hate the black man and find something else to do.

:hiho: yaok. I think I need definition for Holy Alliance before I move on here.

User avatar
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:15 am

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 4:16 am » by Chronicnerd

Well, I think there are many reasons why one might start thinking that the far left's vision of "America" has much more to do with "righting the wrongs and injustices of not only America but the World".

There is a funny thing that happens in our society once the "good guys" win...football teams...baseball teams...really anything that has more than 1 human competing with another human for <insert concept, thing, title, rank, award, philosophy, religion, etc here>, "good guys" are only relative to the people of the region/society.

Many times if the same "good guys" keep winning...people become envious of them, which is party of the many negative elements that drive wars and disputes.

There are many well known and admired peace activists throughout history who have been quoted saying something to the effect of the below concept which can be boiled down to:

"there is no true right or wrong, but only that which we as a society or group or individual perceive it to be"

As such, I happen to subscribe to this theory... Obama has true conviction and belief in his eyes, actions, and words...

There is another saying which might bring the philosophy to mind:

"Justice is blind."

The above phrase has been used many times, but has also been interpreted in many ways (again individual perception versus reality) that are literal opposites of the original intention.

Of the interpretations you have some which believe it means that in order for true justice to occur the judge or judges must be blind of their personal beliefs and stick to the laws as they are outlined.

Others believe this means that the phrase depicts the unawareness or inaccuracies of justice in general due to the complexity of people's lives and diversity of nationalities, beliefs, and perceptions.

Either case, humans tend to forget about the past but focus on the now while keeping the future just at the corner of their mind's eye. So, evolutionary social perception can form from small pockets of history without fully taking the human race's full history into consideration.

Someone can claim the current day far left wing democratic party members are heavily tied to Islamic groups that also have direct ties to the same Islamic radicals who truly believe they are on a holy quest.

Someone else can retort with the brutality of the Catholic Church in the dark age and medieval times.

The two are *vastly* separated by a far chasm of actual historic facts and events from the real *fact* of the now as to whether this is true or not.

Well, the *facts* are that there are indeed members of the far left wing democratic party who do have ties, and very friendly ties, with people who are literally 1 person removed from the same people who have come out and called for the death of millions upon millions of people...Christians and Jews....

So, before we get caught up in the "who is right" or "what is the just thing to do", we need to *know* all of the information and take it all into *honest* consideration.

Lady Justice (Themis)
The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

What with Al Gore's recent sale, the recent Benghazi incident, the "liberation" of various Muslim regions that are now run by AL Qaida regimes, and the not too distant court trial in New York a few blocks from ground zero, and all of that jazz...

We can say they have most definitively become "much more friendly" with the *international* Muslim communities.

Right? Wrong? Just? Unjust?

Well, from this point forward everything I type will be "my own perspective" on things as I believe an opinion is due to anyone willing to read through this train of thought. Of course, even what I have said above, whether you agree or not, is still only a "perspective".


Obama comes from a Muslim background. There is nothing wrong with this, but to understand this is to understand that whether he is "Christian" or not, the one thing I think everyone might agree upon is that he has a fondness or nostalgia when it comes to the Muslim community. It reminds him of youth, family, and his life.

Several of the more *secure intelligent positions* in our country will be possibly headed up by someone who has a fondness and affinity of the Muslim culture and actually is a practicing Muslim.

Nothing wrong with this...it is just a fact...they have *affinity* and *bias* towards it due to their own personal *perspective* on life.

Now, here is the tricky part:

The Quran (Kuran) specifically outlines that the brothers of the Muslim faith must, in effect, "Terrorize" the "non-believers". This portion of the Quran, while the majority of the Muslim faith will say it is all based on interpretation, there are still those who believe this is *instructions from God*. This was outlined in the video by a practicing Muslim in New York.

Further research into this will lead anyone willing to research this to the conclusion that there is indeed many verses, 109 verses, that basically make a call to out-right kill, terrorize, and rid the world of "non-believers".

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... olence.htm

Of course there are a total of 6,236 verses, of which that would mean that there are still 6,127 of other verses to take into consideration. Again, here we come into the whole concept that even within a society that predominantly consists of the Muslim religion you will have those "far<left/right> wingers" that take something to the extreme or will *perceive* it differently than the rest of the society.

Which leaves us with the rest of the religions of the world...or "the non-believers"...of which I am not really sure any of the more dominant religions that have the same level of "call to action" than the Quran.

You won't find any fringe Taoists or Buddhists strapping bombs onto their chest in the name of their God. While historically the Catholic church has done some horrid things, if you look at the past couple of hundred years it pretty much has done away with the bloodshed. Of course, there will be those who call out political and social manipulation as well as economic influence that favors those in good with the Catholic church.

But we can all, hopefully, come to some form of general agreement that most other religions don't have this *issue*... there is *one* religion in the world that has this specific issue, and as such there is something to be said about focusing on the facts versus the *perception* while keeping one's eyes "covered" when looking at the information in order to base your *perception* on whether something is true, false, right, wrong, just, unjust....

But the fact is...we are human...and we do "human things":

We could look at the Catholic church as well, however I want to focus on the religion that is currently the primary reason why we have the issues we have today.

Think about it...what war today is not due to some Muslim-Christian/Judaic related skirmish? Sure you have dictators around the world of which there are a variety of various religions spread amongst them. However, if we lived in a world where Muslims stopped trying to "take back what is theirs" or "terrorize" the "non-believers"...

How many real wars/skirmishes would their be today?

I am not suggesting that we should just remove Muslims, because that is absurd and not the point...

The point is that we must stop biasing ourselves and just be *LOGICAL* about how we perceive things, and make sure we are all responsible with our own *perceptions* so as we don't start supporting other's *perceptions* that might not be based on "logic" or "facts"...but more a *CLEAR VISION* of their beliefs and *PERSONAL* goals in order to understand the true outcome.

Regarding all of this?

We have a President who has an affinity for a religion who has a *very active and well funded* <right/left> wing *fringe* radicals that are taking the Quran's 109 versus as *the word of God*.

We have the possibility of having a CIA director who is a practicing Muslim and who just came out on TV and talked on and on about how much it has "opened his eyes"...not me speculating...this is his own words.

We have many democratic officials who are very "proMuslim".

All of this, in my book, would be "PERFECTLY" fine... if and only if... they actually made an effort to call out those 109 versus and possibly collaborated with those in the Muslim community who don't take those 109 versus *literally* in order to slightly shift the *perspective* in how they come to terms with those 109 versus.

However, they haven't done this and their actions have only further pointed towards their affinity. This is only a problem when someone doesn't recognize another's actions as "terrorism derived via the 109 versus of the Quran"...when their action was indeed derived from the 109 versus. The Fort Hood incident, the shooter claimed it was because of his Muslim faith and even was heard by all of the survivors as calling out Allah's name...but this was a shooting incident... the Benghazi shooting was not once called "an act of terror" by the president, vice president, and many of the democratic party members involved...well...until the 2nd debate of 2012....that was the first time in public the president claimed it to be an act of terror.

Even then... he wasn't claiming it formally but claiming he had called it that on the first day...which he did not...this too is fact.

Affinity towards something means you have a probability of making a biased decision in favor of that which you are affectionate towards. Since this truth can be agreed upon, we can then say there is a higher probability that our administration and potential CIA director *could* make a decision that could be based more on *perception* and *affinity* than true *justice*... this is one of the human mind's toughest challenges...setting aside personal beliefs and goals to make a decision that is based on *facts* and *obligations* rather than *personal goals and ideologies based on personal perception*.

Think about America today if the Bible had very specific language about "those who do not believe in Christianity" to the likeness of the Quran. Where do you think we would be today?

However, my only concern as of today is that the *facts*... setting aside emotional biases and personal goals/beliefs... show that we have a *very high probability* of major issues down the pipe.

What to do about it all? Have no clue...

However, what I do know is that it would very much appear that there is a very public tie between the democratic party, influential members of the democratic party, and the more radical Islamic regimes.


So there ya go... my *perspective* on all of this...
Last edited by Chronicnerd on Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:46 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 9504
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:52 pm

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 4:25 am » by Noentry

Chronicnerd just once bro please just once give us a post under a hundred words. :alien51:

I always check for your post. Always worth the time to read then. But shit man, that is a hell of a long post.

oh well I will check back in half an hour after I read it.

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

User avatar
Posts: 9504
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:52 pm

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 6:20 am » by Noentry

Ok it didn't take half an hour more like 10 mins :flop: ,and it was a well thought out post.
I agree with 99% of your post.
I feel the minority radical Muslims use the 109 verses you mention to justify their pursuit of a global Islam a one world Islamic religion. As you have mentioned to truly understand something you must look at all of it and not just less then 2% of the message as evidence of the whole meaning.

you are right of course there is nothing positive in the Quran for non-Muslims. There are 527 verses in the Quran that are intolerant to non-Muslims and 109 verses calling on Muslims to make war on non-Muslims.

When the violent texts of the old testament is called into question, they are explained as a historical text and is not practiced by Christians. It is still there, it still is preaching violence. It is stil part of the message of the bible.
My question is why do we think it is different for the Qua'ran? It is a book of Mohamed's teachings and it is a historical document.
It is said these 109 verses where in the part of the Qar'an relate to telling of Mohamed's biography when he was at war.

But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... mpare.html

here are but a few.

Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women . . . "

Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Deuteronomy 13:15 "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly . . . "

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death . . . "

Exodus 32:27 ". . . Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour."

Deut 21:10-12 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; "

Exodus 31:15 " . . . whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Deut 21:21 "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die . . .

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

“ Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.

- Philip Jenkins, author of 'Jesus Wars'

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =124494788

The Qur'an has no superior edge over the bible when it comes to violence.
They in my eyes are equal in this regards.

Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran? Is there a way to objectively answer such a question?

-----------Number of Cruel or Violent Passages-----------Total verses---------Percent


So the Bible has more than twice as many cruel or violent passages as does the Quran. But the Bible is a much bigger book. How do they compare when size is taken into account?

When expressed as a percentage of cruel or violent verses (at least as marked in the SAB/Q), the Quran has about twice that of the Bible. (5.34 vs. 2.71%)*

Of course this analysis does not consider the extent of the cruelty in the marked passages. And that is an important consideration. Is Numbers 31:14-18, for example, more cruel than Quran 5:34? That is something that each person must decide.

A good argument could be made that either book is the most violent and cruel book ever written. The award would go to one or the other, for neither has any close competitors. It is frightening to think that more than half of the world's population believes in one or the other.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/c ... quran.html

In my understanding if you look at just the violence in the opposing books(which incidentally both books have more in common then most realize) than you will find war and violence is promoted by them both.
In the end it maters not who has the most violent verses. It is as you say a matter of perspective.
Both have violent verses and in my eyes both are equal in this regard.
Christians do commit terrorist acts? When Cyprus were controlled by the British empire the Christian Cypriots were branded terrorist. How can this be they are Christians? Even the priest got involved in terrorism, they found the bible did permit these acts, or how could they be involved?
I can tell you without prejudice Christians given the right situation are more then capable of becoming terrorist.

Terrorism is asymmetric warfare where one side is too week to directly engage their enemy. You attack a victim who is collaborating or dependent on your enemy. The victim may not really be your target, but this type of warfare has been around since the first wars, also this type of warfare has been shown to be very successful.
Discovery channel( i think) put out a documentary about an theoretical invasion from ET and it spoke about the asymmetric terrorist war the world would need to fight to combat a superior invading force.
War of any type is not and can never be moral imo.

I do not support terrorism nor do I support occupation of foreign lands.
Imo war and violence are the true foundation of fundamentalist terrorist. The breeding ground from where it springs forth.
Both Christian and Muslim are capable given the right circumstances.
And Imo not from a book of religion.

This is of course my opinion on this.

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 12036
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:57 am
Location: Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 6:26 am » by -Marduk-

-= PREDESTINATION: Itz hard to be ze good guy when you turn into a fucking gun =-

User avatar
Posts: 7692
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:14 am

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 4:25 pm » by 99socks

The irony... of this proxy war... is that while extreme "leftists" sympathize with Muslims' disenfranchisement, they have absolutely NO ability to see that Islam is the antithesis of their ideals; it is totalitarian, absolute, vengeful, not freedom-loving, anti-choice, anti-love, anti-homosexual, and anything but "progressive" (in the liberal sense). On the flip side of the coin, most Muslims agree very much with the "right" on many social issues and world-views, except the "right" sees straight through their charade of Islam and has enough sense to not give out freebees to the sieging hordes of whiners.

User avatar
Posts: 9504
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:52 pm

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 5:38 pm » by Noentry

In 1981 Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld, his Middle East envoy, to Iraq This resulted in Reagan selling Saddam Hussein 'dual-use' items, including helicopters and chemicals He also armed the Mojahedin in Afghanistan, now known as the Taliban.

Reagen if I am correct is on the right.

It has always been and will always be "my enemy's enemy is my friend." That is the nature of division.
Both the right and the left have a history of funding and supporting Islamic extremism and pretty much every other type. Extremist right funded the Nazis. Extremist left funded the Communist. :think:
Fascist are fascist.
A = A.
Far Left = far right.
Somewhere in the middle is the proverbial righteous narrow path.

The rightist promoting this leftist connection to Islam have ignored the fact that the right is just as complicit as the left in support of radical Islam.

If you stand in the middle you can never become extremist you will always be a liberal and an independent(thinker). Which is what is sorely lacking in politics today.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: Looking for a city, not built by man!

PostThu Jan 17, 2013 8:08 pm » by Truthdefender

Chronicnerd, awesome response. I found this vid to be a little cringe-worthy but posted it for reaction. Your response was mature, unbiased, and respectful. Kudos!!!

Upload to Disclose.tv

In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge


  • Related topics
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook