The danger of suits

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Here is a letter from The Guardian:



Peace

[Karl]

Also if you see a "Muslim" politician in a suit you know he is a Western poodle on the Zionist payroll. Except Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is probably a Borat fan.:D

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings,

Here is a letter from The Guardian:

Peace

The truth is that I do believe that politicians in our Western world are kind of at a loss as to what to do, and so French politicians essentially having told the French public to basically get used to acts of terrorism (e.g. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls made the statement: “Times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism, and we must face this together and show our collective sang-froid”) then concentrate on frivolous things like the burkini and say that banning them is the answer. It is actually a frivolous response to a serious problem.

Nicholas Sarkozy is now saying that he'll change the French constitution and do a blanket burkini ban if only he would be re-elected to his former position as French president. How is banning the burkini the answer? It is not the answer, as they well know. Instead, any frivolous answers in this vein are what can only be termed in my humble opinion as "anti-Muslim" measures that are conducive to drip-feeding radicalization, and they just hope the French public is too lacking in common sense to grasp the idiocy of their contrarian ("liberté, égalité, fraternité") and unhelpful ("ban the burkini") position.

Our politicians around the globe betray themselves as "wolves in sheep's clothing" with their opportunistic demagoguery.

[Karl]

I have finally figured out why Western countries bring in Muslims and then try to make them conform to their standards of morality and bigotry etc. They are Marxists trying to recruit Muslims and convert them into State worshipping socialists. But you will say these are Capitalist countries how can that be? Well the reason is that pure Marxism does not work economically for very long so a fusion has happened. The situation is called "Cultural Marxism". Capitalism helps fund the ever growing and controlling state while Marxist doctrines keep the people in line. The people are brainwashed by education facilities (schools. universities etc. Television and other media. It is the Zionist method to take over the world. All under the dominion of the United Nations based in New York by Rockefeller and co. They do not want to ban Islam just "reform" it to make it conform to the State. So the "Muslims" that conform will be labelled "good" or "moderate Muslims" the ones that don't conform will be labelled "extremists and terrorists". You can see where this is heading. A vicious circle where the capitalists get rich at war with real Islam, which funds the ever growing Leviathan Zionist States that are slowly merging into each other. A self perpetuating Hell on Earth.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Karl]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



The truth is that I do believe that politicians in our Western world are kind of at a loss as to what to do, and so French politicians essentially having told the French public to basically get used to acts of terrorism (e.g. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls made the statement: “Times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism, and we must face this together and show our collective sang-froid”) then concentrate on frivolous things like the burkini and say that banning them is the answer. It is actually a frivolous response to a serious problem.

Nicholas Sarkozy is now saying that he'll change the French constitution and do a blanket burkini ban if only he would be re-elected to his former position as French president. How is banning the burkini the answer? It is not the answer, as they well know. Instead, any frivolous answers in this vein are what can only be termed in my humble opinion as "anti-Muslim" measures that are conducive to drip-feeding radicalization, and they just hope the French public is too lacking in common sense to grasp the idiocy of their contrarian ("liberté, égalité, fraternité") and unhelpful ("ban the burkini") position.

Our politicians around the globe betray themselves as "wolves in sheep's clothing" with their opportunistic demagoguery.

So the French get a bit of terrorism. It is nothing to the amount they have dished out. Even did a State sponsored attack on New Zealand for protesting at them trashing the South Pacific with Nuke testing. I hope the Germans and English go loco and invade them again.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

So the French get a bit of terrorism.

You know, I don't think there is such a thing as a "bit of terrorism." It is all heinous, no matter who's doing it, when, or why. As Muslims, we have to be the type of people who are 100% standing for justice, and therefore we can never ignore injustices even if they're perpetrated by Muslims. There can be no bias when it comes to right or wrong.

As Martin Luther King once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

It is nothing to the amount they have dished out.

While talking with non-Muslims on IB or elsewhere, I definitely do refer to War on Terror and Western allies who participated to open their eyes to the other side of the story, but I don't actually like talking with Muslims about about Muslim casualties in the War on Terror.

And the reason is because I've seen some Muslims on the Internet who really scare me with their hatred of the West to the point wherein they're actually even borderline supportive of terrorist organizations like Daesh, and therefore I think as Muslims we have to be very careful even on the Internet how we're talking about all of this because the people who die on both sides of the equation are completely innocent of any wrongdoing and just happen to be at the wrong time and wrong place. In Islam, it's really hard to get an ijma (consensus) on specific matters, yet Islamic scholars are unanimous on this subject and have unequivocally said that terrorism and suicide bombings are haram (forbidden).

Even did a State sponsored attack on New Zealand for protesting at them trashing the South Pacific with Nuke testing. I hope the Germans and English go loco and invade them again.

Well, War III is prophesied in all holy books; but the thing is whenever such a thing happens, I don't you and I can count on to be alive to see any country getting their comeuppance. And all countries today are unjust, forget non-Muslim majority countries, refer to any Muslim-majority country. They're all bad, just different in what degree.

[kritikvernunft]

They do not want to ban Islam just "reform" it to make it conform to the State.

Yes, exactly. Statist Islam recognizes the legitimacy of man-made law and happily agrees to overrule Divine Law with it. Statist Islam is utterly useless for its believers. There would be absolutely no point to it. It is only useful to the State. Statist Islam is actually much more dangerous than paganism, because it is covered by a fake veneer of sincerity. It is insanely deceptive and misleading.

So the "Muslims" that conform will be labelled "good" or "moderate Muslims" the ones that don't conform will be labelled "extremists and terrorists". You can see where this is heading.

Yes, so true. The powers that be, want the right to overrule the laws of God and dictate to you what you should believe that is right or wrong. Refusing to sign up to the false legitimacy of man-made law, will earn you the label of "extremist" and "potential terrorist".

A vicious circle where the capitalists get rich at war with real Islam ...

In reality, National States do not care about money. It is them who print the money anyway. Why would anybody be fundamentally interested in the little coloured papers that run off his own printer as and when it pleases him? What matters to them, is not their money, but to maintain the collective belief in the value of their money. So, they need control over what you believe, if only, because the value of the money that they so liberally print, is directly the result of that belief.

What they want, is power over you. They want to tell you what to do. For that, they want you to believe that they are a legitimate source of rules about what you are allowed to do, and not to do. If you believe that the singular God is the only legitimate source of such rules, Divine Law, you will automatically be in conflict with them. It is inevitable. But then again, their arbitrary man-made law is inconsistent and contradictory. There are lots of examples of how to use man-made law in order to neutralize it. I personally prefer that strategy to outright hostility. It does not mean that I would recognize the legitimacy of man-made law. I don't. Seriously, I will never, ever recognize it. It only means that I have a preference for turning man-made law against itself, rather than conducting open warfare. Still, I am not sure that open warfare can always be avoided. Hence, I do not condemn it either.

[aooloo Al Albab]

It is not the clothing that is the cause, it is the person wearing them.

[Karl]

"Statist Islam is actually much more dangerous than paganism" The pagans are not a significant political threat to Islam the atheists are. Judaism and Christianity has fallen to them and Islam is not far behind and all Islamic nations have fallen as they have become members of the United Nations -- an atheist crypto - Marxist imperialist organization with an agenda for a secular One World Government. The Muslim leaders are corrupt and sycophantic as it says in the Quran NOT to join with kuffar. let alone these godless scourge.

[Karl]

Also the Hindoos , Buddhists and other pagans have fallen as well to the United Nations Leviathan.

[kritikvernunft]

The pagans are not a significant political threat to Islam the atheists are.

I use the two terms interchangeably. Formally, people may be atheist, and not believe in a deity, but in reality they still accept various sources of morality. A source of morality or law, is a (false) god. Hence, these atheists are almost always pagans worshipping false gods.

Judaism and Christianity has fallen to them ...

To an important degree, yes. Completely? I don't think so. Furthermore, atheists can take over for example 50% of a religion.

On the long run, it does not matter. Atheists fail to reproduce sufficiently from generation to generation. Any birth rate below 2.1 children/woman is a dead end activity. Below that rate, that population will just die out. It will just go the way of the dinosaurs.

Since, atheists are unlikely to produce by themselves the progeny to transmit their false beliefs to, it is just a question for the believers of keeping them away from their children. With the National State under atheist control, it means that the believers should not agree to send their children to State-controlled or State-regulated schools. If they have no other option than doing that anyway, in that case, they should oppose the school's atheism as much as they can, by teaching their children to reject it.

... and Islam is not far behind ...

It is always a battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation. Almost everybody agrees that there is a resurgence of Islam ongoing now.

Say that 1 woman could have 12 children, in which you have 6 daughters, who have 12 children again. That means that a grandmother potentially represents 6 x 6 = 36 granddaughters. If the atheist grandmother only produces 2.1 children -- which she doesn't -- her 1 atheist granddaughter will be facing 36 Muslim granddaughters. As you can see from the dynamics, in just two generations, it is absolutely possible to take over demographically. All you need to do, is NOT to use contraceptives. No other needs. No other requirements. That alone guarantees victory in less than 50 years.

The war is won by the desire of women to breed. The men are needed, in order to protect them while they are raising their brood, but in essence, men are disposable. The number of men is immaterial to the birth rate. If there is a shortage of men, just regroup the women by 3 or by 4 to 1 men. The fact that a woman has 12 children, proves her faith in the singular God.

In other words, atheism is a lost case. The only chance they stand, and the only option they have, is that your own children believe them, and therefore switch over. That is why you must keep an eye on the schools, and demonize the atheist school's evils in the eyes of your own children.

Hence, it is sufficient to truly believe in the singular God, to attain victory. Victory is always the result of pure faith and patience. If you do not believe that you will win, you will indeed lose, because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have noticed that quite a few "moderate" Muslims are not such strong believers. They doubt. Unfortunately, it is the doubt itself that will cause trouble. It is the doubt itself that will lead to defeat.