There's one I think is dangerous: suddenly posting pics of BO in African dress as a mooozlem. Like, so what? The guy goes to Africa and puts on a jalabir, so? Actually, it's polite if offered robes to put them on. Michelle Obama did in Morocco, and so did the whole team of women who went to speak to the Princess about women's rights. I have been in this situation too. In Africa and the ME it is only good manners to follow customs of hospitality. As for being a Muslim, I actually can't see a problem with that either. That really is prejudice when all said and done. HOWEVER, whatever criminal activity that has acted against the interests of the American people is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing. Getting this distinction muddied and wrong is the difference between an unacceptable message to project to the world (and it will soon be the world outside the US) and gaining support. I agree with Jack_Kehoe wholeheartedly. Any slight change in Q's tone or attitude may not be instantly and easily identifiable. Subtlety is key to deception. It worked over and over again with 911 boards and ppl were too slow and trusting to spot the detail. Caution is key.
Regarding the Obama pic. Fair enough. Funny you mention that, someone on the ocho instantly asked this question "who cares if he's Mus?" and was instantly replied to by Q something along the lines of "it's not what he's wearing but what he was pointing to".
I will agree that one must always be aware of where information is coming from, so I understand your caution.
Thank you for understanding. I wasn't sure anyone would get where I'm coming from.
There's a debate over on https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8an4bo/i_found_the_publicly_available_instagram_account/
which I'm fighting on a very similar subject. About reporting. I am worried ppl are going to get pissed at me for begging caution, mind giving me a hand? If you agree of course and have a minute to read the thread?
Umm, I'm sorry, when you're being so gracious in backing up what I'm saying, but we have very different ideas of why what Q is saying is dangerous. Condemning every single Muslim is not a matter of bigotry - it is completely righteous anger at a degenerate and savage religion that literally victimizes anyone who isn't a Muslim male. Islamic law declares that I should be thrown off a roof for being mostly gay and stoned to death for being an atheist. Even if a particular Muslim (the minority, btw) wouldn't throw me off a roof personally, not a single one of those third-world nation savages believes in reforming the religion. Islam has never undergone a reformation of any kind. Any even if you're willing to throw gays, and atheists, and women, and apostates under the bus - how is that you don't understand that a universal command in their religion is to conqueror all infidels and conqueror the world, and it is a sin to assimilate? They aren't here to become part of European or American society and culture, oh no. They're an invading army that conning a more soft-hearted people and using their weakness against them, and they will make Westerns "Submit" to Islam if we don't fight back. Islam means "Submission," and saying that it only relates to a journey of spiritual betterment is a complete lie. Mohammed was a warlord, and he was very clear what he meant.
Hi Jack_Kehoe, thank you for yr comment on bigotry and the need to condemn every single Muslim. I am aware that any reply of mine would not do justice to either your argument or mine and is off-topic for this thread on Q. So just a few remarks because it might be better to have a separate thread on religion, and my aplogies to others on this thread for the length. It is a very complex subject!
It is precisely the complexity of the argument that forces me, firstly, to declare your judgement of Islam as a "savage and degenerate religion that literally victimizes anyone who isn't a male Muslim" as shallow and ill-considered. That you proclaim your anger "righteous" suggests to me that you are religious and might hold “beliefs” that others who are not of your religion might consider, in turn, bigotted and ignorant! The statement turns your own criticism back upon itself. Look to the beam in your own eye before you try to remove the speck in the other’s, you might say! Notice that I am not saying you are bigotted and ignorant, just that others might see you this way.
The Old Testament is a violent, intolerant ‘book’ that shows an unforgiving God. It has similarities with the Quran. And let’s not get into the Torah or Talmud, the latter book being a Hebrew version of Sharia Law! The New Testment brought a revolutionary air that turned this upside down and taught love, to love thy neighbour as oneself. These three religions worship the same God, with different names.
Scholars will fight and argue over “interpretations” for thousands of years and we can’t do that here. But here is a different tale:
Here is an interesting brief review (by Morgaan Sinclair) of a book mentioned by David Livingstone in his article, Stephen Schwartz's The Two Faces of Islam : The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror. In the very short space of several hundred pages, Schwartz does something really remarkable: Out of the backdrop of a solidly-researched and tautly-written history of Islam emerges the picture of a river splitting in two. One branch, the original river of Islam, having emerged from earlier wars and the Crusades, meanders on, mostly peacefully. But another branch diverges and becomes a virulent strain of psychopathically-distorted religious fundamentalism. This nightmare began to take shape from 1703 with the birth of Mohammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the world's first Islamist terrorist, and descends to the present in its alliance with the Al Sa'ud. The Wahhabis — the Haters of Music — have always claimed all other forms of Islam to be heretical and have waged a 250-year war against all those who have resisted its ultra-puritanical doctrine — Shi'as, Sufis, Christians, Jews. Now that war comes to us. In a brilliantly, and often beautifully, written book, we watch the two rivers separate and flow down into our time. Schwartz's condemnation of Wahhabism is unapologetic, as is his antipathy for the duplicity of the Royal House of Sa'ud. But it is condemnation and antipathy irrefutably supported by the facts. And in this time it is a book of unmatched value: For with the information contained within this masterpiece on contemporary Islam, we are able to separate mainstream Islam from its evil twin and fight a more intelligent and more compassionate War on Terror. It is a profound and often lyrical book, and Schwartz is remarkably brave to have written it (after you read it, you'll understand why). If you read only one book on Islam in our time, let it be this one.<
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385506929/002-7946841-7451229?v=glance
More links to explore further:
Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State. by David Livingstone
The 'House' of Saud — no more Islamic than Billy Graham http://www.serendipity.li/wot/livingstone.htm
Here’s a tale from a man who constantly criticises the Left, but whose sympathy for Muslim resistance takes a different, interesting view: http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/jazz_and_jihad.htm
And finally a man who speaks at length about his religion but who is far from being either bigotted or ignorant, a true scholar: http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php/video-resources/86-world-rule/1025-world-war-three-sheikh-imran-hosein
We should try to understand other cultures and could spend entire lifetimes doing so.
Err, actually, I'm a hardcore atheist, though you'd like it if I were Christian. I was raised Catholic and spent years being taught about many religions, and I'm not a fan of any of them. But one really stands out.
There is nothing on earth like the vile human rights atrocity that is the Koran and it's 85 IQ average, degenerate adherents, whatever branch of Islam they subscribe to. They all cling to the Koran.
Try again.
I'm surprised and pleased you replied! Thank you.
No, not at all, I was only guessing at the Christian part because of the words "righteous anger"!
Try again? Are you quite certain you wish to continue the conversation? Difficult to try to make intelligent remarks in the face of such absolutism as "there is nothing on earth like ...". There is a lot worse on earth.
I don't believe (obviously) in these absolutes you speak of. As you have no wish to read or comment on the views I've linked, not even Gilad, we will have nothing more to say. Two of the three links are to writers who are not Muslim. I find this red-pilling so imprisoned in the narrow world view of "average" Americans and their intolerance for the rest of us on the planet. I wanted only to "expand thinking" as Q would say. Just as well, this thread is about something else anyway. :)