Radical Islam is world's greatest threat - Tony Blair

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
1) The most dangerous corporations on the planet are Judaism, Inc., Christianity, Inc. and Islamism, Inc. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' are willing to bring about the annihilation of human civilization itself for the purpose of their own economic self-preservation. This is the reason why they have censored and suppressed, for at least the past 32 years, the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

2) If "radical Islam" were seriously the most dangerous threat on this planet, then the media would take some serious measures at striking at the theological, Doctrinal foundation of "radical Islam" as well as "radical Judaism" and "radical Christianity"--which is in the disinterpretation of the Doctrine of "resurrection". But, on the contrary, the media is doing everything it possibly can to censor and suppress the Doctrine which is most threatening to "radical Islam".

Any evil of "radical Islam" is aided and abetted by its accomplices in the media, who are censoring and suppressing the Truth about the "resurrection".

Michael Cecil

Power is only secured through the willingness of the people.

A corporation only grows through public support, and a religion only grows through the support of followers.

While I agree that organized religion of any kind primarily breeds intolerance, destruction and violence, their control over any population is far more limited than that of a corporation.

In our modern times, corporations control everything around us from the food we eat to the land we live on. Their intention above all else is to make profit. The corporate machine has no morals, no allegiances, no humanity. It is a machine with a singular purpose; to make money at all cost.

Religion at least has thought for its own believers, a corporation has no thought other than "make more money".

Originally posted by Siddharta

Originally posted by nenothtu

GREEN crescent (not quite "half") moon, not red. Forcing them to wear red crescents would be very intolerant of you, since every good muslim knows that green is the "prophets" color.

Why, THAT would be as intolerant as if the muslims forced jews to wear a monkey symbol on themselves, and christians to wear a pig symbol! OH, wait, they've already done that, in Moorish Spain... aka al-Andalus.

Thanks for the colour correction. Indeed I am suffering from green-red deficiency (no joke!). Do you have a source for that? I only know the Jewish star of the Nazis.

I presume you were referring to my reference to the symbol that non-muslims were required to wear in Moorish al-Andalus. Here is a link to one reference, which takes it's suurce as a muslim writing of it around 900 AD. The salient part of the article I give here:

For example, the contemporary scholar J.M. Safran discusses an early codification of the rules of the marketplace (where Muslims and non-Muslims would be most likely to interact), written by al-Kinani (d. 901), a student of the Cordovan jurist Ibn Habib (d. 853), “…known as the scholar of Spain par excellence,” who was also one of the most ardent proponents of Maliki doctrine in Muslim Spain:

…the problem arises of “the Jew or Christian who is discovered trying to blend with the Muslims by not wearing the riqā [cloth patch, which might be required to have an emblem of an ape for a Jew, or a pig for a Christian] or zunnār [belt].” Kinani’s insistence that Jews and Christians wear the distinguishing piece of cloth or belt required of them is an instance of a legally defined sartorial differentiation being reconfirmed…His insistence may have had as much to do with concerns for ritual purity and food prohibitions as for the visible representation of social and political hierarchy, and it reinforced limits of intercommunal relations

The rest of the article is pretty good, too, but most really doesn't bear on this thread, other than in a peripheral way.

I can look up references to the prophet's color as green too, if you'd like. I think your confusion there was merely because of the Red Crescent, an Islamic analogue to the Red Cross. Green being the color of Mohammed is the reason for all the green headbands at Palestinian militant rallies, for example.

I apologize for taking so long to reply.

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Radical Islam is world's greatest threat - Tony Blair

www.bbc.co.uk

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.

Mr Blair said radical Islamists believed that whatever was done in the name of their cause was justified - including the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons

(visit the link for the full news article)

Unless the world wakes up soon, the entire world is going to be Muslim. There is no such thing as the "radical Islamist." The Quran teaches what each Muslim must do. There are no options. They all have to do what they are taught in order to please their god, and their prophet.

reply to post by nenothtu


Thanks, Nenothtu,

maybe there would be some place for the two of us to discuss this matter a little more further. But as I learned from this thread, there is a radical anti-Muslim movement in the USA, that is full of hate against any Muslim.

This is stupid and cannot be discussed, because the only solution would be the elimination of all Muslims. This is not tollerable.
On the other hand this radicalism is exactly, what the Muslims are accused for. This is simply a lie. Muslims are not all radicals.

So excuse me, there is no way of discussing things any further. It is like discussing, if genozide is necessary or excusable.

No way. Muslims are humans at first. And it is hard enough to hear the originators of war tell the world, they had to do this. But it is more than worse to read, Muslims are bad from their origin.

Only an idiot would say this. Some said it here.

Maybe we meet somewhere else to discuss another matter.